two important questions for Servant

Hey folksThis post is directed to MTW and Servant2thecause.I wish to ask the two of you if there are any sciences outside of evolutionary theory that you disagree with? For instance do you disagree with relativity theory? Astrophysics? QED? Why or why not?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

I was speed reading through this earlier today and probably forgot to address this. Thank you Froggie for reminding me.Of all my time arguing with creationists both on the internet and out in the real world, this has got to be the most interesting viewpoint I have ever encountered.My question to you is why are you even looking at your computer moniter now? Why are you wearing the clothes that you are wearing, knowing that human intellect and technological devolopment made it possible for you to wear that shirt? Wait, why are you eating the food that you are eating? It is most likely a result of genetic engineering. Have you ever flown on a plane before? I am guessing that you have a car, am I right?The thought just flashed through my mind that we should have a law that throws people like you on a deserted island and let you live without any technology whatsoever, since you want the rest of us to be as (please forgive my bluntness) as you.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-18-2004]

In all honesty Mike, you have this backwards.Religion is always critical in the creationism/evolution debate; not because evolutionists are close minded against God, but because there is no empirical basis for creationist or ID style anti-evolutionist ideas; just a religiously founded and futile program to stem the tide of findings that conflict with what some Christians or other theists believe.That is; evolutionists are diverse, in a sense that anti-evolutionists are not. Evolutionists can be dogmatically close minded against religion, or undecided, or apathetic, or devoutly religious, or almost anything in between.Anti-evolution, on the other hand, is almost exclusively confined to religious believers who find the conclusions of science in this matter to conflict with their beliefs about God. There are exceptions here also; but those exceptions are far and a way more isolated and unusual than any comparable reverse trend in beliefs amongst evolutionists.We can identify some trends of beliefs in scientists; and this can be noted as a phenomenon by anyone, regardless of their perspective. Scientists tend to be less conventionally religious than folks who are not trained in the sciences, and this tendency becomes more and more pronounced as you look at more and more outstanding scientists. It might be interesting to reflect on the reasons for that sometime, but it is not something unique to biology and evolution. It is a trend, not a general rule, and Christians do work quite happily as scientists at all levels.On the other hand, rejection of evolution is confined almost without exception to the religious. The intelligent design folks have attempted to sidestep this charge by disassociating religion from their anti-evolutionism, but this is a superficial public veneer. The objections are still religious, and there is nothing there has scientific merit. I do not think I am exaggerating in this; intelligent design as a scientific program is as far as I can see entirely free of any useful scientific content.The claim that evolutionists are avoiding or repressing evidence that conflicts with their views is not credible. I find this particularly frustrating, since it like pulling hens teeth to persuade evolutionist sceptics to come out and actually discuss these purported problems; apart from inexperienced and nave debaters who reveal a complete lack of background in the relevant data with every post.From time to time a creationist with some scientific background may speak up, and present a slightly more sophisticated defence, and when this occurs we evolutionists love it... because we really do want to examine this stuff. Many of us have considered the arguments in considerable detail.I'll state frankly that in my experience, almost all anti-evolutionists arguments, or putative alternatives, are unmitigated codswallop; and none at all have any real scientific depth of interest. And I firmly reject the label of being close minded. Closed minded does not mean failing to reach conclusions about things.Rather than vague accusations and inferences about being stuck in a box, let's actually talk about some credible scientific basis for an alternative to conventional evolutionist biology. There are speculative ideas around for new ideas in evolutionary biology, and open problems where answers are still being sought. But the creationists and the intelligent design advocates have not given any useful instances of this, as far as I have seen. I don't think this is because I am stuck in a box. I think it because they are stuck in a box, nailed shut, wrapped up in canvas, and buried in deep in the sand.Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-18-2004]

Oh, one more thing. You keep saying this: as though that's supposed to be the unreasonable mental filter of evolutionists. Obviously, nothing could be more wrong.Evolutionists, like all scientists, cleave to the tentativity of conclusions. You could better phrase that as "we don't have any contradicting evidence, therefore there's no reason to believe our theory is wrong."You're trying to make scientists out to be ridiculous for preferring the theories that best explain what is observed. I don't understand why you would expect anyone to believe otherwise. Evolutionists don't believe our theory is 100% correct in every detail - otherwise, what would evolutionists work on? We simply believe that the theory is an accurate explanation of the evidence we've collected so far. Of course, the theory is subject to revision or even rejection in the face of as-yet undiscovered evidence.Can you explain why you think preferring the explanation that explains the most evidence is ridiculous?

If it helps, you and Lam are not the people I was thinking of when I said "box". I, however should have said "some evo's". I make this mistake sometimes when I am rushing a post. Typical -- I mention the bad guys and Asgara and Sylas and Lam turn up and spank me, the guys who are most definately not closed-minded.Lam, in the other thread you mentioned your objective stance and I took heed. I haven't mentioned names because that would not be right, let me now just say "some evos". What I mean by "in a box" is that they think in the box, and they don't give an inche, they basically never change their worldview that evolution could be wrong. You say that but I have heard creationists who stick to talking the evidence. John Mckay (geologist) mainly shows his evidence as fossils. Basically - he is using the same evidence to come to a reasonable position using logic. When you put your "bible glasses" on and then interpret the evidence - you get another view of things. I know what your thinking - I can't put those un-scientific glasses on. But let's just consider for a moment, that the bible is the truth. I mean, what if it is actually the truth? What would the scientific means of investigation then be? I'm not saying the scientific approach is wrong, but there is more than one way an investigation can happen.If we start like this:Assume bible correct - look at evidence - make a conclusion with biblical glasses on. That might see very un-scientific.But with evolution what was it?Darwin made his theory - the evidence was found - checked it with evolution glasses on.Even I will concede that I may not be entirely correct about the above. But, what if we take the creationism stance as a theory based on the bible, and then check the evidence? Surely creationism is - as you guys have conceded, one viewpoint of the bible. It is fairly modern and even if it has a biblical basis what's the big deal? What is so worrying and frustrating about people coming to a different conclusion about the same evidence?Schrafinator called us ignorant - I don't like that either, she said that because servant2thecause is creationist. So, like my quick posted "box" comment, it is not necessary, yet I won't complain about this as I know that we generalize sometimes and I by no means put everybody in the same place. So I apologixe about the box statement but I was in no way thinking of you Sylas, when I wrote it.

Oh now be honest - every conclusion will be evolution because they see it as a given. I am not afraid of being wrong. I also seek the truth. Just like with Wyatt's Ark in the other thread, I now think it is a geological structure.I asked you what you would look for if you presumed creation was true. You said "I don't know". This is my point really, you'll never put those bible glasses on to see what we are saying - even if it's just for a laugh. Let's just say it might seem unconventional or un-scientific? What if it the truth anyway, and you missed it because of this outlook?If it ain't the truth Schraff, you won't find me whinging for too long. But when I have heard creationists, they claim the same scientific evidence. Have you read about Natural Selection at AIG?
Maybe that's not a great example......but the evidence is the same, it's just a different conclusion. Why am I ignorant if I reach a conclusion that differs from your own? Even if I am wrong about that conclusion! How do you know the bible based doesn't work? Why should I trust man's limited knowledge, instead of God's?You see, creationism is bible based but it is only one theory of how it migh have happened. Have you ever read the first verse in Genesis? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". That's a big open door...You said yes to the question of "Is God a possibility". Yet you seem to argue against that possibility. We have debated in the past, about design, you mention the skull and the breathing "supposed" problems. Why don't you ever argue FOR the possibility?

quote:

---

You say that but I have heard creationists who stick to talking the evidence. John Mckay (geologist) mainly shows his evidence as fossils. Basically - he is using the same evidence to come to a reasonable position using logic.

---

Do you have a link to anything McKay has done so we can have a look at it?

quote:

---

When you put your "bible glasses" on and then interpret the evidence - you get another view of things.

---

Those "Bible glasses" generally obscure great amounts of evidence that contradicts your particular interpretation of the Bible.

quote:

---

I know what your thinking - I can't put those un-scientific glasses on. But let's just consider for a moment, that the bible is the truth. I mean, what if it is actually the truth? What would the scientific means of investigation then be?

---

It would be exactly the same as it is now.

quote:

---

I'm not saying the scientific approach is wrong, but there is more than one way an investigation can happen.

---

Scientific methodology has shown itself to produce extremely accurate, consistent, self-correcting results, while the "bible glasses" approach has shown itself to be inaccurate, inconsistent, and unable to correct itself when in error.Which methodology is best?

quote:

---

If we start like this:

​

Assume bible correct - look at evidence - make a conclusion with biblical glasses on. That might see very un-scientific.

---

It is exactly the opposite of scientific methodology.

quote:

---

But with evolution what was it?

​

Darwin made his theory - the evidence was found - checked it with evolution glasses on.

---

No, you still have it backwards.Darwin saw evidence in nature which inspired him to formulate his ideas (hypothesis) about natural selection being the means by which species originate.Darwin proposed a number of preditions that, if true, would support his hypothesis.He then went back into the field and observed a huge amount of evidence. The predictions he made were mostly borne out.You really should read Origin of Species, because you would see how good a scientist Darwin really was. He doubts the correctness of every part of his theory constantly, and he lists observations that, if encountered, would falsify the various components of his theory.Research in natural selection has continued for 150 years, and most of his predictions continue to be confirmed as new observations are made.You describe science as some kind of step by step linear process with a begining and an end, but it doesn't really work like that.Observation inspires hypothese.Hypothese inspire testing.Testing leads to confirmation or rejection or modification of hypothese.Lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

quote:

---

Oh now be honest - every conclusion will be evolution because they see it as a given.

---

The scientist that overturns the ToE would win a Nobel Prize.On the other hand, do you fault Pathologists because they see the Germ Theory of Disease as a given, or do you fault Planetary Astronomers for seeing the theory of a Helocentric Solar System at a given, or do you fault Physicists for taking the Atomic Theory of Matter as a given?The Theory of Evolution is as well supported and as fundamental to Biology as those other theories are to their respective fields.that your religion doesn't allow you to accept the one but does allow you to accept the others is your problem.

quote:

---

I asked you what you would look for if you presumed creation was true. You said "I don't know". This is my point really, you'll never put those bible glasses on to see what we are saying - even if it's just for a laugh.

---

OK, how about this...If the worldwide Flood had happened, and the geologic column with all the fossils and strata were laid down at that time, we would expect to find all fossils sorted roughly by density, but with a lot of mixing of organisms among all of the layers. We would also expect to find strata separated into grain size; large boulders on the bottom, with a regular gradation of grain size all the way to the top, which should be a verey fine mud layer.

quote:

---

Let's just say it might seem unconventional or un-scientific? What if it the truth anyway, and you missed it because of this outlook?

---

Of course anything is possible, but how do we test it to see how probable it is that it's really how things happened in nature?I'm going on science's extraordinary success in explaining natural phenomena, combined with religion's rather less than stellar performance explaining natural phenomena. Given that track record, I'm going to choose scientific methodology if I want to understand natural phenomena.Why is this so strange or unreasonable?

quote:

---

But when I have heard creationists, they claim the same scientific evidence.

---

...which they often don't understand, or they take in isolation, ignoring lots of other evidence.

quote:

---

but the evidence is the same, it's just a different conclusion. Why am I ignorant if I reach a conclusion that differs from your own? Even if I am wrong about that conclusion!

---

No one can reach the conclusion that the Earth is a few thousand years old without being ignorant of the evidence.No one can reach the conclusion that the Noachic Flood actually happened without being ignorant of the evidence.No one can reach the conclusion that all mutations are detrimental without being ignorant of the evidence....and so on, and so on...

quote:

---

How do you know the bible based doesn't work? Why should I trust man's limited knowledge, instead of God's?

---

Give one example of where Creation 'science' has increased our understanding of how the natural world works.

quote:

---

You see, creationism is bible based but it is only one theory of how it migh have happened.

---

It isn't a scientific theory.

quote:

---

Have you ever read the first verse in Genesis? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". That's a big open door...

---

Right, open to all sorts of interpretations.Not testable, though, so it's something you have to believe based upon faith, not evidence.That's fine, but it means that there's no compelling reason for me to believe it.

quote:

---

You said yes to the question of "Is God a possibility". Yet you seem to argue against that possibility. We have debated in the past, about design, you mention the skull and the breathing "supposed" problems. Why don't you ever argue FOR the possibility?

---

Because I don't see evidence for god doesn't mean god doesn't exist.The fact is that I don't see evidence of God.

You would expect to find? You see, you immediately see that it has to be your way. Why would you expect that to happen? When was the last worldwide flood we happened to research - so as to see what we would expect? Can you show me the link where you made the experiment of a worldwide flood, so I can see the results which would make you expect these things. Anything's possible eh? So creationism is a possible explanation and God is also a possibility, yet I am ignorant for preferring this possibility. Evolution can only be argued because it is past-tense. If I don't have to believe I came from a monkey, why should I? It might explain a lot of things, I just don't believe in the things it says about the past. I'll believe if I see a speciation tomorrow, but if it is within a kind why should I worry? I don't believe human's came from animals - what is so wrong about that?
When dealing with the past our only key is the present, what if the past was not the same as the present like uniformatarianism says? Lucky for me, I don't have a religion. I do not associate the word with other religions. If anything - the OT itself said to have no other gods or religions. Or, maybe they just see the evidence concludes a young earth with other explanations. Starlight and time is a scientific explanation for the stars, that doesn't go against evidence --> gravitational time dilation. Also, I have heard YEC's like Mckay Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied(limited site), who argue WITH evidence, fossils etc.Ignorant is what you like to conclude - yes, but it is not necessarily the case. Atleast you can admitt that, nevertheless others do see evidence of God.

You don't need a worldwide flood to see for yourself that gravel sinks faster than silt. You don't need a worldwide flood to watch how fast coral grows today, and to see that a 1600-foot-tall reef would be tough to grow in a year, or even in a millenium.

The problem with your idea Mike is that science DIDN'T start with the idea of evolution and an old Earth.Science started with the idea of a Young Earth, Noah's Flood and fixity of species. They were all abandoned because the evidence was against themAs For John McKay's evidence I suggest that you compare what he offers onhis site:Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Deniedwith this29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentThere's just no competition.

Yes and one interpretation (widely accepted) is the big bang. With that the whole controversy evaporates.

Mike T Wiz, If you like Mckay's stuff could I suggest you propose a topic on it?You just know how much we would love to discuss it.You might notice a difference between the "science" camp and the literalist camp. Notice how we will gladly jump into pretty well any topic with anyone. Notice how you are one of very very few of the 'other' side who will do that?Why is that? Does it have anything to do with open and closed minds? Which ones are which?

Mike darlin',I think the issue is that yes, certain types of evidence MIGHT be evidence that COULD point towards creationism. It isn't "this evidence points towards evolution, and this evidence points towards creationism so both COULD be correct."How it works is this...Take ALL the evidence together. Come up with a hypothesis on how ALL this evidence fits together. Find more evidence, does it fit your hypothesis? Yes? good, repeat. No? change your hypothesis to now include the new evidence along with all the old evidence. Are you finding a lot of evidence that can't be explained by your hypothesis? scrap it and come up with a new one that DOES explain everything.Does all the evidence you find over 150 years continue to fit with the major points of your hypothesis with only minor changes to sections of it? Yes? You now have yourself a full blown theory. You continue to hold any evidence up to this theory to see if it fits, if it does you add it to the body evidence supporting your theory. If it doesn't you look to find out why. It may involve a total revamp of your theory or it may only involve a minor twink.What a lot of people fail to remember is that almost all scientists of 150 - 200 years ago WERE bible believing literalists who went out looking for evidence using a creationist mindset. They couldn't make it fit.[This message has been edited by Asgara, 04-18-2004]

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

I am perhaps more eloquent; and more experienced; and perhaps even more manipulative. But I am in the same "box", if box it is. If you think of me as a contrast, you may be missing the point.The unnamed evolutionists of whom you may be critical are, in my experience, quick to learn and adapt and pick up the pertinent new information on evolution, or other matters of straightforward empirical science. They are not the bad guys in some conflict.The religious aspects are always less well defined and harder to resolve. I'm relaxed about that; and it has nothing much to do with evolution; except in the unfortunate case that religious beliefs make it difficult to look at the available empirical facts with integrity.I am not in the least offended by your remarks. Frankly I think you are the kind of person who is capable of thinking things through for yourself with integrity, and revising your own views when you find it indicated; but I think it will be an uphill battle for you all the way. If you continue to change your mind, it is unlikely to happen here, online. If you do change you mind on anything, it will most likely happen in your own time, off-line; and that is as it should be. I can't make it easy for you; and don't expect to resolve much for you with this one post.But I will still respond to nonsense, just because it is nonsense and because it is sad that people get sucked in by it. I won't pull punches just because I have respect for the person who repeats it. I had not heard of McKay before this. You have cited him, and given the link to Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied, of which McKay is apparently the head. He was never a geologist; he was originally a teacher. His CV indicates he did some lecturing in geology in "Technical Education". In Australia, that probably means a TAFE (Technical and Further Education); his qualifications would be inadequate to lecture on geology at a university.I had a quick look. I'm not impressed. Even Answers in Genesis might be better; and that is a dreadful thing to say about any site. The creationresearch web site is an example of the pseudoscientific codswallop I alluded to last time; low grade tripe; exactly the sort of thing that brings Christian faith into disrepute as people come to associate Christianity with such nonsense.McKay's interpretation of evidence is not reasonable, and his biblical glasses are more like a blindfold. He is not using logic; but painting a superficial veneer of argument over nonsense. You don't given any examples. I find it hard to give one myself, because it is all so incredibly stupid.His page of Evidence basically appears to have the following arguments.

• You can hold a dinosaur egg in your hand. This is apparently evidence that Noah might have taken all the animals, including dinosaurs apparently, on the ark as babies of eggs.
• The teeth of Tyrannosaurus are too long and fragile and too poorly attached to the skull be used to attack and kill other dinosaurs. This is apparently evidence that dinosaurs, like all other animals, were originally created to be plant eaters.
• Lions and Tigers survived in zoos in World War 2 by eating vegetables and straw; and fruit bats have sharp teeth. This is apparently more evidence that all animals were originally plant eaters.
• "Eastern Australian Aboriginal stories state the three brothers were the first people to land on the East Coast. Asked ‘when did this happen?’ they replied, ‘after the flood’". This is apparently evidence that aborigines, like all the rest of us came from the tower of Babel a few thousand years ago.
• All fossils in the Grand Canyon are dead; so it is not a record of life on earth but of death.
• "In order for animals to be preserved so remarkably in rocks throughout the world they had to be buried rapidly. Therefore the rocks don’t represent millions of years after all."
• Havasuipi Indians believe the Grand Canyon came into existence after a flood. This is evidence that they also came from the Tower of Babel. (I'm not kidding folks.)
• Fossil dragonflies with meter long wings are indistinguishable from modern dragonflies. (Except for size I guess; though McKay omits that qualification.) This is evidence that insects don't evolve at all.
• Orchids that trap insects must have been designed that way, because they are too complex to have evolved. (This is a lovely contrast to the stuff about carnivores on the same page.)
• He has replicas of skulls of forms supposedly transitional between apes and humans. No actual argument is given here.

Do you want to defend any of those as a reasonable perspective on the available evidence? Or are we content to disagree on the worth of McKay's perspective on evidence?McKay sees a problem with Christians abandoning faith when they meet up with evolution at Universities. He is right; this happens, frequently. People like McKay contribute to that problem, by promulgating bilge like the above. People who get sucked in by this will either have to abandon faith, or abandon hope of making any useful contribution in the areas of science McKay so mishandles. Darwin first of all collected large amounts of evidence, and gradually came to his distinctive views on evolution by examining that evidence. His ideas swiftly became accepted because they were so thoroughly and meticulously based on evidence. People like McKay are justly a laughing stock because they avoid so much evidence. Scientists like to argue about evidence. If people don't want to argue, they can go off and believe what they like. However, they don't. There is concerted campaign to bring creationist nonsense into school classrooms. It has no place in a classroom; and I'll defend that robustly and without apology.What is worrying is that people are not looking at the evidence; and yet pretending that their views on evidence still have some merit. Most creationists are completely unaware of the vast majority of the evidence; evidence has effectively nothing to do with creationist belief. The belief comes first; and then to defend the charade that it is compatible with evidence we get the usually litany of misrepresentation, distortion, omission, and often flat out dishonesty. No problems, Mike. I have given a very emphatic set of comments here, because I want you to be under no illusions about my position, despite the fact that I generally try to be polite and respectful in discussion, give credit where it is due to those with whom I may debate...... but Schafinator is right. Creationists -- you included -- are either ignorant or something more seriously disturbed. I don't normally say that so bluntly. It is not usually helpful. I prefer to stick to empirical arguments. There is no benefit to hammering home that critics of evolution invariably don't know much about it. We all have to learn. It's a big subject.Be fair here, Mike. In this thread, the spectre of ignorance was first raised by servant2thecause, in his first post. Scrafinator most likely did not use the word just because servant is a creationist; but because servant had already used the term first.Servant2thecause comes across to me as a young person who is just starting out on this whole subject, and is on a very steep learning curve indeed, on the relevant information and models and also on how to discuss effectively with people. Servant badly needs to wake up to himself on a few things; and sadly probably won't; at least not for a few years.You've been around the traps a bit longer, and you do know a fair bit on some of the topics, and about how to engage constructively. If you want to discuss any ideas from McKay, I will happily engage you without making any further personal remarks about ignorance. If you take a second look at McKay and decide you can find better examples, so much the better. I think you'd have a very tough row to hoe indeed to defend McKay as having a reasonable perspective on evidence.Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-18-2004]