Jump to content


Photo

Dawkins Indirectly Admits Evolution Is Not Scientific

Assuming the conclusion

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5292 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:09 AM






When asked about evidence for evolution Dawkins uses the analogy of a detective who uses inductive reasoning on the observed evidence to reconstruct past events.

Does he even realise that such is not scientific as per the scientific method?

It is what I would like to call "assuming the conclusion", for example fossils similarities can be observed yet they cannot empirically demonstrate how they arose, hence evolution is assumed as the conclusion. The same is true of DNA similarities since these also cannot empirically demonstrate how they arose, again evolution is assumed as the conclusion.


It is similar to this analogy. I observe the sun and stars rotating around the Earth, therefore I assume that the Earth is the centre of the universe. This is exactly the same reasoning yet I hope you all can recognise that my conclusion here has already been proven false via deeper observation. This example seeks to demonstrate that assuming the conclusion can be false.

It really comes down to what the person percieves as "logical" since each person will assume what he / she feels is the most logical choice. Considering what I have already written about how even the "logical nature" of a claim can be misguiding.


"Considering that I viewed myself once as a Christian before, and a bad one at that since I rarely read the Bible myself outside of church. I would have to assume that these other people would have a better interpretation. However your assumption here assumes that these people all have the same interpretation, the fact is that all people have different interpretations on absolutely everything, (this is why there are no moral absolutes within atheism / naturalism / evolutionary worldviews, since nothing can be agreed upon in the subjective sense), therefore when an interpretation is given it must be first "taken with a grain of salt" and critically analyzed to best discern whether the interpretation is a good one or not. However who is to say that my own interpretation of someone elses interpretation is correct. Hence all people should approach everything with a sense of modesty in that we cannot be absolutely sure of our own interpretations... Such can also be said of our own processes of logic since something being "logical" is an arbitrary claim perpetuated on the basis of how something fits within that person's current knowledge and worldview, there is no justification that we have all the facts relating to the claim being said hence to claim something is logical is in most cases premature."


His strongest evidence given here is the geographical location of species. Now attentive listeners will realise that this evidence merely points to micro-evolution ie- changes within the "type" of organism.. a swallow becomes a different kind of swallow but is still a swallow.

This does NOTHING to further the molecules to man evolutionary belief, however consider that yet again evolution is assumed as the conclusion since Dawkins and other scientists cannot empirically deduce the method as to why such birds are similar, evolution is merely assumed.




Now knowing this can evolutionists at least admit that this is not scientific? (as per the scientific method)


Additionally for almost every piece of evidence there can be a counter-claim that supports the Creation model, therefore since the same reasoning holds true for Creationism....

#2 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:14 PM






When asked about evidence for evolution Dawkins uses the analogy of a detective who uses inductive reasoning on the observed evidence to reconstruct past events.

Does he even realise that such is not scientific as per the scientific method?

It is what I would like to call "assuming the conclusion", for example fossils similarities can be observed yet they cannot empirically demonstrate how they arose, hence evolution is assumed as the conclusion. The same is true of DNA similarities since these also cannot empirically demonstrate how they arose, again evolution is assumed as the conclusion.


It is similar to this analogy. I observe the sun and stars rotating around the Earth, therefore I assume that the Earth is the centre of the universe. This is exactly the same reasoning yet I hope you all can recognise that my conclusion here has already been proven false via deeper observation. This example seeks to demonstrate that assuming the conclusion can be false.

It really comes down to what the person percieves as "logical" since each person will assume what he / she feels is the most logical choice. Considering what I have already written about how even the "logical nature" of a claim can be misguiding.


"Considering that I viewed myself once as a Christian before, and a bad one at that since I rarely read the Bible myself outside of church. I would have to assume that these other people would have a better interpretation. However your assumption here assumes that these people all have the same interpretation, the fact is that all people have different interpretations on absolutely everything, (this is why there are no moral absolutes within atheism / naturalism / evolutionary worldviews, since nothing can be agreed upon in the subjective sense), therefore when an interpretation is given it must be first "taken with a grain of salt" and critically analyzed to best discern whether the interpretation is a good one or not. However who is to say that my own interpretation of someone elses interpretation is correct. Hence all people should approach everything with a sense of modesty in that we cannot be absolutely sure of our own interpretations... Such can also be said of our own processes of logic since something being "logical" is an arbitrary claim perpetuated on the basis of how something fits within that person's current knowledge and worldview, there is no justification that we have all the facts relating to the claim being said hence to claim something is logical is in most cases premature."


His strongest evidence given here is the geographical location of species. Now attentive listeners will realise that this evidence merely points to micro-evolution ie- changes within the "type" of organism.. a swallow becomes a different kind of swallow but is still a swallow.

This does NOTHING to further the molecules to man evolutionary belief, however consider that yet again evolution is assumed as the conclusion since Dawkins and other scientists cannot empirically deduce the method as to why such birds are similar, evolution is merely assumed.




Now knowing this can evolutionists at least admit that this is not scientific? (as per the scientific method)


Additionally for almost every piece of evidence there can be a counter-claim that supports the Creation model, therefore since the same reasoning holds true for Creationism....



There must be a rejection (and there was in Darwin's time) of supernatural power, and in that vacuum the lie of abiogenesis, and evolution fills it all in nicely. Once a generation wilingly begins to reject God it causes a disconnect over generations. Deterioration of spiritual power in the church causes the natural man to be all that is left. Unless God moves once again through his people, and his people repent (2 Chronicles 7:14), curse and judgement will follow.

Look at our society. In a time when we should be truly free because of our knowledge, many people are complete slaves. Some to violence, some to money, some to s@x, some to drugs or alcohol, some to self in some secret, or not so outward way. So anyone can see that man's knowledge does not save him.

And so, at the danger of diverting from the OP, when you see oil pockets 4 miles under rock, salt and sediments, and this crude oil is 85% water, and caused by the compaction of immense planktonic blooms, well you just can't believe that supernatural power could bring so much devestation in one judgement, but HE did. How did 4 miles of sandstone, shale, limestone and salt cover so much plankton? I know we started with evolution, but the old earth goes with it. It needs it. But the flood moved continents--nothing else could move that much sediment, even if it had a quadrillion years!

Dawkins has rejected the concept of supernatural power, and has obviously separated from it's effects in his life. He rejected his God for man's knowledge. So the only thing left is what makes sense to the natural man--naturalistic events done by naturalistic means.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5292 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:56 AM

Shock-Horror no evolutionist replies... I guess their "theory" really is just propogated on assuming the conclusion, rather than actual scientific analysis.

#4 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:25 PM

Perhaps that's why a court is ruled by voting of a jury instead of "science" the less reliable way of judging the contructed past. Posted Image

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:31 AM

...
"Considering that I viewed myself once as a Christian before, and a bad one at that since I rarely read the Bible myself outside of church. I would have to assume that these other people would have a better interpretation. However your assumption here assumes that these people all have the same interpretation, the fact is that all people have different interpretations on absolutely everything, (this is why there are no moral absolutes within atheism / naturalism / evolutionary worldviews, since nothing can be agreed upon in the subjective sense), therefore when an interpretation is given it must be first "taken with a grain of salt" and critically analyzed to best discern whether the interpretation is a good one or not. However who is to say that my own interpretation of someone elses interpretation is correct. Hence all people should approach everything with a sense of modesty in that we cannot be absolutely sure of our own interpretations... Such can also be said of our own processes of logic since something being "logical" is an arbitrary claim perpetuated on the basis of how something fits within that person's current knowledge and worldview, there is no justification that we have all the facts relating to the claim being said hence to claim something is logical is in most cases premature."
...

Dawkins was convinced by the design argument previously:

So what changed? "I suppose that by that time the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."

I personally doubt the sequence of things a bit. I think that change in mind was far more intertwined then he is telling us here. Fact is he found Evolution pretty handy to demolish the design argument, which it btw. really doesn't. It just shifts design a bit further away to physical laws and "fine tuning".

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5292 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:52 PM

I personally doubt the sequence of things a bit. I think that change in mind was far more intertwined then he is telling us here. Fact is he found Evolution pretty handy to demolish the design argument, which it btw. really doesn't. It just shifts design a bit further away to physical laws and "fine tuning".


That is assuming you believe in evolution, otherwise it doesn't "demolish" the design argument. In my case it actually exemplifies design due to the holes we see in evolution.

#7 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:30 AM

That is assuming you believe in evolution, otherwise it doesn't "demolish" the design argument. In my case it actually exemplifies design due to the holes we see in evolution.

Even a model that assumes a Darwinian cell to Caesar evolution, still requires design to some extend. It's kind like with a simulator program that can put out configurations or texts. You still need a program to do that.

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5292 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:31 PM

Even a model that assumes a Darwinian cell to Caesar evolution, still requires design to some extend. It's kind like with a simulator program that can put out configurations or texts. You still need a program to do that.


No from what I see, the evolutionists do not see it like that. They claim everything came about via random selection, and that there is no design. Some may admit that there is a first cause required for the universe, however the atheistic ones will state that the cause doesn't need to be God.... (Despite the first cause having "God-like" qualities, which would therefore relegate it to God as a ,matter of principle, thus anyone who believes in a first cause, actually does believe in God to some degree).

In the case of your program analogy either they will say that its a bad analogy or they will state the the program "evolved".

#9 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:45 PM

No from what I see, the evolutionists do not see it like that. They claim everything came about via random selection, and that there is no design. Some may admit that there is a first cause required for the universe, however the atheistic ones will state that the cause doesn't need to be God.... ....

They can still have their random selection, but not for the physical qualities and laws of the universe, they are fixed, quite of fine-tuned to do certain things. Of course some have a cop-out for that. They claim a multiverse and that per coincidence we are in the one with that specific anthropic properties. This is of course complete speculation with no indication that it is like that at all, except for being the the only plausible alternative, if you dogmatically exclude an intelligent designer/creator of the universe. Given that they have excluded certain explanations a priori, they are moving on unscientific terrain. It destroys the nimbus of being unbiased and and pretense of objectivity in all regards.

That's of course also an argument from incredulity and shows that they are on par with what they throw into the direction of Evolution critiques.

#10 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 26 September 2012 - 06:44 AM

No from what I see, the evolutionists do not see it like that. They claim everything came about via random selection, and that there is no design. Some may admit that there is a first cause required for the universe, however the atheistic ones will state that the cause doesn't need to be God.... (Despite the first cause having "God-like" qualities, which would therefore relegate it to God as a ,matter of principle, thus anyone who believes in a first cause, actually does believe in God to some degree).

In the case of your program analogy either they will say that its a bad analogy or they will state the the program "evolved".


We have three explanations for the universe:
  • Caused by an eternal first cause with a free will to kick things off in the first place (God obviously)
  • Eternal (We have ruled this out since we see it will eventually fall into a heat death and it is expanding, therefore it had a beginning, and has a foreseeable end.
  • There is a chain reaction that is larger than the universe which is eternal, and caused the universe, and many other universes. Their argument is that because this chain reaction is eternal, it would eventually (through trying infinite combinations of universes/planets/etc) produce a planet that could sustain life for millions of years, and evolve self-aware beings, and since we exist that is what MUST have happened (Anthropic Principle). These people would jump through millions of flaming hula-hoops to deny God. This view begs the question because it requires natural laws to be established just right to make this possible, therefore they are hoping beyond hope that it is not God who is the law-giver and once again invoking the Anthropic Principle.


#11 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1760 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 September 2012 - 06:50 AM

AFJ said: "And so, at the danger of diverting from the OP, when you see oil pockets 4 miles under rock, salt and sediments, and this crude oil is 85% water, and caused by the compaction of immense planktonic blooms, well you just can't believe that supernatural power could bring so much devestation in one judgement, but HE did. How did 4 miles of sandstone, shale, limestone and salt cover so much plankton? I know we started with evolution, but the old earth goes with it. It needs it. But the flood moved continents--nothing else could move that much sediment, even if it had a quadrillion years!"

Good stuff. Where can we get more information on the vast amounts of oil pockets and/or plankton buried under 4 miles of sandstrone, shale, limestone, etc.

Thanks.

Edited by JayShel, 26 September 2012 - 10:08 AM.
Fixed Quote: AFJ


#12 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:06 PM

creationists admit that our view takes faith, the naturalists dont.

#13 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:33 AM

creationists admit that our view takes faith, the naturalists dont.

They'd have to make a couple of metaphysical assumptions to that it is valid.
What they actually believe is naturalistic or materialistic reductionism meaning that everything can be reduced to matter and motion. Now that is a philosophical/religious belief.

#14 KTskater

KTskater

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas
  • Interests:Graduate student in biological anthropology. Research interests: human rights, ancient DNA, epigenetics, osteology.
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Kansas

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:33 AM

Is forensic science not science, then?

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5292 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:25 AM

Is forensic science not science, then?

The techniques they use are scientific, (like DNA testing) however some of the conclusions they make via the "it seems logical" assumption are not scientific, as per the scientific method, (which I believe we have already discussed before ;) )


Its a common evolutionist "tactic" to try and use forensic science to justify their assumption based claims, sorry the scientific method disagrees with you.

#16 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:37 AM

Forensic science would look at a crime scene and conclude human (intelligent agents) meddling with it ruling out natural causes. The assumptions Gilbo refers to are still based on propabilities on how something may have happened.

Excluding non-materialist causes as possibilities a priori is for sure unscientific and bases on metaphysical assumptions (i.e. methodical naturalism).
Science is searching for true explanatory knowledge and the explanations ought not to be limited to a certain domain.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users