Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Few Questions For Creationists
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 32 of 86 (481933)
09-13-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AlphaOmegakid
09-11-2008 1:46 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
I appreciate the very thoughtful OP replies from AlphaOmegaKid and ICANT. My sincere thanks to both of you (and to Rodibidably for a thoughtful OP). Because of what I've seen of AOK's opinions in other threads (esp. involving science education, here: Biogenesis), I'd like to follow up on the comments he made in the current thread.
What is the BEST evidence in your opinion that supports the idea of creation? ...
The Bible. I'm not trying to be funny...
Understood. What needs to be added, though, is the fact that the Bible is the only source of evidence for its particular idea of creation. The person who accepts this or that literal interpretation of the biblical description of creation, in preference to a naturalistic theory of origins, does so only as a consequence of accepting a particular religious faith founded on the Bible.
Why does the evidence of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc all make it seems as if the earth and the universe are much older than your beliefs say they should be? Is it a “test” or “joke” of some sort from “god”?
No test, no joke. It's just a matter of faith. Can there be an infinite force in the universe that is non-material? Can there be an energy source that is eternal yet non-material? I hope you will answer my questions like I have yours.
Let me try. Yes and Yes. There is nothing in our knowledge of physical existence to rule this out, so indeed, there can be some source(s) of energy that may be eternal and non-material. Our physical perceptions are limited. To the extent that our thinking is able to go beyond physical perceptions, any non-material "thing" is possible.
The issue is: what relevance or impact do such non-material things have with respect to the physical world as we experience it? What unexplained physical observations can be attributed to and properly understood as the results of particular actions by particular non-material forces we can't directly perceive? And can (should) we really understand these these forces as being purposeful, with intentions that relate directly to human beings?
You might assert that the Bible provides a sort of "direct short-cut" to the proper understanding of these things, but as I said above, accepting this view is contingent on accepting some entire religious framework that goes with it. Others would say there is no such short-cut to proper understanding of the world -- there's actually a lot of hard work involved.
Why, if the earth is as young as you claim, would so many branches of science (geology, physics, astronomy, biology, cosmology, anthropology, chemistry, etc), and scientists claim otherwise? Are they intentionally lying, or deluded, or does “god” want to hide the truth from some people, or is there some other reason?
I will answer your question with a question. Did President Bush, Clinton, Bush #1, most of congress, the UN, the inspectors all lie about the weapons of mass destruction? Or were they "deluded"? Or did God hide the truth from them?
Or did they just interpret the evidence according to their paradigm and draw conclusions from that?
There may be a rather fine line between "delusion" and "interpreting evidence according to a paradigm". It depends on what kind of paradigm you're using. One kind acknowledges the notion of having to proceed on the basis of incomplete information: you draw the best conclusions you can based on available knowledge, and most importantly, you consider possible alternatives, you try to anticipate and allow for contingencies that might arise with new data, and you reinterpret previous evidence (adjusting your course of action) as you learn more.
The other kind of paradigm is built on dogma, or a pre-existing assumption of complete understanding: certain conclusions are already taken as givens, accepted as valid and maintained without question; evidence seeming to contradict these conclusions will either be "interpreted" to mean something contrary to actual physical observations (i.e. misconstrued), or else it will simply be ignored.
As for the particular situation and people in your example, I have no basis for a complete and accurate answer, but based on the information I've seen and the relative plausibility of the sources, my current answer would be that Bush #1 and Clinton had incomplete information, whereas Bush #2, building up a rationale for invading Iraq, lied. The U.N. and inspectors, who were not asserting presence of Iraqi WMD's in 2002, were not lying. Suggesting there was any sort of active role played by any sort of deity begs so many questions as to be a ridiculously useless notion. That's just my own opinion, but it's firmly based on what I consider, based on experience, to be the better paradigm for interpreting evidence.
Other religions than yours (whatever yours may be) have different accounts of creation than your religion does, and these accounts are not based on science, or evolution, etc. Why do you think there are so many accounts of how things came to be that differ from your own view?
Well it's simple math. There are as many accounts that differ from my view as there are that differ from your view or the scientific view. Why should mine be singled out?
I think you missed the point of the question (and you didn't really answer it). The scientific view is the only one that can really be "singled out" in any way; all the others (including yours) are equivalent to one another, by virtue of being, at best, based on the latter paradigm of interpreting evidence that I mentioned above, or simply based on "making stuff up."
If you feel that your own beliefs are being singled out in some way relative to "the scientific view", that's simply because you happen to be holding the particular beliefs that are being pushed by others (perhaps by you as well) to be some sort of supplement or replacement for science education. It does seem to be the case that no other religious faith on the planet is trying to make this assertion about its particular creation story.
Anyway, perhaps this was not such a fruitful question for the OP to ask.
Also, If you have read beyond the scientific material, then I'm sure that you realize that many think that science is religious also. I lean in that direction.
Yes, I have seen a number of people make this assertion about science. As I see it, these are all people who are adamant about how their religious beliefs have equal or greater truth relative to scientific accounts that contradict this or that literal interpretation of the Bible. Not only are they all using the latter type of paradigm described above, but they are mistakenly asserting that there is no other paradigm. I've seen you make this assertion yourself repeatedly, so you seem to be rather firmly in this group.
It reminds me a bit of the old quip, "to a kid with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" -- you have this way of looking at the world, it really works for you and satisfies you in a profound way, and you conclude that there is no other way to look at the world. Your particular religious faith works for you personally? Fine. So it'll work for everything/everyone else? No. There is more than one paradigm, despite your personal refusal to see it.
What type of evidence would you require to accept the age of the earth and the universe as being billions of years old, as opposed to thousands of years old (as before, this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some specific evidence you’d require)?
That's the crux of it isn't it. The age of the earth. Uniformitarianism. God already has told me personally. He has told you personally also. It is written in His Book, the Bible.
Well, that is close to the crux, and your comment (which didn't answer the question) points toward the core of the matter: based on your personal "perception" (interpretation) of what is written in the Bible, using the dogmatic paradigm described above, you assert that those words are somehow unambiguous in defining the age of the earth to be less than 10,000 years, and that other interpretations are unreasonable and unacceptable.
This sort of assertion can only be made on the basis of a personal decision to accept a particular religious framework (often including but not limited to: church attendance, tithing, acceptance of authority on other matters as determined and espoused by past and present church leaders, and so on).
If you think religious freedom is a good thing, then you can't honestly assert that your personal religious beliefs should be included in science education, or that evidence-based theories contradicting your beliefs should be excluded.
On the other hand, if you think religious freedom is a farce (or a sin), and everyone should believe as you do, then you can make whatever assertion you want, but you can't expect others to accept it. That's the crux.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar repair

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-11-2008 1:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-16-2008 12:20 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 38 of 86 (482552)
09-17-2008 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by AlphaOmegakid
09-16-2008 12:20 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
Thank you, AOK. It's dialog like this that makes the EvC forum valuable to me.
the Bible is the only source of evidence for its particular idea of creation.
I disagree. You have created a non sequitur.
Perhaps I wasn't being clear or specific enough. The issue for me actually involves particular ideas about creation and the history of life on earth that YECs propose, based on their particular interpretations of Biblical texts. Because of something that Jesus and/or several apostles and/or NT authors say, the OT texts must be interpreted as literal historical fact; then, because of that conclusion: (a) the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old, and (b) there had to have been a global flood at some point, wiping out all humanity and land-based fauna except for the occupants of Noah's ark. Those are the points for which the only evidence in existence is (the YEC interpretation of) the Biblical text.
The cosmos, the earth, and life on earth do provide evidence in agreement with the Biblical account of creation. You may disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but it still exists.
As is pointed out frequently in the science threads here, this assertion does not hold up for the YEC interpretation of the Biblical account. Voluminous physical evidence of many kinds in many fields of study all contradict the YEC assertions about time depth and the flood; this evidence is clear, unambiguous, and easy to understand. When I say "unambiguous", I mean that "interpreting" such evidence so as to somehow support YEC would be, at best, a serious mistake of misinterpretation. (If you rebut with something like "uniformitarianism/dating techniques/etc are wrong", that's not "interpretation of the data" -- it's just denial of the data, without providing other evidence to objectively falsify what is being denied.)
Other interpretations of the OT do not force such irreconcilable conflicts with observable evidence, and do allow for a sustainable coexistence of the religious and scientific paradigms. The potential variety of such Biblical interpretations is still quite wide, and it's up to each individual to choose his/her path through that maze.
I hope you also agree that a person who accepts mainstream scientific explanations does so as a consequence of accepting the limited paradigm of methodological naturalism which is a philosophical approach to knowledge and understanding. I hope you also agree that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Quite so. But I don't view the limitations as being "philosophical" so much as being simply logically necessary, in order for scientific discourse to progress effectively and steadily. (More on this below.)
Is there an infinite force in the universe that is non-material? Is there an energy source that is eternal yet non-material?
That makes a difference doesn't it?
Yes, it does make a difference. Is there such a force? I personally do not know. I personally can live my life without absolutely needing to know, let alone ever asserting that I absolutely do know.
If such an energy source does exist, does it concern itself directly with the actions and thoughts of humanity? For me, that is imponderable. If there is such an energy source and it cares about people and about what they do and think, does it also exert purposeful influence on the physical events that I hear about and experience? Even more imponderable.
For me, it makes more sense to understand things as they are. When there's not enough information for real understanding, some amount of imagination is warranted -- that's part of reasoning under uncertainty. But what I decide to imagine today will be contingent tomorrow (or at any later time) on new evidence.
I can imagine that some as-yet unperceived, non-material force is affecting things, but that's only useful to me if it helps me understand what happens tomorrow and at any later time, or (just as important) if it helps me to understand, through reinterpretation of evidence, things that happened previously and were unexplainable or misconstrued. (In the latter case, the value is still relative to how this understanding will help in the future.)
When my imagined explanation does help, I believe I have more information about something non-material that seems to be affecting my material world -- this is entirely plausible, and really great. When it doesn't help, I know at the very least that my imagination needs some tweaking, but it would be better to improve my understanding of material causation.
There is more than one paradigm, despite your personal refusal to see it.
I think you are mistaken here because of your paradigm. Your paradigm does not allow supernatural or metaphysical explanations.
Perhaps you and I are both guilty of making statements from misunderstanding -- it sort of looks as though each of us is accusing the other of the same offense. Not much point in that, is there?
I was assuming that someone who accepts 10,000 years as the age of the earth and universe would be inclined not to accept natural/materialistic explanations for anything. But you say you accept the reality of evolution (within certain limits -- fine). So my assumption appears to be wrong, though I'm still puzzled about your stance regarding all the diverse sources of age measurements that far exceed 10,000 years.
Meanwhile, you may have been assuming that the insistence in science for natural/materialistic explanations is a matter of dogma and philosophical belief. But it isn't that at all -- it's simply the essential, inescapable constraint on how hypotheses are formed and how conclusions are expressed, because to base hypotheses and conclusions on any supernatural factor is simply, logically equivalent to saying "there is no physical, objective, confirmable evidence to directly support this."
The practice of science does not bar a person from holding his/her own personal beliefs about the possibility of non-material or supernatural causation -- a person's own imagination need not be constrained by the scientific method. But in scientific discourse, beliefs and imagination without supporting evidence are rightly labeled as speculation. It's not that speculation is worthless -- quite the contrary, if it is presented with good ideas for further study and future observations that would shed more light on the matter.
I never have advocated for any kind of religious teachings in our public schools. Nor have I advocated that evidenced-based theories contradicting my beliefs should be excluded.
Perhaps I misunderstood this bit from Message 82
I have no problem with you having the philosophy of abiogenesis. Just don't teach your philosophy in state supported education.
and shortly thereafter, Message 84:
Abiogenesis is a matter of philosophical faith. That should be kept out of schools IMO.
and yet again in that thread, Message 287:
I am oposed to teaching this junk science to childre in schools.
I can appreciate the position that theories (or "proposals") of abiogenesis, as they currently stand, are not at all convincing or even plausible in your view -- fine. But you appear to be attributing some philosophical, anti-religious animus to the people making the proposal, and my whole point here is that such an attribution is unjustified and improper. Your seeming vendetta to keep it out of the science classroom is inconsistent with the stance that you profess in the current thread.
Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain the material procedures that can produce a very fundamental and simple form of life where life had not previously existed; the goal of the explanation is to arrive at the point where the ToE comes into play, and to do so in accordance with the logical necessities of scientific discourse. Some of it, at present, is speculation, but it is being presented in such a way that the speculation will eventually lead to more detailed and firmly established evidence.
There are interpretations of Biblical text that can accommodate such an explanation, with a simple conclusion like "this is how God did it." It does not attempt to directly deny, disprove or invalidate religious paradigms in general (though it does directly contradict the specific beliefs of some particular religious groups). It makes no direct claims as to the non-existence of any non-material force. It is not a presentation of a religious doctrine, any more than animal husbandry is a matter of religious doctrine. It should be okay to present it in science classrooms.
if you think religious freedom is a farce (or a sin), and everyone should believe as you do, then you can make whatever assertion you want, but you can't expect others to accept it. That's the crux.
I don't. But don't you think that all people should agree with the "scientific mainstream". Isn't that what you are advocating? Isn't that the only thing you want to be allowed in the textbooks? Aren't you and others trying to squelch the dissent in the scientific community with ad hominen attacks, and accusations of "pseudo-science?" Do you like others in this forum call people "idiots", "misinformed", "ignorant" just because they interpret the evidence on a broader filter than philosophical naturalism.
Was that last statement a question? Yes, I think everyone should agree with the scientific mainstream -- because it's a helluva lot harder getting folks to agree on any sort of religious "mainstream". Yes, only science should be allowed in science text books (other subjects need other kinds of material, and everyone should learn about religions, too). No, I am not trying to squelch dissent in the scientific community -- I just want to see that arguments about science topics are conducted in accordance with the logical necessities of scientific discourse.
If you find any example of ad-hominem attacks or insulting language in my posts, show me, and I'll make restitution. I do maintain a careful distinction between evaluating evidence in alternative ways (okay) vs. making stuff up for the sake of calling an OT story true in some counterfactual way. Folks who pursue the latter, impervious to reality, are entitled to some good-natured ridicule, but that's as far as I'll go.
Last minor point, probably off-topic, but close enough (with regard to filtering information through paradigms):
I'm sure you understand that many people think that Bush #2 didn't lie. That's because their filter looked at the same evidence, but concluded otherwise.
I do understand that many hold the other opinion. It's not at all clear to me that they have looked at the same evidence that I did in reaching my conclusion. To the extent that the same evidence has been seen by both sides, the different conclusions are reached by assigning different weights to particular items -- in effect, this amounts to deciding which pieces of evidence to discount, set aside, and basically ignore. Do the two sides use the same principles in assigning weights to evidence? Assuming different principles are used, which set (if either) is more objective?
That brings us back closer to my sense of "the crux." (Good evening, folks, and welcome to championship crux-ping-pong...)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor repairs

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-16-2008 12:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-17-2008 5:07 PM Otto Tellick has not replied
 Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-17-2008 11:41 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 41 of 86 (482925)
09-18-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid
09-17-2008 11:41 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
I'll forego a trivial number of minor quibbles in your two replies, because here is something that brings us squarely back to one of the important questions in the OP:
AlphaOmegaKid writes:
I am not opposed for science to proceed with these investigations [regarding abiogenesis]. People can spend their money wherever they want. I am opposed as to it being taught as a philosophical faith until such time that there are natural phenomena that might make a hypothesis plausible.
First point (a not-so-minor quibble): the presentation of abiogenesis in a science classroom is not intrinsically a matter of teaching a philosophical faith. The proposals are actually compatible with a diverse range of philosophical faiths (various conceptions/beliefs involving one or more supernatural powers), in addition to being compatible with a purely materialistic/naturalistic world view (which, please note, is not faith-based, under what most people and dictionaries consider the normal definition of "faith").
Of course, as you have amply demonstrated, there are some philosophical faiths (e.g. the one you hold) with which abiogenesis is not compatible. Be that as it may, you are not justified (solely on the basis of holding to such an incompatible belief system yourself) in demanding that abiogenesis be barred from science classes on the grounds that is establishes one specific faith, because the fact of the matter is that it does not do this.
Second point (perhaps not the "crux", but pretty important for this thread): In the portion of your statement that I highlighted in yellow, you indicate what condition will need to be met in order to change your opinion about the plausibility of the materialistic world view.
If/when researchers are able to demonstrate the beginning of a new life form from inanimate components (either by observation or by experimentation), it will be time for you to reassess your beliefs, and change your opinion of what should and should not be taught in science classrooms. This amounts to a promise that if/when such a scientific milestone is reached, you will accept it, rather than condemn it as a sinful, sacrilegious, dooming the practitioners (or all mankind) to destruction and/or eternal damnation, etc. Have I got that right?
Many of us are speculating that to reach such a milestone is not only plausible, but very nearly inevitable.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-17-2008 11:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-19-2008 10:44 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024