Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

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.

As is referenced in the OP (that bad, bad OP ).This is what kicked the thread off:

quote:

---

There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.
  —Faith

---

Now Faith decides that she should never have posted in the thread designed to allow her to show HOW there is staggering evidence. Of course, not posting would be utterly intellectually dishonest.In fact, as the thread unfolded and Percy notes one by one Faith backed off pieces of evidence and then decided that she should never have posted.She shouldn't have. She should have never made the statement about evidence in the first place when she has nothing to support it that stands up to the simplest scrutiny. She should have stuck to her view that evidence and science doesn't matter.Instead she couldn't resist trying to play the science game to support her faith. Then as it became too difficult to play she realized that she doesn't like that game and got hostile.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-08-2006 01:28 PM

One should not make strong assertions when you are not prepared to back them up. Period!One should not enter a debate, make any assertions and then decide that they still stand when you can't support them.One should not "concede" points, say it is "out of politeness" to suggest that there is any available defense when you are unable to offer any.One should admit errors when they are made.That is the way the "evolutionist" is willing (or should be to be intellecutally honest) to conduct them selves in a discussion.If we want to discuss an approach to explanation and persuation perhaps we can contrast the "used car salesmen" approach and ask why anyone would be persuaded.I might also comment (but am already only tentatively connected to the topic) that it isn't that Faith hasn't prepared her ideas. There are scores of individuals who have had decades to prepare these ideas and they don't have any strong explantions for the evidence that is available. That's why when these things are brought up again and again nothing that hangs together on a simple examination is presented.Clearly you are right, PD, that expecting people to NOT believe the used car salesman is a fantasy in that we see lots of examples everywhere of those who do. So what do you suggest be done?

Of course. That has been mentioned 100's of times around here.It is just that no one can come up with a nice, tidy, explanation that is nearly as good as the evolutionary one. So true or not it is the best we have, by a very wide margin, for now.We can each decide then to just stop hedging and decide it is "true" for "sure enough" for ourselves or that is just looks pretty good but wonder about a better answer.Personally, when I'm not being all nit picky I'd call it "true" in the colloquial sense. It just covers the bases too well.If I'm talking in a more philosophical tone then I might avoid "true" and use something like "dammed good bet -- where to I lay my money down".

What you are seeing is how scientists attack new (or old) ideas in science. You're right; it's not working.You have the view of a journalist. You've seen some of the anti global flood arguments. Can you show us how to present it?