Creationists have often made the claim that Evolution is not based upon facts or is not well-supported by the evidence. I see several logical consequences to this situation, and I'd like our Creationists to address them.
1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public
2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science
You are promoting the idea that a proper conclusion to the statement:Evolution is false, and is not supported is that Scientists are liars, and imcompetent.
This is of course flawed on many different levels. I will attempt to outline all that I can see.
Firstly, it seems that you put words in the mouths of certain creationists, without citing any examples or evidence.
Generalizations fail to accurately gauge any level of validity pertaining to the opinion of a group of individuals, Creationists. You fail to cite the many creationists, who ascribe to a non-fundamental approach. You fail to cite creationists who reject science as worldly and meaningless. You fail to cite creationists who believe that science is a valuable tool, and scientists utilize valid methods of research, but find fault in evolutionary theory, as well as the evidence that is presented.
You also fail to describe on any level what "doing science" entails. This is a subjective term, as doing science can be reached at various standards of comparison.
One thing I have never seen a Creationist address adequately is the fact that science, including Biology, as an endeavor is cumulative and progressive. That is, all current scientific work is based upon past work.
Anecdotal evidence is usually never ample enough in dealing with discussions and debate. For I have seen many creationists argue that because of science's quality of being cumulative, that textbooks change every 5-10 years, sometimes dramatically, that science may be unreliable. This is usually contrasted with the long-standing ideals which have been put forth and remain, in the Bible. Ideas about existence, which seem to apply to every year, and every human. But what I "saw" or "heard" is usually not enough to produce a persuasive argument.
If the Theory of Evolution is completely false and not supported by any evidence whatsoever (only "speculation and wishful thinking"), then how is it that the study of Biology has been able to progress at all in the last 150 years?
The ToE is utterly foundational to all of the life sciences and much medical research, so if it was so very wrong, all predictions based upon it should fail.
You fail to provide any evidence in support of the claim that the 'Theory of Evolution' is "utterly foundational" to life sciences, and medical research. Your first claim then, is irrelevant to the discussion. Your comments which present arguments without evidence are seeming very similar to the rhetoric of politicians on FOX News. Cite these elusive "predictions based upon it". Or is it "Common Knowledge"? That simply won't float.
The conclusions that you draw of scientists who would have squandered such valuable time studying, and writing these thousands of papers cannot be assumed. An individual, a creationist, could observe the work that has been done, and think that it is a respectable effort in order to prove a theory about origins. This creationist could respect these efforts, and never think that these scholars are imcompetent, much less liars.
The assumption here simply does not work. You both are inventing a hypothetical argument which relies on a subjective, and vague assumption about the qualities of not some, but even all creationists.
It's not assumed; it's concluded from what creationists are telling us about the science behind evolution.
They claim it's not there, period. That every piece of evidence evolutionists have doesn't actually exist. According to creationists, evolutionists are at best mistaken or simply parroting the unchallenged statements of their authorities, or at worst engaged in a deliberate attempt to suborn science to hoodwink the "common person."
Those are the literal claims of creationists. What else can we take from that other than what Schraf has in her OP? Creationists don't simply assert that scientists are merely coming down on the wrong side of an ambiguous question; guessing "A" when it's hard to tell the difference between "A" and "B".
The assertion of creationists is that evolution, top to bottom, is flat-out wrong, and that scientists aren't simply slightly mistaken about an obscure point of fact; they're as deluded as the guy in the straightjacket who asserts he's Napoleon.
Your statements are void of any evidence whatsoever, even the common usage of anecdotal evidence is missing. Your assertions of "creationists" has displayed a close-mindedness toward opposition, and an attitude which allows no further alternatives presentable to a linear mind.
These are not the views of creationists. This hypothetical argument once again proves and shows nothing. Your generalizations of the creationist perspective only shows a lack of understanding.
Creationists can and do respect the efforts of science, and would never think that scientists and scholars are imcompetent, much less liars.
Science is a term used to describe observing and beginning to understand the physical world, and all that entails. Creationists like most human beings I would say respect the ability to observe and record accurately. I would like to see some evidence for Creationists who say that they find science deplorable, and that they think scientists are liars. I want you to quote them here. Then we can continue.
After more than 150 years of conducting scientific research related to the ToE, and still having a segment of the population saying that it is all wrong because it contradicts their "beliefs" or disagrees with their "faith", it's really not much of an assumption to conclude that these individuals must hold scientists in very low regard...to the level of incompetence. Or worse yet, being liars.
Does holding an individual, or groups of individuals, in low regard induce one to believe that they are incompetent?
And if one holds a person aloft with much esteem, would that increase the level of competency of that individual?
As you can hopefully deduce, This is never the case.
And if an individual rejects a particular scientific idea, no matter the amount of evidence which supports it, would that in fact, mean that this individual rejects science, finds scientists deplorable, or finds scientists as liars?
I will say it again, the premise that of which started this entire topic does not work. On top of that, it is all hypothetical.
Perhaps not all 'creationists,' but I would say that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) must think 99.85% of all geoscientists and bioscientists are either incompetent and/or liars. Otherwise, why would they denounce their theories without even bothering to rationally examine the tremendous amount of evidence for such theories.
I guess I wasn't aware of all of the creationists out there who denounce the work of genuine and Phd-touting scientists as bunk, perhaps lies. Dr Adequate. Glad that was cleared up finally.
Thomas Aquinas provided a rather detailed, and expansive argument for God a long time ago. I have yet to read it in it's entirety. But that doesn't matter for this. In this argument which, among other arguments have been presented, and arguments of my own on here, he used logic to formulate his ideas. He didn't resort to the mindless quality which the term "faith" bestows onto one's conscience.
Creation has been accepted for a vast number of reasons, science included, logic included. Of course, arguments from science have not shown conclusive evidence that a creation occurred, not even considering a biblical one. (Unless you call philosophical/logical arguments part of science, as they use descartesian methods when dealing with thought, and presentation.)
A man as myself respects science as it is. A field of study dedicated to ideas of and pertaining to what is observable. (Allow this over-simplification to pass.) Relativiy, Time (Hawking), Quantum physics, etc... I have great respect for the study. Einstein's efforts for unification stand out most definately. I love how there is a field where intellectuals reside, where mediocrity is weeded out by publishing works to advance our knowledge of our environment.
But I also know that there is much more to life then this purpose. There is existence, there is philosophy, ideas of God, being, humanity, and society. Important questions, and important ideas. There is much of this in the texts of the Old and New Testaments.
I have written posts on why I reject evolution. It's social implications, and it's ability to increase this already absurd being, but perhaps even that now seems stale. I do not think that scientists are liars, or cheats. They are men who study the world, and seek to find some sort of answers through it. They are misguided, and looking in all the wrong places. They hold a purpose similar to that of a ditch-digger, or of a custodian. There is no difference between their minds and the minds of men who illegally work here from another country. They squander thought on stars, on planets. They squander lives on evolution.
The piles of evidence mean nothing to me. Yet I do not see these men as cheats and liars. Incompetent at what they do? Of course not. Possibly incompetent in knowing where truth should be sought.
Is this horrible? How can I reject such a theory? A theory which rests on millions of fossils, and even wholly reconstructed "early humans"?
I will not be degraded by such a theory of origins. I seek what is true in myself, and in God. God, and my existence are so entwined that I can see it. The only possible explanation for existing would be finally to reach a state similar to that of God. Transcending what is real, a state of knowledge which expands beyond anything which we feel is true. I feel that this would be the only noble goal, for a creator to give existence. For, we can know, we can know that we exist, we can know that there exists a transcendental theme to our lives, one that involves much more than the trivial pursuits of our "everyday lives". One which involves the teachings of Christ, and of Siddhartha. Of existentialism, of truth.
Otherwise, there is no essential meaning to any of it, and we are part of a mindless being, which has been enacted without reason, and without inherent purpose.
Thought on a different plane has taken me. You will object that I am "running away". As I first came here to defend all that I loved from the minds of all of you, using AIG, and HOVIND, now I can safely say that none of that even mattered. Maybe only significant in that it was what I cared about, it was for all whom I ever respected and truly loved, for all of the men who sat on those fields and thought. For my first teachers, and my first oppurtunities at knowledge, and salvation. Salvation from not only mediocrity, but from a non-existence, from a life similar to a scientist, or a professor. Similar in that it is utterly without meaning. Equivalent to a 9 to 5 job anywhere, doing anything. I am forever still grateful to that place.
Faith is acting strangely, and questionable evidence.
Whats with the threats of suspension? Didn't seem necessary, kind of obnoxious. Seems like you are angry because you pulled yourself out and everything.
The above comment is off-topic. Do not respond.
I will try to compose my thoughts within a week or two, to complete something lengthy on why I reject evolution. Right now my argument is seeably weak. I won't rehash any of my previous arguments here. No old news. I'll make it so it can't be taken out of context, because it will be so good.