Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 7:55 AM
27 online now:
Heathen, JoeT, Percy (Admin), RAZD (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,108 Year: 5,145/19,786 Month: 1,267/873 Week: 163/460 Day: 8/97 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Double Standard
RC Priest
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 6 (248348)
10-02-2005 8:43 PM


Creationism is a theistic model, but since evolution purports to explain origins and development naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) is this not the opposite of a theistic model? Richard Dawkins in writings that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” is making a philosophical statement. His science is not judged by the atheistic presuppositions that he approaches Science with, but YEC’s and ID theorists, who have theistic presuppositions, have their science (however bad it might be) criticized as religion. This seems to be a double standard? Darwin himself spoke of creation, and the Creator who ‘breathed into a few forms or into one,’ yet despite this rather spiritual language, his science is separated from that. Why are those who deny that naturalism is synonymous with science not shown the same courtesy?

Evc's Resident Priest


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-02-2005 9:03 PM RC Priest has not yet responded
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 10-02-2005 9:06 PM RC Priest has not yet responded
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2005 3:18 AM RC Priest has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 10-03-2005 7:07 AM RC Priest has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 6 (248353)
10-02-2005 8:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 6 (248357)
10-02-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RC Priest
10-02-2005 8:43 PM


As a Christian, I'd have to say no, it is most certainly NOT a double standard.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RC Priest, posted 10-02-2005 8:43 PM RC Priest has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 6 (248358)
10-02-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RC Priest
10-02-2005 8:43 PM


Richard Dawkins in writings that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” is making a philosophical statement. His science is not judged by the atheistic presuppositions that he approaches Science with, but YEC’s and ID theorists, who have theistic presuppositions, have their science (however bad it might be) criticized as religion.

You are making a poor comparison there. If Dawkins allowed his atheistic assumptions to color his science, that would be criticized. As long as his science is based on the empirical evidence, not his religious views, there should be no problem.

Keep in mind that quite a few evolutionists are Christians. They, too, separate their scientific work from their beliefs, and their science depends only on the empirical evidence.

Creationists are criticized, not because of their beliefs, but because of the lack of science in what they present. There isn't a double standard here.

Why are those who deny that naturalism is synonymous with science not shown the same courtesy?

Creationists tie themselves in knots, in their arguments over naturalism. But there is less there than they assume. Scientists are going by the empirical evidence. People who deny naturalism, yet produce good science based on empirical evidence, will be respected as scientists.

There isn't any creed of naturalism that scientists are required to honor. What is required is only that their work be supported by empirical evidence, and that others are able to repeat the empirical work to confirm the conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RC Priest, posted 10-02-2005 8:43 PM RC Priest has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14818
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 5 of 6 (248411)
10-03-2005 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RC Priest
10-02-2005 8:43 PM


quote:

Richard Dawkins in writings that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" is making a philosophical statement.

He's making the fairly obvious statement that evolution explained some major issues that previously had no good non-theistic explanation. It's not disputed becuase it is so obvious. But it isn't science.

Science is non-theistic in that it explains natural phenomena without reference to a God (e..g as the germ theory of disease explains plagues without reference to a God). It is not inherently atheistic although it can come into conflict with some theistic beliefs. And naturally successful scientific explanations are useful to atheists in combatting those theistic beliefs.

quote:

His science is not judged by the atheistic presuppositions that he approaches Science with, but YEC's and ID theorists, who have
theistic presuppositions, have their science (however bad it might be) criticized as religion.

If Dawkins were publishing bad science to bolster atheism there is no doubt that he would be criticised for doing so. But if he is not - and you have produced no evidence that he is - your claim of a double standard evaporates.

And let me add that it is the ID movement that is at the head of the queue to claim that science, as it currently is, is synonymous with naturalism. Philip Johnson is notorious for conflating the methodological naturalism of science with philosophical naturalism.c


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RC Priest, posted 10-02-2005 8:43 PM RC Priest has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 6 (248436)
10-03-2005 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RC Priest
10-02-2005 8:43 PM


No common ground
RC Priest writes:

Creationism is a theistic model, but since evolution purports to explain origins and development naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) is this not the opposite of a theistic model?

If by "the opposite of a theistic model" you mean a model that explicitly states the non-existence of a deity, then you are wrong to classify science as such, because science makes no such statements. Science is indifferent with regard to God's existence. And this is where we can immediately see why your comparison between creationism and science fails, because creationism is not indifferent.

On the contrary, creationism takes as its very fundament the premise that God exists. Being creationism, it's obvious that it should do so, but it's not at all obvious why it should be compared with science, let alone be on a par with it, when there is no common ground.

Richard Dawkins in writings that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” is making a philosophical statement.

So? You should properly make the distinction between statements of science and statements about science. Richard Dawkins is not solely a scientist, he is also a moral human being, but he knows how to separate the two stances. Again, we see a difference between creationism and science: creationism does not make a clear distinction between moral statements and scientific ones. In fact, creationism's antagonism against science is driven by the fear - an unjustified and unreasonable fear - that its own specific morals are somehow endangered by the pursuit of science, motivating it to try and engage science on its own terrain. Such attempts can only fail, because the motivation is the antithesis of how science proceeds.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 03-Oct-2005 01:56 PM


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RC Priest, posted 10-02-2005 8:43 PM RC Priest 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