| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |  | | 
23rd September 2009, 03:49 AM
|  | Drumming circles around you 31  | | Join Date: 23rd December 2004 Location: Canada
Posts: 3,493
Blessings: 931
Reps: 26,510,215,182,048,496 (power: 26,510,215,182,059) | | | "Assumptions" is a magic word Creationists say "Assumptions" like how magicians say "Abracadabra." When a lot of research, experiments, and empirical evidence are presented, the creationists say "assumptions" to magically make it all go away. Why argue the actual data when you can convince your audience it is wrong with one simple word? I've been noticing this more and more as I discuss science and Christianity on other forums and read some creationist literature. It's always "they are basing it on assumptions" or "take away their assumptions and it all falls apart".
"Presuppositions" is another one.
So annoying.
__________________ "The Bible does not lend any moral support to natural selection...Ergo, natural selection is not a process that human beings should support." - SkyWriting | 
23rd September 2009, 03:57 AM
|  | Legend
 | | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,106
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by philadiddle Creationists say "Assumptions" like how magicians say "Abracadabra." When a lot of research, experiments, and empirical evidence are presented, the creationists say "assumptions" to magically make it all go away. Why argue the actual data when you can convince your audience it is wrong with one simple word? I've been noticing this more and more as I discuss science and Christianity on other forums and read some creationist literature. It's always "they are basing it on assumptions" or "take away their assumptions and it all falls apart".
"Presuppositions" is another one.
So annoying.
That's for sure. Especially when it turns out the alleged assumptions are actually well-founded conclusions.
__________________ "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert | 
23rd September 2009, 11:41 AM
| | Member 46  | | Join Date: 20th August 2008 Location: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Posts: 1,039
Blessings: 34,768 My Mood
Reps: 219,801,598,516,757 (power: 219,801,598,521) | | | Who are these creationists that you refer to?
Muppets like me or credible scientists like Jonathan Sarfati?
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion. | 
23rd September 2009, 12:49 PM
|  | Senior Member 52  | | Join Date: 30th June 2003 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,505
Blessings: 997 My Mood
Reps: 60,432,235,365,689,568 (power: 60,432,235,365,700) | | Originally Posted by marktheblake Who are these creationists that you refer to?
Muppets like me or credible scientists like Jonathan Sarfati?
I rarely laugh out loud when reading the web, but I did this time. Sarfati may be fine as a chemist (I really wouldn't know), but he has zero credibility when it comes to biology. At least that was my conclusion, after several interchanges with him on the web. | 
23rd September 2009, 12:59 PM
| | Member 46  | | Join Date: 20th August 2008 Location: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Posts: 1,039
Blessings: 34,768 My Mood
Reps: 219,801,598,516,757 (power: 219,801,598,521) | | | that doesnt mean he isnt a credible scientist.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion. | 
23rd September 2009, 01:31 PM
|  | Senior Member 52  | | Join Date: 30th June 2003 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,505
Blessings: 997 My Mood
Reps: 60,432,235,365,689,568 (power: 60,432,235,365,700) | | Originally Posted by marktheblake that doesnt mean he isnt a credible scientist.
As I said, he may well be a credible scientist -- does he actually do any science? But his approach to debates about evolution is as flawed as any. (I don't remember whether he specifically uses the "assumption" or "presupposition" dodge, so I can't directly answer your original question.) | 
23rd September 2009, 05:45 PM
| | Gimme That Old Time Religion
 | | Join Date: 24th May 2008 Location: 'neath the marquee moon
Posts: 6,132
Blessings: 12,363,250
Reps: 474,698,394,322,854,976 (power: 474,698,394,322,865) | | Originally Posted by philadiddle Creationists say "Assumptions" like how magicians say "Abracadabra." When a lot of research, experiments, and empirical evidence are presented, the creationists say "assumptions" to magically make it all go away. Why argue the actual data when you can convince your audience it is wrong with one simple word? I've been noticing this more and more as I discuss science and Christianity on other forums and read some creationist literature. It's always "they are basing it on assumptions" or "take away their assumptions and it all falls apart".
"Presuppositions" is another one.
So annoying.
That's not a dodge. Assumptions underlie everything we claim to know. If you have a problem with that, I think the solution is to demonstrate that your assumptions are factual. | 
23rd September 2009, 09:14 PM
|  | Veteran 59  | | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,295
Blessings: 124,508
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Chesterton That's not a dodge. Assumptions underlie everything we claim to know. If you have a problem with that, I think the solution is to demonstrate that your assumptions are factual.
Exactly. Jesus tells us a parable about it: to build a house on sand. It is much easier to knock down the structure by attacking the very weak foundation.
That is why we call the evolution is a low quality model (leaking house on sand), and is far away from the fact. | 
23rd September 2009, 10:46 PM
|  | Senior Member 52  | | Join Date: 30th June 2003 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,505
Blessings: 997 My Mood
Reps: 60,432,235,365,689,568 (power: 60,432,235,365,700) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun Exactly. Jesus tells us a parable about it: to build a house on sand. It is much easier to knock down the structure by attacking the very weak foundation.
That is why we call the evolution is a low quality model (leaking house on sand), and is far away from the fact.
But you don't actually know much of anything about evolution -- you yourself have said that you don't know the evidence for it. Nor are you able to point to assumptions that evolution does not share with any other science. Creationists attack the "assumptions" behind evolution because they're convinced that it's wrong, but don't know why.
If this were not the case, we would see cogent, accurate critiques of the assumptions behind evolutionary biology. I've certainly never seen such a thing from a creationist. | 
24th September 2009, 07:48 AM
|  | Legend
 | | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,106
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by Chesterton That's not a dodge. Assumptions underlie everything we claim to know. If you have a problem with that, I think the solution is to demonstrate that your assumptions are factual.
There are genuine assumptions that do underlie everything we claim to know---like the assumption that the world was not created last Thursday and all our memories of time before that were implanted into our brains. But, as noted, these assumptions are general to ALL knowledge, not specifically about evolution.
Typically "assumptions" said to underlie evolution are not even identified, and when, rarely, they are, they tend to express confusion about evolution and scientific method. Such "assumptions" cannot be demonstrated to be factual, because they are not. But they have no value as an argument against evolution either.
The other confusion that arises is to identify as "assumptions" what are actually conclusions. A typical example in this case is common descent.
__________________ "Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | | | |