Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Aron-Ra]

This perception may partially be based upon what side of the table one may be debating from.

Not possible in this case. I started on Talk.Origins in the 1990s earnestly hoping to hear every side give their best arguments -honestly believing that anyone who held a strong belief would be able to adequately explain it and justify their reason for holding it. I expected theologians and scientists to present their cases where the other would be ready to interject corrections or clarification, and in this way, I could best learn the truth of the contraversy. I was genuinely surprised, and eventually alarmed to see how shallow the religiously motivated arguments always were. The scientific perspective held all the cards. They had a very few disreputable people to my experience. But the creationist has never had a single credible proponant. Defenders of the faith admitted to me gleafully that they had no evidence of any kind -no reason behind thier beliefs at all. That's what "faith" means.

Consequently, there has never been a single instance you can show wherein a creationist debating this topic demonstrates both adequate and accurate knowledge of the issues where they claim expertise.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Can you give some examples of where it "doesn't always win out."

In people's personal lives. Scientific principles function great in test labs, but they often lack in interpersonal relationships, for example.

You seem to have an aptitude for making rather woolly comments,

Such as? Can you be more specific? You're being a bit vague.

or answering questions with other questions,

If I present a question, then it is not an answer. It is best for you not to interpret a question as an answer to another question. A question is a question and an answer is an answer. If you encountered a question while looking for an answer, then you will have surely disappointed yourself.

but I've not read much of any substance in your posts.

Nor will I offer you any in your lack of specificity. I'm not quite certain that your want is worthy of my effort. On what specific topic or issue are you searching for substance? Please be specific.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

An ideal endeavor. But how well does it actually work?

compare the unity of modern science despite major philosophic differences with the absolute fragmentation of the modern Christian church despite much common ground.
you tell us if the intersubjectivity of science works or not.....

 

[VinceBlaze]

Substance is the bane of anti-science posters.

Please define 'substance'. It will likely run concurrent with your definition of evidence. I don't know what you're looking for unless you are specific.

 

[VinceBlaze]

My inner voice is telling me to stay away from there for the time being.

That's entirely up to you. Please let me know if and when you become ready.

You either can identify a normative personality or you can't. Which is it?

I can. Is this what you're asking me to do? And what if you do not agree with my identification? My fear is that this will become a point of contention for you. Will this be the case if we do not agree?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Defenders of the faith admitted to me gleafully that they had no evidence of any kind -no reason behind thier beliefs at all. That's what "faith" means.

It is my personal belief that creationists and evolutionists are largely reflective of different personality types. If you are born with one personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the creationist perspective, and if you are born with the opposite personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the evolutionist perspective. Of course you may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. We will find our truths wherever we are predisposed. We will regard as evidence what we wish, and reject counter-evidences that do not prealign with our perspectives. And we will believe ourselves more logical than our opponents in doing so.

 

[Chalnoth]

An ideal endeavor. But how well does it actually work?

Depends upon the field, I suppose. It works really well in physics (the checks on preventing experimenter bias from affecting the results, that is).

 

[VinceBlaze]

compare the unity of modern science despite major philosophic differences with the absolute fragmentation of the modern Christian church despite much common ground.
you tell us if the intersubjectivity of science works or not.....

I fully acknowledge the schisms existant within the organized world religions. Ther are the stuff of wars. Christians and Muslims today are in direct bloody opposition to one another, for example. If indeed they all serve one god (which they themselves can't even agree on), then it is a schizophrenic god at odds with herself/himself, filled with intense inner turmoil.

Even within the Christian churches themselves, the vast degree of bloodshed in their midst throughout history is valid evidence against the inner consistency of the Christian movement. For example, the many slain within the Catholic versus Protestant wars. Martin Luther's protestant legacy left many tens of thousands dead, having incited intentional vexation before the Catholic Church.

Might I ask you, however, what constitutes 'science' in your personal perspective? For example, is 'psychology' valid science, or does it moreso resemble metaphysics? Or what about 'political' science? Are 'politicians' good scientists? What is science and what is not? Or what of law or philosophy? Are these sciences to you?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Depends upon the field, I suppose. It works really well in physics.

Physics is one realm of science. But what about psychology or politics? These are sciences also, are they not? Or don't they merit?

 

[Chalnoth]

It is my personal belief that creationists and evolutionists are largely reflective of different personality types. If you are born with one personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the creationist perspective, and if you are born with the opposite personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the evolutionist perspective. Of course you may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. We will find our truths wherever we are predisposed. We will regard as evidence what we wish, and reject counter-evidences that do not prealign with our perspectives. And we will believe ourselves more logical than our opponents in doing so.

That doesn't explain why there are significant differences between different nations and through time in these things.

 

[Chalnoth]

Physics is one realm of science. But what about psychology or politics? These are sciences also, are they not? Or don't they merit?

Psychology and political science are clearly going to be vastly more difficult as far as removing experimenter bias, so you have to rely more heavily upon peer review and independent substantiation. But they still have succeeded in learning much more about human behavior than we knew a hundred years ago.

 

[VinceBlaze]

That doesn't explain why there are significant differences between different nations and through time in these things.

To be sure, there are variations in exposure to different worldviews according to what nation or locale a person is born into. I believe that people will often gravitate to whatever worldview their personality type will predispose them. They will opt for the most preferable worldview that they have been directly exposed to. And is with locale, so also with time periods. Yes, worldviews differ according to region and time period, but I suggest that our psyches gravitate to the left or the right to personality-specific worldviews within our range of exposure. This variable remains true within the contexts of region and time period.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Psychology and political science are clearly going to be vastly more difficult as far as removing experimenter bias,

Do psychologists and politicians rely heavily upon 'evidences' as physicists do?

so you have to rely more heavily upon peer review and independent substantiation.

Quite a dangerous thing, insofar as politicians rarely agree. Indeed they themselves are at war with each other. And if I see three different psychologists, I will get three different diagnoses.

But they still have succeeded in learning much more about human behavior than we knew a hundred years ago.

But are they still two hundred years behind physicists in the first place?

 

[Chalnoth]

Do psychologists and politicians rely heavily upon 'evidences' as physicists do?

Politicians can hardly be called scientists. And neither would I call most psychologists scientists (particularly not the ones that patients typically see). Only research psychologists and political scientists could be placed under that umbrella. And I would expect them to rely upon evidence every bit as heavily. It's just that it is more difficult to remove personal bias by the very nature of the disciplines (especially political science, as it's nigh impossible to perform controlled experiments). I would hope that they have developed additional checks on their own work as a result, but I'm not that familiar with either field.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Politicians can hardly be called scientists. And neither would I call most psychologists scientists (particularly not the ones that patients typically see).

On what basis should I regard you as a scientist? Are you somehow wiser than politicians and psychologists?

I'm not that familiar with either field.

If one is not a qualified psychologist, then one should not make psychological assertions. If one is not a qualified politician, then one should not make political assertions. If one is not a qualified medical doctor, then one should not make medical assertions. If one is not a qualified economist, then one should not make economic assertions. If one is not a qualified religious pastor, then one should not make religious assertions. If one is not a qualified lawyer, then one should not make legal assertions. If one is not a qualified mathematician, then one should not make mathematical assertions. If one is not a qualified physicist, then one should not make physics assertions.

I'm sorry, but I just can't talk to you. You're simply not qualified. I went to school. I did the math. I know what it's all about. Your naivity vexes me. I can't live with you upon the earth believing the way that you do.

(Okay, now I'm getting a little emotional, lolol.)

 

[TeddyKGB]

It is my personal belief that creationists and evolutionists are largely reflective of different personality types. If you are born with one personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the creationist perspective, and if you are born with the opposite personality type, you will see truth for yourself in the evolutionist perspective. Of course you may disagree with me, but that's how I see it. We will find our truths wherever we are predisposed. We will regard as evidence what we wish, and reject counter-evidences that do not prealign with our perspectives. And we will believe ourselves more logical than our opponents in doing so.

How does this explain the not insignificant number of creationists-turned-evolutionists?

 

[Chalnoth]

On what basis should I regard you as a scientist? Are you somehow wiser than politicians and psychologists?

I work among scientists and have been published in peer-reviewed literature?

If one is not a qualified psychologist, then one should not make psychological assertions.
....

This isn't about being qualified, but about research. Scientists do research. Not everybody else does. Psychiatrists and medical doctors should be encouraged to keep up with modern finds in medical research, but aren't going to be doing the research themselves. Politicians should listen to economists and political scientists as a means of obtaining information to better guide their decisions for the betterment of the country, but they themselves are not going to be doing research in the area.

You don't have to be a scientist to be qualified or knowledgeable. You have to be adding to the total body of knowledge to be a scientist, though.

 

[Tomk80]

Physics is one realm of science. But what about psychology or politics? These are sciences also, are they not? Or don't they merit?

Much of current psychology definitely has merit and is testable objectively. Especially with the advent of biomolecular sciences.

In the treatment realm of psychology, there are still a lot of untested methods. But the research itself lends itself excellently to objective testing, repeative testing and peer-review.

Politics is not science. That doesn't mean it doesn't have merit, but it definitely isn't science.

 

[Tomk80]

On what basis should I regard you as a scientist? Are you somehow wiser than politicians and psychologists?

On the basis of whether or not I am doing research perhaps?

If one is not a qualified psychologist, then one should not make psychological assertions. If one is not a qualified politician, then one should not make political assertions. If one is not a qualified medical doctor, then one should not make medical assertions. If one is not a qualified economist, then one should not make economic assertions. If one is not a qualified religious pastor, then one should not make religious assertions. If one is not a qualified lawyer, then one should not make legal assertions. If one is not a qualified mathematician, then one should not make mathematical assertions. If one is not a qualified physicist, then one should not make physics assertions.

Someone qualifies as a scientist if he has shown that shown the ability to do scientific research, usually through an academic education. Treating psychologists do not train to do research, they train to see patients. There is a difference there. The same with doctors, pastors etc etc. There is no training to become a politician, other than being able to babble convincingly.

I'm sorry, but I just can't talk to you. You're simply not qualified. I went to school. I did the math. I know what it's all about. Your naivity vexes me. I can't live with you upon the earth believing the way that you do.

(Okay, now I'm getting a little emotional, lolol.)

I'm a bit vexed here. Treating psychologists do not do research and are not scientists. What's so bad about that statement. They have not trained to do research, did not want to do it and do not do it now. Same with all other groups you show.

Even 'scientists' is too broad a term, as science covers many facets and a good scientist in one discipline is not necessarily a good scientist in a different discipline then his own. I'm an epidemiologist. I have been trained to set up research with people for biomedical or psychological disciplines. I will never treat patients, I cannot. I will never be a pastor, lacking biblical knowledge. Nor will I ever do astronomic research, since that is way out of my league. I can deliver good quality biomedical research methods, which have as many way of personal bias excluded as can possibly be done and which can be repeated and checked by other researchers.

 

[AV1611VET]

How does this explain the not insignificant number of creationists-turned-evolutionists?

We call that backsliding (if they were saved).