The first Creationst Club essay is in!

[notto]

Except it doesn't talk about Creationism at all.

It is simply making the claim that the theory of evolution is philosophy (and along the way makes some rather obvious mistaken conclusions about laws and theories and how they relate to science).

Nothing new under the sun I guess.

(See the creationism sub forum if you are not famiar with what I am talking about)

 

[Donkeytron]

Except it doesn't talk about Creationism at all.

It is simply making the claim that the theory of evolution is philosophy (and along the way makes some rather obvious mistaken conclusions about laws and theories and how they relate to science).

Nothing new under the sun I guess.

(See the creationism sub forum if you are not famiar with what I am talking about)

Could be worse, but talkorigins for instance provides data on potential falsification for every point in their FAQ.

 

[shernren]

The link by Paul Nelson seemed good. But what was really funny was that it's a big nail in the coffin of IDism. If Darwinism being a science cannot be trusted to detect suboptimal design, then how can IDism as a "science" be trusted to detect, well, intelligent design?

Atheism and militant fundamentalism are two very-tightly-bound sides of the same coin, it seems to me more and more each day.

 

[chaoschristian]

Atheism and militant fundamentalism are two very-tightly-bound sides of the same coin, it seems to me more and more each day.

So I'm not going crazy when I see a similarity when both atheists and militant-fundementalists demanding that the Bible be read literally and indicatively?

 

[shernren]

So I'm not going crazy when I see a similarity when both atheists and militant-fundementalists demanding that the Bible be read literally and indicatively?

To be honest I've never gotten what you've meant when you use the term "indicatively" ... in what way is this distinguishable from or more specific than "literal"?

But anyway, I doubt it's crazy to see so. I think the similarity is blindingly obvious:

Atheist: The Bible is scientifically wrong, therefore it must be wrong.
Fundy: The Bible is right, therefore it must be scientifically right.

It feels insulting to say this but sometimes I wonder if a scientico-fundy is just a materialist who happened to wake up on the other side of the fence.

 

[chaoschristian]

To be honest I've never gotten what you've meant when you use the term "indicatively" ... in what way is this distinguishable from or more specific than "literal"?

It comes from R.C. Sproul's usage of the word in his book, "The Last Days According to Jesus."

It's an excellent discourse on the Mt. Olivet conversation and also provides a review of eschatological schools of thought regarding apocolyptics found in the Bible.

At one point he makes an argument for using the word indicative in place of literal when referring to particular interpretative techniques.

I was swayed by his arguement and have been using the word since.

Now, since I do not mark or write in my books, I'll have to peruse it tonight to find out where he says this, and when I do I'll post it.

 

[chaoschristian]

Here is the relevant passage.

From R.C. Sprouls', "The Last Days According to Jesus.", 1998, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI.

How one approaches the contents of the Olivet Discourse depends largely on the hermeneutic (the principles of interpretation) employed. The orthodox Protestant hermeneutic follows Martin Luther's view of the sensus literalis. There is much confusion today regarding the "literal sense" of Scripture. Luther means that one should interpret the Bible according to the manner in which it was written, or in its "literary sense." This was an attempt to prevent fanciful flights into subjectivism by which the Scriptures are turned into a "wax nose," twisted and shaped according to the interpreter's whim or bias. To guard against subjectivism, Luther sought a rule that would guide the interpreter to an objective rendering of the text.

To interpret the Bible "literally" in the classical sense requires that we learn to recognize in Scripture different genres of literature. Poetry is to be interpreted according to the grammar of the didactic. Historical narrative must not be treated as parable, nor parable as strict historical narrative. Much of biblical prophecy is cast in an apocalyptic genre that employs graphic imaginative language and often mixes elements of common historical narrative with the figurative language of poetry.

Part of the confusion concerning biblical interpretation stems from contemporary usage of the term literal. Literal today usually refers, not to the technical sense in which Luther used it, but to the interpretation of poetic images and the like as straightforward didactic or indicative language. To take every text "literally" in this sense is not to interpret it according to the genre in which it was written, but to interpret it in a plain indicative sense.

And that's why I use indicative in place of literal.

 

[Pats]

It is simply making the claim that the theory of evolution is philosophy (and along the way makes some rather obvious mistaken conclusions about laws and theories and how they relate to science).

Why don't you be more specific?

 

[notto]

Why don't you be more specific?

Comparing a law to a theory is not a valid comparison. Laws are mathematical relationships that describe the behavior of a phenomena. Theories describe the physical mechanisms behind a phenomena.

The theory of gravity would be rated a 0 on your scale. We know less about the mechanisms that cause gravity than we do about the mechanisms that cause evolution even though we can mathematically describe gravities effects.

The comparison shows a lack of understanding about theories and laws in the sciences and tries to discredit the theory of evolution based on an invalid criticism.

Specific enough?

 

[Dannager]

Why don't you be more specific?

I asked in the Creation Club thread if we could cross-post the essay here for ease of analysis but got no reply. Can we quote its contents here?

 

[Pats]

Comparing a law to a theory is not a valid comparison. Laws are mathematical relationships that describe the behavior of a phenomena. Theories describe the physical mechanisms behind a phenomena.

The theory of gravity would be rated a 0 on your scale. We know less about the mechanisms that cause gravity than we do about the mechanisms that cause evolution even though we can mathematically describe gravities effects.

The comparison shows a lack of understanding about theories and laws in the sciences and tries to discredit the theory of evolution based on an invalid criticism.

Specific enough?

Thankyou for your critique. I may use some of your advise in my revisions.

However, I still think the issue of spontaneous generation seems kind of vital to the theory of evolution that all life on earth came from a single cell organism that came from where?

And if life can spontaneously generate, as it did then, why do we have absolutely no examples of it now?

 

[Pats]

Dannager, I give you my permission to quote my article here. Sorry, I missed your post earlier.

When I submitted the article to the Creationist Club, it was in the interest of hearing the feedback of other creationists, and it is by far not one of my best or most current writings on the subject. But, I would enjoy getting the feed back of non-creationists as well.

 

[notto]

However, I still think the issue of spontaneous generation seems kind of vital to the theory of evolution that all life on earth came from a single cell organism that came from where?

That's like saying we can't study chemical reactions without understanding where the atoms come from. It is not a valid criticism. Can we understand the effects gravity had on something like a galaxy or a star even though we don't know what causes the force we call gravity or how the force came to being? By your reasoning, we can't. Do you think that is a valid conclusion? Gravity would get a 0 on your scale, just like spontaneous generation (which is really not the proper term). Should we abandon all physics and biology until we understand these two fundamental steps?

The evidence we have points to the conclusion of common descent . How life originally came to be has no real impact on that evidence or conclusion.

Darwin attributed the start of life to a Creator. The source of life had no impact on understanding what has happened to that life after it started. And didn't stop scientists from evaluating evidence of the history of life once it started in Darwins time or today.

Again, your criticism is unfounded and doesn't logically follow. All you are doing is taking potshots at evolution without actually addressing the evidence used to come to the conclusions it does, make the predictions it does, nor are you providing any alternative that explains the evidence better. Your criticism is emotional and tangential.

 

[shernren]

Pats, there is a difference between the atheistic evolutionist philosophy and the biological evolutionary theory. The difference is that one is a worldview, while the other is a scientific theory. It is very possible to have one without the other. For example, Raelians (if I'm not mistaken) would believe that aliens created the earth's diverse life - atheistic evolutionist philosophy, without the biological evolutionary theory for Earth's life. On the other hand there are of course theistic evolutionists who believe in biological evolution, but not in atheistic evolutionism.

Abiogenesis is only necessary for those who feel that the entirety of nature must necessarily be explained without God. [EDIT: After that post to Crusadar I realized that this is not true. Note that my deleting this sentence weakens, not strengthens, the creationist position, and strengthens my criticism of the essay.] The theory of abiogenesis states that the first life came from non-life, while the theory of evolution proposes that all modern biodiversity was generated by natural selection from a last universal common ancestor, or LUCA. Mind you, there *are* alternatives to abiogenesis. For example, let's say that the first living cells on Earth did not form on Earth, but were instead deposited on Earth by meteors falling from space - the panspermia hypothesis. It *is* a viable theory that would make evolution possible without terrestrial abiogenesis. If it had happened that wouldn't change anything in our fossil record (at least 99% of it at the macroscopic level would have no difference, I'd say) and in the theory of evolution.

Me personally, I am an evolutionist and yet I'm perfectly fine with the idea that perhaps the first life form was the act of supernatural creation. I wouldn't be surprised, given the current state of experimental (lack of) progress. But then again I'm not going to hinge my faith on it, unlike some branches of creationism which seem to hinge on the idea that biodiversity is too crazy chaotic to be explained by scientific evolution.

 

[Crusadar]

Still at it eh shernren, and still peddling the usual nonsense. Panspermia, LOL!

 

[Donkeytron]

Still at it eh shernren, and still peddling the usual nonsense. Panspermia, LOL!

Hows that thing with the dust eating snake and flaming sword and talking donkeys go again?

 

[Crusadar]

Hows that thing with the dust eating snake and flaming sword and talking donkeys go again?

Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot shall we?

 

[Dannager]

OK, I will be brave and post an essay. I wrote this in July '04 when I first started debating this topic in a private forum with a pagan friend of mine. I'd like to hear feedback on it.

And feedback you shall receive!

Here’s a very interesting question; is Evolution itself a scientific theory or a philosophy?

The concept of biological evolution is a scientific theory. There are other, common uses of the word evolution which can refer to social constructs and and chain of seemingly natural progression, but biological evolution is subject to evolutionary theory.

If it is a scientific theory, it must be possible to disprove it.

That's correct - falsifiability is a requirement of a scientific theory. The more opportunities a scientific theory creates for falsification (the more tests that can be done to affirm its validity), the stronger that theory can become.

In many circles, however, evolution is not treated as a disprovable theory.

Evolutionary theory is treated as a falsifiable theory, just like every other theory (including the theory of gravity and germ theory - I bet you don't think the scientific community sees those as falsifiable, but they do!).

It has been accepted as fact.

That's because evolution is fact! The concept of biological evolution is both a fact and a theory. To understand why this is, you first need to understand the relationship between facts and theories in science. Facts are observations and deductions, things which can be conclusively said to have happened. Evolution is a fact - it has happened and been observed. In fact, evolution includes a whole bunch of facts. Theories are explanations for why we observe what we do, and they are supported by facts. Evolution has a theory attached to it (evolutionary theory) which attempts to explain how evolution occurs. Current evolutionary theory stands, is not falsified, but has many hundreds of ways by which it could be tested for invalidity.

Many other theories are then based on this “fact” causing some scientific circles to work on rather unsure grounds.

The grounds are very sure. In fact, one of the scientific circles using these grounds is the field of medicine, specifically vaccination development. If it weren't for modern evolutionary theory we'd never be able to come up with yearly flu innoculations. Remember, evolution is both theory and fact.

One fact that is very interesting to take into consideration here is this:
Not all scientific statements carry the same weight.

This is very true.

Scientific statements carry various weights depending on the amount of verifiable data that backs them. It is possible to assign relative values to various scientific statements based on the number of direct experiments and observations involved.

This sounds like a fairly arbitrary system of classification to me, and I imagine that's the reason no notable scientific institution uses such a classification system.

For instance, the laws of thermodynamics are on extremely solid ground because of the millions of repeatable experiments and observations that have been preformed to prove their reliability. On a scale of 0-10, 0 being the least amount of supporting data and 10 being the most, the laws of thermodynamics can be assigned a value of 10.

Sure, but the laws of thermodynamics are laws. Laws are different from theories and facts. For more information on what physical laws represent, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law. For ease of reference, here is a list of qualifications for laws from that site:

Physical laws are:

• true (a.k.a. valid). By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
• universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies)
• simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
• absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies)
• eternal. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below), they appear to be unchanged since the beginning of the universe. It is thus presumed that they will remain unchanged in the future. (Davies)
• omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them. (Davies)
• "omniscient" (loosely speaking). The behavior of everything in the universe is automatically and immediately "known" to the laws. (Davies)
• generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman)
• often examples of symmetry. (Feynman)
• typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

A better example in its place would be gravitational theory.

Using this same scale, what value would we assign an evolutionist theory such as spontaneous generation.

What you call "spontaneous generation" is referred to as abiogenesis, and you are correct - there is not a whole lot of evidence for it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but science doesn't know yet whether or not it did. Fortunately, abiogenesis is not a part of modern evolutionary theory, so there's no need to worry. A lot of creationists like to claim that it is part of that theory, but to do so is to construct a strawman fallacy. Evolutionary theory makes no reference to how life itself began - only what happened after it did.

In the evolutionist view that all life on earth originated from a single cell organism, spontaneous generation must have taken place.

Nahhh, God could have simply willed the first single-cell organism into existence. Or aliens could have engineered them. But evolutionary theory says nothing about this. You can't attack a part of a theory that doesn't exist.

Life came from the inanimate.

Evolutionary theory doesn't say this.

However, what scientific value does the theory of spontaneous generation hold? How many times has that theory been proven? The only value to assign to the theory of spontaneous generation is zero.

Well, first, theories are never proven. They are only ever falsified. Proof is for maths and alcohol. Second, as I have stated above, abiogenesis (what you call "spontaneous generation") is not part of evolutionary theory. While you can feel free to assign whatever value you think is proper to it, that value doesn't reflect on evolutionary theory in any way, since abiogenesis isn't required (or even suggested) by evolutionary theory.

Scientists do use various lines of promoting evidence in an attempt to substantiate the claims of evolution. For instance, studies on living primates- their behavior, genetic make-up, and anatomy-are used to support human evolution. These studies, however, suffer from a fundamentally flawed logic known at begging the question. In begging the question, you assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove.

That's a rather damning accusation to make against an entire field of science. Many scientists are rather astute logicians. I rather doubt they would allow their entire field to stand on a fallacy. But let's take a look at your evidences anyway.

Let’s take just one instance in paleoanthropology that stemmed from this flawed logic. Take the fossil named KP 271 as an example. This is the lower end of a left upper arm bone (distal end of the humerus) discovered in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in north Kenya. It was discovered in 1965 by Bryan Patterson. It was dated by those who discovered it as being about 4.4 million years old, making it virtually the oldest hominid fossil ever found.

When the identification process of KP 271 began, computer discriminate analysis was used by Patterson and W.W. Howells. The measurements of the distal ends of the humeri of modern human, chimpanzee, and other similar fossils were all fed into the computer. The results of their analysis matched the bone most closely with modern humans, yet they decided to publish that the fossil would most likely prove to be Australopithecus.

Fourteen years later, Howells in 1981, said this:
“The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 million, could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much searching analysis by others since then). We suggest that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element.”

This is a prime example of begging the question. It is assumed, in spite of the morphological data matching this bone to modern humans, that it cannot belong to modern human based on its age and the assumption that evolution is fact, rather than seeing this as possible proof that there are flaws in the theory of evolution.

For an explanation of why these particular accusations are unfounded (and that the source you got this argument from has no idea what they're talking about, making incorrect assumptions such as contemporarily-living species cannot have descended from one another), please take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#kp271. Note where it says that the most recent examination of KP 271 found its placement within the australopithecines well-founded.

The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is not much more "human-like" than any of the other australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the contrary.

I suggest checking up on all resources before making accusations like this. I think you'll often find that creationist sources do a good job of making half-arguments that sound great until you hear the refutation. It's a good idea to check for such refutations ahead of time.

This is also an example of how fossil interpretation suffers bias based on the assumption of evolution, rather than a system that allows for the evidence to speak for itself. This very same bias is then said to be the downfall of the Creationist.

With the previous refutation of your accusation of fallacy, you're down your only example, I'm afraid. To boot, science is very good at weeding out fallacies like this if they were to exist. That's why the peer review system is so wonderful.

Of course, this is just one example. I want to go on, but being that this is such a long post, I’ll save it for later.

Hopefully the rest of your examples are based on better arguments than the KP 271 claim.

So, I ask again, is evolution a scientific theory or a philosophy?

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It meets the qualifications and has not been falsified.

Is there anything else you'd like to know?

 

[Dannager]

Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot shall we?

Did you have something to contribute to this thread aside from mockery?

 

[Crusadar]

Did you have something to contribute to this thread aside from mockery?

Actually - it was what Donkeytron or whoever it was who was doing that with the account of Genesis? And no I am not mocking anyone (never have) only the wishful thinking in that of sacred cow of evolution - now is that what your concern is?