What is evidence?

[Micaiah]

1. What do we mean when we talk about evidence?
   
2. What are the characteristics of evidence?
   
3. Are there grades of evidence, and what differentiates grades?
   
4. Are there different kinds of evidence that tell us about Creation othr than scientific evidence?

 

[Gold Dragon]

1. What do we mean when we talk about evidence?
2. What are the characteristics of evidence?
3. Are there grades of evidence, and what differentiates grades?
4. Are there different kinds of evidence that tell us about Creation othr than scientific evidence?

1. Data that can be observed
2. It is observable. It is data
3. Most evidence we receive is through second-hand or third hand information. In those cases, the credibilty of the source is important. That credibility is gained in the scientific community by producing evidence that is repeatable using methods that are repeatable by others to confirm your evidence and findings. Credibility in other fields is acquired differently.
4. Sure. There are many literary sources of evidence about creation, not just in the bible but other origins stories as well. However, only scientific evidence can contribute to scientific theories of origins. Those stories were obviously not scientific in nature and their data is not reproduceable.

I think I should also differentiate between evidence and interpretation of evidence. Some may be very credible in gathering evidence, but not credible in interpreting that evidence because their interpretations make faulty assumptions that don't take into consideration other evidence relevant to the topic.

 

[adam149]

1. What do we mean when we talk about evidence?
2. What are the characteristics of evidence?
3. Are there grades of evidence, and what differentiates grades?
4. Are there different kinds of evidence that tell us about Creation othr than scientific evidence?

We need to define what we're talking about. Evidence in general, or evidence regarding origins? Gold Dragon's response is primarily in regards to operational scientific inquiry, which is the repeated observation of the present--neither creation nor evolution fits this definition of science, since they refer to unobservable and unrepeatable events in the past. THis means that they are properly in the domain of historical inquiry. This means that primary documentational records of past events overturn inference by any other method. See my article on the nature of true science: http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=truescience

Furthermore, the defintion which Gold Dragon gives is a typical answer--yet it fails to take into account some important aspects of human nature, namely, this definition assumes brute factuality. "Brute" facts are facts that speak completely of themselves and are independent unto themselves from any other facts until the scientist comes along to fit them together. "Brute" facts always speak for themselves and are incontrovertable. But this is a rather naive and antiquated idea. Facts are always interpreted through a framework of prior beliefs. This idea is central in basic logic, philosophy, and mathematics. Man is not a neutral observer who "goes as the data leads him" but a biased and fallen species who has an "axe to grind" and who must fit the facts somehow into his defining worldview.

Hence, the (pick one: atheist, agnostic, humanist) cannot see design in nature because it is not a part of his worldview and contrary to his beliefs; to see design is to see a designer, which is what he is ultimately trying to avoid seeing.

The Christian cannot see chaos in nature (apart from seeing designed creatures thrown into it by the fall) because it is contrary to this worldview; to not see design is to deny a designer, and that he cannot do.

This has an effect on then nature of evidence, because something a humanist will accept as iron-clad evidence of the non-design of nature the Christian will reinterprete according to his worldview to explain it, and the same goes for the Christian who accepts and sees design the atheist or humanist or whatever will reinterprete it according to his worldview.

Thus we can understand the problem of knowledge: all of man's reasoning is inherently circular, in that he accepts the conclusion in order prove that his conclusion is true. BUt this is not a meaningless tautology like "the Bible is true because it is true" but merely that the starting point, conclusion, and method are always inherently involved in each other.

Thus, the only way to escape such reasoning is to appeal to a knowledge higher than that of man: namely, Scripture. If God is God and created the world, then He made the facts and gave them their specific interpretation. THus, the greatest thing that man can do is to "think God's thoughts after Him" in the best way that the creature can of it's maker but making man's interpretation match with God's in the clear teachings of the Bible.

Hope this helps some (and doesn't confuse!).

 

[notto]

Thus, the only way to escape such reasoning is to appeal to a knowledge higher than that of man: namely, Scripture. If God is God and created the world, then He made the facts and gave them their specific interpretation. THus, the greatest thing that man can do is to "think God's thoughts after Him" in the best way that the creature can of it's maker but making man's interpretation match with God's in the clear teachings of the Bible.

LOL!

I think you forgot to add "or some other religious scripture or belief system and revelation of a creator".

(because of course you are being objective here)

Your post is a great example of why science can only study and make statements based on the physical and the observable. By your reasoning, all religions are correct and all God's exist if they are revealed through a book and that it is acceptable to try to reconcile scientific evidence and observations with any of these. This leads to the dillema that there can be only one answer to the questions. Your approach leads to any number of answers, all with the same validity.

You are saying that if God exists, then he created the universe and the bible tells us this. There are hundreds of contradictory statements that could be made using other beliefs, revelations, writings, and religions.

Your approach will not get us closer to objectivity in science or observation.

You can't put God in a test tube. The scientific method works and for good reason. It leads to knowledge objectively. Believers can use the scientific method without bias, just as non-believers can and do. They just need to understand the limits of their observations (and good scientists do - no good scientist would say that they can scientifically prove or disprove God exists).

Trying to reconcile scientific evidence with any particular religious text would be considered anti-science in my book. What part of the scientific method suggests that that is sound science?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon's response is primarily in regards to operational scientific inquiry, which is the repeated observation of the present--neither creation nor evolution fits this definition of science, since they refer to unobservable and unrepeatable events in the past.

Evolution is not evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence that is observable. Part of that body of evidence includes modern instances of evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We need to define what we're talking about. Evidence in general, or evidence regarding origins? Gold Dragon's response is primarily in regards to operational scientific inquiry, which is the repeated observation of the present--neither creation nor evolution fits this definition of science, since they refer to unobservable and unrepeatable events in the past. THis means that they are properly in the domain of historical inquiry. This means that primary documentational records of past events overturn inference by any other method. See my article on the nature of true science: http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=truescience
(snip the rest for brevity of the posting)

Origins science does not employ direct observation because it addresses the unobservable and unrepeatable past. One could say that it is the science of history. In other words, origins science is the inference and investigation of the possibility for past historical events of the world to take place. Again, identical to operational science, origins science can only investigate the possibility of a past event. In and of itself, it can only determine whether it was possible for an event to take place. It cannot determine indisputable facts in-and-of itself. Alone it has no power to determine whether something did happen, only that it could. Thus, origins science is subordinate to history.

from:http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=truescience

the problem with this line of thinking that science deals only with the present is that it falls prey to a form of the 'brains in the vat' problem and ends up in a radical solipsism.

for as soon as you do anything, those results are past, not present. you can not without a shadow of a doubt fight the 'brains in the vat' or Decartes' demon possibilities, if you can not speak about things in the past you end up speaking only about your observations or sensations in the present, hence radical solipsism. science avoids this problem by assuming a continuity of past to present, a uniformity that can not be proven scientifically, but is part of the presuppositional philosophic package of science. you are attacking a proposition that is not just important but essential to human reasoning, and in doing so show that you have not done your homework. for these philosophic questions are disposed of in a sophomore philosophy of science class, where the problem is analysed and dealt with without casting out scientific endeavors.

furthermore the distinction between operational and origin science is a creationist/YEC smokescreen, science itself makes no such distinction, nor can one be logically made for the above reasons. you are puffing at a strawhouse that you yourself built and unfortunately live in.

---

the body of your message is a rather nice Kuyperian analysis of the question of the two sciences, however the problem with this analysis is that science is not coterminous with world view, but rather is a deliberately truncated study of the natural world. As such criticism directed, rightly, at the problems of a not-Christian world and life view are not criticism of science as you propose but criticism of scientists as human beings holding to a world view at enmity with God. Science however can not be held responsible for the metaphysics of scientists as are you are trying to do. Your questions are rightly addressed to the metaphysics of scientism, not to natural science.

---
post-edit

reading and rereading this post makes me aware that it is a strong criticism that the YEC's don't do their homework. But on reflection it is one that i would make, for most YEC are dismally unaware of the depth of the philosophy of science. Literally bringing up problems that have solutions, or like the above distinction of operational vs origin science, a solution that leads into extraordinary problems that they haven't seemed to consider, but which ought to have come up earlier in their analysis and/or education. this is not to say that all YEC's are ignorant and uneducated, only that this position is indefensible for rather simple and well-understood reasons.

 

[Amalthea]

Adam149, this whole "poisoning the well" approach of yours is disingenuous in the extreme. You reduce data collection and inference drawn thereby as some sort of Copenhagen interpretation whereby the observer affects all experimental data gathering. Is this to combat the slight given to the Creationists accused of bias by faith, a leveling of the playing field so to speak?

Likewise, your equating of Creation with Evolution is similarly an intellectual fraud. I agree a Creation event is unrepeatable and hence always subject to doubt but although timescales are often inconveniently long to label evolutionary theory not science and incapable of scientific analysis is not true.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. What do we mean when we talk about evidence?
   
2. What are the characteristics of evidence?
   
3. Are there grades of evidence, and what differentiates grades?
   
4. Are there different kinds of evidence that tell us about Creation othr than scientific evidence?

if you really desire to learn something of the field start with a historical introduction to the philosophy of science like:

David Oldroyd
_The Arch of Knowledge: An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and Methodology of Science_

Simply a wow, must stop and read book IF you are interesting in any aspect of science. My only regrets in reading the book are that (1)i am finished with it (2)that i didn't read it 30 years ago. Not because it is original or thought provoking as much as it is that ellusive puts-it-all-together broadly covering subjects that you know something about but just-couldn't-put-it-into-words type of book. That review article that gives you the needed perspective and points to a million places for further study, thus energizing what looked like an impossible task you were just about to abort.

The author is witty, interesting, well spoken and at points understatedly humorous. He has that professor's mind shaped by years of trying to convince students that what he finds fascinating is in fact something that ought to keep them awake in their lecture hall seats. The organizing principle is stated, restated, reshaped and appears in slightly different forms in every chapter and is an image that can be seen and reworked a million times in a learner's mind. This is the title, the arch of knowledge, up one side from the empirical via induction to general principles and down the other leg via deductive reasoning (this is just one of the incarnations of the arch), the whole thing is science, but the analysis of the arch is metascience(the author's word) and his book is meta-metascience(again his word) as it discusses the various way of constructing and understanding this analogy.

The organization is historical, starting with the "Ancient Tradition" with the Greeks, and proceeding chronologically via the careful analysis of individual's, their contribution to the architecture of the arch, and with particular attention to the problems they encountered and were desireous of solving. Contextualization, the putting into a great big picture of the march of science and of the flow of metascience in thinking about science, is always in the forefront of the author's intentions. There are times where he literally says that there is more interesting things to talk about here, that he is really interested personally in the topic, but it would interfere with the flow and learner's understanding if he were to pursue this topic. Along with this, both the individual chapter endnotes and the reference section at the book's end are treasures of 'where-to-go-from-here', but only complaint is that the book is dated 1986 and thus the references are dated and/or hard-to-find. But the book, being a historical survey could be updated by the addition of a new chapter or two, not necessarily a complete rewrite as is often needed in the sciences.

There have been many times in the recent past where i wished for such a book to be able to share the title with someone in an online discussion that just appeared to know nearly nothing about the big issues underlying the philosophy of science. Well now i have the book title to share. I am almost to the point that i would appreciate a comprehensive quiz or a required reading list in order to enter into discussion groups on technical or scientific topics. The pure bulk of garbage, of uneducated or foolish opinions, makes the noise to signal ratio so high that i contemplate leaving and sticking just to peer reviewed journals and published books. This book being read by a significant portion of those attempting to discuss issues in the creation-evolution-design CED debate, (which is the forum where i dwell of late, and what brought this book to my attention), would certainly uplift these discussions, to everyone's benefit. If you want to discuss evolutionary biology, or the relationship of science to religion as it impinges in this sphere, you simply must grasp the material presented in this book. Otherwise you are wasting time, rehashing, retracing, rebuilding the doomed, and generally not getting anywhere constructive. And that is the value of such a book: basic, learnable, systematic introduction to a rather complex twisting field that is of general interest to significant portions of the general public, who may be, and often are tempted to think that science is democratic in that even the uninformed opinion (that is their's) is of value. "Everyone has a right to their opinion, but no one has a right to demand that i take their opinion seriously UNLESS they have done their homework." In general philosophy of science 101, this is the best book i have yet encountered. Go for it.






i cant sit at the computer too much longer today, i gotta cook thanksgiving dinner, something about me not working and being home doing nothing in particular all day. while my wife works......( i can hear the echo from 'the land of point' "he's got a point there")

plan to do a reading journal a chapter at a time with the 1 and 2 star highlighted quotes.....
i highlight with checkmarks, stars, question marks as additional pointers, only occasionally write marginalia



-=reading journal=-
my copy is second hand. stamped Ralph D. Amen Ph.D professor of biology, wake forest university,bio 395, philosophy of biology and medicine fall 1986
it is neat to see 'AMEN' stamped on the edges of the book pages....


Preface
A knowledge of the history of ideas concerning the nature and methods of science is a valuable component of philosophical education. By the same token, knowledge of the history of general philosophy can assist greatly towards an understanding of the ways in which scientific inquiries are carried out and the kind of thinking that is characteristically employed by scientists in their investigations. Thus a study of the history of metascience--or the history of the philosophy and methodology of science- certainly offers advantage for the novice in both science and philosophy." pg 3 his justification for writing the book

This discusses a venerable tradition of a two-fold pathway for the establishment of knowledge-from an examination of observable phenomena to general rational 'first principles' ('analysis'); and from such 'first principles' back again to observables, which are thereby explained in terms of the principles from which they are held to be deducible. ('synthesis').pg 4 the first mention of the arch of knowledge.

to give a satisfactory account of the relationship between our thoughts about the world and the nature of the real world itself, and to establish some kind of correspondence between thoughts and things. pg 4 the second big issue after the arch in the book, something he pauses to reflect about several times

Chapter 1 "The Ancient Tradition"

the pre-Socratic philosophers...had supposed that there was some underlying substratum for the material cosmos, which by taking on a variety of forms could give rise to the changing world of appearances. Plato's approach was more intellectualist. He envisaged an unchanging reality existing in the domain of 'Ideas', rather than in some material substrate. ... The question immediately arises in philosophy as to whether such universals or general concepts have any 'real existence' pg 7

this is the beginning of my review on this extraordinary book. i didnt realize that i didn't finish it....*ouch*

 

[adam149]

LOL!

I think you forgot to add "or some other religious scripture or belief system and revelation of a creator".

I think you forgot to understand my post. This is an oft-heard claim, and is false in the extreme. Most religions do not believe in God, or even in gods. They are all non-theistic--atheistic and often polytheistic. The Kamis of Japan are thought to be gods to those who have not studied their religion, but they, like most pagan religions, acknowledge them to be not gods but spirits or forces, or powers. Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism are primarily atheistic because nothingness, not God, is ultimate. Druidism recognizes powers and forces, or spirits which we mistakenly call "gods." Animism believes in the power of spirits and forces, but do not consider them to be "gods." The "gods" of mythology were considered by those who believed in them to be great and powerful people, not "gods." Only Christianity has a real god in an sense of the word, and only the One and True God.

(because of course you are being objective here)

Your post is a great example of why science can only study and make statements based on the physical and the observable. By your reasoning, all religions are correct and all God's exist if they are revealed through a book and that it is acceptable to try to reconcile scientific evidence and observations with any of these. This leads to the dillema that there can be only one answer to the questions. Your approach leads to any number of answers, all with the same validity.

Not at all. This demonstrates an extremely naive view of religion.

You are saying that if God exists, then he created the universe and the bible tells us this. There are hundreds of contradictory statements that could be made using other beliefs, revelations, writings, and religions.

Consider what I have said above. Also, it doesn't matter what those "other beliefs" say, because I'm not defending them and will happily join you in refuting them, because they make self-contradicting statements or are freely admitted to be of human origin, such as the Koran.

Your approach will not get us closer to objectivity in science or observation.

My approach is not intended to give objectivity but point out that it does not exist, nor is even possible in human epistemology.

You can't put God in a test tube. The scientific method works and for good reason. It leads to knowledge objectively. Believers can use the scientific method without bias, just as non-believers can and do. They just need to understand the limits of their observations (and good scientists do - no good scientist would say that they can scientifically prove or disprove God exists).

It is readily admitted by philosophers of science that the scientific method is an extremely naive view of science. You should know that even Stephen Jay Gould agreed with my position of interpretation before he died and became a theist.

You are doing nothing but revealing your presupposition to support scientific objectivity in the non-believer. This, of course, is nothing further from the truth. The non-believer, because of the Fall, cannot understand anything correctly. Only if we give God, Jesus, and the Bible its rightful place of authority that anything, be it medical diagnosis, scientific inquiry or psychological analysis can anything be understood properly, or even truthfully.

To allow unregenerate man his argument of objectivity is to give his presupposition precidence over God: it asks that man's reasoning ability be placed over God in order to prove that God exists. It does nothing but let the Christian concede the argument before he even opens his mouth, because you are using fallen man's presupposition, which leads naturally away from God, to try to prove His very existence.

Trying to reconcile scientific evidence with any particular religious text would be considered anti-science in my book. What part of the scientific method suggests that that is sound science?

This only proves your presuppositional authority is to man's reason and scientific thought. What part of sound epistemology suggests that the scientific method is sound thinking?

I'm not against the scientific method, but I am saying that not recognizing the truth of man's complete bias is fatal to any system of thought.

 

[adam149]

Evolution is not evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence that is observable. Part of that body of evidence includes modern instances of evolution.

Evolution has not been observed in the present even once. Name any one "example" of evolution that has been observed in the present, and I will point out that this is nothing more than normal variation. YOu then have to interpret and extrapolate into the unobserved past in order to "prove" that evolution is happening.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Evolution has not been observed in the present even once. Name any one "example" of evolution that has been observed in the present, and I will point out that this is nothing more than normal variation. YOu then have to interpret and extrapolate into the unobserved past in order to "prove" that evolution is happening.

read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

then re-ask the question in a scientific manner.

for example: are there observed speciation events?

 

[adam149]

read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

then re-ask the question in a scientific manner.

for example: are there observed speciation events?

I've read most of TO's clap-trap and illogical attempts to bolster evolutionary thought, but they are heavily biased and there is evidence that they might not even be able to use references properly. They make false claims repeatedly (such as that Hilter was a christian) and continuously misrepresent YEC.

Hence I see no reason to treat anything they saw with anything less that extreme doubt and trepidation.

Furthermore, I don't know if you were intending to prove my point, but you did. This is evidence of speciation, which is a variation within kinds of animals. YOu must extrapolate (aka interprete according to your presupposition) that this will be anything more than variation, you have no evidence that this is the case.

 

[Amalthea]

Hitler never renounced being a Christian. He had little time for the church as an institution but he was not an atheist or agnostic.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is evidence of speciation, which is a variation within kinds of animals

offer a scientific definition of kinds that is not circular and offers something to actually use in a experiment.

ie. the arena in which microevolution occurs.
or
the boundary that microevolution crosses to become macroevolution.
are NOT definitions.

 

[adam149]

Adam149, this whole "poisoning the well" approach of yours is disingenuous in the extreme. You reduce data collection and inference drawn thereby as some sort of Copenhagen interpretation whereby the observer affects all experimental data gathering. Is this to combat the slight given to the Creationists accused of bias by faith, a leveling of the playing field so to speak?

I poison no wells, and no, it is not in response to accusations made against creationists. It's origins go well beyond the rise of modern YECism, through a philosopher of science named Cornelius Van Til, writing in the 1910s-1980s on the topic, which is derived from a completely Biblical understanding of epistemology. I suggest you read his books Christian Apologetics and The Defense of the Faith.

Likewise, your equating of Creation with Evolution is similarly an intellectual fraud. I agree a Creation event is unrepeatable and hence always subject to doubt but although timescales are often inconveniently long to label evolutionary theory not science and incapable of scientific analysis is not true.

What makes it science, then? It occurred in the past in times when there were no eyewitnesses. Evidence of it must be infered, or interpreted. So, what makes it any more scientific than creation?

 

[adam149]

offer a scientific definition of kinds that is not circular and offers something to actually use in a experiment.

ie. the arena in which microevolution occurs.
or
the boundary that microevolution crosses to become macroevolution.
are NOT definitions.

Your wish is happily my command:

http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=whatisakind

 

[adam149]

Hitler never renounced being a Christian. He had little time for the church as an institution but he was not an atheist or agnostic.

Actually, historians would disagree. He was militantly anti-Christian. He used Christian references in public as a propoganda ploy. He hated Christianity possibly more than anything else (maybe less than the Jews).

See Hitler's Table Talk, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1929631065/qid=1095987559/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-1542440-6971216?v=glance&s=books

 

[Amalthea]

What makes it science, then? It occurred in the past in times when there were no eyewitnesses.

I'm sure you have been hit over the head with the forensic science analogy to this so I wont repeat it.

Evidence of it must be infered, or interpreted. So, what makes it any more scientific than creation?

What evidence is never interpreted. That is an essence of science as opposed to Creationism where evidence is never interpreted because as we know Creationism brooks no alternatives.

 

[gluadys]

Hence, the (pick one: atheist, agnostic, humanist) cannot see design in nature because it is not a part of his worldview and contrary to his beliefs; to see design is to see a designer, which is what he is ultimately trying to avoid seeing.

This is really not true. A militant atheist like Richard Dawkins is not at all oblivious to design in nature. He sees it.

But he attributes natural design to natural causes. In his world view, design exists because evolution creates it. Evolution creates design, because many designs positively benefit the organism and so are subject to favorable natural selection.

Some examples would be the Fibonacci (sp?) series seen in the distribution of leaves on a plant, the hexagonal shape of a honeycomb, and the shape of a bird's egg. Not only do all these things show characteristics of design---they are also the most efficient design for the purpose---and hence the design favoured by natural selection.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution has not been observed in the present even once. Name any one "example" of evolution that has been observed in the present, and I will point out that this is nothing more than normal variation. YOu then have to interpret and extrapolate into the unobserved past in order to "prove" that evolution is happening.

No, the examples of evolution observed in the present are not simply variation. Variation is what we speak of when we say that individuals in a species are not clones of each other, but show varying characteristics.

As long as these varying characteristics are distributed more or less randomly through a species, that is not evolution.

But when one variation or set of variations can be used consistently to distinguish one part of a species from another, as in cats, a Siamese can be distinguished from a short-haired tabby, that is evolution. And it is evolution again when there is a consistent change toward one variant rather than another---like the change of colour distribution in the pepper moth to take advantage of new camouflage needs. (Note that no moth actually changed colour, but one colour became more common in the species. That is called a "change in the frequency of an allele" and is the basic definition of evolution.) And, of course, it is evolution when one part of a species independently acquires as set of variations which lead to lack of mating and/or inability to produce viable or fertile offspring between the parent group and the changed group.

In all of these last three cases, variation = evolution.

All that is necessary to infer that evolution happened in the past is to assume that the past is not so different from today: as species vary today, so they varied in the past; as they developed different breeds today, so they did in the past; as the frequency of alleles changed under environment pressures today, so it did in the past; as speciation occurs today, so it did in the past.

Why should that assumption not be made barring evidence to show that the past did indeed operate by different natural laws?