Faith versus Science

To clear a few things up:Nobody is unbiased. Admit it, all of us have a bias towards either evolution or creation. Both of these are viewpoints, sets of presuppositions, through which we interpret all the facts. If the facts don't fit our viewpoint, we often search desperately for some explanation, or just discard them.
Evolution and creation are both viewpoints, or faiths, which cannot be experimentally proven since they happened in the past. The question is, which of these fits the facts, and thus which is the best bias to have.I prefer creation, since I believe it is the only explanation for the incredible design you see just about every time you open your eyes. I gather that some members here are anxious for a debate with a creationist. If you direct me to any thread on the forum, I'll be happy to engage in a little discussion.God bless you all.

Hi defender: I guess the question depends on what kind of discussion you're looking for. Personally, I would prefer a scientific debate (a la what didn't happen in this thread for instance). If you're looking for a philosophical debate centered around epistemology/worldview, then that's a different topic - with a different group of participants more than likely.Let us know. I'm sure someone will accommodate whichever you choose.(edited to fix URL)[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-19-2003]

I will admit no such thing. I am biased to the truth. It just so happens that evolution seems to fit the bill. Believe me, if I see a face in the sky, telling me in a thundering voice he's god and he's created everything six thousand years ago, and to prove it he creates a dinosaur on the spot, then I'll discard evolution, because it obviously wasn't the truth. True. False. "Release all murderers who were convicted on the basis of experimental forensic evidence. Apparently, it cannot be experimentally proven they did it since the murders happened in the past."Does that sound ridiculous to you at all?In science, the customary procedure to confirm an hypothesis is to perform an experiment. The scientist uses the hypothesis to predict the outcome of the experiment, the experiment is performed and the outcome is compared to the prediction. If the outcome is as predicted, the hypothesis remains standing, otherwise it is discarded.In evolution, the hypothesis is descent with modification by natural selection. A prediction that can be made from this hypothesis is that we should find a series of fossils that shows a particular development and shows it in a particular order in the geological column. One experiment is to go out and dig up fossils. The outcome of such experiments has been, time and again, as predicted.I hope this clears up the false notion that evolution cannot be experimentally verified. The answer is: evolution.Cheers.[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-19-2003]

Forums and threads to consider:Is it Science Forum, specifically Is evolution science? thread
Evolution Forum, pick any thread
Intelligent Design forum..several threads currently active

Defender,

quote:

---

Both of these are viewpoints, sets of presuppositions, through which we interpret all the facts. If the facts don't fit our viewpoint, we often search desperately for some explanation, or just discard them.

---

Many of those who 'prefer' creation have decided that it's a purely philosphical matter, but there truly is science involved here. Empirical evidential inquiry is intended to organize observations into testable hypotheses, the only presupposition being to keep presuppositions to a minimum.By your reasoning, the objectivity we demand from scientific inquiry is itself a bias. We don't expect science to deal with forces or entities whose presence can't be detected, so we're not surprised when science helps us find material mechanisms for the admittedly incredible design we see in nature.

quote:

---

I prefer creation, since I believe it is the only explanation for the incredible design you see just about every time you open your eyes.

---

I'm afraid the word 'creation' is not an explanation at all. Our beliefs matter to us in a philosophical sense, but they are meaningless in the context of scientific investigation.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

quote:

---

"Release all murderers who were convicted on the basis of experimental forensic evidence. Apparently, it cannot be experimentally proven they did it since the murders happened in the past."

---

Almost as ridiculous as "Well, 99.9999% is not 100%, is it?", which is a response I once got froma creationist who was triying to questin the validity of paternity testing after I informed her that some methods of paternity testing use the same methods that molecular phylogenetics does, and linked to a commercial site indicating a 99.9999% accuracy in their paternity tests....it is incredible how they can employ such dichotomous thinking and not even realize it..

quote:

---

all of us have a bias towards either evolution or creation

---

I don't. I look at what evidence is presented and make
an informed decision. Where I don't have sufficeint information
I try to get more or make no comment.I don't particularly mind whether the creationists or evolutionsist
are correct -- I'd just like to know.So far everything I have seen, read, and reasoned about tends to
support evolution, and very little supports creation -- but as
my 9 year-old nephew said once after I'd spent a half hour
explaining the basic ideas (as I understand them) or evolution
'Yeah, but God might still have done it, mightn't he?'I had to say 'Well, yes, that's a possibility that cannot be
discounted.'Therein lies the problem with scientific investigation of
creationist positions -- there is nothing which can
refute the position and nothing which definitely supports it.

quote:

---

I prefer creation, since I believe it is the only explanation for the incredible design you see just about every time you open your eyes

---

You are free to believe whatever you want -- so long as you accept
that your belief has no evidential support you'll find no one here
minds -- oh, and so long as you don't start rambling on about
eternal damnation or the non-existence of variation in nature.

quote:

---

I gather that some members here are anxious for a debate with a creationist

---

The thought of debating a creationist has never given me any
cause for anxiety

What you're talking about is whether or not historical science and religion are the same thing.They're not, of course. The source of religious knowledge is revelation (usually from God). We call those people "prophets" and they are, apparently, chosen by God to recieve a message. They don't choose themselves, correct?Science is different. The findings and facts of science are avaliable to everybody. If you want to judge biology, you can become a biologist just by study and work. But no amount of work will make you a prophet.So, you may wish to equivocate the procedures your tradition uses to find knowledge with the procedures of science, but they aren't the same. The biases are much different.Using evidence, you can be as sure about what happened in Earth's distant past as you can be about what happened yesterday. You can judge the bible the same way you'd judge any text - not by internal consistency but by consistency with external sources. The same with the fossil record.So, evolution isn't about faith. It's about evidence. I know Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh want you to believe that we're talking about the same evidence, but we're not. There's evidence that creationism can't explain. A lot of it. (Most of it.) Evolution explains the vast majority of the evidence. It has nothing to do with your inital suppositions. I wish you wouldn't confuse your worldview with ours. Science doesn't discard facts, unless they're made-up facts that can't be verified.

defenderofthefaith, "A Christian" made exactly the same claims, I wonder if, unlike him, you could point out which facts evolutionary theory has ignored/discarded?Mark

quote:

---

I prefer creation, since I believe it is the only explanation for the incredible design you see just about every time you open your eyes. I gather that some members here are anxious for a debate with a creationist. If you direct me to any thread on the forum, I'll be happy to engage in a little discussion.

---

What evidence did you rely upon to choose creation over evolution? If you just go by gut feeling, would you believe the world is flat because it doesn't look round when you look outside, or every time you open your eyes? Its this kind of reasoning that evolutionists have a hard time stomaching. We (evolutionists) deal in physical, observable evidence to support a theory. We don't rely on on happy feelings or goosebumps caused by a pretty sunset.The only faith we put in any part of evolution, or science for that matter, is on the investigators themselves. We trust that they are reporting correct data done under the exact same conditions as they report. This is why reproducibility among different labs/investigators is so important to science, it gives the data and methodology reliability. It's the same "faith" that allows me to say that if I sequenced the same gene in the same organism it would show the same exact sequence as was reported by another scientist. So in reality, when a scientist reports data it is their reputation they are putting on the line. They know that their data can be challenged at anytime by anyone.Data and methodology are the cornerstones of any scientific theory. If a hypothesis is held up by these two cornerstones it eventually becomes an accepted theory. An accepted theory that can be refuted in the future by data and methodology at any time.This is the state that the Theory of Evolution has attained. It can be refuted at any time by anyone if they have the data to back it up. So far this has not happened, in fact the opposite has happened. I would conjecture that more evidence has been found in the last 20 years than in all the years prior, especially with our ability to unlock the genetic code.The question you should ask yourself is what criteria do you put on Creationism. Based on evidence or on personal belief? Based on concrete data or on ancient texts about man's relationship with God?This is why the Theory of Evolution is not a religion and why scientists are biased towards a theory based on reliable data.

Quetzal, nice to meet you. I'm up for any sort of debate, scientific or otherwise. This forum supports any type, doesn't it?Parasomnium, we can infer (as the law says, without any reasonable doubt) that the murderers killed someone because we have evidence in the present. I have not found anything similar for evolution - a point which we could discuss, if you like. As a quick example, nobody would deny that a computer chip needs a designer. Engineers work on their designs for months, rather than leaving the parts to randomly sort themselves out. But now researchers are developing computers that use DNA - a biological computer far more powerful and efficient than any we can create using modern technology. But DNA is supposed to have originated by completely random processes, whereas the far less sophisticated binary chip has to be intelligently designed.
Does anyone see a logical problem here?Mammuthus, thanks. I'll check out those threads.MrHambre, hi. I suppose one might call creation and evolution theories. They are to be proved using empirical evidence, and are not just philosophies, as you say.Peter, you could indeed refute creation if it could be proven that life could originate without a Designer. But on that score see my argument in response to Parasomnium above. I'm glad that you are eager to debate a creationist.crashfrog, you're right. Science doesn't just discard facts. But evolution does - from time to time. For example, if the universe resulted from a detonation such as the big bang there should be an even distribution of matter in the universe. Clearly the universe is quite uneven, with vast continents of galaxies beyond huge tracts of empty void. There is not nearly enough dark matter to explain such irregularities.Mark, pleased to meet you! I've answered your question in my response to crashfrog above.Loudmouth, the concrete facts support the ancient texts. There are hundreds of prophecies about Jesus, including His birthplace and His manner of death, dozens of details which He couldn't have had control over if He were a normal man, which had been prophesied hundreds of years earlier in the prophets of the Old Testament. And whenever the Bible makes a claim, it is vindicated. People thought the Hittites mentioned therein were just a myth until somebody dug up their civilisation in Turkey.
Not all scientists believe evolution. Those who don't regularly challenge the findings of those who do. You can go to the AiG website and find dozens with PhDs or suchlike, all of whom have found evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.

Defender: Welcome and double welcome! (The rest of ya'll shut up for a minute.)I think we have an interesting opportunity here. One of the things that the site owner has been desirous of attempting is a somewhat more structured debate. This would have two main advantages - it would keep you from being inundated, and at the same time allow a more focused discussion.If you are interested, it might be possible to pick a couple of topics (say, one philosophical and one scientific) for such a debate. Suggest, if you will, emailing Moose or Percipient - the two primary admins - with either your topics or your willingness to consider one of ours.Then sit back and watch the evos gore each other over who gets the opportunity to take the "opposition" side(s).

defenderofthefaith, Not enough mass that we can see, you mean. It is not a fact that has been ignored, in fact we can infer that it is there by observing everything else. But this is cosmology, not biological evolution. So I repeat, what facts has evolution left out?Mark

sorry Q...I shut up for only a few minutes...the percentage of scientists who do not believe in evolution is very small and the ones challenging are almost all from fields completely unrelated to evolution...as to Aig...they are hardly credible as they have the following requriements..(A) PRIORITIES
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.M: In other words...screw all real world evidence...if the bible says I can turn into a purple unicorn it must be true.The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.M: Nice circular logic....I am right because I said I am right therefore I am right.The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.M: Except that one has to ignore almost every piece of evidence ever gathered...The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.M: except that there is no definition of kinds and there is no testable hypothesis of creation ex nihilo much less a single example of it...The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.M: Except that in addition to ignoring geology one has to ignore the basic biology of almost all life on earth including the complete lack of any indication of a recent genetic bottleneck in ALL species on the planet...The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.M: Evidence for this is???Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.(C) THEOLOGY
...edited out for space...just typical statement that they are a conservative Christian organization as if this was not already obvious.(D) GENERAL
The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.M: nice a priori assumption and assertion without any basis in evidenceThe Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.M: Too bad it contradicts all the evidence..The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.M: Does any theory have a basis in scripture?The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.M: Well, that is nice to knowBy definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.M: This is the kicker and best of all...so when it is found that all the evidence is in complete contradiction to a literal interpretation of the bible they 1) dismiss it 2) argue that nobody knows what they are talking about except of course them....this site is not only biased...it is completey fraudulant in claiming to have any association with science or the principles of scientific inquiry...it is a pure fundamentalist religious propaganda machine completely loaded with disinformation.But to be nice...they have a nice web page layout......thus they implicity reject anything that contradicts their a priori assumption and are doomed to circular reasoning i.e. scripture says this and scripture cannot be wrong therefore scripture is correct.

Uh, I will. We're using computers now to employ totally random processes + a kind of selection to create new circuit designs. It's pretty slick, because you get "designs" that are far more efficient than anything a human could design. So, you don't need a human designer to create chips and circuits - just somebody to wind up the process and turn it loose. Nope. Not only is evolution robust enough to create complexity on a biological scale, it's the only thing robust enough. Intelligent designs are nowhere near as complicated as biological systems. Eh? When was the last time you saw a detonation of any kind evenly distribute matter? When things blow up, they blow up in chunks. And the universe may be very evenly distributed, depending on what scale you're looking at. Grains of sand on a beach are evenly distributed if you count grains per square yard, but are very uneven if you count grains per square inch. Get what I'm saying, here? How many of them have Ph.D's in biology? That's really the crux of the matter. I dare you to go and look.