Great EvC videos

[Mallon]

Just found this link over at Panda's Thumb:

http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evolution vs. Creationism/The Scientists.html

I've watched a few of these videos so far, and they seem to sum up the (non)issue of evolution vs. religion quite nicely. They're short, they cover a broad range of topics, and they correct many misconceptions people have about science.

 

[grimbly]

Great videos. Nice catch!!

 

[vossler]

I attempted to see what TEs are putting their faith into and supporting with such a deep reverence of sorts. Once again I'm left in disbelief and saddened with what I heard and saw. I watched these video clips up until the ninth one waiting to either see something solid in support of evolution or in lieu of that the true motivation of the series.

There certainly was a lot of fancy talk about what evolution was and how it is a scientifically sound theory but certainly nothing solid to grab a hold of, lots of hyperbole but no meat. I was about to give up listening to it when I finally got to video 9. This clip will clearly demonstrate the motivation or purpose of this series. It was titled "Purpose and Goals of Creationism," now that perked my attention to see if they had any idea of what it was or stood for. I'm sad to say this, just over 2 minute, clip made statements such as these in reference to creationists: "they long for and would like to recapture a pre-modern world""they reject much of modern science" "the creationist movement is attempting to accomplish theocracy""to have public policy...reflect their own particular religious views""they want to see the country governed by people who think religion should be the foundation of public policy."

Why couldn't they, for all their purported honesty, have gotten a much more accurate description of what creationism truly is? I believe the reason is because they don't want people to really know so that they can continue pushing their lies without having to address the truth.

 

[Mallon]

Why couldn't they, for all their purported honesty, have gotten a much more accurate description of what creationism truly is?

Perhaps you could correct them here?

And FWIW, the videos weren't created to provide evidence for evolution, as the actual video titles imply (though video 19 goes a bit into that). If you're interested in learning more about the support for evolution, pick up a book on the topic!

 

[laptoppop]

(Young Earth) Creationism is a model or explanation of the history of the world. YEC believes that the physical evidence is consistent with a conservative reading of the Scriptures. It is typically held by Christians who are conservative in theology. YEC does not reflect any particular political position. It also does not necessarily reject conventional scientific methodology, but it does recognize the limitations in this methodology. Again, it does not have any specific political position.

 

[Deamiter]

It also does not necessarily reject conventional scientific methodology, but it does recognize the limitations in this methodology.

It might be more accurate to say it imposes limitations on the methodology making the methodology entirely useless.

I agree, creationists don't generally hold to creationism for any political reasons. However, it's pretty clear that the vocal creationists in North America are quite interested in pushing creationism to all kids in public schools. In many cases politicians are being selected based in part on their position on origins which certainly turns this into a political issue.

 

[laptoppop]

It might be more accurate to say it imposes limitations on the methodology making the methodology entirely useless.

No, I'd stick with my original statement. Using the most mature forms of YEC (as one should do in comparing positions) you'll find creationists using solid scientific techniques. For example, in looking for modern fossil in precambrian strata in the grand canyon, you find scientists looking for repeatability, accepting and revising experiments based on peer review, careful laboratory techniques, etc. The findings become problemmatic for the conventional positions, but science is supposed to accept and grow from unexpected findings.

The limitations of the scientific method are when one extends it out into the historical and unrepeatable. At such a point, one must change methodologies, and work with things such as "could it have happened this way" and "what are the probabilities", etc.

The biggest problem with conventional science is that it continues to exclude non-natural processes in this phase. For the believer, it is quite reasonable to believe that God may have acted in the past. If you are faced with a condition where He says He did something, and the evidence you have can be interpreted as agreeing with this, then it is wise to take Him at his word and work within this framework. If the evidence cannot be reconciled with what He has said, then it is wise to examine more deeply both the evidence and the record of what He has said.

I agree, creationists don't generally hold to creationism for any political reasons. However, it's pretty clear that the vocal creationists in North America are quite interested in pushing creationism to all kids in public schools. In many cases politicians are being selected based in part on their position on origins which certainly turns this into a political issue.

What the videos are doing is making the common logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. The point is is that it is not YEC which causes the political involvment, so it is inappropriate to include it.

 

[random_guy]

No, I'd stick with my original statement. Using the most mature forms of YEC (as one should do in comparing positions) you'll find creationists using solid scientific techniques.
....
The biggest problem with conventional science is that it continues to exclude non-natural processes in this phase.

And this single line makes Creationism not scientific. If even the slightest bit of supernatural is mentioned in a paper, it's not scientific. It's impossible to study something that is supernatural, because any observation/evidence can be explained away using, "God did it". Adding anything like this makes Creationists not do solid science. No matter how you spin it, allowing supernatural influences destroys any creditibility Creationism has on matters of science.

EDIT: Also, your beliefs would also imply that the best scientists would be Christians since they would include the Bible in their studies, which is incorrect. Science works because it doesn't matter what the beliefs of the scientists are, but rather the strength of their argument. If we used the Creationist versions of science, every debate would end up with, "You are not praying hard enough" or "Your're being mislead by Satan".

 

[Mallon]

The point is is that it is not YEC which causes the political involvment, so it is inappropriate to include it.

I certainly don't think so. It is no secret that the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy, which I have seen no creationist condemn, is to see intelligent design "permeate religious, cultural, moral and political life."
There's no strawman being poked at here. Anti-evolutionists at DI have said these very things.

 

[laptoppop]

I certainly don't think so. It is no secret that the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy, which I have seen no creationist condemn, is to see intelligent design "permeate religious, cultural, moral and political life."
There's no strawman being poked at here. Anti-evolutionists at DI have said these very things.

It is still a logical fallacy. I would venture to say that all YECs drink fluids. It is not belief in YEC which causes this. In the same way, some YECs may hold a particular political position, or activism, but it is not required by YEC. There is a loose correlation between belief in YEC and conservative views of the Scriptures. There is also a loose correlation between conservative political views and people who interpret Scripture conservatively. But this is correlation, not causation. Belief in YEC does not require or result in particular political activism.

 

[laptoppop]

And this single line makes Creationism not scientific. If even the slightest bit of supernatural is mentioned in a paper, it's not scientific.

This line is scary. It specifically disallows the action of God in our examinations of history, etc. This is the kind of line which causes some YECs to talk about godless or atheistic science/evolution.

There are not two realities, one physical and one spiritual. God can indeed act in His physical creation. To completely exclude Him is the same as denying His existence.

If we accept that He exists, then we must make provision in our thinking for His acting.

If He exists, then we should be aware and curious about anything He has said, and always look for the complete set of ramifications.

 

[Mallon]

Belief in YEC does not require or result in particular political activism.

I agree. There is a STRONG correlation, however, between conservative political tendencies and YECism/climate-change-denial. Surely you will agree with this and not simply chalk this correlation up to coincidence. This is all the people in the videos above note, fueled by the DI's wedge document.

 

[laptoppop]

I agree. There is a STRONG correlation, however, between conservative political tendencies and YECism/climate-change-denial. Surely you will agree with this and not simply chalk this correlation up to coincidence. This is all the people in the videos above note, fueled by the DI's wedge document.

The way *I* would say it is that it is the conservative view of Scripture that encourages YEC rather than the other way around. The important thing is that YEC is not the source. I have good friends who are YEC who are both very liberal and conservative in their political and/or Scriptural interpretative viewpoints.

I also STRONGLY disagree with some of the political characterizations of conservatives, but this is the wrong forum for that.

 

[Mallon]

This line is scary. It specifically disallows the action of God in our examinations of history, etc. This is the kind of line which causes some YECs to talk about godless or atheistic science/evolution.

I think what is more scary is your understanding that only Christians are able to do 'valid' science.
For the umpteenth time, science does not deny God's existence -- it is simply blind to His involvement. Science is agnostic; not atheistic.

 

[laptoppop]

Removing any chance of God operating goes beyond agnostic to atheistic. Agnostic says God might exist, we just don't know. Atheistic says there is no chance of God, period.

 

[Melethiel]

Science does not remove any chance of God operating. It does say that there is no way to test for acts of God, so God cannot be included in scientific reasoning.

 

[laptoppop]

Not true at all. For example, the global flood, caused by God, left a TON of evidence. Science may have a problem with the cause, but the results are certainly investigatable.

 

[gluadys]

This line is scary. It specifically disallows the action of God in our examinations of history, etc.

Here we go again. A person who believes in God, yet assumes that nature is necessarily godless. Why is it you insist that excluding the supernatural is equivalent to excluding God? Why can the natural order not be the arena of God's activity?

Why do you insist on a divorce between God and God's creation, such that God cannot act in nature except by supernatural means? What excludes God from nature?

This is the kind of line which causes some YECs to talk about godless or atheistic science/evolution.

It wouldn't if YECs did not assume, just as atheist materialists do, that "nature/natural" = "God is absent/not active"

There are not two realities, one physical and one spiritual. God can indeed act in His physical creation. To completely exclude Him is the same as denying His existence.

First, excluding the supernatural does not deny God's existence, presence or activity in nature. YECs assume it is, because they do not recognize that God can and does act in creation via natural processes. This is a flaw in YEC thinking, not in science.

Second, excluding the supernatural from scientific study does not exclude the supernatural from nature. It just means that when and if God does touch his creation supernaturally, the event is not subject to a scientific explanation.

If we accept that He exists, then we must make provision in our thinking for His acting.

And we do, through recognition that God is not to be found only in the gaps of scientific explanation, but in what we know about nature too. The question in any situation is not "Is God active?" God is always active. The question is "What sort of means is God using?" If we can study those means scientifically, it indicates God is using natural means. When God uses supernatural means, there will be no scientific explanation. That is why science must exclude the super-natural, and why such exclusion does not constitute an exclusion of God.

If He exists, then we should be aware and curious about anything He has said, and always look for the complete set of ramifications.

We should also be aware and curious about anything He has done, and always look for the complete set of ramifications.

 

[laptoppop]

Not at all. God typically does work using "natural" processes. But it is denying the reality of God to restrict Him to those processes. Throughout history, from the flood to the miracles of Egypt to the resurrection itself, God has not restricted His actions to typical natural processes. I will not limit him to those processes, especially when He tells me that He has worked in other ways.

 

[gluadys]

Not at all. God typically does work using "natural" processes. But it is denying the reality of God to restrict Him to those processes. Throughout history, from the flood to the miracles of Egypt to the resurrection itself, God has not restricted His actions to typical natural processes. I will not limit him to those processes, especially when He tells me that He has worked in other ways.

But nobody is restricting God to natural processes. They are restricting science to the investigation of natural processes. Big difference.

How does limiting science to the realm of natural processes exclude God if God typically does work using natural processes?

Why do we typically get this complaint from YECs that limiting science to the investigation of natural processes is somehow a denial and exclusion of God?