DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Post Reply New Topic

Naturalism is generally defined as the scientific study of plants and animals. It would include paleontology, biology, zoology, physical anthropology, etc.



A scientific fact reflects the consensus of a scientific community. Facts, like the sciences themselvse, deal with relative knowledge.

I originally wrote:
>>However, due to the inductive character of the scientific method, no proposition, not only those in evolution, is beyond all doubt. One is also not required to speculate in order to note that the vast body of evidence supports biological evolution.<<

And I wrote again:
>>Some individuals may have agendas. However, evolution is a fact and a theoretical tradition. What matters, from a scientific perspective, is the evidence. <<

To which you said:



I don't see the contradiction. Sciences are community activities, not merely those of individuals acting alone. That alone generally filters out ulterior motives. Is it flawless? Of course not. However, I think that dishonest research is generally discovered eventually.



Creationists can do what they want. However, the fact that their researches are rarely published in mainstream refereed journals is an indication of their lack of credibility, not the result of some agenda.

Cheers,

Mark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism



You probably meant natural history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_history






So 'fact' has to do more with sociology,then epistemology?



Ok.But communal conscience changes over time,so it is reasonable to predict that Evolution may be rejected in future.
And according to your opinion,when we say 'fact' we may simply imply 'current fact'.



So this is basically about scientific popularity and authority,not truth?

I highly doubt that naturalistic-oriented journals would publish supernaturalist interpretations of reality.
In same manner that poetry-related journals would not publish biological researches.

While I believe in God, I am open to the idea that he/she/it may or may not exist. As to what God is, is up to question. I don't believe in the Christian version of God. My personal beliefs lie somewhere along these lines: That is that God is the purest form of energy that manifests itself however it wishes. God=Energy, so in a sense everything is God. God is more of a substance than a person or being. That's what I believe anyway. Of course I'll never know the truth unless I die so I keep an open mind about everything including my beliefs.

With regards to evolution, according to my beliefs if God is indeed energy, then evolution becomes rather irrelevant because evolution is a form of energy no? So in a sense God guided evolution, but I don't really see anything supernatural about it.

Last edited by ghostgurl on 30 Sep 2007, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not if you test it, if you try to falsify instead of only trying to verify. That's the whole point.


Have you ever looked at creationist theories in detail? Hve you tried to build up a coherent picture? Have you then compared that to a scientific account?


I don't understand the relevance of this. I never said or implied the real world was necessarily identical with a computer game, and nothing I said depends on there being identity. If you mean computer models of the real world, exactly because they are not guaranteed to correspond to the real world, a scientist must test predictions in the real world. Computer models are only good for checking the logical consistency of an idea, if you can't come to an analytical solution. If you want to do science that applies to the real world, you use computer models to generate coherent predictions about the real world. You don't treat the model as a test of a prediction meant to apply to the real world.


What then are the premises of deductive reasoning? Look again at the definition of the scientific method which you quoted. You generate a hypothesis or theory to explain your observations. You say "if this is true, if I can take this as my premise, then I should expect to find these results under these conditions". You assume the premise to be true, you deduce your prediction from the premise you assume, then you test the prediction to find out whether your assumption is true. If not, you abandon one or more of your assumptions and come up with something else.

Can we also get back to absence of evidence versus evidence for absence? Can you stick to your claim of evolutionary theory being atheistic without that fallacy?

Are you willing to explain the link you appeared to make between an agenda and the correlation between accepting evolution and atheism or materialism?

You accused me of going "from speculative guessing to conclusion without any real solid evidence". I still would like you to either back up that claim, or retract it. That is only common courtesy in a debate.


No. They insist that the naturalistic explanation is adequate to explain the natural world, and it is not necessary to postulate supernatural influenc es. I made that point before. You have not tried to demonstrate that I am wrong. You have merely repeated your statement. Can you see the distinction between claiming that an explanation is definitely right and claiming that an explanation is adequate?


Yes, of course, and the argument about the extent of material evidence also applies to reconstructions of evolutionary events.

As for witnesses, they are often unreliable. That has been experimentally demonstrated, and [/quote]anecdotal evidence evidence suggests that the problem also occurs in the real world. If I remember correctly, the largest proportion of the convictions which have been overturned on the basis of new forensic evidence were originally based on eyewitness testimony. If you want to elevate eyewitness testimony to your gold standard of evidence, you have a problem.


Are you aware that if you are right, most of what is now accepted as science would not qualify as science? for example, the physicists who try to create very heavy elements which decay extremely fast reconstruct individual events. They say that a particular pattern of decay products means one specific atom was observed. You would also have to abandon the whole legal system, because courts try to reconstruct specific events. And do you realise that the validity of the methods used to reconstruct events can be tested by staging events, then reconstructing them? If you then generalize (using induction which I believe you accept as part of the scientific method) to situations where you did not stage the event to be reconstruicted, how can you arrive at your claim that reconstructions have no scientific value?


I wouldn't claim that it is the best possible. I do claim that in this specific comparison, evolutionary theory is better quite simply because creationism doesn't make sense. Individual explanations may appear plausible, but I challenge you to put them together into a coherent overall picture.

I once asked a creationist who makes his living from arguing in favour of creationism to give me his best example of a testable prediction that comes from creationist theories. His best example of a general prediction was that there would be things which could not have evolved. He said one specific prediction, that a biochemical pathway was irreducibly complex, had been tested. Unfortunately, he had previously admitted that the specific prediction that this biochemical pathway was irreducibly complex had been shown to be false. When he tried to counter my argument that the claim of irreducible complexity as he made it is based on a logical fallacy, he changed his claim and in the process introduced a different logical fallacy.

In all the comparisons of evolutionary theory and creationism I have made, the predictions from creationist theory were either less specific than those from evolutionary theory, or they had been found to be false, or they could be shown to have fundamental logical flaws. I say that gives good reason to prefer evolutionary theory over the creationism.

Last edited by Gromit on 30 Sep 2007, 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't. Please read more carefully, or there is no point in debating you.



That was not my question. You have merely rephrased your observation of a correlation. You have not explained what link you (apparently) make between the correlation and the agenda you say exists. Or does your claim of an agenda have nothing to do with the correlation, and you merely happened to put the two statements together?

I don't know what the Wikipedia says on it, but the term "naturalism" refers to something like biological reductionism. A naturalist is someone (biologist, zoologist, etc.) who attempts to explain biological phenomena naturallly, not supernaturally. My point was that creationists invoke an alleged being outside of nature for their explanations. They are supernaturalists, not naturalists; and supernaturalism is not compatible with the scientific method.



As a sociologist, I would argue that a fact is treated as consensus in all scientific communities, even if some of their members may claim otherwise. My argument falls into the category of what is sometimes called postpositivism.



That is an unknown possibility, but unknown possibilities are not arguments.



There are many definitions of "truth." Mine is a critical constructionist one. I would contend that truth is merely a name for the constructions of those in power.

Cheers,

Mark

Witt:
But such [geological] 'stratas' are just interpretation of sediment rocks.

That is only part of the truth. Rock strata can be relatively dated by the fossils found in them; however, they are absolutely dated for age by radioactive decay.
how radiometric dating works
(again, if mammalian fossils were ever found 'mixed' in with early strata, as would be expected in a cataclysmic flood, it would be hugely problematic for the ToE).

And since my brother is geologist,I know that sediments can be created in just few seconds,and this can be testified with experiment.

the fact that sediments can form rapidly does not mean that they do not also form slowly; the latter can also be demonstrated experimentally (it just takes longer).

Well,to be honest I haven't seen any attempt from both Evolutionist or Creationist side to falsify their theories,only attempts to verify them.



Yes,I did.Their coherent picture is genesis.Not that I agree with that...




Yes,Creationism is not scientific...and evolution as well.

Physics is science,Chemistry is science,Biology is science and even Mathematics is science.
Evolution,Creation,Psychoanalysis,Cosmology..etc are not science,although they may borrow some scientific vocabulary and terminology and even appear scientific.
Religion is not science,Atheism is not science...



This was mainly an example,nothing more.



Sorry,if I wasn't clear enough.
Premises in scientific research are empirical data,that exist here and now.

Problem is that these observations can be interpreted in many ways,not just one.



But you can never find results of evolution,since it is impossible to observe cause/effect of evolution.
And even if you can observe something that appear as 'evolution',this again can be interpreted in another manner,according to another theoretic system.



I said that most of atheists support evolution,not that evolution is atheistic as such.


I only stated my opinion.However if you consider yourself offended by my remark,then my apologies.
Perhaps I interpreted your words in wrong manner.



Well this is wrong from logical point of view,since one system cannot be explained within that system itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s ... ty_theorem





Ergo,nature as system cannot be defined through naturalistic terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth






Yes,but I don't see any 'evidence' for evolution.
I see complex and simple organisms in nature,and I see fossils.
But I don't see how can I put them in causal relationship?



But also opposite occurs.




To be honest,I don't understand what you are trying to say in here?



Legal system is not science.



It makes no sense to you,but it make sense to creationist.
In same manner that baseball makes no sense to me,but it has to American.



Well,I'm not a defender of Creationism,but since you are defending evolution we argue about it.
Evolution makes logical fallacy as well,since it tries to interpret nature in naturalistic sense,and system cannot be defined through this same system.



I personally consider creationism as nonsense.But I attack evolution mostly,since it deception is much more cunning,then creationism.
I don't deny your right to prefer evolution.
In here I mostly explain agnostic stance on this issue.



I forgot that this is an Aspie forum...

I didn't meant you but 'you' in general...to all those who read this.
This was mostly rhetorical,not implicit.



I don't accuse Evolution as theory that is Atheistic.I'm only saying that,from my own experience most defenders of Evolution theory are Atheists,and most radical defenders of Evolution are radical atheists.
However there are theistic evolutionists as well.



Possibility of negation of theory is in the core of science.If you say that theory cannot be overthrown in future,this is again evidence that this theory is not scientific.

I brought up this hypothetical to illustrate the fact that almost nobody genuinely respects the beliefs of others when they are based purely on faith. Unless of course that belief involves religion. In that case, suddenly there's a lot of tolerance. In essence, there's not much difference between one who has faith that China doesn't exist and one who has faith that the Genesis account is true and historical. Yet we generally don't feel bad about laughing at the former. Note here that I am not refering to belief in God, but rather to testable religious claims such as creationism.

It's probably also worth pointing out that one can't say "of course China exists" without implicitly stating that you accept the evidence of newspapers, travel books, tv, Chinese people you may have met, atlases, etc. Were someone to resort to special pleading to explain away the evidence in each of these sources, it would appear to a rational person to be perverse at best. You would presumably not respect such a position.

How is creationism different? What about that view is worthy of any respect?

I am sorry, I should have been a bit more explicit in my OP.

Zwerfbeertje said

We made those laws, they are our description of the order we perceive in the universe. They are elegant and simple because we've favored elegant and simple descriptions.

I say

We DISCOVERED those laws. For whatever reason they exist, we did not make them. They were there long before any form of life appeared on this planet. Of, if we did make the laws, then we would be God! Since we most likely evolve into God, we indeed might have made them.


Zwerfbeertje said

Evolution theory did not postulate that simple life forms evolve into more complex ones. It even denies the existence of any form of hierarchy, or any form or plan or ordering in the evolution of life.


I say

For whatever reason evolution IS evolving into more complex life. Fossil records prove this. Perhaps because more complex life is better able to manage its environment and thus more likely to survive, or perhaps for other reasons we don't understand yet. Scientists have observed that this process has not stopped yet. If it did stop here, the universe is so vast it is highly likely it will succeed somewhere and we may even be living in a multiverse. Life only has to be completely successful one time any where and any when. Once God exists anywhere He will, "scoop the pool" just like the first self replicating single celled life forms did on earth those billions of years ago because He is the ultimate, most fittest to survive Life form. Also you can NOT assume there was no plan or order in the process of evolution. There is no proof there is not. True science assumes NOTHING without proof. Until there is PROOF that there was no order in the process that can not be ruled out.

Also do not rule out Human will. We wish to evolve higher (or some of us do). If God and Heaven did not exist, future Humans would create Him, and we'd build Heaven because most of us do want to live forever. Because relativity makes the past reachable, (time and space curve, bent by the gravitational mass of the universe), if it was necessary for us or anyone to create God and build Heaven, it has already been done so.


Zwerfbeertje said

He made a few mistakes it seems, as explained by Dawkins and Musgrave, among them were overlooking that there were many, many possible outcomes and assuming that early life started out as complex as life forms are today.

I say


Early life obviously did NOT start out as complex is as it is today. The fossil records prove it. As for assuming there were many possible outcomes, is just that, an assumption with no proof. It is indeed a logical assumption compared with some assumptions atheists make, but it is still only an assumption. It is highly likely there were many possible outcomes, but we have no proof.

You are also assuming relativity doesn't work and future life won't be able to guide the past. It would be a fool not to. The Blind Watchmaker may have started out blind, but He evolved eyes right along with the rest of us and will do, (as all life does) what He must to perpetrate His own species. He is the only member of His species, but He is a species and all the laws that apply to survival, apply to Him. I doubt Hoyle made a mistake with this calculation. The mutation rate is pretty well known, and even if it was higher in the past (unlikely) the amount of time it would take for us to evolve without a tweeker/Vine-dressser guiding the process is much too long.

However religion started, the desire to continue existing after death is a perfectly logical desire. We can' t think at all, not even logically if we no longer have consciousness!

Science started out as a desire to turn lead into gold. We know now lead is a very useful substance. It can protect us from radiation. Gold is good for electrical contacts but other than that its mostly good only to feed vanity. But, even though science started out because of greed and vanity, I think we ought to keep it! Religion too. They both have uses that evolved beyond their original reason for coming into being.

I believe, that scientists are going to be the part of the body of Christ that build that 1500 mile cube mentioned in the second to last chapter of Revelation. Just as sure as the Nautilus, just as sure as the Moon ship Colombia, just as sure as communication satellites, it will be build, because we want it, and because of relativity, the past is reachable so all are uploadable. Isaiah and John may be the best science fiction writers of all time! Someone must run it so that Carpenter from Galilee might as well have His Kingdom. He wants it and many want Him to have it. Jesus is Lord because much of the human race wants Him to be. No other reason is necessary. Logical thinker or not, would you REALLY turn down a chance to live forever? How logical would that be?

But if we want our operating systems to go to that (built by science) 1500 mile cube after our present hard drives are defunct, like any operating system we must all be debugged. If we take one mental flaw with us into that cube, one bit of lust, one bit of anger, or hatred or unforgiveness or bitterness, that will soon corrupt the whole heavenly network just as one spyware or virus can corrupt a network or the Internet. That's why we have to invite Christ into us to indwell us and fix us The ancients called those flaws, "sin." Maybe they were a bit harsh or maybe the meaning of the word has changed, but whatever we chose to call it, we all need to be debugged of our flaws so we don't corrupt the Cube, That Carpenter from Galilee is the one who has to indwell you and fix you. That is what is known as becoming "Born Again." Once you invite Him in you will have His sweet, Cosmic Muffin Presence inside of you loving you from the inside out. Then you will KNOW He exists for Himself. It will no longer be just a matter of faith and belief but a fact you are witness to. But it does take faith to ask Him in. But even scientists must have faith. It took a leap of faith to assume the Moon was reachable and that a machine that could get there (and keep astronauts alive) could be built. Can you take a leap of faith and pray the following prayer?

Jesus Christ we thank you for your sacrifice!
Come live inside my busy, restless mind.
Forgive my faults and fix the flaws that sadden you.
Help me forgive the ones that did not treat me kind.

This can be sung to Danny Boy, by the way.

By 'genuinely respect the belief of others', do you mean accept those beliefs to be true? I think there's a bit of miscommunication going on here. I also think I could've worded my first post better.

When I said I respect the beliefs of others (I try my best to) when it comes to religion, I meant it more as politely accepting that people are different and have different views on things. There's no point in trying to engage in debate to try and change what another person believes. I didn't mean that I incorporate their beliefs into mine or substitute mine with theirs or that people should do that.



I accept those evidences...don't you? Just as I accept the evidence to support the evolutionist theory.
Just to throw in another example: the greenhouse effect. If someone were to claim that it didn't exist, would you believe them? On the other hand, have you ever felt its effects directly? Have you seen, smelt or touched it? Or are you simply taking what scientific journals and scientists say to be true?



Creationism cannot be proved and, although evolution has more scientific evidence to support it, it's also just a theory, not a fact. You have two unprovable theories, you choose which one suits you better. If you choose evolution, you have faith in it and believe it to be true, but you're believing in something that isn't validated. Not that I'm saying that creationism is validated, because it isn't. That's why I called them personal beliefs.

I hope this post is clearer.

It's fairly obvious that this discussion is basically between people who have accepted a system of belief which satisfies their desires and those genuinely inquiring as to what seems most likely in operation. There is very little chance that these motivations can be resolved by rational discussion since the motivations behind the arguments are so skewed with each other.

Of course, that assumes that "life" equals "multicellular life". Which it manifestly does not. Bacteria are probably more complex than they were, say, 2 billion years ago. But they certainly don't illustrate any drive towards greater and greater complexity. They do perfectly well as simple creatures, and they rule the earth.



As for relativity, if you can demonstrate that time travel into the past is truly possible, you will probably earn a Nobel prize.

As for Hoyle, his argument regarding evolution has no merit whatsoever. He appears not to have understood the basic concept. That's not that strange. It's very commonly misunderstood. There is this weird misconception that evolution means 'random chance assembled this complex structure.' That is nearly the opposite of what the theory claims.

Since there are logical, rational reasons to believe in God (He evolves out of us, the anthropic priniciples, etc) and in Heaven because future Humans, make it though science and they reach the past through relativity so they can upload everyone, why would one, not want to take that leap of faith and accept the King of the Heaven we are going to build? Surely continued existence is preferable to nonexistence. Science does so many fantastic things. Why is it illogical to believe that sometime in the next five to ten BILLION years we build Heaven and evolve into Christ? What would stop us? It is not even necessary for all Humans to do this. Species have split before. Maybe some Humans stay Human the way some Chimps stayed Chimps, but other Humans choose to join the Network/Kingdom and evolve into Christ.



You may be quite right that the motivation for not believing in God may not be cured by rational discussion. I do not understand the motivation for unbelief. Why would anyone not want to believe in God and Heaven, since there are several logical reasons to do so? What are the emotional rewards for nonbelief? Are some people so scared of Hell they prefer believing life just ends? They don't have to be afraid of Hell! Christ made it easy for us to avoid Hell. I believe Hell is just the natural fate of the Universe unmodified by Life. We'll find a cure for cancer and we'll find a cure for that. Do people just want to live their life the way they want to live it without anyone's interference and they want that more than they want continued existence? Is that logical? Would that desire mean God did not exist? Lots of things folks don't want to exist, still do.

I wasn't saying that you accept such beliefs. I was talking about whether you respect a belief that is based merely on faith. Such as the person who has passionate faith that China doesn't exist. I would not respect such a belief. Creationism is not different in principle from the belief that China doesn't exist, assuming that the believer is not Chinese:)



I do accept such evidence. My question was whether you'd respect the view that they are all wrong.





You are not using the word 'theory' as a scientist uses it. To a scientist, 'theory' does not mean 'guess'. 'Theory' is the highest level. There is nothing beyond theory. To a scientist, it's axiomatic that nothing can ever be proven beyond doubt. A theory represents a model that is so well evidenced that it would be really weird to refuse to accept it. For example, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory. As is gravity. Theory says that we require oxygen to survive. Surely you wouldn't say that those are "just theories."

The term you are looking for, in the scientific vocabulary, is 'hypothesis'.