Evolution v Creationism

[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.

[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.

[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.

[InsaneApache]

Excellent post ATPG.

[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?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

[Kadagar_AV]

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

Such as?

"there is a creator?"... or?

[Ironside]

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.

And they are also often forgetting the most important thing to remember about science: Most hypothesies will be wrong and are always incomplete (due to not being sure about ever reaching THE correct answer), thus you can find flaws in the theories. But usually it's a modification that's needed and not the complete rewriting that creationists wants to.

For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.

Personally, it makes perfect sence. It is how life acts: It always tries to adapt, no matter how the deck is stacked (the genes). So rapid changes gives rapid adaptation. There's also some quite fresh research about the expression of genes, that's very influencial and flexible. Shows signs of Lamackism for example. Wouldn't surprice me if that's a major part of the development of new species.

[Reenk Roink]

And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.

Yes! The best way to proceed against creationism is to show that its claims have certainly been put to the test and falsified.

For example, young earth creationism's claim on the age of the earth has not held up very well against the testing. Is this not more convincing then saying creationism is not testable and occupies a whole other division than science?

[Reenk Roink]

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.

No this is indeed part of my position.

My interest at this point is about the demarcation from science from creationism, the problems that exist with certain criteria.

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

Exactly!

This whole discussion isn't about the correctness of the assumptions anyway, I merely pointed the metaphysical assumptions of naturalism and realism to make the point that when a system (I hesitate to say theory because I must speak of creationism here and some people get mighty riled up about that) is said to be testable and falsifiable, it is NOT speaking about the testability and falsifiability of the metaphysical assumptions it rests on.

This is why I haven't bothered to address Kadagar anymore, who I think sees me as some sort of creationist and believes I am using the bible when I haven't even so much as referenced it until now.

Or Askthepizzaguy who despite noting my denials of things attributed to me sees my position as some kind of radical skepticism and makes me out as having the claim that science and religion are the same because neither can be proven.

[Kadagar_AV]

reenk roink,

A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

reenk roink,

A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)

Kadagar, how carefully have you read the thread?

Simple answer on a scale of 1 to 10 3 is quite ok :)

[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.

[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...

[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.