RiverJordan: And my point is, no evolutionary scientist will ever be aware of your claims or arguments. They will remain as they always have been.....scientifically irrelevant.
What does the highlighted part even mean? If there was a theory you were divorced from your wife and the theory was mathematical, I could state that because certain people don't believe the reasons were mathematical that what their claims will only ever be regarded as is mathematically irrelevant.
What does it matter, if the matter is not ultimately mathematical? LOL! (Therein lies the fallacy in your reasoning.) (you see, I can do this all day)
"No......you cannot get away" - Khan.
The real question is, why should we grant your assumption that a creation can only be explained scientifically, when usually a creation would be explained as being caused by a Creator? It is the begging-the-question fallacy, that you assume God's creation can only be understood scientifically.
If I were to ask you; "what if you found out from God, that evolution didn't happen, when you died?", what would you say to Him? "That's scientifically irrelevant!"
No, what would happen is He would say, "your scientific theory is irrelevant, because it didn't happen, I created the world, it can only exist by my wisdom".
RiverJordan: Rather, I noted that evolutionary biology is long-standing and well-established science as evidenced by its status within the life sciences over the last 150 years or so. And nothing that you post here will change that.
I know but logically speaking I am afraid it would not matter if it had been established for 4,000 years. If it didn't happen, then it didn't happen, no appeal to science can change that. All you have here is argumentum ad verecundiam. You have elephant-hurled "150 years" at me, even though I have expressly and distinctly and blatantly stated that I would accept the large portion of that 150 years worth of work would have credence even if it did not allow the non-sequitur that, "evolution is therefore true".
That isn't how science works.
"If evolution is true then there would be 150 years of work and plenty of evidence.
There is 150 years of established thought and evidence therefore evolution is true."
INCORRECT; Affirmation of the consequent, fallacy.
If evolution is false and did not happen, a trillion scientists might well live to accept it, and nothing they post in their literature, will change that the cause of a giraffe was not evolution.
Think about it. If you got in a time-machine and found out God created life, what would you then think of these arguments you use? Would it matter if 4 billion people called me "bald" if I had hair?
Jordan: Ah, so your rejection of the conclusions of evolutionary biologists is a personal issue rather than a scientific one. Thanks for clarifying.
That's to twist my words. Is it my fault it is too hard for you to understand? We don't live in a simple world. It is not as simple as you want to portray it to be, as some sort of false dichotomy.
See the way you have changed the original argument so that now it is that I "reject the conclusions". You've changed the goal-posts. If I only reject the conclusions of an evolutionary scientist, that does not mean I reject all of his work and all of his comments, reasonings, and inferences. We might probably agree with the scientific parts of his views, but disagree about our personal conclusions as to what that scientific evidence actually means.
And that's a totally scientific attitude, it happens all the time, very few scientists would insist that a theory should be held up as some sort of proof.
Also, scientists do have a belief everything can be explained scientifically but just because they provide scientific explanations doesn't mean their assumption is right. If their assumption is wrong, that skews all of the data.
EXAMPLE of how a false assumption can lead to something false;
We assume only three people are on an island. One person is murdered, Bob and Lisa are left alive, Bob has a watertight argument as to why he could not have done the crime, ergo Lisa is guilty.
This argument is true as long as the premises are correct, but if in fact there were four people on the island, the assumption there were only three, has skewed and thwarted the whole argument like a fly in ointment.
Absolutely the same when people assume a natural process could create intelligently designed things. There is no reason to believe in such a contradiction. There is also no proof that everything can be explained scientifically just because scientific explanations have been provided. I can also provide mathematical explanations for why people divorce if I use all of my cleverness and imagination to make a plausible mathematical explanation.