Evolution V Creation

[rjh4 is back]

Then my first principle is that the world is what the evidence that science has discovered says it is.

First, that statement sounds noble but it certainly is not very clear as to what it actually means (see below).

Second, the statement suffers from the fallacy of reification since science does not discover or say anything, scientists do. And if you mean scientists, then my question would be which ones and how do you decide based on what "science says"?

Third, then your whole worldview is based on a moving first principle since the conclusions in science change all the time. I guess your world view is totally in the hands of others (scientists) and what a majority(???) of them happen to decide about the universe and the meaning of life at any particular point in time. How do you go about finding out what you actually believe on any particular day?

Fourth, I guess that would rule out using logic since as far as I know, logic is not based on some scientific experiment or effort. Alternatively, if science uses logic but logic was a result of the scientific method, then how do you have any confidence in either as it all sounds quite circular? Oh, but mentioning circularity is mentioning a logical fallacy but if your worldview cannot account for logic, I wonder how it deals with logical fallacies.

Fifth, I guess that would rule out using mathematics for the same reasons set forth above for logic.

Sixth, even if you consider morals a relative thing, how does the scientific method provide you with a basis for making any moral decisions?

As far as I can tell, your first principle does not provide any of the preconditions for knowing or deciding anything. It certainly is not a first principle that I would want to follow.