Creation, Evolution, and faith

Well, this philosopher of science views it exactly that way. I'm confused. You seemed to agree that the evidence we have of the efficacy of the scientific method provides pragmatic evidence for its worth, yet you insist on describing our use of it as based on faith. Could you explain this inconsistency?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I understand what he is saying in this and it's not an inconsistency, imo. Both creationists and evolutionists view history/science through their presuppositional lens. In other words, both come to the table thinking, without evidence to what is being theorized, either in the terms of Global Flood or millions of years.Take this crude example: Tons of dinosaur foot prints are found running in the same direction. The evolutionist automatically assumes that millions of years ago followed by a theory that the dinosaurs were running from predators looking to eat them. The creationist automatically assumes thousands of years ago followed by a theory that the dinosaurs were running from a global catastrophic flood, Noah's flood. Who's right? Neither side can absolutley prove their theory, but both came to the table with a presupposition opposite of the other. Both can agree that something happened to the dinosaurs in this specific case, both can agree that the dinosaurs were running from something looking to wipe them out, but the conclusion is different. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what he is trying to say in the post.Again, I apologize for the first grade level analogy............Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I understand what he is saying in this and it's not an inconsistency, imo. Both creationists and evolutionists view history/science through their presuppositional lens. In other words, both come to the table thinking, without evidence to what is being theorized, either in the terms of Global Flood or millions of years.

---

This is what Creationists want you to believe. THe fact is that the flood was refuted because the evidence was strongly against it and millions of years was accepted because the evidence was strongly for it.

I'd be surprised if they did. They'll assume millions of years ago, because all evidence points to dinosaurs having lived in that period and not after. Now, about your predator "assumption". I doubt that very very much. There are other possible explanations. A local flood for example (say, a tsunami), a volcanic eruption, a forest fire. Without additional data (Like footprints from the actual predator), I don't think any scientist will state that it had to be a predator. Again, why couldn't it have been a forest fire, a predator, voldcanic eruption. If that's really what the creationist assumes, he's assuming something without any evidence for it. Not mentioning the fact that a global flood would probaly have wiped the footprints clear from the mud they were made in. About the date? The scientist. About what they were running from? In your example, neither one. I will say that I doubt a scientist will draw that conclusion based on just footprints, however. Of course not. Does that mean we should ignore the evidence we have got? Poor ones at that. Again, I'd like to note that I find it highly doubtful a scientist would conclude it had to be a predator if all he has is some prints. Only one is supported by the evidence though (in case of the date, in your example), and in case of the cause, both are unfounded. I tried some corections.

I think the scientist is actually going to be asking "Can we assume that these footprints were made at the same time, or could they have been made over a period of many days or years or millenia? Do they actually show many animals present at the same time, or could they have been made over a longer period with never more than a few there at one time?"

Hadn't even thought of that.Anyway, Flyer75, I hope this illustrates that scientists don't just assume things when there is no evidence for them. Unlike it seems, the creationist in your example. I mean, you're a creationist, so I'm safe to assume that's the conclusion you would draw, right?

For the age of the Earth the evidence is radiometric dating and knowledge of how sediments are produced. High amounts of potassium derived argon or uranium derived lead in rocks is evidence of their age. No amount of faith will change these ratios in rocks. The age of the Earth is not a presupposition, it is a conclusion drawn from evidence using the scientific method. If you are looking for presuppositions you need to try again.Hing: These presuppositions in science do exist, but they are not what you think they are. The age of the prints is established by the ratio of isotopes in rocks above and below the footprints. It is not assumed. Here is an analogy for you. In a murder trial the prosecuting attorney presents a case that includes DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, fiber evidence, footprint evidence, and tire track evidence all linking the defendant to the murder victim. The defense attorney claims that the prosecutor has no evidence and is merely assuming that the defendant is guilty. The defense attorney then goes on to say that it is just as likely that the victim was killed by Leprechauns since both the defense attorney and the prosecution are using assumptions. Is this a valide defense? Is ignoring all the evidence at hand an honest way to approach this case?

The presuppositions of science are rather bland. They include such ideas that we can trust what we see, that the laws of nature do not change arbitrarily in either space or time, and that nature can be understood rationally. That's it. They are the same presuppositions that allow you to go to sleep at night and know that you will wake up on your bed and not the ceiling. The same presuppositions that allow you to brush your teeth in the morning knowing that the toxicity of sodium flouride will be the same tomorrow as it was today. They are the same presuppositions that allow you to push down on your brake pedal and know that steel will not suddenly turn into the consistancy of spaghetti.If you want to argue that we can not trust what we observe, and that nature is not rational, then we can argue about the validity of the presuppositions of science.

It's not necessarily the conclusion I would draw in that example. Likely it would be but it's def not 100% provable and never will be. I start with an assumption that the Bible is true, that Noah's flood did occur, and thus much can be explained in light of a world wide catastrophe that completely changed the landscape.Has there not been major flaws at times in radiometric dating??? People were not around when rocks were formed, whether you are a creationist or evolutionist this is a true statement, so we can only guess about their content or how quickly radioactive elements decayed millions of years ago, or say, pre-Flood. Take Noah's flood out of the equation and most believe that there have been other catastrophic events around the world, including an ice age (yes, YEC believe this, it's just a difference of when it occurred) so how do we know how these events affected dating methods. No human was supposedly around to observe any of it, right? Thanks for your post Huntard and sorry to send this into a radiometric dating thread...that wasn't my intent but I opened the door.

Again, excuse my ignorance but I believe this is a form of uniformitarianism as coined by the deist James Hutton? If not, I apologize, if so, I have to ask again....how do we know? How do we know light traveled at the same speed it does today 40 million years ago? Or that the way we date rocks today has any connection to the way they decayed 110 million years ago? IMO, it's a logical conclusion that scientists have "faith" that the present is the key to the past.

Yeah, right. I mean, you're actually giving the impression here that scientists actually *think* about their observations, and that they may question their own assumptions. Everyone knows that they do neither and only creationists have the intelligence to point this out to them.

Every time you think this, bear this in mind: for every untested assumption in science, there are about 10,000 graduates desperate to prove themselves to their peers and superiors by tearing apart those assumptions and demonstrating them incorrect. Every graduate in science is desperately looking for something new on which to write his next paper. Guess how many untested assumptions are left lying around, unchallenged?Science is built, not upon assumptions, but upon the tearing down of assumptions.

Similar questions might be, how do we know that the rocks we see weren't marshmallows millions of years ago? How do we know that gravity didn't used to push things away instead of pull towards?The simplest answer I suppose would be....why would things be different before than they are now? We have no reason to think the laws of the universe changed and if you have to bend reality in this way to maintain your beliefs then those beliefs are in dire need of revision.Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a Creator and He gave us the tools of curiosity, logic, and reason. Would this Creator be angered by people for using these tools to explore and try to understand aspects of His creation? - of course not. Would this Creator hold in higher regard those who set aside his gifts of logic and reason in order to deny the evidence of His creation? - of course not.In order to delude yourself into thinking that the earth is young, you have to deny a lot more than radiometric dating. Non-radiometric dating methods such as dendrochronology, historical records, ice cores, varves, plate techtonics, Milankovitch cycles, luminescence dating, and fossils all agree and support one another. What you are suggesting is that God is stupid and a deceiver, and that He had to cast spell after spell to lie to us - He had to alter every radiometric isotope, every varve, ice layers, historical records, etc, in order to deceive the human race. So when you deny scientific evidence, you are accusing God of being incompetent and a deceiver.

We should take this to another thread, as there are some good ones not too far back.And several of us are somewhat knowledgeable in that field. I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and would love to discuss those issues with you. Others here are more qualified in the longer half-life methods.Please bring your concerns to one of those threads, or begin a new one. I think we can help you with your concerns.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I don't want to get into the details of any particular radiometric dating method; there are others here much more well-versed in them than I am. However, I do want to make two general points about your suggestion that they could have been different in the past.In the thread Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, RAZD makes the point that multiple independent methods of dating come up with the same results. In other words, they corroborate one another. Thus, scientists do not merely assume that things were the same in the past, there is substantial evidence that they were.If conditions were different in the past such that processes operated differently, any changes you want to hypothesize would have had to be such that multiple different methods of analysis would yield the same result. Thus, for your assumption to hold water, you would have to assume that many different laws of physics and chemistry changed in some sort of synchronized manner. This, of course, in the face of the fact that there is no actual evidence that any of them changed.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat