Evolution v Creationism

[Reenk Roink]

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.

If I understand correctly you are making a demarcation criterion based on a certain metaphysical axiom (i.e: naturalism among many). Is this correct?

If so then I would certainly agree with you that this is a much better demarcation than say a naive testability or falsification. I gave this and another criterion based on the consensus of the scientific community as alternatives to the testable/falsifiable distinction.

Of course there remain problems with such an attempt (I nuanced it to avoid the charge of blatant circularity that a scientific theory is one that relies on the scientific axiom) and it may not eliminate all forms of "psuedoscience" but I feel that alternative criteria like these are the much sounder way to go, as opposed to what is generally argued in court cases today (relying on the testability/falsifiability criteria).

One day, should the creationist lobby not botch the case badly and get a guy who can argue convincingly against this usually used but fatally flawed demarcation principle, it would be an embarrassment for evolutionary biology...

This is an journal article from Science, Technology, and Human Values following up on a certain court decision on creationism a while back that talks about this issue pretty concisely and convincingly:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/688928

(might not be viewable in public domain)

[Che Roriniho]

@ Sasaki Kojiro:

Yes, you do. It's called thinking, and my Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is particularly good at it (hell, it's in our name! Sapiens = wise). We have in fact, over the years developed a couple of remarkable ideas: logic and reason. Work very well in rooting out faeces of a bovine nature.


@Rhys

No, it's not a coincidence, it's just that your imaginary friend happened to be a cosmic Jewish Zombie whose views at the time were very liberal, and so a large amount of followers surrounded him and his legacy. They only worshipped him because that's what people tended to do at the time: worship people who did good, and there is no doubting that Jesus, historical or not, but probably historical, did some good.
The sole reason that your version of lunacy was adopted by Constantine the *ahem* Great, the leader of the biggest single nation in the world at that point, and so got some influence out.

So yes, it is entirely coincidental that so many believe in your Cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his Own Father (and yet also not his own father, whilst still being... you can see where that's going).

To believe otherwise is a mixture of two logical fallacies, and is, therefore, insubmitable as an argument: Argumentum ad numerum, and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. I also notice a nice icing of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, to add to the sponge sandwhicch of the previously mentioned logical fallacy recipes.










Oh, and +5 points if you have any idea where I was going with that last analogy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

To believe otherwise is a mixture of two logical fallacies, and is, therefore, insubmitable as an argument: Argumentum ad numerum, and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. I also notice a nice icing of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, to add to the sponge sandwhicch of the previously mentioned logical fallacy recipes.

@ Sasaki Kojiro:

Yes, you do. It's called thinking, and my Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is particularly good at it (hell, it's in our name! Sapiens = wise). We have in fact, over the years developed a couple of remarkable ideas: logic and reason. Work very well in rooting out faeces of a bovine nature.

For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies...

Since you like logic...

"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."

So, how did you choose to be an atheist?



Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?

[Sigurd]

I so want to participate here, but I have no access to the org at work except via my cell phone. Yes I am typing this on a mobile.

Just to put the animals vs. Humans to rest, the bible ( the proclaimed sole source of doctrine in Christianity ) distinguishes humans and animals on one parameter only. It says that man was made in the image and likeness of God. Interpret it however you want.

If any of you remember I did an exercise with Genesis ( again the proclaimed sole source of creationist doctrine ) and showed how you could interpret it very close to the scientific theory of how our world was made. What the young earth creationists are thinking, is beyond me. They have absolutely no suport for their ideas anywhere in the Bible.

I want to make a longer reply, but there is just no more time today.

[Askthepizzaguy]

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The stars in the heavens, the sun and the moon (lesser light? It's just a light-reflecting surface, not a light source) came after the plants and fruits and grasses and seeds?

What drove their photosynthetic processes, if there was no sun? Granted, the simple cure-all answer is "God did it, that explains it, that's the end of it" but that's absolutely inverted from the scientific theory of the origins of the universe.

That is what the Young Earth literalist creationists are on about; they think it happened precisely as it is written, in the exact order of Genesis. And of course they have to believe that because if Genesis was wrong about the order of creation, it's not the word of God.

*sigh* Maybe Moses made a typo? Editor's error? Or non-literal interpretation might work...

[rory_20_uk]

Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.

Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.

[Sigurd]

If I could have linked the thread in question I would. Genesis speaks only about the creation of this world and possibly this solar system. I am sounding like a believer aren't I?
The order of things can seem confusing, but I did explain a possible solution.
The entire creation is viewed by Moses with an earthly perspective. The first light in verse 3 is the ignition of the Sun, while the later verses speaks of seasons and earthly motions. The stars, which existed prior to this solar system, become visible when at last the sun has pushed all the dense dust and ice away for them to become visible from this planet. And there is waters in the deep which is uncreated. Check verse 1. You do know what the ancients called Hydrogen?

[Askthepizzaguy]

If I could have linked the thread in question I would. Genesis speaks only about the creation of this world and possibly this solar system. I am sounding like a believer aren't I?
The order of things can seem confusing, but I did explain a possible solution.
The entire creation is viewed by Moses with an earthly perspective. The first light in verse 3 is the ignition of the Sun, while the later verses speaks of seasons and earthly motions. The stars, which existed prior to this solar system, become visible when at last the sun has pushed all the dense dust and ice away for them to become visible from this planet. And there is waters in the deep which is uncreated. Check verse 1. You do know what the ancients called Hydrogen?

Sigurd, you're a wise fellow and a respected friend.

I find that this explanation however, is grasping at straws. There's far, far more in Genesis that doesn't make sense, and even if we create wild theories as to how it does, the criticism is not with people who make the Bible adhere to science, it's people who make science adhere to the Bible. Changing the order of things so that it matches their interpretation of Genesis is entirely unscientific, and they create entire museums dedicated to showing how men walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

That is the real problem. I honestly, honestly don't care about the rationalizations ex post facto making the Bible conform to science. (especially when the Bible is full of supernatural miracles and amazingly, the human species being viable after the first two people had a bunch of male offspring. Not only is that genetically unhealthy, but you really have to wonder where all the women came from, and why they weren't worthy of having a backstory) At that point it is religion, and religions can say whatever they please.

What I care about is when people take a great idea like science, and then take a big poop all over the concept of science by mixing it with religion by making science conform to religious texts even when it's completely wrong to do so. It's not science, it's fairy tales at that point. There's a Biblical explanation, yes.... and a scientific one. Where they are compatible, fine they are. However, there are places where they aren't, and rewriting science to make it seem kosher doesn't make any sense. If science has to conform to the Bible, why have science to begin with? Since everything can be explained by prophets, why bother learning anything else, I wonder?

[Che Roriniho]

For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies...

Since you like logic...

"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."

So, how did you choose to be an atheist?



Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

And even if I did, then as I said, it would be through reason:

People say that god exists.
God is against Nature (Natural sciences)
People are Nature
Therefore is against people, and therefore irrational.

Not brilliant, I know, but I'm tired so can't becopulated to make anything more advanced.

The human mind has remarkable decision makin properties, and the decision (or not, see above) to become an athiest is because of the frankly utterly ridiculus ideas from the other side.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a Jewish deity-figure who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 cents about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.


And while that argument could not be used as an argument in itself (argumentam ad numerum and argumentum ad verecundiam), it COULD be used in argument, provided that was not the only evidence submitted, and that the evidence given justifies the use of a line. On it's own, however,it is insubmittable.

Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.

Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.

My thoughts exactly. If we accept the King James version, then we must asume that James I was a messiah. Otherwise, how could he translate it from latin perfectly, and still contain the word of god?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a cosmic Jewish Zombie who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 faeces about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.

I've always been an atheist...I'm not arguing for the existence of god. For all we know, if one did exist, he'd send all the atheists to heaven and the religious people to hell

But I think taking a holier-than-thou attitude towards all religious people paints them with too broad a brush. First I would say it's hypocritical.

If you go back 200 years you see that the people then believed all sorts of silly things, yes? So why would you assume that 200 years from now people won't be laughing at your beliefs? Also, most people are atheist because of their upbringing. Either their parents were atheists or they were overbearingly religious.

Secondly, you can't simply say "that which is rational and logical is better that the irrational and illogical". Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.

DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. HTTP 404. REJECTING PARADOXICAL STATEMENT. PURGING MEMORY FILES. PURG-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Image loaded. Systems shutting down. Admiring mystical bovine. Absorbing zen qualities. Purging desire and the Self. Attaining Nirvana.





Adding patriotic symbolism for good measure.

[Che Roriniho]

DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. HTTP 404. REJECTING PARADOXICAL STATEMENT. PURGING MEMORY FILES. PURG-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Image loaded. Systems shutting down. Admiring mystical bovine. Absorbing zen qualities. Purging desire and the Self. Attaining Nirvana.





Adding patriotic symbolism for good measure.

Now THIS is a guy you should pray to.