|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC? Part II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Continued from
Message 314 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminIRH Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
This is a reply to Maestro's Message 300.
Maestro writes: quote: I think my message 276 describes it. Okay, quoting everything you said from Message 276:
I'm sorry, but the posts clearly indicate this. Regardless, if this is Evolution vs Creation, it is only fair to let both sides include what they feel is relevent to the debate, otherwise, the other side is hijacking the process. If you say science is relevent, fine, we will do our best. You think we haven't made a good scientific case. Fine. Fair enough. You have had your fun, now allow us to introduce what we feel is relevent to the debate. If you were to spend but a little time in the spiritual realm and explain why we are wrong there like you show that we are wrong in science, why, you would win the whole debate. Give it a try. IT IS FAIR!!! Uh, Maestro, this describes nothing about the standards you'd like to propose as an alternative to scientific standards. This thread keeps running off the tracks. The topic is whether EvC Forum is evenly and fairly holding members from both sides of the debate to the same standards. But before we can answer that question we have to settle what standards should be applied. Evolutionists propose the standards of science. In other words, and as described several times in the extended thread, theories, hypotheses, proposals and ideas should be falsifiable and based upon evidence from the natural world gathered through replicatable processes such as experimentation and/or observation. Please, somebody, anybody, describe what you're proposing as an alternative. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
In other words, and as described several times in the extended thread, theories, hypotheses, proposals and ideas should be falsifiable and based upon evidence from the natural world gathered through replicatable processes such as experimentation and/or observation. Percy, am I correct in assuming that you don't consider ID creationism to be falsifiable? If that is the case, aren't you thereby saying only secularists and creo-evolutionists are allowed to debate/discuss scientific ideology? (I hope I understood you correctly that anyone may address this here in New Topics.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Percy, am I correct in assuming that you don't consider ID creationism to be falsifiable? If that is the case, aren't you thereby saying only secularists and creo-evolutionists are allowed to debate/discuss scientific ideology? I don't see how one follows from the other, and I don't see what the falsifiability of ID has to do with choosing standards. (By the way, genuine adherents to ID are probably cringing every time you use the phrase "ID Creationism" - naturally I'm delighted to see ID referred to this way, but I get the feeling that once again you've chosen to focus on something not that familiar to you. The strongest proponent of ID here was John Paul, and he strenuously resisted any association of ID with Creationism. You might want to check out some of his old threads.) If the standards of science are acceptable to you (naturalness, evidence, falsifiability, replicability), then we can proceed on to discuss whether these standards are being applied fairly. If the standards of science are *not* acceptable to you, then please describe or give examples of the standards you'd like used. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
FYI, I'm moving my attention to the "The Relevence of Biblical claims to Science" thread in the Misc Topics forum. I think this stuff will be addressed there. Hope to see you guys there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4467 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Let's start at the beginning; a very good place to start. Why do we have standards at all?
Evolutionists think that evolution occured, and all that that entails. Creationists think that it did not. The core of the debate is, and always will be, the opposition of these two views. What do you think that means? I consider that it means each side is trying to convince the other, because of opposing viewpoints, etc., and that it is relevent to the world at large because creationists do not want evolution taught and evolutionists do not want creation taught. In the end, it comes down to each side trying to convince the other that they are right - or else why are we here? Why is there debate at all, why are there so many people trying to ensure that one side or the other is taught in schools? I for one doubt that it is anything so noble as "providing another perspective on life". No, it boils down to nothing more than trying to convice people, for both sides. So how do we conduct debate? Each side says, "Convince me!" and they begin to present what they feel is compelling or convincing. At this point, I feel that creationists stall outright. In their opinion, the bible, prophesy, and philosophy are very, very convincing; not so for the evolutionists. Why should they give special treatment to one holy book out of many? Why should they take Christian scripture as being valid, when even the Christians cannot agree on what is metaphor and what isn't? It is impossible to convince them using anything but what they accept, and that is limited to science. Fine then, the creationists say, we will use science - and from this we have the myriad pseudo-scientific creationist arguments. An example: Creo: "Genesis is true, because the bible is the word of God!"Evo: "Well, how do you know it's the word of God?" Creo: "Because I have faith in God." Evo: "Well, I'm not Christian, so you'll have to show me some evidence." See what I mean? It's easy preaching to the converted, but preaching to a non-believer is a waste of time. Nothing from scripture will be enough to convince them - and many will probably be less likely to take you seriously. You may try to convince them of the veracity of the bible, which is a whole other matter considering how skeptical they may be (as far as I can see, it's usually impossible). Conversely, evolutionists try to convince creationists using science. The difference here is subtle, but important; where evolutionists reject the bible, prophesy, etc. outright as evidence, creationists must accept science in some form due to the world in which we live. It is impossible to live in modern society without utilising science in some form; the same is not true of Christianity or even religion. So the debate falls down to "different interpretations" of evidence, based on personal bias - and all that that entails. Evo: "But if Genesis is true, then why {insert any evidence for evolution}?"Creo: "That's just your interpretation of the facts!" Evo: "Well, why should we use your interpretation instead? What's it got going for it besides including Christianity?" And there the debate stalls, because that last question has never been answered as far as I'm aware. The reality is that science is the only common ground between the two sides that may be used as evidence, and unfortunately evolutionists generally have the advantage there. That's why both sides are held to scientific standards; it's the only area that both sides can accept to any degree, and it is in some way consistant (in that I mean that personal opinion or faith is mostly irrelevent). As an aside:
quote: When you are trying to convice someone of your views, using evidence that they feel is irrelevent is not going to help. Talking about God and the bible in a debate with an atheist is simply not going to work, and expecting it to is just being naive. That is why creationists resort to science, and why we have things like Intelligent Design, the hydroplate hypothesis, catastrophic plate tectonics... and so on. But using science means being held to scientific standards, period - and it's been noted before that science is utterly heartless and makes no exceptions for pet theories. No, it isn't fair. But that is the choice that creationists must make; use the bible, prophesy, philosophy, and theology and be completely disregarded, or use science and at least have a chance. That's why we use scientific standards, and why other standards probably won't work. (BTW I know that many evolutionists are theistic, not all creationists are literalists or YEC or even Christian, and there are many scenarios I haven't addressed, but I'm using generalities to get to the crux of the matter. I'm not sure how well I'm doing either. Sorry.) Is the standard applied fairly to both sides here? I think so. However, evolutionists are usually scientists well used to that standard; creationists are not. Also, evolutionists are more likely to be speaking from personal expertise (i.e. I'm a geologist) and so maybe don't back up what they say every time. That is not an excuse, of course, but it is some explanation. Perhaps creationists need to be reminded more often to back up what they say, link to reliable sources, etc. - and so it would seem that they are treated more harshly than evolutionists. *whew* Long post. I hope it's useful. The Rockhound "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
IRH writes: ...Also, evolutionists are more likely to be speaking from personal expertise (i.e. I'm a geologist) and so maybe don't back up what they say every time. That is not an excuse, of course, but it is some explanation. Perhaps creationists need to be reminded more often to back up what they say, link to reliable sources, etc. - and so it would seem that they are treated more harshly than evolutionists. You have here hit on something that I've (in admin mode) tried to work on in the past. Ideed, many of the evo side are scientific professionals. And often they don't offer up references to back there assertions. Notable exceptions (and I'm sure I'm leaving out some here) are Bill Birkeland and Mammuthus, who are known for providing long lists of references, both on-line and off-line. I am sometimes concerned by the demands to those on the creo side, to supply references, while such seems seldom done to those of the evo side. I (evo side) of course know that the evo side does have mountains of references at their disposal, while the creo's have vastly slimmer amounts available. Quasi-geologist Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Ideed, many of the evo side are scientific professionals. And often they don't offer up references to back there assertions. Notable exceptions (and I'm sure I'm leaving out some here) are Bill Birkeland and Mammuthus, who are known for providing long lists of references, both on-line and off-line. I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. I agree Bill and Mammuthus are reknowned for providing copious references in almost every post they make, and most of the rest of us don't always. However, I don't think I've ever seen a regular who wasn't willing to provide references on demand to support a claim or assertion. Creationists, OTOH, invariably either run away, change the subject, or move the goalposts (or, alternatively, whine about double standards) whenever pushed to provide documentation. At best, they'll link to AiG or Dr.Dino as though these websites represented the Ultimate Unquestionable Authority. And are of course surprised and insulted when these sites are greeted with raucus guffaws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Considering Maestro232's performance on the "The relevence of Biblical claims to science" thread it seems that I was entirely right. The problem is not that creationists are held to a higher standard than evolutionists. Just a higher standard then he can meet - for instance actually reading and understanding the web pages that he cites as support.
While it may be desirable to make some allowances, lowering the standards to that level would not help discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Maybe the problem is that religion is taught by rote and adherents go with the flow. It`s not till they get to a forum such as EvC that they are finally called to account. Even if they have had scientific or academic training, it might be the first time they have had to structure and examine their beliefs in depth. I remember JWs diving into their 'Reasoning' book if a curly question came up, but that still produced a parrot reply, not an understanding of the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
The strongest proponent of ID here was John Paul, and he strenuously resisted any association of ID with Creationism. You might want to check out some of his old threads.) That sounds interesting. I'm not sure if I can find his ID stuff in the archives, but will give it a try. Thanks. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
It doesn't look like Maestro is returning after the holidays, so I'm giving this thread a bump. I originally envisioned this thread as a discussion primarily with Buzsaw about fairly applying standards to both Creationists and evolutionists, but Maestro inserted his frenetic posting style and this discussion never really took place.
Buzz, yours is the last post here, and it includes no indication of interest in continuing discussion of the fairness issue. There's no need to reply if you feel the issue has received enough attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I periodically receive AIG's weekly e-mail newsletter. As many well know, AIG is a large young earth creationist organization, and the views they espouse are held by the majority of YEC's. Unfortunately, much of what they advocate is greatly flawed. Take notice of their most recent topic entitled, "How can the average Christian know how to debate with knowledgeable evolutionists?":
quote:--Of course you do not need to have objectively substantiated academic credentials to participate and share your interest in these issues, but they just make it sound ridiculously simple--well illustrated by their little story (which completely breaks down to borderlining stupidity where there are italics). The majority of YEC's don't think they need to have significant understanding of the relevant scientific data (indeed, some have virtually no understanding at all). This clearly has an effect on the relative tendencies of YEC's and Evo's to reference peer reviewed literature. Most YEC's aren't even aware of how much scientific research goes into some scientific conclusion. This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-06-2005 17:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi TC,
Finally, he just said to the man, Were you there? The geologist was dumbfounded that an adult could ask such a stupid question. Brian.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024