Evolution v Creationism

[Kadagar_AV]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.

In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

[Reenk Roink]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.



You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"




Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.




That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...



Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.



Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.




Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

[Kadagar_AV]

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

No, that is only one version of what naturalism means in the intellectual society.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

nat⋅u⋅ral⋅ism   /ˈnætʃərəˌlɪzəm, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun 1. Literature. a. a manner or technique of treating subject matter that presents, through volume of detail, a deterministic view of human life and actions.
b. a deterministic theory of writing in which it is held that a writer should adopt an objective view toward the material written about, be free of preconceived ideas as to form and content, and represent with clinical accuracy and frankness the details of life. Compare realism (def. 4b).
c. a representation of natural appearances or natural patterns of speech, manner, etc., in a work of fiction.
d. the depiction of the physical environment, esp. landscape or the rural environment.

2. (in a work of art) treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., as they appear or might appear in nature. Compare idealism (def. 4), realism (def. 3a).
3. action arising from or based on natural instincts and desires alone.
4. Philosophy. a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5. Theology. a. the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
b. the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

6. adherence or attachment to what is natural.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

Please do elaborate on this one...

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Must I again explain that empirical data has nothing to do with science of this level - what so ever.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

Are you even aware of what empirical means?

For maybe the fifth (?) time, empirical data is NOT, again: NOT worth a damn.

If we were giving in to empirical data, we would still have forests filled with trolls and goblins. We have advanced a bit since then, haven't we?

*with "we" I mean "me"*

[Reenk Roink]

Kadagar, the reason I am more and more reluctant to respond to your posts is because unlike Lemur, you seem content to just parse my posts and be disagreeable in any way possible and throw in little snide comments that I don't care to respond to.

For example, why the heck did you bring up a dictionary to dispute what I meant by naturalism? For petessake the context is pretty darn clear. We obviously aren't talking about literature or art...

Do statements like these even dignify a response?

If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

You're just throwing snide comments and making really oversimplified strawmen. It's just boring to be honest, I don't see the need to waste my time.

[Lemur]

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

Yes, you're quite right, accepting scientific theory involves a great many assumptions, such as, "I exist," and "I will give some credence to what I perceive with my eyes," and "I will look for some answers in what I accept as consensual reality," etc. And guys like Hegel made a (rather poor) living by classifying and giving strata to all of the positions, some of which you have cited from Wikipedia. You're making the assumption that you are not, in fact, in Plato's cave, looking at shadows. Or if you are, you're going to play along. That works too.

So yes, accepting any scientific method involves a "metaphysical view," although a rather common and incomplete one, and much the same "metaphysical view" required to get through your day, park your car or cope with work. A reality-based view, but hardly an all-encompassing one. You need to trust your senses and your logic a bit to park your car, but you can still believe that unicorns guide your heart to love. Likewise, you can believe in the scientific method and still have theist tendencies.

But this isn't at the crest of the definitional hill you've chosen to defend to your last breath. No, it appears to be this false equivalence you're drawing between a tenet of faith and a scientific theory.

As you are probably aware, in science you start with reality, hypothesize why something works how it works, and then you come up with a repeatable test to see if you're right. With creationism, on the other hand, you start out with received knowledge (the holy book), and you look for ways to justify the literal text by shoehorning fact and evidence to fit your original notion. The two are fundamentally different.

Do young Earth creationists make disprovable claims? Looking at your links, it appears they do, and then get debunked. Which does nothing to slow them down, which speaks to why they are operating under a completely different set of rules.

Where are the legions of Lamarckians? Oh, right, he was disproved decades ago, and is now a footnote in history. Where are the vocal supporters of the aetheric theory of light transmission? Oh, yeah, that turned out to be completely bogus. Once again, nothing but a footnote for science geeks. How about phrenological theory? Where are the phrenologists' websites?

Theories can be disproved. Faith (by definition) cannot. So you can have a meaningful and productive debate with people who hold theories, but argue with someone about faith? That's a dead-end street I try to avoid.

The claim "the earth is 10000 years old" is just as testable and falsifiable as the claim that "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" is it not?

If not, please demonstrate how...

Gladly. If a geologist and an astrophysicist disagree on the age of the earth, they both produce their evidence, and one of them is more right than the other. This settles the matter (and in fact, geology got a bad name for a while for being wildly off about the age of the earth, while the astronomers got to say "Nanny nanny boo boo").

A creationist, on the other hand, will move right on from a disproved claim, since proof does not matter to him. He knows the correct answer, and will stick to it, no matter what evidence is presented. He doesn't do this because he is stupid or a bad person; rather, he is operating under a different set of rules. This is a fundamental difference that you seem to be at pains to deny.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

...


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

Well, studying philosophy certainly improves ones reading comprehension

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But that's ok. Most people make mistakes. *pats on head*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Reenk Roink]

Long post Lemur, but many strawmen and non seqiturs. Let's briefly restate my position once more so that you aren't able any more to misinterpret it.

I asked: what demarcates science from non science so that you can say evolutionary theory is a science and creationism is not?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To be honest, while I was expecting the boring and inadequate answers of testability and falsifiability, I was hoping for something better.

Maybe a very detailed account on basing oneself on certain metaphysical world views but not others or maybe what I consider to be the best, if somewhat arbitrary one, that science is what scientists say it is.

Instead I got the answers of testability and falsifiability which have been knocked down as possible criteria for a while...

Testability and falsifiability you say. All right.

I gave many examples (which you first called vague and then just ignored when the links were given (Reenk < links ) of creationism making many empirical claims that were testable and falsifiable just like the claims of many scientific theories.

The claim that the age of the earth is 10000 years old is as testable as the claim that it is 4.6 billion years old amirite?

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

Um ok. This really has nothing to do with philosophy, because the discussion is not about which metaphysical worldview one should hold at all. Rather I made a claim that scientific enterprise relies on metaphysical assumptions (to make the larger point about separating science from non science) which took quite too long for some to admit...

Yes, you're quite right, accepting scientific theory involves a great many assumptions, such as, "I exist," and "I will give some credence to what I perceive with my eyes," and "I will look for some answers in what I accept as consensual reality," etc. And guys like Hegel made a (rather poor) living by classifying and giving strata to all of the positions, some of which you have cited from Wikipedia. You're making the assumption that you are not, in fact, in Plato's cave, looking at shadows. Or if you are, you're going to play along. That works too.

Who the hell said I wasn't looking at the Forms? The Forms!

You have to stop attributing things to me Lemur. Focus on my argument on the demarcation criteria you gave, that's where I'm keeping it.

Still it is good to see you have nuanced your previous views that:

evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world"

understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview

We can now move on.

So yes, accepting any scientific method involves a "metaphysical view," although a rather common and incomplete one, and much the same "metaphysical view" required to get through your day, park your car or cope with work. A reality-based view, but hardly an all-encompassing one. You need to trust your senses and your logic a bit to park your car, but you can still believe that unicorns guide your heart to love. Likewise, you can believe in the scientific method and still have theist tendencies.

Well, this isn't an argument about whether you can be a theist and believe in the scientific method at all so I'm not sure what you're going at.

This is a critique of your demarcation criteria that testability and falsifiability. Namely, you said that evolutionary theory was testable but creationism wasn't, but then you went and made the most bizarre argument against it testability by using the criteria on its metaphysical assumption that there is a creator - this is not how it works..

But this isn't at the crest of the definitional hill you've chosen to defend to your last breath. No, it appears to be this false equivalence you're drawing between a tenet of faith and a scientific theory.

As you are probably aware, in science you start with reality, hypothesize why something works how it works, and then you come up with a repeatable test to see if you're right. With creationism, on the other hand, you start out with received knowledge (the holy book), and you look for ways to justify the literal text by shoehorning fact and evidence to fit your original notion. The two are fundamentally different.

More attributions?! :drama: No I am certainly not doing what you attribute to me. Perhaps if I haven't mentioned it enough, what I am criticizing is your criteria for demarcating science.

But anyway, you have an absolutely idealized view of science going here, and an idea of creationism that even a non creationist like me would flat out say is a grossly oversimplified strawman.

Science doesn't occur in a vacuum. The naive inductionist view of science you paint here is not how it works. Scientists begin with existing theories, they are inspired by (admittedly non scientific areas like art and imagination and myth). You cannot gather the facts without having a scope on what facts are relevant. One will have a vague idea of his hypothesis before even gathering the relevant data...

Do young Earth creationists make disprovable claims?Looking at your links, it appears they do, and then get debunked. Which does nothing to slow them down, which speaks to why they are operating under a completely different set of rules.

So they do make disprovable claims! Finally you are coming through.

Now, the second part of your argument deals with behavior of scientists and creationists (why do I like the demarcating factor to be the consensus of scientists again? ) and not with the methodology so I don't see the need to continue (though later I will mention how creationists have changed their views).

Where are the legions of Lamarckians? Oh, right, he was disproved decades ago, and is now a footnote in history. Where are the vocal supporters of the aetheric theory of light transmission? Oh, yeah, that turned out to be completely bogus. Once again, nothing but a footnote for science geeks. How about phrenological theory? Where are the phrenologists' websites?

Theories can be disproved. Faith (by definition) cannot. So you can have a meaningful and productive debate with people who hold theories, but argue with someone about faith? That's a dead-end street I try to avoid.

Gladly. If a geologist and an astrophysicist disagree on the age of the earth, they both produce their evidence, and one of them is more right than the other. This settles the matter (and in fact, geology got a bad name for a while for being wildly off about the age of the earth, while the astronomers got to say "Nanny nanny boo boo").

A creationist, on the other hand, will move right on from a disproved claim, since proof does not matter to him. He knows the correct answer, and will stick to it, no matter what evidence is presented. He doesn't do this because he is stupid or a bad person; rather, he is operating under a different set of rules. This is a fundamental difference that you seem to be at pains to deny.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

Firstly, you were unable to note any distinguishing factor between the two claims themselves, and once again resorted to making an argument between the behavior of scientists and creationists... Disappointing.

Even going on this point you make:

Sorry to burst your very idealized bubble of science, but the entire history of science proves you wrong. It takes a LOOOONG time for theories to just be scrapped. One or two falsifications don't cut it. Rather than the theory being scrapped, auxiliary hypothesis are first scrapped.

A well supported heliocentric model was around for over 2000 years in the Western world. It was generally adopted about 500 years ago as the geocentric model prevailed over that span.

Levasseur had the foundations of modern chemistry set in the 1600's providing a complete model, but it was in the late 1700's when the scientific community rejected phlogistic chemistry.

Instead of explaining the odd findings inconsistent with gravitational theory by saying that parts or all of the theory is mistaken, most scientists postulate a new, absolutely ad hoc and unobservable entity: dark matter. Only recently have some voices come out advocating a revolution in the field.

Lastly, creationists like I have said, have vastly changed their claims in the past 100 years. I know you will not take my word and ask for links, so when I'm at school, if you wish, I can give you journal articles documenting these changes.

[Reenk Roink]

Just a last note so I may not be further misrepresented.

I'm not saying creationism is good science (or even science). I don't think it should be taught in classrooms. But as someone who is studying evolutionary biology at the moment, I am going to point out that these attempts to draw a strict demarcating line between it and scientific theories fail, miserably.

It is much better for proponents of evolutionary biology to take the empirical claims made by creationists and show how they have been tested and falsified.

As for the teaching both side by side, the argument should be that we should not teach creationism just as we should not teach say phlogistic chemistry or Fresnel's theory of optics and light as these have failed many tests. Not that creationism is some kind of different beast altogether (because that will be well nigh impossible to show).

[Lemur]

We can now move on.

Indeed. Since none of my answers appear to satisfy, engage or aid the discussion according to you, I'll bow out. I have no desire to "misrepresent" you, to build strawmen, to sow the fora with "non-sequiturs," or engage in any of the long list of misdeeds you say I have committed. Whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish, I wish you the best of luck!

[Kralizec]

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

I asked: what demarcates science from non science so that you can say evolutionary theory is a science and creationism is not?

I'm not extremely well versed in scientific philosophy, but I'll give it a shot.

You mentioned the naturalistic axiom somewhere, i.e. the world can be explained and understould in terms of cause and effect without resorting to metaphysical explanations. This axiom is one of the cornerstones of science- while creationists argue that many things, in particular the existence of mankind, can't be explained in purely physical causes and effect and that you have to resort to divine intervention to make sense of anything. That's what demarcates science from non-science. (and I am aware that axioms are unprovable) It's not unscientific to question the theory of evolution, adhering to theories that contradict scientific axioms is.
More generally, creationists challenge any method used to falsify their derived claims (like that the Earth is 6.000 year old, thus carbon dating has to be false). People may try to formulate their ideas about creation such that they sound objective, but ultimately won't ever accept that their claims have been proven false.

Theistic evolution stands or falls with "regular" evolution and isn't logically inconsistent, but the claim that "God did it" is still non-scientific precisely because it relies on metaphysical explanations.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar, the reason I am more and more reluctant to respond to your posts is because unlike Lemur, you seem content to just parse my posts and be disagreeable in any way possible and throw in little snide comments that I don't care to respond to.

Fair enough, I am happy if you just answer the posts in a scientific way, no flames needed. That ok mate?

For example, why the heck did you bring up a dictionary to dispute what I meant by naturalism? For petessake the context is pretty darn clear. We obviously aren't talking about literature or art...

I really had never heard about naturalism used in that context before, and I wanted to make sure I didnt get you wrong. "Naturalism" is a very vague word indeed.

Do statements like these even dignify a response?

I would hope so! I am sorry, but being raised as an agnostic and educated in a world where facts matters, I struggle to understand the perspective of people led by a one-thousand-nine-hundred-fifty year-old book says.

Oh, and that is me being positive. If we go by the last edition of the bible it is much younger than that, as the church leaders of that time realised the original writing really wasnt enough to convince the masses.

You're just throwing snide comments and making really oversimplified strawmen. It's just boring to be honest, I don't see the need to waste my time.

Don't get me wrong. I do assault your arguments but not you as a person. Heck, come over to the alps and I'll buy you a beer or two!

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two. It does not, however, mean I am against those individuals, I am against their arguments.

Do you want to challenge me about religion?

Say I believe the world is run by "pink invisible unicorns".

Prove me wrong, please.

Now, all that is needed to believe in pink invisible unicorns is a bit of faith... much the same as believing in god.

If YOU prove pink invisible unicorns does not exist, I might start to give you some credit for whatever "god's" existance.

If you can not prove that pink invisible unicorns does not exist, can we please keep this topic on a scientific level?

[Lemur]

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two.

But faith, by definition, is not provable. If it were provable it would be a fact, not a faith. So you're taking what seems to be a needlessly antagonistic approach to the vast majority of your fellow human beings who have some sort of faith or another.

I have the same attitude toward religion that I have toward drugs: As long as it doesn't mess with your ability to do your job, or function within consensual reality, it's not a problem.

[Kadagar_AV]

But faith, by definition, is not provable. If it were provable it would be a fact, not a faith. So you're taking what seems to be a needlessly antagonistic approach to the vast majority of your fellow human beings who have some sort of faith or another.

I have the same attitude toward religion that I have toward drugs: As long as it doesn't mess with your ability to do your job, or function within consensual reality, it's not a problem.

Agreed.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to sit at home and chant at whatever altar you have, FINE!

However, if you want to get out on the internet (again, INTERNET, not socialnet) you ought to have one argument or two as to why your belief is the "correct" one.

Welcome to the internet!

Here we have buddhists, agnostics, muslims, christians, daoists, budhists, atheists.... must I go on?

So if you really, really, for whatever reason, think "your" religion is the correct one, even if you are a minority in the world (like christians), you ought to back it up with a proof or two.

If you have no "proof" except the proof granted by your own religion, it mights be a wise thing to lean back and listen to others. Not necessarily believe what others say, but at least listen, and learn.

I am swedish, we used to have the Norse mythology.. However, the church came and transferred their religion into ours, so they could tame the vikings, and stop them from plundering England.

In sweden, half of the national holidays are still the original norse-mythological ones. The pape and catholic church has given their blesings.

It is quite interesting that swedes still dance around a HUGE penis stuck into the ground, with the virgins in the inner circle, to celebrate that spring is here.

All this is christian, of course, who could dream of anything else?

Again, I have nothing about religion as such, but if you want to claim YOUR religion is the correct one, you really have to back it up with scientifical arguments, if you want a debate about science.

OR you just say "I know this is so because god told me", if that is the case, what else is there to discuss?

[ajaxfetish]

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two. It does not, however, mean I am against those individuals, I am against their arguments.

Do you want to challenge me about religion?

Say I believe the world is run by "pink invisible unicorns".

Prove me wrong, please.

Now, all that is needed to believe in pink invisible unicorns is a bit of faith... much the same as believing in god.

If YOU prove pink invisible unicorns does not exist, I might start to give you some credit for whatever "god's" existance.

If you can not prove that pink invisible unicorns does not exist, can we please keep this topic on a scientific level?

This makes no sense to me. Why should I need to prove my religion to you? What does it matter to you? I hate fish. Do I need to prove to you that fish are abominable, or can't I just hold that as a personal opinion, even express it in a public setting, and be tolerated for it? I have no interest in proving your pink invisible unicorn belief wrong. I really don't care whether you believe in them.

If I was proselytizing you, or trying to convince you my faith is correct, then I could see a reason for you to take issue with me. But just refusing to tolerate me for my mindset?

Ajax