The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate

That may be true. That depends on one's definition of religion.- But the debate between evolution and creationism isn't really between science and religion. It is between a conceptual framework that is self-consistent, consistent with what is observed in the world around us, and seems to be an accurate description of reality, and a conceptual framwork that is almost certainly wrong.The debate between evolution and creationism had been resolved. It has been resolved by actually studying reality. Evolution is, to all appearances, the correct description of reality. Creationism is just plain incorrect.People can try to debate it, and they do, but basically creationists have to argue their position from a state of ignorance and/or illogic.- This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. The assumptions that one makes in evolution, as well as in all the other sciences, is that there is a reality that exists independent of what we think about it, and that the patterns we observe can give us insight into how that reality behaves.The assumption that creationists make is that their own peculiar sect's interpretation of their holy scriptures is automatically true, and that's that despite what common sense should tell you.The reason that this "debate" appear to be unresolvable is because the adherents of one side are simply irrational, in any sense of that word.- And, by the way, that particular debater also believes that God goes around in a flying saucer. Your example here actually illustrates how irrational some people are. One can always say that one's beliefs are automatically true, and one can always make up ad hoc explanations to explain away any inconvenient fact, and one can always retort with, "Well, you didn't see it, so it might be true." You can call that a different set of assumptions if you want, but most of us would call it irrational.- Sure. This is why logic is limited in its ability to tell us anything about the real world. In fact, logic is unable to tell us anything about the real world. That is why our society quit using logic as the main source of knowledge centuries ago. Any logical argument starts with premises, and we cannot know a priori whether the premises are accurate descriptions of realities before we emirically determine that are -- even then, we can't be sure that the premises are accurate in all cases, at all times, or whether there are additional premises that need to be taken into account.So logic is no longer a tool used to acquire knowledge about the world. It is now a tool that helps in the organization of one's thought processes, so that one can understand the implications of one's empirical observations.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Hi, Aven. Actually, I think "many creationists" do "assume the perspective of a stable independent reality whose natural laws can be gleaned through the scientific method." Look at any of the major creationist websites like AiG, ICR, and CRS. They are trying to convince their readers that the logical implications of real world evidence is that evolution is false and that their interpretation of the Christian Bible is true. I think that you don't quite understand the "point" of the modern creationist movement.- Again, this isn't the creationist view. Creationists are convinced that their view are true. If they didn't believe in a literal Genesis then they wouldn't be creationists. And they spend a lot of time trying to convince other people that their views are true. Again, look at the major creationist websites, read books written by creationists, and speak with actual creationists. They are very, very convinced that literal Genesis creationism is true. And they will try to convince you that only real logical conclusion that one can draw from real life facts is that creationism is true.- This is not true. Depending on the premises, one can prove anything. But this is simply the limitations of logic. Anything at all can be proven to be true or proven to be false -- all it depends is the right premises.What we want is to have premises that make statements corresponding to reality. But logically there is no way of determining which premises are true and which are false. Using only logic we can't even begin -- and if we do begin, we are constrained by the premises that we have assumed to be true by extra-logical means.This was a big shock to the first Empiricists. But it was a shock only because they were brought up to believe that truths can be determined by the application of logic. This is no longer a shock to us today, because 200 years later we are now used to the fact that logic alone cannot lead to knowledge about the real world.- Well, I don't really care to win a debate, so that's not important.- But that's the standard that they are trying to use. And with good reason. The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that a person can believe whatever they want to believe. That's not what creationists believe. They believe that there is a truth, and that their beliefs reflect that truth. And they believe that factual evidence clearly demonstrates that their belief is true.- That's because creationists don't know what ad hoc means. Except that their ad hoc explanations aren't necessary truths based on their premise -- that's what makes them ad hoc. Starting with the premise that Genesis is literally true, there are no conclusions we can make about which stars we see in the sky or what the speed of light is. It is an empirical fact that the speed of light is finite (and has a definite speed), and that we stars that are more than 6000 light years away. So to explain this fact, creationists have to come up with the idea that the speed of light was different in the past. This does not come as a necessary conclusion of the literal words of Genesis -- it is an explanation that is offered after it is discovered that the speed of light is finite and the stars that we see are very, very far away -- this is what makes it ad hoc -- this is what ad hoc means. That creationists cannot even understand the meanings of words does not make their views any more acceptable -- if anything, it should point out their irrationality.- But who doesn't start from this premise? Even creationists accept this premise.But assuming that this premise is wrong, what is left? If we believe that the world doesn't react consistently, then we can't be sure of any interpretation of data. But everything we believe is an interpretation of data that we acquire. So we can't believe anything. We can't believe that the grocery store is still on the corner of Washington and Main, we can't believe any money we put into a bank will still be there when we need it, we can't believe that we will not be paid if we stop showing up at work, we can't believe that it will hurt when we bang our knee into the table -- honestly, you don't even live like this, so what are you trying to pull here?- This is not true. You even say: This is why we accept science and empiricism. It has brought us a lot of useful things. Believing whatever you want because nothing can be proven has brought us nothing.So when you say: I will point out that no one has cared that empiricism can't be proven for over 200 years. As you said, empiricism has brought us a lot of useful things. It works. That is all it needs. My experience that banging my knee into tables always hurts is all I need to help me avoid unnecessary pain. Empiricism works. I don't need to "prove" that every time I bang my knee into a table it will hurt. Why do you think I need to do that? And if some lunatic tries to convince me that this is just due my "empiricist assumptions", and that if I bang my knee into his special Jesus table it won't hurt, why do you think I should take his views seriously?Edited by Chiroptera, : fix italics tag

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Hello, Aven. But logic is always insufficient as a source of knowledge about the real world. That's been known for over 200 years. That's why no one who understands either philosophy or science tries to use logic as a source of knowledge in any field. Logic is used to test the consistency of one's conceptual framework. That is the only practical use of logic. Both modern philosophers and scientists recognize this. So whether we can "prove" that the premises of any argument reflect the ultimate reality is beside the point -- no one says that we can, and, 250 years after the discovery of this fact shock the intelligentsia, we've all accepted it. Only college freshman who've read a couple of chapters in their introductory philosophy text book think this is a profound statement. It is only profound to those who are used to thinking that logic has a much broader use than it actually has.Logic is used to test the consistency of one's conceptual framework. In an investigation of ethics, for example, one uses logic to see whether one's ethical beliefs lead to a contradiction, or whether the basis of one's ethical framework leads to an unacceptable moral dilemma. In science, logic is used to test whether an empirical observation contradicts the theories one is testing.Sure, logic can never be used to prove one's premises. That has been known for 250 years. But logic is used to disprove premises. That is how theories are eventually discarded; that is how people abandon one ethical framework for another. And this is what happens in the investigation of the history of the real world. Evolution is consistent with reality; creationism is not. The use of logic shows that what we observe in real life contradicts creationism. The premises of creationism are therefore wrong.- Then you need to examine this argument a little more closely. The major creationists who claim that the speed of light was faster in the past (is Humphreys one of them?) don't believe that the natural laws were unstable, just different. They try to make a model that shows just how the speed of has changed over time -- in other words, they actually thinks that the changing speed of light itself is subject to some natural laws that can be known.Furthermore, the speed of light is not just some number that can be varied with no other effects. For example, the speed of light is due to the exact nature of the electric and magnetic forces. And the laws of chemistry also depend on the exact nature of the electric and magnetic forces. So, if the speed of light was different, then chemistry was different. This can be tested, by looking at the chemical composition of minerals and organic materials from the past. There should be some evidence that chemistry was different in the past.The only other option -- which is not advocated by creationists, by the way -- is to say that either the world used to operate by magic, or that the physical laws were completely different, but in either case the different physical laws or the magic resulted in a world that looks exactly as if it were a very old world that operated according to the physical laws as we understand them today.But what sense does this make? It's exactly as if you went home and decided that your family wasn't really your family but a group of impostors. They look exactly like your family, dress exactly like your family, talk about the exact memories that your family would have, act in all respects like your family, and even genetic tests show that they have the same genetic markers as your family -- yet they are only very clever impostors that happen to share those particular genetic markers. Well, if you were to try that I'm sure you would be put on some sort of medication real quick.And I have heard some people try to make this argument about the appearance of an old earth. But it's just as nuts -- the universe only happens to look exactly like a very old universe that has operated according to the natural laws that we understand them today. Every single test that has been attempted to detect a difference in physical laws in the past has failed because the old laws happened to be such that they produce a universe that, in any situation, looks exactly as if it were old.And this is why the major creationists don't make this argument. Because they realize that it's nuts. That's why they implicitly assume that the universe has always acted according to stable natural laws, even if we don't quite understand what those laws are or were, so that they can find a discrepancy that will finally disprove evolution once and for all.- But it does work this time, too. On TheologyWeb there is a Christian geologist who goes by grmorton who has an interesting story. He used to be a young earth creationist. He abandoned young earth creationism when he began to work for the oil companies. He found that in trying to locate the most productive places to drill for oil, he was using techniques developed by old earth geologists according to old earth geological theories. He never, ever used any of the principles he learned as a young earth creationist geologist. And when he contacted other young earth creationist geologists in other oil companies, he found that none of them ever used any of the principles they learned as young earth creationists -- they were all using techniques and methods based on old earth geology.So it works. The premises of an ancient world gives us information that, when checked, happen to be true. The premises of young earth creationism give us nothing.- No one says that it is. It is very useful to acquire knowledge about the material universe. Whenever it have been applied to the material world, it produces new information that happens to be true. But empiricism isn't so useful when one is talking about something other than the material world.And no one claims that empiricism is going to tell us anything about the ultimate reality of things. But just because we may never know ultimate reality doesn't mean we can't know anything. The empirical methods of science to provide knowledge about how the universe operates. It may not be perfect knowledge, but it is certainly better than basing one's belief on the literal meaning of an ancient text that has been shown to be factually inaccurate.- Why the "if"? Check out the websites and read their books. They are wrong because they fail according to their own standards. They are irrational. And that is why the "debate" between creationists and evolutionists can't be resolved -- it's because one side is irrational.And at all times keep this in mind: creationists do not really believe that the past is ultimately unknowable. They actually believe that they know the past. This is what makes them creationists: they really believe that they know that Genesis is literal history. And they really believe that common sense and logic applied to empirical observation proves that they are correct. Ultimately, that is what makes them wrong. When they make factual claims about what has been empirically observed, they are often wrong. And when they apply their "common sense and logic" to the empirical observation they usually commit egregious fallacies. They are wrong by the very standards they themselves try to apply.Edited by Chiroptera, : Some typos. Made some changes for clarity.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein