Concerning evidence/hermenuetics: 1. The way we perceive an object of perception is determined by our hermenuetical framework. Hence; 2. If the hermenuetical framework is wrong it implies that the way we perceive an object of perception is also wrong. 3. Since every physical thing is an object of perception it implies that physical evidence is an object of perception. Hence; 4. If our hermeneutical framework physical evidence is wrong, it implies that the way we perceive it is wrong. Therefore; 5. It is possible that what we perceive as physical evidence is wrong. What constitutes the hermeneutical framework used to formulate the construct of paeleontological evidence, for evolution? It is also important to note this: Evidence itself is not something objective. What do i mean by that? I mean this: Evidence itself does not exist as a real thing. However the objects we call evidence do. However before we classify those things as evidence, we created a construct first, since it is our interpretation that gives something the status of evidence. Hence, evidence is simply the aggregate of all our principles, framework, and interpretations of reason, knowledge, and understanding. Hence the object itself is not evidence. On the contrary it is being "USED" as evidence, when we describe/define it as such, using the aggregate of all our principles, framework, and interpretations . Furthermore; We sue evidence to establishes a fact on the basis of previous experience. For example; We have seen that D.N.A can be used to convict a felon of a crime, because every human contains unique DNA that can be connected to them, and hence, a felons DNA can be used to put him in a crime scene, and consequently we can charge them for the crime. However this kind of evidence is constructed from the principle of induction and the principles of logic. But the principle of induction is based on our belief in uniformity. Hence it cannot be verified empirically. Therefore such a construct of evidence is uncertain. For it is based on the assumption about every human having their own unique DNA. However we have never observed the DNA of seven billion humans. We have only observed some instances or many instances of D.N.A being unique according to our sample size. However that something is true for some people on grounds of experience, does not mean that it is true for those we have not yet observed. Hence; we assume that every human has a unique DNA molecule. Hence the principles used to formulate the construct of such evidence is not certain. For there may be an exception to our limited observation relative to uniqueness of DNA. Or there may be not. However; we cannot prove either positions. But the doubt about humans that may have the same DNA is reasonable because from experience we know that nature shows us exceptions to our rules. And consequently the evidence that is a construct of the principles of induction can provide us with what is probably true, or what is close to certainty. However it cannot establish certainty. So, can any evolutionist answer the questions below: What kind of frame work do you use in order to decide that a paeleontological object is evidence? What constitutes palenotological evidence? How do we identify evidence? And what conditions must be satisfied before we consider an object as evidence? These questions must be answered relative to evolution occurring in the past.
Posted on: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:31:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015