Christianity, Knowledge and Science

quote:

---

If you believe in evolution, then you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence as supporting that. If you do not believe in evolution, you look at all the evidence with that as your viewpoint, and you see the evidence supporting your view.

---

Actually, this isn't true. Maybe some people have a preferential blindness that prevents them from noticing evidence that is contrary to their viewpoint, maybe some people hallucinate evidence in favor of their viewpoint that doesn't exist, but most people, even the most incredibly biased ones, can look at the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions about that evidence, even when it is contrary to their viewpoint.The Copernican model of the solar system is a case in point. Pre-Gallileo everyone was incredibly biased against a heliocentric solar system. Yet the evidence provided by Galileo and Brahe/Keplar convinced the vast majority of scientists (or proto-scientists) that the planets actually revolve around the sun.Frankly, I do know of people who are so biased that they will force the evidence to fit their preconceived viewpoints. But these are cases where either the person is pathologically committed with her viewpoint, or where the evidence is somewhat ambiguous. Neither of these really apply to the vast majority of scientists working in the geological, biological, and astrophysical sciences.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Hi, buje. Sorry, I forgot to welcome you to the forum. It's pretty fun here -- I hope you enjoy it.

quote:

---

There are plenty of scientists that have weighed the evidence, repeatedly, and still do NOT support Macro-evolution.

---

Actually, there isn't. Creationists have supplied lists of scientists who supposedly do not accept the theory of evolution, but those lists have a few short comings:

• The lists are quite short, at most a couple of hundred out of the tens of thousands of scientists that accept the theory of evolution;
  ​
• most of the scientists in question do not work in the relevant areas of biology and so don't have any more expertise in evaluating the evidence than you or I; and
  ​
• the scientists in question are usually believers in some sect or another that has creationism or ID as part of their tenets so they come to the evidence with, as you put it, a priori biases.

-

quote:

---

Are they delusional?

---

That is one possibility.-

quote:

---

We are all coming to some conclusion based on the evidence we see.

---

What do you know about the evidence? There are plenty of threads on this board about the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution and about alleged evidence against. Feel free to join in a discussion about evidence, or start your own thread if their is any particular set of evidence you'd like to argue for or against.-

quote:

---

As a Christian, I honestly have no problem in the long run if science can PROVE that macro-evolution of the species occurred.

---

Great. In fact, macroevolution has been proven, at least as proven as a scientific concept can be. That is not due to "bias" -- it is simply an appraisal of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it and the lack of evidence against.-

quote:

---

At this time, it CAN NOT, and anyone who says otherwise is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on their own delusion.

---

This sounds like you've already pretty made up your mind. Is this an example of the bias that you are talking about?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I would like to respond to your post, bujitsu, but one of the moderators has ruled us off-topic for this thread.If you want to discuss this further, we should take it to another thread. Do you want to start one, or should someone else do it?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine