Do evolutionists silence the critics?

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by lambslove
I am a scientist and see it happen almost daily.

Then give us an example.  I too am a scientist and peer-review papers.  Sometimes I savagely critique them for failings in logic and data.  One I rejected because a 2 minute PubMed search showed that there were 15 papers already on the subject that the authors hadn't mentioned.

However, I have never either ignored or mocked a paper.  If I haven't got a strong scientific reason to reject the paper, then it gets accepted.  And many times I have successfully answered criticisms by peer-reviewers and gotten my papers published as a result.

So, please be specific.  One scientist to another. Have you seen any papers "ignored" or "mocked"?  What was the subject?  Have you reviewed any papers based on creationism? 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
[q]If so, how?[/q]Sadly, because Satan snares those who are convinced. Satan is involved especially in Evolution "scientists," much more in other areas, because those other areas are closer to true science (observable, repeatable facts).

Well, I've seen you exegesis of Genesis 3, and I must say that it is an imaginative one.  Remember the serpent lost its legs and had to crawl upon the ground. Funny, but I've never seen a Biblical literalist suggest that Satan is just another creature like the serpent depicted in Genesis.

The "true science" objection is a common one of trying to redefine science for your own ends.  Tell us, how do you handle real-time experiments where evolution is observed? Both in the lab and the wild? 

Also, look at nearly every paper in medicine or biology.  All of them are not "observable" as you use the term.  They all happen in the recent past and we infer that a process took place by the results we see.  For instance, mix an organic acid and an aldehyde. This is done in most college organic chemistry classes.  You detect an odor after a few minutes. This is the ketone. Did you "observe" the molecules coming together?  Nope.  It happened and you inferred that the reaction took place because you detected the product.  This is no different than what happens for evolutionary biology.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by notto
lambslove,

Would you recommend a paper for publication that requires one of the following for it to assert its conclusions?

1) a radical change in the known laws of physics at sometime in the near past.

2) an unknown force that is tinkering with the results

3) data extrapolation that falls outside of the accuracy and error thresholds of the measurements.

Notto, the first two have already been published.  In fact, Davies has a recent article in  Nature suggesting both #1 and #2.  Of course, the "near" past is kind of vague, but Davies does have the known laws of physics changing in the past.  The intercessory prayer papers have an unknown force that accounts for the results. So did the initial papers on plate tectonics.  The papers in quantum mechanics still have an "unknown force" that is tinkering with the results.

#3, of course, is absolute.

The universe is what it is.  IF there is a deity, then there is one. Period. You don't get to exclude papers because the results imply an entity you don't like anymore than creationists get to exclude papers because they reject a version of an entity they do like.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Athlon4all I really think that if you look at the processes that are used to optain "proof" of evolution involve guesswork rather than facts.

I have really looked.  Not so.

Not to mention the things that indicate a young earth

They don't matter.  What matters is the data that falsifies a theory. And there is data that simply can't be there if the earth is young.  Popper said it best:  "1.  It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations."  Therefore, simple confirmations or verifications don't really count.  They can never overcome the data that falsifies a theory.  Confirmations, as Popper noted can only count "except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory:  and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory." [emphasis Popper's]  Your evidence isn't like that, because it ignores the data that falsifies a young earth. We can go over each of them in detail and show the flaws if you would like.

And it is clear in the Bible that it is Satan is the one who tempts man (I Corinthians 10:13, Matthew 4:1) to sin. See above, and it doesn't matter what Christians say, all that matters is what the LORD says, and there is not one indication of Evolution in the Bible.

So?  There isn't any indication about in vitro fertilization or pollution or the right to die, either. Many things that are in the Bible, such as stoning sinners, we don't do anymore.  This is called picking and choosing what you want in the Bible.  It is also called ignoring the evidence God left you in His creation.  You can't do that.  If, as you believe, God really did create the universe, then everything in it had to be put there by God.  Satan had no part in creation.  Therefore all the evidence we have found in the universe that says "evolution" had to be put there by God.  The Bible tells you the who and why of creation, science tells you the how.

Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world by man, and Genesis 3:14-19 in the curse put on man because of sin, God tells Adam that because of his sin, he shall "return to the dust." This is clearly speaking of the physical body dieing.

Romans 5:12 is speaking of spiritual death.  Genesis 3:22-23 clearly indicates that Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden before they can eat of the Tree of Everlasting Life.  Therefore they were going to die anyway. 

This is completly incompatible with Evolution. Evolution requires death before man evolves, and thus before man could've ever sinned to bring physical death (for not just man, but animals too) into the world.

Let's be quite clear. YOUR literalistic interpretation is incompatible, but who says your interpretation is the right one?

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437; quoted by Stephen Neill in Anglicanism, Penguin Books, 1960, pg. 240.

Christians were saying this long before Darwin published Origin and even before the idea of evolution by natural selection had occurred to him.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
As I have said before, Evolution, and Creationism, while are nearly the opposites of each other, are similar in one regard. Those who support them are supported by faith and then the believers in them interprete all the physical evidence according to that belief. If I were a sceintist, I would look at the exact same evidence you do, and would arrive at a Biblical Creationist conclusion.

No you wouldn't. At least if you were honest.  What modern day creationists fail to remember is that creationism was the accepted scientific theory prior to 1830.  Also at that time nearly all scientists were also ministers.  Now, if your claim is true, and evidence is interpreted by faith, then these minister/scientists should never have decided that creationism was wrong in the first place. But they did. Therefore your claim is false.  Evidence is not interpreted according to belief.  The minister/scientists of the day looked at the evidence and decided that the evidence falsified creationism. 

The theologians of the day were actually happy.  Because creationism had created two really big problems for them: that God was cruel, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's or that God was only the deistic god, not the theistic one required by  Christianity.

Evolution rescued Christianity from both these problems.  If there is anything that creationists are more ignorant of than science, it's Christianity.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Notto, the first two have already been published.  In fact, Davies has a recent article in  Nature suggesting both #1 and #2.  Of course, the "near" past is kind of vague, but Davies does have the known laws of physics changing in the past.  The intercessory prayer papers have an unknown force that accounts for the results. So did the initial papers on plate tectonics.  The papers in quantum mechanics still have an "unknown force" that is tinkering with the results.

#3, of course, is absolute.

The universe is what it is.  IF there is a deity, then there is one. Period. You don't get to exclude papers because the results imply an entity you don't like anymore than creationists get to exclude papers because they reject a version of an entity they do like.

If the papers in question are setting out to conclude that the laws have changed or what the affect of the unknown force is, then that is relevant to the paper. If the papers simply state that in order to fit the conclusions 1 and 2 must have happened, then that is an unsupported assertation used to support the conclusion.

The near future was related to YEC papers. Most of them follow this formula.

1) here is some data that we will study to show that the earth is young.

2) This data proves the earth is young based on an assumed drastic change in physical laws in the last 6000 years which must have happened because the earth is young and this data needs to fit in this model.

3) Therefore, this data proves a young earth.

The conclusion is used to validate the evidence instead of the evidence being used to support the conclusion.

The data in effect is used to support two conclusions.
1) that the earth is young
2) that the physical laws have changed in the near past (last 6000 years)

One conclusion is used to support the other. Ths is not valid.

(I don't know if the above makes any sense, but I tried to describe it as best as I could ).

 

[Athlon4all]

Really? Where? I've read the Bible (parts, anyway, including Genesis) and it doesn't even mention the word evolution.

It doesn't specifically say evolution is wrong. However, it says that God created the earth in six days (Exodus 20:11), and it also says that sin and physical death entered the world through Adam, which contradicts Evolution's "death since beginning of time" timeframe.

Whoooooaaahhh... You really need to read the link I posted about "Morton's Demon".. You will find it eerily familiar.

I did. Honestly, he describes YEC's the same way that God describes the Evolutionists, except they are being decieved by the devil himself.

As Harcoff pointed out, the Bible never mentions evolution. I've read all of it and studied it in depth. Evolution is never mentioned. Bob Jones (or someone) is pulling the wool over your eyes!!!

See above, and nobody's pulling a wool over my eyes.

Evolution theory is so filled with holes, because so much of it has been proved NOT to be true. Now you want to try to convince us that what is left is true, when so much has been proven not to be true by the very people who support the theory.

Exactly

History says you were wrong. Darwinian theoy had to overcome the bias of the prevailing paradigm by evidence, evidence and more evidence before the scientific community accepted it. Of course, you do describe "scientific creationism" accurately - but don't assume everyone shares the faults of your allies and teachers. The evidence from nature is incompatible with recent special creation. The evidence from nature strongly confirms neo-darwinian evolution. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

Again, you are going to interprete the evidence according to your personal beliefs, just as I am. I look at the world and see proof for what the Bible teaches about Creation.

Bob Jones is not the mouthpiece of God. The doctrine you learn there is subject to human error. Loads of it. Not just about science: also race issues, catholocism & doubtlessly quite a few other topics.

I couldn't agree more...but they start with the Bible and make the evidence they see fit the Bible, not taking the Bible and making it fit their own theories, like most Theistic Evolutionists do. There is not a shred of indication in the Word that God used Evolution to create the world, and there is every indication that God created the world by direct act in 6 days.

That about sums it up then, eh?

Yep thats right. Nothing will ever change my mind, the Bible teaches that Evolution is wrong.

They don't matter. What matters is the data that falsifies a theory. And there is data that simply can't be there if the earth is young. Popper said it best: "1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations." Therefore, simple confirmations or verifications don't really count. They can never overcome the data that falsifies a theory. Confirmations, as Popper noted can only count "except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory: and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory." [emphasis Popper's] Your evidence isn't like that, because it ignores the data that falsifies a young earth. We can go over each of them in detail and show the flaws if you would like.

The Bible for me falsifies Evolution, and the scientific evidences that indicate a young earth prove it.

So? There isn't any indication about in vitro fertilization or pollution or the right to die, either. Many things that are in the Bible, such as stoning sinners, we don't do anymore. This is called picking and choosing what you want in the Bible. It is also called ignoring the evidence God left you in His creation. You can't do that. If, as you believe, God really did create the universe, then everything in it had to be put there by God. Satan had no part in creation. Therefore all the evidence we have found in the universe that says "evolution" had to be put there by God. The Bible tells you the who and why of creation, science tells you the how.

Yes, but the Bible does teach about the origins of the universe and they teach things that contradict Evolution. And I am hardly ignoring the evidence in the creation. Again, as I said, its all about the underlying bias. My bias is toward the Word of God, which clearly teaches that God made the earth in 6 days. I now look at the physical evidence and see proof for Creation.

Romans 5:12 is speaking of spiritual death. Genesis 3:22-23 clearly indicates that Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden before they can eat of the Tree of Everlasting Life. Therefore they were going to die anyway.

But, how can you ignore the picture of the dust? Thats clearly speaking of the physical death, and I think that the tree of life is speaking of the food needed for everlasting life, and if it is not eaten consistantly, then you will not live forever.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437; quoted by Stephen Neill in Anglicanism, Penguin Books, 1960, pg. 240.

Totally wrong. Thats elevated science above the Bible. You start with the Bible, and it is the infallible Word of God.

No you wouldn't. At least if you were honest. What modern day creationists fail to remember is that creationism was the accepted scientific theory prior to 1830. Also at that time nearly all scientists were also ministers. Now, if your claim is true, and evidence is interpreted by faith, then theseminister/scientists should never have decided that creationism was wrong in the first place. But they did. Therefore your claim is false. Evidence is not interpreted according to belief. The minister/scientists of the day looked at the evidence and decided that the evidence falsified creationism.

I would, my faith in the Word of God, which inexcapable says that the Earth was made in six 6 days, Exodus 20:11. The term day does not mean age in this place. The verse in 2 Peter is not evidence to prove that day in Genesis 1-3 and Exodus 20:11, etc. That verse is talking about how God is everlasting. Take a look at the context of 2 Peter 3:8.

Evolution rescued Christianity from both these problems. If there is anything that creationists are more ignorant of than science, it's Christianity.

I don't think so. The Bible teaches that there was no physical death before man sinned. God created earth to be the habitat of man, in there sinless bodies, to live forever.

Brothers, Evolution has significant problems with what the Bible teaches about the world before sin. Brother, please, start with the Bible and seriously see if there is any kind of indication in it that God used Evolution to make the world, or that God intended man's sinless bodies to die. There isn't any indication. You can interpret the Bible to come to that conclusion to support Evolution, but you need to start with the Bible alone and then interperet the physical evidence to support the Bible, not your interpretation of the physical evidence to fit the Word.

 

[seebs]

My Bible doesn't say what kind of death there wasn't before there was sin. It does say that we get eternal life if we believe, but since our bodies still die, it seems to me that the "death" caused by sin, and alleviated by Christ, cannot be physical death.

 

[Athlon4all]

seebs, the picture of the dust in Genesis 3:17-19 cannot mean spiritual death,, so what other death could it be??? Physical. The fact that it is in the curse indicates that it wasn't before the flood. Not to mention that God said that the "world was good" Physical death wouldn't be good. God created the earth and the garden of Eden to be the habitat of man forever, in their perfect sinless bodies.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Athlon4all

Brothers, Evolution has significant problems with what the Bible teaches about the world before sin. Brother, please, start with the Bible and seriously see if there is any kind of indication in it that God used Evolution to make the world, or that God intended man's sinless bodies to die. There isn't any indication. You can interpret the Bible to come to that conclusion to support Evolution, but you need to start with the Bible alone and then interperet the physical evidence to support the Bible, not your interpretation of the physical evidence to fit the Word.

Brothers, just don't try to pass this approach of as science . . .

To evaluate the validity of a scientific theory based on its relationship to a religious text is anti-science.

If we take this approach, we would need separate classrooms to teach science to different people, each with different answers. This, logicaly, cannot be what the scientific method provides.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Life as we know is cannot exist without death. Most religions recognize this cycle of life and death. Since life as we know it cannot exist without physical death, the garden of eden (supposing for a minute that it was real) was not of the physical world. Therefore the death is spiritual, not physical. Besides, when people suggest that accepting Jesus means eternal life, nobody seriously means a physical life. Even the "saved" acknowledge that physical death happens to them. Therefore, if the everlasting life offered by Jesus is not a physical life, but a spiritual one the concept of spiritual death is perfectly valid.

 

[Athlon4all]

Life as we know is cannot exist without death. Most religions recognize this cycle of life and death. Since life as we know it cannot exist without physical death, the garden of eden (supposing for a minute that it was real) was not of the physical world. Therefore the death is spiritual, not physical. Besides, when people suggest that accepting Jesus means eternal life, nobody seriously means a physical life. Even the "saved" acknowledge that physical death happens to them. Therefore, if the everlasting life offered by Jesus is not a physical life, but a spiritual one the concept of spiritual death is perfectly valid.

2 Things:

1. Garden of Eden was real. (no indication in Genesis that it was a figurative place)
2. Life as it was in the Garden of Eden was so perfect, that it did not need death. We cannot know exactly how different it was, but for example, there were no meat eaters. We were all vegitarians, there was no killing of animals.

You are correct on the account of that when Jesus said eternal life, he meant life with God, not in Hell (like now), but, that does not refute the fact that the Garden of Eden was created to be the habitat of mankind forever

 

[ifriit]

Athlon4all: 2. Life as it was in the Garden of Eden was so perfect, that it did not need death. We cannot know exactly how different it was, but for example, there were no meat eaters. We were all vegitarians, there was no killing of animals.

What kind of magic vegetables are these that can be eaten and not die?

 

[Jerry Smith]

1. Garden of Eden was real. (no indication in Genesis that it was a figurative place)

LC did not suggest it was figurative. He suggested it was spiritual or non-physical.

Big difference there. Many do think the Genesis story is allegorical, but the best I could get from Late Cretaceous' post is that he was making a case for a other-worldy Garden of Eden in the spirit plane.

 

[Jerry Smith]

What kind of magic vegetables are these that can be eaten and not die?

LOL! Maybe celery - doesn't it come out intact in the solid waste?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Someone posted:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437; quoted by Stephen Neill in Anglicanism, Penguin Books, 1960, pg. 240.

To which you replied:

Totally wrong. Thats elevated science above the Bible. You start with the Bible, and it is the infallible Word of God.

To which I reply:

Totally wrong. That's elevating empirical observation over subjective interpretation of the meaning of the Bible. Note that the gentleman did not say that if sound science appears to contradict the Bible, then the Bible is wrong. He says that if sound science appears to contradict the Bible, then it is our interpretation of the Bible that is wrong.

You are trying to elevate your private interpretation of the meaning of the Bible to the same status the Bible itself is accorded by Christians - making your own opinions about what it means just as infallible as the text is according to doctrine.

News flash: you are human like the rest of us. Your opinion is not infallible.

 

[chickenman]

why would anyone want to silence the critics

their "criticisms" are often hilarious, frequently a source of amusement to anyone who knows their biology

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by notto
If the papers in question are setting out to conclude that the laws have changed or what the affect of the unknown force is, then that is relevant to the paper. If the papers simply state that in order to fit the conclusions 1 and 2 must have happened, then that is an unsupported assertation used to support the conclusion.

The near future was related to YEC papers. Most of them follow this formula.

1) here is some data that we will study to show that the earth is young.

2) This data proves the earth is young based on an assumed drastic change in physical laws in the last 6000 years which must have happened because the earth is young and this data needs to fit in this model.

3) Therefore, this data proves a young earth.

The conclusion is used to validate the evidence instead of the evidence being used to support the conclusion.

(I don't know if the above makes any sense, but I tried to describe it as best as I could ).

It makes sense, but let me submit that what is happening instead is that creationists are trying to change what science is.  At this level creationism offers a much more serious danger to science than merely rejecting individual theories or data.  Instead of the "conclusion is used to validate the evidence" what you have is a very virulent form of logical postivism -- only positive data is acceptable.

What you are saying is that creationists start out with a hypothesis/theory.  Instead of trying to falsify it, they try to support it.  Notice that here creationists have the same misconception of science as most people, including most atheists -- theories depend on supporting evidence.  They take seriously the objections of amateur scientists about creationism -- "there is no evidence for it".  So they provide evidence. 

Where they go wrong is that they take only evidence that supports their theory, ignoring all the data that falsifies it.  However, once again they are simply reflecting the misconception of science stated by most amateurs and atheists -- what matters is the evidence that "proves" a theory.

If you want this to stop, then what you do is emphasize what science really does: falsifies theories.  You go with Popper:

"1.  It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations.
2.  Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3.  Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition:  it forbids certain things to happen.  The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4.  Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
5.  Confirming evidence should not count *except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory:*  and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory."  [emphasis Popper's]

The problem with this is that, for atheists, this means that atheism is also a faith. Because the existence of a deity can't be falsified by science.  Therefore, if atheists also take what science really is, they lose the fiction that their position is backed by science. Once that is gone, then their worldview also gets classified as a faith.

Personally, I don't care what your personal faith is.  I would rather preserve the integrity of science.

 

[notto]

Lucaspa,

Agreed,

The main problem I have seen with Creationists attempts to provide papers that back their position is that they often involve circular reasoning.

Paper A
The decay rate was higher in the past and we can show where a million fold burst of decay occurred because we have proven that the earth is young (see paper B)

Paper B
The earth is young because we have proven that the decay rate in the past was a million fold higher at a particular time (See paper A)

Often, this kind of circular reasoning occures in the same paper or article and the conclusions or evidence is not supported by independent data or other lines of evidence (ignoring other data as you stated).

When asked to show independent lines of data that support their conclusions they cannot do so. They do not take into account any other lines of evidence and their theories fail to explain other evidence as well.

The also fail to try to find other explanations for the evidence they use (again, as you stated) to falsify their conclusions. The question of "Could it be explained another way that is consistent with the lines of evidence we are using and other lines of evidence at the same time?" is never asked.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Athlon4all It doesn't specifically say evolution is wrong. However, it says that God created the earth in six days (Exodus 20:11),

That verse isn't concerned with how the earth was created, but in justifying the existence of the Sabbath.  I submit that you are not reading the intent of the author.  For instance, do you take Exodus 23:10-13 literally and make farmers keep their fields fallow in the seventh year?  See, you are picking and choosing which verses to "believe" and which to discard.

There is not a shred of indication in the Word that God used Evolution to create the world,

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

and there is every indication that God created the world by direct act in 6 days.

Then you need to look at Genesis 2:4.  That verse says that God created the world in one day.  Yep, look at the word "beyom", translated as "in the day". Other statements in the Bible about creation don't mention a time frame, simply that God created. 

Yep thats right. Nothing will ever change my mind, the Bible teaches that Evolution is wrong.

Then there is no point discussing with you, is there?  Good for you that they no longer stone people for apostasy.  Because you have just set up yourself as above God.

But, how can you ignore the picture of the dust? Thats clearly speaking of the physical death,

No, it's referring to spiritual death.  Going back to dust without an immortal soul to keep living. After all, your body is going back to dust, isn't it? And you think you will live forever, don't you?

I think that the tree of life is speaking of the food needed for everlasting life, and if it is not eaten consistantly, then you will not live forever.

Boy, for such a Biblical literalist, you certainly don't mind bringing in opinions of yours that are totally outside the Bible, do you?  Notice that when Christians bring in opinions on evolution based on physical evidence outside the Bible, you say they are wrong. When you bring in opinions  that are totally outside the Bible, it is OK.  This says "double standard" to me.  If eating the Tree of Knowledge once  caused complete failure, why do you think (from the text of the Bible only) that you have to eat of the Tree of Life continuously?

Totally wrong. Thats elevated science above the Bible.

Read Jerry Smith's reply and then read the quote again:  If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."

I submit that you have confused your interpretation with the Bible. 

You start with the Bible, and it is the infallible Word of God. I would, my faith in the Word of God, which inexcapable says that the Earth was made in six 6 days, Exodus 20:11.

YOU start with your interpretation and then say that you are infallible.  You look at Exodus 20:11 and ignore Genesis 2:4? Why is that?

The term day does not mean age in this place.

Then the same term "yom" in "beyom" in Genesis 2:4 cannot mean "6 days" there, can it?

The Bible teaches that there was no physical death before man sinned. God created earth to be the habitat of man, in there sinless bodies, to live forever.

Where does it say that the bodies were sinless?  Not in Genesis 1:25.

you need to start with the Bible alone and then interperet the physical evidence to support the Bible 

No one can do that.  You must use extrabiblical knowledge to interpret the Bible. Even starting with "In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth" you have to use your extrabiblical knowledge to know what "beginning", "heavens", and "earth" are.  There is nothing in the verse to tell you.

What this view ignores is that God made two books, didn't He?  After all, didn't God create the earth?  Then the heavens and earth are the second book of God.  Christians have long recognized this.

Once again, creationists are more ignorant of Christianity than they are of science. The Bible tells you the who and why of creation.  The second book of God tells you how God created.  What you are doing is placing your version of how God created above what God is telling us.