Summations Only

In my Evolution course last semester we had to review a YEC book. I did mine on Jonathon Sarfati's Refuting Evolution . One of my main criticisms of this book and the entire YEC movement (apart from the technical errors and misrepresentations) was that it was written to an audience with no scientific knowledge, no concept of what evolution really means and no understanding of the evidence that is accepted as confirmation of the theory. Those readers then think that Sarfati has made a brilliant case against evolution and set out to enlighten the "evil evolutionists". Those people would certainly be humiliated and embarrassed in a debate with anyone with even a general knowledge of evolution.The YECs have created an unnecessary and completely false dichotomy - they teach that understanding Genesis in a literal way is foundational to understanding the Bible as a whole. If Genesis is wrong or rejected, the whole Bible falls. They have created this idea that you are either a YEC or an atheistic evolutionist. I believe this to be completely untrue - it does not have to be an either / or debate.Another major problem is that the YEC use so many false arguments, misrepresentations and deceptive tactics that it appears that is the way all Christians are. Another huge disservice of the YEC movement.I encourage you to continue to question everything. But I would also encourage you to not make this an either / or debate and not be committed to one extreme or the other.

How about Hugh Ross? although not a YEC (he is a progressive creationist), he became an astrophysicist before he became a Christian and he claims it was his discoveries in astrophysics and subsequent study of several different religions that drove him to that choice.His story here (annoying audio can be disabled at the bottom of page)HBD

My bad . I had heard his story before and thought it was the other way around. I only gave this link a cursory read (It was too lengthy) Shame on me.HBD

Yeah, my bad. I thought I had heard his story elsewhere and only gave the article a cursory read. I should have looked closer. I'm sure you would have to read his books to find out those things. This article was only apologetics. I don't know if his books will answer those questions or not, though I suspect not. I have only read his first one and it was quite a while ago.HBD

Hi Dawn.I for one would like to see ID be taken seriously and be considered a scientific investigation. However, I feel they have fallen flat and failed to produce anything of substance.First of all, the basic premise of ID is that we can detect design in nature and therefore recognize that there must be a designer. The identity and nature of this designer is not revealed. However, my observation is that creationists have latched onto this idea and see it as a way to bring credibility to their cause. So it has become (or at least perceived as) creationism in disguise. That makes it difficult for me personally to support the movement.Secondly, I see their work resulting in little more than words. The main tenet of ID, irreducible complexity, has been completely debunked. Part of the problem is that opponents need only demonstrate that a process could arise in a step-wise process not that it actually did evolve in that way to invalidate that a system is irreducibly complex. Step-wise processes have been proposed for the blood clotting pathway, flagellum, the eye, and so on ... So the main tenet of ID falls. What else is there?So, on one level I agree with you that ID could and maybe should be science and I am sure they do use the SM in some of their investigations. But I would have to agree with the others that it has not lived up to the criteria to be considered legitimate science. It is actually the other way around. The burden of demonstrating that ID is indeed science rests squarely on the shoulders of those claiming it is. Current science is firmly established as "science" and has defined and developed the SM. Now ID comes on the scene and suggests it has a better way, a more accurate way of looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions. It needs to demonstrate that it indeed does. The burden falls on ID, not on the established scientific community. I would be interested in the "process" of ID. I have not seen a "process" clearly outlined (although, I must confess, I have not spent much time looking for it) What makes it different? What makes it the same? You are suggesting that the processes are the same but the conclusions are what are different. The processes need to be demonstrated and the conclusions need to be justified. I have not seen this to be the case.You were asked about what would you teach during the ID half of the science hour. That may be a good place to start. How could you teach ID in the classroom and meet the requirements of scientific education?HBD

Ok. Fair enough.I was trying to be generous in my assessment of their original motives. Creation science was not considered to be science, so they tried to come up with a way to legitimize their ideas. So I don't fault them for attempting to give credibility to their cause.My comment was regarding the basic premise itself

quote:

---

the basic premise of ID is that we can detect design in nature and therefore recognize that there must be a designer.

---

not so much the actual movement. If they had truly made the attempt to approach that premise with a reasonable amount of scientific inquiry, perhaps they could have gained some legitimacy. But instead, they merely repackaged the same old stuff and tried to pass it off as new.But, point taken and Trixie's as well.HBD

No. I guess not.The SM starts with a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with experimental or acquired data. The hypothesis is then either supported or rejected.I would suggest that the vast majority of initial hypothesis are either wrong or need to be refined after experiments are performed. If a researcher does have consistently valid hypothesis it is probably because he/she is building upon earlier work. But no one publishes negative results, they publish when they make a discovery, a break through. And in their published work they don't discuss all the failures they had to get to the point they are at. That is what falsifiable is all about. When you propose a hypothesis, you must be willing to throw it out if it is wrong.A simple example from my own experience. I am studying a shrub/tree, Glossy Buckthorn, that is an aggressive invader of Midwest wetlands. I observed several fairly large stands that had died unexplainably. I did some research and found that Glossy Buckthorn was susceptible to attack by a particular nematode. This nematode caused symptoms consistent with what I was observing. I was excited. This could be a potential biological weapon against this invader. So my hypothesis was that nematodes have invaded this stand of Buckthorn. I did some experiments and found no evidence what-so-ever of parasitic nematodes. Much to my disappointment, I had to abandon that hypothesis. However, not all is lost. I will propose a new hypothesis and test that until I reach a valid conclusion.So you see, that's the rub. ID starts with a hypothesis that can't be wrong. If you started with the hypothesis that a particular thing is designed, would you be willing to abandon that hypothesis when the evidence did not support it? Are you willing to say that the flagellum, the blood clotting pathway ... etc. are not designed? No. that hypothesis can not be abandoned. That is why it is not scientific. I do believe in reality. I do not limit my understanding of reality to only what can be observed in the natural world. I would not argue against an intelligent designer, or a creator or God. But I don't see how the discussion of those topics falls under the category of science. Could we discuss morality in a scientific context? Could we scientifically determine which religion is correct? Could we scientifically determine whether vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate? These discussions are for philosophy and theology (and personal opinions).I agree that the order and laws of the universe do point to a designer. But how do you make a scientific hypothesis to test that? If you start with a hypothesis that is assumed to be true, why bother testing it? You would state that the law and order indicates that there must be a designer. End. It can't be tested, can't be invalidated, can't be science. That doesn't mean it can't be true. But can't be science. I triedHBDABE: I just saw you did outline a process for teaching ID in the classroom in the previous message, but I will have to take a closer look at it later.Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.