Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

quote:

---

The ID creationist is often held to an impossible standard, that of debating strictly on secularist terms and under the secularist application of the scientific laws.

---

Of course they are, what other standard are they supposed to be held to? The ID creationists are the ones proclaiming that what they are doing is science, therefore they are to be held to the standards of science. If ID creationism, or plain old OEC/YEC creationism, is worthy to be taught in a secular science classroom, shouldn't they be held to the standards of secular science?Secondly, science is secular by definition. There is no such thing as "christian science" or "theist science". If your theories do not make sense in the absence of religion then you are not doing science. The fact that you think ID qualifies for special pleading illustrates the very weaknesses that ID has. ID, outside of religion, has no foundation and therefore is not science.

quote:

---

So the more important question becomes, "What standards should be applied in order to be fair to both Creationists and evolutionists."

---

Assertions, hypotheses, and theories need to be backed by objective, positive data.First up, objectivity. Merriam-Webster Online (Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary) defines objectivity as "of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind". Therefore, personal revelation is not objective because it is not independent of the mind. This excludes arguments such as "It looks designed" or "I can sense God's existence". Not all observers come to the same conclusion, nor are all observers able to experience another's religious experiences.One of the byproducts of objective data is that it is repeatable. For instance, the height of the Empire State building can be repeatedly measured and cross checked with other people's measurements. Repeatability does not mean that a phenomena needs to happen more than once, but rather the evidence created by the phenomena must be able to be tested repeatedly. In the context of the ID/Evo debate, the evidence of macroevolution is both repeatable and objective. This includes fossils and the examination of the DNA of living organisms. With ID, no one, as of yet, has been able to objectively determine what is designed and what is not. So far, the only data for ID is subjective, a simple proclamation that something "looks like it is designed, in my opinion".Next up is positivity. This ties in to the fallacy of false dichotomy. It is the position of many in the creationist crowd that if evolution is shown to be false this automatically means that creationism is true. This could not be farther from the truth. There could also be other natural mechanisms other than evolution that could result in the biodiversity we see today. Instead, for a theory to be supported you need fulfilled predictions that no other theory is able to explain, otherwise known as positive evidence. For example, if creationism were true then we would expect to see a representative sample of all types of animals in the earliest sediments. That is, the deepest sediments would include rabbits, dinosaurs, trilobites, and humans. This would be predicted through the theory of creationism if all animals were created within a week of each other. In the case of ID, positive evidence would be the observation of a designer designing life, or the observation of a designer that would have been capable of designing life in the absence of man. Or, ID could predict non-hierarchial DNA patterns that could only come from design. This would include unmutated bird genes found in bats, or unmutated fish genes found in whales. That is, each organism would be "designed" for an environment instead of reflecting common ancestory with organisms not found in their particular niche. For evolution, positive evidence is the nested hierarchy found in both the fossil record and in the DNA of extant species. Evolution predicts this pattern, and the observation of this pattern is considered positive evidence.Once positive evidence is established for a theory, none of the collected objective evidence must contradict the theory. For YEC creationism this is a huge problem given all of the evidence that runs contradictory to a young earth. For ID creationism this is a little tougher since the theory is firstly no based on objective data so no objective data is able to falsify it.To sum up, one needs positive objective data for ID/creationism to be supported. This would include the observation of a designer and fulfilled predictions that differ from other theories. The falsification of evolution does nothing to support the accuracy of ID creationism. Just as in a murder trial, the proven innocence of one person does not automatically support the guilt of someone not linked to the crime by evidence. We don't proclaim that "John Doe is innocent which means that James Smith is guilty even though we can't tie him to the murder".Will ID creationism ever hold itself to these types of standards? They have yet to do it, which is a sign that the proponents realize the weakness of their theory. Instead, ID creationism is steeped in philosophy and subjective judgements. If ID creationists want to claim that their ideas are not scientific and religious in nature that would be fine with me. However, there are those in the ID creationist crowd that want their ideas accepted as science while, at the same time, not subjecting their theories to the rigours of scientific investigation. It is the hypocricy that keeps ID out of science, but, regrettably, not out of science classrooms.

quote:

---

Evidence here - must be according to the evo's scientific method.

---

False, the evidence must be scientific. That evolution is supported by scientific evidence is not the topic at hand. The theory of evolution does not define what evidence is accepted or thrown out within science. Methodological naturalism and the scientific method define what is accepted and what is thrown out. If ID is to be scientific, it must meet the same standards that evolution is held to, as well as every other theory within the sciences.

quote:

---

Now since we believe in a supernatural creator, it's always going to be impossible to have any evidence for God, who transcends the natural and can be invisible.

---

Precisely. Just as I will never have evidence of an Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn, or Laughing Leprachauns. So what? Why should I have to believe in a non-evidenced deity before I can do science? Name one scientific theory used in science today that requires the acceptance of any religious dogma before the theory works.

quote:

---

This means the secularist atheist can always use the scientific stance that there must be evidence, testable etc.. So we are immediately into a fight with one hand tied behind our back, because the populas at EvC, is basically atheist/evo.

---

You have one hand tied behind your back because the evidence does not support what you claim. There is a huge difference. If YEC is true, then the evidence should pull us there in the absence of any religious belief. If all species were created at the same time, the evidence should allow us to conclude that no matter or beliefs in a God or the non-existence of any deity.

quote:

---

Now if we find a toothe from the megaladon shark, and show it is identical to a modern white shark, except for in size. My question is - just how can't that be creation evidence IF the bible says things have degenerated?

---

Who says smaller is degenerative? Microprocessors keep getting smaller but they are also considered better. Smaller does not equal degenerative.

quote:

---

1. The shark hasn't evolved - he's just shrunk.
2. Animals such as these grow without limit. If the earth was "very good" like in Genesis, then the white shark would reach this size.

---

Why is bigger better, or "good". The majority of life is and always has been microscopic (ie bacteria). Does this mean that God's creation is actually "bad"?

quote:

---

So, please evolutionists - WHY should this evidence favour evolution when the bible answers the evidence fully?

---

The bible does not answer the evidence fully. Where in the Bible does it say that everything will get smaller? Where in the Bible does it say that sea life will shrink because of some curse? Nowhere. Also, we have several periods in the fossil record that illustrate the overall size of animals becoming bigger over time, and then getting smaller, and then getting bigger, and then getting smaller, ad nauseum. Does this mean that there were mutliple Falls?Also, in my post above, I suggested that ID creationism, or even straight YEC creationism, make predictions that are not possible by any other theory. Animals getting smaller does not contradict evolution. Therefore, why should we rely on a historically unreliable supernatural theory when we have a perfectly useable, testable natural theory that can explain it as well?

quote:

---

Actually, there is a good deal of scientific study that deals with religious claims too. There are Christian scientists and historians and anthropologists, etc... who uncover things which support our claims too, so this is not some blind lemming-like, close-minded brigade of imbeciles.

---

Let's take a step back, shall we?This is going to be tough to keep on topic, but hopefully we can all try. What religious claims, exactly, are being supported? There is a definite separation between confirming a place in the Bible and confirming what happened at a place. For instance, the possible discovery of Troy in no way supports what happened in the Illiad (or is it the Odyssey, I always get those two mixed up). What I need are the scientific findings and how you think they support religious claims. These will only be used as examples of how science can support religion, not a discussion on the veracity religious claims. Get my drift?Next, since you claim that science and religion can mix, can you name one scientific theory used in science today that only works if one accepts religious dogma? For instance, do I have to pray before the Theory of Relativity works? Do I have to accept the Resurrection of the Christ before the Germ Theory of Disease makes any sense?Also, you claim that science is not trustworthy because it changes. Then, according to you, science would be more trustworthy if it still hypothesized that the earth was the middle of the solar system, that animals acquire traits through their life time (Lamarckism), or that electricity moves through an ether. Isn't science trustworthy because it strives to be inline with all of the data, even if it means throwing some theories out or rewriting others? This is why all scientific theories are tentative, because everyone knows that evidence could pop up tomorrow and require a total rewrite of many theories. So what. That is why scientists are still being trained, to rewrite, modify, or add to the theories we have today. If science had already decided that it knows everything we wouldn't need research scientists anymore.And to continue my blabberfest, science is a tool used to discover things about the physical world. Science is not a tool that is used to find philosophical truth. The bigger Truth (with a big T) is dealt with through theology and philosophy. I always forget who said this, but "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". Science deals with the truths of the physical world; theology deals with the larger truths of man's existence and place in the universe.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-16-2004 05:01 PM

quote:

---

I think non-Christian scientists come up with experiments that they SUBJECTIVELY determine there is no God

---

False. Scientists use objective data to come to objective conclusions. Whether or not they conflict with religious views is never considered. Evolution does not exclude God, it only refutes certain interpretations of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and not even all interpretations at that. Evolution actually supports the beliefs of theistic christians.

quote:

---

and Christians continue to claim there is and point to a beautiful design in the world as reason so that they have some way they can appeal to scientists because scientists demand that only their narrow compass of repeated experiments will reveal truth (even though they've gotten it wrong before).

---

And theistic christians continue to claim that everything looks evolved. What experiments can I run in the lab to differentiate between the two views?Also, can you name one scientific discovery that is still held today that could only have been found by having faith in God's existence?

quote:

---

Scientists have been wrong. The scientific process may be "INCOMPLETE." Treating it like an inerrant God is not wise.

---

No scientist worth his weight in horse dung takes any theory as absolute truth. In fact, Nobel Prizes are often awarded to people who prove theories wrong. What you claim is not how science is run.

quote:

---

The "change" point was used to coroborate my claim that it has been wrong.

---

So the earth must be the center of the solar system because science has been wrong before? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Who would you trust more, a person who admits when they are wrong or someone who will stubbornly stick to their guns even after they have been shown to be wrong? I prefer the former.

quote:

---

For example, if someone says that their point of view is supported by Biblical reference, it is reasonable to actually examine that reference.

---

Totally agree. Whether or not a point of view is consistent with the Bible is a different question than whether or not a point of view is consistent with the physical world.

quote:

---

On the other hand, if someone says they believe in GOD, it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of how they arrived at that position but very little needs to be done beyond them giving their reasoning.

---

Again, I totally agree. If a creationist decides that the earth is young despite any evidence for or against, then there really is nothing to argue, other than if their claims are consistent with the Bible. This is where Bible interpretation becomes important, not science.

quote:

---

I have seen evoloutionists disregaurd websites just because they were Christian based

---

Actually we do read them. We disregard them because they are based on false information. This is not the same as ignoring them. If you feel that big piece of evidence is being ignored perhaps the you could start a topic. I would even help you with edits if it fails to pass admin standards. Most of the time the opening posts are redundant or are poorly formatted, and I could help with this if you would be willing.

quote:

---

It could be that people of my beliefes don't know how to debate them correctly and resort to threats, but I doubt that that is all.

---

I think this is the real problem. A lot of us are used to arguing about topics within science. Some of us even write scientific papers. The average creationist is usually not ready for this type of scrutiny and will often resort to acting emotionally wounded because their ideas are not accepted without question. When this happens we become frustrated, and the whole topic goes into a death spiral. Just remember that you are often arguing with people with more scientific knowledge than yourself, but this should never keep you from discussing any topic.

quote:

---

I was banished for not showing proof quick enough after too quickly responding yes to posts that I didn't think about. Mabey it is just because it is in coffee house, but no one seems to do that to evoloutionist.

---

I can see how you get this perception. The problem may be that us evo's are all familiar with the same information. We tend to talk in shorthand at times, expecting creationists to understand what we are talking about. For instance, I might claim that "clades produced from fossils match clades produced from DNA". Now you may not understand this, nor feel that it has ever been shown to be true. Evo's will totally skip over it because they have already seen the evidence supporting my claim. From outward appearances this does seem unfair. The way to counter this problem is to ask pointed questions and ask people to support their assertions. It is up to you to make people support their claims. The Admins only force posters to answer the questions once they are asked (which happened to you if memory serves), and to behave in a decent manner.

quote:

---

Now, I haven't seen all that much of this site, but I doubt (though I could be wrong) that since the ratio of evo's to creation people sent to boot camp or banned is so low, I see a very real double standered here.

---

Are you saying that the justice system is unfair to criminals because only criminals are sent to jail? If you continually fail to support your arguments with evidence when asked you are sent to boot camp. Can you give me one example of an evo continually not answering the questions of a creationist at this site? I can give you plenty of creationists that dodge questions left and right.

quote:

---

So this is pretty unfair of you Jar. Thesitic arguments are just as valid and worthwhile, and should be looked at. But for you - only atheistic arguments are acceptable.

---

Theistic arguments are valid and worthwhile WITHIN THEOLOGY. Creationism is a scientific argument based on theology. Because creationism is a scientific argument it is held to scientific standards, under which it fails miserably.The only way to remove creationism from science is to claim that God created the universe with the appearance of age, including faked fossils and faked ratios of isotopes in rocks, starlight produced in flight, etc. At this point it is no longer a scientific argument but a theological argument. For creationism to be considered a theologic argument you must first admit that all of the evidence does point to evolution, no world wide flood, and an old earth. The only problem is that this argument makes God look like a trickster, and therefore is a poor THEOLOGICAL argument. It is possible to move creationism out of science and into a purely theological argument, but in doing so you define God as something that is theologically disrespectful.

quote:

---

Atheists have this uncanny ability to judge me, yet they haven't the right.

---

I'm and agnostic, but close enough to an atheist in the christian way of thinking. I'm not Jar either, but this statement seems to be issued to atheists and not Jar in particular. You and I have had discussions on purely theological and spritual issues. I have never judged you for being a christian, and I hope that has always been obvious. What I do judge you on is your scientific claims, creationism in particular. Christianity does not equal creationism, as is evidenced by the vast numbers of theistic evolutionists that agree with the Bible and with science. Evolution actually supports the views of some christians, such as the aforementioned theistic evoltionists. How can science be anti-religious if the religious agree with it?My purpose in this debate forum is to confront bad science. The debate within science dealing with evolution has long since died. To tell you the truth, if creationism was not being foisted on public school students by activist school boards I may not even be involved in these forums. I also want to make clear that science is not trying to do away with christianity or any other religion. The standards that I expect from creationists is the same standards I expect of myself and other colleagues within science. Why should creationists get to do away with the standards of science in their scientific arguments? They shouldn't. They do not deserve special pleading just because they have touchy-feely religious views.Science is a cold, hard, unforgiving, and careless bitch, and I love it for this very reason. Science is a tool that doesn't care what your feelings are. Science is a method that never considers how conclusions may bruise your ego or your worldview. Science is a machine that will chew you up and spit your out without blinking an eye. No one should ever go to the world of science expecting to be comforted or to feel better about themselves. Science is the extention of pure logic and reason.Religion is the exact opposite. Religion is where people go to feel better about themselves, about their place in the universe, and about things that are not part of nature. Religion is an extention of the irrational feelings that humans have. This in no way makes religion a bad thing, just something separate from science. Why people need science to support their religion continues to flabbergast me. Even more flabbergasting is the fact that creationists think they can call something "science" and expect to be excluded from the very method that is science.

quote:

---

You are practicing science if you use the accepted scientific standards to do a repeated experiment that shows a genetic mutation. AS SOON AS YOU SAY "THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE" you are not practicing science anymore.

---

Baloney. "Therefore evolution is possible" is the hypothesis under investigation. This allows us to construct experiments that will test to see if 1) divergent species share a common ancestor and 2) the differences in their DNA is due to mutation. Common ancestory can be detected through fossils and through DNA. Detection of mutations can be done as well by comparing the same genes between those two species. You are missing the larger picture. Unlike creationists, real scientists don't assume the theory is true from just one single experiment. It is the totallity of the data that must be considered.

quote:

---

Now you have moved to the realm of interpretation which uses experience, wisdom, logic, history, and all sorts of things that are not a part of the scientific method.

---

No, you have moved into the realm of the scientific method. When you construct a hypothesis you test it through the scientific method. For instance, if man and chimp share a common ancestor then there should be DNA fingerprints connecting the two in the same way that DNA fingerprinting can connect father to child. Those are found in the form of pseudogenes and endogenous retroviral insertions. If I find that humans and cattle have more DNA similarities than humans and chimps my hypothesis has been falsified. Your hypothesis should make predictions about what should be there and what shouldn't be there. You then test those predictions. At the end, you can claim that the evidence either supports your hypothesis or falsifies your hypothesis.

quote:

---

It is fair to call someone on their failure to conduct an experiment properly, but we cannot even discuss the issue of evolution and creation without subjective conversation.

---

If you are talking about creationism, you are right, we can not remove subjectivity. If you are speaking of evolution, we can very cleary speak only in terms of objective data.

quote:

---

Discussing the implications of an experiment is not purely science.

---

If you mean discussing the philosophical implications of an experiment, you are correct. Experiments either confirm or falsify a hypothesis/theory. That is what they are for. When you test a hypothesis/theory through experimentation you are doing science. When you ignore experiments and observations, you are doing creation science.Perhaps you should check out my thread on ERV's. It is an example of positive, objective data that supports common ancestory between chimps and man. It can be found here. I think this thread would be the perfect place to discuss how evolution is tested. I don't want to drag this thread off-topic by arguing about the specifics of how evolution is supported, but rather how science is conducted.

quote:

---

Regardless, though, the reality is that I am not a scientist. I am merely one who eyes the scientific process as useful to an extent but not the infallible god that some make it.

---

Well, I am a scientist and I do not consider science to be an infallible God. In fact, I think science is the highest form of skepticism that is available to man. The only infallible idol I see is the book of Genesis as it is treated by literalists. In fact, ICR and others have fully admitted that they will not consider evidence that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. Can you explain how this is science?

quote:

---

And, as I said, people then move to the realm of interpretation and claim it's science when it's not.

---

What good is data without interpretation? Science is a method that interprets data for you. Theories are a testable frameworks that attempt to explain the data. Interpretation of data is what science is.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-17-2004 03:35 PM

quote:

---

btw...here is an example of why testing a hypothesis with scientific method doesn't automatically make it right.

​

eg...

​

I note that a man drops dead after standing outside in 80 degree sun for 10 days straight.

​

I hypothosize: "hmm...that man just died from the sun. Let me test this hypothesis."

​

I conduct another experiment in the same way and another person dies. I conduct the experiment 100 times.

​

I conclude that people die from 70 degree sun after 10 days.

​

Wow!! Wasn't that pointless?!! They died of thirst.

​

Your method can easily miss truth because you follow some other track.

---

Just thought I would point out a fatal flaw in your analogy. To fully test a hypothesis you also have to test the null hypothesis. In this case, you should have also placed a man in the same conditions minus sunlight. This would have shown that both men, both in sunlight and no sunlight, would have died at the same time. Therefore, the hypothesis was shown to be unsupported. No hypothesis is ever accepted unless the null hypothesis has also been tested.

quote:

---

So you admit that science is a partially subjective process? This is great. Hey everybody, check out this admission about what science is. This is awesome!! That means creation scientists can get back in the debate. Thanks dude.

---

Interpretation does not equal subjectivity. Ever heard of interpreting data through objective criteria? Might want to look into it.

quote:

---

Nothing comes close to proving goo to you evolution occurred. It is a hypothesis whose staying power is only because people want so badly for it to be true. IMHO

---

Been reading Sarfati have we? Check out my thread on ERV's. Great example of the objective data that supports common ancestory between man and chimp.http://EvC Forum: ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory -->EvC Forum: ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory

quote:

---

Seriously..there is no progress with you guys until you realize that your conclusions are not objective. It is hardly worth even discussing things if you won't make that step.

---

Read above. Go to my thread and point out where I am being subjective.