Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
40 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,291 Year: 20,327/19,786 Month: 724/2,023 Week: 232/392 Day: 92/53 Hour: 20/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith Science - Logically Indefensible
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 166 (353269)
09-30-2006 12:11 PM


"Creationist Science" is an oxymoron. It is logically impossible.

If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty

If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position.

Science requires that objective conclusions be able to be made from physical evidence.

Therefore "Creationist Science" is impossible.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 12:59 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 09-30-2006 1:10 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2006 1:11 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 09-30-2006 1:14 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 9 by ikabod, posted 09-30-2006 3:16 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-02-2006 1:11 AM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 7:53 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 166 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 1:41 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 166 (353274)
09-30-2006 12:32 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33636
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 166 (353277)
09-30-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-30-2006 12:11 PM


What a silly idea. Faith is in God, in Christ, and in his written word. Creationists -- YECs anyway -- have certain facts from that word that are foundational, that we will not compromise, although perhaps we could be shown a better way of reading them, and on those points, yes, nothing can oppose them. But that does not mean we know how any of it played out beyond those few facts, and what we don't know is the substance of science, which is 99% unchallenged by YECs.

I would also state the YEC position that the ToE is simply not in itself science. It wraps itself around plenty of science; plenty of science submits itself to the ToE and is supposed to support it. But the ToE, and the old earth time frame that goes along with it, are not really science in themselves. They are imaginative constructs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 12:11 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ramoss, posted 10-01-2006 10:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 4 of 166 (353278)
09-30-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-30-2006 12:11 PM


"Person of faith"
Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position.

You paint with too broad a brush. Or, perhaps, your word choice could have been better. Most scientists are in fact people of faith. Most scientists have no problem, however, reconciling their faith with the facts that science has uncovered. Faith in a supreme being does not by itself disqualify one from being able to objectively evaluate evidence and come to rational conclusions about that evidence. Certainly there are people, Faith being one of them, who do not have that capacity, whose faith blinds them to anything that contradicts what they think the bible says. Fortunately, those people are a minority. Unfortunately, they seem to be able to make noise far out of proportion to their numbers.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 12:11 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by foxjoe, posted 11-06-2006 9:15 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1909 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 5 of 166 (353279)
09-30-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-30-2006 12:11 PM


Giving oxymorons their due
You mean to say the idea is a 'contradiction in terms' or 'logical contradiction.' You are asserting its invalidity on the basis of fatal self-contradiction.

'Oxymoron' does not mean this. The term refers to a paradoxical-sounding label for something that really does exist. The label sounds self-contradictory but it works. Everyone knows what it means.

home office
live recording
passive aggression
church home (not to be confused with a 'home church')
love bomb
working vacation
jumbo shrimp


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 12:11 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by subbie, posted 09-30-2006 1:14 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 6 of 166 (353280)
09-30-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Archer Opteryx
09-30-2006 1:11 PM


Re: Giving oxymorons their due
military intelligence
female logic


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2006 1:11 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 7 of 166 (353281)
09-30-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-30-2006 12:11 PM


It is not logically impossible.
"Creationist Science" is an oxymoron. It is logically impossible.

Most of what is called "creationist science" is not science at all. The world that we live in might be such that creationist science is impossible. But it is not logically impossible.

It is logically possible that prayer could be the best way of gaining scientific insight, and it is logically possible that such insight would always turn out to be correct, as shown by scientific experimentation. In a world where that happened, the monateries would be the centers of scientific research.

This is not what happens in our world. But it is not logically impossible.


Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 12:11 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 09-30-2006 1:21 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 166 (353282)
09-30-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
09-30-2006 1:14 PM


Re: It is not logically impossible.
It is logically possible that prayer could be the best way of gaining scientific insight, and it is logically possible that such insight would always turn out to be correct, as shown by scientific experimentation.

Well, as long as we're picking nits, I would submit that it's not even logically impossible for someone to be a creation scientist. It is certainly possible for someone to hypothesize that there is scientific evidence to support creationism and use the scientific method to try to find such evidence. Based on everything we know, they would not find any such evidence if they truly followed the scientific method, but simply getting a null result would not mean that they are not being scientific. After a certain amount of null results, they may have to admit that the hypothesis was wrong, but there is nothing logically impossible about scientifically searching for evidence of creation.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 09-30-2006 1:14 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2805 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 9 of 166 (353293)
09-30-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-30-2006 12:11 PM


well in fact "Creationist Science" would be the science of how god created everything ... so as long as you can get god to pop down to the labs and show you what he did so you can take some readings and get some data , work out the theory of how god maniuplates what ever to make everything , runs some test on those theroies and refine them , publish them , get the wider scientic community to confirm your findiings , run a few models to see how it all works .. compare the current everything to the theory and models , run a few creations in the lab .. you could come up with the laws governing creation .....hey presto "Creationist Science" ...
no biggy ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 12:11 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 166 (353298)
09-30-2006 4:24 PM


How can the scientific method in any way that anybody understands it - (creating hypotheses based on physical evidence and then verifying or refuting these hypotheses by searching for more physical evidence incl experimentation?) - can possibly be undertaken by anyone who has absolute certainty (i.e. faith) in the conclusions of any evidence relating to their area of faith before, or even irrespective of, any evidence??

Creationists are an obvious target but the same applies to any faith position that relates to the physical world incl faith based 100% certainty in evolution.

Creationists would argue that evolution is faith based position which it is not and I am happy to debate that point.

However what is indisputable is that creationism is a faith based position.
What I would also argue is indesputable is that evidence based investigation (i.e. science) is impossible if you have 100% absolute certainty regarding the conclusions of any physical evidence before you even have it.

"Creationist Science" or any other faith based search for objective truth is impossible (whether that makes it oxymoronic or not.......)


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 5:55 PM Straggler has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33636
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 11 of 166 (353312)
09-30-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
09-30-2006 4:24 PM


Nonsense. Speaking only for Biblical young earth creationism, we simply start with some facts we have in the Bible. They are no less facts for their being in the Bible. There is nothing unscientific about beginning with known facts, and nothing that keeps you from applying scientific method to all observations from that point. And there wouldn't have been much in the way of empirical science at all in the West if it hadn't been for Christianity.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 4:24 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 09-30-2006 6:16 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 6:24 PM Faith has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 166 (353320)
09-30-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
09-30-2006 5:55 PM


Faith - please eat from the rational fruit
There is nothing unscientific about beginning with known facts,

They're not known facts. If they are name them. Facts are verifiable, under objective scientific rules. What you really mean, is that you begin with a dogma. The bible is a fact, what's in it is claims. Two very different things.

And there wouldn't have been much in the way of empirical science at all in the West if it hadn't been for Christianity.

This is what's called a vacuous truth/statement. It's a statement that only works because it won't happen.

Like saying, "If I were a millionaire, ofcourse I'd give all of my money to charity".

But what a cheek anyway! It was the Christians who came against people like Galileo!

The fact that we can't ever go back in time because there's only one history, allowing your statement to be vacuously consistent, doesn't mean much. You still have to prove the absurd assertion. I can't see any connection, so it just doesn't follow, rendering it a non-sequitur

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 5:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 13 of 166 (353324)
09-30-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
09-30-2006 5:55 PM


You are practically proving my point for me.
Your "facts" are faith based beliefs. To reverse your claim. They have no more claim to being facts for their being in the Bible!

Your faith based beliefs preclude you from drawing any conclusions based on the physical evidence that oppose your "known facts" no matter what evidence there may be. Objectivity of any sort is impossible. Any evidence must logically prove what you "know" to be true.

Therefore you are not investigating nature at all. You are looking only to verify what you believe to be the truth. That is not science. For the scientific method to apply there has to be the option for the data to refute the theory!

Do scientists ever do this form of "bad science"? Yes they do sometimes. BUT I would argue they get found out pretty quickly!

The key point is that in the case of any faith based position (e.g. creationism) it is logically impossible to follow the scientific method in any meaningful way.

"Creationist Science" is impossible.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 5:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-30-2006 6:31 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 8:20 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31607
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 14 of 166 (353329)
09-30-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
09-30-2006 6:24 PM


The other big thing is that Science holds every conclusion as tentative.

Creation Science is only possible when the Creation Scientists hold God tentatively.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 6:24 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 7:31 PM jar has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 15 of 166 (353334)
09-30-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
09-30-2006 6:31 PM


Well said Jar. You cannot have tentative faith!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-30-2006 6:31 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-30-2006 8:24 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019