Jump to content


Photo

Science Is Working On It

Dawkins Logical fallacies Blind Faith Argumentum ad Futuris Science is working on it

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
41 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 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 February 2012 - 07:20 AM

I have been watching a few debates on Youtube and it seems that whenever someone has something that Dawkins has no answer for he pulls out his "answer of the gaps" which is

"Science is working on it"

This in itself is a misnomer as well as a logical fallacy.

A misnomer since it infers that "Science" is a person or thing that is doing something. I can't remember where I heard this but this is a great quote, "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do". This appropriately puts the misnomer into its box, however I want to deconstruct Dawkin's problems here a bit.

1- He is claiming "Science" as an entity / deity, (much like "Mother Nature"), which therefore implies that Dawkins is creating "Science" to be his own God.

2- His claim here automatically assumes that all scientists are in agreement, when in fact this is not so. This is apparant as there is no mention of the fact that some of "Science" refutes his claims thus won't be looking. Instead he uses a generalisation in which he bungles all scientists together and concludes that every single one must agree with him. I am almost a scientist and I am not in agreement with his claims of evolution. Does this mean that I am not a part of Dawkin's entity that is "Science".



It is a logical fallacy since rather than admitting that he doesn't know he is making a claim of Argumentum ad futuris, (arguement to the future), whereby he appeals that future evidence will vindicate his claim. How do we know that "Science" will get all the answers? What if it never does? This has another name it is called wishful thinking, or dare I say it... Blind Faith. Dawkins expresses his blind faith in evolution since he cannot grasp the concept of the possibility that "Science" may not know all the answers. In fact this is an example of a zealous, (also Religious) belief in evolution.

This is a textbook use of the fallacy as is shown here, (as well as other interesting examples)...




"B. Argumentum ad Futuris = Argument to the Future
This is the fallacy of the eternal optimist: "Accept this because
future evidence will support it." Here, since you don't have your
evidence in hand, you appeal to the future as proof of your
assertions: future research, future explorations, future discoveries,
future evidence. It appeals to the authority of progress, to hope, not
proof! It is an argument by anticipation, and speculation, not
demonstration.


-Missing links may someday be found to support evolution.
-Scientists may soon find a natural cause for the origin of
life.
-The Supercollider will tell us all about the origin of the
universe.


But, of course, no one knows the future for sure. The hoped for, yet
unknown future data supports no position in the present. Rational
decisions must be made by hard and fast evidence that is now
known. Truth is established by proper evidence, and this is a
timeless truth."


http://www3.dbu.edu/...s_relevance.pdf






I'd like to ask the evolutionists, whether they feel that Dawkins logic here is flawed or if that they can provide a reason for why he uses such logic. If need be here is an interesting review of the other logical fallacies Dawkins uses in his book "The God Delusion", its an interesting read

http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debunked%20Summary.htm

Thanks!

#2 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:03 PM

I have heard many athiests talk about science in a context that makes it sound like they are speaking of a being. It is extremely annoying, they act like science created man and not vice versa. Thank you for pointing that out in a well thought out summary.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:14 PM

Basically it's the scientific God did it excuse without God. One that allows them to be right and wrong at the same time, and for not having an answer but yet still look smart and well educated. It's like my sig says: Evolution allows the narcissist pratice his narcism. To constantly have power over others, to be consider above others, and will do anything to maintain that. And evolution allows them to practice that to the emf degree.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 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 February 2012 - 08:18 PM

I have heard many athiests talk about science in a context that makes it sound like they are speaking of a being. It is extremely annoying, they act like science created man and not vice versa. Thank you for pointing that out in a well thought out summary.


Thanks :D

I agree with your statement and it does seem to support Dawkin's belief that people need to create "Gods" for themselves. However I do not think he was thinking that such a claim would apply to himself. Claiming the "Science created Man" is evidence of such deity making.

The sole fact that science is a name for the "pursuit of truth" and thus cannot be called upon to create anything obviously proves Dawkins own "God" making.

This then leads to a self contradiction since if Dawkins believes in a deity- Science, then he is in fact Religious. Thus all his testimonies about Religion and Religious people also apply to himself. This is also evidenced by the people who can turn other things into a "Religion", people who turn sport into a Religion, or Computer games into a Religion etc.



EDIT: It would be interesting to see the thoughts of a Dawkins fan, (though they probably wouldn't be nice thoughts considering the role model Dawkins is....lol...). Perhaps we should invite some to comment ;)

#5 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:00 PM

I have heard many athiests talk about science in a context that makes it sound like they are speaking of a being. It is extremely annoying, they act like science created man and not vice versa. Thank you for pointing that out in a well thought out summary.


Yeah I ve heard things like the "nature" is really smart look what did with that specie or the almighty "time+ nothing"

#6 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:22 PM

Evolution will solve everything. ;)

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 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 February 2012 - 10:30 PM

Here is a link to a thread by Uncommon Descent regarding Dawkins' deity making issues

http://www.uncommond...-working-on-it/

#8 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 16 February 2012 - 06:47 AM

I agree that "science is working on it' isn't a good answer or argument for a person who has the ambition to be a public figure. It is equal to saying 'I (we) (the industry) don't know' but it is at the same time misleading people. If science would actually be working on the answer to a question, you'd have to recognise that the question is clear and that they are already making some progress, progress that you can then explain instead of saying 'science is working on it'.

About the idea of turning science into a God, I often say that 'science' doesn't know things. By that I don't mean my pall, Science, but the industry behind it. It is nothing more, at least in my case, as a way to group everything together. I do this with a lot of things.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:04 AM

I agree that "science is working on it' isn't a good answer or argument for a person who has the ambition to be a public figure. It is equal to saying 'I (we) (the industry) don't know' but it is at the same time misleading people. If science would actually be working on the answer to a question, you'd have to recognise that the question is clear and that they are already making some progress, progress that you can then explain instead of saying 'science is working on it'.

About the idea of turning science into a God, I often say that 'science' doesn't know things. By that I don't mean my pall, Science, but the industry behind it. It is nothing more, at least in my case, as a way to group everything together. I do this with a lot of things.


I like your first paragraph. If I was an evolutionist, for Dawkins who is acclaimed to be the worlds leading evolutionist to use such an "answer" seems a bit worrisome.

Yes sometimes people say it as a way of grouping things together, however the language of many does what I have claimed.

#10 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 February 2012 - 06:49 PM

Here's a simple way to sum it up, when something beautifull is seen in creational science I don't say "Creational science is amazing!" I say "God is amazing!" When something happens thats beautifull to Athiestic science, most athiests say "Science is amazing!" Really though, whatever you dedicate your life to is your God. That's why we say you experience true freedom when you follow Christ. Many think we are caged with our beliefs and wonder why we say we are free. The reason is we are free from sin, sin controls you and makes you do things you more often then not are ashamed of. God knows that his commandments are the best thing for us, people act like they are a burden to life but they make life so much better it is truely unbelievable.

I have even heard us called conformists, Lol, really in this day and age? Any belief held is a conformist belief, the beliefs are generally something handed down and held by high regard by many in just about any belief held these days. Of course unless you a hold a belief that is based in your own conjured up theories with limited following. Im by no means a follower, my parent whom was vocal in her belief was like a Nazi athiest and my teachers taught me all about the origins of man from goo. I ate it up, I don't even see how someone so lost, such as myself, could have came to Christ. I would have been a follower to go the other way headlong into the false whimsies of my sin further blocking my heart from true love and freedom. Sometimes I go pretty far off subject, excuse me for that.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#11 jason

jason

    Member

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

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:39 PM

Evolution will solve everything. ;)


i say that too the retired yec life science teacher when has to work on his car.

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:31 AM

A long time ago I stated that atheist give nature a state of being. It is their god of sorts, like science. The same thing applies to evolution. This thread just reminded me of that.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:43 AM

Love the thread guys... I've been arguing along these lines for a lot of years now, and have received absolutely NO cogent answer from and atheist, agnostic, skeptic (etc...). Which itself proves that they (et.al.) proceed on just as much, if not more, faith than the theist...

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:55 AM

Love the thread guys... I've been arguing along these lines for a lot of years now, and have received absolutely NO cogent answer from and atheist, agnostic, skeptic (etc...). Which itself proves that they (et.al.) proceed on just as much, if not more, faith than the theist...


Alot of the debates / interviews I have seen show that when pushed for evidence for atheism there really is none, normally they cite an arguement from ignorance... 'I cannot believe that a God exists...etc etc etc'

As Prof Craig says, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", if we didn't have evidence of Titanium in my backyard does that mean that there is no Titanium in my back yard?

Also such a thing is contradictory to scientific pursuit of knowledge, if all things that had no evidence were claimed non-existing then there would be very little opportunity to learn something new since no-one would be looking, as it has already been deemed to be non-existant. Furthermore such thinking lends more credence to the fact that there are no facts in science, (I made a pun lol), since if an absence of evidence is evidence of absence and as atheists claim that there is no God for a fact, then what happens when new evidence is found? They will need to change their "fact" and thus shows their unreliability.

#15 jason

jason

    Member

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

Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:02 AM

what is that fallacy?arguing from ignorance?

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:12 AM

what is that fallacy?arguing from ignorance?



I. Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
"Never reason from what you do not know.
If you do, you will soon believe what is utterly against reason." Andew Ramsay

"To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know know what we
do not know, that is true knowledge."
Confucius, Analects

A. Definition: An argument from ignorance occurs when you use the
absence of evidence to prove that a claim is either true or false. This
generally occurs in "macro" situations or events where it is virtually
impossible to know the factors required to come to a belief or conclusion.
It says: Nothing is known with certainlty about X, and yet concludes that
we know something definate about X. Ignorance proves nothing, except,
of course, that one is ignorant. In such cases, it is best to claim temporary
agnosticism at least.

B. Examples:
a. People have been trying for centuries to disprove the claims of
astrology and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must
conclude that the claims of astrology are true.
b. No one has ever seen Mr. Smith drink a glass of wine, beer or
liquor. Therefore, we must conclude that Mr. Smith is not a drinker.
c. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: you have heard the
prosecution presents its case against my client and nothing has
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the eyes of
the law, my client is innocent."
d. No intelligent life exists on other planets since we have not
proved that there is.
e. Human life exists on other planets since we have not proved that
there is not.
7
f. Atheist: "There cannnot be a God, because I have never seen
any evidence for Him."
g. Theist: "There must be a God, because no one can prove that
He does not exist."
h. "I do not have much information on this [alleged communist]
except the general statement of the agency (CIA?) that there is
nothing in the files to disprove his communist connections." Joseph
McCarthy.

B. Proper use of ignorance (or better, knowledge)
This is when the failure of a search does count as evidence against
or for a claim. This generally occurs in "micro" situations or events
where it is possible to know all the factors required to come to a
belief or conclusion.
1. Does a planet exist between earth and Mars?
2. Is there urine in this blood sample?


C. Other Considerations
You may protect yourself against arguing from ignorance with two
fundamental rules of polemics:

1. He who asserts must also prove. The burden of proof is on the
person who asserts anything. And this cannot be done from silence
or ignorance but with positive evidence.

2. A lack of evidence for a position does not automatically prove or
establish the opposite side of an issue. In philosophy or theology,
especially, one cannot win an argument by default ("Well, since you
can't really prove God, then naturalism wins by default. "Well, since
you can't prove creationism scientifically, evolution wins by
default").

a. Before you can win by default, you must prove there are
only two alternatives on a question. But there may be a third
or a fourth. You cannot say "I win" when only one alternative
is eliminated; others may be waiting to compete.

b. Even if there are only two alternatives, the failure to prove
one does not prove the other necessarily. There must be
some independent evidence for the second theory if it is to
stand on its own. If one theory proves to be false, and there
are no good reasons for believing the alternative, then
admitting to insufficient data and suspending judgment may
be the best alternative.


http://www3.dbu.edu/...s_relevance.pdf


Hence from this to be an actual atheist they MUST have some form of independent evidence for their atheism that disproves the existence of God. None have been cited thus far hence atheism is indeed illogical and ignorant.

#17 jason

jason

    Member

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

Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:02 AM

some thiests are guilty of that. most chruches dont teach that hebrews one negates that argument from ingnorance in that when we do come to christ we have felt his hand and can demonstrate that through the historicity of the bible.

#18 Syamsu

Syamsu

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Amsterdam, Holland

Posted 19 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

I have been watching a few debates on Youtube and it seems that whenever someone has something that Dawkins has no answer for he pulls out his "answer of the gaps" which is

"Science is working on it"

This in itself is a misnomer as well as a logical fallacy.

A misnomer since it infers that "Science" is a person or thing that is doing something. I can't remember where I heard this but this is a great quote, "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do". This appropriately puts the misnomer into its box, however I want to deconstruct Dawkin's problems here a bit.

1- He is claiming "Science" as an entity / deity, (much like "Mother Nature"), which therefore implies that Dawkins is creating "Science" to be his own God.

I'd like to ask the evolutionists, whether they feel that Dawkins logic here is flawed or if that they can provide a reason for why he uses such logic. If need be here is an interesting review of the other logical fallacies Dawkins uses in his book "The God Delusion", its an interesting read

http://www.oxfordtut...d%20Summary.htm

Thanks!


I am a creationist, and I would say that what Dawkins says is indeed possible. It can be argued that science is indeed an organic whole, and I believe this to be the case to a significant extent with many Darwinists. Dawkins and many other scientists have given up their free will to a large extent, and they don't do what they want themselves, but instead they are being led by science, and they do what science wants them to do. This organic whole of science does not constitute a deity, but some kind of cultural animal. The organic entity of science is much less sophisticated in it's decisionmaking, than any individual human being, eventhough the human beings are part of it.

You can well see when somebody does the will of science, rather than that they are an independent decisionmaker, when they have problems with affirming subjectivity as a legitemate way to arrive at a conclusion.

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:16 PM

"Science is working on it" is a statement of faith as Ron said. It is disingenuous and proves that their bias will not waiver and they are trying to disguise it as evidence based instead.

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:55 AM

"Science is working on it" is a statement of faith as Ron said. It is disingenuous and proves that their bias will not waiver and they are trying to disguise it as evidence based instead.


The faith of the Atheist is exacerbated by his denial of it. And this is what makes it (the atheist's faith) so much greater in scope than that of even the theist. In other words, the atheist works really-really-really-really hard in the denial of the faith that is so apparent in his life.

He’ll say “I don’t believe IN God, because there is no evidence FOR God.” But he’ll turn around in the same breath and say “I believe abiogenesis IS the best explanation for our origins, and although there is NO evidence FOR abiogenesis, I believe there will be in the future.”

By the way, the atheist makes the first statement in spite of ALL the evidence FOR God; and the second statement in spite of there being absolutely NO evidence FOR abiogenesis.

So who exactly is being religious here?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users