Comment A logical frame work for Evolution & ID (Score 1) 1634
I'd like to make four points, that evolution is a deductive conclusion based on series of premises, that the deduction is true, and that ID attacks the premises not the deduction and they use inductiveness to do so. And I think the misunderstandings arises as such.
1) Evolution is a deductive premise.
If geologic changes result from slow continuous actions rather than sudden events, then Earth must be very old.
If very gradual and subtle causes persist over a long time frame, then substantial change can result
If there is variation within a species;
If these variation lead to reproductive advantage among certain types;
If these variations and advantages are inheritable;
Then, over such time frame; the distribution of that variation will shift to favor those traits that improve the survivability of the species.
*note this list may not be exhaustive but the point is, I think, made.
2) We have done this with domesticated livestock, pets, and food like corn for centuries. We can acknowledge that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Evolution, unlike other science is inherently deductive. However, the premises like all other sciences must be proved inductively. If a premise is demonstrably absent, then the conclusion must be absent.
3) ID objects to the premises that there is sufficient body of evidence that supports the premises. The premises must be proven with science, which means inductiveness. Which means a large body of concurring evidence absent of exceptions must be assembled. ID makes several claims, including that this body is not sufficiently large i.e. we didn't arrive at quantum theory from two or three measurements neither should we except that ancestral species contained sufficient variation with only a few fossils either.
*note Off-topic: creationists object to the premise of sufficient time frame; not the logic of the deduction.
4) I think the disagreement and anger often comes from the question: "If we have not yet proven evolution, then to what theory do we default?" The three common answers I think are as follows: 1) God/doctrine or the need to say some intelligent entity must have it's own reason to have made these a certain way. 2) Reject God a priori; thus evolution is all we have and if it isn't proven yet it's better than nothing. 3) Say nothing we don't have enough info; therefore we can affirm only our need to know more.
For discusion to be logical, we should discuss are the body of premises and assumptions that enter and whether those are inductive or deductive, what criteria are we using to establish validity, and then are they valid.
1) Evolution is a deductive premise.
If geologic changes result from slow continuous actions rather than sudden events, then Earth must be very old.
If very gradual and subtle causes persist over a long time frame, then substantial change can result
If there is variation within a species;
If these variation lead to reproductive advantage among certain types;
If these variations and advantages are inheritable;
Then, over such time frame; the distribution of that variation will shift to favor those traits that improve the survivability of the species.
*note this list may not be exhaustive but the point is, I think, made.
2) We have done this with domesticated livestock, pets, and food like corn for centuries. We can acknowledge that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Evolution, unlike other science is inherently deductive. However, the premises like all other sciences must be proved inductively. If a premise is demonstrably absent, then the conclusion must be absent.
3) ID objects to the premises that there is sufficient body of evidence that supports the premises. The premises must be proven with science, which means inductiveness. Which means a large body of concurring evidence absent of exceptions must be assembled. ID makes several claims, including that this body is not sufficiently large i.e. we didn't arrive at quantum theory from two or three measurements neither should we except that ancestral species contained sufficient variation with only a few fossils either.
*note Off-topic: creationists object to the premise of sufficient time frame; not the logic of the deduction.
4) I think the disagreement and anger often comes from the question: "If we have not yet proven evolution, then to what theory do we default?" The three common answers I think are as follows: 1) God/doctrine or the need to say some intelligent entity must have it's own reason to have made these a certain way. 2) Reject God a priori; thus evolution is all we have and if it isn't proven yet it's better than nothing. 3) Say nothing we don't have enough info; therefore we can affirm only our need to know more.
For discusion to be logical, we should discuss are the body of premises and assumptions that enter and whether those are inductive or deductive, what criteria are we using to establish validity, and then are they valid.
