MORE THOUGHTS ON THE REASONING PROCESS

Bits of arguments, pieces of evidence, generate an hypothesis. When there are enough bits and pieces that support the hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes a theory. The theory becomes a law, a guiding principle, or an assumed fact. This is the scientific method which is founded on inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is the same process used to determine innocence or guilt. When all the evidence has been presented and all the witnesses have been examined, the defense and the prosecution sum up their case and give it to the jury for a verdict. The accumulation of evidence, for and against is weighed and the new judgement announced. The sum of the parts generates a hypothesis.

Inductive reasoning begins with observation of data with similar, but not necessarily identical, characteristics. Careful, analytical study of the data collected yields a hypothesis which is repeatedly tested with further observation of more data until an exhaustive amount of data has been analyzed without challenging the hypothesis. It is a tedious, unending process and assumes that at some point all data applicable would be known verifying the hypothesis.

Reverse the process. Now, the hypothesis/principle yields numerous parts. If the hypothesis/principle is valid, then the consequences naturally follow. The consequences collectively support the hypothesis practiced by inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with a principle which produces a set of results. While inductive reasoning begins with collecting a set of results to arrive at a hypothesis. Deductive reasoning begins with a principle and then looks at available consequences. The known consequences may be many or few. The more the better. However, it is limited by the knowledge and experience of the investigator. To the critic there is inadequate support because deductive reasoning easily allows a principle to stand untouched by other data which may prove it invalid.

If data were stacked one on top of the other to form a lengthy column and on the top and the bottom of the column an appropriate hypothesis was scrolled, the deductive reasoner would say all the data is the consequences of the principle and ignore the bottom line while the inductive reasoner would say all the data is summarized in the hypothesis and ignore the top line. Could the principle and the hypothesis ever be the same? They could be. Does cause produce certain effects or do effects lead to the cause?

The inductive reasoning which leads to the theory of evolution is at odds with the deductive statements of creation with consequent results. Both view the same data but from different ends of the spectrum. The principle of the creationist is not the same as the hypothesis of the evolutionist. And, they never will be. For the creationist assumes God and consequent actions while the scientific evolutionist, who by definition is a naturalist, does not consider God and finds it impossible to assume an unpredictable factor such as the supernatural in his observations and testing. They both look at the column of data. One says it is the result of God. The other says it has no relevance to God. And both think that the other should admit their mistake and see it differently. These essays are an effort to reason deductively choosing to accept, as fact, the presence of Supreme God, as Joe does in "There is, There is Not."