Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 5:02 AM
139 online now:
Dredge (1 member, 138 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   The Creationist Method
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 93 (411282)
07-19-2007 9:21 PM


Many of you will be familiar with the scientific method. You make an hypothesis, you test the predictions of that hypothesis and reformulate that hypothesis if it doesn’t match the observations. Once that hypothesis has been confirmed and corroborated by others, then it moves into the realm of scientific theory.

How exactly, then, does creation ‘science’ work? What is, if you will, the creationist method?

I ask because there is an image on the EvoWiki page for creationism, that looks like this:


Click to enlarge

We at EvoWiki have (rightly in my mind) received criticism of this image. One user, going by the name 'Silence', says

quote:
To suggest that nonacceptance of evolution is integral (and, worse, the starting point) of creationist methodology is both an oversimplification of the issue (what about the type of thought that leads someone to reject evolution?)

Which is a good point, in my mind. Likewise the next point:

quote:
Third, most creationists do not rely on quote-mining; this is an extremely common practice, but neither a definingly creationistic one, nor an ubiquitous one among all creationists. I've met more creationists who don't resort to quote-mining than who do; the fact that a large number do is not sufficient to say that all (or even most) creationists resort to this practice.

Also valid, from my experience. Lastly:

quote:
"Bad logic" is also just exceedingly vague, and consequently useless; such vagueness characterizes most of the rest of the "Creationist" side of the image in the same way, and is the reason why most of the image is similarly useless (if not outright disingenuous).

So, I’ve established that the flow chart isn’t very good at the moment.

How should it go? Given that Intelligent Design and Old-Earth Creationism are creationism too, we should also look for a method that encompasses those too. It is for this reason I am asking for help, as I’d intended to start with the point: “The Bible is literally true”, but I don’t think that does encompass enough creationism. However, I certainly do think that the Bible is used as a semi-scientific text, and science is checked against it.

So, how would this flow chart go? Likely it will be much more complex than the scientific method, as the creationists have used many methods, but I hope we can trim all the bushy parts down to a core 'creationist method'.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce picture width.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

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!


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 07-20-2007 2:31 AM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 07-20-2007 12:17 PM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 5 by anastasia, posted 07-20-2007 1:23 PM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 07-20-2007 1:36 PM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-29-2007 7:09 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 93 (411312)
07-20-2007 1:48 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 587 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 3 of 93 (411316)
07-20-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
07-19-2007 9:21 PM


Here's a flow chart for you.

God caused everything.
If something denies god** his due credit, it is false.

Actually, this one might be better.

Materialism/Secularism/Atheism is wrong.
If stated by any above entities, automatically wrong.

Okay, let me be serious (if possible at this late hour).

Creationists have no method other than to claim that anything that contradicts god** or the bible* is false. That's the core method. It doesn't matter how or what they use to make/state their claims.

Granted, what they feel contradicts the bible* or god** I have no clue. Take the creationist Jar (as I recall, Jar calls himself a creationist) and compare him to the creationist CFO (recently Herepton, aka Ray Martinez) or Kent Hovind.

Actually, ignore most of this post. I'm not making any sense. I had an idea for a chart, but as I'm this tired, lost it.

*insert any religious text or story
**any deity(ies)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 07-19-2007 9:21 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16223
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 4 of 93 (411382)
07-20-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
07-19-2007 9:21 PM


I think it's important to note that the scientific method consists of endless loops, while the creationist method has a fixed beginning and end. That much is accurate - creationists already know the answer. Their "method" isn't about exploring the territory - it's about laying out easy routes to a predetermined destination.

It isn't accurate, however, to suggest that the only route is quote-mining. After "Reject Evolution", the method should fan out into various routes like "Create and Destroy Strawmen", "General Incredulity", etc., all of which end at "Evolution is Falsified".


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 07-19-2007 9:21 PM Doddy has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 5 of 93 (411401)
07-20-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
07-19-2007 9:21 PM


Yep, must start with the Bible. No two ways about it.

A. Bible contains truth

B. create an hypothesis based on the Biblical 'observations'

C. Find contradictory observations in nature

D.
a. proclaim that your initial hypothesis is correct, and fudge, lie, or distort further observations to support that
b. rethink the hypothesis created in B. with the addition of the new evidence
c. conclude that the Bible does not contain 'truths' of a scientific nature

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 07-19-2007 9:21 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 93 (411407)
07-20-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
07-19-2007 9:21 PM


 
------->-------->-------The Bible is True
| |
| v
| |
| The Earth is young/evolution false
| |
^ v
| |
| Contradictory YES
| Evidence? ------>-------Evidence
| | Interpreted
| NO v Incorrectly
| | |
| | v
| | |
| | Redefine rules
| | of evidence
| v interpretation
^ | so that the
| | contradictory
| | evidence
| | becomes
| | confirmatory
| | |
| | v
| Confirmatory evidence?---<---
| | | |
| v v |
| YES | | NO |
| | | ^
^ | | |
| The Earth is Young! Find some on a --
| Evolution is false! website or make
| | something up
| v that sounds good
| |
---------------<--------------

something like that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 07-19-2007 9:21 PM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 7 of 93 (411410)
07-20-2007 2:03 PM


(1) I can't explain this.

(2) Therefore, no-one can explain this.

(3) Therefore, this is impossible.

(4) Therefore, I can explain this: God did it by magic.


  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 8 of 93 (411507)
07-21-2007 2:24 AM


Responses to suggestions so far
Thanks everyone. Your help is very useful to me.

Kuresu, you're the only one to incorporate other religious creation myths into yours, and for that I applaud you.

To Ringo, I'd suggest that the creationists do have a loop - having recently watched a lecture by Ken Ham on youtube, I think they always go back to their scripture to see if everything they say matches up with it. I like the idea of branching off, but I was hoping for a particular way to sum up all of those techniques succinctly.

Anastasia, your suggestions are good, but do you really think the average creationist makes "hypotheses" from the Bible? I don't think many of them would call them that. Options B and C are very good, as they include the old-earth creationists and IDists.

Modulous, WOW! Very close to what I was looking for. I especially like the reinforcement of the biblical truth with the fudged evidence. I'm not sure about the second step that stems from the Bible, as not every creationist will agree with that.

Dr A, yours is an accurate portrayal of the incredulity arguments, but creationism is much richer than that (also that does make up a core part of it).

So, given the above, I present the following draft. I feel it only currently works for biblical (or other scripture) creationism. Intelligent design doesn't fit there. Should it?


Click to enlarge

Edited by Doddy, : update

Edited by Admin, : Reduce picture width.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

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!


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 07-21-2007 3:16 AM Doddy has not yet responded
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 11:22 PM Doddy has responded
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2007 3:00 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12159
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 9 of 93 (411510)
07-21-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Doddy
07-21-2007 2:24 AM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
I don't know how to make charts, but maybe this cartoon will help: :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Doddy, posted 07-21-2007 2:24 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 10 of 93 (411700)
07-21-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Doddy
07-21-2007 2:24 AM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
Doddy writes:

Anastasia, your suggestions are good, but do you really think the average creationist makes "hypotheses" from the Bible? I don't think many of them would call them that. Options B and C are very good, as they include the old-earth creationists and IDists.

No, I think the average creationist believes that their handed down interpretation is truth. You asked for a method which includes ID and old earth, and the hypothesis idea is the only way to do that. Obviously, no one is going to call it an hypothesis, but if it is a claim open to further knowledge, it is effectively an hypothesis.

I am asking you not to make this an attempt to parody or laugh at Christians, but to use a Christian's opinion and insight. It is very humorous to make these little flow charts, but it is not accurate.

Christians do NOT all believe that the Bible is true on scientific matters. In fact, I have never heard a single sermon about science in my church.

Christians do NOT all believe that their interpretation of evidence, aka hypothesis, is correct.

If you want to narrow the focus back to literal, not Biblical, creationists, then your chart may be funny. Any interpretation of the Bible which does not contradict it is 'Biblical', but not all Biblical interpretations are literal.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Doddy, posted 07-21-2007 2:24 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 07-22-2007 12:26 AM anastasia has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Doddy, posted 07-22-2007 1:13 AM anastasia has responded
 Message 13 by Jaderis, posted 07-22-2007 1:29 AM anastasia has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 93 (411706)
07-22-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by anastasia
07-21-2007 11:22 PM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
I am asking you not to make this an attempt to parody or laugh at Christians, but to use a Christian's opinion and insight. It is very humorous to make these little flow charts, but it is not accurate.

Christians do NOT all believe that the Bible is true on scientific matters. In fact, I have never heard a single sermon about science in my church.

Christians do NOT all believe that their interpretation of evidence, aka hypothesis, is correct.

I thought this thread was about Creationists, not Christians? :confused:

Jon

Edited by Jon, : Signiatior.


In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Collin Wells Sailing from Byzantium


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 11:22 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 12 of 93 (411712)
07-22-2007 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by anastasia
07-21-2007 11:22 PM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
Your criticism is valid, but I was hard pressed to find something that accurately described YEC, OEC and ID. Thus, I stuck mostly with the literal (yes, I know what you're saying about these terms, but we could go on about what 'contradict' means) YEC beliefs for this one.

Do you know how to make it apply to both, or do you think I should do another for their system?


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 11:22 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by anastasia, posted 07-22-2007 1:27 PM Doddy has responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 13 of 93 (411715)
07-22-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by anastasia
07-21-2007 11:22 PM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
No, I think the average creationist believes that their handed down interpretation is truth. You asked for a method which includes ID and old earth, and the hypothesis idea is the only way to do that. Obviously, no one is going to call it an hypothesis, but if it is a claim open to further knowledge, it is effectively an hypothesis.

No, not really. Although you seem to be more open than your bretheren you still seem to be confused about terminology. A hypothesis is not just an "educated guess." Most people focus on the "guess" and not the "educated" part.

Any claim can be open to further knowledge, but unless it is based upon real world observations it is not a hypothesis, or at least not a falsifiable one.

I can claim all day long that the magical world of Harry Potter really exists and you cannot prove it wrong. Can you prove that the events of the 1990's were not caused by Voldemort's rise to power in the magical world?

I am asking you not to make this an attempt to parody or laugh at Christians, but to use a Christian's opinion and insight. It is very humorous to make these little flow charts, but it is not accurate.

You seem to be under the impression that none of the "other side" understands the "Christian opinion." The flow chart parodies the literal evangelical position. If you fall into that category, I can't say that I am sorry. If not, why are you defending it? You can defend your own position, but why extend the chalice to someone who doesn't express your own framework unless you are just defending the veneer of Christianity?

Christians do NOT all believe that the Bible is true on scientific matters. In fact, I have never heard a single sermon about science in my church.

But, many of them do believe it is true and do not question based upon sermons. They (the ministers) do not have to even mention science if they can pass a few "facts" off as truths. One does not have tomention something in order to present veiled arguments against it.

If you want to narrow the focus back to literal, not Biblical, creationists, then your chart may be funny. Any interpretation of the Bible which does not contradict it is 'Biblical', but not all Biblical interpretations are literal.

What is the difference between Biblical and literal creationists?

What makes your view better? Or more real?


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 11:22 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by anastasia, posted 07-22-2007 12:24 PM Jaderis has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 14 of 93 (411761)
07-22-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jaderis
07-22-2007 1:29 AM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
Jaderis writes:

Any claim can be open to further knowledge, but unless it is based upon real world observations it is not a hypothesis, or at least not a falsifiable one.

Why can't an interpretation of the Bible be falsifiable?

No, not really. Although you seem to be more open than your bretheren you still seem to be confused about terminology. A hypothesis is not just an "educated guess." Most people focus on the "guess" and not the "educated" part.

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.

You can defend your own position, but why extend the chalice to someone who doesn't express your own framework unless you are just defending the veneer of Christianity?

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.

What is the difference between Biblical and literal creationists?

What makes your view better? Or more real?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jaderis, posted 07-22-2007 1:29 AM Jaderis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Jaderis, posted 07-23-2007 9:42 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 15 of 93 (411769)
07-22-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Doddy
07-22-2007 1:13 AM


Re: Responses to suggestions so far
Doddy writes:

Do you know how to make it apply to both, or do you think I should do another for their system?

I don't think YEC's have a system. And I don't even mean 'YEC's' as in, that one belief alone puts anyone squarely into the literalist category.

Put it this way.

Some people are willing to admit they may be wrong, and some people aren't. Neither of them may be admitting that the Bible is wrong. They will say that the Bible is not being read correctly. Both types are starting with the Bible as prime source of knowledge. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Doddy, posted 07-22-2007 1:13 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 07-22-2007 1:49 PM anastasia has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Doddy, posted 07-23-2007 1:52 AM anastasia has responded

    
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019