Restrictions in the Science Forums.

Your message and subtitle clashes. I presume you mean "It appears that Faith thinks the evidence based arguments are excluded from the "Social and Religious Issues" threads".Per your second sentence above: I'm uncertain. Certainly some "Faith and Belief" topics could be defined as being purely theological topics, to be intended to exclude "scientific evidence based arguments".Moose

Agree. I was trying to suggest this earlier, with the idea that someone proposing a thread could indicate such a restriction; but this is not a requirement of the whole Faith and Belief forum.Cheers -- Sylas

Hi all,I'd like to see the discussion about the standards for the science forums continue, primarily because I still don't understand the position best articulated by Faith. I'm pretty much in agreement with clarifications offered by Sylas and Ned about how the science forums are intended to be used, but I don't yet have a handle on why scientific standards are a burden for Creationist viewpoints. EvC Forum exists to explore Creationism's claim to be science. The debate is over for any Creationist who concedes he can't operate within a scientific framework. And Creationists who feel the standards of science should be different have the [forum=-11] forum to make their points.I think the Biblical Creationism and Theological ID forums suggested by Faith are good ideas. We want to avoid having duplicates of all the science forums in the social/religious category, but there *is* such a thing as Biblical Creationism, and it does seem like it deserves its own forum, and discussion on any of the topics covered by the science forums could be placed in a forum of that name. A few years ago I would have said that a Theological ID forum wasn't necessary, that these issues could be discussed under Biblical Creationism, but so much attention is focused on ID these days that now I think it makes sense.I'm not so sure about the Theology of History, probably because I don't know what that is. Is that the same as History according to the Bible?If we were to follow Faith's suggestion, the forums in the Social/Religious category would become:

• Bible Study
• Biblical Creationism
• Comparative Religions
• Education and Creation/Evolution
• Faith and Belief
• Social Issues and Creation Evolution
• Theological ID

I'm unhappy with the [forum=-32] forum's name. Maybe Society and Creation/Evolution is better? I think of it as Syamsu's forum.Anyway, that's a proposal.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You are right, of course. Thank you (I have edited the original to correct that).

That is exactly what I thought when I saw that.TTFN,WK

Based on my own observations I would suggest that the reaosn creationists have problems with the science forums is because the mindset of scientific thought is alien to them.Science is fundamentally about integrating the evidence into a coherent overall picture. Evolution is a great success on this score - integrating taxonomy, biogeography and the fossil record at the very start. Since then scientists have integrated Mendelian genetics (the "New Synthesis") and more and more of biology is being integrated with evolutionary theory (e.g. the so-called "evo-devo" work on relating developmental biology to evolution).The creationist mindset, on the other hand, is typically centred on the beliefs of the individual creationist which are held to be highy reliable regardless of the actual evidence. That is why they have no problems citing their beliefs as "evidence" - in one recent case I even saw an example that was essentially circular, a belief cited as evidence to support itself. Thus they often don't see any need to check arguments that seem to support their position resulting in arguments which only work superficially, if at all. Often their arguments are easily seen to be false when properly considered, carry implications which cause further serious problems, or are contradicted by easily obtained evidence.For a good example of how creationists can ignore the need to integrate the evidence into an overall picture, consider the current thread by Willowtree. He has no problem putting the expulsion of the Hyksos in the early 16th Century BC and a Pharoah who reigned only a few generations later in the 10th - without any sign of an explanation of how this could be.

By Sylas's response to this I see he doesn't agree, but essentially that's what we need, is to redefine the science approach. That is not to say we want to redefine science. An approach to the science debate should not accomodate only secularists, but Creationists, including ID ones as well. We have a different approach to interpretation of what is observed and just because it involves in intelligent agent existing in the universe other than mankind's variety/level of intelligence as we observe on earth should not exclude it as a scientific approach.As Faith has succinctly stated, this need not leave us with an approach based on faith alone, but with our Biblical id interpretation of what is observed being the premise to our approach rather than a miniscule singularity point/dot which is yours.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

But that is exactly the problem.You cannot hold an initial premise that the Biblical account is correct if you ever want to reach into the area of Science. For ID or Creationism to ever become Science the first thing that must be done is to acknolwedge that when the evidence shows the Biblical account is wrong the Biblical account will be abandoned.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is not excluded. There is simply no evidence to suggest including it. The details of why this is so do not belong in this thread.The ID thread is in the science side. It allows for evidence to be introduced regarding the nature of other intelligences and designs that might be produced by other intelligences.Thus neither science nor the science forums here exclude the idea. All that is needed is evidence for such an idea.

This right here is Buzsaw's own personal fundamental problem. He's been corrected on this, and never addresses the corrections. He's been shown the evidence and the models, and he doesn't understand either of them.All he is left is the tired mantra: "it's your premise".He's wrong. It isn't.The singularity is not a premise. (Reminder: singularity is actually a mathematical term, and refers in this context to the conditions in which the maths of classical physics breaks down with infinite density.) It is a conclusion. It is not assumed. It is developed as a consequence of the empirical evidence. It was not welcomed for philosophical reasons (except by Christians like the great physicist Georges LeMaitre who saw it as a creation moment). It succeeded because of the evidence.Mainstream science was brought kicking and screaming into the recognition of the finite age for the universe and the singularity at which physics fails. But it was not really that hard, because in the end, the vast majority of scientists recognized the force of the empirical evidence, and proceeded accordingly. This required some significant changes to the philosophical presumptions of many; but that's empirical science and discovery for you.It has nothing whatsoever to do with rejecting designers. Indeed, the Big Bang is often used in arguements for design. It is simply an empirically based model for the history of the physical universe, and believers can postulate a designer to be involved in this history as much as in any other.Buz is never going to understand this, and that is why he is not really capable of engaging the subject matter as would fit a discussion in a science forum. It would be fine to discuss the evidence and present alternative empirical models. It is not fine to simply ignore all the empirical arguments as if they never existed, and just keep saying "It's illogical". "It's your premise." "It's not fair." "It's unjust." "My presumptions are as good as yours."The Big Bang is certainly open for discussion. In the science forums, that discussion must be focussed on the empirical. It is not a question of rejecting any viewpoint. It is a question of allowing any viewpoint to be evaluated against physical observation. If there is no actual way to make such an evaluation, then take it to a non-science forum.Buz also says: This encapsulates another common misconception. We are not proposing to exclude an intelligent designer from the science forums.The constraint in the science forums is not on the particular viewpoint, but on the way it is considered. Intelligent Design is welcome in the science forums as long as it is presenting itself as a scientific notion with empirical consequences and theories for distinguishing design from non-design. Dembski, Behe, etc, present themselves in this way. They argue that there are some designed things, and some undesigned things, and that they can tell the difference. There is scope to evaluate the theories and the evidence, and to argue on the basis of empirical evidence whether or not the techniques make sense.Note that this debate is not about saying that Dembski or whoever else is wrong to believe in God, or in a creator. That is not an empirical claim either, and should not be pursued in the science forums. The point to consider is whether a specific model fits the evidence.There are other theological perspectives on the nature of God's involvement in the world. A very common view (perhaps even the majority view amongst Christians!) is that God is the designer of the entire natural world and not just isolated bits of it. It becomes a theological error to point to any part of the natural world and say that it is not created; and this is the main theological objection to the modern intelligent design movement. But that is a theological dispute which usually is pursued independently of empirical evidence; and so belongs in the "Faith and Belief" forums.The faith in God as creator and designer of the entire universe is held by a significant number of superlative scientists. It is consistent with science. But it is not a scientific model in the sense of being open to testing in the light of evidence. God makes it all, so there is no basis to distinguish what is created from what is not created. There is some scope here to look at the fine tuning arguments for this kind of transcendent designer, since that is rooted in empirical concerns. The discussion rarely gets resolved. It deals with matters on the extreme periphery of what can be investigated scientifically with existing technology.Cheers -- Sylas (Edited for spelling.)This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-20-2005 10:12 PM

Sure you can. We do it the same as you do BB. We start with God/ID/Bible and produce evidence that lends credence to that, some of which could, in fact, be interpreted in favor of BB, or of ID Biblical creationism, depending on your perspective. We've done this but you cry foul because our premise is not BB (in your view, the only bonafide science). We both know there was once a flood. We cite the Biblical reference and you cite ice age melt, et al. Both premises have some unanswered questions, but it only those of ours that count as significant, so far as debating science goes in your eyes. But if the Biblical account is accurate and there was a different world climate and atmosphere preflood, I've tried to show that that would affect the evidence in favor of the Bible and that it would taint your evidence. Again, you pshaw that as nonsense. Then when we pshaw the singularity BB as nonsense, we are the alleged violators and our arguments are calously rejected as buligerant violations. Again, I repeat......ID creationists are the ones here held to the higher standard, so high, in fact that we are disqualified and banned for airing our premise and evidence presented.I've gone to great lengths debating space, honing in on the definition of space.....arguments based on the ability or inability for it to expand, but those arguments get me banned, when in fact many of the same arguments are being used all over the internet on websites and forums, et al. Because they're not mainline science arguments, I get banned for using them, so I must go to SFN And Debates or some other place to air them now. Imo, nobody here has imperically proved that space cannot be boundless and static as per my arguments.
You people are the loosers, because now, you're not going to get some of the arguments proposed which inspired some important debates so many participated in. For yeall's info, it was this Biblical fundamentalist fundie ID creationist, who emailed Lyndonshire and persuaded him to come on here for that lively and informative tired light debate. He reluctantly, but graciously came on in spite of his busy schedule. Otherwise that thread, which you people found of interest wouldn't have occured. It was my original Exodus Case thread that brought Lysimachus, his brother and others onto this site for the interesting and informatiive threads on the Exodus, Wyatt, et al. These debates spawned a number of subsequent debates on those subjectsNow that I'm, banned from Biblical Accuracy, no more on that stuff here on my account.Oh well, in the mean time, It's fun and informative frequenting food, fantasy and faith forums.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

What do you think of the idea of having a Theological Intelligent Design forum in the Society and Religious Issues section where you can argue all that as far as you like without any danger of being kicked out of the thread because the theological premise is accepted in advance?This message has been edited by Faith, 05-21-2005 12:22 AM

On this point, I disagree with the otherwise perspicacious jar, and side with Buzsaw.People who have an initial premise of validity for the Biblical account can still reach into the area of science. (Particularly if they don't actually know much about the available evidence; but I digress.)Whether you are doing science is not about how you arrived at your initial premise, but how you attempt to argue or defend it. Thus, for example, a died-in-the-wool 100% literal historical bible believing creationist may have arrived at their beliefs without any use of empirical reasoning. What matters is whether they are able to show that their model has implications for empirical evidence, and can be tested in the light of empirical evidence.This is the heart of "scientific" creationism, and the science forums are explicitly intended to facilitate discussion between two perspectives on whether empirical evidence counts for, or against, creationist or evolutionary models. It matters not a bit whether or not someone had already accepted a conclusion for other reasons.This may just be my subjective impression, but IMO the creationist position is ludicrous, and they consistently get their heads handed to them on a platter. But a new player up to the plate who thinks they can do better is always welcome. As long as they are looking at the empirical data, it is fine.Someone who fails to make any impact in the empirical domain may sometimes be tempted to abandon that line of argument, and revert to bold claims about biblical inerrancy or the nature of God. People may well choose to hold onto their belief on the basis of some other authority or argument, and that is their prerogative. But the scientific debate is over at that point, and the other arguments belong in other forums. This is wrong. Buz has never grasped the model, or the evidence, or the reasons why it is so dominant for scientists. His inability to understand what makes an argument empirical is why he has been restricted, and this inability is also the heart of his perception of injustice.The rules are truly the same for both sides. Work with the empirical evidence, and you can do it in the science forums. Argument based on personal incredulity or based on consistency with the nature of God or with atheism, must be taken elsewhere, and we have the forums for that as well.The restriction is to an individual, not to a group and not to a viewpoint. The restricted individual is Buzsaw. There are pros and cons to this, I grant.Most creationists actually do understand the significance and form of empirical argument, and make an attempt to use it. That debate is the whole reason for the science forums. If Buzsaw wants to make another attempt at an argument which he thinks ought to be accepted under the rules applied for a scientific debate, I would suggest that he start a thread in Is It Science?. Although that is technically a science forum, I have restored Buzsaw's permissions to that forum, since it seems fair enough to engage this meta-debate in that forum. It would still require a topic proposal.Cheers -- Sylas

Thanks for considering my suggestions. Your definition of the aims of EvC was very succinct and I understand it is a concession beyond the call of duty even to have a religion section at EvC. But since you are open to improvements on that side of the Divide, here are some more thoughts on it:I'm not completely sure two new forums are necessary, though you can see from their titles the direction I have in mind. Theology of History was suggested because I had brought up the notion that science owes much to Christianity, but I don't really think a separate forum is needed for such issues. {Late EDIT: Mr. Ex Nihilo and I have been having exactly this kind of "theology of history" discussion on the thread he started titled "Is God determined not to allow proof of His existence" in the Bible Study forum where it seems to fit just fine}.I think what's needed is a well-defined umbrella forum for all these purposes, Biblical Creationism, Theological ID and everything else that is derived from the Bible -- or from any other religious premise I suppose, though this may take some thought.As it stands now, the forum Faith and Belief asks "Is God an objective reality or only a concept?" and Bible Study asks "What does the Bible really mean?" These are valid questions for debate but what's missing is the opportunity to argue from Biblical or other theological premises without always having to debate the validity of those premises -- that is, the premise that God IS objective reality, and that the Bible's meaning IS basically clear even if we may disagree on particular points.I'm not coming up with satisfying names for this umbrella forum, but the basic idea is Theological (or Biblical) Worldview or Theological (or Biblical) Perspectives, in which theological assumptions are taken for granted and the argument proceeds FROM them, on any topic whatever, from scientific questions to social issues, educational issues etc. etc. etc.All the scientific rigor anybody wants to bring to the discussion on this side of the Divide would be welcome, but science can't trump theology over here, and people can't be faulted for using theological arguments as such. Using them badly, not making sense, etc. can all be criticized of course, but they can't be disqualified for simply BEING theological arguments.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-21-2005 07:40 PM

My apologies for the delay in responding, Faith. Outa sight, outa mind as I was doing other stuff. I agree that your proposal is a very good one and would eliminate a lot of bickering between admins and IDists in this area.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw