Jump to content


Photo

On Evolution's Credibility


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

#21 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 June 2012 - 01:10 AM

Did he use creationist hypotheses as the basis for his conclusions or did he use observations of natural phenomena? Can his conclusions be repeated by others with other worldviews using only observations of natural phenomena?


His prediction was based on the assumption that God created the unverse ~6,000 years ago. So his prediction ran contrary to NASA's assumption that these two planets were much too old to have a magnetic field. The point was that creation makes accurate and verifiable predictions just as any true hypothesis should.

http://www.creationr.../21_3/21_3.html


Thanks.

#22 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 20 June 2012 - 09:01 AM

The point was that creation makes accurate and verifiable predictions just as any true hypothesis should.


Certainly, it's possible to make predictions based on any set of assumptions, no matter how outlandish. I could assume that fairies love feathers and can't stand to see them get hurt. I could assume that when a feather falls, the fairies catch it and lower it gently to earth. I could predict, based on those assumptions, that feathers will fall slower than stones.

Real-world naturalistic experiments confirm that my prediction is correct. But the same experiments can confirm the prediction with or without the assumption of the fairies. The fairies are unneccessary. The real-world naturalistic confirmation is necessary.

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:18 PM

Certainly, it's possible to make predictions based on any set of assumptions, no matter how outlandish. I could assume that fairies love feathers and can't stand to see them get hurt. I could assume that when a feather falls, the fairies catch it and lower it gently to earth. I could predict, based on those assumptions, that feathers will fall slower than stones.

Real-world naturalistic experiments confirm that my prediction is correct. But the same experiments can confirm the prediction with or without the assumption of the fairies. The fairies are unneccessary. The real-world naturalistic confirmation is necessary.


Of course this cuts both ways. Evolutionary assumptions can also be deemed as "fairys"..

Consider the fossil "evidence"... we dig up fossils and what does that empirically tell us?

Only that we have a bunch of fossils and that something died to become this fossil

Yet we can look at the fossils and observe any similarity, however the mechanism for this similarity cannot be derived from just looking at the conclusion (the fossils), otherwise it is merely an ad hoc assumption.



Can you see here that the evolutionary assumption, (assume "evolution did it"), puts it in the same realm of logic as your fairy analogy.

#24 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 21 June 2012 - 09:20 AM

Can you see here that the evolutionary assumption, (assume "evolution did it"), puts it in the same realm of logic as your fairy analogy.

I haven't said that it was different.

We were discussing predictions that creationists have made and I was pointing out that the fact they were creationists didn't factor into the predictions. If Newton formulated the laws of motion and gravity while wearing red socks, that didn't make any difference to the outcome. Other scientists wearing other colours of socks can confirm his results.

As for fossils, people with a wide variety of worldviews - Muslim, Buddhist, athesit, Christian, etc. - have come to the same conclusion. It's only a tiny minority of people, most of them lacking expertise in the field, that question the concusion. It seems likely that the discrepancy is based less on working assumptions than on knowledge of the subject.

As for the topic, has evolution made any predictions that add to its credibility?

A trivial example is microevolution. The creation model can accomodate microevolution but the evolution model requires it. Which model was it that predicted microevolution? (Hint: I'm old enough to remeber when creationists used to deny microevolution.)

Look at the contributions made to medical science by evolutionary theory. The evolution model says that humans are closely related to other animals, the physiology is very similar and the biochemistry is identical. Thus, it can be predicted that body parts, etc. from other animals could possibly be used in the human body. An obvious example is insuin.

The creation model, on the other hand, has no reason to make that prediction because it maintains that humans are fundamentally different from animals.

#25 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2012 - 11:41 AM

Good example. Newton's worldview didn't influence the conclusions that he drew based on observations of natural phenomena. His conclusions have been confirmed repeatedly by people with many different worldviews.



Did he use creationist hypotheses as the basis for his conclusions or did he use observations of natural phenomena? Can his conclusions be repeated by others with other worldviews using only observations of natural phenomena?

Everyone has a bias because everyone has a worldview, his beliefs played a role in determining his actions..

#26 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:02 PM

Everyone has a bias because everyone has a worldview, his beliefs played a role in determining his actions.


But it doesn't matter whether or not his worldview influenced his actions. People with different worldviews get the same result as he got. He didn't need to be a creationist to get there. Creationism was not a necessary factor in the result.

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:35 PM

I haven't said that it was different.

We were discussing predictions that creationists have made and I was pointing out that the fact they were creationists didn't factor into the predictions. If Newton formulated the laws of motion and gravity while wearing red socks, that didn't make any difference to the outcome. Other scientists wearing other colours of socks can confirm his results.

As for fossils, people with a wide variety of worldviews - Muslim, Buddhist, athesit, Christian, etc. - have come to the same conclusion. It's only a tiny minority of people, most of them lacking expertise in the field, that question the concusion. It seems likely that the discrepancy is based less on working assumptions than on knowledge of the subject.

As for the topic, has evolution made any predictions that add to its credibility?

A trivial example is microevolution. The creation model can accomodate microevolution but the evolution model requires it. Which model was it that predicted microevolution? (Hint: I'm old enough to remeber when creationists used to deny microevolution.)

Look at the contributions made to medical science by evolutionary theory. The evolution model says that humans are closely related to other animals, the physiology is very similar and the biochemistry is identical. Thus, it can be predicted that body parts, etc. from other animals could possibly be used in the human body. An obvious example is insuin.

The creation model, on the other hand, has no reason to make that prediction because it maintains that humans are fundamentally different from animals.


Sorry going to have to pick out some of your wrong claims here


Belief in Creation implies a universal law-giver hence it is the signifying reason for Science, understand the laws to understand the law-giver. Ironically it was Religious institutions, (to my knowledge predominantly Christian ones) that started Science as an extension of the study of God. It is also ironic that now-days people seek to claim that Science has nothing to do with Religion when history says that initially Science was 100% all about Religion.

There have been may predictions that have been made by Creation scientists which have been validated by science. The helium diffusion in rocks I cited before is one example. This data flies in the face of the time estimates from the assumed evolutionary data, I have already went into how the Creationist Helium diffusion model is far superior scientifically.

Evolution didn't "predict" microevolution since it was already known that things changed over time, hence the "prediction" is ad hoc and therefore isn't a prediction at all. If you read the origin of species, a lot of the rhetoric Darwin uses was from the established knowledge that things can change..

Evolution has literally done NOTHING for medicine. The belief in where we came from has no impact whatsoever on any medical studies ever undertaken, if you want a similar ad hoc claim about similarity from the creationist camp here is one... Similar designer = Similar Design = Similar products, creation also "predicts" similarity.



The only things that have come out of evolution are

i) Eugenics
ii) Racist / Fitness mentality on values on life, (this mentality is where Eugenics come from... kill the weak to let the strong survive in the future)




EDIT: I am glad you admit that evolutionary assumptions are the same as your fairy-hypothesis, considering you agree on this initial point would you continue to conclude that due to these initial assumptions that preclude every single piece of evolutionary "evidence" then would you agree that evolution is not scientific, but rather is merely a worldview, one which is believed based on ones own perceptions rather than actual evidences.

#28 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:53 PM

It is ironic that now-days people seek to claim that Science has nothing to do with Religion when history says that initially Science was 100% all about Religion.


The keyword there is "was". Science was founded by religion. It was religious people like Newton who realised that scientific discoveries don't depend on worldview. Ironically, the vast majority of scientific discoveries have been since Darwin's time.

There have been may predictions that have been made by Creation scientists which have been validated by science.


That's what I've been saying. They were validated by science without the extra baggage of worldview.

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:14 PM

The keyword there is "was". Science was founded by religion. It was religious people like Newton who realised that scientific discoveries don't depend on worldview. Ironically, the vast majority of scientific discoveries have been since Darwin's time.



That's what I've been saying. They were validated by science without the extra baggage of worldview.


...... I think you're confused here, Newton was a VERY Religious person and wrote more about God than he did about Physics... So I cannot see how you can claim that he realized that science doesn't depend on your worldview. Quotes from a quote website about Newton and Religion
  • Religion is partly fundamental & immutable partly circumstantial & mutable. The first was the Religion of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham Moses Christ & all the saints & consists of two parts our duty towards God & our duty towards man or piety & righteousness, piety which I will here call Godliness & Humanity.
  • Godliness consists in the knowledge love & worship of God, Humanity in love, righteousness & good offices towards man.
  • Of Godliness.
  • Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.
  • Of Atheism
  • Idolatry is a more dangerous crime because it is apt by the authority of Kings & under very specious pretenses to insinuate it self into mankind. Kings being apt to enjoyn the honour of their dead ancestors: & it seeming very plausible to honour the souls of Heroes & Saints & to believe that they can heare us & help us & are mediators between God & man & reside & act principally in the temples & statues dedicated to their honour & memory? And yet this being against the principal part of religion is in scripture condemned & detested above all other crimes. The sin consists first in omitting the service of the true God.
  • Of Idolatry
  • The other part of the true religion is our duty to man. We must love our neighbour as our selves, we must be charitable to all men for charity is the greatest of graces, greater then even faith or hope & covers a multitude of sins. We must be righteous & do to all men as we would they should do to us.
  • Of Humanity
  • Abel was righteous & Noah was a preacher of righteousness & by his righteousness he was saved from the flood. Christ is called the righteous & by his righteousness we are saved & except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees we shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven. Righteousness is the religion of the kingdom of heaven & even the property of God himself towards man. Righteousness & Love are inseparable for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
http://en.wikiquote....ki/Isaac_Newton





Would you claim that an evolutionist would go and research evidence that contradicts his / her worldview?.. (Considering the silence we normally get when a valid point which contradicts evolution is raised, I'd assume not)

Therefore, yes claims are validated by science but the end result is to determine whether a worldview is correct or not. As I said Science was the extension of learning about God. If a worldview is constantly refuted by reality then one must take a good look at that worldview to see if it fits with reality or is merely fiction. Considering our agreed point before about evolutionary assumptions and how they are not scientific, would you go so far as to agree that from this evolution is also fiction.


EDIT: You imply that Darwin had a hand in future scientific discoveries? Serious?!

You do realise that science is built on the works of their predecessors. The only things that Darwin and evolution has a hand in affecting is ecology and the identification / classification of animals and plants, (which are all arbitrary anyway). Claiming that Darwin somehow lead to greater scientific advancement really is a silly concept when you consider the nature of his model and what it can actually affect.

I'd say that much more was advanced in science when Karl Popper relayed his principles on Scientific verification, and the birth of the scientific method.... It is a shame that evolution is adversely affected by this since the scientific method demands empirical verification, yet (as we agreed with the evolutionary assumptions), there is no empirical basis for evolution.... (Hence evolutionists defy the scientific method with their assumption-"science"... aka pseudo-science)

#30 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:57 PM

I cannot see how you can claim that he realized that science doesn't depend on your worldview.


As I've explained several times, Newton's work has been confirmed repeatedly by people with many different worldviews. Regardless of how important he thought his worldview was to his work, the same results can be obtained without reference to any specific worldview.

Would you claim that an evolutionist would go and research evidence that contradicts his / her worldview?


Scientists follow the evidence. They don't avoid anything that might challenge their worldview. Nobel Prizes are awarded for work that challenges the status quo.

If a worldview is constantly refuted by reality then one must take a good look at that worldview to see if it fits with reality or is merely fiction.


Exactly. The problem is that you have creationists with no expertise in biology claiming to "refute" the experts in the field. When you get on an airplane, do you march up to the cockpit and tell the pilot he's flying all wrong? Or do you acknowledge his expertise? Would you refuse to fly with a pilot whose worldview was different from yours? Or would you understand that his worldview doesn't effect his ability to fly?

Considering our agreed point before about evolutionary assumptions and how they are not scientific, would you go so far as to agree that from this evolution is also fiction.


I don't know what agreed point you're refering to. I certainly wouldn't agree that evolutionary assumptions are not scientific.

You imply that Darwin had a hand in the future scientific discoveries?


Darwin's work definitely was the foundation of modern biology. At least, that's what the biologists tell me. But my point was that letting go of the religious paradigm was what allowed an explosion of scientific discovery.

I'd say that much more was advanced in science when Karl Popper relayed his principles on Scientific verification, and the birth of the scientific method.


That's what I've been saying. The important thing in science is the verification. A Christian proposes a hypothesis and a Muslim verifies it. An atheist proposes a hypothesis and a Christian verifies it.

You do know that Popper accepted evolution, don't you?

#31 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:43 PM

The keyword there is "was". Science was founded by religion. It was religious people like Newton who realised that scientific discoveries don't depend on worldview. Ironically, the vast majority of scientific discoveries have been since Darwin's time.



That's what I've been saying. They were validated by science without the extra baggage of worldview.

A worldview is how someone views the world by my definition. I define science as 'knowledge'. What do you mean by 'worldview' and 'science'?
Don't scientists interperet the evidence based on their knowledge, beliefs, and how they view the world?

#32 Galileo

Galileo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • England

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:30 AM

A worldview is how someone views the world by my definition. I define science as 'knowledge'. What do you mean by 'worldview' and 'science'?
Don't scientists interperet the evidence based on their knowledge, beliefs, and how they view the world?

Scientists should never interperet evidence based on their beliefs or worldview.

#33 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 22 June 2012 - 08:43 AM

Scientists should never interperet evidence based on their beliefs or worldview.

Yes, Mankind's scientists would be better off with infinite knowledge which they don't have. Posted Image

#34 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 22 June 2012 - 08:46 AM

A worldview is how someone views the world by my definition. I define science as 'knowledge'. What do you mean by 'worldview' and 'science'?


I have no argument with your definitions. I might refine the definition of science to, "a systematic method of obtaining knowledge."

Don't scientists interperet the evidence based on their knowledge, beliefs, and how they view the world?


Science is a communal activity. Scientists with different worldviews cancel out the biases of each other's worldviews. An atheist points out the biases of a Muslim scientist. A Christian points out the biases of a Taoist scientist. When all of the worldview-based biases are removed, what's left is considered reliable by all. In practice, of course, most scientists are careful to remove their own biases before anybody else notices them.

#35 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 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 June 2012 - 10:45 AM

1. As I've explained several times, Newton's work has been confirmed repeatedly by people with many different worldviews. Regardless of how important he thought his worldview was to his work, the same results can be obtained without reference to any specific worldview.



2. Scientists follow the evidence. They don't avoid anything that might challenge their worldview. Nobel Prizes are awarded for work that challenges the status quo.



3. Exactly. The problem is that you have creationists with no expertise in biology claiming to "refute" the experts in the field. When you get on an airplane, do you march up to the cockpit and tell the pilot he's flying all wrong? Or do you acknowledge his expertise? Would you refuse to fly with a pilot whose worldview was different from yours? Or would you understand that his worldview doesn't effect his ability to fly?



4. I don't know what agreed point you're refering to. I certainly wouldn't agree that evolutionary assumptions are not scientific.



5. Darwin's work definitely was the foundation of modern biology. At least, that's what the biologists tell me.

6. But my point was that letting go of the religious paradigm was what allowed an explosion of scientific discovery.



7. That's what I've been saying. The important thing in science is the verification. A Christian proposes a hypothesis and a Muslim verifies it. An atheist proposes a hypothesis and a Christian verifies it.

8. You do know that Popper accepted evolution, don't you?


1. That has no relevance to my point, you were claiming that Newton was supporting your claims when I showed you that his very ideology of leaning about God via science runs contrary to your claims here. Just admit that you were trying an argument from authority by name dropping, too bad it didn't work.

2. Really.... Then why are these contradictions I have posted before are routinely ignored by you?.... You are proof of the evolutionary dodging tactics. The same can be said for my lecturers, since when I asked them tough questions I'd normally get a run around response. You have to admit that I am correct in claiming that an evolutionist would never go research evidence against their own (heartfelt) position / worldview.

3. Who are these people, I am certainly not one since I am studying Biotechnology. Hence your claim here only seeks to throw mud at people, not even the people you are debating here, therefore it has no relevance.

4. Was wondering when you'd try and backpedal out of this.

Post #23 I said

"Can you see here that the evolutionary assumption, (assume "evolution did it"), puts it in the same realm of logic as your fairy analogy."

You responded in post #24 with

"I haven't said that it was different."


Meaning that you agree they are the same. Thus you agreed with my initial statement, in that assuming evolution is true is the same logic as your fairy analogy.

So you are claiming that evolutionary assumptions are scientific? On what basis are they scientific? and why are other assumptions ie: assume God exists, are not scientific assumptions. (Hint: read my signature.... scientific assumption is an oxymoron..... since science deals with observable facts and assumptions do not deal with facts rather they are merely perceptions of reality on what we perceive to be facts.


5. That is what they say, yet as I explained logically they are wrong since evolution can only impact on what it influences.... the only thing it influences is the nomenclature and classification of organisms, thus leading to ecology. ANything outside of this has had no influence from evolution, and people who claim that it does are merely indoctrinated in the belief that it is.... (Believe me, at university I've had evolution shoved down my throat worse than attending any church service).

A good test of my claim would be.... Try and envisage what would happen if there was no evolution.... There would still be Biology since Biology existed before evolution.. Chemistry would be unchanged, Physics unchanged, Medicine unchanged, Engineering unchanged. The only things that would change are

i) classification of organisms would exist but not have its underlying premise of evolution
ii) Assumption-based pseudoscience would not have a foot in the door, since evolutionary assumption science doesn't exist

The 2nd point ensures that science would benefit greatly if evolution never existed, the fact that you yourself advocates evolutionary assumptions as science proves my point here. Assumptions are not science. Period.

However I would suggest reading my entire post since you haven't bothered to claim on the supporting argument I made.... (avoiding the arguments is not a good "tactic" and is more evidence of the evolutionist-dodging technique). I actually repeated the same sentiment above however here is a quote of what you missed.

"You do realise that science is built on the works of their predecessors. The only things that Darwin and evolution has a hand in affecting is ecology and the identification / classification of animals and plants, (which are all arbitrary anyway). Claiming that Darwin somehow lead to greater scientific advancement really is a silly concept when you consider the nature of his model and what it can actually affect."


6. Care to have evidence of this "explosion"... considering the detriment of evolution allowing assumption-"science" to be viewed as actual science would defy your claim here.

7. And? What is your point?

8. Yet another failed attempt at an argument from authority by name dropping... Karl Popper was critical of evolution on the basis of its lack of empirical evidence and methods to verify its claims.

"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection … turns out … to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power … of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.
I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems."

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355


So Karl Popper explains that evolution by natural selection is a tautology and is also metaphysical in scope.

#36 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 22 June 2012 - 12:22 PM

1. Just admit that you were trying an argument from authority by name dropping, too bad it didn't work.


I didn't bring up Newton nor did I cite him as an authority nor did I suggest that he supported my claims in any way. I said that Newton's work can be repeated by people with different worldvews and therefore his worldview was not necessary to the results of his work. That's all. I thought it was a simple concept but apparently not.

2. Really.... Then why are these contradictions I have posted before are routinely ignored by you?


If I've missed responding to something, feel free to point it out specifically.

3. Who are these people, I am certainly not one since I am studying Biotechnology.


Have you heard of Project Steve? It's a list of more than a thousand scientists, half of them biologists, who support evolution. All of them are named Steve or some variation of Steve. The implication is that there are many more scientists (and biologists) who are not named Steve who also support evolution. My point is that creationists are a tiny minority.

This is not an argument from authority. It's an argument from accepting what trained professionals say over what some guy on a website says.

4. Post #23 I said
"Can you see here that the evolutionary assumption, (assume "evolution did it"), puts it in the same realm of logic as your fairy analogy."
You responded in post #24 with
"I haven't said that it was different."
Meaning that you agree they are the same.


No, it doesn't mean that at all. I told you what I didn't say; I didn't affirm the opposite. If I don't tell you my name is Steve, that doesn't mean it isn't.

So you are claiming that evolutionary assumptions are scientific? On what basis are they scientific?


If you give specific examples, I'll try to explain how they're scientific. In general, they're scientific because they can be verified by other scientists.

and why are other assumptions ie: assume God exists, are not scientific assumptions.


There's no reason why you can't assume that God exists, like Newton did. But as I've been saying, his results have been verified by others who don't make the same assumption. That particular assumption is not necessary to reach the conclusion. As long as scientists agree on the assumptions that are necessary, there's no problem verifying results. If there's disagreement about the underlying assumptions which prevents verification of results, it isn't science any more; it's just a collection of opinions.

5. That is what they say....


For the moment, I'm going to stick with my policy of accepting the expertise of tens of thousands of trained, working scientists over the opinion of some guy on a website. If you want to go into more detail, by all means let's do that but this post is getting spread pretty thin as it is.

6. Care to have evidence of this "explosion"...


Well... I never thought you'd question that there was an explosion of scientific discovery after Darwin. If you want to get into the contributions of evolution to that explosion, that's a pretty big topic in itself and I'm no expert. I'm willing to drop that point if you like.

7. And? What is your point?


My point, yet again, is that the contributions made by creationists like Newton did not depend on their worldview.

8. Yet another failed attempt at an argument from authority by name dropping... Karl Popper was critical of evolution on the basis of its lack of empirical evidence and methods to verify its claims.


Again, it isn't name dropping on my part. I didn't bring him up.

In Popper's own words:

“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation”
-- Dialectica 32:344-346

"It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."
-- Letter. New Scientist, 87:611

"Appealing to his [Einstein's] way of expressing himself in theological terms, I said: If God had wanted to put everything into the universe from the beginning, He would have created a universe without change, without organisms and evolution, and without man and man's experience of change. But he seems to have thought that a live universe with events unexpected even by Himself would be more interesting than a dead one."
-- As quoted in Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes by Charles Hartshorne (1984)

"The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism."
-- "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind." Dialectica, 32:339-355



#37 Truthseeker

Truthseeker

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • home

Posted 24 June 2012 - 11:10 AM

What Biologists publish is their own view, all people are biased, I am and I'll be a scientist soon. You need to realise that being a scientist doesn't make that person infallible, nor does it make their words golden. You need to do some critical thinking for yourself rather than accept all people tell you. I did and that is why I am a critic of evolution on the basis of science.



This argument is invalid. Its what you call a logical fallacy. As very aptly described by Plato in the Republic, a craftsman, in so much as he is a craftsman, seeks only to further his craft toward more perfection, more refinement and more excellence. Similarly, this analogy can be applied today to a modern biologist. A biologist in so much as he is a biologist, seeks only toward the refinement of his art, i.e biology. And in his professional capacity he will not let his personal biases rule over him, otherwise his craft(art) would suffer. The strides made by biology in the last 2-3 centuries are proof that the science of biology is progressing, so there is no basis for a claim that all biologists would be prejudiced about one specific theory.

Won't respond to your other points, they are just biased opinions, speculations and wishful thinking. Too much of it, i'm afraid. Its pretty self evident , for example why greater depth in the geological column means you are going further back in time.

#38 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:21 PM

This argument is invalid. Its what you call a logical fallacy. As very aptly described by Plato in the Republic, a craftsman, in so much as he is a craftsman, seeks only to further his craft toward more perfection, more refinement and more excellence. Similarly, this analogy can be applied today to a modern biologist. A biologist in so much as he is a biologist, seeks only toward the refinement of his art, i.e biology. And in his professional capacity he will not let his personal biases rule over him, otherwise his craft(art) would suffer. The strides made by biology in the last 2-3 centuries are proof that the science of biology is progressing, so there is no basis for a claim that all biologists would be prejudiced about one specific theory.

Won't respond to your other points, they are just biased opinions, speculations and wishful thinking. Too much of it, i'm afraid. Its pretty self evident , for example why greater depth in the geological column means you are going further back in time.

Ringo, Nonbias = conformity right? but that's still biased, or can you explain how to be nonbiased in the context of reality? Thanks.
Truthseeker or anyone could you please point out the type of fallacy, if possible using if-then logic, or so its easy to understand, thanks. Hope you all have a good weekend and are able to get water if you get hot/thirsty its hot out there.

#39 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:54 PM

Ringo, Nonbias = conformity right? but that's still biased, or can you explain how to be nonbiased in the context of reality?


I haven't said that an individual can be completely non-biased but that science as a collective cancels out different biases.

Let me try a slightly different approach. Take these equations:
A + X + Y = Z
B + X + Y = Z
C + X + Y = Z

Solving for A, B and C:
A = Z - X - Y
B = Z - X - Y
C = Z - X - Y

Thus:
A = B = C

The values of A, B and C are interchangeable. The result is always Z.

Simlarly in science, as long as the result is the same, the biases A, B and C are equivalent. On the other hand, if a different result is obtained:
D + X + Y = W

we can say that the bias D interfered with the result.

#40 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 24 June 2012 - 03:43 PM

I haven't said that an individual can be completely non-biased but that science as a collective cancels out different biases.

Let me try a slightly different approach. Take these equations:
A + X + Y = Z
B + X + Y = Z
C + X + Y = Z

Solving for A, B and C:
A = Z - X - Y
B = Z - X - Y
C = Z - X - Y

Thus:
A = B = C

The values of A, B and C are interchangeable. The result is always Z.

Simlarly in science, as long as the result is the same, the biases A, B and C are equivalent. On the other hand, if a different result is obtained:
D + X + Y = W

we can say that the bias D interfered with the result.

Ok that helps to see where your coming from, but I was trying to talk about definition #2 and not #1 for bias(Definition http://dictionary.re...com/browse/bias) (which I think you were talking about, I dislike math Posted Image)
I'll try to think about this more, and be able to explain, thanks. It's hard for me to put the disagreement into words right now and this is what I tried to start talking about in my YEC Explain post. http://evolutionfair...l=&fromsearch=1

Thanks for your time,.
P.S. you can post info there too if you want, its a slightly different topic.
I think we are having trouble because of our faith, IMHO




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users