Mr. Lundahl Still Does Not Understand How Science and Historical Investigations are Done. “Proof” Does Not Belong in Scientific and Historical Investigations
Kevin R. Henke
October 30, 2022
In Henke (2022be), I again protested against the gross misrepresentations in Lundahl (2022k) on my agnostic views and the meaning of “proof” in scientific and historical investigations. In my essay, I again stated:
“Proof is for mathematics. I’m asking for evidence of miracles, God, etc.”
In response to my statement, Lundahl (2022u) said the following:
“A piece of evidence is simply the material or observational part of a proof. If Mr. Henke doesn't know that, too bad for him, and repeating catch words calculated to skew the debate (pretending an incomplete or possibly even complete proof on my part is "no evidence" or claiming he has given "evidence" when he hasn't used it in a valid proof) won't change that issue.”
No! Mr. Lundahl needs to read my recommended reference, Albert (1986), and finally understand what “proof” really means in this debate and why it does not belong in scientific or historical investigations. Proof means 100% certainty. We don’t have that level of certainty in science and history. That’s why my probability scale for past events, which I introduced in Henke (2022b), only goes up to 99+ out of 100. A value of 100 on my scale means that there’s a 100% certainty that a past event occurred and no one can say that. Because “proof” already means complete or absolute certainty, Mr. Lundahl’s terms “complete proof” and “incomplete proof” are just as erroneous as saying the superfluous term “absolute proof” (Albert 1986, p. 26).
In Henke (2022be), I gave several other rebuttals against the erroneous claims in Lundahl (2022k), but Mr. Lundahl chose not to respond to them in Lundahl (2022u).
Reference:
Albert, L.H. 1986. “’Scientific’ Creationism as a Pseudoscience”, Creation/Evolution Journal, v. 6, no. 2, pp. 25-34.