Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

This is perhaps a key difference in our approach to things, so this is worth exploring. First, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Here's an example using a discussion about how many pizzas should be ordered. In your opinion, is Person A making valid responses? It doesn't matter who you think is right or wrong, I'm just wondering what you think of Person A's approach: I'll guess right out the outset that you don't believe this accurately captures what you're doing, so how should I modify this?--Percy

Can you explain how you arrive at this viewpoint? You, the creationist, are repeating the same argument over and over again, that the occurrence of fossils worldwide is strong evidence for a global flood, and you refuse to elaborate or to respond to rebuttals. This is analogous to person A who merely keeps repeating that four pizzas is sufficient.We, the evolutionists, have offered a wide variety of different evidence, from grass to limestone layers to radiometric dating to fossil ordering and so forth. This is analogous to person B who offers a variety of reasons why four pizzas isn't enough.Can you describe how you see this the other way around?--Percy

Right, we've identified "baby steps" as an inadvisable approach for evolutionists to use. So after Person A has repeated that four pizzas is enough for the sixth or seventh time without addressing anything Person B has said, what is the correct response for Person B?By the way, when there's something I don't understand, I really appreciate it when someone is willing to take baby steps with me. Silas did it for me on a couple occasions, and more recently cavediver.--Percy

This is another point that is often raised. If we can agree that "The Lord moves in mysterious ways," then we could say that no matter what the details of life (or anything else), it is consistent with creation by God. In other words, I don't believe that there is anthing we could find where we could reasonably conclude, "God would never have done this, it must have happened without his guidance."But there is much we could find that would not be consistent with evolution. Mark has often stressed that modern genetic analysis of relatedness largely agrees with classification by appearance and anatomy that was established well over a century ago before we even knew there was such a thing as DNA. If they didn't agree, poof, evolution as a theory disappears!Does this make sense so far? If so then there are a couple of follow up points. First, since God can do anything, there's no evidence you can supply that argues for creation by God. If whales have genes for legs, then that's just the way God did it. If whales don't have genes for legs, then that's just the way God did it. If pi is 3.14... then that's the way God designed the universe. If pi is 3.0 then that's the way God designed the universe.Second, and this follows directly from the first point, evolution is different from creation because it can be disproven. There is evidence we can find, like the lack of agreement between genetics and biological classifications, that would mean evolution was false. If we found dinosaurs in all layers, it would mean evolution was false. If radiometric dating revealed that all layers were only a few thousand years old, it would mean evolution was false.Because there is no argument that falsifies divine creation, it isn't usually discussed as a scientific possibility. It is only when creationists advance specific scenarios that God must have used when he created, such as vapor canopies, hydrologic sorting or catastrophic plate tectonics, that science can be applied.So to finally address your point, no, we don't believe evolution is true because creation is incredible. The creation possibility (the "that's just the way God did it" variety) doesn't get considered within science because it transcends science and cannot be studied by science. We accept evolution as a scientific theory because of the supporting evidence.This post is an attempt to apply the lessons learned in this thread, so give me a grade. No need to be kind, I don't need grade inflation, I'm trying to learn.--Percy

Right. And the question is what is the proper response when someone takes the approach of declaring they've said all that needs to be said and won't address rebuttals. Keep in mind that this is contrary to the Forum Guidelines, and we're exploring whether there are any effective non-administrative responses. Okay, let me summarize your points:

1. You want evolutionists to honestly evaluate your points.
   ​
2. You want them to be more careful in trying to understand what creationists believe.

About point 1, I think almost everyone on both sides of the debate is honest, but I think you're expressing a very human feeling experienced by both sides, one that is exacerbated by the nature of the on-line medium.About point 2, I think communication is a two way street. Clarity and accuracy in expression is as important as making the effort to understand.--Percy

But the premise was that "The Lord works in mysterious ways." There are many things in this universe that don't make sense or that appear unnecessary. And since God caused the flood that creationists believe left the fossils, does it really make sense to say that fossils happened without God's guidance?But whether or not God played a role in the creation of fossils is not the topic of this thread. Nor was much of my earlier post on-topic, and I can't think of a way to further explore the topic through the example of falsification.--Percy