Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 255 (293159)
03-08-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by rgb
03-08-2006 3:39 AM


Re: Know Your Audience
On further reflection I believe that the main problem with the thread was the OP.
It should have better presented Faith's claims and either provided a fuller rebuttal or simply have asked Faith to explain the evidence and the reasoning underlying her claims.
The Flood and Flood geology are a major part of mainstream YEC views. The question of evidence for the Flood and Flood geology therefore must be open to discussion here and creationists must be allowed to put their case. Whether it changes the personal views of creationists is less important than that the issue is properly discussed. We've discussed more marginal issues (such as Pyramidology or Ron Wyatt) with people at least as bad as Faith.
If we judge that a creationist is incapable of holding up their end of the discussion then we have a choice We either give them the chance to work at it and improve or we ban them. Keeping them around as a sort of "freak show" - or even as tokens - is patronising and pointless.
The present situation where creationists are given a little extra slack has already been criticised on similar grounds. I regard it as acceptable only because it appears to be necessary to keep creationists around. To exempt creationists from the need to defend their claims - even when the claims are directly relevant to major issues of discussion on this site - seems to me to undermine the reasons for keeping them around in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by rgb, posted 03-08-2006 3:39 AM rgb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 1:05 PM PaulK has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 255 (293168)
03-08-2006 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


quote:
Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?
When we do explain it, it is often just rejected out of hand.
"You can show a person the evidence, but you can't make them acknowledge it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 255 (293170)
03-08-2006 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 4:56 AM


quote:
I think the case for evolution has been a little overstated.
No, it really isn't overstated. When every related field of life science, physics, chemistry, etc. ALL strongly confirm the theory, it can not be stated strongly enough that the ToE is extremely well-supported.
quote:
People on here have said it's as certain as the earth revolving around the sun.
Yes, easily.
quote:
I do not get that impression myself.
Most of the evidence seems to consist of elimination of possible falsifications (except fossils).
Erm, ALL science consists of elimination of possible falsifications.
That's how all science works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 4:56 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 8:08 AM nator has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 19 of 255 (293171)
03-08-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
03-07-2006 6:24 PM


An interesting thread Percy.
quote:
Does everyone really believe we're doing the best that can be done? Or is there something we can learn?
Maybe the best that can be done is not being done. But there is a different problem and I don't think Faith is a good example in this case. Faith belongs to the creationist group like Fred Williams, Salty Davidson, Peter Borger etc. who are just not possible to reach using a rational approach or any kind of evidence. As rgb indicated, short of a major event in her life that changes her perspective, she will be comfortable believing whatever she wants. Being ignorant of the natural world is no impediment to survival or most animals including humans would not exist.
The more troubling case would be someone who may not be particularly well versed in science but is interested and is not dogmatic in their beliefs. An effort should be made to accomodate them. For the most part I think this site does that well. Those who ask questions usually get quick responses. This thread suggests that you think such people are not being accomodated.
quote:
If our only solution is a science education then evolution will probably always be viewed skeptically by the general public.
The general public in the US is pathetically ignorant about all sciences, not just evolution. At least compared to Europeans. It is not surprising that most US science is dominated by foreigners. One does not need a PhD to understand science in detail but the almost complete lack of interest, television and radio programming, and pre-college classes is a major impediment that scientists cannot overcome alone. Most scientists are demonized in popular culture..watch any science themed film and they are usually the dorks who are responsible for killing everyone in the film.
The general public has to have enough of an interest to investigate a subject themselves. 99.99% of the creationists that are posting or have posted here have not read any of Darwin's works, have no basic understanding of biology whether molecular or not, and no background in scientific methodology, philosophy, or history. Complete unfamiliarity with a subject coupled with the arrogance to claim that science is wrong (or worse) leaves almost no common ground to work from for scientists or those well versed in scientific subjects. Someone ignorant can increase their knowledge..someone well versed cannot decrease their knowledge (short of major head trauma) down to the creationist level. It is clear which side needs to move towards the other.
Winning over the general public is perhaps unachievable. Perhaps the best one can do is to help inform the curious, and fight the atrocious lies of the creationists. The general public may remain skeptical (or more likely oblivious) but perhaps scientists can increase the size of the minority who actually understand and appreciate science. I think that is a worthy goal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 6:24 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2006 9:40 PM Mammuthus has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 255 (293174)
03-08-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
03-08-2006 7:52 AM


Erm, ALL science consists of elimination of possible falsifications.
That's how all science works.
I'm not so sure. Morphological and DNA evidence goes like this: if evolution is true, the morphologccal traits and DNA evidence has to be such and such. Such and such is indeed the case.
Fossils are another matter. Evolution might be true with no found fossils but evolution cannot be true if the DNA similarities between related creatures were not as they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 03-08-2006 7:52 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 8:54 AM robinrohan has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 255 (293180)
03-08-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
03-07-2006 9:44 PM


Re: denial is critical
quote:
...but one piece of evidence can dis-prove a theory (or invalidate it).
Well, this is a bit of an overstatement, I think. I cannot think, for example, a single piece of evidence that would disprove the theory of evolution. Now I can think of a series of independent, repeated observations that would disprove it; maybe that is what you meant.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2006 9:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2006 9:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 255 (293181)
03-08-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 4:56 AM


quote:
People on here have said it's as certain as the earth revolving around the sun. I do not get that impression myself.
Me neither; for me, it's more certain than the earth revolves around the sun.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 4:56 AM robinrohan has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 255 (293186)
03-08-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 8:08 AM


Robin,
I'm not so sure. Morphological and DNA evidence goes like this: if evolution is true, the morphologccal traits and DNA evidence has to be such and such. Such and such is indeed the case.
But that's not the elimination of a falsification, it's a borne out prediction. The same that goes on in the rest of science.
Fossils are another matter. Evolution might be true with no found fossils but evolution cannot be true if the DNA similarities between related creatures were not as they are.
The same is true if fossils are not as they are, it's exactly the same thing.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-08-2006 09:20 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 8:08 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 10:59 AM mark24 has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 24 of 255 (293201)
03-08-2006 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
03-08-2006 2:50 AM


Viewpoint
quote:
If I understand you correctly you are saying that we all know that Faith was blowing hot air and didn't really have the evidence that she claimed to have.
Unfortunately, I think that is kinda the concensus in the "sci-group", but not the view I was hoping to get across.
What she is claiming to have, she has already given you. Since I stuck my foot in this, I've noticed we apparently have a very different idea of evidence.
You (sci-people) may feel that her words are empty, but from a nonscience standpoint they don't appear empty. Take the mountain comment for instance. (I love that one)
Faith states: The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.
Now to a basic nonscience Christian, not necessarily fundamentalist, who grew up in the church, that makes logical sense given the flood story. She has taken something that science has shown and used it to support the flood story.
Now sci-guy response: Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.
The first thought that came to my mind when I read that: "Hello, the mountains were already there when the flood happened, duh."
Then another sci-guy provided a photo with no explanation.
Then Faith comes back with a response that could be considered quite logical to a basic nonscience Christian.
Faith writes:
Mountains are indeed observed to rise. Laden with fossilized marine life. The Flood is the most elegant explanation for this -- absolutely universal -- phenomenon. The theories about local effects are klutzy by comparison.
Similarly you can give a local explanation for the abundance of marine fossils in the deserts - they are found in clumps, found everywhere. Yes, it was all once under water, of course. There are also seagulls that hang out in the Nevada desert. Sure, it was once under water. The Flood waters. Most parsimonious explanation. All the other explanations are inelegant.
Faith writes:
The fossilized marine life found in the mountains is found IN the mountains, within the layers that are clearly visible in many mountain formations, showing that like all the other stratifications to be found on the earth laden with fossils, it was all once sediment, mud, laid down in water -- already full of the dead things within it.
So far on this element, Faith=1 sci-guys=0
In this msg we finally get a little more explanation, but not really presented in an understandable way.
But this person also pointed out rule #4:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
What do you guys consider reasoned argumentation?
Now when I asked about the mountains: I never said it was, because land is observed to rise, then we expect to find marine fossils in highlands. Their existence there is not indicative of a flood.
My duh comment still comes to mind.
The second sci-guy gives me: In itself, it is not evidence against a worldwide flood. It is simply another plausible explanation as to how the fossils got there. And it musn't be ignored.
So it doesn't negate the world wide flood, but it's just another possible reason the fossils are in the mountains.
So the flood story is still a plausible answer for a basic Christian.
At this point science left me empty and I'm not even a fundamentalist.
quote:
Isn't that an adequate reason for calling her on it?
It served no purpose. An off comment buried in a thread, now became highlighted and science didn't make a good showing, IMO. You may have impressed each other, but I saw nothing that made me want to dig deeper.
Personally, I don't care for targeted call outs like that.
quote:
She wasn't being asked for huge amounts of technical detail
It wasn't clear what was expected.
But her statements weren't being seriously addressed, IMO.
quote:
Isn't it reasonable to ask her to back up that claim ?
Why? The only claim I see is that the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict, which is part of her belief system. She was agreeing with subbie and gave an opinion. Pick your battles.
Subbie pretty much summed up Faith's approach to science in Message 9.
Faith made her position as clear as she possibly can to anyone who speaks english. If the bible says it happened, it happened. Faith's starting and ending point in any search for truth is the bible. All other things are interpreted in the light of what the bible says.
And anyone who has debated with her should know that. Therefore, since you are dealing with someone or others whose faith determines how they view science, you need to deal from that base. For many their religion has been ingrained in their life much longer than science, especially if they are a nonscience person.
quote:
On the issue of behaviour I'm in favour of going easy on creationists because it seems that they can't help themselves.
It has nothing to do with going easy on the creationists. It's about getting the scientific information out there in a coherent manner.
quote:
Isn't it demeaning to say that we shouldn't question them because they don't know what they are talking about?
I'm not suggesting don't ask questions, but keep in mind the level of understanding of the person you're talking to.
Bottomline: Do you want the scientific information to be there alongside the creationist information, so that the average nonscience reader can make an informed decision, or do you just want to get the creationist to admit that they are wrong and you are right? Because if the latter is what you want, then I think you're beating a dead horse.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 2:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 9:45 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2006 10:03 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 28 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 10:34 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 12:35 PM purpledawn has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 25 of 255 (293203)
03-08-2006 9:24 AM


Seeking Evolution's 2LOT
Chiroptera referenced Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Any creationist who reads and understands it couldn't fail to be convinced, but few will read it and fewer will understand it. I'll confess that my own understanding of science and how it works was hard won. Though I already accepted science and its methods, it took many readings over many years to reach my current state of approximate understanding. A creationist reading Theobold's masterwork is likely to get little from it. It exists primarily as a reinforcement of evolutionist belief and as a reference source.
A lot of this thread is devoted to explaining that Faith's claims that there is staggering evidence for the flood and that the worldwide distribution of fossils is evidence for the flood have no reasonable legs to stand on. It is true that Faith was being irrational, but it is also true, as some have noted, that she was trapped into that thread and asked a question already known to be one she couldn't answer. The result was predictable, and it's why almost before the thread had gotten started I'd requested assistance from AdminBuzsaw, who unforuntately must be tied up in the real world right now.
But it wasn't Faith's position or behavior that sparked my interest, it was PurpleDawn's, who I don't think needs purple sunglasses. She says we're missing the mark. We can congratulate ourselves all we like, but it doesn't seem to getting the job done.
Perhaps evolution needs its own 2LOT, an argument or evidence (or two or three) that disproves flood theory for anyone regardless of how poorly they understand science. It would differ in nature from the creationist 2LOT argument only by being accurate and correct.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 1:53 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 132 by Quetzal, posted 03-09-2006 9:23 AM Percy has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 26 of 255 (293213)
03-08-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 9:21 AM


Re: Viewpoint
I would say that my own points on the "fossils on mountains" issue are the most reasonable answers.
Here's a simple version
1) Faith and conventional geology agree that mountains arose only after the fossils were laid down. (Why don't you think that this is important ? Surely the intuitive reading - the reason why the fossils are thought to be evidence of a Flood - relies on the assumption the mountain was there first ?)
2) The rise of mountains is not attributed to the Flood (and there is no good reason TO attribute it to the Flood).
So there's no problem gettng the fossils onto mountains (becaue they aren't there when the fossils are deposited), or in the mountains themselves forming where it would help to invoke a global Flood. Therefore the existence of fossils on mountains as such is not directly connected to the Flood in any way. The major difference betwene conventional geology and Faith's views on this point is the timescale - which causes a lot of problems for Faith's views.
If you disagee with this - if you can see some reason why the mountain location is connected to the Flood without contradicting Faith's own statements about how the fossils got there - then please explain it. And providing a reasonable explanation of that would be exactly the sort of reasoned arguemntation that I am asking for.
Let me also point out that I have agreed with you that the original OP wasn't very good, but there are posts in the thread that make good and valid points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 9:21 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 11:25 AM PaulK has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 255 (293219)
03-08-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 9:21 AM


Neither side did a good job on shelly mountains.
The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.
I think you are right, PD, to pick this example. Saying that these fossils are good evidence for a flood or just saying that mountains rose refutes it are both non-arguments.
Both sides have to say why it is or is not good evidence. Neither side did.
Faith would have to describe what she thinks the scenario that unfolded to put the shells there was.
If, and only if, that thread was one to support the geological explanation would the others have to give the understood scenario of how, in detail, the mountains raising can get the shells there.
The way that should have been approaced is for Faith to describe how the flood laid down those fossiferous layers. Here's how I think it might go.
Before the waters rose the mountains were there (or she could say, like I understand some to say, that the hyper-fast tectonic activity during the flood lifted the mountains with shells already in them.
Then she could say when the flood rose over the mountains it carried sediment and shells up with it which were then deposited.
Once she had picked one of these scenarios the geology types could supply additional facts. They might describe the nature of the sediments, how they form or examine the types of fossils found (as an aside -- this is not the thread to discuss it -- the shells are not just any old "seashells" they are specific shells of particular time frames.
With the additional facts Faith would have to show why the flood scenario she used can explain those. She might, of course, have to refer to ICR or AIG explanations for this. (She will also find that they will run out of explanations very quickly).
For example, the shell type problem might force a retreat from the second scenario (water carrying shells up there) and a move to the mountains lifted at flood time scenario.
Once the scenario is narrowed down new facts can be introduced.
While I agree that simple offering a possible alternative explanation is enough to weaken Faith explanation and make it not overwhelming evidence for a flood I can understand how she won't see it that way. She could see it from the other view point; if the flood is offered as an explanation it weakens the current geology view.
That is why it is necessary to examine the consequences of any view in more and more detail to see if it stands up.
To clarify or muddy an analogy:
I am sold a used car by the guy in the bright, plaid sports jacket. It is older but has wonderfully low mileage so I pay a premium to get it.
Within weeks there are serious engine problems. My mechanic tells me he thinks the car is much higher mileage than the odometer shows. I take this to the plaid lad. (what is a poorly dressed car sales man? -- a stinky pinky for you ).
My "friend" at the used car lot offers an alternative explanation; the car does have low mileage but the little old lady driving to and from church only once a week probably didn't let it warm up well and didn't change the oil often enough-- he couldn't know that. He has an alternative explanation.
I note to him that the gas and brake peddles are heavily worn suggesting more use than the little-old-lady explanation and the odometer show.
He says the the metal taps on her shoes were rough when she drove to and from tap dancing class and these wore the peddles down.
I note that the car has a lot of small abrasions and chips on the front as if it has been driven a lot of miles are rougher roads.
He says that it is windy where the car was driven and that the wind blew sand at the car while it was parked.
I note that the odometer seems to have been changed or removed and replaced in someway.
He suggests that my mechanic did it because he wants to support his suggestion that the mileage is higher than it is.
I have one explantion for all the observations. They fit together to suggest what has occured.
The plaid lad is supplying one, unrelated ad-hoc explanation after another; some even contradicting each other.
No one "proves" either explanation but at some point individuals will finally come down to an acceptance (probably very strong acceptance ) of one side.
When someone takes Faith method -- the salesman is a preacher in the local church no matter what he says it must be right -- all that happens is most observers decide that they have a bridge to sell her.
However, the analogy illustrates why each side must supply detailed (and more detailed) observations and give a "why" to show how the favoured explanation can be tied to those observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 9:21 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 10:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 255 (293235)
03-08-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 9:21 AM


Re: Viewpoint
I agree with your post. But to understand and discuss the issues, it is often necessary to take baby steps. That was what I was trying to do in Message 119. However, even after serveral requests I couold not get Faith to walk through the analysis with me.
To answer questions like why there are marine fossils found in mountains we need to follow the same procedure I outlined for grasses. It needs to go into greater detail than either side. And to begin, the creationist has to outline more than a simple statement. They need to explain what would be seen and why that would indicate a flood.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 9:21 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 11:03 AM jar has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 29 of 255 (293237)
03-08-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
03-08-2006 10:03 AM


Exactly
Exactly!
Now if she had actually started this thread herself, hopefully as admins, we would have asked for a little more explanation of her thoughts before promoting it.
But since someone else did, reasonable responses to her statements would have been better.
I'm not saying that there weren't good scientific points (that I understood) made within the thread, but this came off as more of a personal battle with Faith. Aside from the person I addressed, only one took the time to try and answer my questions concerning the statements. The other responses to me were dealing with the fact that I thought Faith's evidence was in the OP. That seemed to be more important.
I've seen it in other threads also. Someone presents a reasonable thought that could continue the discussion and then someone presents a creationist type of opinion and off they go. Then it gets so mucked up you can't tell what's going on and of course tempers rise and people get in trouble.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2006 10:03 AM NosyNed has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 255 (293252)
03-08-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by mark24
03-08-2006 8:54 AM


it's a borne out prediction.
There are predictions and predictions. The really convincing prediction has to do with something specific that is going to happen. One tests the theory of relativity by predicting the location of some space object at a particular time by doing relativity calculations. Now there's a prediction.
That's a different kind of prediction from the sort of thing you get with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 8:54 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 11:50 AM robinrohan has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024