Jump to content


Photo

What Are The Moral Pillars Of Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#1 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 13 September 2006 - 07:17 PM

In just about every E vs. C debate. The morals of being a Christian are brought up to make the creationist feel guilty about something. But when the subjects of things that evolutionists have done in the past are brought up. There is never guilt expressed or felt. It is as if you can get away with it, or explain it away. Then what ever you are promoting is okay.

So if evolutionists have some type of moral code, that keeps them from passing off fraudulent information as truth. What is this code, and can someone list it? Some may make the reference to peer review. Peer review is not a standard for truth. It is only a judgement for accepting presented information by the supposed peers of that person. Problem is, when there is really no standard. Political thinking becomes part of the process. And as we can all observe, through our own governments, such a process can become very flawed.

There is also political problems in religion. When a group of well educated pastors decide they make the rules. And some of those rules are not really backed up in the word of God (taken out of context). Then they in effect are allowing themselves to become kings, as such, over such a religion that would allow them to do this.

So this is not a one sided question. Both sides have this problem. But to what standard does the evolutionist abide by to keep past bad history from repeating itself?

Example: When I went to high school, I was told about some scientific standards on how theories were supposed to work. Today, those same standards are more or less non-existent. No one ever talks about them. And I really have not seen where a current theory has followed such a process.

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2006 - 07:43 PM

In just about every E vs. C debate. The morals of being a Christian are brought up to make the creationist feel guilty about something. But when the subjects of things that evolutionists have done in the past are brought up. There is never guilt expressed or felt. It is as if you can get away with it, or explain it away. Then what ever you are promoting is okay.


I have seen arguments, where both sides have taken the moral high ground.

However, IMO if a Christian holds to his philosophy, then he is bound to follow a moral code of a ‘higher’ (or additional) standard than the rest of the population not holding his view. This is just like being in the military, i.e. you are bound by civil law, in addition to the additional military law.

So if evolutionists have some type of moral code, that keeps them from passing off fraudulent information as truth. What is this code, and can someone list it? Some may make the reference to peer review. Peer review is not a standard for truth. It is only a judgement for accepting presented information by the supposed peers of that person. Problem is, when there is really no standard. Political thinking becomes part of the process. And as we can all observe, through our own governments, such a process can become very flawed.


We don’t see evidence for evolution as fraudulent. The standard is the same held for any other scientific discipline. Science does not claim to search for truth, only the best explanation to fit the facts. If science found a ‘truth’ it logically must never have the possibility of being overturned, yet theories of science have and all together common theme of being overturned, improved, or revised.

There is also political problems in religion. When a group of well educated pastors decide they make the rules. And some of those rules are not really backed up in the word of God (taken out of context). Then they in effect are allowing themselves to become kings, as such, over such a religion that would allow them to do this.


Sadly an all too common reality of life, not only in religion, but in politics.

So this is not a one sided question. Both sides have this problem. But to what standard does the evolutionist abide by to keep past bad history from repeating itself?


openness.


Example: When I went to high school, I was told about some scientific standards on how theories were supposed to work. Today, those same standards are more or less non-existent. No one ever talks about them. And I really have not seen where a current theory has followed such a process.


In what way have scientific theories supposedly working been changed from then till now?

Your example was not an example.

#3 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 13 September 2006 - 08:17 PM

In what way have scientific theories supposedly working been changed from then till now?

View Post


If I may. And, Ikester, if I am wrong please let me know.

I think what Ikester is saying is that we all learned that the scientific process involved something called the scientific method. In school, I definitely remember having the impression that the scientific method was like "gospel." You ran your theory through those steps, and your theory was "golden."

What we find today, however, is that unlike most other scientific fields of study, evolutionists feel they are exempt from the scientific method. If I had a $1 for every time I've heard an Evo say, "Evolution isn't about proof, it's about the 'best explanation' for the evidence," I'd be able to retire young.

I think what Ikester is asking is, "What moral code allows evolutionists to slip off of that foundation that would be the bulwark, the cornerstone, of any other scientific endeavor?"

I mean, what reasonable, logical controls can a discipline have when they can say, "We don't need proof. We just need to have a good explanation?"

Is that close, Ikester?

Dave

#4 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 14 September 2006 - 01:27 AM

If I may. And, Ikester, if I am wrong please let me know.

I think what Ikester is saying is that we all learned that the scientific process involved something called the scientific method. In school, I definitely remember having the impression that the scientific method was like "gospel." You ran your theory through those steps, and your theory was "golden."

What we find today, however, is that unlike most other scientific fields of study, evolutionists feel they are exempt from the scientific method. If I had a $1 for every time I've heard an Evo say, "Evolution isn't about proof, it's about the 'best explanation' for the evidence," I'd be able to retire young.

I think what Ikester is asking is, "What moral code allows evolutionists to slip off of that foundation that would be the bulwark, the cornerstone, of any other scientific endeavor?"

I mean, what reasonable, logical controls can a discipline have when they can say, "We don't need proof. We just need to have a good explanation?"

Is that close, Ikester?

Dave

View Post


You got it. Hit the nail on the head.

So far, I only see a stance taken, and a claim that evolution evidence is never fraudulent. I can't argue with bias logic like that.

#5 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:49 AM

You got it. Hit the nail on the head.

So far, I only see a stance taken, and a claim that evolution evidence is never fraudulent. I can't argue with bias logic like that.

View Post


Evidence can be fabricated. But hoaxes and frauds are usually weeded out by good application of the scientific method.

#6 odinmagick

odinmagick

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • az

Posted 14 September 2006 - 11:52 AM

What we find today, however, is that unlike most other scientific fields of study, evolutionists feel they are exempt from the scientific method. If I had a $1 for every time I've heard an Evo say, "Evolution isn't about proof, it's about the 'best explanation' for the evidence," I'd be able to retire young.

View Post


I, too, am tired of people saying thier position is above question. In a murder case both sides have to provide evidence. One side shows evidence for the guy murdering someone and the other shows the evidence for why the guy didn't murder someone.

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 September 2006 - 01:39 PM

chance>
In what way have scientific theories supposedly working been changed from then till now?

Dave>
<snip> we all learned that the scientific process involved something called the scientific method. In school, I definitely remember having the impression that the scientific method was like "gospel." You ran your theory through those steps, and your theory was "golden."

What we find today, however, is that unlike most other scientific fields of study, evolutionists feel they are exempt from the scientific method.


ikester7579

You got it. Hit the nail on the head.

So far, I only see a stance taken, and a claim that evolution evidence is never fraudulent. I can't argue with bias logic like that.


It has been my endeavour to show that those feeling are unjustified and that evolution conforms to the scientific method.


If I had a $1 for every time I've heard an Evo say, "Evolution isn't about proof, it's about the 'best explanation' for the evidence,"


A perfectly compatible explanation for any scientific endeavour, see the wiki for a good definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science extract,

Scientists use model to refer to a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions that can be tested by experiment or observation.


I think what Ikester is asking is, "What moral code allows evolutionists to slip off of that foundation that would be the bulwark, the cornerstone, of any other scientific endeavor?"


Firstly I totally reject your claim that there is anything to slip off of, so there exists no moral code exempting any discipline of science to be treated fundamentally different.

I mean, what reasonable, logical controls can a discipline have when they can say, "We don't need proof. We just need to have a good explanation?"


Well that’s about as good as any science can do, knew knowledge can overturn old theories, if science did not work that way, you would be stuck in a rut forever trying to prove a wrong theory.



As I have stated many times, the only way to settle such matters is to post an example of

ikester7579>
So if evolutionists have some type of moral code, that keeps them from passing off fraudulent information as truth.

and then investigate such a claim and discuss. After all it is possible that you or your source may be mistaken, yes?

#8 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 14 September 2006 - 06:26 PM

Howdy Chance,

Your replies here bring to mind a couple of thoughts, and actually follows through along the same lines that I was going to use to continue our other discussion. So, I'll consider that other discussion abandoned, and continued here.

It has been my endeavour to show that those feeling are unjustified and that evolution conforms to the scientific method.

View Post


It's been about 34 years since I acquired my degree in a scientific field, so I might be remembering wrong. My impression was that the scientific method was used as an unassailable guideline for scientists to arrive at unbiased proofs of their hypotheses. Once they accomplished that, they could take their theory to the bank -- so to speak.

Anything else is just guessing, open to varying interpretation, and certainly should not be forced into impressionable young minds as fact to the exclusion of other varied interpretations of the same evidence.

So, I'm curious what you would offer if I asked you to prove evolution using the scientific method.

And, in order to remain OT, I'm wondering if you don't really feel that there is a difference between the scientific method as it applies to some fields of science, but not to evolution. If so, what are an evolution scientist's moral grounds for deciding that? After all, there is a lot riding on the scientific viability of a theory that has worked itself so completely into government, society, education, the media and even religion.

Dave

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 September 2006 - 06:56 PM

Dave, ikester7579

Tell you what, how about we adopt the definitions of science, theory, hypothesis, etc, as written in “in the beginning was information” by Dr. Gitt (a creationist of some standing). In his opening chapters he defines what science is and is not, and it’s limitations.

I would be interested in your opinion on those opening chapters.

You can find the link for the free to download book, in this forum in Suggested Reading Post #16.

#10 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:44 AM

Dave, ikester7579

Tell you what, how about we adopt the definitions of science, theory, hypothesis, etc, as written in “in the beginning was information” by Dr. Gitt (a creationist  of some standing).  In his opening chapters he defines what science is and is not, and it’s limitations.

I would be interested in your opinion on those opening chapters. 

You can find the link for the free to download book, in this forum in Suggested Reading Post #16.

View Post


I've pinned the Suggested Reading thread for everyone's convenience. I also recommend a new thread be created as this one is diverging off of the OP.

Fred

#11 Guest_kshackle_*

Guest_kshackle_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 September 2006 - 05:52 PM

In just about every E vs. C debate. The morals of being a Christian are brought up to make the creationist feel guilty about something. But when the subjects of things that evolutionists have done in the past are brought up. There is never guilt expressed or felt. It is as if you can get away with it, or explain it away. Then what ever you are promoting is okay.


The morals of the Christian are brought up only when they are acting in a misleading of dishonest fashion. Scientific theories, such as evolution, describe how nature operates.....not how people *should* behave. Human morality is outside the realm of scientific enquiry....however, scientists themselves do have their own moral codes...they are human after all.


So if evolutionists have some type of moral code, that keeps them from passing off fraudulent information as truth.


I have seen many, many creationists attempt to pass off fraudulent information as *truth*. There is nothing fraudulent about evolutionary theory.....it simply describes how biology operates.

What is this code, and can someone list it?


Personal morals are personal.....likely to be somewhat different for each person you talk to.

Some may make the reference to peer review. Peer review is not a standard for truth. It is only a judgement for accepting presented information by the supposed peers of that person.


Peer review is to ensure that published scientific papers are critically reviewed to ensure that they contain no errors and are properly supported with *evidence*.


Problem is, when there is really no standard. Political thinking becomes part of the process. And as we can all observe, through our own governments, such a process can become very flawed.


Old Dubya is certainly the poster boy for flawed government.

There is also political problems in religion. When a group of well educated pastors decide they make the rules. And some of those rules are not really backed up in the word of God (taken out of context). Then they in effect are allowing themselves to become kings, as such, over such a religion that would allow them to do this.


I cannot see what relevance this has to science.

So this is not a one sided question. Both sides have this problem. But to what standard does the evolutionist abide by to keep past bad history from repeating itself?


The standard of supporting what you say with empirical evidence that any *reasonable* person can see and accept.

Example: When I went to high school, I was told about some scientific standards on how theories were supposed to work. Today, those same standards are more or less non-existent. No one ever talks about them. And I really have not seen where a current theory has followed such a process.

View Post


Let's see....observation, hypothesis, testing.....more observation.....modify hypothesis.....more testing......seems to still work pretty well.

Ken

#12 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 09:25 AM

Evidence can be fabricated.  But hoaxes and frauds are usually weeded out by good application of the scientific method.

View Post


The problem with your post isn’t that “Evidence can be fabricated”, or that “hoaxes and frauds are usually weeded out”. These things can be perpetrated or committed and corrected by members of both sides of the argument. There are faux believers on both sides of the debate that are, shall we say, less than honorable.

The problem is with the evolutionist’s method of defining the “scientific method”! According to that flawed method, the evolutionist cannot even define “Morals”, because; using the naturalistic scientific method, “Morals” cannot be tested…

As a matter of fact, using the naturalistic scientific method, the evolutionist cannot test or explain naturalistic scientific method!

#13 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 09:28 AM

It's been about 34 years since I acquired my degree in a scientific field, so I might be remembering wrong.

View Post


Whew Dave!!! You’re even older than I am :)

#14 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:18 PM

If I may. And, Ikester, if I am wrong please let me know.

I think what Ikester is saying is that we all learned that the scientific process involved something called the scientific method. In school, I definitely remember having the impression that the scientific method was like "gospel." You ran your theory through those steps, and your theory was "golden."

What we find today, however, is that unlike most other scientific fields of study, evolutionists feel they are exempt from the scientific method. If I had a $1 for every time I've heard an Evo say, "Evolution isn't about proof, it's about the 'best explanation' for the evidence," I'd be able to retire young.

I think what Ikester is asking is, "What moral code allows evolutionists to slip off of that foundation that would be the bulwark, the cornerstone, of any other scientific endeavor?"

I mean, what reasonable, logical controls can a discipline have when they can say, "We don't need proof. We just need to have a good explanation?"

Is that close, Ikester?

Dave

View Post


That quote about best evidence not proof is entirely correct. Science never achieves 'proof' in any field. That isn't limited to evolution.

#15 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:44 PM

That quote about best evidence not proof is entirely correct. Science never achieves 'proof' in any field. That isn't limited to evolution.

View Post

That is true, in that science is dependent on inductive logic.

However, the quality of logic demanded of evolutionists is far lower than the quality demanded in other fields.

#16 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 23 March 2009 - 04:56 PM

That is true, in that science is dependent on inductive logic.

However, the quality of logic demanded of evolutionists is far lower than the quality demanded in other fields.

View Post


There's a lack of direct evidence of some claims of evolution, but the same is true of other historical sciences such as cosmology. I'm guessing that's what you're thinking about, am I on the right lines? Then the question comes down to - should historical sciences be counted as science? I think the answer is yes, as the scientific method can definitely be applied to them. Evolution does make predictions that could easily be falsified, and with some simple concepts it explains many facts about the world.

#17 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 23 March 2009 - 06:48 PM

There's a lack of direct evidence of some claims of evolution, but the same is true of other historical sciences such as cosmology. I'm guessing that's what you're thinking about, am I on the right lines? Then the question comes down to - should historical sciences be counted as science? I think the answer is yes, as the scientific method can definitely be applied to them. Evolution does make predictions that could easily be falsified, and with some simple concepts it explains many facts about the world.

View Post


The historical sciences works quite well for historical facts that fit with the scientific method. The problem comes in when time is added to help the story stick together.

Evolution doesn’t “explain many facts about the world”, it gives one’s opinion of the evidences. Then cries foul if questioned by other’s opinion…

#18 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 24 March 2009 - 11:08 AM

That quote about best evidence not proof is entirely correct. Science never achieves 'proof' in any field. That isn't limited to evolution.

View Post


So, you’re saying science can’t prove anything, or science doesn’t prove anything?

#19 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 25 March 2009 - 11:31 AM

So, you’re saying science can’t prove anything, or science doesn’t prove anything?

View Post


yes, that's what I'm saying.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2009 - 11:36 AM

yes, that's what I'm saying.

View Post


If absolutes didn't exist, then that would be true, but unfortunately it's not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users