I disagree. This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between.
I think this might be erroneous. Forensics don't start with a known conclusion. Example: We have a dead body, that is our data. We need to come to the conclusion as to how that body died. If there are stab wounds, we might assume the person we stabbed, but we have to test that...a post mortem to detect if the body was alive when the stabs were inflicted, maybe there is poison in the system (or poisson, if they were alergic to sea food), water in the lungs, blood spattering on the walls etc etc etc.
The difference is that forensics can examine the physical evidence to come to the conclusions. With the flood we have only anecdotal evidence, and no physical evidence. Actually we have physical evidence but it doesn't seem support the conclusion, so either there is a problem with the evidence, the method for interpreting the evidence or there is a problem with the conclusion. Since the evidence and the method have done well at predicting and explaining in the past, the general consensus is to reject the conclusion that there was a flood.
Science assumes a conclusion, just like with the flood. But it differs in that it then asks 'if our conclusion (hypothesis) is true, what would we expect to find, what do we find and does what we find contradict our hypothesis'.
Science says that if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, the hypothesis is the most likely thing to be wrong.
Faith says that if the evidence contradicts the conclusion (eg flood), then the evidence (edit: or its interpretation) is wrong. No questions.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-12-2005 10:03 AM
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 12-September-2005 04:09 PM
If it helps, I'm on your side with trying to reach understanding of Faith's position through discussion. In answer to the question 'Is it science?' is no, faith works in the opposite manner from science. Is it any less valid? No. However science as a methodology and a philosophy has provided results for practical things such as engineering, finding oil etc. Science generally doesn't do very well with things such as getting spiritual or emotional results (though some might disagree even with that)
and here at EvC what that means is that debating it is impossible as the deck is stacked against creationists.
That's only really true when it comes to science. The two philosophies are often at odds with one another. If you wanted to propose a faith based debate or a philosophical one, then the deck is not stacked. A science based one will be stacked for evolutionists because their conclusions are scientific consensus.
However, it works the other way too. The deck is stacked against evolutionists if we start with "The Bible is inerrant, the flood actually happened". Then there is simply 'nothing more to discuss', re the flood. It then becomes a discussion of RATE type things, which nobody here accepts. It's probably best to find a site with a lot of creationists on there with which to discuss it. Fred Williams would love to have you on his site I'm sure. Tell him I sent you :)
"Assuming that the global flood as written in Genesis actually happened, how do we explain the physical evidence?". No doubt people would still miss the point and say it isn't science, but that's just forums for you.
The problems arise when:
1) YECers try to change the definition of science so that it can include all philosophies (or more particularly theirs)...this is a silly idea.
2) YECers say that the scientists who have accrued all this evidence are interpreting wrong since they are doing it in accordance scientific manner and which contradicts their philosophy.
3) YECers say that scientists are liars, athiests, heathens and are hiding the truth to indoctrinate our youth (hey that rhymes).
If you establish at the outset than anyone's personal belief regards of fact/evidence is empirically true, there's no room/reason for discussion.
I don't think this is entirely fair. Example RATE. They state from the outset that the earth is young. However, there is plenty of discussion there as to how to reconcile all the evidence to the contrary, and what evidence there is for the positive. An example is Humphrey's helium stuff. We do the same in science, assuming this is true, what are the consequences, what would we see?
The problem YECers face is that when the going gets tough, the temptation to just write off contradictory evidence, or awkward paradoxes as miracles and have done with it. This can make discussion frustrating, because positions are essentially unfalsifiable, but with a calm mind, at least some ideas can be bashed about, especially by a group of like minded people who accept the conclusion already.
It isn't a matter of being at odds, it's a matter of the one point of view demanding that the other give up its very reason for being.
I don't this is quite right. I'm sure some might think this way, but not all. I certainly don't demand you give up your faith or your beliefs. The only time I have any problems with creationists is when they make sweeping statements or try to convince less educated people using hokey maths or science.
That is to say - if you want to stand up and say 'I don't believe in evolution, it runs against my Holy Book...' or whatever that is fine. Saying that 'Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics' is something else. When that happens, the creationists are told why they are wrong, since they have attempted to prove a scientific principle to be in fault using another scientific principle.
Yes but the reason for this site is the science debate.
Mostly, yes. Most people come here to fight the faux-science sprouted by creationists, and to learn more about the Theory. Discussing science with axioms based in religious faith doesn't interest many, though it has peaked my interest. Try evolutionfairytale, or evolutionisdead websites if you want that kind of discussion perhaps they will be better suited for you.
What site is that? I read the creationist sites but the message boards don't usually look very interesting.
Fred's site has a forum. I'm banned from it, and as far as I can see, there is only one evolutionist still allowed to post. Evolutionisdead is mostly a dead forum, but might be of interest.
God's autobiography is more reliable than the dramatization
Yes, you think "evidence" trumps God Himself. This is the whole point. Unfortunately the evidence you allow to discredit God is not anywhere near all that trustworthy, certainly not divine and far from absolute.
I think you might misrepresent your opponents here. IIRC jar's position is that God's creation itself and what we can learn from it, 'trumps' a written account of a copy of a copy of an old oral story told by a prophet, recounted by fallen fallible sinners.
My position is also very different from your characterization. And other positions are that God doesn't exist so evidence doesn't 'trump' anything, evidence is just evidence.
In the interests of this thread, it would be nice if you could try and accurately understand the position held by 'the other side'.
Re: God's autobiography is more reliable than the dramatization
But the point was that the evidence that is used against God's word...
No, the evidence isn't used against God's word (though some do use it in that manner) the evidence is for an old earth which just happens to disagree with your interpretation of God's word. Some people believe that the Word is written in the Creation and the Holy Bible is a history of fallen men trying to understand the Creation and reconcile themselves with God.
The position held by all of you in common...is that the Bible is not to be treated as the literal inerrant authoritative word of God but is open to all manner of human conjecture and interpretation just as the rocks are
Not true. It can be treated in that way if you so choose, but it isn't the only way it can be legitimately treated. And given that you are as fallible as any of mankind, you cannot know which is the right way. It is entirely fine to view the Holy Bible as you wish. However, your opponents believe that the Holy Bible can viewed in a different manner...and indeed they do. The Holy Bible is open to interpretation, and if you don't think it is, then you haven't seen the centuries of debate that has gone into interpreting it....the wars, the alliances etc
You might be right, Faith, in your interpretations. You might be wrong too.
. But Bible inerrancy is the position I hold and all Biblical YECs hold, as the premise for this debate and for our interest in being here at all, and for it to be discounted is to stack the deck in any so-called debate.
Indeed, I'm happy to accept the premise. I've said so several times. If you want a debate to start with that as an axiom, I'm happy to watch it progress. Of course, it is stacking the deck in your favour, to further discussion and debate...but I'm happy the debate is being had, I think it will help things around here tremendously.
I hope it all gets off the ground, I'm very interested to see where it leads :)
Re: God's autobiography is more reliable than the dramatization
But the evidence IS used against God's word, because the evidence is trusted as if it were something final and authoritative, and the fact that it contradicts God's word is simply overridden, and this even though the "evidence" is no more than what mere imagination comes up with, such as Hutton's view that uncomformities MUST have taken ages to form just because he couldn't imagine the mechanics by which it happened otherwise -- nothing tested, no experiments, no scientific method involved at all. And the same with the fossil sequence -- it is taken as evidence for evolution based ONLY on its LOOKING LIKE a sequence -- sheer imagination. So much for scientific rigor.
Of course, I disagree with this, but I think it'll take us off on an unproductive tangent to debate it right now. The good news is that I understand your position, I simply disagree with it.
First let me say that I generally appreciate your attitude and your willingness to accept the YEC premise, which I should have said before.
Thank you. We can disagree on just about everything, but that should allow us to tackle the issues from differing positions, to help come to an understanding - even if minds are not changed (and lets face it, on either side of the debate changing minds is the kind of thing that makes headlines).
I think that just about wraps things up here. Best of luck with it Faith, I hope it goes well. Pop into the live chat sometime and have a chat with us.
Don't count your victory yet, I once saw Kent Hovind in this corner, and he argued his way out quite easily. This is basically what he said:
We don't know what kinds are, we can have our ideas, but we can't know for sure any more than you can define species [he was talking to a biologist that was trying to establish what constitutes a seperate species of woodpecker]...for all I know the whale and the fish are the same kind.
There you go, from the king of crazy creationists himself.