"Assumptions" is a magic word

philadiddle · #1 23rd September 2009, 03:49 AM

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.

gluadys · #2 23rd September 2009, 03:57 AM

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.

marktheblake · #3 23rd September 2009, 11:41 AM

Who are these creationists that you refer to?

Muppets like me or credible scientists like Jonathan Sarfati?

sfs · #4 23rd September 2009, 12:49 PM

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.

marktheblake · #5 23rd September 2009, 12:59 PM

that doesnt mean he isnt a credible scientist.

sfs · #6 23rd September 2009, 01:31 PM

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.)

Chesterton · #7 23rd September 2009, 05:45 PM

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.

juvenissun · #8 23rd September 2009, 09:14 PM

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.

sfs · #9 23rd September 2009, 10:46 PM

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.

gluadys · #10 24th September 2009, 07:48 AM

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.