"Assumptions" is a magic word

[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.

 

[gluadys]

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]

Who are these creationists that you refer to?

Muppets like me or credible scientists like Jonathan Sarfati?

 

[sfs]

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]

that doesnt mean he isnt a credible scientist.

 

[sfs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[crawfish]

The problem with YEC/OEC isn't that they make assumptions. It's that they either don't test those assumptions, or ignore completely data that contradicts those assumptions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Muppets like me or credible scientists like Jonathan Sarfati?

What important contributions to science have been made by Sarfati? A review of his curriculum vitae doesn't come up with much in the way of publications.

His biography says he only "co-authored" papers in scientific literature, which is odd; if he's a PhD, he should have done at least one on his own. But I can't find any.

My personal encounters with Sarfati showed him to be very ignorant of biology and evolutionary theory in particular.

And his paper in AIG, misrepresenting the research findings of astronomers Clark and Caswell, “Exploding stars point to a young universe”(the article seems to have been recently removed from the AIG site) quote-mines their paper (1976MNRAS.174..267C Page 267) by claiming the astronomers think the number of supernova remnants is a "mystery." In fact, they wrote "the mystery is solved."

Ignorance and deception are not qualities you find in scientists.

 

[sfs]

What important contributions to science have been made by Sarfati? A review of his curriculum vitae doesn't come up with much in the way of publications.

His biography says he only "co-authored" papers in scientific literature, which is odd; if he's a PhD, he should have done at least one on his own. But I can't find any.

I'm not sure I agree about the single authorship issue. In many fields, one's PhD research will be published jointly with others, since it's impossible to do certain kinds of experiment by yourself. I've been a scientist for twenty years, working exclusively in one form or another of big science, and I think I only have one single-author paper (a not very good review article).

More relevant is that (judging by his publication list), Sarfati is no longer doing science at all. He hasn't published anything in fourteen years. Scientists are people who do science, not people with science degrees.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:

animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.

 

[sfs]

You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:

animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.

Your first is a conclusion, not an assumption. The second is neither a conclusion nor an assumption of evolution. Evolution makes no assumption about where life came from. I think it is an assumption that bacteria evolved from simpler living cells, but that assumption has little effect on the study of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:

animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.

Thinking through the basics of evolutionary theory, I am finding it remarkably difficult to come up with any assumptions. The one I can think of is not an assumption of evolutionary theory, but of all science; namely, that if the observations our theory predicts we should be able to make are in fact observed, it is likely that our theory provides a correct model of nature.

Darwin began with a couple of observations and a couple of inferences and came to a conclusion. Most of evolutionary theory would seem to consist of the same ingredients.

 

[juvenissun]

Thinking through the basics of evolutionary theory, I am finding it remarkably difficult to come up with any assumptions. The one I can think of is not an assumption of evolutionary theory, but of all science; namely, that if the observations our theory predicts we should be able to make are in fact observed, it is likely that our theory provides a correct model of nature.

Darwin began with a couple of observations and a couple of inferences and came to a conclusion. Most of evolutionary theory would seem to consist of the same ingredients.

Within my knowledge, continental drift hypothesis fits perfectly to your description. we knew it works, but did not know how it works. There is no basic assumption anywhere in this example. It is simply a prediction based on pattern of data.

 

[juvenissun]

Your first is a conclusion, not an assumption. The second is neither a conclusion nor an assumption of evolution. Evolution makes no assumption about where life came from. I think it is an assumption that bacteria evolved from simpler living cells, but that assumption has little effect on the study of evolution.

So, is there any assumption in the theory of evolution? If yes, what is it?

Assume you give me one. Is it proper to attack it first, if one wished to argue against the evolution?

 

[philadiddle]

So, is there any assumption in the theory of evolution? If yes, what is it?

We assume that we exist.

We assume that the universe exists.

We assume that things happened as they appear to have happened. What I mean by that is that we don't take into consideration ideas like, "it was all created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of history".

 

[juvenissun]

We assume that we exist.

We assume that the universe exists.

We assume that things happened as they appear to have happened. What I mean by that is that we don't take into consideration ideas like, "it was all created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of history".

Don't run away from this:

Why is it an assumption?