Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[Resha Caner]

In many ways the creation/evolution debate simply tires me ... or bores me. But maybe coming at it from a different angle will produce an interesting conversation.

Many times it seems people struggle to identify the assumptions behind their position - and I think that is understandable. For others, there are so many assumptions that it's hard to find the right thread to pull on to start the discussion.

But, let's give it a try. What do you think are the fundamental assumptions behind your position - be it in support of evolution or creation?

 

[Insane_Duck]

In many ways the creation/evolution debate simply tires me ... or bores me. But maybe coming at it from a different angle will produce an interesting conversation.

Many times it seems people struggle to identify the assumptions behind their position - and I think that is understandable. For others, there are so many assumptions that it's hard to find the right thread to pull on to start the discussion.

But, let's give it a try. What do you think are the fundamental assumptions behind your position - be it in support of evolution or creation?

Evolution makes a very basic and rational* assumption that all science makes. Physical laws are constants.

* An assumption can still be a logically coherent choice, and in this case, the best choice.

 

[dad]

In many ways the creation/evolution debate simply tires me ... or bores me. But maybe coming at it from a different angle will produce an interesting conversation.

Many times it seems people struggle to identify the assumptions behind their position - and I think that is understandable. For others, there are so many assumptions that it's hard to find the right thread to pull on to start the discussion.

But, let's give it a try. What do you think are the fundamental assumptions behind your position - be it in support of evolution or creation?

I assume God is right.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I assume God is right.

Sigh...

 

[Awesome_Frog]

I assume reality is real.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I assume reality is real.

I've always found that useful.

 

[VehementisDominus]

I assume that demonstrable facts, close observation, reasoned logic and empirical evidence precedes blind, ignorant faith as a means of determining the accuracy of a statement.

 

[dad]

I assume that demonstrable facts, close observation, reasoned logic and empirical evidence precedes blind, ignorant faith as a means of determining the accuracy of a statement.

Maybe. But since the poster in the OP has a Christian icon, they must assume God is right too, no? And no one in their right mind ought to think science can verify or deny God, so that is moot.

 

[VehementisDominus]

Maybe. But since the poster in the OP has a Christian icon, they must assume God is right too, no? And no one in their right mind ought to think science can verify or deny God, so that is moot.

Well said!

Here's a few other things science can neither deny or verify:

Odin.
Invisible pink unicorns.
Cthulu.
Yog Sothoth.
Quetzalcoatl.
Allah.
The flying spaghetti monster.
Ra.
Hades.
Zeus.
The Force.
The Underpant Gnomes.
Sauron.
Khorne.
Nurgle.
Tzeentch.
Slaanesh.
A teapot orbiting Pluto.

That'll do for now.

He can assume God exists as much as he likes, but God is no more real than anything mentioned above - at least. Anything you could possibly imagine can be easily added to that list, as well.

Science deals in what can be demonstrably shown to exist, and God can't.

Demonstrably show that God exists, and I'll happily accept that he does - until then, I have absolutely no reason to.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evolution makes a very basic and rational assumption that all science makes. Physical laws are constants.

Thanks for the answer. I wasn't sure myself how I would answer the question, so these were some good thoughts to get me started. I wasn't thinking this generally at first, but it does trigger a few thoughts.

One of my assumptions comes from one of my engineering mentors: there is no such thing as bad data, only bad interpretations. In other words, data always contains information of some type. Whether that information is useful and whether it suits the ends to which it is applied is a different matter.

As such, all information extracted from data is "theory laden." That means it is impossible to entirely avoid circularity. IMO, the reason we spin in different circles when evaluating data is the difference in our experiences.

I assume God is right.

I basically agree with you, but I would phrase it differently for the purposes of a science forum. I would say that, for me, truth is truth. It begs no adjective. So, there is no such thing as "religious truth" or "scientific truth." There is just truth. As such, I don't rank my assumptions one higher than another. If theology is in conflict with science, I do not banish them to separate NOMAs. Neither do I have an a priori tenet that one must always trump the other. But, in the end, one of them will change to resolve the conflict. In my past I have conceded both theological views in favor of science and scientific views in favor of theology.

In the end, for me it comes down to the necessity of a causeless cause (or a first cause if one prefers that terminology). All the roads I've traveled (including things like infinite regress) come to that same conclusion.

But that speaks more to the issue of genesis than evolution. People always bring up the idea: couldn't God have used evolution as the means? I'm not going to rule that out as an absolute impossibility. So, it may seem a much too subtle twist of phrase, but my position is not to reject evolution as impossible. Rather, I simply do not find the evidence convincing enough to accept it as the necessary & sufficient mechanism for the descent of species. From that departure point, I hold many theological and philosophical views that conflict with the idea of evolution.

So, I don't know if one would call it my fundamental assumption, but the sum total of all that is to say: my collected experiences and knowledge of science, theology, and philosophy fit together too elegantly (at least in my foolish mind) to give much credance to what I consider some very questionable conclusions about how life developed.

So, if there are some assumptions more specific to creation/evolution than what has been said so far, I'd appreciate hearing them. I think it would help me better articulate some of this.

 

[dad]

Well said!

Here's a few other things science can neither deny or verify:

Odin.
Invisible pink unicorns.
Cthulu.
Yog Sothoth.
Quetzalcoatl.
Allah.
The flying spaghetti monster.
Ra.
Hades.
Zeus.
The Force.
The Underpant Gnomes.
Sauron.
Khorne.
Nurgle.
Tzeentch.
Slaanesh.
A teapot orbiting Pluto.

That'll do for now.

They are limited, as you perceive. Indeed.

He can assume God exists as much as he likes, but God is no more real than anything mentioned above - at least. Anything you could possibly imagine can be easily added to that list, as well.

You are not in a position to be able to say either way now are you?

Science deals in what can be demonstrably shown to exist, and God can't.

Right. This is news? God is shown and known to exist however outside the silly little severely limited realm of physical present state science.

Demonstrably show that God exists, and I'll happily accept that he does - until then, I have absolutely no reason to.

Whether you do or not God will remain a fundamental part of what one side assumes in any creation discussion.

 

[dad]

I basically agree with you, but I would phrase it differently for the purposes of a science forum. I would say that, for me, truth is truth. It begs no adjective. So, there is no such thing as "religious truth" or "scientific truth." There is just truth. As such, I don't rank my assumptions one higher than another. If theology is in conflict with science, I do not banish them to separate NOMAs. Neither do I have an a priori tenet that one must always trump the other. But, in the end, one of them will change to resolve the conflict. In my past I have conceded both theological views in favor of science and scientific views in favor of theology.

The issue is not what truth is, all Christians know that. ..Jesus. The issue is what man's knowledge (which the bible calls foolishness) can perceive of the truth! If their perceptions fool them into thinking that God was wrong, then they do not know the truth. God must always trump man's wisdom. Man's abilities and perceptions. All that man saying God is wrong tells us is that man is wrong. If he temporarily thinks that God being wrong is true, then he does not really know the truth.

In the end, for me it comes down to the necessity of a causeless cause (or a first cause if one prefers that terminology). All the roads I've traveled (including things like infinite regress) come to that same conclusion.

Not sure if you allude to the big bang? What is really the causeless cause is not accepting Genesis.

But that speaks more to the issue of genesis than evolution. People always bring up the idea: couldn't God have used evolution as the means? I'm not going to rule that out as an absolute impossibility.

If you accept the bible you are. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... There can be no other cause.

So, it may seem a much too subtle twist of phrase, but my position is not to reject evolution as impossible.

Define 'evolution'? I accept is as long as one realizes that God created the kinds and man, and earth, and heavens that week of creation. No evolving happened outside of that framework.

Rather, I simply do not find the evidence convincing enough to accept it as the necessary & sufficient mechanism for the descent of species. From that departure point, I hold many theological and philosophical views that conflict with the idea of evolution.

So you are neither here nor there?

So, I don't know if one would call it my fundamental assumption, but the sum total of all that is to say: my collected experiences and knowledge of science, theology, and philosophy fit together too elegantly (at least in my foolish mind) to give much credance to what I consider some very questionable conclusions about how life developed.

Long as that refers to silly godless evolution, I have to agree.

So, if there are some assumptions more specific to creation/evolution than what has been said so far, I'd appreciate hearing them. I think it would help me better articulate some of this.

It is kinda fuzzy so far, I have to say.

 

[sabercroft]

Right. This is news? God is shown and known to exist however outside the silly little severely limited realm of physical present state science.

You're right in saying that science cannot know anything about God. God has been deliberately defined to not be testable within the boundaries of science, and is at best a hypothesis.

What science can do, on the other hand, is to prove the Christian account of creation wrong. Very, very wrong. The abundant evidence for that can be easily found almost anywhere if you care to search, and I'm sure I don't need to elucidate further.

 

[dad]

You're right in saying that science cannot know anything about God. God has been deliberately defined to not be testable within the boundaries of science, and is at best a hypothesis.

What science can do, on the other hand, is to prove the Christian account of creation wrong. Very, very wrong. The abundant evidence for that can be easily found almost anywhere if you care to search, and I'm sure I don't need to elucidate further.

You are wrong. God is no fool. Guess who that leaves? Man's wisdom. Science has assumed that our present laws applied in our far past. That is NOT known. ALL their so called evidence is moot. Null. Void. Delusional.

 

[VehementisDominus]

They are limited, as you perceive. Indeed.

They're all just as likely to exist as your God.

You are not in a position to be able to say either way now are you?

Actually, I am. And I say "They're all just as likely to exist as your God."

Why am I in a position to say that? Because I don't believe it - because I can look at it objectively - you, however, can't.

Right. This is news? God is shown and known to exist however outside the silly little severely limited realm of physical present state science.

He's shown to exist in a bronze age book of mythology - stories passed down from bronze age barbarians to iron age goat herders, and pased on and on and on, through word of mouth until it reached someone literate enough to write it down.

A good example is the film 300. The story in the film was recorded on Greek pottery, which was recorded based on hearsay. However, the film is very different to both the hearsay AND the pottery. It's like Chinese Whispers from 2-3000 years ago, except some people believe the end message unconditionally, without any doubt, blindly accepting it as "Truth", without even trying to question it.

Whether you do or not God will remain a fundamental part of what one side assumes in any creation discussion.

Wrong again, not all creationists believe in the Biblical God. Some believe in Allah, some believe in Brahma - the creator. Your blind, irrational faith is only the tip of the iceberg of people's blind, irrational faith.

Science, however, doesn't run on faith like religion, it runs on scepticism and the demonstrable accuracy of a statement.

If you can't show your stement to be true beyond all reasonable doubt then... to coin a phrase, your statement can "take a hike.".

Which brings me back to your "prophecies" nonsense. I've highlighted the criteria that would cause reasonable doubt, yet you've failed to provide a prophecy that's beyond reasonable doubt - so long as I can reasonably doubt your prophecy argument, I will. Such is the way of scepticism and critical thinking.

 

[sabercroft]

You are wrong. God is no fool. Guess who that leaves? Man's wisdom. Science has assumed that our present laws applied in our far past. That is NOT known. ALL their so called evidence is moot. Null. Void. Delusional.

I assume you're talking about radiometric and carbon dating?

Given how these methods depend on the bond strength between atoms, yes, they apply in our far past. While I don't know where you're from or how old you are, I think it's safe to say you'd know this if you paid attention during science class in high school.

 

[VehementisDominus]

you'd know this if you paid attention during science class in high school.

I think the only school he paid attention to was Sunday school.

Seriously, though, what he fails to notice is that the explanations for... well... everything that science explains based on a "present state past" fit so amazingly perfectly, based on the evidence, that the changes would have to be absolutely absurd to support his "biblical different state"...

... cities made of gold inside the moon, for crying out loud.

"This is one small step for man, one giant leap for... WOW, GUYS, CHECK THIS OUT! THERE'S ANGELS AND GOLD AND EVERYTHING HERE! WE NEED A COLONY ON THIS MOON, IT'LL BE THE BIGGEST PAR-TAY EVER!"

 

[dad]

They're all just as likely to exist as your God.

On what basis would you declare God likely? Or not?

Why am I in a position to say that? Because I don't believe it - because I can look at it objectively - you, however, can't.

So you think the essence of objectivity is 'not believing'? OK.

He's shown to exist in a bronze age book of mythology - stories passed down from bronze age barbarians to iron age goat herders, and pased on and on and on, through word of mouth until it reached someone literate enough to write it down.

Hey what's this? Are you Bronzeageaphobic?

A good example is the film 300. The story in the film was recorded on Greek pottery, which was recorded based on hearsay. However, the film is very different to both the hearsay AND the pottery. It's like Chinese Whispers from 2-3000 years ago, except some people believe the end message unconditionally, without any doubt, blindly accepting it as "Truth", without even trying to question it.

So the movie was just a movie. Touching.

Wrong again, not all creationists believe in the Biblical God. Some believe in Allah, some believe in Brahma - the creator. Your blind, irrational faith is only the tip of the iceberg of people's blind, irrational faith.

Well, if you want to sub divide the pagans fine. Funny I never seem to see them here arguing?

Science, however, doesn't run on faith like religion, it runs on scepticism and the demonstrable accuracy of a statement.

Then it doesn't run far as I pointed out. It can't demonstrate anything beyond present earth zone limits.

If you can't show your stement to be true beyond all reasonable doubt then... to coin a phrase, your statement can "take a hike.".

So anything that cannot be shown true is false. OK. For some, that consists of little more than what is under their nose.

Which brings me back to your "prophecies" nonsense. I've highlighted the criteria that would cause reasonable doubt, yet you've failed to provide a prophecy that's beyond reasonable doubt - so long as I can reasonably doubt your prophecy argument, I will. Such is the way of scepticism and critical thinking.

So you want to doubt, and will stubbornly continue despite reasonable historic evidence? And..what, you want someone to pound something into that hard headed position?

 

[dad]

I assume you're talking about radiometric and carbon dating?

Given how these methods depend on the bond strength between atoms, yes, they apply in our far past. While I don't know where you're from or how old you are, I think it's safe to say you'd know this if you paid attention during science class in high school.

If I paid attention I would be as dumb as the average so called science brick. I know what you think, and claim. I know it is not supportable. Apparently you haven't yet figured that out. Make it a priority I would suggest.

 

[dad]

I think the only school he paid attention to was Sunday school.

Seriously, though, what he fails to notice is that the explanations for... well... everything that science explains based on a "present state past" fit so amazingly perfectly, based on the evidence, that the changes would have to be absolutely absurd to support his "biblical different state"...

... cities made of gold inside the moon, for crying out loud.

"This is one small step for man, one giant leap for... WOW, GUYS, CHECK THIS OUT! THERE'S ANGELS AND GOLD AND EVERYTHING HERE! WE NEED A COLONY ON THIS MOON, IT'LL BE THE BIGGEST PAR-TAY EVER!"

When I start a new thread, you will see that that old opinion is quite outdated. (that maybe the interior of the moon, contained the New Jerusalem in hiding)