I have reason to doubt. I'll let the LORD judge, but I am just urging you to rego over it, and seriously consider if you have, brother.
Upvote
0
Do evolutionists silence the critics?
- Thread starter Late_Cretaceous
- Start date
JesusServant
do not stray too far left nor right but CENTER
How on earth could you prove that or even make that statement? That's like me saying all evolution theory believing scientists are being controlled by satan. I can't prove it, so using it in a science forum argument is pretty much ignored and pointless right?
Upvote
0
Jerry: Truly excellent posts. You managed to convey the same objections I've been trying to, in a much more cogent way.
A thought, however: I realize Lucapsa is gone for the time being, but this is the second or third time he (or is it she?) has brought up logical positivism in regards to atheism. (IE, you're relying on logical positivism which is false because the verification criterion can't be verified).
The issue here is that Lucapsa rightly rejects logical positivism as flawed, but does not understand nor embrace it's successor: semantic holism.
Logical positivism would say, in regards to the claim of a dead parrot, that lacking proof the parrot was dead, it must be alive. However, that's manifestly not true. Semantic holism, however, states that you cannot ever truly show the parrot is dead.
No matter what test, what observation, what claim you make, there is always a way around it.
Logical positivism states that the claim "The Parrot is dead" is easily testable. A simple examination could prove it. Semantic holism shows the fallacy of this. What if the parrot is an illusion? What if you can't trust your senses? What if a trick convergence of light beams is causing you to examine a different dead parrot?
You can't, in essence, rule out the brain in the jar, the dragon in the garage, or the invisible pink unicorn. No matter how you think to test for it, no matter how clever you are with things, there's always a way around it.
Heck, Creationism lives on this, and aptly shows the dangers and pitfalls of it. By substituting ad hoc explanations over ad hoc explanations, the Creationists weave a tapestry of horribly unlikely and complex explanations.
Which is why science (and people) use things like burden of proof, and preponderance of evidence, and reasonable epistimologies (in Jerry's words).
Because while the claim "The Parrot is Dead", I cannot rule out that I am merely hallucinating a dead parrot, instead of clearly seeing the live one, or any one of an infinite number of odd or far-fetched explanations, like pining for the fjords.
With an infinite number of possibilities, I am forced to reject them all unless I have some evidence they are correct.
This is not faith. This is the only way to function, period, in life. You do not consider that the apparantly dead parrot is pining for the fjords, or that your are hallucinating the whole thing.
Semantic holism requires Jerry's "reasonable epistomology". You can't function without it, because for every seemingly obvious observation, there exist an infinite number of explanations. You either spend your life trying futilely to work through the entire list, or you reject them all (because an infinite number of them will be wrong) until you have positive evidence they are right.
Science works like this, as well. Neutrinos were only one of an infinite number of potential explanations for certain particle behavior.
Until experiments were desigened and performed that yielded positive evidence for neutrinos, they were left sitting around, unused, because it was merely one possible answer, indistinguishable from an infinite number of other possible answers.
The false dichtomy of "Evolution or God" is a simple example of it. There are not two possibilities, but an infinite number. Both an infinite number of natural ones, and an infinite number of supernatural ones. You can falsify the natural ones and some of the supernatural ones, but no matter how many you falsify, you still have an infinite number left.
So you have to first choose explanations based on evidence, then see which ones you can show to be wrong.
A thought, however: I realize Lucapsa is gone for the time being, but this is the second or third time he (or is it she?) has brought up logical positivism in regards to atheism. (IE, you're relying on logical positivism which is false because the verification criterion can't be verified).
The issue here is that Lucapsa rightly rejects logical positivism as flawed, but does not understand nor embrace it's successor: semantic holism.
Logical positivism would say, in regards to the claim of a dead parrot, that lacking proof the parrot was dead, it must be alive. However, that's manifestly not true. Semantic holism, however, states that you cannot ever truly show the parrot is dead.
No matter what test, what observation, what claim you make, there is always a way around it.
Logical positivism states that the claim "The Parrot is dead" is easily testable. A simple examination could prove it. Semantic holism shows the fallacy of this. What if the parrot is an illusion? What if you can't trust your senses? What if a trick convergence of light beams is causing you to examine a different dead parrot?
You can't, in essence, rule out the brain in the jar, the dragon in the garage, or the invisible pink unicorn. No matter how you think to test for it, no matter how clever you are with things, there's always a way around it.
Heck, Creationism lives on this, and aptly shows the dangers and pitfalls of it. By substituting ad hoc explanations over ad hoc explanations, the Creationists weave a tapestry of horribly unlikely and complex explanations.
Which is why science (and people) use things like burden of proof, and preponderance of evidence, and reasonable epistimologies (in Jerry's words).
Because while the claim "The Parrot is Dead", I cannot rule out that I am merely hallucinating a dead parrot, instead of clearly seeing the live one, or any one of an infinite number of odd or far-fetched explanations, like pining for the fjords.
With an infinite number of possibilities, I am forced to reject them all unless I have some evidence they are correct.
This is not faith. This is the only way to function, period, in life. You do not consider that the apparantly dead parrot is pining for the fjords, or that your are hallucinating the whole thing.
Semantic holism requires Jerry's "reasonable epistomology". You can't function without it, because for every seemingly obvious observation, there exist an infinite number of explanations. You either spend your life trying futilely to work through the entire list, or you reject them all (because an infinite number of them will be wrong) until you have positive evidence they are right.
Science works like this, as well. Neutrinos were only one of an infinite number of potential explanations for certain particle behavior.
Until experiments were desigened and performed that yielded positive evidence for neutrinos, they were left sitting around, unused, because it was merely one possible answer, indistinguishable from an infinite number of other possible answers.
The false dichtomy of "Evolution or God" is a simple example of it. There are not two possibilities, but an infinite number. Both an infinite number of natural ones, and an infinite number of supernatural ones. You can falsify the natural ones and some of the supernatural ones, but no matter how many you falsify, you still have an infinite number left.
So you have to first choose explanations based on evidence, then see which ones you can show to be wrong.
Upvote
0
Morat what is your definition of aliving thing? If it does not follow your rules then it must dead. who can prove otherwise? It is the same philosophy that says you cannot prove some thing does not exist
Upvote
0
"What is living" and "What is dead" is more of an argument over definitions. Semantic holism merely states that, frankly, you can't ever be sure of anything, because there's always a way around it.
Jerry hit the nail squarely on the head when he said there were an infinite number of possible answers to every question, and thus an infinite number of wrong answers for every right one.
The problem semantic holism illustrates is that there is no way to know. You can't "prove" anything and you can't ever "disprove" anything. All you can achieve is varying degrees of confidance, by using methods designed to weed out the least likely answers.
I watched my child play a game yesterday. I can't remember the name of it, but it involved each side looking at 30 or so human faces. Each player chose a card, which represented one of those faces. You then ask your opponent "Do you have blond hair?" or "Are you a man" (asking about the single face card they drew).
You then flip down faces in the array of all possible faces, asking question after question until only one is left: the one that matches the card they drew.
That's a fairly good example. You start with 30 possible answers. All but one is wrong. Following a good methodology, you can rapidly eliminate "wrong" answers, leaving you with the "right" answer. Now, it's possible your opponent is lying. Or that he's drawn a card from another game. Or that there was a defect in the game that meant one face was unmatched. Or that one of you was dyslexic, and always switched "blond" and "brunette" in your head.
But these are remote possibilities, and can be discarded as really unlikely.
Science realized, long ago, that you can't prove anything. Their best response has been a rigourous methodology to acquire the highest confidance level in their answers (and to sort them by confidance level) and to ensure that no answer was above reassesment.
It the best methodology, judging on results, that humans have ever found.
Upvote
0
To MORAT,I know the game you are talking about.I have noticed my own children develop strategies to make the game very short. It requires logical thought so it is not a very good example of what chance is. especially when teaching probability and each student has a calculater
Upvote
0
No, it's not a probability game. It's a filtering game. Wrong answers are discarded quickly, narrowing the field until only the right answer is left.
It teaches some excellent ways of thinking. I felt so bad for the poor baby yesterday. He was trying to make planes out of legos, but wasn't bracing them properly, so the plane fell apart when he lifted it.
He got so frustrated, but was adamant he didn't want help. When he finally worked out what was wrong, and how to fix it, I was so proud.
It teaches some excellent ways of thinking. I felt so bad for the poor baby yesterday. He was trying to make planes out of legos, but wasn't bracing them properly, so the plane fell apart when he lifted it.
He got so frustrated, but was adamant he didn't want help. When he finally worked out what was wrong, and how to fix it, I was so proud.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apologist
2 Tim. 2:24-26
Here is the problem with theistic evolution:
If God used evolution to create everything then the first 3 chapters of Genesis are figurative and not literal. If the account in Genesis is not literal then Jesus was wrong when he referred to the first man and woman and even quoted from Genesis. If Jesus was wrong then he could not be God and therefore his sacrifice on the cross would be worthless.
I don't believe in evolution and I have read both sides of the argument.
I feel it is a waste of our time to go on and on over a subject that will most likely never be resolved since both sides have compelling arguments.
That's my $.02 anyway.
God bless
If God used evolution to create everything then the first 3 chapters of Genesis are figurative and not literal. If the account in Genesis is not literal then Jesus was wrong when he referred to the first man and woman and even quoted from Genesis. If Jesus was wrong then he could not be God and therefore his sacrifice on the cross would be worthless.
I don't believe in evolution and I have read both sides of the argument.
I feel it is a waste of our time to go on and on over a subject that will most likely never be resolved since both sides have compelling arguments.
That's my $.02 anyway.
God bless
Upvote
0
Does Creationism have a compelling argument that does not depend on the validity of the Bible?
If so, please post it. We've been waiting.
If so, please post it. We've been waiting.
Upvote
0
Well my advisor (an evolutionary geneticist and population theorist) accepts Jesus Christ as her personal lord and savior. What defination do you use?
Upvote
0
Apologist
2 Tim. 2:24-26
That would be my definition also, but my point was not to imply that there are no scientists who are Christians. My answer was aimed at the statement posted that said:
"Do you know that almost all scientists are Christians even the ones that are in the field of evolution?"
I am sure you would agree with my disagreement on that statement wouldn't you?
God bless
Upvote
0
Or sometimes talking about a spiritual existence and not a physical one at those times, while still being literal.
Or poetical and not literal.
Or mythical and not literal.
Or Jesus was right, and Gen 1-2 have spiritual elements besides physical ones in their literal description.
Or Jesus was right, but borrowing the Genesis metaphor (if it was a metaphor). He is thought to have been fond of them.
Or Jesus' words were paraphrased by the authors of the Gospels in ways that "made sense" to them with their understanding of the Hebrew scriptures.
Or Jesus was misquoted by the Gospel Authors.
Gosh, the list goes on and on of possibilities other than "literal or figurative" Genesis, implying, respectively, a "right" or "wrong" Jesus. You need to consider more possibilities. I think you went off somewhat half-cocked.
I'll leave this one well enough alone.
Your perogative. You should just be aware that, in so doing, you are rejecting the methods and results of 100+ years of strenuous scientific research in favor faith in your own fallible interpretation of the Bible. You should also be aware that what "you believe" has no bearing on what science has shown and what should or can be taught in public school science classes.
Then why doesn't the creationist side ever offer any of them? Seems the only ones they've put forth are not very compelling to any but those uneducated in the sciences.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apologist
2 Tim. 2:24-26
I think there are good points that negate against evolution but it seems that everything anyone writes on the subject is ostracised as not using the facts. For instance Dr. Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" is hailed as a great book showing the complexity of microbiological life, which points to a designer, but all I hear from the other side is negative statements.
Like I said in a post before, this subject is almost futile to debate.
God bless
Upvote
0
And I see you choose to excersize it. Very well then.
My sons go to public school and aren't indoctrinated with philosophical naturalism. They are educated in science (with its concommitant methodological naturalism), and I am glad of that. I would be proud if they chose science for a profession later in life.
I was also educated in public schools, and I have the fondest memories of my High School Biology teacher. He was a Christian (most everyone in my town is, I live in the Bible Belt) - yet he felt no need to try to conceal the truth about science from me. He did a great job teaching me about the science of evolution. He was not only a wonderful teacher, but he was also a great representative of his faith, and its dedication to truthfulness.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
