Unequivocal certainty seems to be unattainable when it is argued on the basis of knowing everything. It is just a philosophical mindgame, which may be resolved when science comes to an end, when we know everything. In the mean time we just assume determinacy and indeterminacy as facts, or else there are no facts in science whatsoever.
The problem with your argument is that will they are taken as operational facts for science, things that must be assumed to allow us to use science effectively, they are not required as fundamental facts. Once again you ignore the fact that indeterminism in science, with the possible exception of QM, is used to allow for the fact that there are limits to what we can effectively know about the systems we study.
As before determination is synonym for decision. It is clear by the language that in times previous it was well understood that decision and creation go together, because the beginning of the universe was said to be a determination (decision) and from this determination the universe was created. We have come to be more ignorant of creation since then, so that the connection between decision and creation is much lost.
It's the other way around of course. Klaus Fischer's book is science, what we pragmatically should accept as true, and the philosphical meandering about the fundamental nature of the universe to the point of determinacy and indeterminacy is peripheral, and has no compelling observation to support it any which way for lack of observing everything.
Well I think everybody here realises the importance of recognizing choice as true to fact, and the limits of philosophical meandering to undermine the confidence in recognizing choice and creation as true to fact. I think I have made a convincing case, that evolutionists do in fact suppress scientific, common and religious knowledge about creation, and that this surpression facillitates their promotion of atheist / materialist / social darwinist doctrine.
These three paragraphs are yet another barely coherent restating of your initial contention.
It's only because of such things like dishonesty about the links of Darwinism to Social Darwinism like Jar and Mammuthus engaged in, in this thread, that the truth is obfuscated. Or for instance your baseless insistence that indeterminacy is not a fact in evidence.
You haven't shown them to be dishonest, and I would encourage you to start a new thread if you wish to try. You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that a premise of fundamental indeterminacy, which is required for your argument to be true, is in any way better supported scientifically than a deterministic view.
TTFN,
WK
™ Version 4.2