Scientific Proof - A Red Herring
In my previous post, I showed that there are people (especially creationists) who are distrustful and skeptical of the motives and methods of science because a scientific investigation of their own beliefs would cast those beliefs into serious doubt, if not destroy them altogether. These people will do everything in their power to discredit science and anyone who thinks that its epistemological foundations (ie empiricism) are the best way to gain knowledge. So they create a straw man view of the empiricist's epistemology that they call "scientism", and create straw man views of science itself, as Ilíon has done by making claims that science purports to have the same level of authority as religion in revealing "Truth".
And Victor Reppert, himself a defender of creationism and and ID pseudo-science, is playing the same game. He would have us think that evidence as a justification for belief is logically absurd.
It's the regress problem. Here is a discussion by Maverick Christian.
Suppose we define evidentialism as follows:
A belief B is justified just in case there is a justified proposition C, which constitutes sufficient evidence for B.
I used to call this "the prove-it game." You need proof for everything you believe, and then proof of the proof, and then proof of the proof of the proof, and then proof of the proof of the proof of the proof, and then proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof, until you finally get tired and give up. - Reppert