Author Topic: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger  (Read 3008 times)

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #45 on: December 01, 2018, 09:48:44 AM »
Accirding to TomD Fr Rippergers reasoning doesnt seem to hold water. Would be nice if anyone could come to his defence. If not, then he should work on his arguments a little more..

How should he work with the ”new understanding of species”?

The real issue though is not working with the "new understanding of species." See the problem is that regardless of what you think of any concept of species, Father Ripperger is using a different understanding than proponents of evolution. Therefore, to criticize evolution on its terms by employing his as the foundation of the argument, is precisely to commit the fallacy of equivocation. (I lay this out more explicitly in my previous comment where I number the premises of what I take his argument to be).

uh, how is he meant to disprove evolution after he accepts a definition of species that includes evolution

He just has to use the same definition of "species" throughout his argument, otherwise it is the definition of an equivocation fallacy. 
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #46 on: December 01, 2018, 10:00:41 AM »

He just has to use the same definition

Same as what?
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2018, 10:03:27 AM »
My points stand even if evolution never happened.


Your points fall because there is no fixed usage of the word 'species' in science that satisfies all parties. Hence why Father does not use a purely scientific definition. None exists that is fixed or definite.
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2018, 10:05:18 AM »

3. Regarding your sentence "F R's use of the term...cannot seem to agree upon." Notice: you seem to admit that Father and evolution are using two different understandings of species. But this is exactly why he is equivocating.

Only if one believes truth lies in neither definition . At which point we are only playing semantic games.
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2018, 10:08:28 AM »

He just has to use the same definition

Same as what?

The same definition in each of his premises. Otherwise, it is the fallacy of equivocation
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2018, 10:10:04 AM »

The same definition in each of his premises. Otherwise, it is the fallacy of equivocation

And you believe this to be the case why precisely?
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #51 on: December 01, 2018, 10:13:10 AM »

3. Regarding your sentence "F R's use of the term...cannot seem to agree upon." Notice: you seem to admit that Father and evolution are using two different understandings of species. But this is exactly why he is equivocating.

Only if one believes truth lies in neither definition . At which point we are only playing semantic games.

No that is not the case. Whether or not Father commits the fallacy of equivocation has nothing to do with whether or not any particular definition of "species" is true. It only matters that his definition is consistent across all of his premises. I have explained why it is not in my comment where I list his premises numbered 1-5.

I have to ask, do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? Because for you to keep harping on which definition of "species" is better or correct, etc. suggests to me you are misunderstanding what I am saying. It doesn't matter which is correct. It matters that Father uses the same definition in each of his premises. This is something I argue he does not do. And you have not even tried to argue otherwise.
 

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #52 on: December 01, 2018, 10:14:01 AM »

The same definition in each of his premises. Otherwise, it is the fallacy of equivocation

And you believe this to be the case why precisely?

Because otherwise, he commits a fallacy of equivocation by definition. Again, see my most recent comment, but do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? The way this discussion is going leads me to believe you don't.
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #53 on: December 01, 2018, 10:16:37 AM »

Because otherwise, he commits a fallacy of equivocation by definition. Again, see my most recent comment, but do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? The way this discussion is going leads me to believe you don't.

Show us where Father changes his definitions. Point this out in terms of minutes into the video, please and thank you.
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #54 on: December 01, 2018, 10:35:34 AM »

Because otherwise, he commits a fallacy of equivocation by definition. Again, see my most recent comment, but do you know what the fallacy of equivocation is? The way this discussion is going leads me to believe you don't.

Show us where Father changes his definitions. Point this out in terms of minutes into the video, please and thank you.

You're creating a moving target rather than addressing any of my arguments. On page 2 of this thread, I gave a representation of what I take to be one of Father's criticisms of evolution (the one he gives after about minute 35).

That presentation is either an accurate representation of Father's argument or it is not. If it is, then we need not go searching in the video. I explained why he equivocates, and that is sufficient for this discussion. You seem completely unwilling to address that actual argument for some reason.

If on the other hand you think I have misrepresented Father's argument, could you explain what argument he is actually giving? Maybe I misunderstand him, but if that is the case, show me.
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #55 on: December 01, 2018, 10:40:11 AM »

You're creating a moving target rather than addressing any of my arguments.

Your arguments are based entirely on the claim that Father R changes his definitions. This is what equivocation entails. We can go no further until this is established as fact. Take your time. We will wait.

" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #56 on: December 01, 2018, 10:43:06 AM »


If on the other hand you think I have misrepresented Father's argument, could you explain what argument he is actually giving? Maybe I misunderstand him, but if that is the case, show me.

Well, for starters, the video is about Freemasonry and its promotion of evolutionary theory as a vehicle for social change. You are entirety off topic on that score. The semantics around the word 'species' have no bearing on the topic in the video
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Xavier

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #57 on: December 01, 2018, 11:03:34 AM »

You're creating a moving target rather than addressing any of my arguments.

Your arguments are based entirely on the claim that Father R changes his definitions. This is what equivocation entails. We can go no further until this is established as fact. Take your time. We will wait.

Again, you are moving the target. First, just to get this out of the way, I know that the argument I am criticizing is not the main point of his talk. But why am I confined to discussing his main point? I am criticizing the argument Father gives towards the end because it is a common argument among opponents of evolution. Now that that is out of the way...

You seem to be unable to address any point I make. We can go no further until you actually engage in an argument...but, regardless of your selective quotation of my replies, I gave you, on page 2, a numbered representation of the argument I think Father Ripperger is making regarding evolution. In the same comment and in subsequent ones I explain how he changes his definition of "species" between premises (1)/(4) and premise (2). Then, you asked for where in the video. In my most recent comment I stated that the argument I am trying to represent is the one Fr. gives at around 37:00 and following.

You therefore have two options:
1) accept that I am accurately representing Father's argument in my comment on page 2.
or
2) Deny that I am.

If you think (1) is right, then stop dancing around this whole discussion and let's address the issue I have been trying to address this entirely thread: that argument is an equivocation. I have explained precisely why I am making that claim. If you disagree, show me how I am wrong.

If you think (2) is right, then show me how my construction of Father's argument on page 2 is a misrepresentation. Perhaps I have misunderstood him.

Again, we cannot proceed until you are actually willing to engage with one of these options. Take your time, we will wait.   
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3901
  • Thanked: 958 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #58 on: December 01, 2018, 11:14:09 AM »

Again, you are moving the target.

Otherwise known as confirming the original claim. We must confirm the equivocation first and foremost. That, after the all is the sole basis of your 'argument' or whatever.

I cannot 'accept' an argument, Prima facie, that requires confirmation of the fact of equivocation. Obviously . If you cannot prove your claim then there is simply nothing to argue. We need at least 1 confirmed example of Father using widely divergent definitions to give credence to the claim of equivocation .
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 11:22:55 AM by Habitual_Ritual »
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian

Offline TomD

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Errors of Theistic Evolution ~ Fr Ripperger
« Reply #59 on: December 01, 2018, 11:23:45 AM »

Again, you are moving the target.

Otherwise known as confirming the original claim. We must confirm the equivocation first and foremost. That, after the all is the sole basis of your 'argument' or whatever.

I cannot 'accept' an argument, Prima facie, that requires confirmation of the fact of equivocation. Obviously . If you cannot prove your claim then there is simply nothing to argue.

You are selectively reading and quoting my responses. And you are unwilling to answer what I am saying. See my most recent comment. I explain why I think there is an equivocation (or at least refer back to previous comments where said explanation can be found and I explain exactly what responses are available to you. Did you not see this comment? Did you choose to ignore it? We could proceed with this discussion if you would just address what I said