Welcome back to the discussion Zoso,

So, freediver, you want to focus on dubious universalist claims when it suits, and you want to break things down into parts when it suits. That's why you're so cagey about avoiding any specific assertions about your imagined "Theory of Evolution" and so pedantic about your definition of an experiment. It's an old trick of sophistry worthy of the most ardent pseudo-scientist. Looking at the list of logical fallacies you've provided elsewhere on the website, I would say this is a species of the "strawman" argument. I also note the curious omission of reductio ad absurdum from your list. Your theory that "Evolution" is not scientific has been falsified on each occasion that you have made any specific claim and it is clear that you have no genuine interest in empirical evidence.

Lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit.

Wrong, unless you have evidence for divine intervention.

Science is based on evidence, not preferred world view.

Wrong again. Science is precisely a world view which prefers - no insists - that claims should be based on observable evidence.

If I'm a child and I observe my mother putting chocolate eggs on the end of my bed in the middle of the night, would it be rational or scientific for me to continue to believe the eggs came from a rabbit.   

Happy Easter 

That's why you're so cagey about avoiding any specific assertions about your imagined "Theory of Evolution"

No I'm not. Ask away if I haven't given you enough detail.

Your theory that "Evolution" is not scientific has been falsified on each occasion that you have made any specific claim

No it hasn't. You may have disagreed with me, but that's about it.

it is clear that you have no genuine interest in empirical evidence.

What makes you think that?

Lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit.

Wrong, unless you have evidence for divine intervention.

This comes back to the argument that evolution is somehow scientific by comparing it to creationism. Whether a theory is scientific is independant of the merits of competing theories. Thus, lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit.

Science is precisely a world view which prefers - no insists - that claims should be based on observable evidence.

Again, that is what the ancient greeks believed and it doesn't get you very far. The modern scientific method has a bit more to it than that.

freediver is a theist and therefore irrational

That is a logical fallacy - it is an associatiationfallacy for starters.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#association%20fallacy

But with all intelligent apparant theists I suspect there is always some self serving motive.

You are clutching at straws if you have to guess at my motives to criticise my argument.

Shithouse rat has perceptively spotted this: "I also note the curious omission of reductio ad absurdum from your list. (of logical fallacies)."

I have a strong hunch that freediver left this out because he needs it for the support of the fallacious ontological argument through which the existence of God is said to proved - ala St Anselm etc.

Freediver - why are you doing this? To make money or to save us? Come clean. Why do you always say that this anti-evolution crusade of yours has nothing to do with religion? As I said before, you are acting like an encyclopaedia salesman - never selling, just doing market research so they say. A bit like tele marketeers.

freediver continues to address this whole discussion as a game with constant recourse to logical fallacy claims. Logical fallacy claims can only apply to the formal structure of an argument. I am not concerned with addressing the argument of whether evolution is science - it has been established beyond any doubt that it is science and any further time spent on it would be disrespectful to science.  Only crackpot Christian fundamentalists continue to assert otherwise. My comments here are my views and an attempt to obtain further clarity from the motives of freediver. The issue of logical fallacy is not relevant. Anyway, it is now perfectly clear. Freediver is a Christian fundamentalist (but refuses to admit this) and finds it necesary to discard evolution because it conflicts with the bible. He chooses not to address it in this way because, just like Jehovas Witnesses and salesmen generally, he has been taught to bring in the "enlightenment" (freedivers word) through a back door using sophistry and the appearance of logic.  He pretends not to see the utter contradiction in relying on logical positivist arguments for the meaning of science but disregarding those same arguments which correctly dismiss religious assertions as entirely nonsensical.
Fortunately, I see from the threads here that freediver has absolutely no support for his assertion that evolution is not science - not even from pender or sprintcyclist. This site will remain just another of the many religious crank sites for as long as the offending article remains on the site.

Logical fallacy claims can only apply to the formal structure of an argument.

No, they can apply to any claim, as all claims are open to logical criticism regardless of formal structure. The only difference is that logical fallacies are much harder to identify without a clear structure.

I am not concerned with addressing the argument of whether evolution is science

Then why participate in the discussion?

Freediver is a Christian fundamentalist (but refuses to admit this) and finds it necesary to discard evolution because it conflicts with the bible.

I am not trying to discard evolution. Furthermore it does not conflict with the bible. On those who understand neither evolution nor science nor religion make such claims.

He chooses not to address it in this way because, just like Jehovas Witnesses and salesmen generally, he has been taught to bring in the "enlightenment" (freedivers word) through a back door using sophistry and the appearance of logic.

No, it's because certain people cannot tell the difference between the pointless creationism vs evolution arguments and the argument over whether evolution is a scientific theory. They place so much importance on the former that they cannot even concieve the existence of the latter.

He pretends not to see the utter contradiction in relying on logical positivist arguments for the meaning of science

I am not relying on logical positivist arguments for the meaning of science.

but disregarding those same arguments which correctly dismiss religious assertions as entirely nonsensical

Of course I disregard them. They are irrelevant. They only entered the discussion as part of your strawman argument.

So, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, freediver asserts that there is no evidence that a single new species has ever appeared on earth by natural selction.

As I pointed out, that evidence is not scientific.

I know perfectly well how it appears. Which is why I often get people apologising for making assumptions about what I am saying.

I backed down because I feel I do not know enough bout this topic to make a worthy contribution. Reading through most of the article of freedivers seems ok, valid dispute over what should be considered valuable science, however once you get to then end, it becomes clear it is nothing more than trying to bring faith back into an area of scientific study.

Quote:

Here freediver, only you make these not scientific questions. If an evolutionary theorist wants to propose a scientific model for the development of life and species then it is a scientific question. It is you that is making it into a question of faith. Why cannot the question of faith be more esoteric? Scientists explain matter, energy and natural processes, but they cannot explain the origin or existence of matter, energy and their associated interactions, why is it that trying to find a scientific model that explains the development of life from rudimentary elements suddenly NOT a scientific question? Only faith in a divine soul would lead you to the conclusion that life cannot have arisen randomly, and that is a question that scientists are not trying to answer.

The crux of the argument freediver is I believe something I have already mentioned: science is not as perfect and good as you try to make out in your article. You already dismissed my comment with a valid enough point: that science should be as good as it can be. Fair, however what we have here in evolution is a flawed scientific model that is widely accepted by the scientific community, generally the wheat is separated from the chaff by the community of experts who, you know, tend to study for years and immerse themselves entirely in this topic every day of their lives. I'm no expert but that does tend to weigh on my mind - that so many scientists know evolution is a less than perfect model and still accept it over other models lends a lot of weight to the argument. It is science, it may be less perfect than relativity (which we also know to be flawed) or quantum mechanics (which we again know to be flawed) but it fits the bill, it is scientific and it is widely accepted.

And this week in new scientist there is an article about recent evolution in humans that has permitted european humans to digest milk into maturity, something no other mammals can manage. I would link the article but new scientist website appears to be down.

Sense I am not giving credit to freedivers argument, what I am saying is that all scientific models are simply that: models, and as such they are simplifications of reality and carry with them inherent flaws. Two of the greatest theorems in physics which I used as examples (relativity and QM) are both flawed models, we know this because they do not agree with each other yet they each yield valuable insights and both theories together are possibly the absolute pinnacle of human scientific ingenuity. You have to accept the flaws that are present in any scientific model because rejecting them means you throw out the possibility that you might advance from such positions, and many scientists are workingvery hard all the time to advance current scientific models. This is not to say they are not scientific, not by any means.

Freediver is arguing that flaws in evolution (acknowledgement of which has furthered the science) which you would expect from almost all scientific models somehow makes evolution not science, I am trying to point out to him that this is just bull, science can be flawed and still be science. Science is about method and models, personally I believe that all method that is logical and mathematical is scientific method, freediver would disagree but what he is saying is that science is only science if it is of a particular calibre, but this is simply not the case. The way I eat a sandwich can be scientific: if I acknowledge a problem (or simply recognise a natural phenomenon), propose a theory describing the situation, and an accompanying solution then apply that theory through method, then I have devised a scientific method, it may not be the best method but it is scientific none the less. This seems to be the core of the evolution argument that freediver is presenting. Freediver seems to think there is something special that makes any particular logical method scientific, however from the very first day man applied logic and method to any problem no matter how simple or flawed his methods, he was engaging in scientific endeavour. All that matters once you acknowledge this is deciding upon which methods are superior and which should be discarded. Evolution however is one of the accepted ones...