What Lies Beneath

[Resha Caner]

Resher Caner, One critical flaw in you thought regarding randomness, just because it's random to us human species doesn't means it's random to you god.

I covered this. If some being can predict the process, it simply means the complexity of the process is currently beyond our capabilities. When I asked that question in the science forum, the reply was: No, it is not simply a matter of a complex process beyond our capability to understand. The process is random.

 

[quatona]

Your statement was, "Creationists define their conclusions with respect to their wishes of how they want the world to be." Is this an honest attempt to represent creationist philosophy?

I understood it to be an honest description of their approach (as opposed to an honest representation of the content of their philosophy).

 

[Resha Caner]

So? As I said before, cesium is just a measure of time, it isn't time itself. Electricity also existed before we had ammeters and voltmeters.

It seems this would be a lengthy discussion, and I was trying to avoid a digression. If you're really interested you should start with this video and later we could have a thread on "what is time".

Brian Cox - Do You Know What Time It Is? - YouTube

Considering how well the science has done in figuring out the world works, perhaps it is better to take scientists findings more seriously, considering you are untrained in the field.

You keep raising this charge that I'm not taking science seriously. I disagree. I have a career's worth of experience with science. Evolution is not the only theory I've questioned. I could point you to other threads where my challenges were answered and I acknowledged it.

It isn't a serious standard.

It is. In what way does that exclude evidence, reason, and experience? You assume much about how I must read the Bible that isn't true.

What is word and sacrament? What have they got to do with experiences of God which can't be just the mind doing funny things. I say funny things, but some of the feelings religious get aren't exactly rare in non-religious people.

I would like something specific that you mean. I may seem quite anti-belief, but I am quite interesting in what you consider to be justified reasons to believe.

This would be another long conversation. How honest are you in being interested? Past experience indicates most people aren't really that interested. KC will jump in here and tell you to prepare for a lot of dissembling and hand waving. If you're really interested, we can start that conversation somewhere outside this thread.

I'm not sure how you think this all happens. Do we tell the first creature this, or do we leave the species alone for a while, and then come back later and tell them?

I assume that there would be a paper trail and documentation on the creation of the species. A lack of fossil and genetic evidence for evolution from anything would also be a problem. A lack of history books documenting their history would be a problem.

Those are just some possibilities. Does that help? You situation seems to over look the evidence for evolution which a fully competent create wouldn't make, such as that nerve to the voice box I said about before.

For the "evidence for evolution" piece, are you saying we have specific evidence for every species in existence? If not, are you saying that if we lack evidence specific to a species, it is possible that species didn't evolve? If no, and you just generally assume all species have evolved - whether specific evidence exists or not, then our new species should be able to make that same assumption here.

For the "history" piece, our first recorded instance of someone mentioning the idea of one animal coming from another was Anaximander in the 6th century B.C. The idea could go back further, but we don't know. Why? Because beyond that date the historical record starts to get kind of sketchy. So, I'm not sure a sketchy historical record applies here as evidence that they didn't exist earlier. Further, this new species might claim they evolved from humans, in which case their historical record would be ours.

Finally, with respect to the paper trail, why should they believe that? Why should they believe this "Bible of Evolution"? It's biased to support your view. Show me the evidence. Demonstrate that you can actually generate a new species.

 

[Resha Caner]

I understood it to be an honest description of their approach (as opposed to an honest representation of the content of their philosophy).

Maybe so, but what I asked for was an honest representation of their philosophical position.

And put yourself in the creationists' shoes. If I called your approach "wishful thinking" how would take that? Would you take it as an honest assessment? As a fair representation of your position?

 

[Davian]

Maybe so, but what I asked for was an honest representation of their philosophical position.

Did you think Loudmouth was dishonest with his comment? I made a similar comment in post #25, and you did not call me on it.

And put yourself in the creationists' shoes. If I called your approach "wishful thinking" how would take that? Would you take it as an honest assessment? As a fair representation of your position?

What is your point here? Are you concerned about honesty, fairness, or accuracy? A comment may be completely honest and accurate, and still offence may be taken.

To quote a creationist from this board, when asked about drawing conclusions about gods without data to show that they exist:

"Obviously your question is based on wrong conclusions." link

 

[super animator]

I covered this. If some being can predict the process, it simply means the complexity of the process is currently beyond our capabilities. When I asked that question in the science forum, the reply was: No, it is not simply a matter of a complex process beyond our capability to understand. The process is random.

What process are you refereeing to? It's not random in a sense that we can't make predictions on it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Did you think Loudmouth was dishonest with his comment? I made a similar comment in post #25, and you did not call me on it.

You want credit for an ad hominem?

What is your point here? Are you concerned about honesty, fairness, or accuracy? A comment may be completely honest and accurate, and still offence may be taken.

I'm still trying to get at my original question regarding the differing philosophies of different views of life's origins. As best I can recall, 3 answers were offered.

1. Paradoxum: "The big difference seems to be belief, rather than taking hugely difference philosophical positions." quatona seemed to say something similar.

2. souper genyus: "The difference, it seems, is whether one thinks Being has purpose or not."

3. Davian: (paraphrasing) One believes it is a guided process. The other does not.

None of those seemed to go very far. 1) If there's no difference, then I guess there isn't much to talk about. 2) souper genyus' answer to my last question was (paraphrasing): There is no 'why'. It just is. 3) Your answer was that you think the process is unguided because you "do not have reason/evidence to think so." (I'll get back to that.)

I don't consider "wishful thinking" to be an answer. You can check papers such as "Wishful Thinking and Self-Deception" by Bela Szabados, Analysis v.33(6), Jun 1973, p.201-205 to read up on what philosophers argue that term to mean, but the bottom line is that they consider it a fallacy. See: Fallacies[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I don't consider accusing someone of a fallacy to be an expression of an opponent's philosophy. It's an attempt to prove one's own position correct. If I were to try to pull a statement from what Loudmouth (and you at one point) have said, it would be: Creationists do not think evidence is necessary to prove their point. I, for one, would not accept that. If you were to amend it to: Creationists do not think scientific evidence is necessary to prove their point, I would note that this is one of the things I have been pressing with Paradoxum regarding how one develops trust in a relationship.

That point comes to bear again through my scenario. The new species doesn't trust us, and so dismisses our documentation as biased. They demand a demonstration. So how would you build trust?

The second point that comes to bear is the one I was starting to raise with KC as well as your position that you don't have a reason to think the process is guided. OK. What does a guided process look like?

Or, in KC's case, what is the criteria for saying one species descended from another? Once that criteria is defined, we would know what to look for when claiming for my scenario that the new species didn't evolve.

 

[Davian]

You want credit for an ad hominem?

That your feelings were hurt does not, in itself, make it an ad hominem.

I'm still trying to get at my original question regarding the differing philosophies of different views of life's origins. As best I can recall, 3 answers were offered.

1. Paradoxum: "The big difference seems to be belief, rather than taking hugely difference philosophical positions." quatona seemed to say something similar.

2. souper genyus: "The difference, it seems, is whether one thinks Being has purpose or not."

3. Davian: (paraphrasing) One believes it is a guided process. The other does not.

None of those seemed to go very far. 1) If there's no difference, then I guess there isn't much to talk about. 2) souper genyus' answer to my last question was (paraphrasing): There is no 'why'. It just is. 3) Your answer was that you think the process is unguided because you "do not have reason/evidence to think so." (I'll get back to that.)

I don't consider "wishful thinking" to be an answer. You can check papers such as "Wishful Thinking and Self-Deception" by Bela Szabados, Analysis v.33(6), Jun 1973, p.201-205 to read up on what philosophers argue that term to mean, but the bottom line is that they consider it a fallacy. See: Fallacies[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I don't consider accusing someone of a fallacy to be an expression of an opponent's philosophy.

Wishful thinking, noun, interpretation of facts, actions, words, etc., as one would like them to be rather than as they really are; imagining as actual what is not. - Dictionary.com

You would need to show how, in this context, it is a fallacy.

It's an attempt to prove one's own position correct.

Not at all. I do not consider the falsification of a claim to prove the veracity of another.

Contrast that with something like the Gish-gallop "debate" tactic used by creationists.

Even if key components for the theory of evolution were falsified, it would not automatically be evidence for the deities or the supernatural. This discussion of evolution is a red herring.

If I were to try to pull a statement from what Loudmouth (and you at one point) have said, it would be: Creationists do not think evidence is necessary to prove their point. I, for one, would not accept that. If you were to amend it to: Creationists do not think scientific evidence is necessary to prove their point, I would note that this is one of the things I have been pressing with Paradoxum regarding how one develops trust in a relationship.

I disagree. I see creationists provide a lot of evidence to support their points. However, this evidence usually has far more parsimonious explanations, or cannot be presented as part of a falsifiable hypothesis.

That point comes to bear again through my scenario. The new species doesn't trust us, and so dismisses our documentation as biased. They demand a demonstration. So how would you build trust?

The second point that comes to bear is the one I was starting to raise with KC as well as your position that you don't have a reason to think the process is guided. OK. What does a guided process look like?

That would be the job for the one positing that a given process is guided, and they would need to do so in a manner that was falsifiable.

Or, in KC's case, what is the criteria for saying one species descended from another? Once that criteria is defined, we would know what to look for when claiming for my scenario that the new species didn't evolve.

And what difference would this make for you?

You said, "My faith in Christ does not stand or fall on evolution, just as it doesn't stand or fall on GR, SR, QM, and a host of other scientific theories."

So what does it stand or fall on?

 

[quatona]

Maybe so, but what I asked for was an honest representation of their philosophical position.

Out of curiosity I went back to the posts prior to the remark in question, and I couldn´t find confirmed that it was made in response to such a request. Maybe I haven´t looked hard enough?

And put yourself in the creationists' shoes. If I called your approach "wishful thinking" how would take that?

If the remark (btw. introduced by "maybe that´s the difference...") was at the end of an example for what the poster understands to be wishful thinking, I guess I would discuss the example. If your assessment came without support or substantiation I´d probably ask you for such.

Would you take it as an honest assessment?

"Honest" I can´t tell. How much effort I´d put in considering this assessment would depend in which context and on what grounds you´d make this assessment. Just try it.

As a fair representation of your position?

I wouldn´t even entertain the idea that "your approach is wishful thinking" could be meant to be an attempt to represent my position. It´s clearly a statement about my approach as seen by the person making the statement, not about my position (and even less the attempt to represent it).

Personally, I am inclined to think that all metaphysical ideas (including my own) are post-hoc rationalizations, and thus involve a certain degree of wishful thinking. And I think that this indeed is a huge difference between the scientific method and religion/philosophy.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't consider "wishful thinking" to be an answer. You can check papers such as "Wishful Thinking and Self-Deception" by Bela Szabados, Analysis v.33(6), Jun 1973, p.201-205 to read up on what philosophers argue that term to mean, but the bottom line is that they consider it a fallacy.

Who cares what philosophers think about psychology? They're not trained experts in the field.

The new species doesn't trust us, and so dismisses our documentation as biased. They demand a demonstration. So how would you build trust?

By showing them the mechanism used to create them. I imagine this won't be enough for the hypothetical beings in your hypothetical example, but I'm not sure what that shows. I guess it does mirror the selective hyper-skepticism you seem to be applying to certain facts and theories which are uncomfortable to your faith. But I see no reason to assume that these hypothetical created beings will have mental processes in any way similar to our own.

The second point that comes to bear is the one I was starting to raise with KC as well as your position that you don't have a reason to think the process is guided. OK. What does a guided process look like?

To pick a guided process at random : http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Catfish-Gumbo/Detail.aspx?prop24=hn_slide1_Catfish-Gumbo&evt19=1

Or for something more related to biological evolution :
Patent USPP12242 - Echinacea plant named ‘Kim's Knee High’ - Google Patents

Or, in KC's case, what is the criteria for saying one species descended from another?

I pointed out a number of references to peer-reviewed literature on the subject. What specifically didn't you understand?

 

[KCfromNC]

You keep raising this charge that I'm not taking science seriously. I disagree. I have a career's worth of experience with science.

References to publications you've authored? Patents?

This would be another long conversation. How honest are you in being interested? Past experience indicates most people aren't really that interested. KC will jump in here and tell you to prepare for a lot of dissembling and hand waving. If you're really interested, we can start that conversation somewhere outside this thread.

Hey look, poisoning the well.

For the "evidence for evolution" piece, are you saying we have specific evidence for every species in existence? If not, are you saying that if we lack evidence specific to a species, it is possible that species didn't evolve?

Sure. It's possible that some species were, for example, seeded by aliens or magiced into existence by a god. But there's no evidence or reason to conclude that this possibility actually happened. Don't confuse "I guess it isn't technically impossible" with evidence for that thing happening.

And to be fair, do you have specific evidence for every word in the bible being an accurate representation of the words and intent of the original authors?

If you're going convince us to hold evolution to this level of scrutiny, you should walk the walk in the things you do claim to believe. If you really don't apply this level of skepticism to your beliefs, it speaks much louder than any hypothetical objection you can bring up to evolution or whatever it is we're supposed to question.

Further, this new species might claim they evolved from humans, in which case their historical record would be ours.

Or maybe they wouldn't. Who knows. We're now using something a hypothetical being in an imaginary scenario may or may not do as a critique of evolutionary theory back here in our world. That's pretty far removed from anything real. One might even call it hand waving.

Finally, with respect to the paper trail, why should they believe that?

Internal consistency, correlation with observed fact, consistent objective documentation from uninterested parties, a complete video record of their creation, the ability to time travel back and observe their creation, and so on. Hey, if you get to make up stuff about this hypothetical, why can't we?

Show me the evidence. Demonstrate that you can actually generate a new species.

I thought this ability was a given in your hypothetical. Are you changing your mind?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your statement was, "Creationists define their conclusions with respect to their wishes of how they want the world to be." Is this an honest attempt to represent creationist philosophy?

Did you read my reply where I spelled it out? I even cited a creationist organization that does exactly what I am describing.

The philosophy of science is to remove as much human bias as possible by relying on empirical evidence instead of human wishes. That is exactly the opposite of creationist philosophy where empirical evidence is thrown out if it contradicts the worldview of the creationist:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

If a scientist came out and said, "I will reject any evidence that contradicts my conclusion," would you say that they are following the philosophy of science?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe so, but what I asked for was an honest representation of their philosophical position.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

And put yourself in the creationists' shoes. If I called your approach "wishful thinking" how would take that?

I would present evidence demonstrating that it is not wishful thinking, and have done just that in so many threads that I can't count them. Why can't creationists do the same? Why do they have to feign insult instead of presenting evidence?

Would you take it as an honest assessment? As a fair representation of your position?

Can you present evidence and show that it is not a fair assessment?

 

[Davian]

Did you read my reply where I spelled it out? I even cited a creationist organization that does exactly what I am describing.

The philosophy of science is to remove as much human bias as possible by relying on empirical evidence instead of human wishes. That is exactly the opposite of creationist philosophy where empirical evidence is thrown out if it contradicts the worldview of the creationist:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

If a scientist came out and said, "I will reject any evidence that contradicts my conclusion," would you say that they are following the philosophy of science?

Live, and in our physical sciences forum, a creationist said:

"If you counter an argument against a global flood by requiring I jettison [even] one jot or one tittle of the story as documented in the Bible, then I don't feel obligated to rebut your counter." link

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The philosophical difference sure looks epistemological.

I hope it is not too snarky and dismissive to say that.

 

[Loudmouth]

So here is my scenario: The consensus of science is that we evolved. At some point in the future we discover the science of abiogenesis and use it to create a new intelligent species with an average lifespan of 100 years. It takes 1 year for the abiogenesis process to complete, and the chances of success are 0.1%.

We tell this new species we are its creator.

How will this species believe our claim given it is possible the species could have evolved?

This is by far your best idea for this thread. I would strongly encourage you to flesh this out a bit.

What evidence should this species be looking for to test the idea that it evolved? How could we use genetics, comparative anatomy, and fossils to test whether or not this species evolved? Would this creative process necessarily produce evidence that is indistinguishable from the process of evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

The philosophical difference sure looks epistemological.

I hope it is not too snarky and dismissive to say that.

To state it simply, creationism starts with the conclusion and accepts or rejects evidence based on that conclusion. Science starts with the evidence, and rejects or accepts conclusions based on the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Live, and in our physical sciences forum, a creationist said:

"If you counter an argument against a global flood by requiring I jettison [even] one jot or one tittle of the story as documented in the Bible, then I don't feel obligated to rebut your counter." link

Precisely. In creationism, the conclusion is protected from falsification by ignoring the evidence.

 

[Resha Caner]

You would need to show how, in this context, it is a fallacy.

I don't get this. So you think Loudmouth would propose that the creationist philosophy is "wishful thinking", and further propose that it isn't a fallacy?

Not at all. I do not consider the falsification of a claim to prove the veracity of another.

Yes, you're right. I realized that after I wrote it, but didn't have time to correct it.

That would be the job for the one positing that a given process is guided, and they would need to do so in a manner that was falsifiable.

It seems you're leaning on a technicality here. While what you say is true, it implies that you think you have no responsibility when the issue of falsification arises.

Were you to self-assess the theory you support, it would be you proposing the falsification test, and therefore you would define the alternative.

But OK. You're not going to define what "guided" means.

So what does it stand or fall on?

My experiences.

 

[Loudmouth]

Were you to self-assess the theory you support, it would be you proposing the falsification test, and therefore you would define the alternative.

The null hypothesis is not really an alternative hypothesis.

DNA fingerprinting may serve as a good example. Let's say that we have a suspect, and we also have DNA at the crime scene that is from the perpetrator of the crime. The hypothesis is that there will be a match between the suspect and the DNA from the crime scene. The null hypothesis, or potential falsification, is that the DNA will not be from the suspect. Notice that I don't need to match that DNA to another person in order for my hypothesis to be falsified. All I need to do to satisfy the null hypothesis is show that the hypothesis is wrong.

But OK. You're not going to define what "guided" means.

How would you define "guided" so that it is testable with respect to a comparison of two genomes?