Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

Probabilities are calculated based on some mathematical model. Often the various factors are known, or at least estimatible well enough to be able to make a ball park estimate of the probability.The proper question is whether that particular mathematical model is realistic. Sometimes the estimation is done as part of a reduction ad absurdum, to demonstrate that the mathematical model is unrealistic.The argument that YECs make about natural abiogenesis tends to be of the following form: In practice, the YECs usually state only steps 1 and 4. But steps 2 and 3 would be required for a complete argument. And step 3 is fallacious. You have changed the subject from abiogenesis to evolution.As far as I can tell, nobody is demanding that creation scientists provide a complete theory. What is being requested, is
(a) That there be enough of a theory that it can make credible predictions that are such as can be subject to empirical testing;
(b) That the creationist theory do at least as well as evolution (scientists won't give up a highly effective working theory in exchange for something that barely works and is relatively ineffective).

The demands, haughty or not, are not for a complete theory, but for a theory supported by evidence. The primary problem for Creationism isn't its incompleteness, but its lack of evidence combined with all the contrary evidence. It is the determination of Creationism to hold fast to its views despite the evidence problem that consigns it to realms outside of science. Science is a process of following the evidence, and Creationism cannot be considered science as long as it assigns a higher priority to following the Bible than to following the evidence.--Percy

Hey, how 'bout those Yankees?!Well, we've both had our say.Have a beautiful autumn evening, Faith.

First off, the process is not random, but you alreay know this.
Second, no matter how unlikely the process is, it in no way contributes to the evidence for a designer. How can you not understand this?
It seems that you are of the opinion that it's either one or the other. Tecnhically, it could be argued that it's natural processess (evolution) against hundreds, if not thouasands of alternate, Goddidit ideas. What evidence (there's that word again...the one you seem to ignore..."evidence") do you have that your idea, your God, has a higher probablilty of being correct than any other religions idea of how life came about?

He undercut it using examples. If you do not understand this that you are missing what is going on. That is an interesting question, and maybe this will help you understand? Modelling is best done for very narrow systems with a few easily predictable and well understood mechanisms. The less detail it covers the more we are likely to know a bit about what is going on.For example I have modelling experience in the behavior of molecules. I am not going to get into the technical details but the short of it is that through experiments people found certain behaviors could be predicted using mathematical models, lets say vibration matching a spring moving back and forth, and so oscillation models could be used and we could be confident in them.Thus we run models with different energy, starting points, and create predictions for scenarios which have not been experimented with yet. You get the results, run experiments and check to see if the model holds. If it does then there is greater confidence in the model.I really simplified it, but lets leave it at that. Abio and Evo are not narrowly focused situations like vibrations in molecules. We have yet to be suggesting definite routes and environments, and frankly we know very little about chemistry at that scale and variety. Organic chemistry is enormously complex, and we have barely scratched its surface. Modeling some reactions in some very specific environemnts is certainly possible, but to suggest that such models touch on the astounding numbers of environments and chemicals we have yet to learn about is absurd.And some basic creo and id improbability calculations, are based on some weird idea of chemicals just "coming together" as if it was some homogenous soup of chemicals and random chance is the appropriate mathematical model for their interaction. It's the darndest thing. You have missed the point. There is the large theory of evolution which is a general description, that ties together the evidence in a coherent model. Then there are theories about the specific bio-chem mechanisms which could produce the larger scale observations. Attacking the latter does not necessarily effect the former.Creationism is missing both types of theories. If it at least had the first kind of coherent model, that would at least give it a fighting chance as a science. But it doesn't. There is no coherent model for all the observations we have to explain. And then there is the latter part which patently gives us nothing to work with. What use is it when I try to investigate mechanisms, if I must throw up my hands and say "God's miracle"?You don't have to have a complete model down to all of the mechanisms in order to have a valid scientific theory. Merely a coherent theory with plausible mechanisms, meaning that we can realistically research them in some way.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You're welcome. Actually, I have a little problem with the so-called fallacy called the "argument from incredulity."It seems to me that if something is inconceivable, and if that something is assumed as part of a given theory, then the theory has a problem. This would be the case unless the theory is backed up by mathematics, as in quantum theory, which is certainly inconceivable.

His doing any probability calculations whatever gives credence to that approach, despite the fact that he was trying to demonstrate how wrong the creationist version is. Then finally to declare all probability calculations irrelevant as the fact that life exists is evidence enough for his team is, once again, begging the question. No room whatever for the creationist observation that life's springing up out of nowhere is ridiculously improbable. We have to deal in technicalities, be disqualified by technicalities, and simply avoid mentioning the obvious I guess. Whatever. Obviously no room for simple common sense when it comes to the very idea that life could just happen, which is pretty much what I just said above. You guys spend WAY too much time in the laboratory peering at the trees and completely missing the forest. I'm sure both can be attacked on their own merits. Creationism is not in the business of creating models, it's in the business of reinterpretation, showing that evidence currently appropriated to evolutionism supports creationism better. Whether technically speaking this is science or not I don't know and I don't care, it's what creationists do. I refer you to Ben's attempts to explain that creationism is operating from a completely other frame of reference, and it's time this difference was both recognized and respected if there is to be anything approaching real debate here. I don't think I completely agree with Ben's views but at least he's on the right track. I get very tired of this straw man, which is an argument I have never used and in fact haven't seen other creationists use. This is not what creationists do. It's time to start understanding what creationists do or abandon this pretense to debate.But all this is off topic.RAZD committed the fallacy of begging the question. Robinrohan recognized this despite disagreeing with creationist methods. The rest of you should recognize it also.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-04-2005 05:49 PM

I'm afraid I'm not getting your point.I find the accusation that creationists commit this so-called "argument from incredulity" just another piece of evolutionist intolerance of creationist thinking.

Well you're still dead wrong about RAZD's post.But at least you're admitting that creationsim isn't science.

quote:

---

Creationism is not in the business of creating models, it's in the business of reinterpretation, showing that evidence currently appropriated to evolutionism supports creationism better.

---

Of course ccreationsim CAN'T show that the evidence fits creationism better without building a model. So creationism not only isn't science, it's doomed itself to failure.


Somebody tries to show that some aspect of evolution is inconceivable. This I believe is what ID arguers do. The argument from incredulity--the explanation of the fallacy--says that just because somebody finds something inconceivable, it doesn't mean that an alternative is true.ed
As follows: It is inconceivable that a human being could have evolved from a bacteria. Therefore, life came about by special creation.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-04-2005 05:04 PM

I usually only run across this in my own arguments where I just blurt out that something makes no sense, is simply incredible, but I don't think I assume that this by itself will stand without support. The most I may wildly hope is that somebody might just recognize it, along the lines of thinking Well, yeah, that does look pretty impossible now that you mention it. Presumably the search for other support would then ensue. But evolutionists aren't bothered by the impossibilities and improbabilities in their work, they just keep focused down on the technical problem in hand. That leaves creationists with the job of putting teeth into these incredulities. Which would be all right I guess except that in practice these efforts don't get any recognition either. Just as I believe Christians should abandon the public schools altogether, I'm starting to think we should abandon these debate charades as well. This may be the only useful result from my months of experience here.

I think I've learned quite a bit on this forum and have also improved my argumentative skills, so I don't find it useless. But perhaps your agenda is different.

quote:

---

But evolutionists aren't bothered by the impossibilities and improbabilities in their work,

---

Since we're onyl talking about yor opinions and subjective judgements why SHOULD scientists - who after all know the subject better than you care.

quote:

---

That leaves creationists with the job of putting teeth into these incredulities.Which would be all right I guess except that in practice these efforts don't get any recognition either.

---

If you mean that creationists should honestly support their laims you are correct. THe problem is that they fail to do so.Bogus calculations don't count. Misrepresentations of others views don't count. Demanding that others should agree with you doesn't count.

Faith, let me ask you something. Do you know what stereotypes are?For example, the Bloods and the Crips. Are all Bloods alike? Are all Crips alike?What about all evolutionists?What about all creationists?Do you get my point?

Faith, my apologies in advance for discussing you in the third person.That also seems valid, Robin, but my understanding of the fallacy has always been that an individual's incredulity is not a valid argument against any proposition: "I can't believe you ate the whole thing!" is purely subjective and merely describes your disbelief, not my ability to eat the whole thing.I have a schizophrenic brother. He is extraordinarily bright and verbally facile. If you reason against his delusions, and reason him into an apparent corner, he will look you in the eye and say, "I don't have to believe that." End of discussion.Faith's incredulity is likewise both monumental and armored (no, I am not suggesting Faith is mad ).But, like randman, she will not even grant that evolutionists actually believe their own assertions; at best, she hints darkly at some sort of Freudian repression or displacement; at worst, we are all engaged in deliberate bad faith. Like you, perhaps, I sense a lively intelligence that I am sure I can engage if I just...Much of her incredulity is rooted in ignorance of scientific methodology, but she shows little interest in making a focused effort to address that lack. Her beliefs are fixed and finished. The tentative nature of science is a sign of weakness to Faith, not a hallmark of open-mindedness."I can't believe you guys don't see this!"Sound familiar?