Evolution Evidence Vs. Creation Evidence

[chickenman]

The most important sentence in that Plantiga article is this one;

First, let me remind you once more that I am no expert in this area.

 

[Cantuar]

The McMullin article is printed here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91McMullin.html

This is from the site that was recommended earlier, btw.

 

[Ben Reid]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti

...

And you'd be remiss not to recommend Plantinga's suberb and thorough evisceration of McMullin's comedy of errors in, "Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent Probability: a Reply to Van Till and McMullin"

Not to mention the "sublime" reply to Plantinga's suburb rebutall of the evisceration of McMullin's comedy of errors in: Hasker Responds to Plantinga: "Evolution and Alvin Plantinga"

Followed by the exquisite reply to the sublime reply to Plantinga's suburb rebutall of the evisceration of McMullin's comedy of errors in: Plantinga's Response: "On Rejecting the Theory of Common Ancestry: A Reply to Hasker"

And, finally, you'd be unequivically unfathomably foolhardy to forget the delicious reply to the exquisite reply to the sublime reply to Plantinga's suburb rebutall of the evisceration of McMullin's comedy of errors in: Hasker's last word: "Should Natural Science Include Revealed Truth? A Response To Plantinga" 

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Plantinga's article was talking about the general approach to science and faith issues, of which Evolution is one particular instance.

Plantinga states quite clearly in his article that biology is not his primary game (does this mean we should ignore everything he says?), he is approaching the issue (faith and reason) from a much wider angle; however, given that his article was written in 1991, I believe he conveyed the Theory of Evolution, as of that date, quite well (cue: reply with a huge rebuttal giving the current state of neo-Darwinism and how different it is to Plantinga's view)

Based on comments in previous threads, I'm not sure any discussions between the two of us would be fruitful, so I'll probably have to park my thoughts here and let you progress with future replies.

Peace.

-- Benjamin

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Ben Reid
And you'd be remiss not to recommend ...

I could recommend a whole lot of stuff, most of which is not on the internet, but if you think "evolutionists" recommending talkorigins as a source for information pertaining to evolution is analogous to recommending atheists.org as a source for info on Christianity, you might not trust me.

Incidentally it was I that linked to asa3.org in the first place. And as was pointed out talkorigins contains an extensive list of links to creationist sites as well. Additionally many of the talkorigins FAQs are accompanied by links to specific creationist articles. You'd be hard pressed to find a creationist website that operates in a similar manner.

asa3.org is one of the few (if not the only) fair minded science sites operated by avowed Christians that actually presents some opposing views. Why most creationist sites are afraid to link to legitimate science and philosophy of science is rather odd, especially in light of your comment about "indoctrination."

Indoctrination involves the systematic presentation of ideas that are expected to be accepted uncritically, and often includes both the misleading characterization and demonization (literally!) of opposing views. That is exactly what you will find in the creationist literature. I think it's pretty obvious that if anyone is involved in "indoctrination" here it's the creationists, and that includes the attorney Phillip Johnson and the "intelligent design" crowd as well.

This forum is full of threads in which information from creationist sites is presented and subsequently thoroughly debunked. It also contains numerous attempts to attack articles from talkorigins and elsewhere that inevitably fail.

So if anyone has been "indoctrinated" by "evolutionist" sites they've been indoctrinated to think critically, evaluate evidence, and to cultivate the basic research skills required to point out the numerous flaws and blatantly misleading statements continually presented by creationists.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Plantinga's article was talking about the general approach to science and faith issues, of which Evolution is one particular instance.

I understand that. I have read the article. He isn't talking about a general approach to science and faith, he is talking about the Christian approach to science, and he proposes a "theistic science," which is a misnomer, strictly speaking, since what's he's really talking about is "Christian science." Plantinga's "theistic science," although the term might appear to imply otherwise, is not for Muslims or Jews or Zoroastrians.

Plantinga presupposes a special, elevated position for Christians evaluating science as opposed to non-Christians evaluating science, or, for that matter, as opposed to Christians setting aside their spiritual beliefs in favor of practicing the methodological naturalism that has characterized scientific inquiry for several centuries. All this is fine for Plantinga but the potential for the proliferation of "Christian science" and "Muslim science" and "Judaic science" and "Zoroastrian science" represents an unwieldy and redundant expansion upon what is already there in the first place for practitioners of all faiths or none, and that is "science."

I respect Plantinga's personal position, although he has no reason other than simple assertion to claim special status for his Christianity, so long as he and his disciples among the creationist gang do not seek to legislate their way into the public school science curricula. As McMullin points out Plantinga's suggestions are extremely problematic for both science and the ban on governmental establishments of religion in the U.S. Constitution.

If it can be demonstrated, rather than simply asserted, that adherence to Christianity in and of itself can add something even remotely tangible to scientific inquiry and discovery, then fine. In the meantime Plantinga's ruminations remain little more than a highly questionable philosophical position and have nothing to do with scientific method, which, it is presumed, may potentially be agreed upon by all parties without the formal injection of supernatural beliefs.

Plantinga states quite clearly in his article that biology is not his primary game (does this mean we should ignore everything he says?), he is approaching the issue (faith and reason) from a much wider angle; however, given that his article was written in 1991, I believe he conveyed the Theory of Evolution, as of that date, quite well (cue: reply with a huge rebuttal giving the current state of neo-Darwinism and how different it is to Plantinga's view)

Actually it's McMullin's rebuttal that represents an approach from a much wider angle. And not only is McMullin a widely respected philosopher of science, he's also a Catholic priest. On the other hand it's Plantinga's view that is quite narrow, since it is based on his arbitrary Christian presuppositionalism. At any rate I don't find Plantinga's views even remotely relevant, whether they were his views ten years ago or today. What do his views have to do with the general advancement of science? Nothing.

Nonetheless, as I said earlier, I would recommend Plantinga's article to anyone as enthusiastically as you have, however with the above and following caveats. It's important to know where the overwhelming majority of devotees to the latest incarnation of creationism, "intelligent design," are coming from: arbitrary Christian presuppositionalism.

Based on comments in previous threads, I'm not sure any discussions between the two of us would be fruitful, so I'll probably have to park my thoughts here and let you progress with future replies.

That's fine. Obviously my position is that science is one area of inquiry in which all parties, regardless of faith or lack thereof, can agree to certain ground rules without the imposition by some parties of non-empirical appeals to supernatural intervention and various religious notions of objective morality which by definition do not exist since there is such a wide variety of demonstrable disagreement based on adherence to competing systems of supernaturalism. The last thing the professional practice of science needs is the legislated imposition of endless and pointless sectarian squabbling.

 

[Ben Reid]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti

Good comments. And the tone is appreciated. I will give you a proper reply tomorrow, I'm off to hit the horizontal ...

 

[Ben Reid]

I could recommend ...

My initial recommendation was just a starting point. I was suprised at your response since you had already suggested www.asa3.org.

In listing the other responses above (along with it being a poor attempt at humour) I was trying to illustrate that the McMullin "rebuttal" was not some final debunking of Plantinga's claims like you seemed to indicate. Au Contraire.

There was a whole series of dialogues and McMullins "rebuttal" was followed by a response from Plantinga (see here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga2.html) which, IMO, adequately answers any objections or misunderstandings between the two of them.

There was no follow-up response from McMullin (that I am aware of).

Anyway, if you look at it closely, you will see that there is a deeper conflict going on between McMullin and Plantinga --  the original and most serious dichotomy between Catholics and Protestants: Sola Scripture. Plantinga's appeal to Scripture as a primary source of authority is something which McMullin objects to.

if you think "evolutionists" recommending talkorigins ... is analogous to recommending atheists.org as a source for info on Christianity, you might not trust me.

Maybe the analogy was a little harsh. I still think that for a Christian, talkorigins is the wrong place to start looking at the issue, just as AiG or trueorigins might be the wrong place to start for an atheist.

And as was pointed out talkorigins contains an extensive list of links to creationist sites as well.

Talkorigins selectively links to creationist sites which they are comfortable with (i.e. don't effectively point out the shortcomings of Evolution). I'd hardly call it an unbiased website, though their bias has become more subtle over the years.

Just to save you the hassle of rebuttal, I will freely admit that many Creationist sites are biased as well, and many of them contain inaccuracies and so forth.

Indoctrination involves the systematic presentation of ideas that are expected to be accepted uncritically ...

I used the word indoctrination with respect to the discourse on these forums. I still stand by that.

it's pretty obvious that if anyone is involved in "indoctrination" here it's the creationists, and that includes the attorney Phillip Johnson and the "intelligent design" crowd as well

Of course, anyone who believes in creation or ID must be indoctrinated, right?

Richard Dawkins has humbly informed us that "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not go that far.)" (New York Times)

I see where you're going with this train of thought. Creationists do not think critically or logically, if they did, they would immediately accept Evolution. Since I accept Creation, that means I do not think critically or logically. If some of my objections and doubts about Evolution appear valid, then it is my credibility which needs questioning. To do this, you'll ask me what my qualifications are. I will tell you that I have two degrees which are not directly related to biology, you'll say, "See, I knew it! He's not an expert in this area, so obviously his ideas are bunk."

Sorry if you think if that is an unfair caricature. I've seen it happen way too many times and I've learned my lesson. That's the reason I have chosen not to go in-depth on these forums. If I wanted my ideas attacked by 10 or more people at once, all out to disprove or discredit me in any way possible, I would have just gone straight to the talk.origins newsgroup.

I understand that. I have read the article ... he is talking about the Christian approach to science ...

Why did you feel obliged to qualify that? The person I was responding to was a Christian and the first sentence of the article clearly outlines the fact that is the Christian approach to faith and reason (note: reason != science).

So, yes, of course, this approach is specifically for Christians and would not be relevant for atheists, if nothing else, because it accepts the Bible as a valid source of evidence.

BTW, Plantinga states quite a few times that it is Christian theism he is talking about, not Muslim theism or Judaic theism.

Plantinga presupposes a special, elevated position for Christians evaluating science as opposed to non-Christians evaluating science, or, for that matter, as opposed to Christians setting aside their spiritual beliefs in favor of practicing the methodological naturalism that has characterized scientific inquiry for several centuries

Plantinga doesnt presupose a special "elevated" position at all, he simply gives his opinion on how a Christian should approach these issues. There is nothing "elevated" about it all, it is just different to those who subscribe to methodological naturalism.

As for Christians setting aside their spiritual beliefs for methodological naturalism, you are asking the impossible. It would be like me asking a atheist to set aside his or her belief in naturalism or materialism. IMHO, a Christian must, by necessity, reject a sole reliance on naturalism for his explanation of things internal to the universe (though Van Til might disagree with me here) and reject it altogether for things external (e.g. it's value, governance and purpose -- nearly all Christians would agree on this). Christian theism and perennial naturalism are incompatible.

Chrisians do not reject the idea of using methodological naturalism, they just reject the idea of using it exclusively. We have other "tools" to determine which is the best hypothesis, for example, personal revelation from God, the teaching of Scripture (according to hermeneutical principles.)

As Plantinga states, "What we really want to know is not which hypothesis is the best from some artificially adopted standpoint of naturalism, but what is the best hypothesis overall. We want to know what the best hypothesis is, not which of some limited class is best -- particularly if the class in question specifically excludes what we hold to be the basic truth of the matter."

All this is fine for Plantinga but the potential for the proliferation of "Christian science" and "Muslim science" and "Judaic science" and "Zoroastrian science" represents an unwieldy and redundant expansion upon what is already there ... and that is "science."

There is no universal definition of "science"; and nothing is settled defining the word science as you please. If you want to use the word science to mean "empirical enquiry which does not involve God" this just means that we have to use different words to convey the issue at hand.

All scientists have the "common agreement" to look for explanations and models of the universe via the natural laws as we understand them. However, if this doesn't come up with a satisfactory solution, then the Muslim, Jew and Christian scientist has every right to explain it using other "tools"; andd has every right to refer to these "tools" as a part of science.

If you are that opposed to the use of the word science in any other context that methodological naturalism, then subsitute the word science for reason, which is at a higher level than science (as you define it) and encompasses perception, testimony and inductive and deductive processes.

And just to pre-empt a reference to "God of the gaps," I will again use the words of Plantinga to describe why this phrase is objectionable to a Christian:

"First, this procedure suggests that God is a gap plugger, that his activity in the natural world is limited to plugging gaps in a few areas of the natural world, while in the rest of nature everything goes on entirely independent of him and his activity. But the theist does not, of course, think of God as a mere gap plugger; God is crucially active in every transaction in nature, from the smallest most insignificant event to the largest cataclysmic event. God was active in the Big Bang; he is equally active in the sparrow's fall."

I respect Plantinga's personal position, although he has no reason other than simple assertion to claim special status for his Christianity, so long as he and his disciples among the creationist gang

I am slightly bewildered as to how can you say that you respect Plantinga's position yet call his article drivel, farcical and inept and say that anyone who agrees with him is his disciple or part of his "gang."

... do not seek to legislate their way into the public school science curricula. As McMullin points out Plantinga's suggestions are extremely problematic for both science and the ban on governmental establishments of religion in the U.S. Constitution.

I'm happy for the Creation viewpoint not to be legislated as long as the same applies for Evolution. Neither hypothesis can be falsified and neither can be deemed certain, so to teach either as a "scientifically" proven fact" would be erroneous.

But why shouldn't schools in America be allowed to teach Creation or ID if they wish to? ID is a testable hypothesis, not by Popperian Falsification, but by Probabilistic inferences which conform to the standards of quantitive research methodology (see this article: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/education/hps/creationism.pdf).

Maybe it belongs in the logic or statistic curriculum (as the previous article suggests), but in any case, I see no reason, especially in a predominately Christian society why students should not be exposed to ID. In fact I would object if they were not exposed to it and were taught that Evolution was a "scientific" fact instead, and would vote with my feet, just as you might do if the school did the opposite.

It seems slightly arrogant to me to insist that ID should not be taught in a country like America where the overwhelming majority of people are Christians.

In countries where Christianity is essentially a minority group (like my country -- Australia), ID is not taught as part of the curriculum, and never has been (at least in the vast majority of schools), so I really don't see what the complaint is.

At any rate I don't find Plantinga's views even remotely relevant, whether they were his views ten years ago or today.

An atheist like yourself doesn't hold Plantinga's views as relevant??? Considering it is quite clearly a Christian approach to issues of faith and reason and accepts the Bible as evidence ... Surely not!

What do his views have to do with the general advancement of science?

You mean -- what do his views have to do with the general advancement of science for atheists, who start with a priori assumption of materialism and only adhere to a their definition of science (i.e. methodological naturalism)? Not much.

It's important to know where the overwhelming majority of devotees to the latest incarnation of creationism, "intelligent design," are coming from: arbitrary Christian presuppositionalism.

Intelligent design is not a new incarnation of Creationism, it is a formation of one particular part of Creationism into a testable hypothesis (via Probabilistic inferences) as a response to the claims that there is no way to test for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

Obviously my position is that science is one area of inquiry in which all parties, regardless of faith or lack thereof, can agree to certain ground rules ...

As long as they agree to your ground rules, right?

Nearly all scientists agree to look for naturalistic explanations, even if, prima facie, it directly contradicts a tenet of their beliefs. It's just that many scientists, especially Christian scientists, don't restrict themselves to methodological naturalism and believe that the best explanation for a hypothesis may come from the application of other "tools."

You may object to Christian scientists who think like this and you may define these people as not practicing science as you would like to define it, but that doesn't make your position the Right One (tm).

... without the imposition by some parties of non-empirical appeals to supernatural intervention and various religious notions of objective morality which by definition do not exist since there is such a wide variety of demonstrable disagreement based on adherence to competing systems of supernaturalism.

Firstly, the proposition that objective morality does not exist is a red herring and has really nothing to do with the issue at hand, so I'm not sure what your motives were for bringing it up. This is currently being discussed  in the Apologetics thread on Objective Morality if you wish to pen your thoughts there.

Secondly, your comment that non-empirical appeals to supernatural intervention "by definition" do not exist makes no sense whatsoever, unless you come up with some really unique way of defining supernatural intervention.

Just because there are differing concepts of the supernatural amongst various religions does not mean, by "logical conclusion," that they are all wrong. Non sequitur.

Maybe one religion is right. Or a very close approximation to what is right. Maybe there are elements or glimpses of truth in all religions (I personally believe this to be the case).

Just because there is a lack of agreement on something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is "wrong".  Using this reasoning, pretty much everything could be considered to be incorrect. Evolutionists don't agree on a lot of the details. I've come across a few that have wildly different explanations of difficult issues (e.g. how bats might have developed sonar). By your reasoning, Evolution, "by definition", does not exist, right?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of people in the world believe in the supernatural is evidence that it does exist? Or have most of the human race always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most? Is it just one huge mistake?

 

[food4thought]

I would suggest www.icr.org as a good site for christians to look at valid research being done as well as some articles (impact articles) about various holes in the theory of evolution.

Science is allways adding new information, and I am confident that evolution will eventually go the way of the flat Earth.


[GLOW=silver]"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."[/GLOW]

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by food4thought
I would suggest www.icr.org as a good site for christians to look at valid research being done as well as some articles (impact articles) about various holes in the theory of evolution.

What holes? Can you provide any specifics?

Science is allways adding new information, and I am confident that evolution will eventually go the way of the flat Earth.

What new information has the ICR added to science?

 

[food4thought]

Click on research at the left side of ICR's homepage. It would be far easier to have people check out the research themselves than to have me poorly summerize them here.

"And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deuteronomy 6:5

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by food4thought
Click on research at the left side of ICR's homepage. It would be far easier to have people check out the research themselves than to have me poorly summerize them here.

I have, and I have found no information that ICR has added to science. Would you happen to know of any examples that I might have missed?

Also, would you mind telling us what holes in evolutionary theory you are thinking of?

 

[food4thought]

An example of research going on at ICR: Impact article #340.


Hole in evolution theory: How the first cell that was not self replicating found a mate.


I think the biggest hole in evolution is the origin of life to begin with; but for the purpose of this thread I will agree to leave this topic alone.



[GLOW=darkblue]"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Psalm 19:1[/GLOW]

 

[Jerry Smith]

Practically all cells are self-replicating. Exceptions include human hemoglobin cells, which are replenished from the bone marrow. Even many cells capable of sexual reproduction are also capable of replication by division, so the first sexually reproducing cells probably started mating with their sisters or cousins eventually.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by food4thought
Hole in evolution theory: How the first cell that was not self replicating found a mate.

Many primitive one-celled organisms that reproduce sexually are also capable of asexual reproduction.  So this "hole" is actually a non-hole.

 

[Cantuar]

"But why shouldn't schools in America be allowed to teach Creation or ID if they wish to?'

Because, to the extent that creationism and ID are promoting a particular religion, it's illegal to do so in public schools. I assume that private schools run by Christian groups can teach them if they want to. The fact that the majority of Americans are Christian is irrelevant.

 

[Cantuar]

"I think the biggest hole in evolution is the origin of life to begin with;"

Well, then, you'll be glad to know that the origin of life isn't part of evolution. Darwinian evolution requires populations of individuals; it doesn't address how life got started.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Edited to add: the post I am responding to appears below me because of an earlier CF server problem.

Originally posted by food4thought
An example of research going on at ICR: Impact article #340.

Impact article #340

What reasearch? None of the research mentioned in that Impact occured at ICR. All it did was say that one version of events could be the result of the fall. It is nothing more than an ICR opinion piece.

The ICR has produced a ton of writings, but do you know of any data/information that has come out of ICR that has been published in standard scientific journals or simply incorported into scientific concensus?

Hole in evolution theory: How the first cell that was not self replicating found a mate.

Well, the first cell that was not self-replicating probably didn't find a mate and didn't pass on its genes. That's fertility selection at work. But (oblagate) sexual reproductive evolved more than once. There are plenty examples of populations capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. The evolution of sexual reproduction happened like this.

• asexual organisms
• asexual Organisms also capable of sexual reproduction
• sexual organisms that have lost the ability to reproduce asexually

To claim that this is a hole in evolutionary theory is to ignore the decades of research into the evolution of reproduction.

I think the biggest hole in evolution is the origin of life to begin with; but for the purpose of this thread I will agree to leave this topic alone.

That's no more a hole for evolutionary theory as it is for music theory because evolutionary theory is not concerned with the origin of life, only the diversification of it.

 

[Ben Reid]

Originally posted by Cantuar
"But why shouldn't schools in America be allowed to teach Creation or ID if they wish to?'

Because, to the extent that creationism and ID are promoting a particular religion, it's illegal to do so in public schools. I assume that private schools run by Christian groups can teach them if they want to. The fact that the majority of Americans are Christian is irrelevant.

I'm all for separation of Church and state; but explain to me how ID is promoting a particular religion? Plenty of non-Christians subscribe to ID.

If ID is a testable hypothesis (via probabilistic inferences), then there is no reason why it should be not be taught at school, especially in a country where the majority of people believe in it. Maybe it belongs in a logics or statistics course, not biology, but the point still stands.

I think your reaction to ID stems from the fact that you don't like some of the possible inferences of ID (i.e. that the Intelligent Designer might be God).

 

[Ben Reid]

[deleted]

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Ben Reid


I'm all for separation of Church and state; but explain to me how ID is promoting a particular religion? Plenty of non-Christians subscribe to ID.

But isn't belief in a creator, no matter how generic, still a matter of religion?

If ID is a testable hypothesis (via probabilistic inferences), then there is no reason why it should be not be taught at school, especially in a country where the majority of people believe in it. Maybe it belongs in a logics or statistics course, not biology, but the point still stands.

Until ID produces something other than religious writtings, it shouldn't be taught in public schools as an alternate explaination. I think it is very telling about the ID movement that it had a textbook, Of Pandas and People, before it had any research. It is rather obvious, that ID people want to promote their pet ideology into science class, without bothering to go through scientific channels.

ID is not even a new, but rather a rehash of centuries old and discredited concepts.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Ben:

I very much appreciate the time you took to assemble that thoughtful post, and I thank you. Unfortunately I don't have time right at the moment to address the many interesting points you made, but I will.