Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 334 (192450)
03-19-2005 8:32 AM


This thread began life a couple years ago as Message 10. I'll be filling in the other relevant messages soon, this thread will remain closed until that process is completed. --Admin
This forum has recently shut down a number of Creationists for reasons consistent with the forum guidelines. Names that come to mind are Salty, Peter Borger and Inquisitor. Then there's Syamsu who has been "persuaded" to stay in the Free For All forum. Booboocruise just disappeared, and now I'm afraid Buzsaw may do the same since his primary thread, Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!! was just closed after IrishRockHound enumerated his reasons that Buzsaw had lost on almost all the points from his opening message.
Naturally I agree with Irish Rocky, but it is becoming obvious that we're making it damn difficult for Creationists to participate there. They sort of get a month or two to see if they can get a feel for the nature of science, start to understand some scientific principles, and get into the habit of supporting arguments with evidence, and if they don't then we just gradually turn up the pressure until they're forced into misbehavioral patterns that cause discplinary actions that eventually influence them to leave, or they just leave on their own.
There's no reason why we should tolerate illogic and ignorance, but Creationists can only maintain their beliefs if they have healthy doses of both. Their goal is the defense of their religion, not the advancement of science. The prominent Creationists defend their religion through the construction of pseudoscientific arguments, and they feel good about their accomplishments because their work bolsters the religious beliefs of those of their faith, which was their goal. And while science suffers by their efforts, as much as they might care about science they care much more about their religion.
If Buzsaw departs then I'll feel sad because he leaves without ever understanding almost everything that was explained to him. On the other hand, as I've said many times, it is very rare that anyone is ever convinced by discussions at discussion boards, so the likelihood that we'd ever make progress with Buzsaw is tiny, no matter how long we argued.
I don't know what we're to do. This board is now dominated by evolutionists when the goal was to have some balance. But how can there be balance if board administration is determined that the primary component of any argument be evidence. The rhetorical arguments that are more the realm of philosophy and religion don't carry much weight here.
I often ponder this problem, but the only answers I can come up with involve more active moderators, and we tried this a few months ago. It bothered the evolutionists more than it bothered the Creationists. The more recent and more subtle approaches haven't raised the ire of the evolutionists but appear to have been even more effective at discouraging Creationists.
Given that my initial goal when I created the site was balance it disappoints me that the board is probably gaining a reputation as a pro-evoultion site. I suppose that's unavoidable, but I prefer to think of this as a pro-science site. It puzzles me that we can't even reach agreement about proper scientific arguments with the Creationists who appear to know a lot of science.
No answers, I guess, just some musings.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 8:23 PM Percy has replied
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 03-20-2005 6:46 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 03-20-2005 8:47 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 61 by Sylas, posted 03-20-2005 8:58 PM Percy has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 334 (192368)
03-18-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-19-2005 8:32 AM


Evo dominance at this site
Naturally I agree with Irish Rocky, but it is becoming obvious that we're making it damn difficult for Creationists to participate there. They sort of get a month or two to see if they can get a feel for the nature of science, start to understand some scientific principles, and get into the habit of supporting arguments with evidence, and if they don't then we just gradually turn up the pressure until they're forced into misbehavioral patterns that cause discplinary actions that eventually influence them to leave, or they just leave on their own.
I haven't been here long, and I have to admit that I'm on the verge of leaving much of the time (not at the moment), and twice since I originally registered have in fact left, the first time for three years, the second time for a couple of weeks or so. In both cases the reason was the insupportable attitudes of some of my opponents. I'm actually a veteran of battles with abusive opponents in internet discussions and handle them pretty well IMHO, so it does take some pondering to explain why this site is so hard to take that I lose interest. And this in spite of the fact that the moderation here is quite good and much appreciated by me.
There's no reason why we should tolerate illogic and ignorance, but Creationists can only maintain their beliefs if they have healthy doses of both. Their goal is the defense of their religion, not the advancement of science. The prominent Creationists defend their religion through the construction of pseudoscientific arguments, and they feel good about their accomplishments because their work bolsters the religious beliefs of those of their faith, which was their goal. And while science suffers by their efforts, as much as they might care about science they care much more about their religion.
I would start off by suggesting that the above attitude so stacks the deck against creationists that it makes me feel like there's hardly any point in beginning to talk to you or anybody else here. The wall of prejudice that greets us would discourage the most intrepid visitor here. While in practice people have managed to be polite most of the time, this underlying prejudice is always there and always felt to be there and bursts out at times to proportions that are far beyond any actual provocation just because they ARE fueled by this prejudice. I do believe it also colors how a person's posts are read so that it is very hard to get an objective reading of what I am trying to say. Since you go on to say that you are puzzled why you have basically the same problem with the scientifically knowledgeable creationists that you have with us less knowledgeable ones, I would venture the suggestion that some of what posters here consider to be scientific thinking is really shot through with unexamined and indeed unrecognized prejudices that nobody can be expected to tolerate for long. This is a strong impression but I probably wouldn't be able to prove it.
I can't possibly speak for other creationists, and again I haven't been here long enough to know if what you are saying is true of some who visit here, but I almost have to laugh at the juxtaposition of the attitude expressed in that paragraph with your earnest desire to make this a more balanced debate site. Yes, it's all there in that paragraph and it's so ingrained I see no solution to it. Creationists will either take their chances in this fundamentally hostile environment or they won't, but it should be acknowledged up front that it IS hostile to us, ferociously in some cases. The contempt is so thick you could suffocate in it. Here, I'll break it down a little:
There's no reason why we should tolerate illogic and ignorance, but Creationists can only maintain their beliefs if they have healthy doses of both.
That's certainly a case of begging the question right off the bat. We might as well go home. You've dispensed with the whole creationist claim at the getgo, which is really how all the evolutionists here and everywhere deal with it. You so absolutely totally believe that creationism is false and no doubt its religious underpinnings as well that you don't even bother to make a pretense of giving the benefit of the doubt, or have a moment's doubt yourself that ONLY illogic and ignorance can support creationist reasoning. I'll be fair to YOU and assume that you've arrived at this conclusion from intelligent considerations of your own however. You do totally believe that science is on your side. You are in fact incapable of thinking anything else. So is every other evolutionist here. Therefore the creationist is ignorant. QED.
Their goal is the defense of their religion, not the advancement of science.
Again, not speaking for anyone but myself, MY goal is the reconciliation of my religion with science, as I am convinced that true science discovers the rationality of the universe made by the rational God of the Bible and if it contradicts Him it is wrong. I don't expect to be able to prove this easily, and maybe I can't at all, certainly not to people who think they've arrived at their conclusions THROUGH science, but I do think I recognize the irrationalities in evolutionism and am very far from basing this view on my religious beliefs. I know some here think this is about knowledge of science, but no, there are plenty of creationist scientists and you don't give them any more respect than those of us who aren't scientifically trained. As shown in your very next statement:
The prominent Creationists defend their religion through the construction of pseudoscientific arguments, and they feel good about their accomplishments because their work bolsters the religious beliefs of those of their faith, which was their goal. And while science suffers by their efforts, as much as they might care about science they care much more about their religion.
You know, it is one thing to believe creationists are wrong on scientific grounds, it is another thing and an EXTREMELY offensive thing, and in fact a violation of all civilized standards of discourse, to denigrate your opponents' integrity by imputing cheap motives to them as you do in the above paragraph. You are saying that they are content with lies, that they are so morally corrupt they have no dedication to honesty and truth. That's pretty low stuff you are slinging there, but I doubt that would occur to you. The only fair position would be to give the same benefit of the doubt and same basic respect to them, the same assumption of integrity and honesty, and basic intelligence and logical ability as well, that you would expect from opponents yourself, but that is apparently an impossibility because of your absolute unbending conviction of the rightness of your scientific views. This is why this forum can never be balanced.
I don't know what we're to do. This board is now dominated by evolutionists when the goal was to have some balance. But how can there be balance if board administration is determined that the primary component of any argument be evidence. The rhetorical arguments that are more the realm of philosophy and religion don't carry much weight here.
I'm not sure what all is involved in this, but I would say that I've had the impression that you [edit: meaning not you personally necessarily but evolutionists here in general] dismiss actual evidence from being considered as evidence just out of your own preconceived notions at this site. Nothing the Bible says is evidence at all here, but that is absurd. Believe me, I know how adamant and ingrained this prejudice is, and I have NO hope of ever cracking it, false though I know it is, so I won't even venture an argument at this point. A creationist can only sit back and marvel at the airtight system arrayed against us.
I often ponder this problem...
Given that my initial goal when I created the site was balance it disappoints me that the board is probably gaining a reputation as a pro-evoultion site. I suppose that's unavoidable, but I prefer to think of this as a pro-science site. It puzzles me that we can't even reach agreement about proper scientific arguments with the Creationists who appear to know a lot of science.
No answers, I guess, just some musings.
And I probably haven't contributed much help either, though I do think I have the right diagnosis of the problem. I can't help but be touched and appreciative of your sincere desire to have a balanced debate site and your concern about the problem however.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2005 08:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-19-2005 8:32 AM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 334 (192382)
03-18-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
03-18-2005 8:23 PM


I would start off by suggesting that the above attitude so stacks the deck against creationists that it makes me feel like there's hardly any point in beginning to talk to you or anybody else here.
You're absolutely right - the deck is stacked against you, in the same way it's stacked against Flat Earthers, pherenologists, psychics, Holocaust deniers, supply-side economists, and everybody else promoting a position contradicted by the facts.
Because that's what we talk about here. Facts, and what we can conclude from them. As Percy has said, creationists claim that not only is their model true on a religious basis, but also an evidentiary, scientific basis. We explore this claim here, so it's incumbent on creationists to defend that claim by showing evidence for creationism, in a manner consistent with the neutral guidelines represented by the scientific method.
But they never, ever do that. If there is any evidence for creationism it has yet to be presented, and none of the rest of us are aware of it. If you have some we'd love to see it.
We do want a balanced site. But you don't balance the truth with lies. Creationists aren't allowed to balance the evidence for evolution with made-up falsehoods that support creationism. If they want to support creationism here they have to do it with evidence. The fact that there apparently isn't any evidence for creationism does put them at a disadvantage; but that's what happens when the model you're putting forth is wrong.
You know, it is one thing to believe creationists are wrong on scientific grounds, it is another thing and an EXTREMELY offensive thing, and in fact a violation of all civilized standards of discourse, to denigrate your opponents' integrity by imputing cheap motives to them as you do in the above paragraph. You are saying that they are content with lies, that they are so morally corrupt they have no dedication to honesty and truth.
For a number of prominent creationists, we do actually have evidence of chicanery and deception. We have evidence that they ignore data, pull quotes out of relevant context, defraud their supporters, offer arguments that they know are false, and so on and so forth. I'm sorry you're shocked to find out that we consider some - not all - of the prominent leaders on your side liars and charlatans, but we do have evidence that they are, and if you'd like to see it, we'll show it to you.
The only fair position would be to give the same benefit of the doubt and same basic respect to them, the same assumption of integrity and honesty, and basic intelligence and logical ability as well, that you would expect from opponents yourself
I for one do give them that benefit of the doubt. But for many of them - Kent Hovind being the most prominent example - there's simply no escaping the conclusion that they are dishonest people. Again, we don't come to this conclusion simply because they're our opponents - that would be unfair - but because we have direct evidence of chicanery on their part.
For my part, I have no problem with creationists who admit that evolution is the best scientific model, that all the evidence points to it at this point, and that it represents the best scientific understanding we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth - but nonetheless insist that it isn't "really" true, that the evidence is God trying to test us, etc. You can't refute that argument. It's entirely possible that God created the world in such a way as to fool us. Whether or not he would have done so is a theological, not a scientific question.
But the creationists who insist that creationism can be a valid scientific model, that in fact it's a better, more accurate explanation of the evidence, need to put up or shut up. When they make that claim, they're saying that they believe that creationism can pass the high bar required for scientific validity. So they should not complain when their model is put to that very same test and found wanting. Evolution, and every other scientific theory for that matter, was put to the same test. That's why we accept it.
For creationists to claim that it's unfair to put them to the same test is tantamount to asking for special treatment, and why should they be allowed to have it?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-18-2005 09:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 8:23 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 334 (192386)
03-18-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
03-18-2005 8:23 PM


Oh, one more thing:
Nothing the Bible says is evidence at all here, but that is absurd.
We do have a forum for the discussion of Bible issues, but just to insert my view:
The Bible is evidence for some things. In particular it's evidence that somebody, somewhere, wrote such-and-such a thing down. The Bible is not completely valueless as a source for information about the period in which it was written, and the subsequent periods in which it was redacted.
But it's not some kind of impeachable source whose literal statements can always be taken as fact. No such source exists. We're not completely against the idea of the Bible, or statements written in the Bible, being evidence for or against a certain thing. But the scope of that evidence needs to be taken into account; for instance none of the authors of the Bible had knowledge of population genetics so the Bible has no credibility as a source on those matters. Just as I wouldn't offer a copy of Pride and Prejudice as an authority on economics, the Bible is not a science textbook. But just as I would offer the same novel as evidence of certain attitudes in England during the Naploeonic War, I might offer the Bible as evidence of certain attitutes among Jews and Christians in various times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 8:23 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 334 (192403)
03-18-2005 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
03-18-2005 9:26 PM


(Faith)I would start off by suggesting that the above attitude so stacks the deck against creationists that it makes me feel like there's hardly any point in beginning to talk to you or anybody else here.
================
(CF) You're absolutely right - the deck is stacked against you, in the same way it's stacked against Flat Earthers, pherenologists, psychics, Holocaust deniers, supply-side economists, and everybody else promoting a position contradicted by the facts.
Yes, thanks a million for that confirmation of my point, Crash, and for confirming the fact that there really is no point in trying to talk to you or anybody else here, as I said one must feel from my side of the fence. Perhaps we have the foolish idea that maybe something would conceivably get through to somebody if we persist and maybe we'll try on that thin foolish hope, depending on how much stomach we have for the daily bath in scientific pretensions and arrogant contempt, or maybe just to try our debate skills in the worst of all possible test situations, or perhaps we'll just leave because we see that it's hopeless. I'm sure you wouldn't even characterize your statement as dogma, would you, but it sure is dogma, impenetrable, unyielding dogma. Some dogma has good support. Yours doesn't but then that's MY dogma.
Because that's what we talk about here. Facts, and what we can conclude from them. As Percy has said, creationists claim that not only is their model true on a religious basis, but also an evidentiary, scientific basis. We explore this claim here, so it's incumbent on creationists to defend that claim by showing evidence for creationism, in a manner consistent with the neutral guidelines represented by the scientific method.
If you only want scientists here, as I said, warn us all up front and the rest of us will go away. But as Percy admitted, even the scientifically knowledgeable creationists don't stick it out here. I believe my diagnosis is correct. Who wants the abuse? The veiled contempt? There's no constructive purpose in it.
But they never, ever do that. If there is any evidence for creationism it has yet to be presented, and none of the rest of us are aware of it. If you have some we'd love to see it.
I'm sorry, but I am very sure, although I haven't followed all the discussions here, that plenty of scientific evidence has been presented to you that you all defeat not by true counterevidence but on the basis of your prejudice. There is really very good evidence at many creationist sites, but you can't process it because it doesn't fit your paradigm. Of course it doesn't, it IS another paradigm. You aren't aware of it but your supposed scientific requirements are really just coercive categorical thinking.
We do want a balanced site. But you don't balance the truth with lies.
Nice line there. Has the ring of fine standards etc. Too bad it's a delusion. Keep it up and you'll be talking to other evolutionists exclusively in no time.
Creationists aren't allowed to balance the evidence for evolution with made-up falsehoods that support creationism. If they want to support creationism here they have to do it with evidence. The fact that there apparently isn't any evidence for creationism does put them at a disadvantage; but that's what happens when the model you're putting forth is wrong.
Well you're making your credo very clear. You don't even know it's a credo. You really think it's supported by evidence. As I said, I wouldn't even try against such a dug-in prejudice any more. (Oh maybe I would under certain circumstances, I'm known for my foolhardy feistiness, but I have certainly lost my enthusiasm for it). But my diagnosis remains accurate. It's the haughty arrogant contempt factor that prevents the balance from happening here. If other evolutionists here all share your view, we really should, rationally speaking, leave you to your pretensions.
(Faith) You know, it is one thing to believe creationists are wrong on scientific grounds, it is another thing and an EXTREMELY offensive thing, and in fact a violation of all civilized standards of discourse, to denigrate your opponents' integrity by imputing cheap motives to them as you do in the above paragraph. You are saying that they are content with lies, that they are so morally corrupt they have no dedication to honesty and truth.
==================
(CF) For a number of prominent creationists, we do actually have evidence of chicanery and deception.
How would that answer my point to Percy who made a generalization to ALL creationists? Besides, I don't trust any of you here to make a proper judgment as to anybody's motivations. I did run across a claim along the lines you are making somewhere on this site and thought how wrongly and unfairly reasoned it was. No deception was proved at all, simply an inability on the part of the interpreter to give the benefit of the doubt and imagine a more reasonable explanation.
We have evidence that they ignore data, pull quotes out of relevant context, defraud their supporters, offer arguments that they know are false, and so on and so forth.
I sincerely doubt that most of that would stand up to scrutiny but would come close to slander, because it comes out of your own preconceived notions about what is the important data, the relevant context, the valid argument for the point being made. A competing paradigm is going to focus on different data, different contexts, different arguments. Also, people make mistakes, believe it or not, may even forget what they said and have a new take on the subject and not be intending any deception whatever. Benefit of the doubt, benefit of the doubt. Not a whole lot of that around here. My own experience so far on this site is that I can't get across a very simple point at least partly because it's swallowed up in preconceptions, and I've even been accused of dastardly deeds when at worst I've worded something ineptly.
I'm sorry you're shocked to find out that we consider some - not all - of the prominent leaders on your side liars and charlatans, but we do have evidence that they are, and if you'd like to see it, we'll show it to you.
You're welcome to present it, but I have quite a bit on my plate at the moment so I can't promise giving it careful consideration right away.
The only fair position would be to give the same benefit of the doubt and same basic respect to them, the same assumption of integrity and honesty, and basic intelligence and logical ability as well, that you would expect from opponents yourself
I for one do give them that benefit of the doubt. But for many of them - Kent Hovind being the most prominent example - there's simply no escaping the conclusion that they are dishonest people. Again, we don't come to this conclusion simply because they're our opponents - that would be unfair - but because we have direct evidence of chicanery on their part.
I dread having to wade through your "evidence" but hey, OK, run it by me. I'll see what I can do with it. But please give me some time to get to it and through it.
For my part, I have no problem with creationists who admit that evolution is the best scientific model, that all the evidence points to it at this point, and that it represents the best scientific understanding we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth - but nonetheless insist that it isn't "really" true, that the evidence is God trying to test us, etc. You can't refute that argument. It's entirely possible that God created the world in such a way as to fool us. Whether or not he would have done so is a theological, not a scientific question.
If that is a common creationist belief I have to say that I reject it with heart and soul. As for evolutionism being the best understanding of the moment, while I can see why it is believed I don't think it is rational. As I said somewhere, even when I was still an atheist and earnestly tried to validate it to myself -- and at the time I took it on faith, I just wanted to prove it because I kept having doubts about it -- I could never find anything I could call actual proof for evolution. It was an extremely frustrating experience. I read all the popular stuff in the field, I even subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer for years, but somehow I never found proof for any of it. A lot of posturing and chest beating about scientific method and facts and evidence and so on, but no actual proof. I have not lost my respect for scientific method and logical argument by any means, in fact I believe my respect has been enhanced since I became a Christian. The proof is simply not there. Since the majority of true science these days is done in the name of evolutionism it gives a scientific aura to the theory, and certainly the habit of evolutionist thinking among genuine honest hardworking scientists makes the whole thing very hard to challenge, but many actual facts that supposedly support the theory in reality are better explained by the Biblical view, and there are a whole raft of facts that the theory doesn't even notice. I'm sure many of your opponents on this site as well as well-known creationists have presented all this evidence, but you simply cannot process the information. Yes I know you will ask for proof of these statements too, and who knows, if I stick around long enough I may actually produce some, but it aint gonna be immediately.
But the creationists who insist that creationism can be a valid scientific model, that in fact it's a better, more accurate explanation of the evidence, need to put up or shut up. When they make that claim, they're saying that they believe that creationism can pass the high bar required for scientific validity. So they should not complain when their model is put to that very same test and found wanting. Evolution, and every other scientific theory for that matter, was put to the same test. That's why we accept it.
I'm sure you believe that with all your heart. I believe creationism has not yet developed into a full blown scientific theory but that they definitely do have much good reasoning on their side and it will only get better over time. Me, if I were running a Christian school I'd channel talented kids -- true Christian Bible believers only of course -- into science classes where they'd have to think their way through both theories with respect to every piece of data that came in view until they were expert at both. This doesn't worry me because I KNOW the Bible is the truth and that eventually the evidence you want will be forthcoming.
For creationists to claim that it's unfair to put them to the same test is tantamount to asking for special treatment, and why should they be allowed to have it?
Well, I for one believe you are wrong and that creationism will eventually explain things much better and that your view of creationism is as I've said simple prejudice, although certainly well supported by what you take to be the best of evidence, as most prejudices are (they really are, and since you consider creationism in the same light, this same extension of grace would be in order that I've just extended to you -- call it sincere and perhaps hidebound belief but based on truly excellent reasons and wrong nevertheless).
Or, since that is your view and the view of most at this site, then Percy should give up on any desire for balance absolutely. It is amply explained by your own attitude. A sign should be posted on the home page warning creationists that the deck is stacked here. That would only be fair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 9:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 334 (192411)
03-18-2005 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
03-18-2005 9:36 PM


Bible as evidence
But it's not some kind of impeachable source whose literal statements can always be taken as fact. No such source exists.
Thanks at least for acknowledging that it is evidence in SOME minuscule ways as even that much has been denied by a poster on this site. But of course I disagree completely with the above, depending on what you mean by "literal" (that's often a huge straw man). The actual message sent to the human race by the God who made us would certainly be the kind of source you say doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't exist to you because you don't believe it is divinely inspired. But to those who believe it is God's revelation to His errant human race, it is certainly the unimpeachable source you deny it to be.
But you believe that it is not utterly dogmatically. You will not allow the slightest credence to the opposing point of view. And beyond that you would denounce such a belief in contemptuous morally indignant tones. So much for "balance" at EvC forum.
We're not completely against the idea of the Bible, or statements written in the Bible, being evidence for or against a certain thing.
Always God's fallen humanity think they are the final judge of His word and His doings. Nothing new there. How patient He is to put up with us for so long.
But the scope of that evidence needs to be taken into account; for instance none of the authors of the Bible had knowledge of population genetics so the Bible has no credibility as a source on those matters.
Of course not. Who would ever claim it did?
Just as I wouldn't offer a copy of Pride and Prejudice as an authority on economics, the Bible is not a science textbook.
Nor does anyone claim it is, but it purports to present actual historical events as facts and taking them as the facts they are presented to be does certainly affect one's scientific viewpoint.
But just as I would offer the same novel as evidence of certain attitudes in England during the Naploeonic War, I might offer the Bible as evidence of certain attitutes among Jews and Christians in various times.
Yes, the typical intellectual approach. Problem is, the Bible ISN'T just the human-originated book you insist it is. It really IS the word of God. Can I prove it? Oh no doubt not. How did I come to believe it? That's a long story, but it had a lot to do with the simple genuineness of its authors in their role of witnesses of amazing events. They are not stupid, they are not primitive, they are not dishonest, they are not any of the things you have to believe they are to disbelieve what they wrote, and what they claim to have witnessed is amazing, outlandish by our modern preconceptions, but because of their simple honesty I know those amazing things really happened and the teachings are truly true. Believing the Bible to be simple truth after a lifetime of atheism is just about the biggest shock to the system imaginable. But a very happy shock, the most wonderful shock. But enough said on a subject that seems to offend people around here.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2005 11:33 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2005 11:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 9:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 334 (192422)
03-19-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
03-18-2005 11:10 PM


Yes, thanks a million for that confirmation of my point, Crash, and for confirming the fact that there really is no point in trying to talk to you or anybody else here, as I said one must feel from my side of the fence.
If you've got something new, some new evidence, we'd love to talk about it.
If you don't, then evolution is still the best explanation. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
If you only want scientists here, as I said, warn us all up front and the rest of us will go away.
I'm no scientist, and I hope I'm welcome. But I understand the rules that science places on how we collect and draw conclusions from evidence.
Evolution has met that challenge. Creationists claim that creationism can meet the same challenge. So why doesn't it?
Keep it up and you'll be talking to other evolutionists exclusively in no time.
Like I said I want to hear the new evidence, if there is any, from any side. New evidence is the only thing that will change my mind. I'm not interested in hearing anything but new evidence. If that means that people who have no new evidence feel that their times is wasted or their contributions are devalued, that doesn't really concern me.
As far as I'm concerned if you don't have new evidence then you're wasting my time. I don't run the place, though.
You really think it's supported by evidence.
Yes, I really do think it's supported by evidence. I don't think that position is a mistake but I'm amienable to the possibility that I'm wrong. (Are you? I doubt it.)
If evolution is disproven, it'll be by the evidence. If you don't have any then you're wasting my time.
How would that answer my point to Percy who made a generalization to ALL creationists?
Well, that's not what he said. He referred to prominent creationists; in other words the people who have been at this long enough and loud enough to attract rebuttals from evolutionists.
I mean there's always a new crop of creationists that simply don't know any better; don't know that what they're putting forth is a tissue of lies. Folks like Kent Hovind and Phillip Johnson know better; they've been exposed to the evidence. (We know that because a lot of the time it happens on tape.) We know they have no legitimate rebuttal. Since they continue to promulgate their arguments in the face of that, we know that they're lying.
Besides, I don't trust any of you here to make a proper judgment as to anybody's motivations.
So ask for the evidence and draw your own conclusions. Ask yourself if the likes of Kent Hovind are the kind of men you want representing your faith, or if their deceitful chicanery reflects poorly on the legitimacy of your message. Answers in Genesis thinks that Kent Hovind reflects so poorly on creationism that they take public steps to distance themselves from him, even though they support almost exactly the same position. Why would that be, do you suppose?
My own experience so far on this site is that I can't get across a very simple point at least partly because it's swallowed up in preconceptions, and I've even been accused of dastardly deeds when at worst I've worded something ineptly.
Those are the risks we all take when we communicate. Lord knows you've misunderstood plenty that we've tried to tell you. And honestly I'm on your side. The model that you offer should stand or fall on it's own merits, not whether or not Kent Hovind is a tax cheat with a fake degree.
I dread having to wade through your "evidence" but hey, OK, run it by me. I'll see what I can do with it. But please give me some time to get to it and through it.
I'm fairly sure there's a thread on that exact subject. Let me see if I can find it. It's actually kind of hard because he's the sort of guy we talk about a lot around here. Here's a thread about his most notable dishonest act - he's offered some amount of money to anyone that can "prove" evolution, the problem is that he doesn't actually have the money he's offering.
EvC Forum: Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000
If that is a common creationist belief I have to say that I reject it with heart and soul.
No, it's not common (unfortunately), but it's not unknown. Most people can't figure out how both the Bible can be true and science can be accurate (as it must be; the success of the technology based on that science puts it beyond doubt) without them agreeing. And they definately don't agree.
I believe creationism has not yet developed into a full blown scientific theory but that they definitely do have much good reasoning on their side and it will only get better over time.
Well, good luck with that. If you ever get your act together and come up with an explanitory, predictive model, and discover the new evidence you'll need to confirm it, I'd be very interested. I'm not automatically opposed, as you seem to think. I used to be a creationist, you know.
But who's doing the work on it? Evolution was developed in the field and the lab. All I ever see creationists doing is trolling internet forums, writing books, and pouring over the Bible. I wouldn't hold your breath expecting scientific breakthroughs from these guys.
and that your view of creationism is as I've said simple prejudice
Well, wait now. I think I have a pretty good idea what creationism is. Particularly the literalist sort that typefies the movement. It's the belief that the Bible in general, and Genesis in particular, are a literal account of the formation of the Earth and the origin of the species that live on it, including the special creation of man. It's the idea that organisms only reproduce within the defined kinds God originally created, and that the features of the Earth that suggest apparent age are side-effects of the global flood described in the Bible.
Am I missing something?
A sign should be posted on the home page warning creationists that the deck is stacked here. That would only be fair.
That sign already exists. It's the warning that this is a science site where we discuss from an evidentiary basis. It's in the forum rules and everything. How did you miss it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 11:10 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 334 (192445)
03-19-2005 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
03-18-2005 8:23 PM


Re: Evo dominance at this site
Hi Faith,
Thanks for the feedback. I understand where you're coming from, I really do, and I think the key difference between Creationism and science is captured by what you say here:
Faith writes:
Nothing the Bible says is evidence at all here, but that is absurd.
If by "evidence" you mean "scientific evidence", then you're correct, the Bible is not considered evidence here. One of the key requirements of science is replicability. A single observation by an expert scientist means little by itself. It is only after the observation has been repeated by many other scientists that it becomes accepted. And a single observation by a layperson with no scientific training a couple thousand years ago in a religious book carries no weight as scientific evidence at all.
Even if we accept Biblical evidence, say if we consider the Noah's flood account as one observation, then the scientific requirement of replicability demands that we verify it by repeating the observation today. This is precisely what early geologists tried to do in the 18th and 19th centuries, and they quickly came to the conclusion, even by the paltry evidence available at that time, that there had never been any global flood. And all evidence gathered since that time has reinforced that view a million million times over.
From a faith standpoint you can know that the flood really happened, but from a scientific standpoint there are no supporting facts. The seriously critical characterizations I made that you found so objectionable have very specific Creationists in mind like Gish, Snelling and Austin among many others who simply make up facts for presentation to the faithful so they can rest easy that evolution is really false. If you doubt the insincere nature of Creationism then just look at the contradictory arguments of Creationism over the past decade or so:
  1. Debates with Creationists used to be dominated by different arguments than today. Issues like lack of moon dust and the shrinking sun were common grist for the debate mill. While the Creationist position on these issues lacked any scientific evidence whatsoever, few were the Creationist websites that didn't repeat these arguments, and many still do, and as a result many Creationists argued that the truth about these issues was being kept from children in science class by evilutionists. Once Creationist organizations like AIG began counseling to avoid these arguments they faded away. We hardly ever see them here anymore.
  2. The water of the flood came from a vapor canopy (ICR), or the water of the flood came from vast underground reservoirs. Switching from one view to the other is easy when evidence doesn't matter.
  3. Traditional Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science class, or ID should be taught alongside evolution in science class. Of course, neither has any scientific supporting evidence. And once traditional Creationists realize that ID does not accept a young earth the fascination with adding it to science curriculums will disappear.
  4. A specific instance of incredible Creationist insincerity: It is a well-established fact of radiometric dating that the longer the half-life of the radiometric element, the less appropriate it is for dating recent events. For example, 14C has a half life of around 5730 years, and so it can validly be used to date events as recent as a hundred years ago. But the half life of 40K is 1.3 billion years, and it can only be used to date events millions of years old, certainly nothing younger than a half million years. Yet Andrew Snelling of ICR turns out paper after paper where he uses K/Ar dating on volcanic events only a hundred or two years old. He gets incorrect results, just as any scientist would expect, and reports them to the faithful as evidence that radiometric dating is flawed. What he's doing is equivalent to using the mile markers on a highway to measure the width of a human hair - of course you'll get wildly inaccurate results. Further proof of Snelling's dissembling are the recent efforts of Creationists Humphreys and Baumgardner described in Message 1.
  5. Another specific instance of incredible Creationist insincerity: Steven Austin's analysis of the age of the Grand Canyon. Austin weaves an extremely complicated web, I won't try to sort it all out in this message but you can see it all unraveled at A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.
So Creationism that once advocated teaching the vapor canopy in classrooms is now advocating teaching ID. What they share is a lack of any scientific foundation, and since evidence isn't involved Creationism will have no problem switching horses once again somewhere down the line.
Science doesn't teach what's true. Science teaches what the methods of science have discovered. If you want to believe that the flood of Noah was a true event that is your right. But there is no scientific evidence for Noah's flood, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or fooling himself or lying.
By the way, it's important to recognize that the objections of Creationism to science go way beyond evolution. To Creationists it is the entire edifice of science that is wrong. In essence Creationists are saying cosmology is wrong, astronomy is wrong, physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, geology is wrong, radiometric dating is wrong, genetics is wrong, paleontology is wrong and archeology is wrong. And I probably forgot a few. To Creationists it must seem that only scientists working on new TVs and new cars and new communication satellites and new medicines and new crops ever get anything right. All the rest just make one stupid mistake after another. Do you really believe this?
The argument that when science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong is a religious argument, not a scientific one. Science is a systematic methodology for learning about the universe we live in. Science class teaches what we've learned using scientific methodology. The knowledge of Creationism comes to us by way of revelation and not by way of scientific methodology, and so it has no place in science class. The evangelical community's desire for inclusion of Creationism in science class is religiously, not scientifically, motivated. Creationism will become represented in science class when it finds support using scientific methodology to find supporting scientific evidence.
And that is how the debate is framed here at EvC Forum. Science *does* have a definition, and it doesn't change just because its methods arrive at conclusions that offend some group's religious sensibilities. Within the science forums one is supposed to argue from evidence that has been established scientifically. Arguing from a Biblical foundation simply concedes at the outset the unscientific nature of Creationism.
If you really believe the Bible contains scientific evidence that trumps observation of the natural world (which is supposedly as much the creation of God as the Bible), then you can make that argument in the [forum=-1], [forum=-6] or [forum=-11] forums. But in the science forums one is expected to argue scientifically.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 03-19-2005 08:16 AM
This message has been edited by Percy, 03-19-2005 09:08 AM
This message has been edited by Percy, 03-19-2005 01:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 8:23 PM Faith has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 9 of 334 (192483)
03-19-2005 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
03-18-2005 11:10 PM


prejudice
I'm sorry, but I am very sure, although I haven't followed all the discussions here, that plenty of scientific evidence has been presented to you that you all defeat not by true counterevidence but on the basis of your prejudice. There is really very good evidence at many creationist sites, but you can't process it because it doesn't fit your paradigm.
Faith - I would be quite interested to see even a single piece of scientific evidence refuting evolution or supporting creationism/ID that can only be defeated by prejudice. Pick something and we'll discuss it - you can point out where and how our counterarguments are prejudicial rather than scientific, and we can discuss that also.
This doesn't worry me because I KNOW the Bible is the truth and that eventually the evidence you want will be forthcoming.
This statement gets to the heart of the problem. It isn't "science" that is prejudiced, it is anyone who claims to KNOW a conclusion is true without any evidence and then seeks to find evidence to support that conclusion - while conveniently ignoring any evidence that refutes it.
This is why "Creation Science" cannot be real science. Since you know the scientific method, you know that the conclusion doesn't come first in science.
You seem to be offended at accusations that Creationism is not science - hopefully you realize that it is also offensive to claim that entire scientific community is either too close-minded or too dishonest to acknowledge piles of evidence from Creationist sources.
Again - I'd like to see the ignored evidence you repeatedly mentioned. I'd be delighted to be that one honest scientist that reveals the truth of Creation through real scientific evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 03-18-2005 11:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 03-19-2005 5:04 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 334 (192566)
03-19-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
03-19-2005 8:11 AM


Re: Evo dominance at this site
Thanks for the feedback. I understand where you're coming from, I really do, and I think the key difference between Creationism and science is captured by what you say here:
Nothing the Bible says is evidence at all here, but that is absurd.
If by "evidence" you mean "scientific evidence", then you're correct, the Bible is not considered evidence here.
What I meant was that the Bible appears to be treated as fiction, not even as a historical record here, same as it is among most academics and scientists and even, sad to say, some people who consider themselves Christians.
One of the key requirements of science is replicability. A single observation by an expert scientist means little by itself. It is only after the observation has been repeated by many other scientists that it becomes accepted. And a single observation by a layperson with no scientific training a couple thousand years ago in a religious book carries no weight as scientific evidence at all.
You describe it as if Moses had picked up a stone and declared it Kryptonite.
Even if we accept Biblical evidence, say if we consider the Noah's flood account as one observation, then the scientific requirement of replicability demands that we verify it by repeating the observation today.
Scientific replicability can't possibly apply to ancient historical events. They are one-of-a-kind events by definition. If an earthquake in 1500 BC made a huge crack in the earth into which thousands of people fell and were buried, you don't expect to replicate that event in order to find out if it really happened. How much of what we know about the time of the Greeks and Romans is known only by the report of a single historian here and there? History isn't science and can't be verified by scientific method, but it is a source of knowledge in its own right. And while we may reenact this or that historical event, say a war, we try to be true to the historical accounts, and consider it wrong to deviate from them. Except when it comes to the Bible, of course, which is apparently fair game for all manner of revisionist rewriting these days.
This is precisely what early geologists tried to do in the 18th and 19th centuries,
Do you really mean that they tried to REPLICATE the Flood? Don't you mean they looked for EVIDENCE of the Flood?
and they quickly came to the conclusion, even by the paltry evidence available at that time, that there had never been any global flood. And all evidence gathered since that time has reinforced that view a million million times over.
Well, that sure does open and shut the case with a bang, doesn't it? I guess the only way I can hope to refute this claim is by thoroughly studying just what "paltry evidence" they drew their conclusions from. My impression has been that scientific thinking in general back in those days left a lot to be desired, according to scientists themselves, but in this instance apparently it's given an unusual respect. Heck, even "cold" murder cases can be reopened and new evidence be brought to light.
From a faith standpoint you can know that the flood really happened, but from a scientific standpoint there are no supporting facts.
I believe that there are many supporting facts but evolutionists dismiss them on the basis of apparent contradictory facts and scenarios of their own imagination. No theory has ONLY supporting facts in its favor. Science isn't omniscient. You have some supporting facts and some contradictory facts and a lot of obscure who-knows-what plus a working hypothesis and you juggle it all. But in the case of the Flood the supporting facts are simply swallowed up by the evolutionist preconceptions. It is not the case that there are NO supporting facts for creationist views. Much of the actual data that is appropriated to evolutionism can be explained in creationist terms just as well, but the evolutionist explanation is simply preferred, not scientifically validated over the other, merely preferred.
Did complex biological organs require a Designer or could they have arisen by the juggling of genes over millions of years? There is no PROOF of either. There is no way to REPLICATE anything whatever for such a question. It is ENTIRELY a matter of extrapolation, conceptualization and inference. In the end there is only the PREFERENCE for the evolutionist explanation that gives it the prize.
The seriously critical characterizations I made that you found so objectionable have very specific Creationists in mind like Gish, Snelling and Austin among many others who simply make up facts for presentation to the faithful so they can rest easy that evolution is really false. If you doubt the insincere nature of Creationism then just look at the contradictory arguments of Creationism over the past decade or so:
Debates with Creationists used to be dominated by different arguments than today. Issues like lack of moon dust and the shrinking sun were common grist for the debate mill. While the Creationist position on these issues lacked any scientific evidence whatsoever, few were the Creationist websites that didn't repeat these arguments, and many still do, and as a result many Creationists argued that the truth about these issues was being kept from children in science class by evilutionists. Once Creationist organizations like AIG began counseling to avoid these arguments they faded away. We hardly ever see them here anymore.
How does this prove deception? So they were wrong. Yes they are driven by a need to disprove evolutionism and that certainly does open up opportunities for foolish false assertions, but you have no reason to think they didn't BELIEVE what they were teaching was the truth. Probably a major problem with KNOWING the Flood happened is that it can all too easily lower the scientific standards for proof, and the desperation to protect children from atheism adds to the problem. But this isn't deception or nefarious motives, it's simply deficient thinking. They're getting smarter thanks to AIG among other influences though.
And I'm sure much of creationism has been scientifically loony, I'll give you that. But loony isn't deceitful, it's just loony.
The water of the flood came from a vapor canopy (ICR), or the water of the flood came from vast underground reservoirs. Switching from one view to the other is easy when evidence doesn't matter.
Both those ideas have their source in the Biblical account which speaks of the opening of the "fountains of the deep" and waters of the "firmament." I don't know if there would ever be a way to find out what that meant even accepting that it is true. And again, I can't count "switching" from one idea to another to be deception. It's perhaps desperation and bad science but these guys KNOW there was a Flood. They are simply too eager to pounce on anything that appears to support it. There is no need to suppose any kind of intentional deception at all. But it is very bad for their cause that they have been so incautious.
Traditional Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science class, or ID should be taught alongside evolution in science class. Of course, neither has any scientific supporting evidence. And once traditional Creationists realize that ID does not accept a young earth the fascination with adding it to science curriculums will disappear.
This is all such a nasty can of worms I just want Christians to pull their children out of public school and either homeschool or start up Christian schools. There really isn't just one coherent creationist theory to be taught alongside evolutionism, there are many observations that may support Biblical claims however, and I would teach children not to accept ANY theory myself, just learn how to think about evidence. I'm not impressed at ALL with how evolutionists deal with evidence at least in most popularized reports. They ASSUME the theory and CRAM the data into it. You can't even find out what the facts are about a given phenomenon. What did this particular fossil really look like? Where was it found exactly, what were the conditions of the find? Are there other fossils nearby? I would expect this to be the relevant information, from which the reader could possibly draw conclusions of his own, but what you get instead is the evolutionist INTERPRETATION, not the bare facts. This is what kept frustrating me when I kept trying to prove evolutionary theory. You don't get facts to think from, you get only theory in the place of the facts. When it supposedly lived and what it supposedly evolved from etc. All theory no fact. I laugh when I see a plaque telling me how old a rock formation in the mountains is and the name of that period of time instead of what kind of rock it is and how it got there. THAT could be considered deception but I suppose it's done in good faith. Other possible explanations of any given phenomenon are simply ruled out at the beginning -- even the ability to THINK about the phenonmenon is rendered impossible as you are simply left with this one and only possible interpretation of the data.
A specific instance of incredible Creationist insincerity: It is a well-established fact of radiometric dating that the longer the half-life of the radiometric element, the less appropriate it is for dating recent events. For example, 14C has a half life of around 5730 years, and so it can validly be used to date events as recent as a hundred years ago. But the half life of 40K is 1.3 billion years, and it can only be used to date events millions of years old, certainly nothing younger than a half million years. Yet Andrew Snelling of ICR turns out paper after paper where he uses K/Ar dating on volcanic events only a hundred or two years old. He gets incorrect results, just as any scientist would expect, and reports them to the faithful as evidence that radiometric dating is flawed. What he's doing is equivalent to using the mile markers on a highway to measure the width of a human hair - of course you'll get wildly inaccurate results. Further proof of Snelling's dissembling are the recent efforts of Creationists Humphreys and Baumgardner described in Message 1 (Thread Accelerated Radioactive Decay).
Of course I'm incapable of judging any of this. But I doubt nefarious motives. Always seems the best policy.
Another specific instance of incredible Creationist insincerity: Steven Austin's analysis of the age of the Grand Canyon. Austin weaves an extremely complicated web, I won't try to sort it all out in this message but you can see it all unraveled at A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.
So Creationism that once advocated teaching the vapor canopy in classrooms is now advocating teaching ID. What they share is a lack of any scientific foundation, and since evidence isn't involved Creationism will have no problem switching horses once again somewhere down the line.
I'll give you that they seem to be thrashing around in the dark, but I'm not prepared to give you nefarious motives.
Science doesn't teach what's true. Science teaches what the methods of science have discovered.
Well, as I point out above, scientific method can't validate or invalidate historical events because replication is impossible with historical events and the idea that it is applicable at all is already bad thinking. The Flood of course should be subject to scientific evidence, if it left evidence, though not replication. You can't even extrapolate credibly from observed conditions such as local floods to a worldwide flood as described in the Bible, because there had to be too many unique factors involved, but I'd say that Morris' extrapolations from his hydraulic models have more credibility than extrapolations from sediment deposits in deltas or even oceans to the idea that millions of years of sedimentation of only one kind are packed into one layer of the Geologic Column. Neither is the Geologic Time Table subject to replication. You can only extrapolate from observed events, from historically validatable time frames to historically INvalidatable time frames, and in that arena I find a lot of boggle and little credibility.
If you want to believe that the flood of Noah was a true event that is your right. But there is no scientific evidence for Noah's flood, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or fooling himself or lying.
There's a ton of such evidence but that evidence is currently appropriated to evolutionism. MOST of the actual facts support a worldwide Flood as well or better than they support great ages theory. You refute the Flood idea by this or that apparent contradiction in some local phenomenon here or there, or by an imaginative scenario about what kind of evidence such a Flood would have left, but seeming contradictions may eventually be corrected by better explanations of the facts, and reasonable imaginative scenarios are not confined to evolutionist assumptions.
By the way, it's important to recognize that the objections of Creationism to science go way beyond evolution. To Creationists it is the entire edifice of science that is wrong. In essence Creationists are saying cosmology is wrong, astronomy is wrong, physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, geology is wrong, radiometric dating is wrong, genetics is wrong, paleontology is wrong and archeology is wrong. And I probably forgot a few. To Creationists it must seem that only scientists working on new TVs and new cars and new communication satellites and new medicines and new crops ever get anything right. All the rest just make one stupid mistake after another. Do you really believe this?
Observations and experiments are solid science and I don't see Creationists disputing actual facts, except maybe dating methods, which MAY not be as trustworthy as they are claimed anyway. It is the extrapolations and interpretations of the observations that are not necessarily trustworthy. These are derived from the theory. I have no doubt that geneticists have excellent knowledge of how DNA works. But I have no reason to believe that one species ever evolves into another -- the claims that this has been observed are terminological (definition of "species"), not actual.
The argument that when science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong is a religious argument, not a scientific one.
What is a "religious argument?" This notion all hinges on whether or not the events recorded in the Bible are historically true, and that's not a "religious" argument, it's an argument about FACT. You simply deny that the report is true. You really HAVEN'T proven that it isn't true, though you believe you have. Evolutionists make assumptions about what kind of evidence a Flood should have left and claim it didn't happen because they don't see that kind of evidence, as if they were able to posit all the possibilities from their own fallible imagination, but that just about imputes omniscience to scientists. There are plenty of other possibilities than just those assumptions.
Science is a systematic methodology for learning about the universe we live in. Science class teaches what we've learned using scientific methodology.
Not when it subsumes observable facts into theory before the student has had time to digest the observable facts themselves. Oh, this is a creature that lived in such and such a period and evolved from such and such.... No it isn't. It's a skeleton or a bone or a fossil that has certain describable attributes that was found in such and such a place in such and such an environment ... Oh, this stack of rocks is a record of the great ages of time all the way back to 600 million years. No it isn't. It is a stack of rocks of particular properties in particular positions found in particular environments and different ones are found in those different environments... That's science. The other stuff is all interpretation. And not the kind of interpretation that can ever be verified or falsified such as, say, Galileo's theory of the earth's movement around the sun could be, as the interpretations of the Geologic Column cannot be replicated or tested in any way at all. Unless you want to rest the entire thing on radiometric dating and ignore everything else, and then we can just wait around until assumptions about radiometric dating are falsified.
The knowledge of Creationism comes to us by way of revelation and not by way of scientific methodology,
It TAKES OFF FROM the Bible, but the science involved cannot come from the Bible and is not built on revelation at all by any creationist argument I've ever read.
and so it has no place in science class. The evangelical community's desire for inclusion of Creationism in science class is religiously, not scientifically, motivated. Creationism will become represented in science class when it finds support using scientific methodology to find supporting scientific evidence.
I have no interest in including creationism in public schools. The political climate is too hostile. I want it explored in private schools. I believe I have good reasons not to trust the scientific credentials of evolutionism in any case as I've said above. Daily science, experiments, observations, yes, that's science. Evolutionism isn't.
And that is how the debate is framed here at EvC Forum. Science *does* have a definition, and it doesn't change just because its methods arrive at conclusions that offend some group's religious sensibilities. Within the science forums one is supposed to argue from evidence that has been established scientifically. Arguing from a Biblical foundation simply concedes at the outset the unscientific nature of Creationism.
I don't argue from a Biblical foundation. I'm very careful not to. And all I would claim for the Bible in the scientific arena is that it is a historical record and has been regarded as such by many of the greatest thinkers in Western Civilization up until quite recently. Nevertheless I haven't used that in any argument here, either, merely somewhere had the temerity to refute somebody's absolute dismissal of the Bible as evidence of any kind whatever.
If you really believe the Bible contains scientific evidence that trumps observation of the natural world (which is supposedly as much the creation of God as the Bible),
You can't have contradictions between the revealed word of God and the creation of God. The Bible is unique in that it is known by believers throughout time as the revelation of the nature of God by His own direct intervention and inspiration, which we have no other means of knowing because of the spiritual death we inherit from the Fall. There is an immense testimony of withnesses to its supernatural origin back to Moses and up through the greats of Western history including scientists.
BUT fear not. I have not claimed that the Bible contains "scientific evidence" only historical fact, AND I am careful to avoid arguing from it even about historical fact. I may argue FOR it from time to time but I know better than to argue FROM it in such a hostile environment.
then you can make that argument in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy, Faith and Belief or The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forums. But in the science forums one is expected to argue scientifically.
[Edit: bottom of post was cut off. Here's the rest of it.] Again, I haven't argued FROM the Bible here. As for the Bible sites I'm really not attracted to the usual Bible debunkery debates, but eventually I'll take a look at them.
span class=LI1>This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2005 07:30 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2005 07:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-19-2005 8:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 03-19-2005 10:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 03-20-2005 1:24 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 334 (192567)
03-19-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by pink sasquatch
03-19-2005 11:57 AM


Re: prejudice
This doesn't worry me because I KNOW the Bible is the truth and that eventually the evidence you want will be forthcoming.
quote:
This statement gets to the heart of the problem. It isn't "science" that is prejudiced, it is anyone who claims to KNOW a conclusion is true without any evidence and then seeks to find evidence to support that conclusion - while conveniently ignoring any evidence that refutes it.
See, we have a logical problem here. Just because I know the Bible is the truth does not mean I'm doing science from it here.
Yes, of course creationists start from assumptions you guys don't, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Nobody is expecting YOU to share those assumptions, and the whole effort is to support them with evidence just the way Darwin set out to find evidence to support the theory of evolution which had been in the air for decades. It's a perfectly valid way of proceeding.
It is true that BECAUSE we know the Bible is the truth that any evidence that seems to refute the Bible itself is going to be treated as simply wrong. However if it merely refutes theories generated by the Bible, which of course can be wrong, and it really is solid refutation, it ought to be accepted. And in fact I'm sure the acceptance of such refutations explains the "shifting" from one kind of explanation to another creationists do that is complained about here.
Sorry, I'm worn out from answering Percy's post so just wanted to answer this much of yours for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-19-2005 11:57 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-19-2005 9:21 PM Faith has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6872 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 12 of 334 (192594)
03-19-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
03-19-2005 1:24 AM


quote:
A sign should be posted on the home page warning creationists that the deck is stacked here. That would only be fair.
That sign already exists. It's the warning that this is a science site where we discuss from an evidentiary basis. It's in the forum rules and everything. How did you miss it?
Actually, the sign says 'EvC Forum'. One would assume that the 'C' part would receive equal consideration in discussion going strictly by the sign.
Not only are you highly disrespectful of the believer, other than what you believe, you believe you have the answers to the universe, when you have a thimble barely full with variations on a theme that ripple into variations of variations of.............but have not rippled into whence came that 'first matter', 'first ingredient' that would give you all proof. You cannot even agree among yourselves, at least we agree that there is a God.
Evolution has met what challenge? Proof of what? There is no God?
No, you have not done that. What you have done is taken material you have found, has already existed, and played with it until it has yielded some of its secrets. Commendable.
You ask some lame questions of Christians about their belief, and have long beforehand decided that any answer, regardless, will not be acceptable. You argue against a relationship with God without first making sure you have an argument based on evidence that there isn't one. You refuse to accept the formula that makes belief possible for the Christian, without understanding that it is not asked of you to accept it for yourself.
You are like wilfull children, who enjoy tormenting that which they consider weaker than themselves. Bullies, schoolyard gangsters, devoid of understanding of the first thing that science teaches, or should teach - respect for life.
You make me ashamed.

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2005 1:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2005 7:40 PM PecosGeorge has replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2005 8:07 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 334 (192595)
03-19-2005 7:18 PM


Disparagement
Just a general response to the general topic. Percy started out by saying he really wanted to have a balanced forum here in which creationists took as strong a part as evolutionists.
I answered that that can't happen because the deck is stacked against creationists from the getgo. The assumptions are evolutionist and the sympathies are evolutionist.
Basic politeness does, however, go a long way, and unfortunately that too is lacking here. Disparaging creationism is one thing, disparaging creationists just plain uncivilized.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2005 7:45 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 334 (192599)
03-19-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PecosGeorge
03-19-2005 7:17 PM


Evolution has met what challenge?
The challenge of being a scientific theory. That is, the challenge of being falsifiable, parsimonious, tentative, and coherent. Those aren't easy conditions to meet.
Creationists assert that creationism can meet the same challenge, but they're never able to show that to be the case.
You refuse to accept the formula that makes belief possible for the Christian, without understanding that it is not asked of you to accept it for yourself.
But that's exactly what you're asking. You're asking to have it taught in school as science. You're asking to have it employed in biology as an explanitory framework. You're asking to have it considered as the underpinning of medicine. I could go on and on - there are plenty of situations where you're asking people to accept creationist models like they're really true and really science.
Bullies, schoolyard gangsters, devoid of understanding of the first thing that science teaches, or should teach - respect for life.
I have plenty of respect for life. I have no respect for lies offered as truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-19-2005 7:17 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-19-2005 9:42 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 334 (192601)
03-19-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
03-19-2005 7:18 PM


The assumptions are evolutionist
I tried to open a thread to discuss this very topic, but it was felt it would be redundant to this thread. So perhaps we can discuss that very issue here.
To what assumptions do you refer, and in what way are they evolutionist? Around here, we proceed according to the philosophic guidelines that tell us what is science and what is not; those include falsifiability, coherence, tentativity, and parsimony. I don't see how those constitute a stacked deck for evolution as opposed to any other truly scientific theory.
the sympathies are evolutionist.
This I can understand and sympathize with. But that's what happens when the vast majority of the scientific community rejects your model; when no creationist is able to successfully defend their position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-19-2005 7:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 03-19-2005 8:51 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 31 by PecosGeorge, posted 03-19-2005 10:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024