Objectivity

Evolution is subscribed to by people of all philosophical backgrounds from hardline atheism through devout Christianity. This is due to the common goal of objectivity toward which science is constantly striving. All scientific endeavor is conducted in an effort that is both cooperative and competitive, wherein results are checked and repeated by labs and researchers throughout the world. The picture of reality that emerges is a consistent one that is enriched by ongoing research.Creationism, on the other hand, is held to be valid only by religious fundamentalists. Their stated goal is not objectivity but, rather, confirmation of their holy Scriptures. Although their nebulous and inconsistent theory has never produced worthwhile scientific results, they insist it is a valid scientific alternative to the prevailing materialistic model. Creationists dismiss criticism of their model as motivated solely by atheistic brainwashing, although many of its critics are Christians themselves.If one must first subscribe to religious orthodoxy to subscribe to creationism, doesn't this alone disqualify it as a scientific endeavor?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

IMO, this is the crux of the problem with creationism. In a lot of ways it is an Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Emotion, and an Appeal to Consequence all wrapped into one. Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't make it true, just becuase it makes you feel good doesn't make it true, and just because you might be an immoral atheist if you don't believe in it doesn't make it true. What matters is evidence that everyone can observe, period.

Loudmouth,The crux, as you mention, is that science is supposed to be a tool that everyone can use to understand natural phenomena. The goal of objectivity may never truly be achieved, but the more consistent and repeatable the results are, the closer we approach the goal. The evolutionary model of common descent doesn't require acceptance on any other basis than rationality, and is compatible with any philosophical or religious worldview.Creationism depends on everyone sharing the exact same philosophical basis of unquestioning Biblical literalism, not because it has produced scientific results but because it hasn't. The tool of Creationism hasn't been of any use in understanding natural phenomena, so its validity rests on the faith of its supporters.The most incisive criticism of Creationism comes from researchers like Kenneth Miller and Terry Gray, believers who see evolution and its effects every day in the lab. Both have written articles and books refuting the claims of the intelligent design movement. According to the agenda of Creationism, these men are scientists and not good Christians. The fact is that it's possible to be both. Until they show results, the same can't be said for the Creationists.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

'Creationists dismis criticism of their model as motivated solely by atheistic brainwashing, although many of its critics are Christians themselves'.I couldn't help chortling!How about
'Evolutionists dismis criticism of their model as motivated solely by religious brainwashing, although many of its critics are scientists themselves'.Don't worry, I am on your side. But I have seen the above argument so many times in Creationist literature that I am surprised that a hundred creationists haven't already replied to your post in this vein!Mike.

It is very har d to get one's own subjectivity out of the way. It has taken me quite a bit of squinting to see that MrH and NN both want what I do- but we do- hard to beli,eve+but it is not truely the dead talking to me.

Just a slight criticsim...creationism is not a theory...it is not even a scientific hypothesis.Objectivity is an ultimate goal but science has progressed despite lack of objectivity. From my own experience, I find the journal peer review system in its current from to be at best a joke, at worst, a way for well connected scientists to keep the competition from publishing. It is not in the least bit objective unless you get really lucky. That having been said, a much more crucial aspect of science is that it has to be reproducible. This alone has corrected mistakes and outed fraud (most recently in the case of Hendrik Schn).
If a result cannot be independently reproduced, it is not considered valid data and the fact that most novel ideas, hypothesis, etc. are worked on by several groups keeps faulty data from persisting.Creationism has no correcting mechanism except to quash dissent (and the dissenters) and has no desire or internal mechanim established to correct patently fraudulent claims. As long as enough people continue to believe their fantasy why bother correcting anything? That is why we get new creo's every week posting exactly the same arguments we have all heard thousands of times before.

I'd like to put forward an idea - if a new poster (creo or evo) comes along and starts posting the same old tired arguments, it might be better if they did it in their own forum and let other posters who've already gone through it all dozens of times to debate new stuff. I don't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to debate new stuff - just that if they start topics that have been debated to death already that it should be done in the 'tired old arguments' forum, or 'trainee evo's and creo's' forum.Or maybe the admin can post a list of threads where the topics have been debated already that they can reccommend to newbies?The Rock Hound

An excellent suggestion IRH!Perhaps we could have a locked up thread(s) that cover some of the more tired lines of argument and have something in an introduction for newbies pointing to it?I would suggest that both sides need some introduction and such lists as the more militant atheists often come in guns ablazing too.I will volunteer to gather some stuff up when a method of storage is determined and to write some advice as well for the approval of the community.

I agree. Good idea, rock hound. Everytime I see the same old arguments, I roll my eyes and run the opposite direction. It would be nice to have a place to send them without wasting everyone's time.

I think that a truly fresh topic ideas are now bound to be scarce comodities. Most (all) of the main ones probably have been covered at .Anyhow, please take this side discussion to a "Suggestions" topic, and get this string back on the theme of message 1.Adminnemooseus

Which would you weigh as more critical (or perhaps both are equally important)? Striving for objectivity or the reproduciblity of observations/experiments/etc.? While objectivity is an ideal of scientists, we are after all human and usually take an interest in our research (though I do not today ). Thus, one is not totally objective and has a bias towards what one finds interesting or meaninguful from the beginning whether intentional or subconsciously. However, anybody can try to reproduce your results. Given the high level of competition and the number of people who will jump on the bandwagon of interesting results, unless you are doing research on something so impractical and obscure, it is liable to be challenged immediately. And it is like a trophy to nail someone elses error since you usually get a publication out of the deal. There is also a cost of being wrong to your reputation and to science in general in terms of wasted time if something is not reproducible or fraudulent. Thus, science has a massive self-correcting mechanism.So while I think objectivity is something we should all strive for in our analysis, for practical purposes it is the big stick of reproducibility that keeps things in line.