Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

We're drifting way off topic, but this is a good point. Piltdown man was fabricated to advance the position of England in the paleontological world as a possible origin for humanity. The recent, at the time, discoveries of Neanderthal man in France were stunning and created feelings in England that their own country was being ignored, and what better way to counter this than to discover evidence of human origins in England. Whoever fabricated Piltdown did it as a way to promote England, not evolution.Though no scientific legitimacy was ever attached to Nebraska man, it was likely fabricated for similar reasons, to bring some attention to the Americas as a possible origin for humanity, not to advance the cause of evolution.--Percy

Unless you're analyzing penmanship or writing style or font types or spelling, written words are not facts. Written words may or may not be an accurate representation of reality. The written word encompasses many types of statements, from facts to fictions to lies. The only way to establish the accuracy of a written statement is by corroboration with other evidence. The more corroboration, the more likely the statement is accurate. It's a statement, but it's not a statement of fact because there is no corroborating evidence, and all available evidence contradicts it.--Percy

AdminPD thinks the last couple posts were drifting off-topic, and maybe they are, I"m not sure myself, but this from the OP seems central to the topic: So I think that as long as the discussion focuses on how faith-based interpretations are subjective and unaligned with evidence, then it should be on-topic. I think simply declaring the words of the Bible to be fact is a good example of the faith-based approach, and that a critical examination of it should be on-topic. Just my opinion, I'm not operating here in admin mode.--Percy

We can contrast your faith-based approach with a scientific approach based upon evidence and analysis. For example, is Job a real historical person? Is Jonah? If your answer is yes, then where is your corroborating evidence? There isn't any, as you concede: I'm not the one who accepts the Bible stories as literally true, and so external corroboration isn't something *I* want. Rather, it is something *you* need in order to support your position that the evidence supports what you believe on faith. Yes, of course you do, because it contradicts beliefs you hold on faith. That's the whole premise of this thread, that faith-based beliefs cause people to deny evidence. As the OP says, "Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position." We're all aware that there is enormous amount of creationist material on the worldwide flood, and it highlights yet another aspect of faith-based belief. Not only does it compromise people's ability to assess and analyze evidence, it even colors their ability to assess the realities of religious views. They ignore the reality of the many differing religious beliefs and declare their own to be the one, right and true faith. They ignore the reality that their interpretation of the evidence is only accepted by believers like themselves and declare their position to be the one, right and true interpretation. The goal is excluding unconstructive discussion, not specific viewpoints. Your last two posts were constructive and on-topic, so keep up the good work. --Percy

This thread.--Percy

We're not here to argue the flood, but to explore the effect strongly held faith-based beliefs have upon objective assessment and analysis of evidence.Yes, we know you interpret the evidence differently.But do you see any significance in the fact that only those of a particular type of Christian belief interpret the evidence this way? To most people it is an obvious conclusion that since only fundamentalist Christians interpret the evidence in this particular manner, it must be their religious beliefs affecting their ability to examine and analyze evidence.--Percy

I agree with you. And it is also not impossible that the sun truly does orbit the earth. But the currently available evidence does not support that view, and neither does it support the views of creation science. Can you name any other science (other than those whose objects of study are ancient texts) that starts with facts from a book?You're forgetting the definition of science. Science seeks natural explanations by gathering evidence through observation and experiment. It does not gather facts from revelatory texts, or any other texts. Science advances knowledge by studying and observing the natural world, and its facts do not originate from books.But facts are recorded in books, of course. Tycho Brahe accurately recorded the positions of many, many stars back in the 1500's, and I believe some astronomers have used his information to try to determine the rates of motion of the some of the nearer stars. Chinese astronomers recorded a supernova in 386 AD, thought to be pulsar in the constellation Sagittarius, and they recorded another in 1054 that we today call the Crab Nebula. So facts in books can be important to scientific studies.But facts recorded in books are not sacrosanct, and they still require corroboration. We know Tycho Brahe's data is correct because stars move slowly and as far as the naked eye can tell they haven't moved in 500 years, but I believe that by using telescopes astronomers have discovered some errors in Tycho Brahe's data. He was extremely good, amazingly good, especially given the primitive equipment he used, but he wasn't perfect.The Chinese supernova data also required corroboration. When telescopes were turned to the parts of the sky where the supernovas were reported, astronomers found a pulsar in one case and the crab nebula in the other, so we know their reports were true.In the same way, approaching the information in the Bible scientifically means seeking corroborating data. The Bible reports the fall of Jericho, and for many years this was doubted by some, but then Jericho was discovered with a charred layer of approximately the proper date, so the fall of Jericho has some corroborating support. The Bible also reports a temple in Jerusalem built in the time of Solomon, and I believe archeology also provided corroborating evidence for that.But the Bible also reports a worldwide flood in the time of Noah, and no evidence for it has ever been found. But we have to remember this thread isn't about the flood, it's about how creationists approach evidence and analysis. By putting the highest value on facts from a book rather than facts from the natural world they put the cart before the horse scientifically, so their approach to evidence is clearly backwards.The analysis and logic creationists apply to natural world evidence is such that only the fundamentalist Christian community accepts it. Their views are for the most part rejected by scientists of all other faiths, non-faiths and nationalities.In science, objectivity is attained when many people are able to repeat the same observations and/or experiments to yield data that leads to the same conclusions. The views of the various fields of science that are most frequently discussed at EvC Forum have all been objectively verified. Scientists from all religions and non-religions and nationalities accept these views as scientifically valid.Religion seeks insights through revelation and prayer. It is clear that creationism is religion because no one who did not use the Bible as a source would come to conclusions such as that the world's geology derived from a worldwide flood or that evolution is impossible. Even most scientists who do accept the Bible as a religious text and are familiar with its stories of the creation of kinds and of a worldwide flood do not look at the world and see any evidence supporting these stories.The creationist approach to science is not science. It cannot lead to valid conclusions because its most significant "facts" come from revelatory texts instead of from the natural world, and because creationists allow their interpretation of revelation to take precedence over natural evidence. With an ancient religious book miscast as a science text, it is no wonder that creationism reaches conclusions at odds with real evidence.--Percy

Uh, Faith, nothing you said addressed the topic. We already know you believe in a worldwide flood and that the evidence supports that. We already know you believe the Bible is the Word of God and that it contains true facts about the way God created the world.This thread is about how the creationist approach makes it impossible for them to objectively assess and analyze evidence to reach valid conclusions, indeed, even to make scientifically valid decisions about what constitutes evidence, as your repeatedly stated desire to use the Bible as scientific evidence makes clear. So if you'd like to make an on-topic reply then please address the points I made concerning the topic and concerning the invalidity of the creationist approach as science, instead of digressing into defenses of the flood and the Bible.--Percy

This is untrue, and you've argued the opposite when it suited your purpose, such as when you recently pointed out in another thread how science has changed its view of the age of the earth.But this isn't the topic. And neither is this: These aren't the topics of this thread. This thread is about how religious faith hinders objective interpretation of evidence. In my Message 70 I addressed how facts are recorded in books but are not themselves facts. You chose not to reply on-topic. Repeatedly declaring your beliefs while ignoring replies or using them as mere launch points for more declarations is not discussion.More briefly this time, science takes advantage of information in ancient texts by corroborating it with other external information. What you are doing is accepting the information in an ancient text as fact and using that as a reason to ignore and/or misinterpret evidence from the natural world. You are doing precisely what the opening post claims that religious faith does, as has already been recently pointed out in this thread. You're like the poster child for the opening post.--Percy

You have got to be kidding, right? Or you misspoke? I'm willing to address this in substantive fashion, but I just want to make sure you really intended to say this.Or do you perhaps have some odd view of objectivity. Objectivity is what allows a person or group to accurately place evidence in its proper context.The Merriam-Webster site defines objectivity as "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." The creationist certainty in the absolute truth of the Genesis account of creation is a perfect example of the lack of just this quality.AbE: This is from Faith's Message 75: This is a perfect example of certainty based upon faith affecting objective assessment of evidence. The rejection of the evidence isn't based upon anything related to the evidence itself, but is merely because it is contrary to what an ancient book says happened.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add example from a Faith post.

The thread is about how certainty based upon faith affects the ability to assess evidence. It affects all who come within its grasp, scientist and layperson alike. This doesn't address the topic, either. You're raising a different issue, a question concerning what a layperson is to do when scientists disagree and the layperson isn't competent to assess the evidence himself. So when you follow by saying: It is appropriate that you have put evidence between quotes, because you're referring to evidence you're not competent to assess.This isn't completely unrelated to the topic, though. It is somewhat similar in that when one isn't competent to assess the evidence then one falls back on inclinations, biases, preferences, the opinions of friends and so forth. Since the evidence isn't actually being considered, the conclusions are unlikely to be reliable. Creationists arrive at similarly flawed conclusions when they fail to take evidence into account, but for them it's a case of simply choosing to ignore or misinterpret the evidence, rather than being incompetent to assess it.So for example, let's say you hear of one study that concludes that a diet high in fiber is healthy while another says it makes no discernible difference. Not having the raw data of the studies available, nor the incredibly complicated analysis software, nor the years of study in the profession, you reach your own conclusions based on your own judgement and without any reliable evidence. In a similar way, creationists believe that the Bible contains the truth about God's creation of the world, and based on this they ignore or misinterpret the clear evidence that the events recorded in Genesis never took place.I hope my use of these examples does not draw responses defending the flood or the Bible. They aren't the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread concerns how certainty in a preferred view, in this case derived from faith, can adversely affect the ability to assess evidence. Ironically, this thread has drawn a number of replies that while denying that this is the case provided perfect examples of this very process in action.--Percy

I don't think the distinctions you're attempting to draw are very useful or relevant, but what's very interesting is that though you're exploring different avenues than Faith, the underlying misunderstandings seem very similar.Gathering evidence and data through observations and experiment and placing them in consistent interpretational frameworks is how science advances our understanding of the universe. Any preconceptions that affect the interpretation or even acceptance of evidence will have an adverse effect on how well the conclusions match reality. If you're absolutely certain the light was green when you went through the intersection, then you might accuse the police department of doctoring the video tape showing you running the red light. And maybe you're right, but I wouldn't put any money on it.What creationists are doing is akin to accusing the police department of doctoring the video tape for thousands of red lights. They simply refuse to accept the evidence before them, or they refuse to reach valid interpretations of the evidence. They contrive reasons that are analogous to saying that the tape was doctored, or it wasn't actually their car in the intersection, or it was their car but it was at a different time driven by someone else, and so forth.We've all experienced this. "I'm absolutely certain I left my keys on the counter, someone must have taken them," despite that no one would have any reason to take them, there is no evidence of burglary, the car is intact and locked in the garage, etc. Then the keys turn up in the coat pocket that we forgot we wore yesterday because it was suddenly unseasonably cold.Certainty definitely affects how we interpret the evidence. There can be no debate about this. It is simply human nature. That's why science requires a large consensus. The large consensus means a new scientific idea has passed muster among a large community of scientists with vastly different backgrounds, religions and nationalities, and this provides an extremely high (but not perfect) degree of objectivity. When a committed core of scientists have all produced and examined the same evidence and through hashing things out at conferences and in journals reach the same conclusions, then we can be pretty sure that those conclusions have a very good correspondence with reality, better, at least, than anything that has gone before.By declaring that an account in an ancient text is the final word on origins, creationists cut themselves off from the evidence of the real world that would lead them to conclusions that would be consistent with the real world. Their certainty in the correctness of their Bible-based beliefs causes them to either ignore or improperly interpret evidence.Faith provides some of the best evidence of this. Despite being unable to address any issues related to how a flood could cause the layers we see in places like the Grand Canyon, she nonetheless often repeats that everywhere she looks she sees evidence of the flood. She can only do this because she has studiously ignored all evidence of what floods actually do and how floods actually behave.In Faith's own reply to you earlier in this thread she states that she already knows that scientists are wrong in interpreting the evidence because the Bible already has the correct account. Faith is only looking for evidence that confirms what she already believes, and if the evidence she finds doesn't do that then the evidence is wrong. Call it what you will, just don't call it science.The further evidence for this position is that it is only the closed community of fundamentalist Christians who conclude that the evidence supports a flood. Were it actually the case that the evidence supports a flood then geologists who aren't Christian or American would be able to find it. But they don't. Because it's not there. Creationists see in the evidence, that small part of it that they'll actually consider, what they want to see, not what's actually there. And it is their certainty in the accuracy of the account in the Bible that does this to them.--Percy

I think when you say consensus what you're really thinking of is accepting argument from authority. The consensus I'm talking about is of a community of scientists who have all researched and studied the same problem.--Percy

We're not using consensus in the same way, not consistently at least, so just forget the word.What I'm talking about derives from the scientific requirement for replicability. When a finding can't be replicated, science crosses a possibility off the list. When a finding is replicated it becomes accepted and science moves on to the next discovery. The key point I was making is that science accepts what many scientists are able to verify and confirm. The accepted views of science become the stakes in the ground that guide scientific thinking. They become what is considered the body of scientific knowledge.When a portion of this body of knowledge is wrong it can be very difficult to uncover and eliminate, and for science to progress it greatly helps to use an approach that serves to minimize the mistakes, which is where replicability comes in. Replicability means that contributions to this knowledge develop out of the shared experiences of a community of scientists researching and studying the same problem.But this is a side issue to the topic of this thread. My original point was that certainty affects how we interpret evidence. As the creationists are fond of saying, your worldview affects how you interpret the evidence, and they are absolutely right. But if your worldview develops out of real-world evidence then your conclusions will likely conform to the real world, while if your worldview develops out of revelation that is independent of real-world evidence, then your conclusions are unlikely to have any real-world validity or application.The creationist problem is that their certainties are not based on real-world evidence, hence their assessment and analysis of evidence does not lead to real-world conclusions.--Percy

Hi nemesis_juggernaut,Don't allow yourself to be drawn off-topic. Evolutionary fraud is not the topic of this thread. I'm sure you'll find many willing to discuss evolutionary fraud with you in the appropriate thread.Expressing it more generally this time, this thread concerns the effect preconceptions have upon assessment and analysis of evidence. The assertion of the opening post is that preconceptions based upon faith make it impossible to arrive at conclusions consistent with real world evidence. This is the topic we're addressing in this thread.--Percy