|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 6:46:12 PM | "Do you see my point? Even if it happened, we may never know for sure how."
But we can offer compelling hypotheses that are based on reproducible evidence. I agree that would not provide conclusive evidence that that was precisely the way it occurred, but, like I said, there are many areas of science where, short of a time machine, that's all we can provide. The distinction is in the word "compelling" as opposed to "conclusive." What we can know from evidence is a close approximation of conditions that existed at a certain era. If, reproducing those conditions, we are able to generate biotic processes, that's pretty compelling. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 8:35:26 PM | Most scientist now, if they have any integrity at all, admit science has been wrong since Darwin.
Yes, that would be why the National Academy of Science in the USA put out the following statement:Scientists hold the theory of evolution as one of science's most robust theories. It is supported by a wealth of observational evidence and has successfully survived rigorous testing by scientific methods. Science and Creationism discusses three categories of evidence: evidence for the origins of the universe, Earth, and life; evidence for biological evolution; and evidence for human evolution. This evidence is contrasted with "creation science," which lacks empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.
That was by Bruce Alberts, President of the NAS. Link here.
I suppose the Royal Society of London is full of scientists who all lack integrity, as they awarded the Darwin medal to Peter and Rosemary Grant for their field work demonstrating evolution in the finches of the Galapagos in 2002. link
The two most important science magazines are Science and Nature. In a recent editorial, Nature (link) said of Intelligent Design that "the concept is a throwback to the days when natural philosophers pursued pseudoscientific disciplines such as alchemy". Science's executive publisher, Allan Leshner, who is also head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (link) wrote "ID advocates attempt to dress up religious beliefs to make them look like science".
The American Institute of Biological Sciences said of the Kansas attempt to put ID in the classroom (link) that "The theory of evolution underpins all of modern biology," says AIBS Executive Director Richard O'Grady. "When teachers are told to treat intelligent design as science, their students are not learning about the nature of science. Scientific theories can be tested; beliefs cannot."
The University of Kansas's Chancellor, Dr. Bob Hemenway,recently wrote:
Evolution is the central unifying principle of modern biology, and it must be taught in our high schools, universities and colleges. On a personal level, I see no contradiction in being a person of faith who believes in God and evolution, and I'm sure many others at this university agree.
But the attack on evolution continues across America and compels me to again state the obvious: The University of Kansas is a major public research university, a scientific community. We are committed to fact-based research and teaching. As an academic, scientific community, we must affirm scientific principles.
The university's position is not an attack on anyone. We respect the right of the individual to his or her beliefs, including faith-based beliefs about creation. However, creationism and intelligent design are most appropriately taught in a religion, philosophy, or sociology class, rather than a science class.
So where are these 'most scientists' you mention? They seem to be hiding. Maybe they're protecting their 'integrity'? Do you know how ridiculous your claim really is?
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 8:48:20 PM | But we can offer compelling hypotheses that are based on reproducible evidence.
Yeah, I accept that, but still, even if we show it could have happened 'that way' I'd be concerned it could have happened *another* way. One issue I could see also is that if the first replicators arose in deep ocean water, say at a hydrothermal vent, then that crust has been recycled a loooooooooooong time ago. I don't think there's any chunks of 4+ Byr old oceanic crust left around, even as an ophiolite.
But of course, showing conclusively that abiogenesis could have happened would at least be amusing to see what new contortions Creationists would have to adopt to try to discredit it.
Apart from an interesting set of biochemistry experiments, I don't see any overarching need to *know* if life arose from abiogenesis. I suppose it would lend support to the idea that life is a fairly common occurrence in the Universe (which I think is pretty likely anyhow). In the mean time we can keep looking for any nearby Earthlike planets around other stars and maybe we'll find life on other worlds before we figure out how to make it here anyhow. :)
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:10:34 PM | "I suppose it would lend support to the idea that life is a fairly common occurrence in the Universe"
Which I think is an important principle to establish, both scientifically and philosophically. I am also inclined to believe that the trend toward the emergence of life is highly probable under the right conditions. I would go even farther in suggesting that it is the natural outcome of a set of particular physical processes. By this I am not refering to the particulars of chemical processes, but more encompassing physical processes congruent (but not equivalent) with those that manifest as the properties of subatomic particles. I think, when conditions exist that allow for a turbulent environment, there is a tendency toward complexity, and it is that tendency that is integral to the emergence of life. I think that although we may not be able to conclusively prove exactly which chemical processes in conjunction with which environmental conditions developed self replicating organisms in our case, it is important to prove the natural tendency. I am inclined to believe that the notion of the emergence of life as astronomically improbable is flawed. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:39:47 PM | | Its value to support theories of abiogenesis would most likely be insignificant against the knowledge gained by the journey. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:44:53 PM | "Its value to support theories of abiogenesis would most likely be insignificant against the knowledge gained by the journey."
Beautifully said. That is often why theories are judged not only by the questions they answer, but also by the questions they raise. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:53:08 PM |
In fact, one positive outcome of posting on this forum is that I'm seriously considering writing my own philosophical treatise on the definition of science...
Do it!! Do it!! 
And send me a signed first edition, too. 
They now admit evolution was never good science, it was simply a religious belief.
Hello, Motif. Welcome. Who is the "they" to whom you are referring?
I am inclined to believe that the notion of the emergence of life as astronomically improbable is flawed.
I agree. Kinda like the "absence of proof" argument, just because we don't have proof that it's possible, yatta, yatta. And, the whole deal with creating "organic" compounds in the lab with a given environment, to me, just underscores the possibility of abiogenesis. "If it has happened, it can happen."
How dare you claim Motif is a sock puppet!!!
Who claimed this? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:55:17 PM | Hello, Motif. Welcome. Who is the "they" to whom you are referring?
Well, could it be other sock puppets?
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 4:25:10 AM | Tsur says...
The poster has nothing to add to any serious discussion of science - and make no mistake, when you say 'evolution violates the 2LoT' you're not making a religious statement any more, you're playing in the fields of science. Anyone who wants to discuss scientific evidence openly and honestly will get openness and honesty back from me - anyone who, frankly, repeatedly lies and distorts scientific facts, and who simply ignores any viewpoints that disagree with theirs, gets the ridicule they deserve for trying to play in a game they don't even understand the rules of.
I have never lied, etc as tsur accuses me and others of.
I have presented facts and evidences as I saw them.
Tsur, all your infantile, impotent huffing and puffing to the contrary still shows, that you are rude and hostile; Your name calling and hostile attacks are still nothing more than showing overwhelming indications of an infantile mindset.
And, what are these 'rules' you speak of?
Slanderous statements? Infantile name calling? Rude, hostile attacks?
I think not, and even most pro-evolutionists here agree.
You really need to mature dramatically Tsur before most here will take you seriously.
There is NO excuse for your childish actions; None, Zero, Zip, Nada...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found the following from the A.I.G. website, and thought it very timely for this thread:
"Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.
by Ken Ham
Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
1.
‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10 ); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30 ); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4: 12 ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55: 11 ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
1.
Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2.
Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3.
Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4.
Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5.
Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.
Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
1.
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
2.
On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
Ed. Note: for more information on formal logic and the Christian faith, see Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.
Recommended Resources
Creation: Facts of Life (Softcover)
Creation: Facts of Life (Softcover)
Presents the classic arguments for evolution and refutes them.
The Battle for Truth (Softcover)
The Battle for Truth (Softcover)
Easy-to-read summary of the worldviews that challenge traditional Christian values.
Search for the Truth (Softcover)
Search for the Truth (Softcover)
Over 100 one-page ‘articles’ that can be reprinted in local newspapers, church bulletins, Sunday school lessons, homeschool supplements, or as witnessing tools.
The Genesis Debate: Wieland vs. Willis (DVD)
The Genesis Debate: Wieland vs. Willis (DVD)
Creation / evolution debate between Dr. Carl Wieland and Dr. Paul Willis.
Tools for Teaching Creation (Pack) (CD-ROM)
Tools for Teaching Creation (Pack) (CD-ROM)
Tools for Teaching Creation, Vol. 1–4
What Is the Best Evidence That God Created? (DVD)
What Is the Best Evidence That God Created? (DVD)
Some of the most astounding evidences of God's handiwork.
Why Won't They Listen? (DVD)
Why Won't They Listen? (DVD)
Explains why evangelism seems to be so difficult today … and he offers a Bliblical solution.
Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use (DVD)
Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use (DVD)
Reveals the out-of-date, faulty and downright “flaky evidences” that reputable creationists must avoid.
References and notes
1. In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive—and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe. [Ed. note: Refuting Evolution, Ch. 1, discusses this in more detail.]
2. This assumption is even defended, as a ‘practical necessity’ in discussing scientific things including origins, by some professing Christians who are evolutionists."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seriously doubt that any credible scientist, supporting evolution OR creation, resorts to name calling and rude hostile attacks like tsur does...
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 6:25:56 AM | Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use (DVD)
Reveals the out-of-date, faulty and downright “flaky evidences” that reputable creationists must avoid.
(giggles)
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 8:25:37 AM | "Again Grod you talk out your rectal orafice." wow, bright1, never thought we would see you get frustrated. hahahahaha! good to see you are human after all and have your tolerance level.
anyway, from the earthchanges site regarding "A New Study of Supernovae may show that Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' may prove to be right after all"
"Based on an ongoing study of supernovae in the distant universe, astrophysicists have concluded that the effect of mysterious "dark energy" is speeding up the expansion of the universe."
Nov 27, 2005, 16:19
cosmology, i know, but not too much of tangent i hope wonka.
regarding life on other planets. repudiable astronomers believe that the probability of life on other planets is, for lack of a better word, 'astronomical'. even the lowest estimate is a number that is 10 to the 20th power.
Terrence's book has a photo from Hubble that represents a field of view that would be akin to holding a grain of salt up to the sky and taking a 36 hour exposure. in that grain sized field of view were millions of galaxies.
no life elsewhere? i think not.
how was the hieroglyph hunting enviro? missed you.
oh yes, from a post somewhere up there - why would god care if the universe took 20 billion years to form, or the earth 6 billion? some ppl are thinking linearly again. time, i think, would be inconsequential to the omnipotent/omniscient one. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 9:03:32 AM |
how was the hieroglyph hunting enviro? missed you.
Aw I missed you guys too. Just for the record, I found the elusive panels which proved the entire Creationist viewpoint irrefutably...deep in the southern Utah desert. I photographed them....however due to a glitch in my digital camera all the photos turned up blank, and I can no longer find the irrefutable proof....it must have gone the way of the Golden Plates that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon. So on with the debate! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 9:11:31 AM |
Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
'Sfunny, but this is the article I was referring to a while back when I asked folks to try and establish our presuppositions in order to try and define the interpretations we were making. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 9:52:40 AM | hence "freedom of will". the ability to make decisions in our life and what path we take without irrefutable evidence (one way or another) to influence us to do right(eously) by the world. would be too easy if we knew what our plan was, and we wouldnt be having this nice discussion.
back to the thread ...
... teach creationism as an elective in a high school religious studies or philosophy class.
teach the science behind the mechanisms of evolution in science class.
there is no science behind 'creationism', but rather faith and literal interpretations of the bible.
there is no science behind philosophy (unless you're an ancient greek - who bypassed this mess by going straight to discussions on ethics). | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 10:46:48 AM |
there is no science behind philosophy You're making me nervous, weird. As have most of the discussions of "pure" science on this thread. Science used to be called "Natural Philosophy" which has now become whittled down into a pedantic, stylistic subset of the pursuit of knowledge. Philosophers didn't come up with their ideas by thinking about nothing. They were trying to explain their observation. Scientists constantly question their epistemology and ideas about the world. With the scientific bigotry sometimes manifested in this thread, I wonder if we wouldn't be better cutting science education from the science curriculum and creating more open minds. Try looking up some links on Science AND philosophy, like http://www.indiana.edu/~hpscdept/HPS.shtml. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 10:47:19 AM |
there is no science behind philosophy You're making me nervous, weird. As have most of the discussions of "pure" science on this thread. Science used to be called "Natural Philosophy" which has now become whittled down into a pedantic, stylistic subset of the pursuit of knowledge. Philosophers didn't come up with their ideas by thinking about nothing. They were trying to explain their observation. Scientists constantly question their epistemology and ideas about the world. With the scientific bigotry sometimes manifested in this thread, I wonder if we wouldn't be better cutting science education from the science curriculum and creating more open minds. Try looking up some links on Science AND philosophy, like www.indiana.edu/~hpscdept/HPS.shtml. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 11:18:34 AM | "‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality."
Yup, I fully concede that my presuppositions are naturalism, (with the following qualification) logic and reality. Then you concede that they are not yours?
Naturalism-
Naturalism (philosophy): the view that nothing exists but the world either methodologically or ontologically — that there are no supernatural entities or at least no observations that show them to exist.
Wikepedia.com
The important distinction here is that science claims nothing ontologically, but methodologically it does presuppose one thing that is relevant to the discussion- that any non-falsifiable hypothesis (including the existence of a supreme being) is not under the purview of the method. The presupposition is NOT that god does not exist, but that it is not a question amenable to science. Do you understand that distinction? Because it is a very important one. It is the second part "or at least no observations that show them to exist" that is relevant to science. The first part "that there are no supernatural entities" is irrelevant to science. For the hundred millionth time, that is a matter of philosophy.
The rest of Ken Ham's argument essentially argues for a philosophical tautology- using the bible to prove the bible. That is so blatantly unscientific that I am shocked he comes right out and admits it. First science utilizes it's strict methodology to avoid tautologies. Proof must always come from not only independent sources, but from intersubjective (or reproducible) sources. Science does not rely on one ancient text for it's axioms. Secondly, science is perfectly willing to alter it's presuppositions (refer to my above post on the work of Thomas Kuhn in relation to that of Karl Popper) if the evidence demands it. Ken Ham clearly argues that his presuppositions are absolute- the text of the bible. He also uses various anecdotes to superficially bolster his argument. Are we supposed to think, "oh well, if he convinced a (likely fictional) grad student at his seminar with his spurious argument than that's good enough for me."
"Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know."
Here it is- the bible is his absolute presupposition. The scientific method holds no presuppositions absolute, and has, numerous times in history, altered its presuppositions in response to new data. And for the record, the claim that science presupposes materialism is antiquated. It no longer does. Science, in the last century, has pretty much thrown that out. It has not accepted the opposite of idealism either. It simply has chosen not to operate under either presupposition.
"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts."
This need to be addressed. Science argues every day over how to interpret facts. That is the process of theoretical inquiry. Altering the facts, on the other hand, is not acceptable. Neither is non-sequitur reasoning. Life is intractably complex, therefore it must have been designed by a conscious creator is non-sequitur reasoning. Science only attempts to explain the complexity. If, in the end, that leads, from the facts, to a falsifiable theory of god, then so be it. As of yet, this is not the case. As of yet, the complexity is very well accounted for by natural processes.
"However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions."
This is a fallacy. I can don any number of hypothetical glasses. I can approach a set of facts from the presupposition that the universe is not mostly empty space but a vast sea of jello. Doing so leads me to no satisfactory conclusions though, so I discard that presupposition. Also, he is, again, misrepresenting science. Science understands full well that presuppositions must constantly be questioned. Just because scientists for the most part don't accept HIS presuppositions does not mean that they don't understand the nature of rational deduction. Science FULLY understands the presuppositional nature of the battle. For him to suggest otherwise is a disingenuous tactic intended only to obfuscate the issue.
"A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30 );"
Again, quoting the bible is proof of nothing. Even if one concedes it to be divine, that sentence is open to interpretation. A non-Christian may very well not be neutral, but the scientific method is about as neutral as one can possibly be. Science is far more neutral than any dogma. Again, read the post on absolute vs relative vs comparative truth.
"Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!"
Yup, I concede this point. In order to avoid tautology, one must prove that the bible is relevant to the history of the universe without using the bible.
"This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?"
How can one talk about reality without god? This is the crux of the issue. You can't prove something exists entirely on the assumption that it exists. Just to be clear-
tautology- applied to the repetition of a statement as it's own reason, or to the identification of cause and effect.
Oxford English Dictionary
Can one talk about how the internal combustion engine works without mentioning Nikolaus Otto? Of course one can. The engine is a thing unto itself regardless of where it came from, so it can be studied independent of a creator. Once more, the existence of god is not a scientific issue, because it can't be proved or disproved. Any theory which presupposes the existence of god as it's premise is not scientific. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 11:53:43 AM | "Science used to be called "Natural Philosophy""
Well, actually what science used to be called it not necessarily relevant. Really you can trace elements of the method all the way back to the Greeks, but I would still argue that they were not practicing science as the method has been honed in our modern application. What they were practicing was natural philosophy.
"Philosophers didn't come up with their ideas by thinking about nothing. They were trying to explain their observation."
This is true. Of course there are various methodologies for explaining observation. The scientific method as it has been developed is by far the most fruitful, but that doesn't obviate the value of other methods. Those questions which are excluded by the very nature of the method itself are not, in my opinion, empty questions as the logical positivists would argue. It's just important to remember that they are not scientific questions, so thisis2weird is not entirely off in his assessment.
"With the scientific bigotry sometimes manifested in this thread, I wonder if we wouldn't be better cutting science education from the science curriculum and creating more open minds."
I vehemently disagree. I hope you're being wry. It's more important than ever that students are taught the particular aspects of the method, and how it blossomed from natural philosophy. Part of that message though is the importance of having an open mind. Again, there are essentially two steps to scientific inquiry. The first is an unbiased, stream of consciousness approach to ideas. That includes novel approaches, synthesizing erstwhile disparate ideas etc., but the second step is then holding any new conjecture to the rigours of testing and peer review. Both conservative scientists and "out of the box" thinkers are crucial to the method. The first brand keeps the second honest. The second brand moves science forward when progress stagnates due to either inadequate presuppositions or just a tendency to become mired in the accepted paradigm in general. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 3:08:22 PM | With the scientific bigotry sometimes manifested in this thread, I wonder if we wouldn't be better cutting science education from the science curriculum and creating more open minds. Removing science education from the science curriculum to create open minds? Are you confusing the term "open" with the term "ignorant" and/or "stupid"? While we are at it lets remove spelling and grammar from the english curriculum and arithmatic and algebra from the math curriculum. Are you for real, man? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 3:23:16 PM |
I wonder how differently these discussions would go if we were all sitting in a circle together.
They would have ended on page three with a lot of hollering, huffing and puffing going on. Simply because we wouldn't all be able to google simultaneously! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 3:51:43 PM | "They would have ended on page three with a lot of hollering, huffing and puffing going on. Simply because we wouldn't all be able to google simultaneously!"
Okay, everyone has individual internet access. This event will be hosted by a cyber cafe with a large convention center. Hey we're pretending anyway. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 3:58:38 PM | Are you for real, man? Well, Lizard, I've been a scientist for a while. Even have a few peer reviewed publications. But I barely recognize the description of my profession in this thread. Pedantic, dogmatic. Just plain ornery at times. Is that what they teach for science in schools nowadays? If it is, maybe I should be for real. Or maybe it's a good thing I stopped. Wouldn't want to open up any student minds to creative thinking - or even (quiet!!) - philosophy! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/28/2005 4:05:45 PM | I'm still trying to figure out what this evidently insanely popular thread is doing in "Relationships". (I suppose if we hadn't all been created or evolved, there would be no relationships?)
Still, on topic, why does there have to be a necessary conflict between evolution and creation? Couldn't evolution simply be the "developmental method' employed by a Creator of sorts?
If there is no "creation", and an intelligent, creative force behind it all, where and how did it all get started?
If the "big bang" theory (without an intelligent creative force) is true, isn't that rather like those cartoons where a house gets blown up and then magically falls to the earth in the form of a house again? How did a universe that is obviously put together with an enormously intelligent design get that way? Spontaneous generation? Design without a designer? That doesn't make a lot of sense, "scientific" or otherwise.
Also, re the theory of man evolving from apes: despite the fact that some acquaintances of mine do lend credence to the theory, they still haven't found the "missing link" and I doubt they ever will.  | |
|
|
| Page 103 of 156
|
89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 |
|
Home
login 
