Who has the burden of proof? evolutionists or creationists

[joeskis]

Okay as I understand it the prosecution in a court of law has the burdon of proof. The defense doesn't have to provide any evidence that the defendant is innocent. They can merely show how the prosecutions evidence isn't correct or doesn't prove the defendent guilty. Because in the American system the defendent is innocent unless proven to be guilty.

So, let's just say, for arguement sake, that evolutionists are the prosecution. Afterall I often hear the stat that over 90% of the world believe in some sort of deity. And I assume most of these deity believing folks would believe their deity created us. So it is the evolutionists that must prove the intelligent design folks wrong.

Therefore, wouldn't showing how the evolutionists' arguments don't prove their case be enough?

It certianly isn't enough to prove an intelligent designer but it certainly is enough to keep that theory a valid one to have. Right?

 

[stumpjumper]

So, let's just say, for arguement sake, that evolutionists are the prosecution. Afterall I often hear the stat that over 90% of the world believe in some sort of deity. And I assume most of these deity believing folks would believe their deity created us. So it is the evolutionists that must prove the intelligent design folks wrong.

False dichotomy.

I believe in God and the theory of evolution.

You could probably even call me an intelligent design guy too but only in a teleological way...

 

[busterdog]

Okay as I understand it the prosecution in a court of law has the burdon of proof. The defense doesn't have to provide any evidence that the defendant is innocent. They can merely show how the prosecutions evidence isn't correct or doesn't prove the defendent guilty. Because in the American system the defendent is innocent unless proven to be guilty.

So, let's just say, for arguement sake, that evolutionists are the prosecution. Afterall I often hear the stat that over 90% of the world believe in some sort of deity. And I assume most of these deity believing folks would believe their deity created us. So it is the evolutionists that must prove the intelligent design folks wrong.

Therefore, wouldn't showing how the evolutionists' arguments don't prove their case be enough?

It certianly isn't enough to prove an intelligent designer but it certainly is enough to keep that theory a valid one to have. Right?

Excellent and unresolved question. Legal questions can bring some clarity to the debate. (And what standard of proof would be necessary to determine whether lawyers are not like laboratory rats?)

First issue: what is the question.

1. Did God intend to deceive people by making the earth look old. How could that not require a very high burden of proof?

2. Is the Bible inerrant? If we can find one fact out of whack, has the burden been met? Why can't we assume that more evidence will be collected? Does one piece of evidence establish reasonable doubt?

3. Will science eventualy solve every mystery by its own methods? High burden of proof to say yes.

4. Are we at the center of the universe? Hubble stated that a preferred position is abhorrent and must be avoided at all costs, which influence his theories on the inflation model, which became big bang. Doesn't Hubbel have an enormous burden to meet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOeNp1nxl4&mode=related&search=

If you assume the literal Word is ultimate authority, yes, the attempt to show error or evolution has a substantial burden of proof.

If you assume that all propositions, including those in the Bible, must be reconciled to the accepted observations of science, then those who view the Bible literally must bear the burden of proof.

It all depends on the nature of your question and your assumption about what the ultimate ground of truth is.

 

[crawfish]

This isn't a court case. If your faith tells you to believe the Bible literally, no matter how much it flies in the face of discovery, then do so, but if you're going to claim it's a science then you MUST provide solid evidence. Evolution already exists in that way.

 

[random_guy]

I don't think you understand how science works. Theories are separate entities. Disproving one theory doesn't prove the other. It just means the disproved theory is wrong. Likewise, evolution is one of the most supported theories in science, regardless of what Creationists think. That's why nearly ever single biology program teaches evolution and why nearly every single scientific organization supports it.

 

[Mallon]

Okay as I understand it the prosecution in a court of law has the burdon of proof. The defense doesn't have to provide any evidence that the defendant is innocent...
So, let's just say, for arguement sake, that evolutionists are the prosecution.

If the evolutionists were the prosecution, then yes, the burden of proof would be upon them.

But they're not. Evolution has proven itself, is established, and is taught in classrooms and practiced in labs the world over. No one can deny this. It is a thoroughly entrenched theory of biology and has a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it (whether you chose to believe it or not). Thus, should anyone hope to overthrow evolution -- such as YECs -- the burden of proof is on them, since they are the ones attempting to contradict established science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support, as they say. Unfortunately for YECism, no tangible evidence can objectively attest to an intangible creator, so the burden of proof will necessarily always remain upon them (faith doesn't cut it in science).

 

[stumpjumper]

.

1. Did God intend to deceive people by making the earth look old. How could that not require a very high burden of proof?

2. Is the Bible inerrant? If we can find one fact out of whack, has the burden been met? Why can't we assume that more evidence will be collected? Does one piece of evidence establish reasonable doubt?

3. Will science eventualy solve every mystery by its own methods? High burden of proof to say yes.

4. Are we at the center of the universe?

I don't see how any of these questions are relevant.

I would answer "No" to every one and still be a committed Christian.

My beliefs would also be consistent with knowledge of our natural world...

If you assume the literal Word is ultimate authority, yes, the attempt to show error or evolution has a substantial burden of proof.

Why make that assumption?

The Bible does not claim to be the Word of God nor inerrant.

Paul claims inspiration for the Torah in 2 Timothy but not inerrancy and The Gospel of John explicitly states that Jesus is the Word of God...

 

[busterdog]

This isn't a court case. If your faith tells you to believe the Bible literally, no matter how much it flies in the face of discovery, then do so, but if you're going to claim it's a science then you MUST provide solid evidence.

Makes good sense.

No, its not a court case. But, the nature of the court case is instructive, because the way in which these arguments are applied is very sloppy generally. Many arguments continue much longer than they should because people don't understand what the standard of proof is and how it applies to a certain proposition. Sometimes people seem to be applying the same standard of proof by implication, but don't even get that they are in agreement with the opposition camp. If both YEC and TE require a very high standard of proof to a given proposition, say the significance of the peppered moth, they can be in agreement even though their worldview is divergent.

 

[busterdog]

Why make that assumption?

The Bible does not claim to be the Word of God nor inerrant.

In response to your question, Because you must assume an a prior first, then you will know what your standard of proof is. We all agree that you must decide that first, YEC or TE, right?

As for your statement, from all I have seen, you have to sustain a very high burden of proof on the latter, as far as I am concerned, based on my assumptions.

 

[stumpjumper]

In response to your question, Because you must assume an a prior first, then you will know what your standard of proof is. We all agree that you must decide that first, YEC or TE, right?

If you assume a priori that the Bible is completely without error then you also have to accept a few other assumptions as well.

You take the human aspect out of the Bible and turn the authors of the various books into God's secretaries. You also must assume that every translator and copyist through the ages copied the individual books completely without error as well.

Additionally, you have made a statement that can be refuted and, by all accounts have, in a few areas.

When did Jesus celebrate the last supper?

Was it on Passover or the day before? John and the synoptics disagree on the date and it is an unequivocal disagreement.

As for your statement, from all I have seen, you have to sustain a very high burden of proof on the latter, as far as I am concerned, based on my assumptions.

Indeed.

There is a very high burden of proof on those who claim the Bible is inerrant.

It is also a position that has pretty much been refuted by modern scholars.

Karl Barth on the authority of scripture:

"It is impossible that there should have been a transmutation of the one into the other or an admixture of the one with the other. This is not even the case even in the person of Christ. As the Word of God in the sign of this prophetic-apostolic word of man, Holy Scripture is like the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ. It is neither divine only nor human only. Nor is it a mixture of the two nor a tertium quid between them. But in it's own way and degree it is very God and very man, i.e., a witness of revelation which itself belongs to revelation, and historically a very human literary document." ~ Barth's Dogmatics series..

 

[gluadys]

So, let's just say, for arguement sake, that evolutionists are the prosecution. Afterall I often hear the stat that over 90% of the world believe in some sort of deity. And I assume most of these deity believing folks would believe their deity created us. So it is the evolutionists that must prove the intelligent design folks wrong.

So how do you explain that most evolutionists also believe a deity created us? And most people who believe in a deity accept evolution as a sound scientific explanation of bio-diversity.

What is it that the prosecution is supposed to be claiming? If it is atheism, then evolution is not the prosecutor because it doesn't make that claim.

 

[busterdog]

When did Jesus celebrate the last supper?

Was it on Passover or the day before? John and the synoptics disagree on the date and it is an unequivocal disagreement..

Sometimes I can tell whether I can have discussion with someone on such matters when that person can themselves admit even a doubtful explanation of the apparent conflict. If you read John and Luke, it seems there are a number of explanations. I am not sure however that everyone really wants to consider them. Would you agree that there are at least possible explanations that reconcile the texts?

Are you suggesting the the KJV guys messed with the translation to avoid a conflict?

Jhn 13:1 ¶ Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

In John 18, it is clear that his arrest is happening on the night of his supper with the Apostles and at the time of Passover. Where's the problem?

The alleged miscounting of the generations is Matthew (sets of 14, one of which may be only 13) may be more of a problem. Not sure if anyone has a better reading on that one.

 

[Mick116]

"Intelligent Design" vs "Theistic Evolution" is a false dichotomy. Theistic evolutionists acknowledge design and purpose in the universe as strongly as other creationists do.

 

[busterdog]

"Intelligent Design" vs "Theistic Evolution" is a false dichotomy. Theistic evolutionists acknowledge design and purpose in the universe as strongly as other creationists do.

This has really bothered me for a long time. I keep hearing the ID is antievolution. This has always seemed confusing. So thanks for taking a whack at this one.

Lots of TEs have railed against the use of Goddidit, but that seems to be a question of whether you are trying to mix your Goddidit with a proper scientific theory or analysis. Goddidit is not per se off limits.

 

[crawfish]

"Intelligent Design" vs "Theistic Evolution" is a false dichotomy. Theistic evolutionists acknowledge design and purpose in the universe as strongly as other creationists do.

It should be...but creationists have pretty much taken over the ID name in the past 5-10 years so that it's virtually indistinguishable from the anti-evolution crowd.

 

[Mallon]

Goddidit is not per se off limits.

All Christians ultimately believe "God did it."
Where evolutionary creationists and evolution-deniers differ is how they use science to support such a claim. The latter argue that "Goddidit" is a statement supported by scientific evidence. The former argue that such a statement cannot be supported by science and is instead a statement of faith.

 

[stumpjumper]

Would you agree that there are at least possible explanations that reconcile the texts?

The most sensible explanation I have read is that John was using Roman dating of days (ie Days started at sunrise instead of sunset).

I don't really buy it though...

It is my opinion that John explicitly dated the last supper to the day before passover because his Gospel was very focused on Jesus being the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

I think he's dead on with that point and the dating of events is secondary and simply part of the human narrative...

Are you suggesting the the KJV guys messed with the translation to avoid a conflict?

Jhn 13:1 ¶ Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

In John 18, it is clear that his arrest is happening on the night of his supper with the Apostles and at the time of Passover. Where's the problem?

In John that is the day before the passover.

Look here as this passage clearly has Jesus being crucified on the first day of passover (the supper would have been the day before):

[bible]John 19:14[/bible]

In the synoptics (Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17) the Last Supper clearly takes place on Passover.

The alleged miscounting of the generations is Matthew (sets of 14, one of which may be only 13) may be more of a problem. Not sure if anyone has a better reading on that one.

The number 14 is the Hebrew numerical notation (gematria) for David.

The real issue in the geneologies is not that Matthew and Luke have different names as that can be cleared by saying that Luke is the Levirite line for Joseph. The problem is that Luke's line has something like 10+ extra people between David and Joseph.

There's no way that can be the same span of time...

 

[Deamiter]

Does anybody else find the title question nonsensical?

Burden of proof only exists in courts. In science, proof is impossible, but each and every scientist must back up their proposals with evidence. Science also thrives because scientists can disprove a proposal using evidence. Everybody no matter their position has an obligation to back up their claims.

In this debate, the creationist would have to use evidence to try to disprove evolution, and the evolutionist would have to use evidence to back up their theory.

Of course, when trying to disprove evolution, it always helps to understand what evolution claims to begin with! I seriously can't believe how many people come in here saying that the absense of a catdog is evidence against evolution... Your arguments are pretty useless if all you've disproven is a highly-flammable brainless scarecrow!

Anyway, science never functions on the burden of proof. Now, if you don't present evidence, nobody's going to believe you. Well at least nobody who's dedicated to the truth and is willing to try to understand the evidence. Once evidence is presented for a theory and the evidence is considered well-explained by the theory by experts in the field) as happened decades ago for evolution) challenging the theory requires showing how the theory cannot explain that which it claims to explain.

Mark kennedy has been trying for a long time to cast doubt on the evolution of the human brain by claiming that ASPM could not have accumulated the mutations necessary to make the transition in the time established by radiometric dating. The only problem is that he has never compared the hypothetical mutation rate to a maximum mutation rate so his argument amounts to "there are a lot of mutations here and I don't think they could be mutations."

No, scientists don't understand exactly which mutations caused the human brain to become larger, but an argument that it could not have happened because you find it implausable won't convince anybody unless you show why the proposed mutation rate is implausable.

If you could show that there is no way mutations could cause the expansion, common ancestry would be disproven. However before we even know which genes control brain size beyond some relatively undeveloped hypotheses, such a thing would be impossible! The whole "I'm right because you can't prove me wrong" only works when you have evidence to show that you're right!

 

[Dannager]

This is a terrible thread.

 

[shernren]

As far as I know, no creationist has ever presented any positive proof that the sun, moon and stars all have roughly the same age and are exactly three days younger than the earth.

They have a long way to go.