How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

[Elduran]

The ACLU actually defend the rights of Christians at times don't they?

 

[Magnus Vile]

They're currently defending the rights of Jerry Fallwell. Not that that is any clear indicator of their willingness to defend Christianity...

Yes they do. Repeatedly. Only that is a little inconvenient for some people to admit, so they ignore the facts. Facts are only good when they agree with you opinions, it seems...

 

[JoeWill]

Thankyou for your thoughts, but I do not feel that everything you say is very fair.

By tarring all creationists with the same brush - i.e. identifying us all as being unable to understand a scientific theory, you assume the rational high ground before the scientific evidences even have a chance to speak. This could be seen as a form of extremism not dissimilar to the attitudes of those Christian fundamentalists whose actions you decry.

You depict us as being too naive to grasp how sound the Theory of Evolution is, when many reputable scientists and philosophers regard it as being anything but sound. Examples include the former evolutionist Dr Dean Kenyon and former atheist professor, Anthony Flew. Neither of these men believe in a Christian God but now see the scientific evidence as leaning towards there being a Creator. In the 1980s the British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, demonstrated the improbabilities involved with chemical evolution, and modern Darwinian theories of how life could have begun do not seem to escape the problems that Hoyle identified.

With regard to evolution in the textbooks, the situation is difficult. Maybe things are different in your country, but in mine (the United Kingdom) evolution is taught as fact with pupils offered no scientific evidence the contrary. This would seem to be undesirable since science needs to remain objective.


You describe yourself as a "free-thinker" but this is after insisting that your own interpretation of the empirical data will prevail. Surely a free-thinker would be more open to the possibility that evolution, as an unproven theory, may one day be discounted as further evidence becomes available?

Joe

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I'm sorry agnostic but none of those links has definitve proof, or a demonstration of the transition.

Like you’ve been told many times now, science doesn’t deal in definitive proof. Science deals in evidence. The evidence either supports or falsifies the theory. If you ignore the evidence or dismiss it because it causes cognitive dissonance then you will never be able to be reasoned with. You will always reject science in favor of your preferred superstition whenever the two are at odds.

For as much you all dismiss philosophy for it's assumptions, science constantly makes assumptions and here is another.

And here you are sorely mistaken. Science draws logical conclusions from the evidence. If you could find evidence that refutes the TofE you would win a Nobel Prize. Instead all you have yet to offer is personal incredulity. You say there are holes yet you can not point one out. You say it can be easily refuted but when given the opportunity you fail. You claim that it is impossible for life to transition from water to land. When presented with living examples of animals in that very transition you somehow ignore it. All you have done is dismiss the evidence presented as if you know better than the actual scientists and claim incompatibility with your pet philosophy. I’m sorry but you have presented nothing of substance for grounds on which to believe the TofE is not the most accurate description of biodiversity we have today. If you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears in an attempt to wish away reality then fine, just don’t expect others to do the same.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

You yourself are an extremist and zealot, just of a different sort. Your extreme atheism and devotion to the cult of evolutionary dogma color your view of the world just the same way you feel 'religious extremism' does to others.

It seems all fundamentalists have been trained to take what should be a perfectly accurate description of themselves and project it upon every group they do not like. Funny how every hate-filled word you can muster to try and cast the TofE in a spurious light is religious. It’s so very telling.

Your attempt to intertwine creationism with those who would commit suicide for their beliefs ('extreme' Islam) is so far out of the line of reason that it makes you look silly. Advocates of YEC in particular are usually those people who are the most compassionate and giving, and no where near the sort of people you would like sow them in with.

I wasn’t only referring to fundamentalist Islamists. There have been plenty of other religious extremists that have killed themselves in the name of their god. The more fundamental the belief, the more extreme the adherents. It’s that simple. I’m sure you wouldn’t hesitate to give your life or take another for your god. Somehow it is perfectly rational to you isn’t it?

The disclaimers are rational, because the root of the problems with evolutionism is firstly scientific,

Then go ahead and give me one scientific argument against the TofE. Go ahead. Don’t forget to cite sources when you show us your scientific evidence refuting the theory.

and secondly (and more importantly, perhaps) philosophically and morally.

More importantly to whom? You and your ilk? Philosophy and morality have no bearing on the validity of the TofE. All it amounts to is personal incredulity.

Scientific falsification of evolutionism isn't possible,

Really? Because just a moment ago you claimed that “the root of the problems with evolutionism is firstly scientific”. You can’t even write more than 100 words without contradicting yourself. So is there a problem with the science or not? Let’s hear it.

because any problem is plugged in with theoretical rationalizations. Problems and criticisms are hand-waved away instead of seriously dealt with.

Problems and criticism based on personal incredulity because the theory conflicts with your belief system will indeed always be ignored. If you have a legitimate beef with the science then pony up. Arguing that the TofE is false because your god created man from dust is preposterous and should be ignored.

the root of the problems with evolutionism is firstly scientific

Yea, I’ve heard this somewhere. Oh yea, mixed in between your puerile rants and personal counterclaims that “Scientific falsification of evolutionism isn't possible”. Go ahead. Let’s see these scientific rebuttals. I can’t wait.

Evolutionism is the intellectual community's philosophical agreement because it is a godless form of dealing with the formation of life.

And this is where you’re betrayed by your lack of understanding of the TofE and science in general. Firstly, the TofE doesn’t deal with the formation of life. Secondly, science does not ever deal in the supernatural. Gods, gosts, psychics, and the like are not the domain of science.

Of course a disclaimer is needed, because just look at some of the most popular evolutionists, such as Dawkins and Gould. These evolutionary zealots are hostile to religion, and quite honestly, they represent and bring to light the true roots and cause of evolutionism, which is atheism.

You are improperly conflating some atheist’s disdain for religion with the TofE itself. Meanwhile you somehow ignore the droves of Theistic Evolutionists.

Reason is not a part of evolutionism. Evolutionism thrives on pseudo-science and unreasoanble assumptions and extrapolations. You're naive because you are a sheep in the massive flock of misguided individuals, whose shepherd's are even more misguided and blind than their sheep.

Slipping back into hurling religious descriptions as a scientific theory again I see. If anything, this is a fairly accurate description of Intelligent Design. Reason and evidence is at the very core of all science. Just because you don’t, can’t, or won’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s any less valid.

The same old garbage regurgitated by another atheistic evolutionist zealot is hardly impressive. Perhaps you could make a few of your evolutionist zealot buddies giggle and feel superior to those who believe in creation, but the fact is that the debate is truly about science AND philosophy/religion.

To you maybe. It’s how your religious leaders suck you into being a pawn for their cause.

Evolutionism

Back to religious modifiers again.

cannot be separated from the fact that it makes claims that involve moral implications.

Wrong again. I’m sure it won’t even slow you down though. There are as much moral implications in the TofE as there are in a volcanic eruption. Bad volcano.

It says rape is natural, abortion isn't bad, along with theft, lying, etc. It says that it's a normal factor of life from evolutionism's past. To say it doesn't hit on these issues is truly naive.

Nope. There are merely the issues that your puppet master knows will get you emotionally charged enough to abandon reason and fight for their cause.

The systematic erosion of Biblical principles and morality is being perpetrated by those who are secular humanists, such as the ACLU. The rise of evolutionism has been to the detriment of America and its morality. If there is going to be a theocracy in the U.S., it's going to be from the church of evolutionism.

Back to painting science with your religious brush yet again. Funny how every negative emotional plea that comes out of your head has religious connotation.

The struggle is between those who despise religion (especially Christianity), and those who fight for morality and Biblical truth. I pray that the likes of you never control this country, because your seething hatred of Bible believers is dangerous.

Who’s bible? This little outburst would be more appropriately aimed at all other religions other than your own. Your so narrow minded that you don’t even consider that this very sentence could come out of the mouth of any other religious zealot in the world regardless of what god they pray to. Somehow you’ve figured yourself lucky enough to be brought up into the one true religion. How very convenient.

You're free to think only what your cult leaders allow. You are a follower, not a freethinker. You are, in evolutionism's teaching, a mere ape with a mind dictated by the horrors of death and struggle. You are in a cult and don't realize it (as is the case with cults).

Someone give this person a mirror.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I am able to tell that evolutionism is based on creatorless assumptions

Is that it? After all your talk about scientific problems all you’ve got is a personal problem because the scientific TofE doesn’t give props to your particular god? How very… expected.

I am able to tell that it has no viable or demonstrable mechanism, and I am able to tell that it doesn't make sense, even when I have been analyzing it for quite a period of time. I have read, re-read, and read again the most prominent evidence said to be in favor of evolutionism, and I fail to see it as anything but wishful thinking.

The only problem seems to be between your ears. You’re probable going to have to start much smaller before you can overcome your cognitive dissonance.

I can see the dots that many evolutionists are trying to connect, and I can see the logic that they are using with regard to biological relationships meaning ancestral relationship. The problem is that their logic doesn't equal empirical science. It doesn't take a scientist to see the evidence, or to see the conclusions they are drawing from the evidence. The problem is, when you take away any possible chance of a creator, you are going to be able to come to only one conclusion. The intellectual/"scientific" community has taken away any possible chance of intelligent design, and created a required a priori asumption for the secular scientific community to abide by, so of course they are stacking the deck in order for you to come to only one conclusion.

Even you should be able to understand this. Supernatural things aren’t science. Just repeat that to yourself over and over again until those four little words sink in.

What I want many evolutionists to understand is that just because a creator is not able to be detected by natural mechanism, does not automatically disqualify it as a possibility.

No matter what your religious leaders have told you the TofE doesn’t make any statements for or against the supernatural. Is there a TE in the house to help enlighten this person?

We don't have to even "prove" a creator to "prove" intelligent design, but when we look at the evidence of design in nature, then we must accept the possiblity of a Designer. When we understand this, then intelligent design in living things makes a mountain of sense. But like I said, the deck has been stacked.

Fine, dream sweet dreams about the POSSIBILITY of your designer. It will never be acceptable science. It really is that simple.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

And yet the TEs and non-believers on the evolution side agree on all of the science.

Thank you. Why are fundamentalists so blind to this?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Thankyou for your thoughts, but I do not feel that everything you say is very fair.
By tarring all creationists with the same brush - i.e. identifying us all as being unable to understand a scientific theory, you assume the rational high ground before the scientific evidences even have a chance to speak.

Please, oh please, present me with scientific evidence that refutes the TofE. Please.

You describe yourself as a "free-thinker" but this is after insisting that your own interpretation of the empirical data will prevail. Surely a free-thinker would be more open to the possibility that evolution, as an unproven theory, may one day be discounted as further evidence becomes available?

Science dos not and can not deal in the supernatural. If someone presented me with a valid scientific refutation of the TofE I would abandon it for the superior theory. I’m still waiting for that person to collect their Nobel Prize. All I’ve seen are people complaining because their personal god isn’t named in the science books. I’m sorry it doesn’t work that way.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

…evolution, as an unproven theory, may one day be discounted as further evidence becomes available?

One more thing. No theories in science are ever “proven”. Proof is reserved for math and alcohol.

 

[shernren]

... former atheist professor, Anthony Flew. Neither of these men believe in a Christian God but now see the scientific evidence as leaning towards there being a Creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005[10], Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions ...

 

[Hydra009]

Thank you. Why are fundamentalists so blind to this?

Because acknowledging it undercuts the God vs science false dilemma.

 

[shernren]

What I want many evolutionists to understand is that just because a creator is not able to be detected by natural mechanism, does not automatically disqualify it as a possibility.

And just because a natural mechanism like evolution does not seem to require a supernatural creator, does not automatically disqualify it as a possibility, any more than the theory of sexual reproduction conflicts with "You knit me together in my mother's womb".

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But the deck hasn't been stacked against believing in God, just the fact that he had anything to do with it. Surely you understand that standard, real evolutionary 'science' will have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionism being guided in any way by the hand of God.

Science is all about finding naturalistic cause and effect. It is not about either final or first causes, nor about attributing meaning to those causes and effects. Supernaturalism is all about first and primary causes and is all about attributing meaning and significance to actions. They are very different things, science is at a lower level than metaphysics, it is a convenient way to separate these things. The science can not see the hand of God guiding life in biology, nor God in guiding love in psychology, nor God upholding the very elements in physics, these are principles in the metaphysical realm, not that of the physical. Why?

partly because of science's tools-methodological naturalism, partly it's goals-naturalistic explanations, partly because of it's history-it broke free from supernatural explanations because they are neither public knowledge (they are revelations of some sort) nor confirmable(no way to reproduce them), nor objective(they don't exist outside of the observer but inside in some special way) but most important no one yet has shown a technique to adjudicate between competing revelations, not in religion not in older science (16-17thC). Supernatualism was abandoned in science for utilitarian purposes, it simply doesn't work when you are looking at the physical world, all it does is to cause fights over who is right without any way of settling those issues, sort of like denominationalism today.

Your battle with evolutionism as you call it, or scientism, or the metaphysics of naturalism is not a scientific battle, it is not about the age of the earth, it is not about the assumptions of radioactive dating, it exists at a different level than these things. One element of it is the claim of sufficiency, the claim that there is nothing else, the claim that the final truth is known, these are NOT scientific claims, they are metaphysical claims. Man is an animal is a scientific claim, man is nothing but an animal is a metaphysical one. You need to differentiate these claims and address the issues to the right level, to confuse them is to make the YECist error that God wants you to fight MN science as well as philosophic naturalism in the same arena, at the same levels, with the same tools.

You fight philosophy and metaphysics at that level, religions compete, metaphysics is extended from and drawn out of the principles of science, but that extension is not scientific it is metaphysical, engage with it at that level. Show how Dawkins, Wilson and Dennett(for example) are talking not as scientists but as metaphysicans proposing an alternative world view. But this is not going to be about the age of the earth, but about how we use science to build our ethics, our politics, our psychology and what principles are operative where. and how science is incapable of fulfilling this task, it can inform the task of building worldviews but as people do so they are not scientists but people creating and working on their metaphysics, their ethics, their purposes for living, their ultimate morality.

Your confusion of the levels, the catagory error, is hamstringing your fight because you fight good science with bad metaphysics and neglect to fight bad metaphysics (man is nothing but) with good theology (man in the image of God). Essentially missing the real issues to attack things that are of far less importance. A not atypical problem for YECism.

 

[JoeWill]

"Please, oh please, present me with scientific evidence that refutes the TofE. Please."

Thankyou, but this does rather miss some of my original points.

I believe that a lot more ground has to be covered before you portray Christians as "naive", simply because they are not persuaded by your argument that evolution is a "sound theory". This is particularly so, when we bear in mind that some secular and atheist scholars have rejected evolutionists' views.

My understanding is that there are huge, huge gaps in evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining how life could have arisen though chance processes. Hoyle's calculations showed that it is highly unlikely that protein enzymes upon which even simple life forms depend, could have formed by chance processes. In fact, such an outcome is so improbable it could be regarded as 'virtually impossible'. Contemporary theories of chemical evolution do not seem to solve this problem, as they posit the chance formation of other highly complex chemical compounds, in structures that then make the transition to protein-based life.

While this obstacle does not disprove the Theory of Evolution, I believe that it does show that we are not at a stage where people can be denigrated for not accepting the "soundness" of Darwinism. It seems quite likely that no satisfactory explanation will ever be found for how mere laws of physics and chemistry could put together the very specific and complex component parts of 'early life'. This in turn, raises a serious question mark over any theory postulating that life has evolved through blind natural forces.

"Science dos not and can not deal in the supernatural. If someone presented me with a valid scientific refutation of the TofE I would abandon it for the superior theory. I’m still waiting for that person to collect their Nobel Prize. All I’ve seen are people complaining because their personal god isn’t named in the science books. I’m sorry it doesn’t work that way."

There is also a cash prize on offer to anyone who can adequately demonstrate how a single-celled organism could have evolved from scratch (Creation Magazine).

I find a problem with you logic here. You say that science does not deal with the supernatural. But if the empirical evidence suggests that there exists an intelligent designer we call "God", how can the scientific community ignore such evidence and remain objective? Such a lack of objectivity cannot be rational - it is tunnel vision. It is a form of intellectual suicide, in that it rejects a plausible alternative line of explanation that finds some support in scientific data.

Thus, when scientists such as Michael Behe argue from the evidence of design in the human body, to the possible existence of an Intelligent Designer, their voice should be heard.

It is the lack of fair representation that I complain about, and I do not need to disprove evolution to make that case.

Best regards,

Joe

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You say that science does not deal with the supernatural. But if the empirical evidence suggests that there exists an intelligent designer we call "God", how can the scientific community ignore such evidence and remain objective?

but the definition of supernatural is that it is not natural. if a designer is visible to physical eyes and it's activities are obvious to the scientific community, then it is by definition not supernatural and is accessible by methodological naturalism's tools to science.

however if the designer is truely supernatural then it is not visible to physical eyes and is only accessible to spiritual ones. this is called revelation and is not part of science because everyone does not have access to it, there is no way to adjudicate conflicting revelatory claims, and it is not accessible to reproduce the effects via MN.

if you can show how to overcome this list of problems then please show science how, as is, it has freed itself from supernatural explanations over the centuries because they simply do not work, for the reasons given.

 

[JoeWill]

One more thing. No theories in science are ever “proven”. Proof is reserved for math and alcohol.

Not meaning to go too far down the road of splitting hairs, I would counter that theories can be proven up to a point. Newton's theory that there existed a law of gravity seems reasonably verificable.

If no theory is ever proven...

why did you state in your original posting that "the truth will prevail"? I think most readers would understand you to mean that the Theory of Evolution will one day be shown to be true. How can this be if a theory cannot be proven?

Joe

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Thankyou, but this does rather miss some of my original points.

Does it? I mean, when it really gets down to it that’s what you need to cough up here. If you are going to deem the TofE unacceptable you’re going to have to show us why. Where is your scientific evidence that refutes the theory?

I believe that a lot more ground has to be covered before you portray Christians as "naive", simply because they are not persuaded by your argument that evolution is a "sound theory".

Why? The TofE is already accepted as the best reason for the biological diversity we see today. All the information is out there for you to learn. If you have a good reason why the multiple sciences that support the theory are wrong then you need to have a darn good reason. Show me the scientific evidence that refutes the theory.

This is particularly so, when we bear in mind that some secular and atheist scholars have rejected evolutionists' views.

Please supply the names of these scholars and their scientific evidence that refutes the theory then. In case you’re not catching my drift, I don’t care who rejects the TofE unless their reason is scientifically sound.

My understanding is that there are huge, huge gaps in evolutionary theory when it comes to explaining how life could have arisen though chance processes.

And this is what qualifies me to say that your understanding is lacking. The TofE doesn’t even attempt to explain how life arose. Furthermore, the TofE isn’t driven by chance. While mutations are basically random the process is guided my the non random process of natural selection.

Hoyle's calculations showed that it is highly unlikely that protein enzymes upon which even simple life forms depend, could have formed by chance processes. In fact, such an outcome is so improbable it could be regarded as 'virtually impossible'. Contemporary theories of chemical evolution do not seem to solve this problem, as they posit the chance formation of other highly complex chemical compounds, in structures that then make the transition to protein-based life.

Again, you’re not even talking about the TofE here but let me give you an analogy that may help you understand why arguing chance is flawed.

Take a deck of cards and thoroughly shuffle them. Proceed to flip each card over and place them in a single row as you draw them off the top and turn them over. I will then proceed to show you how it is impossible for you to have selected that sequence of cards because the chances are so low of selecting them in that exact order that it’s impossible for all intents and purposes. Does that mean that it didn’t happen? You have the cards sitting right in front of you don’t you? Are you going to reject the evidence in favor of my chance argument?

While this obstacle does not disprove the Theory of Evolution, I believe that it does show that we are not at a stage where people can be denigrated for not accepting the "soundness" of Darwinism.

Carefull, your colors are starting to show. We are talking about the scientific Theory of Evolution. I don’t care how much you demonize Darwin you’re going to have to tell me why the scientific theory is not scientifically sound to have an argument here.

It seems quite likely that no satisfactory explanation will ever be found for how mere laws of physics and chemistry could put together the very specific and complex component parts of 'early life'. This in turn, raises a serious question mark over any theory postulating that life has evolved through blind natural forces.

Again, The TofE is not abiogenesis and is not “blind” or “random” or “chance”. If you truly understoof the theory you would know that.

There is also a cash prize on offer to anyone who can adequately demonstrate how a single-celled organism could have evolved from scratch (Creation Magazine).

Again, nothing to do with the TofE.

I find a problem with you logic here. You say that science does not deal with the supernatural. But if the empirical evidence suggests that there exists an intelligent designer we call "God", how can the scientific community ignore such evidence and remain objective? Such a lack of objectivity cannot be rational - it is tunnel vision. It is a form of intellectual suicide, in that it rejects a plausible alternative line of explanation that finds some support in scientific data.

Super-natural isn’t like Super-man. Adding the word super to natural doesn’t mean it’s better. Supernatural things, by definition, do not exist in the natural universe. As such they can not be included in science, the study of the natural universe. The introduction of supernatural explanations for natural observations is akin to assigning a volcano god to eruptions. It’s merely a god of the gaps rationale that encourages abandoning the pursuit of scientific knowledge in favor of superstition.

Thus, when scientists such as Michael Behe argue from the evidence of design in the human body, to the possible existence of an Intelligent Designer, their voice should be heard.

Their arguments are religiously motivated arguments from ignorance. Like so many theists they simply point at any unknowns in science and attempt to place god in the gap. We need real scientists that try to fill these gaps with real science and not these pseudo-scientific evangelists.

It is the lack of fair representation that I complain about, and I do not need to disprove evolution to make that case.

If you do not attempt to refute the TofE on it’s scientific merits then you have no scientific argument. All you are left with is personal incredulity.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Adding the word super to natural doesn’t mean it’s better.

Actually...

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Not meaning to go too far down the road of splitting hairs, I would counter that theories can be proven up to a point.

As soon as you say “to a point” you are not dealing in proof any longer. Like science you are dealing with a theory substantiated by evidence, There is always room for new evidence to augment, refine, or refute a theory.

Newton's theory that there existed a law of gravity seems reasonably verificable.

And a law is different from a theory. We know more about the TofE than we do gravity.

If no theory is ever proven...
why did you state in your original posting that "the truth will prevail"? I think most readers would understand you to mean that the Theory of Evolution will one day be shown to be true. How can this be if a theory cannot be proven?

Because there comes a point when a scientific theory is so well substantiated that it becomes a fact. The TofE is one such theory. In science, no matter how well supported a theory is, it will always be a theory. This is not to be confused with the other meaning of the word theory that theists like to conflate when discussing the TofE. The TofE is a scientific theory, not a layman’s theory. There is a huge difference.

 

[JoeWill]

"But the definition of supernatural is that it is not natural. if a designer is visible to physical eyes and it's activities are obvious to the scientific community, then it is by definition not supernatural and is accessible by methodological naturalism's tools to science."

The fact remains that science could (and I think does) provide evidence of God and even certain characteristics of the Deity, which would offer an alternative explanation of our origins. We may not be able to progress very far beyond that point, but it would be lacking in scientific objectivity and intellectual integrity to fail to represent such a position.

"However if the designer is truely supernatural then it is not visible to physical eyes and is only accessible to spiritual ones. this is called revelation and is not part of science because everyone does not have access to it, there is no way to adjudicate conflicting revelatory claims, and it is not accessible to reproduce the effects via MN."

I might make the case that evolution itself is not strictly visible, accesible or its activities obvious, because it supposedly occurs too gradualistically, and over too great a span of time, to be observed. Currently you can only speculate from the empirical data that evolution is true, but equally you might infer the existence of a Designer.

Joe