Hi. Although I'm a TE, I was wondering if you believe that there are some arguments that we should never use in a creation/evolution debate. I'm looking more for logical fallacies instead of arguments with evidence. Thanks for your input. 
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What are arguments TEs should not use?
- Thread starter tryptophan
- Start date
- Status
Well, I heard it said by someone that ID is using the existing evidence but relating to it philosophically in a different way, and the conclusion being that evolution, as in common ancestry, is not acurate. This is going in the face of scientific evidence, so that line of argument I don't think should be used. Intelligent design becomes obvious once you accept a creator, before that I don't think it is, much as someone in church tried to claim that even atheists all conclude that the Earth is 'obviously designed' and that to say otherwise is 'ridiculous'. I think that if you don't believe in God, the Earth existing by chance etc is actually quite logical, and that where we are today could be reached by naturalistic means. It's just that where other's see chance in evolution, in physical constants, in cosmolgy and genetics, I see God, and I think He is all the more wonderful for it. 
Not really an argument for TEs to use anyway, but I thought it a point worth making
Not really an argument for TEs to use anyway, but I thought it a point worth making
Upvote
0
TwinCrier
Double Blessed and spreading the gospel
- Oct 11, 2002
- 6,069
- 617
- 55
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I think the argument that YEC is not science should be done away with. It's unfair to totally dismiss any debate or evidence for YEC by simply saying "that's not science" when science is defined as anything that supports evolution.
Also, evolutionist admit that science changes what is perceived as fact or truth based on new information received, please explain what new findings have revealed in instead of making claims that your viewpoint is being misrepresented. For example, I was surprised to read on this forum that evolution is not the bettering of the species.
Also, evolutionist admit that science changes what is perceived as fact or truth based on new information received, please explain what new findings have revealed in instead of making claims that your viewpoint is being misrepresented. For example, I was surprised to read on this forum that evolution is not the bettering of the species.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
For me the weakest argument for descent from a single common ancestor is mutations as a demonstrated mechanism. Nothing we are seeing in biology is support for this, in fact, we see that mutations are negative.
"These mutagens have nearly without exception a negative outcome on the organism, their effect is time- and dose-dependent and often lethal."
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e10/10d.htm
"These mutagens have nearly without exception a negative outcome on the organism, their effect is time- and dose-dependent and often lethal."
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e10/10d.htm
Upvote
0
That doesn't really count. I was looking more for logical fallacies than scientific evidence arguments.mark kennedy said:
Upvote
0
Ave Maria
Ave Maria Gratia Plena
- May 31, 2004
- 41,137
- 2,042
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I totally agree. This is how the dictionary defines science:TwinCrier said:
sci·ence
(s
n.1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
I got this from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science. Now, maybe this is just me but I think Creationism fits within this definition.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Logical Fallacies that TE should avoid:
1. That rejecting evolution is the same as believing that the sun revolves around the earth.
"The Koran and the Bible do not contradict Copernicus, nor does Copernicus contradict them. It is ludicrous to mistake the Bible and the Koran for primers of natural science." (Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)
Creationists simply do not deny evolution in natural science, they reject the universal common ancestor model as a bogus mythology. In fact the author goes on to say that we are only seperated from mold by 68 mutations (Minimal mutational distances between human cytochrome C and the cytochrome C of other living beings). This is a deceptive oversimplification and a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts of evolutionary biology.
2. That Darwin has nothing to do with it, that Darwinian evolution is not the heart of evolutionary biology and that it is not an attack on special creation.
"It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact ...The claims of the creationists have been refuted so frequently and so thoroughly that there is no need to cover this subject once more" (E. Mayr, What Evolution Is, 2001)
Now from the Creationist camp there is one important observation that is virtually allways ignored.
These evidences are essentially the same as those used 140 years ago by Darwin in the Origin (fossils, comparative morphology, embryological similarities and recapitulation, vestigial structures, and geographical distribution). Mayr adds nothing new to these arguments, ignoring the fact that creationists (and even a number of evolutionists) have long since refuted all of them. (Henry Morris PHD, THE DEAN OF EVOLUTION)
3. That there is no philosophical bias against religion and that believing in God is compatable with evolution in natural history.
"A whale's flipper, a man's arm, a bird's wing, and a dog's foreleg...perform functions about as different and varied as styles of locomotion in vertebrates can be, yet all are built of the same bones. Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines? The common structure must reflect common descent from an ancestor possessing these bones." (Salvador Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer, A View of Life)
The logical fallacy here is identified by a professor of philosophy who pointed to the term, 'wise creator'.
"I turn next to the problem of what a "wise creator" would do, a problem related to the ambiguity of "perfection" as an operational construct. Suppose we begin with the conventional conception of the creator. According to the second premise of the argument from divine wisdom, if a perfect God created the world, we should expect to observe "perfect" organic design -- but what sense should be attached to this term? Is it possible that biological entities judged imperfect when considered individually, might combine to form a macrosystem judged perfect? Here, theological difficulties ordinarily ignored in any biological analysis come crowding to the fore." (Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule? By Paul Little)
4. That evolution is not an alternative to Theistic metaphysics.
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a
general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must followthis is what evolution is." (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Quoted in Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution)
I also highly recommend this discussion if you are looking for logical fallicies in homology as applied to evoltutionary biology.
Homology a concept in crisis
1. That rejecting evolution is the same as believing that the sun revolves around the earth.
"The Koran and the Bible do not contradict Copernicus, nor does Copernicus contradict them. It is ludicrous to mistake the Bible and the Koran for primers of natural science." (Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)
Creationists simply do not deny evolution in natural science, they reject the universal common ancestor model as a bogus mythology. In fact the author goes on to say that we are only seperated from mold by 68 mutations (Minimal mutational distances between human cytochrome C and the cytochrome C of other living beings). This is a deceptive oversimplification and a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts of evolutionary biology.
2. That Darwin has nothing to do with it, that Darwinian evolution is not the heart of evolutionary biology and that it is not an attack on special creation.
"It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact ...The claims of the creationists have been refuted so frequently and so thoroughly that there is no need to cover this subject once more" (E. Mayr, What Evolution Is, 2001)
Now from the Creationist camp there is one important observation that is virtually allways ignored.
These evidences are essentially the same as those used 140 years ago by Darwin in the Origin (fossils, comparative morphology, embryological similarities and recapitulation, vestigial structures, and geographical distribution). Mayr adds nothing new to these arguments, ignoring the fact that creationists (and even a number of evolutionists) have long since refuted all of them. (Henry Morris PHD, THE DEAN OF EVOLUTION)
3. That there is no philosophical bias against religion and that believing in God is compatable with evolution in natural history.
"A whale's flipper, a man's arm, a bird's wing, and a dog's foreleg...perform functions about as different and varied as styles of locomotion in vertebrates can be, yet all are built of the same bones. Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines? The common structure must reflect common descent from an ancestor possessing these bones." (Salvador Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer, A View of Life)
The logical fallacy here is identified by a professor of philosophy who pointed to the term, 'wise creator'.
"I turn next to the problem of what a "wise creator" would do, a problem related to the ambiguity of "perfection" as an operational construct. Suppose we begin with the conventional conception of the creator. According to the second premise of the argument from divine wisdom, if a perfect God created the world, we should expect to observe "perfect" organic design -- but what sense should be attached to this term? Is it possible that biological entities judged imperfect when considered individually, might combine to form a macrosystem judged perfect? Here, theological difficulties ordinarily ignored in any biological analysis come crowding to the fore." (Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule? By Paul Little)
4. That evolution is not an alternative to Theistic metaphysics.
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a
general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must followthis is what evolution is." (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Quoted in Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution)
I also highly recommend this discussion if you are looking for logical fallicies in homology as applied to evoltutionary biology.
Homology a concept in crisis
Upvote
0
adam149
Active Member
1. Equating YEC with belief in a flat earth or geocentric universe. This is like claiming a car is exactly the same as a house.tryptophan said:Hi. Although I'm a TE, I was wondering if you believe that there are some arguments that we should never use in a creation/evolution debate. I'm looking more for logical fallacies instead of arguments with evidence. Thanks for your input.
2. Claiming that the science of unregenerates is equal or greater in authority than the Holy Scriptures (This is never done directly). The dictates of scripture far exceed the claims of the unregenerates who developed the myth of evolution, first as a part of pagan mythology, then as philosophical fact with the Greeks, then as real "science" by those before and after Darwin.
3. Science was a result of the Enlightenment and there was a Copernian Revolution. This is utter nonsense historically. Science was a direct result of Christianity based on the teachings of scripture. Copernicus did not "revolutionize" science with his helocentrism, in fact it was generally accepted before him, he merely described it mathematically.
For points 2 and 3, see The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led To Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and The End of Slavery, by sociologist Rodney Stark
Upvote
0
Mark, are you saying that a belief in God and a belief in evolution are not compatable?
Edited.
Edited.
Upvote
0
Here are some arguments that I don't think TEs should use
-"I take the Bible just as literally as you do..."
-comparing YEC to flat earth or geocentrism
-"...but that's your interpretation..."
-"But Look at God's other testament--Nature..."
-"I take the Bible just as literally as you do..."
-comparing YEC to flat earth or geocentrism
-"...but that's your interpretation..."
-"But Look at God's other testament--Nature..."
Upvote
0
tryptophan,
Hi. Although I'm a TE, I was wondering if you believe that there are some arguments that we should never use in a creation/evolution debate. I'm looking more for logical fallacies instead of arguments with evidence. Thanks for your input.
The "there's no evidence for creation" statement. It is logically flawed as we both have the same evidence (be it rocks, fossils, animals and plants, etc). We also both use the same science, e.g. biology, genetics, astronomy and astrophysics and so on. The only thing that differs is our interpretation of the evidence (i.e. how it got here or it's origins) which is heavily influenced by our starting beliefs and biases. For example, an atheist will not accept that God made everything since he doesn't believe in God and therefore must turn to naturalism in order to answer the "Where do we come from?" question.
Also steming on from the above, the "creation's religious while evolution is scientific" argument is also flawed. As you can see from above, we both use the same science and the same evidence. We only differ when trying to explain how the evidence was created or it's origins. Creation v. evolution is a battle of how the evidence came into being. This makes it a battle of philosophies, i.e. naturalism v. Christianity.
Another flawed argument is the "creationists are just religious fundamentalists and not scientists" or the "no real scientist believes in creation" argument. This can easily be shown false by sending them to the Answers in Genesis creation scientist biography page, i.e. http://http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp . It is also interesting to note that many fields (most) were started by or have been radically improved by creation scientists.
These and other personal attacks against creation itself or creation scientists are always logically flawed and a waste of typing - so please don't use them.
Hi. Although I'm a TE, I was wondering if you believe that there are some arguments that we should never use in a creation/evolution debate. I'm looking more for logical fallacies instead of arguments with evidence. Thanks for your input.
The "there's no evidence for creation" statement. It is logically flawed as we both have the same evidence (be it rocks, fossils, animals and plants, etc). We also both use the same science, e.g. biology, genetics, astronomy and astrophysics and so on. The only thing that differs is our interpretation of the evidence (i.e. how it got here or it's origins) which is heavily influenced by our starting beliefs and biases. For example, an atheist will not accept that God made everything since he doesn't believe in God and therefore must turn to naturalism in order to answer the "Where do we come from?" question.
Also steming on from the above, the "creation's religious while evolution is scientific" argument is also flawed. As you can see from above, we both use the same science and the same evidence. We only differ when trying to explain how the evidence was created or it's origins. Creation v. evolution is a battle of how the evidence came into being. This makes it a battle of philosophies, i.e. naturalism v. Christianity.
Another flawed argument is the "creationists are just religious fundamentalists and not scientists" or the "no real scientist believes in creation" argument. This can easily be shown false by sending them to the Answers in Genesis creation scientist biography page, i.e. http://http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp . It is also interesting to note that many fields (most) were started by or have been radically improved by creation scientists.
These and other personal attacks against creation itself or creation scientists are always logically flawed and a waste of typing - so please don't use them.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
