I don't believe that YEC's ALWAYS reason deductively in every aspect of life, that would be absurd. But in the realm of origins, creation and evolution, the reasoning is deductive.
I still think you are obviously wrong.
IF YECs reasoned thusly:
quote:
The Bible is absolute truth.
Uniformitarianism contradicts the Bible.
Therefore uniformitarianism is not true.
Then you would have a point. But YECs don't do that. Some might, but the inductive leap that all do can be falsified by a single example. I present
Michael J. Oard who says:
quote:
Changes in temperature or chemistry of the water could force the rapid precipitation of silica over a local or regional scale, sometimes with radiolarian organisms within the precipitate.
He then goes on to discuss some ideas based on the above. You can read the whole thing
here. Here is taking a specific set of examples from the literature, and attempting to draw a general conclusion about how changes in chemistry and temperature in a completely different circumstance could have the same impact as the examples.
Induction.
Indeed - there is so much pseudoscience behind Creationism I'm surprised you've missed it. YEC websites aren't a sequence of deductive statements. They are filled with inductive reasoning as a means to trying to prove the earth is young (or as a means of persuading people they have proven the earth is young, if you're more cynical like me).
I have more than a single example, indeed I have enough to make an induction that, on the whole creationists tend to use induction when they are talking about origins.
Here's a good one, easier to understand my point but not on topic so is used merely to illuminate the point above:
quote:
The universe is fine tuned, and demands a designer.
What is this based on ?
The supposed fact that all of the things that we have encountered that are fine tuned are designed intelligently therefore we can inductively conclude that another thing that is fine tuned is designed, QED.
Come on - induction is all over the place, you can't miss it!
jason, in another post writes:
Science doesn't speak on the existence of God because it intends to explain nature without God.
Newton, if he could hear you say that, would say something incredibly clever and derisory if he even deemed it worth his time to look at, let alone cogitate. For Newton, science was a way to understand god beyond mere anthropomorphic notions:
quote:
We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion. For we adore him as his servants; and a God without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build. For all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind, by a certain similitude which, though not perfect, has some likeness however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
Edited by Modulous, : added Newton quote
™ Version 4.2