<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

We’ll look at a story that’s called “a theory” and notice the theory can’t help us know anything, but it can confuse the difference between reality and made-up stuff. Consider a conversation in which an atheist claimed he had seen proof the stories of evolutionism happened. The atheist insisted scientists prove theories, but we still call them “theories” after scientists have proved them. A follower of Christ asked the atheist to provide a way to prove the stories of evolutionism happened. Then, the conversation went like this:

Sandy Sandbuilder: If you want to know about evolution, look up the many examples of speciation we have and get a working understanding of transitional species. Our natural history museum in Chicago is great for this. I hope one is near you.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Without assuming anything or telling any stories, can you show me how I can rationally reason from “many examples of speciation” to proving the stories of evolutionism happened?

Sandy: Yes. I can show you rationally how to go from a single-celled organism to humanity with zero assumptions, but it will take a while. Like all complex ideas, it’s not easy to explain, and I thought it was ridiculous until I understood it.

Sandy is committing an arcane-explanation fallacy. He claims we’re supposed to believe without proof because only a few people can understand the proof. Well, it’s not a claim yet. It’s a hint, an innuendo. He’ll make it plain shortly.

Rocky: That sounds like you’re about ready to tell me a story about how evolutionism happened. Stories aren’t proof, but they’re just stories or explanations. I would need to see it happen. Science works by observation and experience or experiment. Now, can you give me something I could do to observe or experience your claim that the stories of evolutionism happened? I would be glad to observe or experience it happening from beginning to end.

Sandy: Then you simply aren’t open to it. You’re not going to live for millions of years. You can observe speciation, but you reject it as “made up.” That’s what I meant by being open to new ideas.

Rocky: I don’t reject speciation, and speciation is hardly a new idea. However, you’re right if you’re saying I’m not open to made-up stuff. You’re telling me to shut up and believe without proof, or else I’m not open to new ideas. So far, you haven’t given any proof. It sounds like you have stories about evolutionism. Stories aren’t proof. I’m open to reality, but I don’t want to live in make-believe. Science depends on repeated testing and observation. You can’t test and observe stories.

Speciation doesn’t prove the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story happened. There’s no conflict between the biblical account of kinds of living things and the observed fact species exist.

Sandy: Those stories are tested and observed. That’s how science works.

Rocky: OK. If they’re tested and observed, all I’m asking you is for a way I can test and observe those stories as you claim I can. You’re asking me to just take your word for it without any proof, and you won’t tell me how I can test and observe the stories happening.

Sandy: Is there a natural history museum in your area? I never said take my word for anything.

Rocky: I’ve been through natural history museums, and all I get is stories about evolutionism complete with visual aids like creative drawings, paintings, and sculptures. It’s like looking at cartoons of Jesus in Sunday school or sculptures in some churches. You said, “Those stories are tested and observed. That’s how science works.” I can’t test or observe the stories of evolutionism happening in the natural history museum. I wouldn’t ask you to trust Jesus based on cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of Jesus. I would ask you to meet with Him, which you’ve repeatedly refused to do. Why do you ask me to accept stories and creative drawings? You’re not telling me you were gullible enough to accept stories and creative drawings as proof are you?

So if we’ve wondered why some persuaders say, “Evolution is a fact,” we’ve now seen how thinkers come to this error. They get confused. Insane as it is, they think stories, assumptions, concepts, mental frameworks, ideas, or other forms of made-up stuff are part of reality. This problem shows up as a thinker who confuses made-up stuff with reality writes a book or an article. And then a gullible person reads it. Next, a poor education system may teach the error. Students may hear a teacher make the false claim, “Evolution is a fact.” As a result, naïve students believe this lie. They dogmatically repeat it to others. They assimilate it into their worldviews.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Follow on

https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia

https://gab.com/RealReality

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Many thinkers confuse the stories of big bang, billions of years, and molecules to humanity with reality. Oddly enough, these same thinkers then use the stories of big bang, billions of years, and molecules to humanity as “proof” for claims of “no God.” However, theories can never prove anything because they’re just stories. They’re made-up stories with a fancy name. They’re speculative explanations of observations. Since the storytellers extend their stories beyond the observations, they can’t prove that their stories are true nor can they use their stories to prove anything. But storytellers sometimes give the false impression that their stories belong to reality. And yet these stories remain made-up stuff even if the storytellers try to objectify them and try to make them look like reality. By confusing theory with reality, they work to deceive us.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Follow on

https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia

https://gab.com/RealReality

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Some theories become sacred cows. With sacred-cow theories, scientists handle unexpected observations by making up additional stories to rescue the first story, the original theory. These are ad hoc rescuing hypotheses. It gets worse. They then claim these ad hoc rescuing hypotheses are additional predictions that “prove” the original story. Instead of questioning the original story, they think these additional just-so stories are additional proof. Over the years, the so-called “proof” keeps getting deeper. And yet, it’s all illusion. It’s all flimflam. It’s science by imagination.

While we see two complex thought processes, we can’t imagine the full complexity of the delusion. We see scientists making up ad hoc rescuing hypotheses (just-so stories) whenever they run into any scientific fact that conflicts with the sacred-cow theory. At the same time, we see scientists using their ability to make up stories to explain away the observations as proof for the sacred-cow story. They think their ability to make up a story or alibi is further proof of the sacred-cow theory. Of course, there’s considerable peer pressure on the scientist to back up the sacred-cow theory. Then, they use the fallacy of affirming the consequent as confirmation bias, and they end up even more committed to the sacred-cow theory. Scientists use many diverse thought processes to support sacred-cow theories. Often, the complexity and deceitfulness defy comprehension.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Follow on

https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia

https://gab.com/RealReality

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

It all starts with observation. Then, scientists make up a story to explain the observation, but they assume no all-powerful God. They shoehorn their explanation into the current preconceived groupthink. Here’s the fake proof for the story. The story predicts the observation, and the observation proves the story. We recognize the circular reasoning smokescreen trying to keep us from knowing the story is just made-up stuff. We call this fallacy “affirming the consequent.”

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Follow on

https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia

https://gab.com/RealReality

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Even if a theory predicts accurately, accurate predictions can’t prove theories. We’ll cover the prediction argument next, but, in short, prediction-as-proof is a formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Follow on

https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia

https://gab.com/RealReality

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Suppose a speculative explanation becomes a legitimate theory. A problem develops when the theorist makes the mistake of thinking observation has confirmed the theory. The theory goes beyond the observations. Therefore, the observation can’t prove the theory. However, schools teach students the observations prove theories, so they’re teaching irrational thinking. Here are the irrational steps:

1. A scientist makes up a hypothesis to explain the observed and experienced facts.
2. The scientist compares observations and experiences to the explanation.
3. They don’t conflict, so the hypothesis is labeled “theory.” [That’s fine. There’s nothing wrong yet. The blunder is in the next step.]
4. The scientist uses the observations and experiences to prove the explanation. [That’s circular reasoning.]

Some people think they’ve observed the explanation. Then they apply the label “scientific fact” to this circular reasoning.

Even if a theory predicts accurately, accurate predictions can’t prove theories. We’ll cover the prediction argument next, but, in short, prediction-as-proof is a formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Follow on

https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia

https://gab.com/RealReality

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>

Another problem develops in calling a theory a “scientific fact.” A theory speculates to explain a set of scientific facts. Scientists determined the scientific facts by repeatedly observing and testing, so they have tested the facts. Scientists made up the theory to extend beyond what scientists observed and experienced, so they can’t test the theory. Therefore, even though we can repeatedly test and confirm observations and experiences, we can’t repeatedly test and confirm explanations other than to test to see if they conform to the current observations and experiences. We can’t test theories since theories, by their nature, go beyond what we can test. Scientists propose predictability as a way to test theories, but we’ll discuss the problems of the predictability way of knowing in the next section.

A theory isn’t an observation but rather a speculative explanation of an observation that goes beyond the observation. We can repeatedly observe to verify the observation. We can check to see whether any part of the explanation conflicts with any part of the observation. However, speculative explanations of observations consist of made-up stuff. We can’t observe or test speculative explanations because they go beyond what we can observe or test.

Here’s where the irrational error comes in. First, a theorist makes up a speculative explanation for a set of observations. Then the theorist uses those observations to prove the explanation has changed to the status of a theory. However, that’s merely a check to make sure the explanation doesn’t conflict with the observations. It doesn’t prove the theory is part of reality. The theorist confirms the explanation isn’t in conflict anywhere with what scientists observe. Sometimes, a theory conflicts with observation, which means the scientist created a weak theory. A desperate theorist may make up a just-so story to explain away parts of the conflict and rescue the speculative explanation. This just-so story is known as a “rescuing hypothesis.” In that case, the theorist can’t legitimately call the speculative explanation “a scientific theory.” However, most scientists accept some stories they must prop up with rescuing hypotheses. They illegitimately call these stories “theories.”

<end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Follow on

https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia

https://gab.com/RealReality

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts