|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Creationist Method | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Some people are willing to admit they may be wrong, and some people aren't. That's what I was getting at when I said that the creationist method doesn't have a "loop". For many/most creationists, there is no possibility that they're wrong, so evaluation of scriptures and/or observations is redundant. At best, the loops ought to be dotted lines. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This applies to all faith systems where evidence cannot invalidate belief:
There is no testing of information, evidence or faith, it's just a pass-fail system. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
anastasia writes: Only one will go back to the drawing board when they meet with conflicting real world evidence. If you prefer to do two charts, go for it. Hmm, that sounds simple enough. Maybe I could have an optional pathway from "Do observations contradict scripture?" to another box with "Evaluate interpretation of scripture" or some such process. Any suggestions? Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Doddy writes: Any suggestions? Oh, I get it...maybe you are looking for a chart? Boo hoo, I don't know how to do that very quickly, or I would have.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
You could just explain modifications to mine, couldn't you?
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
I thought I already had.
Perhaps you could be more specific? If you just want a method for how creationists find out what is 'true' about the world, you have to, have to, have to, use the Bible as the first step. It might be the only step, which is no method at all. Or, someone may be willing to take other outside facts into consideration, as in Old Earth.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3453 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Why can't an interpretation of the Bible be falsifiable? OK, I take it back. I suppose that if one left a supernatural entity out of the question, then a scientific hypothesis based on an interpretation of the Bible could be falsifiable. Although, of course, the "observations" would be replaced with interpretations of scripture. A little "unorthodox" but it could work. That is why we debate about Noah's flood. It is a falsifiable concept (and has been falsified), at least, until someone comes along and says "Well Goddidit" to explain away any inconsistencies pointed out about their theory or ignore the evidence against such a thing ever having occured. This doesn't mean that you can't believe in God or that God planned and executed the methods and laws we humans discover, just that the whole question of God and his supernatural doings are unfalsifiable and cannot be subjected to the scientific method.
No, I am not confused about terminology. Any conclusion from the Bible is already presuming facts where there are none But for a general parallel of 'technique', I am using the same lingo. I conceded above that it is possible to test one's interpretation of the Bible against reality. The problem comes in when one tries to fit the evidence to their interpretation and ignore any of the evidence which contradicts it. That is the problem with "presuming facts where there are none." That is what the flow charts were parodying.
I am not really defending anything. It's just that most of the charts put up here were for literal, Biblical creationism, and Doddy wanted to include ID and old earth as well. IMO you can only reach those positions if you are willing to change your 'guess' about the 'facts' in the Bible. Agreed and I see upon re-reading that you were not defending literal creationists at all.
When it comes to the Bible, there are any number of ways to read it, and all of them are 'Biblical' but not all of them are literal. The Bible says God created in 6 days, but elsewhere it says a day is like a 1000 years. Within Genesis itself you can question whether the system of 'days' could exist before the creation of the sun. So, some people take the 6 days literally, and some don't, but as long as you don't stray from what is written, and make up something that is completely contradictory like 'God didn't create at all'...then you are 'Biblical'. I don't remember saying anything about having a better or more real view. Thanks for your answer. I apologize for seeming antagonistic. I don't know what got into me or why I even took such strong issue with your post.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
anastasia writes:
Oh, sorry. Perhaps you could be more specific? Perhaps you could check the wording of mine? For example, do you think the alternate process is ok as "Re-evaluate interpretation of scripture"? And are the other boxes correct (as correct as possible). What sort of disclaimer or indicator should I have to show that that method is only used by some types of creationists? Have a look:
Also, should that box link back to the big red "Bible is true" box? Edited by Doddy, : No reason given. Edited by Doddy, : No reason given. Edited by Doddy, : getting image to work now. XBBCode plug-in for Firefox isn't that good. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width. We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Doddy writes: Also, should that box link back to the big red "Bible is true" box? The 're-evaluate interpretation' box? That one I say yes. This is pretty good, only thing I would change is the 'perhaps' part. I see what you are getting at, but it is a little vague about the observations. It makes it sound like the observations are faulty rather than the interpretation? I suggest something like 'do observations contradict your interpretation?'...followed by 're-evaluate interpretation' and the other choices 'ignore' 'manipulate'. As far as disclaimers, maybe you could color code. Or, do the two charts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
How's that now? I updated it. Is the disclaimer good? What would be better?
Edited by Doddy, : questions... We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Doddy, I don't see the changes reflected on the page?
I forgot that you were doing this for EvoWiki. That was the reason originally why I used similar wording as what you would find with a scientific method, so that there would be a parallel which showed the faults with Creation Science. The main fault is the unwillingness to create a new 'hypothesis' when observations don't support theirs.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
anastasia writes:
I didn't change the filename, so perhaps your computer is still using the cached image rather than the true image. Usually refreshing the page fixes that, otherwise just come back in a few days.
Doddy, I don't see the changes reflected on the page? anastasia writes: That was the reason originally why I used similar wording as what you would find with a scientific method, so that there would be a parallel which showed the faults with Creation Science. The main fault is the unwillingness to create a new 'hypothesis' when observations don't support theirs. Yes, I originally wanted to keep it as similar to that as possible. Possibly akin to the comic Phat posted, so I start from theory and go to observations. But creationism is much richer and more varied than that. We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Hmm, I don't think that flow-chart works.
I roadtested it with, as an example, radiometric dating showing the old age of the earth. This observation doesn't support six-day creation. In fact, it might contradict it. But we can reinterpret the book of genesis to have a few creations or make the days longer. However, I think the word 'perhaps' that I have preceding the scripture reintepretation process is a bit presumptious, as it, to me, already assumes a reintepretation before that process can be taken. If, for example, something very clearly contradicted the bible (pi isn't 3 exactly or a bat isn't a bird), one would have to already reinterpret the bible rather than the science in order to answer 'perhaps'. That's just the feeling I get - sorry if I'm not clear. We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I ask because there is an image on the EvoWiki page for creationism, that looks like this: Since the chart was produced by evolutionists it is obviously a severe misrepresentation. Why do evolutionists misrepresent? Answer: Because they cannot refute the real position. The real Creationist "method" is observation. The appearance of design logically corresponds to Designer. Since everyone agrees that the world exhibits the appearance of design, Creationism, using the foundation of the scientific method (observation) says the appearance is caused by invisible Divine power. We understand that Atheists cannot accept this simple and logical correspondence; hence, the existence of the Theory of Evolution. Ray
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Cold Foreign Object
says the appearance is caused by invisible Divine power. And how do you conclude the use of something{invisible divine power} which cannot be observed since this ,as you state, is the foundation of the scientific method.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024