Biased Interpretation?

quote:

---

Our presupposition is "the evidence is right", and yes, we're prisoner to it. Why shouldn't we be?

​

Their presupposition is "the Bible is right", and obviously they're prisoner to it, as well. The difference is their presupposition leads to slavery and people blowing up children, and our presupposition leads to VCR's and medicine.

---

You were doing fine up until the last sentence, at which point you left the rails, headed over a cliff and blew up. The difference between the two positions is not science produces neat things and religion (or this religion) produces evil actions. The difference is that science enables us to understand the physical world in a way that religion does not; that is, it lets us predict and manipulate the physical world. For accomplishing that purpose, which is the only one science has, it is objectively superior.Sometimes evangelical Christianity has encouraged bad behavior (slavery) and sometimes it has encouraged good behavior (the abolition of slavery). Sometimes science produces neat things (VCRs and medicine) and sometimes it produces things that aren't so neat (nuclear weapons and the ozone hole). If that's the basis for your choosing one over the other, you've got a pretty weak position.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that since they are constrained by a bias (Bible) that they feel evolutionists SURELY MUST BE constrained by some bias also?

---

I doubt they actually give it a lot of thought. They know they must be right, and the failure of all of those scientists to see it their way must have some explanation. This one sounds good, and fits in well with their more general ideas about spiritual warfare and spiritual blindness.

quote:

---

How can you know that you are not?

---

One can never know for sure, of course. But I can't figure out what presuppositions I might have that would have the claimed effect, so it's hard to take the problem too seriously.

quote:

---

Better yet, how can you convince those that accuse you, that you aren't constrained by inordinate presuppositions?

---

Probably impossible, since they generally have no interest in understanding their opponents, as far as I can tell.

quote:

---

I have met a number of creationists that seem very knowledgeable about science. Then they spout the presupposition retoric and I wonder if they are capable (and deceitful) or not capable (and honest). Then again, there is always the possibility that I could be the one who is not seeing.

---

I've met very, very few creationists who were knowledgable about science in any deep way.

quote:

---

It was my hope to contrast the social strife of the Dark Ages and other examples of theocracy with the practical benefits of the application of science.

---

Might I suggest you take the bold step of learning something about a subject before commenting on it? The Dark Ages (as they are still sometimes called by those who know little about them) were nothing like a theocracy. The church wielded almost no political power, and was largely subordinated to secular rulers.(I'm trying my hand at being smarmy and arrogant too. What do you think of my effort?)

quote:

---

Well...actually if you read my definition...it's synonymous with a bias. At least I've always heard them used interchangably, maybe you've heard different.

---

I don't think they're the same. For example, I have a bias in that I think any given event I encounter is likely to have a naturalistic explanation. I don't know that every event has such an explanation, however. I'm aware that I have my bias, and I'm aware that I could be mistaken in this area. A Bayesian would say that I assign a low prior probability to non-natural explanations.

quote:

---

Um, can you give an example of some secular rulers during the Dark Ages.

​

For example, can you list the Dark Ages rulers who did not rule by divine fiat?

---

In deference to the moderator (and the large stick he carries), I will refrain from replying to your request.

quote:

---

Well, you assume that there is no other explanation than your's that is based on the evidence.

---

No, I conclude from the repeated failure over many years of anyone to offer another explanation based on the evidence that there is (at present) no such explanation.

quote:

---

Many who believe in ID or Creationism would ironically also think that their explanation is derived straight from the evidence (granted many also blindly believe it, which I don't endorse). So maybe your's isn't the only one based on the evidence as you had thought.

---

I would find this much more plausible if someone (it could be you, it could be anyone) would actually
a) present the alternative explanation and
b) tell me how it explains the evidence.
I don't mean some vague hand-waving when it comes to the evidence; I mean the nitty-gritty, detailed, specific evidence that scientists have to deal with every day. In my case, it means genetic data and especially human genetic data. I have been looking for creationists to explain human genetic data for quite a while, and I've found exactly one who may, possibly, be willing to make the attempt (and he does it by essentially conceding the truth of evolution).As for ID, I have no idea what it's supposed to be explaining, exactly, nor do I know what the explanation is. I know what the evolutionary explanation is for, say, variation in human diversity at different points in the genome. What's the ID explanation? Is the same or not?

quote:

---

second, what's the point in studying science or debating if your conclusion is already made up?

---

What's the point of either science or debate if you aren't willing to conclude at some point, and after lots of study and discussion, that some idea are just plain wrong? Why do we have to keep entertaining them when they've shown themselves to be bankrupt for years?

quote:

---

Aren't there many many scientists with PhD's who have turned from an evolutionary point of view to at least an ID point of view?

---

Among those who actually know something about the subject? No, not that I'm aware of. Among those who actually deal with evolution, all use it, simply because it works, and works extremely well. Creationism is consistently wrong if you try to apply it, and ID is (at least at this point) pretty much a whole lot of nothing: it has no empirical (i.e. testable) consequences that I know of.

quote:

---

The ID folks (as far as I have read) accept an old earth and that evolution can account for a large fraction of the change and diversity of life on earth. They all (I think all) think that there is no way that life could not arise from non-life without a designer of somesort intervening which is not about evolutionary theory anyway. They then think that there are specific details of evolution which can not arise by the currently understood mechansims. Which leaves a lot for evolution.

---

I think you've described Behe's position, but not that of ID. The only statement that ID makes about evolution is that intelligence had to be involved somewhere; it doesn't say where or when. I've heard that one DI fellow, Paul Nelson, is a YEC, while Behe pretty clearly isn't. Most just refuse to talk about it. There is no agreed-upon ID list of points in evolutionary biology that known mechanisms can't explain; there isn't even an agreement that there must be such points (Dembski occasionally seems willing to move the input of intelligence back to the structure and laws of the universe).This is why I find it hard to view ID as an alternative explanation to evolution. As far as I can tell, it doesn't make any clear statements about the subject at all.