California Tim said:
You may know the concept better than I, given your profession, but isn't there considered a reasonable cause for doubt or additional suspicion in a trial where a suspect's story (alibi) seems "too perfect" or contrived? When a perfect answer is offered for every aspect, especially where more than one suspect or witness relays an "identical" story right down to the inane details, doesn't that raise a red flag?
Yes, and I will even give you an example (and show you why this concept is distinguishable from our current debate), which we learned in law school. There was fire in a factory and a number of women working at the sewing machine. The question became whether the owner had ordered that the back door be nailed shut for some reason, but there was simply no hard evidence one way or the other. The plaintiff's attorney asked a witness he suspected had been "coached" to tell her story. He then asked a few questions and then asked her to tell her story again. It was word for word. Then again. Then again. Word for word. The jury got the point that this was a coached, prepared speech and not credible testimony.
Now, that is very different than what we have here. In that case, what was needed was her personal story, since that is more likely to shed light on what really happened, even though it will be subjective and biased, and may be influenced by what she "wanted" to believe. While her testimony alone may need to be parsed and sifted, it could have been a useful factor in determining the truth. More importantly, the fact that she had a "created" story made the account entirely untrustworthy. Why? Because it was presumably "written" by those with the agenda to tell a false story, and (here is the important bit) there would be no way to
independently verify whether that written story was true or not. So, even though there was no evidence that what she was saying was not true, the fact that someone felt the need to create a story for her was telling.
In the debate over what is scientifically correct, we don't want just individual's subjective and biased opinion, on the one hand, so we would not have wanted the equivalent of that girl's own story. And, we would not want a story that was concocted by someone else that could not be verified by others in one form or another. What we want is the best explanations for the evidence we have. Evidence which is available to everyone (unlike our story), can be reviewed and studied, and people can come to their own conclusions.
What has been compiled is the result not of one person's subjective testimony, or the result of some concocted "script" written by those with an agenda, and which can not be reviewed and studied and critiqued by anyone who chooses to do so. They are the consensus positions of a very large number of scientists who have independently reviewed and considered the evidence, fought over what the possible explanations may be, and eventually reached a general consensus (or left the matter open for further debate, just reaching a tentative conclusion in the meantime).
With Creation science, we actually have a combination of both of the "bad" forms of evidence. We have a lot of people's subjective theories and ideas which are not really based on the totality of the evidence, but what they "want" to see. Second, the Creationist "script" is written not after a wide and thorough review of all the evidence objectively, but for the specific and sole purpose of providing a particular story that fits the agenda of the writers of that script.
California Tim said:
I have a philosophical question here for you. Do you not find it odd, even the least bit suspect, when virtually every concept offered by creation science is rebutted to the point that the claim is made both at "talkorigins.com" and here by you that each conclusion is "unconvincing" and ultimately "unscientific" even though some very reasonable evidence by brilliant scientists is offered? I mean every reasonable debate will include some concessions of at least a few minor points. But the evolution camp has gone to extraordinary lengths to attempt to disprove virtually every single detail in every hypothesis that counters theirs. Ironically, many of the rebuttals will include language like (although we cannot be absolutely sure, it seems reasonable to conclude....). They use their own admittedly inconclusive hypothesis to disprove other hypothesis' and, in the process, claim their evolutionary hypothesis is close enough to "factual" so as to be indisputable.
First of all, this is not at all like a normal discussion between scientists or concepts or ideas. In the case of two scientists, they both realize that they are honestly seeking the truth and not seeking "support" for preconceived ideas (in most cases). But, that said, if the evidence presented by ANY scientist is reasonable and supportable, it will be considered. But, if the conclusions reached are wrong, it will be rejected. This is what we have with creationist propositions. The evidence and the proposition is honestly considered, but if the evidence is shown to be non-existent or not representative, or the conclusions drawn are not supportable from the evidence, etc, then the position will be rejected. This is true of propositions from ALL scientists, not just Creationist scientists. What you are seeing is the ultimate conclusion after an honest review. And, yes, the track of that honest review is available to see.
Further, your own faulty premise is shown by your labeling of the scientists as the "evolutionist camp", as if there is a conspiracy and a concerted approach to falsifying Creationism. This is not the case. These rebuttals are gathered from all realms of science, depending on the nature of the claim. If the Creationist point is about biology, it will be a biologist that considers and analyzes the point. If it is about geology, then geologists will consider it and determine if it is valid. If the point is about astrophysics, then someone like Hugh Ross will be the one to consider it. In fact, it will be dozens, or more, such scientists from each field, who considers proposals presented. There is no "evolutionist" agenda behind all of these analyses, they are taken as they come and reviewed.
Talk Origins just gathered them into one place, so it looks like one "group" working to destroy all these arguments. The fact is that if you peruse through the site, you will see they go out of their way to present the Creationist perspective (often better than the Creationists do themselves). You will see sidebars on "The Creationist rebuttal" and then another on the response to that rebuttal. You rarely, if ever, see this type of "dialogue" on the Creationist sites.
Further, it is a simple fact that Creation Scientists are NOT doing real science and so their results are unscientific. Real science requires that the scientist allow the evidence to drive the conclusions and explanations, wherever it leads. Creation scientists are right up front about the fact that they do NOT do this. They start with the conclusions and explanations, and then go out and seek to find evidence to support it. This is unscientific. What ends up happening is that they find bits and pieces that seem to support their position, but which won't work overall. Or, they massage or select the data which will help them reach their goal. Brilliant minds, maybe. But brilliant minds using bad methods will result in bad science and incorrect results in almost every case.
California Tim said:
Not that I expect it to have any bearing on your position, but that is NOT what they claim on their own site. Some of the articles may be reprints of isolated tests, but the analysis and conclusions are not necessarily peer reviewed - and that is what gets the scrutiny when reviewed.
No, I think you will find that most of their citations they make is to a peer reviewed article. Moreover, most of the rebuttals are simply recitals of even more than peer-reviewed articles, but the actual concensus reached as a result of many such studies and articles. In short, good science. When this is NOT the case, they point out that the issue is still undecided or being heavily debated. Multi-regional or not, for example.
But the point is very simple. If the rebuttal is not supportable, then the Creationist scientist will have a response to that rebuttal. That is how it works. When they don't have one you can find on their sites, then it is most often because they simply don't have an answer. They have shot their bolt, and leave it at that. Most will not hear the rebuttal, so it sticks among those who like what they are hearing.