3rd Response to Ilona

Ilona has responded to my latest response in two places. First, in a comment in response to that post, and second in a post on her own blog. Rather than posting response and counter-response as in past entries, I'm going to try and just subdivide this into the issues under dispute so that they'll be easier to follow.

Issue 1: Is she conflating evolution with atheism/materialism and presuming they are essentially synonymous?

I said in my first response to her that she is doing that. Her reply then:

I have to think about this. Perhaps I do think that way...never looked at it from that perspective.

Well now it appears she's thought about it and is adamant that she is not in fact doing that:

In the stubbornness section, I would place some of your comments that evolution and atheism are mixed up in the oppositions mind. I believe this is a red herring that has worked well in past arguments and you keep hoping for someone to take the bait once again.

That is not what is being argued, by me anyway. Not in this series of posts.

But is that true? Let's take a look at her own words. The first problem is that she seems to be contradicting herself. Immediately after claiming that she doesn't equate atheism with materialism, she then says that materialism comes from evolution AND that evolution comes from materialism:

First, I do not mistake atheists with those who hold evolutionary theory as correct.

However, if evolutionary theory is not rooted in materialist philosophy, what is it based in? Or perhaps we look at it another way: where does the idea of materialist or physicalist philosophy come from, if not the theory of evolution? Am I wrong to see the two as inter-related?

How could it be any more obvious that she thinks that evolution and materialism/atheism are intrinsically linked and inseparable? But as I've explained over and over again, that is simply false. Some evolution advocates are materialists or atheists; some are not. Evolution is absolutely silent on the subject, as are all scientific theories. Some people, like Richard Dawkins, draw atheistic inferences evolution, while others, like Ken Miller, draw theistic inferences from evolution. Neither of those inferences or the philosophical/religious position they are used to support are intrinsically tied to evolution. Period. It simply can't be any clearer than that. I leave it to my readers to decide for themselves whether Ilona is or is not conflating evolution with atheism, and to decide whether this is a valid equation or not.

Issue 2: Is she claiming that historical sciences are not "real science" because the events are not replicable and therefore you can't use experimentation to prove the theories

Again, let's look at her own words. It started with her making this statement:

What is offered by Ed is more along the lines of historical hypothesis and theory.... which is an art and is more honestly represented than the "science" of evolutionary theory.

Obviously she was making the argument that "historical hypothesis and theory" are art and not science. And when I said that I use the term "evolution" to mean that all life forms share a common ancestor, she replied,

Yet, in Ed's use of the word, where is the replication?

Then later she says:

Science uses replicable experimentation in testing theory and then designating facts.

So she clearly is arguing that because we can't replicate common descent, it's not a science it's an art. She repeated this today:

I said that historical -especially in the time of the ancient history- is an art using conjecture and evidence together to arrive at theories. I compared the construction of the volutionary theory to this.

But then when I challenged her to "name a single philosopher of science who says that experimentation is the only way to test a hypothesis or that the fields I mentioned are not "real science"?", she replied:

Would this be pertinent , since this is your conclusion of my view and not what I said?

Well yes, it is pertinent because that is what you've been arguing, as your own words above clearly show.

The truth is that I don't think Ilona really has any coherent conception of either how science works or what she intends to argue. She has repeatedly made statements, then when it's disproven she claims not to have said, then maybe she did say it, then she didn't say it again, ad nauseum. On top of which, she seems not to understand the meaning of certain logical fallacies either. I made the statement that I think she has a very shallow understanding of the scientific method. This she complains is an "ad hominem". Sorry, but it is not. The logical fallacy known as ad hominen does not mean "he made an argument that I take offense to". An ad hominem is using an irrelevant personal attack to argue against the truth of a claim being made. For example, if I said, "She can't be right about evolution because she is a horrible dresser", that would be an ad hominem. Pointing out that her understanding of the scientific method is shallow and on about an 8th grade level is not an ad hominem. She may not like that I said it, but it's an entirely true statement. I posted numerous instances above of complete misunderstandings of how science operates. There are many more. I'll give another example. I had made this statement:

"the ID crowd has yet to produce anything like a testable hypothesis.... and "the model offered by YECs has been falsified over and over again and fails to explain the data entirely"

To which she replied:

Wait. Does evolution "explain the data entirely", has it ever "been falsified"?

Obviously, she does not understand the distinction between being falsified and being falsifiable. One of the bedrock principles of science is that a hypothesis must be falsified, and I pointed out that ID is not falsifiable. And she asks whether evolution has been falsified? Of course not. But it is falsifiable. Any number of observations could prove evolution wrong. Find a single mammalian fossil in precambrian rock and evolution is dead in the water. But that observation has not been made.

Ilona, I know that you don't like it when I say that you don't understand the scientific method, but the truth is that you don't. You've repeatedly made silly and contradictory statements about it. You can't seem to settle on what science requires in terms of replicability, claiming in one place that the event itself has to be replicable, in other places that the experiments have to be replicable. Both of those answers are wrong, of course. Where there are experiments that can be done, then yes the experiments must be replicable. But where a hypothesis is being tested by some means other than experimentation, you obviously can't repeat the experiment that didn't take place. It's the observations that must be replicable and the data that must be available to all to see. When you say things like, "And how does science explain facts except by proving their validity through the scientific method?", you are showing that you really do not understand what science attempts to do at all. Science does "prove the validity" of facts. It tests the validity of theories that explain facts. That doesn't mean explains what the facts are, it means explain why the facts are the way they are. Why do apples fall to the ground? The theory of gravity explains that. Science doesn't test the fact that apples fall to the ground, it tests the explanation for why apples fall to the ground. We observe a given geological formation that has a given set of traits. The observations of those traits are facts. A hypothesis is created to explain why it has those traits, how those traits came about, and the hypothesis is then tested for validity. You have consistently conflated fact and theory, which is very common, but it really does show a basic lack of understanding of how those terms are used in science and how scientists go about testing ideas. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's true. I've given you links to resources that explain the distinctions, but you don't seem to be too interested in them.

You continually misunderstand the most basic of principles. When I point out that nothing in science is ever considered "proven", that all theories are considered open to disproof and continually tested, you reply

Now we are in a universe where nothing is ever proven ...... a state of mind familiar to the philosopher, aka syncreticism. Evolution of the mind, I suppose we could call it.

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say "nothing is ever proven", I said that in science nothing is ever considered proven. In mathematics and formal logic, things are proven all the time, but only because the premises are controlled. You jump from that very simple and obvious statement to some overarching philosophical issue that simply does not apply because I didn't say anything like what you thought I said. And again, if you had a basic understanding of the scientific method, you wouldn't make such errors, you would have understood the original statement.