Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

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. 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. 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

Oh, one more thing: 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.

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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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? 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'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 $250,000No, 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. 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. 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? 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?

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. 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. I have plenty of respect for life. I have no respect for lies offered as truth.

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. 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.

Look, friend, these are the things we talk about every day. These aren't assumptions taken as dogma; these are discussions we've had that creationists have lost. We had these discussions. Discussion over. If you have a new argument that would lead us to question these conclusions, then by all means lets start it.But we're not going to re-invent the wheel and try to prove the Earth is round all over again just because you asked us to. Give us a reason, first. If these are conclusions you'd like to challenge then open a thread and get to it. Until then, they stand, because they've already been challenged, and come through.We've had these discussions. It's time for you to get caught up. No one here is advocating this position, which is known as "scientism." That is why we refer to evolution as "accurate", and "the best model", not as "the absolute truth." This is a distinction that you need to be capable of recognizing because it applies to every scientific conclusion. Again, this is a discussion that has been had; this is science as it is practiced by scientists. If you have an alternate view of how science should be conducted then you open a thread and we talk about it. If you win we use your view from now on. If you lose, we stick with ours.Start the discussion if you want to challenge these things. But you have no legitimate basis to complain about the fact that we already discussed some things, and came to some conclusions, long before you arrived. The history of discussion at this forum alone goes back several years. What did you think we were talking about all that time before you showed up?AbE: Oh, and one more thing: How is that an evolutionist assumption?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-19-2005 09:26 PM

Answers in Genesis is hard at work doing exactly that. You can read it in their articles. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The only thing that evolution is being offered as is as an accurate and predictive model about the history and diversity of life on Earth. It's not a religion. It's not a moral framework. It's not something to worship or live your life by. It's just a scientific model that some people, for reasons that are very difficult to understand, get a big bug up their ass about.

That creationism passes the requirements necessary to be considered science. I thought I had been clearer about that, sorry.

Why are you here, Faith? You said once that you were a "debate junkie" or whatever but it seems like the majority of your input here has been telling us what isn't open to debate with you - the existence of God, the inerrancy of the Bible, that the Flood happened, etc.I guess I don't see the point. If no evidence can sway you, and nothing of what you have to offer can sway us, what do we have to talk about?

I'm not sure if we're supposed to respond to specific arguments in this thread, or what. Still, though, I have a problem with this logic: Much in the same way, wouldn't we be forced to conclude that Santa Claus actually exists and can fly around the world in just one night, because the alternative to explain why all those children recieve presents under the Christmas tree - multiple smaller-scale acts of gifting by their individual parents - is too "Rube Goldbergish?" (I mean, hell, what are the odds that so many parents would choose to give presents on the exact same day? Must be Santa Claus.)But just as we can dispense with the Santa Claus model by the simple, neutral observation that reindeer can't fly, we can dispense with the Flood model with the simple, neutral, non-evolutionist-in-any-way observation that there are way, way too many organisms represented in the fossil record for all of them to have been alive at once.

And I suppose the grasses did too? Just picked up root and ran for higher ground?

You would expect that, of course.So why aren't they everywhere in the fossil record? Why do we only find grasses - and grass pollen, for that matter, which should be even more universal - in the upper layers of the fossil record? You've hit it on the head - the "running for high ground" might, as long as you don't think about it, explain the patterns of fossil dispersion for animals that can run, but how does it explain the equally sorted record of plant evolution?

I realize you're swamped, and there's no need for you to respond; I just wanted to make sure my point that this model fails to explain paleobotany was understood. That's why I brought up grasses and other plants in that message - plants, like animals, display a progression in the fossil record, and that progression can't be explained by your "running for high ground" model. That to me is a fatal flaw.

Oh, come on. You know as well as I do that there's considerably more of a pattern than "no land plants below this line". We never find grasses with the dinosaurs, but you're certain that the dinosaurs were able to flee to higher ground than where they lived. So they certainly died high enough to be on grass, but where is it? For that matter where is the grass pollen that you can't escape in the present day? We never find it near those massive grazing dinosaurs?It just doesn't add up. Like what? What principle exists that causes a flood to sort plants? For that matter, to sort microscopic plant pollen? Since the progression of plant fossils is very real, this is a very real observation that you're going to have to take into account. It doesn't, apparently, grow under dinosaurs. Apparently it disappears without a trace whenever a dinosaur walks by. Why is that, exactly?

Whose making? I've been hearing this "high ground" sorting explanation for years now, and whenever we get to paleobotany, nothing.Ever. Plants represent the majority of the Earth's biomass by weight and your model can't even account for their very gradual and very obvious sorting in the fossil record? If you can come up with the explanation, send an email to Answers in Genesis. They'll love to hear from you because you'll be the first.