Evolution v Creationism

[Lemur]

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.

You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. Thus your "outside our sensory perception" formulation trips over its own feet (and are there non-sensory perceptions?)

I think you're referring in an oblique and unclear way to spiritual reality versus the physical world. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).

Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.

From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

[Kadagar_AV]

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

I second that.

But that does not mean you can dismiss my last post.

Please do attack it

[Reenk Roink]

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think it's pretty well known that young earth creations empirically claim things. There are many claims (some are linked below).

Enjoy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-...g-age-evidence

You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

How am I seeming to believe any of these things you attribute to me by bringing up the fact that the theory of evolution by natural selection rests on the metaphysical views of naturalism and realism?

Please provide the statement of my beliefs.

I have already defined these many times, but I will do it again (copy paste makes it easy):

realism: there exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it

naturalism: all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws

To believe in the conclusions reached by evolutionary theory you have to accept these positions in some form. They aren't empirically testable whatsoever. They can't be. They're metaphysics.

It makes no sense to say evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of naturalism and realism. Analogously it makes no sense to say that creationism is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of a creator god.

What we check is the empirical claims of evolutionary theory. These are clearly testable. But then, so are the empirical claims of creationism

Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

But I have repeatedly stated them...

You seem to not like my explanations of them so here are some links:

Realism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism

Naturalism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Just consider what these metaphysical positions are and then maybe you will reconsider your positions that:

"evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean"

and

"evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral"

(what does "neutral" mean even)

and

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

From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

What exactly do you mean by "outside forces"? If you mean court decisions and what not, then yes, that is certainly part of it with the "intelligent design" movement and all (although this kind of stuff happens in the so called scientific community as well).

But they certainly alter their positions on other outside forces too, like data, evolutionary claims, and so on.

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

But I already did? In the very next line after the one you quoted too...

"The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on..."

I have no idea how one can dismiss something as specific as creationist claims on the age of the earth as "vague generalities" but man, you did it.

But here, the link may satisfy you more than my word:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH311.html
and more...

I never thought it wasn't common knowledge that young earth creationists made claims that there was a global flood or that the earth is 10000 years old or such.

Now here is the kicker:

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...

This is why it makes absolutely no sense to just dismiss creationism as not being science by virtue of appealing to demarcation criteria like testability and falsifiability.

Better yet not to make this demarcation and I don't know, actually treat creationism like falsified theories like phlogistic chemistry?

After all, stating that the claim that the earth is around 10000 years old has been tested and falsified in many ways is a lot more convincing than saying that "creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable" when it demonstrably isn't.

Finally, just so you won't go and claim I am a creationist or other misrepresentations, I linked to these sites because you asked for them. I'm not here to speak about how good or bad these tests are, how good or bad these empirical claims are.

I am merely demonstrating that creationists DO make empirical claims.

[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.

[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?

[rory_20_uk]

I personally ascribe to Terry Pratchett's philosophy. Small Gods was probably the seminal work on the subject. Gods are shaped by Men and in turn shape Men.

I liked the Founding of Life thanks to Rincewind's Sandwich in one of the other Books of Pratchett.

Time did not have quite the same meaning, but Rincewind did rise from the dead as well as having a detour for some time around the afterlife.

To be honest I feel as a view point it has as much evidence behind it as any other - barring scientific facts.

[CBR]

From TalkOrigins FAQ: Evolution and Metaphysics

Conclusions of this FAQ
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data (Berry 1988:139), not a system of metaphysical beliefs or a religion. It does, however, set the sorts of general problems biology deals with, and also acts as a philosophical attitude in dealing with complex change.

Now obviously the FAQ is a bit longer than the quoted conclusion and too long to quote here me thinks.


CBR

[Pannonian]

I personally ascribe to Terry Pratchett's philosophy. Small Gods was probably the seminal work on the subject. Gods are shaped by Men and in turn shape Men.

A superb work, better than many "classics" I've read, and Pratchett's contribution to "literature". Both in the details and in its overall span, Small Gods gets it right everywhere.

[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!

[Askthepizzaguy]

You shall be added to a very long list of people who have argued with Reenk about something and made zero headway reaching any sort of common ground.

I admire his ability to argue, but at times I have no idea what he is talking about, or what precisely he is getting at. He seems to be saying that you cannot prove anything and that it takes belief to have evidence, therefore everything is exactly the same as religion and there's no difference between religion and science. He says, if I remember correctly, that that is NOT what he is arguing, but that's the best I can come up with. I freely admit, I haven't a clue what he's on about sometimes. He may one day be up there with the greatest philosophers of all time, arguing about metaphysics and whatnot and defeating people or drawing countless debates over definitions and demarcations and all kinds of proofs and rebuttals until the opposition loses the will to argue.

In the end, it's almost like he's arguing there is no difference between hot and cold, because cold does not exist. It is all simply levels of how much heat energy there is... there's no negative force, just positive. So in the metaphorical sense, science and religion are the same because they both rely on various amounts of "faith" as he defines it.

However, science requires very few assumptions, such as "I exist" and "other things exist, and I can prove it to a reasonable degree", which are assumptions every single sane person on this planet makes. So they are hardly incredible assumptions which must be dismissed. Religion and faith require assumptions such as

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"God's name is Jehovah and he exists everywhere at once while being invisible and watches everything you do and is a force of good and mercy and compassion but he does nothing to stop war or genocides and he will burn you forever and ever in a burning pit of agony should you fail to exercise the free will that he gave you and the mind that he gave you and the independent spirit that he gave you to question the assumptions of men in funny robes and hats who claim to talk to God, because it's absolutely for sure that they know what they talk about but the man on the street corner who babbles about God doesn't know what he's talking about at all because that's somehow different from Revelation and of course the earth was created in 6 days and an all-powerful God needs to rest once a week and likes animal sacrifice and will destroy the earth using an ARMY someday rather than just poofing the evil out of existence like a God would and he must physically capture satan and put him in the lake of fire because somehow with his infinite Q-like power he can't just obliterate Satan using his mind."

To be fair, that's a bit more of an assumption to make than "If I see the ground, feel it, hear things impact it, smell the flowers on it, and taste the fruit that comes from it, it might, just might, be real."

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that the scientific method is on the same level of assumption as religion. And, religion does not blink in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, whereas science, in order to be credible, must revise the theory.

Note how Rhyfelwyr "knows" that God exists. He has no proof and there is no reason for him to know this scientifically. It is a belief, and he erroneously uses the word "know" instead of "believe" as if to put this "special" knowledge on a higher pedestal than stuff he hears, smells, tastes, sees, touches, and feels. It's much better knowledge because it requires no proof whatsoever, and doesn't rely on the senses or even intuitive logic. Much of what his God does is rather counter-intuitive, like his Word being divine, but he is also capable of lying to people. How does that work? Does his lie become true when he speaks it? Can he simply override his previous truth and make it a lie? What's the deal with that? This "special" knowledge that believers refer to is not knowledge by any definition I can find or think of, not one that we commonly agree on, nor use as a scientific definition.

You cannot compare scientific theory with "spiritual knowledge" because they don't exist as anything related to the other in any way, shape, or form. However, because science yes involves the belief that we exist... Reenk can correctly say it is a form of belief. However I think that whitewashes science and faith as being the same thing when they are polar opposites. The energy from fusion at the center of a star is much hotter than the background radiation of the universe, in the extreme. However, both are forms of energy. Faith involves so numerous and so counter-intuitive assumptions that it is the reason it's classified as belief, not knowledge. Science involves assumptions so basic and so self-evident that it not only doesn't require much in terms of belief, on the contrary it challenges all assumptions, all data, all theories, and all methods, but the few assumptions that we make in order to call it science are so essential to sane living in this universe, that if you countered those assumptions, you'd be liable to die pretty quickly and have your radical theories disproved by the force of a Mack truck hitting your face.

The more unfounded and unreasonable the assumption, and the more of these types of assumptions you make, the less likely it is for it to be true. I'd refer people to my Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box theory of existence... it's not science because it's based on nothing but assumptions and wild and counter-intuitive statements which are in direct contradiction of the scientific method or any system of self-evident logic. However, it's in the same category of knowledge as any other religion, because the evidence that it could be true (you can't disprove it) is once again, the primary argument in its defense.

I do find it interesting that Reenk feels he is being intentionally misrepresented... frankly I don't see it. I do believe that people are honestly, and without spite or any other motivation, simply misunderstanding what you're saying, why you're saying it, and what relevance it has to anything if it puts everything under the label "belief", and in such a case there's no point in arguing anything because you can always disagree without giving a reason besides "that's YOUR opinion."

I find it to be radical skepticism, not legitimate theory, but Reenk has disagreed that that is his position, and instead asks his debate opponents to "prove" certain things in order to prove their case, and when they fail to "prove" that science is not the same as belief under his definitions, he declares the argument won. That is what appears to be going on, to me, but once again I have probably misinterpreted his positions. However, I will never understand his positions, so forgive me if this is the best I can come up with; I feel it is pretty darn close.

Under Reenk's standards of proofs, there is no proof of anything nor is it possible to prove anything because it relies on "metaphysical assumptions" he disagrees with and "sensory perception" which he apparently also disagrees with. As such, there is no point in the argument because eventually, you will have to make a metaphysical assumption or a sensory perception to prove a thing, or a logically self-evident and non-contradictory statement, and in all cases, it will not be enough because it all involves some shred of belief, and therefore invalidates it under Reenk's standard of proof.

As such, I haven't a clue how to argue with him. And I don't fully understand his argument, so he can over and over, correctly, point out how what I am saying doesn't quite respond to what he wants me to respond to, or satisfy his standards, or claim that it is a misinterpretation and it isn't what he means. Yet he fails to dumb down the argument so I can keep up with and respond to his arguments, so I once again sit baffled and can't really debate him. But at the same time, I feel he does demand an unreasonable standard of proof and is radical in his position that science is on the same level as faith, based on reasonable definitions of both. But he claims that isn't what he's arguing, and so I am lost and we make no headway.

It's a vicious little circle. I still think that somewhere, somehow, there is a loose end which if tugged, proves that such thinking unravels all reasonable thought and undermines the existence of knowledge at all, and if followed to it's logical conclusion, would destroy the human mind as we know it. As such, even if it were somehow true, there would be no point in believing in it because it would be wholly destructive and disconnect us from the ability to live together in a civilized and enlightened society, because we could never agree on laws or ethics or have any frame of reference from which to build the ability to communicate.

But that's probably a strawman or something, and as such, I respectfully withdraw it and apologize. There's a reason I stayed out of this one until now, and would be happy to bow out once again.

Faith (creationism/religion) versus reason (science); we had this debate already. I made a strong case for reason, and demonstrated using my opponent's own words that they undermine their own arguments and the logical conclusion of their argument is the destruction of reason, and as such, absolute faith is incompatible with reason and inherently dangerous. However, my opponents simply disagree and argue using different definitions and avoid my points, and as such, there is no progress to be made.

This topic, creationism versus evolution, at least focuses on two different specific theories, but the underlying argument is the SAME. Faith does not rely on evidence, and exists in spite of evidence. Science is a different animal entirely, but some compare the two as equals and call one a scientific theory when it is not, and the other a religious theory when it is not. Because we are comparing apples to unicorns, there will be no common ground, no consensus, and no forward progress for the human mind. The discussion was a dead end before it began... religion is not science and religious theories are not based in science and cannot be compared to science. They are different things.

If I said one thing weighed 200 pounds and you countered that pineapples are juicy, I doubt that we would be talking about the same thing and while I am arguing about weight and you are arguing about juicy, we will make no headway. It's a fruitless exercise, no pun intended.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

I know you guys have carried on along this line, but this is the point where it's easiest for me to address. Science does indeed rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe: assumptions which cannot be proven, however difficult it may be to imagine them being wrong.

We assume the existence of cause and effect. We assume that, other factors remaining constant, causes will have the same effect regardless of place and time. And so forth.

A religious approach to the natural world requires more assumptions than 'pure' science, and thus according to Ockham's razor (itself an assumption of sorts) is less preferable. The real distinction is that we all, religious or otherwise, accept the assumptions on which science is predicated. Religious assumptions, however widespread, are not universal.

Personally, I have opinions similar to Seamus and Don Corleone on the matter. I think theistic evolution is entirely possible. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't really matter whether I think that spark of randomness comes from some metaphysical being. I rely on science to know the what and the how of it all.

Ajax

[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

[Crandaeolon]

Interesting discussion, though most of it has been done a million times already.

Here's a link to a fairly comprehensive database of claims made by creationists and rebuttals to them: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html

And here is a list of counter-rebuttals: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

Finally, to quote something specific to this discussion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Claim CA301:
Science is based on naturalism, the unproven assumption that nature is all there is.

Response:

1. The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

2. The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.

3. Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity.

4. Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other.

Hopefully this is helpful to someone.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong.

Also ATPG, please do not attack Christianity, especially when you don't understand the basics of the religion. You can hardly hope to understand it by reading the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

[InsaneApache]

Excellent post ATPG.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Perhaps he was saying that. I honestly got lost somewhere in the middle of it all. Maybe you could translate for me.

Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong.

Or, perhaps not.

Also ATPG, please do not attack Christianity, especially when you don't understand the basics of the religion. You can hardly hope to understand it by reading the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

Where was I attacking Christianity?

Even if I were, if Christianity is allowed to attack that which it disagrees with (i.e. condemning people to hell for not accepting Jesus) I can criticize it all day long under the rules of a fair argument and, by the way, freedom of speech.

And I would be delighted to tell you how I really feel about religion. I've been pulling my punches to be civil and productive...

Excellent post ATPG.

Many thanks! Sometimes I get drowned in posts from my critics, I almost forget some people agree with me on stuff. The support is much appreciated.

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG your contributions are always very good and well thought out, but you do have a tendency to attack religions when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What was the point with the bit in spoilers in your main post here? Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread, and while there is nothing wrong with attacking Christianity, it has a time and a place.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG your contributions are always very good and well thought out, but you do have a tendency to attack religions when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What was the point with the bit in spoilers in your main post here? Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread, and while there is nothing wrong with attacking Christianity, it has a time and a place.

The point was obviously to highlight the many unsupported assumptions one must make when accepting as fact a religion's teachings. You not only must believe there is a God, but his name is Joe (Jehovah) and he sleeps only on Sundays, and he's really nice unless you believe he didn't kill his own son, in which case he burns you forever and ever, while being infinitely merciful. Look, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that it's right or wrong to BELIEVE it is true, but it is wrong to state it like it's a known and proven fact. It's belief, not knowledge, by the definitions of both.

A long string of increasingly strange assumptions, wild and counter-intuitive ones... hey, maybe it is the truth! Maybe the universe does exist precisely as your interpretation of a religion says it does! That's one heck of a lottery winning. I don't dispute that it could be true. I dispute that it's an established fact, and it most certainly isn't knowledge. For it to be knowledge you believe it to be true, and it has to be true, and there should be some neutral way of using evidence to prove it to be true. For example, I can prove using evidence what my actual name is. I can't prove using actual evidence that God's name is Jehovah. One Bible says "Jehovah" another calls him "Allah". He's got many names, apparently. In many languages. It's not an attack on Christianity to point out that it has unsupported assumptions to a much larger degree than what we call science. It's a fact, and facts are usually quite neutral things.

If I say my name is Daniel and you say it is not, I wouldn't get angry, I'd use facts to prove it. If you say God's name is Jehovah and I say that you can't know that, you could use facts to prove it; but there aren't any facts about God. That's why it's not knowledge, it's belief.

It's not an attack; it's reality.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread

PS- not in this thread, no. In others, yes. It doesn't disappear. You can condemn people to hell in one thread, but you cannot get mad at a criticism of religion in another, which discusses the difference between religion and science, which involves pointing out the unfounded assumptions of a particular religion as an example. One is a bit more hurtful than the other, might I add, but that's beside the point. I'm a big boy and I can handle whatever God dishes out as punishment for using the free will, critical mind, and independent spirit that he GAVE me as a gift and then expected me not to use.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"God's name is Jehovah and he exists everywhere at once while being invisible and watches everything you do and is a force of good and mercy and compassion but he does nothing to stop war or genocides and he will burn you forever and ever in a burning pit of agony should you fail to exercise the free will that he gave you and the mind that he gave you and the independent spirit that he gave you to question the assumptions of men in funny robes and hats who claim to talk to God, because it's absolutely for sure that they know what they talk about but the man on the street corner who babbles about God doesn't know what he's talking about at all because that's somehow different from Revelation and of course the earth was created in 6 days and an all-powerful God needs to rest once a week and likes animal sacrifice and will destroy the earth using an ARMY someday rather than just poofing the evil out of existence like a God would and he must physically capture satan and put him in the lake of fire because somehow with his infinite Q-like power he can't just obliterate Satan using his mind."

The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.

Perhaps there is hyperbole in there, but so far as I'm aware most of it is correct. However, if you'll agree to the definition of knowledge and belief as found in a mutually agreed upon dictionary, I'll agree that the teachings of your religion are precisely what it says in your Bible and no one else's, and especially not what they teach to children or to people who attend church.

Also, we're now quibbling over the specifics of a religion, but you don't deny that the religion's teachings are a long series of assumptions which aren't supported by fact in the way science does. So you concede that it was a relevant example, even if some data was flawed. I'll use the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box religion next time as an example, to avoid confusion, misinterpretation, or offending anyone's sensibilities.

[InsaneApache]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.

To be honest, I find much of what the religion teaches to be of value to people of that era. Some of it not so much.

These days we have education, philosophy, freedom of religion, ethics, law... many things which fill in the goal of a church or especially a state sponsored church. And I say people can believe in the ramblings of a man from thousands of years ago... some philosophers who lived around the time of classical Greece were valuable thinkers, some men were saintly, some men held belief but also made logical sense and contributed positively. People can also freely choose to join the church of Scientology if they want, or start their own religion. Doesn't bother me; just don't call it "knowledge" and speak as if you know something the rest of us do not, because you can't. You don't have access to something the rest of us do not unless you're claiming to actually BE God or Godlike. In which case, a simple demonstration of your power would convince me. Cure all the world's diseases in the next 24 hours.

I am timing you. And...... go!

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

[InsaneApache]

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

My view is brainwashing.