Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why should evolution be accepted on authority?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 166 (169753)
12-18-2004 4:59 PM


I've been fiddling with this idea obliquely, and I was wondering if it might be a good topic.
I myself accept evolution "on authority," but can't quite figure out a rationale for this acceptance. It's no good to say, "Well, it's obvious that you are convinced by all the evidence": the evidence itself is being accepted by me on authority.
Definitions:
"to accept on authority"--to believe a proposition because you trust those who give you the information, even though you have no direct access to the evidence.
"no way to access the evidence"--
This doesn't mean it's not physically possible to access it, but that it is impractical.
To read a book is not to access the information directly. It's still secondhand knowledge which we accept on the authority of the author.
Possible contention: Often these specialists we trust (medical doctors,etc.) turn out to be wrong. Some of them, in fact, are crooks. Why shouldn't we be as wary of scientists who study evolution as we are of automotive mechanics? Both are mere "specialists."
In fact [a creationist might argue] most of these scientists are liberal agnostics or atheists who might very well have, consciously or unconsciously, an anti-religious agenda. An insidious bias as a result might infiltrate all their work. If you took a poll of the percentage of "liberals" among university professors, the number would approach 90% [I made the number up, but my personal experience tells me this might be accurate].
Why should we trust such people?
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-18-2004 05:00 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2004 11:58 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2004 11:59 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2004 10:44 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 12-19-2004 3:48 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 4 by Trixie, posted 12-19-2004 3:51 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2004 4:56 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 12-19-2004 5:13 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 11 by Quetzal, posted 12-19-2004 6:40 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2004 7:50 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 16 by lfen, posted 12-19-2004 8:10 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 39 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-20-2004 5:30 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2004 1:45 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2004 5:25 PM robinrohan has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 166 (169901)
12-19-2004 3:31 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 166 (169904)
12-19-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-18-2004 4:59 PM


robinrohan writes:
quote:
I myself accept evolution "on authority," but can't quite figure out a rationale for this acceptance. It's no good to say, "Well, it's obvious that you are convinced by all the evidence": the evidence itself is being accepted by me on authority.
Interesting question since I, like you apparently, am not a scientist and have to accept what I'm told on authority. However, it is within my power to investigate that authority. When I do so, and I find that no valid scientific theory stands in opposition to ToE, I feel quite comfortable accepting ToE.
Of course, there are other theories. Trouble is they aren't scientific. In one way or another they depend on the supernatural. Science deals only with the natural and thus by definition theories depending on the supernatural are not scientific.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2004 4:59 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 4 of 166 (169905)
12-19-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-18-2004 4:59 PM


Scientists and car mechanics
Iwould just like to comment on the comparison of Scientists and car mechanics as it's a telling one.
If a mechanic tells me that I need certain things done to my car and I tell him to go ahead, I'm accepting the facts on authority. However, if I say to him "OK, lay all the faulty parts out and I'll have a look at them, I'm a mechanic too", then I don't believe that that constitutes accepting things on authority. Similarly scientists actually lay out the parts they've looked at - they describe their materials and methods in such a way that anyone who wishes to repeat their work can do. Scientists don't ask anyone to accept their findings on authority.
Furthermore, all scientific findings are subject to peer review before they are published and then subject to scrutiny of the entire scientific community in that field after they are published. However, how many car mechanics have been asked to lay out the faulty parts for examination? I know very little about cars and laying out the parts before me would be a waste of time, but then I could always ask another mechanic to do the examination for me, a bit like scientific peer review. Those who know something about the subject do the checking.
Really what I'm trying to say is that we don't accept scientific findings on authority, more on the judgement of those best qualified to assess them. By that, I don't mean the ones who carried out the work, but the broader scientific community. Only after rigorous peer review do most of us accept scientific findings, no matter who the original author is.
Edited in a vain attempt to make any sense
This message has been edited by Trixie, 12-19-2004 03:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2004 4:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 10:32 PM Trixie has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 166 (169909)
12-19-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-18-2004 4:59 PM


Firstly there is a difference between accepting the word of a single scientist over accepting the consensus of the scientific community.
Individuals may be dishonest, but systematic dishonesty among so many scientists, with so many differing points of view and all the conflicts and hostilities within the community is not even plausible.
The consensus view may be mistaken on many things but it is still likely closer to the truth than any particular maverick (sometimes mavericks turn out to be right - but more often they are wrong).
So, if you are going to accept an answer on authority then the scientific consensus is one of the safest bets going.
And of couse it is possible to check out some of the evidence - I've seen the Archaeopteryx fossil kept in London and other "dino-birds".
And don't forget that many scientists are religious - Kenneth Miller for instance. If a creationist tries the line that religious bias is a significant factor then he's either ignorant or lying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2004 4:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 5:21 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 19 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 8:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 166 (169911)
12-19-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-18-2004 4:59 PM


Excellent topic, Robin.
robinrohan writes:
Often these specialists we trust (medical doctors,etc.) turn out to be wrong. Some of them, in fact, are crooks.
This is true. Scientists can be wrong in two ways: they can either be, as you say, crooks - or, to put it more appropriately, frauds; or they can be honest, but still wrong.
Frauds will be found out eventually. And honest scientists who are nevertheless wrong, will also be corrected by their peers sooner or later. The scientific method ensures this.
What's more, by being wrong, these honest scientists have done us a favour: they have shown us what is not the truth about something, and they have thus helped us along on the way of progress.
Something else to consider in this matter is that scientists are also often right. And even though we lay people cannot always examine their evidence ourselves, what we can do is witness that the results the scientists produce actually work. We can use inventions that are based on their theories. For example, we can use antibiotics to treat bacterial infections. (And in doing so, we can even witness evolution at work when we discover that over time the antibiotics don't kill bacteria anymore, because the bacteria has evolved and become resistent.)

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2004 4:59 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 166 (169912)
12-19-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
12-19-2004 4:56 PM


Paul, no creationist said religious bias is a significant factor in this topic. You invoked creationists being bad to take the heat off the topic, which infact pertains to evolutionists - and if we should accept what they tell us. So pa-lease, -- don't make any off-topic remarks about "if a creationist brushes his teeth I get upset, because evolutionists also do that".
Now since us believers take heat from being under authority - it's your turn.
Tell me - how can I do an experiment to show that macro-evolution happens? Because my family have been breeding horses for thousands of years in hope of breeding something other than a horse. Please tell us when we can test macro-evolution in our own homes.
Meanwhile, we trust people like Einstein because of his predictions - and if we want to see that the earth is spherical, then we can look at any snapshot from orbit. And if we want to test the big bang we can put on our tv, but I still await my own home test for evolution.
So untill there is one - I'm not going to gullibly swallow this ape to man nonsense when I can trust God because he was there at the time. This evolution theory just isn't as solid as the other sciences, and seems to take some belief from the individual, as it seems no one can test macro-evolution, and therefore - only have there own reasons to believe in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2004 4:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2004 6:16 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 12-19-2004 7:38 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 38 by Parasomnium, posted 12-20-2004 5:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2004 2:58 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 166 (169919)
12-19-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
12-19-2004 5:21 PM


Oh here we go again with another case of Mike refusing to read.
I was directly answering an point made in the first post. So my remark is neither a diversion, nor off-topic.
If you want experiments providing support for macroevolution that I can makke suggestions - the evidence from genetics is a clear example. You can't do it in your own house - but then you can't do experiemnts in high energy physics in your house either. I don't see you rejecting the existence of quarks just becaue you can't test them at home.
Nor have you got a home test for relativity - and you even accept the success of Einstein's predictions on authority. You've got a clear double-standard there.
And don't pretend that you're trusting God. You're trusting a human interpetation of a human writing. Or moe likely you're just worshipping yourself. You don't have to read much creationsit stuff to see what a high regard creationsits have for their own opinions - so great that they can't be bothered to even take a basic look at the real facts. Just as you did with the start of your post. And if you follow your usual form you'll refuse to admit that you could be wrong even though it all comes down to your refusal to properly read the statements you're attacking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 5:21 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 6:26 PM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 9 of 166 (169924)
12-19-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
12-19-2004 6:16 PM


ANd as usual - you don't see the point I am making.
"IF a creationist says" or "creationists might say" - doesn't make a creationist guilty of saying anything. It's the same in Dan's thread - strawmans about us creationists that we don't actually make.
Here's another suggestion that proves nothing whatsoever; Evolutionists might say that all creationists must die.
This is the prevailing strawman method in place with you guys lately.
robonrohan writes:
In fact [a creationist might argue] most of these scientists are liberal agnostics or atheists who might very well have, consciously or unconsciously, an anti-religious agenda.
THEN;
Paul writes:
. If a creationist tries the line that religious bias is a significant factor then he's either ignorant or lying.
Hmmmm. Yet still no creationist who has done what you are both suggesting. Hmmm, good job mike's logic is so good.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2004 06:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2004 6:16 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2004 6:39 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 166 (169927)
12-19-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
12-19-2004 6:26 PM


Like I said your point is that we should all censor ourselves in case you manage to misread something and take offence. I'm tired of dealing with this sort of crap from you Mike especially when you lack the integrity to acxtaully accept correction
Robin suggestes that a creationist might use a particular argument and I responed by pointing out that it didn't work. That is not a strawman.
And in fact it is an argument that some creationists HAVE used. As I am sure you know. So there is no way that it could be a strawman.
And yes, Mike your logic is apparently so bad that you don't understand the word "if". Even if no creationist had done what Robin suggested there would still be nothing wrong with what either of us said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 6:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 7:13 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 9:39 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 166 (169928)
12-19-2004 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-18-2004 4:59 PM


Excellent topic, Robin. I agree with most of what has been written in response (well, except Mike's, obviously). The question you finished up with: "Why should we trust such people?" is the heart of the issue. Para mentioned "because it works", but I'm not convinced that's the whole answer, although I'd say it's probably a significant part.
There IS a danger in accepting the word of anyone, scientist included, for a claim (i.e., accepting on authority). As PaulK and others pointed out, errar humanum est. Even several scientists can agree with each other, but still be wrong. For instance, I'm currently re-reading some of the controversy over the bolide-impact-as-cause debate surrounding the Permian-Triassic mass extinction (okay, so, I have no life. Everybody has a hobby — extinction is mine ). A fair selection of scientists accepted the report - many others did not. A decade more data later, it appears a bolide probably wasn't implicated. So the likliehood now is that those who originally supported the hypothesis were wrong: there are other explanations for the data.
Where does this leave the rest of us? I mean, I’m not a geologist and most of the evidence for the P-T bolide is geological. How do I evaluate the claim and avoid jumping on the bandwagon simply because some group of scientists make a statement — or even published a paper in Science (as was the case here) without having either the background expertise to directly evaluate the data, or the time/resources necessary to go to Japan and elsewhere and look at the rocks myself? I submit that ANY claim can be evaluated by anyone who wants to take the time to do it: even, on occasion, without esoteric knowledge.
The following six rules are adopted and adapted from an essay by James Lett, A Field Guide to Critical Thinking, originally published in Skeptical Inquirer (Winter, 1990). It is by far and away the best guideline I’ve encountered, and one I personally use repeatedly.
1. It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.
2. Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be logically sound and valid.
3. The evidence offered for a claim must take into consideration all available evidence.
4. Evidence offered in support of a claim must be evaluated without self-deception.
5. An independent observer, under the same conditions and circumstances, must be able to achieve the same results.
6. The evidence offered in support of a claim must be adequate to establish the truth of the claim.
There’s a corollary to rule 6 that directly addresses the authority issue: evidence based on testimony and/or recourse to authority is not sufficient to prove the truth or falsehood of a claim.
The idea is that if you can subject a claim to all six of these rules, and it passes, then you’re reasonably able to state with some confidence the claim is true. It doesn’t guarantee the truth, however. Disconfirming evidence might be found tomorrow that throws the whole thing out the window. YOU don’t have to re-perform the exact observations or experiments, but YOU can and should apply critical thinking to the claims — regardless of who said it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2004 4:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 10:03 PM Quetzal has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 166 (169930)
12-19-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
12-19-2004 6:39 PM


Even if no creationist had done what Robin suggested there would still be nothing wrong with what either of us said.
Ermm - no, you both imply this invisible creationist MIGHT say something or IF he says something...And I'm telling you that this doesn't mean that a creationist has done something.
If they do this then they are guilty.
They are not guilty = they haven't done it. - and so far, you haven't provded they do do it.
I actually mention it - because it's how bullsh** starts pertaining to creationists.
Example;
"Baba might eat humans"
"If baba eats humans, he's a degenerate"
"What? - that's disgusting that babas eat humans".
I see this all the time with evos here - a great example is that all christians say you are going to burn in hell. I'm still waiting for a christian to say this.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2004 08:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2004 6:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2004 2:32 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5261 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 13 of 166 (169937)
12-19-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
12-19-2004 5:21 PM


Mike, with all due respect I don't see the point you are making very clearly either. But I’ll make a stab at it.
I read you as making two points, which I will tackle in reverse order. The two points see to be denying that creationists think scientist have a religious bias (or anti-religious bias); and insistence that macroevolution cannot be shown by experiment.
On macroevolution, you say this:
mike the wiz writes:
Tell me - how can I do an experiment to show that macro-evolution happens? Because my family have been breeding horses for thousands of years in hope of breeding something other than a horse. Please tell us when we can test macro-evolution in our own homes.
Meanwhile, we trust people like Einstein because of his predictions - and if we want to see that the earth is spherical, then we can look at any snapshot from orbit. And if we want to test the big bang we can put on our tv, but I still await my own home test for evolution.
The comparison with the big bang is apt. It deals with events and conditions that occurred long ago, but which leave traces in the present that have been sufficient to show it occurred beyond any reasonable doubt. Details are still being worked out of course, but the fundamentals of expansion of space from conditions of enormous heat and density about 13 to 14 billion years ago is solid.
In the same way macroevolution deals with events and conditions that occurred long ago, but which leave traces in the present that have been sufficient to show it occurred beyond any reasonable doubt. Details are still being worked out of course, but the fundamentals of common descent and development of modern living forms from primitive forms a few billion years ago is solid.
As for the experiments; in your home you can look at CMBR radiation on your TV; it accounts for something from 1 to 10% of the snow on a TV tuned to a band without broadcasts. That would not be enough for a scientist, however. We only know this is CMBR because of far more subtle and careful experiments, by such things as the COBE and WMAP space observatories.
In the same way; in your own home you can identify nested patterns of similarity in your pets and other animals; and in a field trip you can find fossils for yourself. This would not be enough for a scientist. We only know this is due to diverging lineages from common ancestors because of far more subtle and careful experiments, including carefully measured characteristics of living and things and traces of extinct forms; and by such things as protein and genome sequencing, which have revealed a host of evidence that is explained only by cumulative variations in lineages diverging from common ancestors — macroevolution.
In both cases, you can learn about the evidence by reading. This brings up the point in the OP, about trust. I believe a major reason for the trust we have in science is that it is a community exercise. We don’t have nearly the trust in individuals as we do in conclusions that are supported by large numbers of independent investigators; and when effectively all but a few mavericks are content with a scientific model, we have very good reason to trust it. It is still not the same as an absolute trust in scripture (for example) because we expect new information and new revisions; but the fundamentals become pretty secure.
We also trust the critical review process in science to weed out bad ideas, because we’ve seen it work in history. We don’t see the same thing in creationist work. It is not homogenous; and though different creationists can identify errors in one another’s work, the errors don’t die out in the same way; but persist as two sets of creationists calling one another heretics or compromisers or whatever.
We’ve discussed the evidence for macroevolution here a number of times; you seem to think it is weak, and I think it is very strong indeed. I’m relaxed about that. I note that the scientific community is overwhelmingly agreed with my perspective on this; and that is certainly naked appeal to authority. But the basis for that appeal is, I consider, very strong. I don’t stop at merely trusting the majority; I can read more about the scientific consensus and the evidence that scientists find persuasive, and track what aspects are well supported and what are more speculative.
It is also significant that the support for macroevolution cuts right across religious and cultural boundaries. Many scientists are Christians; including some of the really outstanding top rank evolutionary biologists and theorists. That also tends to undermine the claim that evolution is based more on philosophy than evidence.
Which brings us to the second point I see you making:
mike the wiz writes:
Paul, no creationist said religious bias is a significant factor in this topic.
That is simply not true. It is commonly claimed by creationists (with varying degrees of vehemence and rationality) that evolution is driven by a desire to disprove the bible or by an effectively religious faith in an atheistic materialism.
The late lamented WillowTree was notorious for claiming that all evolutionists are atheists, even if they claim to be Christians; he is now busy preaching this message in other forums.
Jonathan Sarfati also considers religious bias to be a significant factor in evolution; he argues this is the dreadful article Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias.
On the other side of the coin, there are some creationists (Kurt Wise springs to mind) who agree that on the face of it, the evidence supports evolution and an old earth; but that he is a young earth creationist because he prefers to trust the bible. That is, he is saying that creationism is founded primarily on a religious trust in the bible; this is acknowledging freely his religious bias.
On the other hand, who cares? Bias is bound to be significant in individual perspectives on a matter. That is why trust is better not placed in individuals, but in mutually confirming arguments from many individuals. A few isolated individuals sometimes simply insist almost all evolutionists must have the same bias; but I tend to ignore that and go back to the arguments themselves, on their merits.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 5:21 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 8:03 PM Sylas has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 166 (169940)
12-19-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-18-2004 4:59 PM


levels of truth levels of acceptance
I am going to second trixie on noting that there is a big difference in accepting a scientific study that has been peer reviewed and repeated and confirmed by other scientists in the field of the study, and accepting 'as gospel' what you read in a textbook ... even though the textbook is produced by the same scientists and is peer reviewed when it is written.
There is also the difference in accepting a truth as the best explanation so far, and in accepting it as the absolute truth. No scientist worth his doctorate will take something as absolute truth, nor do they ask others to take what they have discovered as absolute truth: they are satisfied with "the best explanation so far" level of truth.
I have done enough science to understand the process by which the information of scientific studies enters the field of knowledge as validated (so far) theory, and thus I can accept the validated work of scientists that has gone through that process.
But with a caviat: until the next female piece of validated information comes along. My acceptance is not a contract.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2004 4:59 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 166 (169943)
12-19-2004 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sylas
12-19-2004 7:38 PM


Hy Sylas - I spotted u lurking here first because of my Columbo brilliance. Welcome back.
Some points that I agreed with;
link writes:
Actually, evolutionists are often not consistent with their own rules against invoking an intelligent designer. For example, when archaeologists find an arrowhead, they can tell it must have been designed, even though they haven’t seen the designer. And the whole basis of the SETI program is that a signal from outer space carrying specific information must have an intelligent source. Yet the materialistic bias of many evolutionists means that they reject an intelligent source for the literally encyclopedic information carried in every living cell.
You see, to us - the universe makes us just as certain that we see a designer like these scientists do.
link writes:
But theistic evolution teaches that God used struggle for survival and death, the ‘last enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26) as His means of achieving a ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31) creation.12 Biblical creationists find this objectionable.
Because survival of the fittest - and men dying, is not the reason for biblical death. I might consider animal natural death and some form of animal evolution where the bible indicates it, but not critters taring eachother up before the fall.
link writes:
A God who ‘created’ by evolution is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from no God at all.
This is surely true. It's like an even ground almost. "Hey Bob - let me have evolution so I can have no God and you have evolution so you can". While this seems fair - we shouldn't feed any persons doubt in God, because we will be causing them to sin - i.e. Feeding their delusion that they are not accountable to God for their actions on earth, by accepting and reinforcing the belief that random chance is just as possible as an intelligent designer, because of Ocams razor.
I don't think people like yourself have a religious bias though - and in this thread, no creationist had asserted this.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2004 08:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 12-19-2004 7:38 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2004 9:36 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024