Your argument might be valid if the premise were true–but the premise is false. Nowhere does Van Tile assume a chaotic universe is more likely than a uniform one. Indeed, his presuppositions preclude that possibility.

"1. Having [a rational] explanation does not make your position superior to that of those who may lack [a rational explanation]."

Actually, yes it does–unless one prefers to be irrational.

"2. Not being able to explain a phenomenon doesn't preclude you from legitimately assuming the reliability of that phenomenon"

Presuppositionalism has never made this claim. Anyone may assume the reliability of the uniformity of nature or the law of causality. The problem is the attempt to offer a rational justification for it.

"3. Assuming the reliability of a phenomenon without being able to 'account for' it does not mean that you implicitly accept the world view of people claiming that theirs is the only explanation of that phenomenon."

–unless theirs is the only *rational* explanation possible, in which case if you continue to reject it, you reject rationalism in favor of irrationalism.

"4. The failure of a person to explain a phenomenon doesn't invalidate their world view or render it inconsistent."

Presuppositionalism doesn't deal with "phenomena"; it deals with the preconditions by which reality is rendered intelligible at all. A phenomenon by definition is any thing that is observable through empirical investigation. Presuppositionalism deals with what renders observation or empirical investigation even possible.

"5. Acknowledging that you don't have an answer is better than making things up."

Finally, one on which we both agree.

Silly xian rabbits:

Trix are for kids. "Certainty", "uniformity", "induction" are as dead as God — the belief in them is no longer believable. Nor, is "god" necessary. Was it only 200 years ago that LaPlace said this?

The brief responses are three:
1. there is no such process as "induction" from "the" facts.
2. No "knowledge" is certain (no necessary empirical truths).
3. Every empirical statement must be falsifiable in principle.

What follows from these now well-known propositions:
1. No part of science presupposes any "uniformity of nature."
2. There are no "laws" in science — no need for a "law giver."
3. If xianity makes an empirical claim; then, it could be false.
4. An empirical claim to be part of science requires conditions under which it could be falsified. (That is, it must be testable, refutable.)

In practice, what does science have to say about fundie nonsense:

Whenever so-called "sacred" writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no "executive privilege" for God.

Evolutionary Biology has proven (far beyond a reasonable doubt) the Genesis story of animal creation to be false. More importantly, Darwin solved the materialists' puzzle (for all species) : how can order arise from randomness.

Let's get the bottom line very, very clear:

Since evolution through natural selection is true, then the Genesis story is empirically false. Period.

Biblical literalism is a damned lie. There are no innocent "believers in" intelligent design any longer. They are dead.

bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007