Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

What else is there but "experience"?

Human reason and logic.

And what is the ground of this "human reason and logic"? Is it not intuition? Isn't that an "experience"?Are you suggesting that human reason and logic transcend the personal, the cultural, and the natural?

Although it is true that you must have the experience first before being able to analyze what's what, my original response was to that new guy... can't remember his name and too lazy to look up... who seemed to suggest that experience alone would suffice.

yes, but my second question? Your answer?

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.

You're right, and I want to show why;Evidence here - must be according to the evo's scientific method. 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.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.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?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.So, please evolutionists - WHY should this evidence favour evolution when the bible answers the evidence fully?Thankyou.It's a blatant lie that there is no creation evidence - I've just provided one example.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2004 03:44 PM

But we're held to the exact same standard, Buz. Over on our side, we can't just make up things; when we assert that something is we have to show the evidence that supports that conclusion.C'mon, Buz. You should know better. Only a child would complain that it's unfair that they aren't being treated specially, which is exactly what you're asking for. You want to be able to posit all manner of things for which there is no evidence; but you don't want us to be able to do the same thing.There's nothing "impossible" about the standard you're being held to; it's simply the standards that scientific thought must always be held to. If you feel that ID can't meet that standard, that's the fault of ID and it's proponents, not some kind of arbitrary unfairness in the rules, and you need to reassess your confidence in that explanitory hypothesis. You'll have to explain for me how it's a "handicap" that ID'ers are held to the same standards as the rest of us. To me that's as empty and foolish as the bully who complains that their victim hit them back.

Which would you rather be - mostly right, and getting righter; or eternally and unchangingly wrong?Revision and the advance of knowledge in science are what indicate that science is more right. It's the failure of religious dogma to ever change in the light of new information that confirms that it's eternally wrong.

Woah, hang on a second. That scientific method you refer to was developed by creationists. So what's the deal? You guys came up with a method that we're supposed to stick to, forever, but all of a sudden, your own method isn't good enough for you?

Well, my own tentative view is that "human reason and logic" might be "supra-natural," which is why it is superior in discovering truths than other types of experience such as sense impressions and feelings. No way to prove this, of course.

Creationists insist it is science, and therefore appropriate for inclusion in the public school science curiculum.Given this, how can you argue for judging Creationism by any other standard besides science?--Percy

quote:

---

Although it is true that you must have the experience first before being able to analyze what's what, my original response was to that new guy... can't remember his name and too lazy to look up... who seemed to suggest that experience alone would suffice.

---

I didn't suggest that at all.

quote:

---

My opinion is that experience is a reasonable barometer in conjunction with science.

---

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?

I thought, rather, they insisted that TOE was religion.