Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

quote:

---

If that thread is in any way typical, it could provide important clues to why scientists are good at convincing each other but not anyone else.

---

And I had my post almost done and AOHell disconnected and I lost it. Now I have to start all over. So I probably won't get it done tonight.My name's not going to be mud after this is it or will I have to wear shades in the chat room?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

When I say nonscience person, I mean someone who does not have any science degrees, does not work in the field of science and whose hobbies are not science oriented. It does not mean I’m not able to understand science from a layman’s standpoint.I do not work in a science field, but I find science fascinating. Any personal research I have done dealing with science is in the medical arena (father’s cancer, daughter’s depression, mother’s health) and that was due to necessity. I spent a lot of time observing behavior and causes.Growing up on a farm I loved biology in HS and etymology when I was younger.My field of work has been journalism, public relations and secretarial. The fastest I can read is 1800wpm.My point in mentioning all this is so you understand me. I am open to learning, I love to learn. I’ve learned quite a bit on my side of the river.Once I became an Admin, I watched the conflicts more and what leads up to them. (my behavioral side showing). This last time that Faith got called on the carpet, I looked into the thread.What I saw was a thread started to call someone out to get pummeled. I say this because Faith has been debating on this forum long before I came to this board. I feel her level of expertise is well known. I assume she’s a bit more than me, but I’m guessing. You already know that she cannot or will not provide you with the level of evidence you require. The dictionary definition is my view of evidence. Now I tried to find a definition of scientific evidence on the internet, but the definitions varied with who was asking. Basically it seems to say that scientific evidence is evidence that is technical in nature. Some said tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals and others said peer reviewed scientific studies published in or accepted for publication.As a nonscience person I don’t necessarily have access to this type of information. I can only provide what I have at my disposal and what I think I understand.Something I learned in journalism: Know your audience. You don’t write like a college professor if your audience is junior high students.Now granted Faith gave an off topic opinion that she has stated many times and we could assume that she does this so that she won’t have to provide backup to her statement, but I don’t think she is the sole owner of that tactic. Given her belief system and past performance, you know her response is not going to provide the caliber of evidence required by science people. She apparently hasn’t to date. So why call her out for an off topic opinion?I do think some of the questions to Faith are colored by past encounters with Faith, but remember we have those who lurk.Now in my initial post I was very clear about my level of expertise. I wanted to know what was wrong with her opinion since the responses in the OP were vague and didn’t say a lot and I apparently misunderstood what they did say. The first response to my questions gave me nothing to work with, no place to go. Mallon was the only one who gave me something to think about and work with. His response showed that all the statements by Faith weren’t totally out of line. Later discussion might have, but I got annoyed because people seemed more concerned with the fact that I was defending Faith's "evidence."But look at the one question he asked me and unfortunately I wasn’t able to get back to ask him about it. Another poster sent me to this link for information. I have no clue what any of that means.Look at the questions being asked of Faith and her answers:Did grasses run for higher ground in the flood? Message 19 - I don’t understand the point of this one either. How can we explain what we don’t understand?By the time someone actually gets around to a more instructive mode, your target is annoyed.Now given my apparently limited understanding of evidence, if I provide the evidence that I feel supports my opinion because that is the evidence that helped me come to my opinion, when you say that it isn’t evidence and ask for real evidence or ask some critical question that I can’t answer; I have nothing left to provide. Personally I would give up and did actually. That’s why you don’t find me on the science side except B:A&I. But Faith does try to answer to the best of her ability.Since we do consider our “evidence” as valid because it convinced us, when you ask for more it feels like we have to justify (prove) our evidence especially if you don’t explain why it isn’t acceptable. Our thoughts may not be original and others have already thought through them and found them wrong, but we haven’t worked through that process. I didn’t feel that Faiths first statements were seriously addresssed.I’ve researched how sugar impacts cholesterol. I can tell you that you need to stop consuming processed sugar and HFC and your cholesterol will go down. I can show you tests and give you personal testimony, but unless you are ready to change, you won’t. I can’t make you accept my information and I can’t make you admit that I’m right. All I can do is give you the tools to make an informed decision.Hardcore creationists are probably not going to change their position no matter what you present, so IMO, it is fruitless to try; but if you don’t provide your evidence in relation to theirs then those on the borderline may just stick with what they already know or stop reading.Well those are my thoughts, so let me know if I need to buy purple sunglasses.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If I understand you correctly you are saying that we all know that Faith was blowing hot air and didn't really have the evidence that she claimed to have.

---

Unfortunately, I think that is kinda the concensus in the "sci-group", but not the view I was hoping to get across.What she is claiming to have, she has already given you. Since I stuck my foot in this, I've noticed we apparently have a very different idea of evidence.You (sci-people) may feel that her words are empty, but from a nonscience standpoint they don't appear empty. Take the mountain comment for instance. (I love that one)Faith states: The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.Now to a basic nonscience Christian, not necessarily fundamentalist, who grew up in the church, that makes logical sense given the flood story. She has taken something that science has shown and used it to support the flood story.Now sci-guy response: Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.The first thought that came to my mind when I read that: "Hello, the mountains were already there when the flood happened, duh."Then another sci-guy provided a photo with no explanation.Then Faith comes back with a response that could be considered quite logical to a basic nonscience Christian. So far on this element, Faith=1 sci-guys=0In this msg we finally get a little more explanation, but not really presented in an understandable way.But this person also pointed out rule #4: What do you guys consider reasoned argumentation?Now when I asked about the mountains: I never said it was, because land is observed to rise, then we expect to find marine fossils in highlands. Their existence there is not indicative of a flood.My duh comment still comes to mind.The second sci-guy gives me: In itself, it is not evidence against a worldwide flood. It is simply another plausible explanation as to how the fossils got there. And it musn't be ignored.So it doesn't negate the world wide flood, but it's just another possible reason the fossils are in the mountains.So the flood story is still a plausible answer for a basic Christian.At this point science left me empty and I'm not even a fundamentalist.

quote:

---

Isn't that an adequate reason for calling her on it?

---

It served no purpose. An off comment buried in a thread, now became highlighted and science didn't make a good showing, IMO. You may have impressed each other, but I saw nothing that made me want to dig deeper.Personally, I don't care for targeted call outs like that.

quote:

---

She wasn't being asked for huge amounts of technical detail

---

It wasn't clear what was expected.But her statements weren't being seriously addressed, IMO.

quote:

---

Isn't it reasonable to ask her to back up that claim ?

---

Why? The only claim I see is that the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict, which is part of her belief system. She was agreeing with subbie and gave an opinion. Pick your battles.Subbie pretty much summed up Faith's approach to science in Message 9. And anyone who has debated with her should know that. Therefore, since you are dealing with someone or others whose faith determines how they view science, you need to deal from that base. For many their religion has been ingrained in their life much longer than science, especially if they are a nonscience person.

quote:

---

On the issue of behaviour I'm in favour of going easy on creationists because it seems that they can't help themselves.

---

It has nothing to do with going easy on the creationists. It's about getting the scientific information out there in a coherent manner.

quote:

---

Isn't it demeaning to say that we shouldn't question them because they don't know what they are talking about?

---

I'm not suggesting don't ask questions, but keep in mind the level of understanding of the person you're talking to.Bottomline: Do you want the scientific information to be there alongside the creationist information, so that the average nonscience reader can make an informed decision, or do you just want to get the creationist to admit that they are wrong and you are right? Because if the latter is what you want, then I think you're beating a dead horse.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Exactly!Now if she had actually started this thread herself, hopefully as admins, we would have asked for a little more explanation of her thoughts before promoting it.But since someone else did, reasonable responses to her statements would have been better.I'm not saying that there weren't good scientific points (that I understood) made within the thread, but this came off as more of a personal battle with Faith. Aside from the person I addressed, only one took the time to try and answer my questions concerning the statements. The other responses to me were dealing with the fact that I thought Faith's evidence was in the OP. That seemed to be more important.I've seen it in other threads also. Someone presents a reasonable thought that could continue the discussion and then someone presents a creationist type of opinion and off they go. Then it gets so mucked up you can't tell what's going on and of course tempers rise and people get in trouble.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I agree with your post. But to understand and discuss the issues, it is often necessary to take baby steps.

---

But not until message 119 after Faith had already lost her temper and been suspended. I can understand why she didn't walk through it with you. That's not what she presented as her "evidence."I don't even understand why the grass question was asked. It wasn't tied back to the OP. I'm sure there is some scientific reason, but again I see a difference in knowledge level.

quote:

---

And to begin, the creationist has to outline more than a simple statement. They need to explain what would be seen and why that would indicate a flood.

---

A nonscience person (creationist or not) may only have a simple statement.Why can't baby steps start there? Personally, I wouldn't have answered the grass question, of course, I also wouldn't have made the original comments, but why couldn't that question have been presented as a narrative?Present whatever statement it was referring to and then generally state how it applied and where the grasses went or whatever the point was of it. Then Faith or anyone else has a chance to agree, disagree, or add to it in some way. Someone like me might have asked a question if it peaked our interest.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Let me also point out that I have agreed with you that the original OP wasn't very good, but there are posts in the thread that make good and valid points.

---

I guess this shows what a bad OP can do. I'm not saying there weren't good and valid points in the thread.The OT statements by Faith really weren't worth starting the battle over, IMO.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What I was hoping to explore was where evolutionists are taking the wrong approach in presenting to creationists their evidence and interpretations.

---

This one just mentioned by jar. OK I've just posted my four statements (the ones in the OP) (Yes, I'm taking Faith's place for the moment)The first comment out of the bag is:
I'd like to ask PD if she thinks that grasses ran for higher ground in the Flood?Somebody tell which of the statements I made in the OP this relates to.See I still haven't figured out what that has to do with the original statements.Jar says it is a support for old earth. Did any of my comments address old earth? I thought it was evidence for the flood.Please connect the dots for me.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

So which one of the statements that "I" made in the OP does it relate to?

Still working with the flood thread.This OP

Since you didn't prepare your ideas to be debated you were at a disadvantage.IMO, you shouldn't feel pressured to respond to those types of threads.Pick your battles.

Work with me here, I'm trying to get you brainiacs to see the simple side of life, meaning the nonscience person. (not simpleton)

quote:

---

Okay, pretty much all of them.
The problem with the statements in the OP is that absolutely none of them really are evidence. They are simply assertions.

---

Again I think we have a different perspective on evidence. Has anyone explained the reasoned argumentation part of rule #4 yet? Sorry if I missed it.Let's say I've seen a wonderful Discovery channel show on fossils and I combine what I heard there with my Bible story of the flood. My opinion is based on that information that I have. Confident in my opinion, I make my statement "The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood."I've just told you that I consider the existence of fossils all over the earth to be evidence for me. I can't speak for you. I have nothing else to add to that. Asking me the grass question which supports your view doesn't make sense either from my viewpoint. Mainly because I can't answer it. If you notice when Faith answered it she said "I think". She wasn't really claiming anything. She was trying to reason an answer for you from her knowledge.Why question me and run me through a test that supports your view? From my standpoint I'm already comfortable with my evidence. I didn't ask you to walk me through anything. You're trying to make the horse drink once you've lead him to the water.(Now I have my PD hat back on, purple of course)
Now if you had posted the grass scenerio, basicly stating what it is and how that refutes the statements of the creationist, then I have an option of asking you questions. (remember right now I'm just a basic nonscience person) Then you can walk me through it.This way her statements are there and your comments are there. The reader has to make up their own mind.So it depends on your goal. If you want the science information out there or you want to convert the creationists. Right now it looks like you want to convert the creationists. I don't think that going to happen.Hopefully I'm making sense.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What does indefensable evidence prove?

---

It would prove nothing to you.I may not be able to defend it to your satisfaction, but I can to mine or another creationist.This is where the reader or opponent makes their own decision.So if the creationist has their statements out there and the science guys are still trying to get them to answer their questions, the science guys don't get their info out there clearly. Just a bunch of unanswered questions.That's why I keep asking, what is the goal?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I like the analogy and I do understand it. And see to me what you just posted would have been a great response to that specific statement.

quote:

---

Similarly, fossils being everywhere is not evidence for a specific scenario. There are lots of possible ways in which fossils could have been distributed all over the world. Only by studying the details can we form a valid conclusion on which scenario is most probable.

​

So, while the fossils are evidence, in and of themselves they are not evidence "for" anything.

---

This part is perfect. It's not demanding that the creationist do anything, but it leaves the door open for a nonscience person like myself to ask more about the details if I was so inclined. Plus your point is out there and a seed of doubt is planted, if that was your goal.I'm not saying that you need to be that basic all the time, but try to discern the level of who you are talking to.Now if the creationist provides no more details, their part is done. I see no purpose served by demanding more from them.You can always post to build on what you have stated, if you are so inclined.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Thank you, hopefully it will help.There is a lot of knowledge among the members of this board (I'm not worthy!), but sometimes I think it gets lost. The goal is missed.Could you explain that I'm not really dissin science, just the presentation.I think I'll go back to my side of the river and take a nap. Drink some grape juice. Replenish my purpleness. BTW, do I get a purple heart for this?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Imagine you have two balls, one red, one blue. They both make the same sound when they roll off of the table. You put both balls on the table, close your eyes & hear a thud. This is not indicative that the red ball fell off of the table. See what I mean? Fossils in mountains does not indicate that the flood put the mountains there when there is a perfectly valid alternative explanation. We need to test between them.

---

And as myself if you had given me something to that effect when I asked instead essentially repeating what you said in the OP, then you would have sparked doubt in the original statement. If I'm so inclined, I'll go check it out or maybe ask more questions. Even if I don't ask anymore questions, the spark is still there for others.

quote:

---

but to nullify the presented evidence as uninformative for what it is supposed to indicate.

---

What you gave me didn't spark any doubt in the original statements.I will tell you that along my path to my present state of mind (whatever you may presume that to be) tiny sparks like what I have described are what keep me looking. They mark the trail.Again, what's the goal?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz