quote:It is, as used by the likes of Ron. And since 'the likes of Ron' includes most of the population of the US, clinging to the strict scientific usage just defines you out of the debate.
Scientific truth is now defined by popular opinion and I missed the memo apparently.
quote: To sidestep the question by saying "That's not part of evolution" just makes it look as though you can't answer.
.. yeah, no. There is no reason why this sort of honest dialogue and establishment of criteria is not a good idea. People trying to claim to me that evolutionary theory is inherently 'saying that life originated without god' are wrong and I lose nothing -- nor am I sidestepping anything -- to point out that this notion is incredibly incorrect.
Even TalkOrigins (which is also pro-abiogenesis) sees the importance in pointing out the mistake in conflating the two.
quote:The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: That's not random at all. The thing certainly isn't, say, heading in a specific direction on purpose (except when we humans start directing it for our own means! Go us!) but random it is certainly not.
OMB, I think you have made a very interesting point here. Humans, as intelligent as we think we are, have been directing the course of evolution for quite some time (although in a very limited fashion), for our own means. This is a well known fact. Extapolating this, a being of superintelligence and power (let's call this being "God" for simplicity's sake), very well could direct evolution on a grande scale in order to achieve his means. Therefore, for me, and may other likeminded believers, there is no conflict between the existence of God and the therory of evolution.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, we have evidence that humans have been directing evolution in some cases. Especially now, sincewe record it in detail when we tinker with it, what we tinker with, and what our goals are, etc.
Now, the evidence for a super-intelligent being in the past directing evolution? Not so much.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, until recently, humanity wasn't doing it so much on purpose. But in all reality, we were/are the selective pressure being placed on the species such as dogs, wheat, cows and maize which caused their change to their current forms.
We're part of the environment. We are, for the other species, a serious selection pressure. Of course, in truth, the selective pressures on species include other species, other members of the same species, climate, catastrophes and many other things.
While we know that we're a selective pressure on many animals today, and now we're causing evolution to occur on our own terms, since we are understanding it well enough to do so, we don't have any evidence that a super-intelligent entity was doing any gene splicing a billion years ago.
In fact, looking at the genetics of the different species, I imagine it'd be pretty easy to see if an entity was doing, say, gene splicing in the past. Because then we'd see stuff similarly weird as the jellyfish genes placed into mice. We don't see that sort of thing, the splicing of genes that may be beneficial or do weird things from an animal or plant that's definitely not close genetically, to another animal that could use it, except when we do it.
Instead, animals of close relation have similar genes, the farther away they are the more different, and we can even estimate when specific mutations occured, based on which of our relatives have them, how close they are to us, etc. The mutations can be recorded, the differences can be gauged, the background rate of mutation can be looked at.
Of course, if we see anything like the tinkering we humans have done (which we haven't) it'd be quite interesting. Incredibly so.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, as used by the likes of Ron. And since 'the likes of Ron' includes most of the population of the US, clinging to the strict scientific usage just defines you out of the debate.
Scientific truth is now defined by popular opinion and I missed the memo apparently.
You certainly did miss the distinction between scientific truth, and arbitrary definitions of terms for the sake of being able to talk about them. There is nothing particularly truthful or sacred about having "theory of evolution" and "theory of abiogenesis" separate, it just so happens that these subjects were investigated separately as science progressed. They are clearly related; I don't see a problem in discussing them both at once and using a single term to refer to the whole debate. And definitions of terms very much are decided by popular opinion, by the way.
quote:
quote: To sidestep the question by saying "That's not part of evolution" just makes it look as though you can't answer.
.. yeah, no. There is no reason why this sort of honest dialogue and establishment of criteria is not a good idea. People trying to claim to me that evolutionary theory is inherently 'saying that life originated without god' are wrong and I lose nothing -- nor am I sidestepping anything -- to point out that this notion is incredibly incorrect.
Well, I agree with that point, but that's not the point you were making. You were saying "Abiogenesis is not evolution, wah-wah". This has nothing to do with whether it requires or allows a god. If you want to go on and make this point, you should do so; you can't stop at "Not the same thing", it makes you look like a crybaby.
quote:
quote:The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
Well, then they've gotten blinded by being all rational and sensible, which I admit is a bit of a job hazard in trying to deal with creationists. The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying "Life cannot start, nor evolve, without a god; therefore the account of creation in Genesis must be true, and therefore evolution must be false, and therefore you should not teach it in schools." So, to deal with this, you have to start at the beginning, and that involves showing that abiogenesis without gods is possible, although not required. I think perhaps we are arguing because you're worried about the blinding light of pure reason, which is a fine thing to be sure, and I'm worried about tactics for dealing with idiots. Which is not as pleasant but is necessary.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying
Opponents... That is the crux of the problem here. There are no "opponents" in the scientific method. The job of science is to gather evidence, test theories, let us know which thoeries work, and give us evidence to support our faith in those theories that hold up under testing. Scientists, including those of opposite viewpoints, are working together towards this end, whether they know it or not. It is not a game of "Us" vs. "Them". Disagreement is a necessary part of the process.
The trouble is that parts of the scientific community tend to begin to believe their theories are "the blinding light of pure reason" which must be defended against the forces of darkness. That is the point at which you leave the scientific method and step into the realm of dogma - where your scientific theory becomes more like a political or religious faith. And it is only a small step from there to using nonscientific "tactics" to enforcing one's faith - calling dissenters "idiots", labeling them "unscientific", positing all sorts of shady motives for them, pressuring them, attempting to hold back their careers, advertising for one's belief, and so on and so forth. Science has always done this, to one degree or another. But that is politics, or perhaps marketing, rather than science.
It could be necessary, but I'm inclined to believe it is not. Time and time again scientific theories have gone up against political and religious pressure, and the science has consistently won. The undeniable evidence always ends up being...well...undeniable! I don't see why science has anything more to be afraid of this time around. Using political "tactics" to advocate scientific theories only serves to muddy the waters.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see why science has anything more to be afraid of this time around.
That "science" might win in the long term isn't much of a comfort to the people who are forced to live through the short term.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying "Life cannot start, nor evolve, without a god; therefore the account of creation in Genesis must be true, and therefore evolution must be false, and therefore you should not teach it in schools." So, to deal with this, you have to start at the beginning, and that involves showing that abiogenesis without gods is possible, although not required.
To the extent that defending the teaching of evolution requires submitting defenses to the criticisms levied against it, why not discard all criticisms of abiogenesis by simply stating that it is not a component of evolution? Otherwise we're chasing causes all the way back to the Big Bang and the debate about evolution becomes a Prime Mover argument.
I don't have any problem with having a frank discussion about the current state of of science re:abiogenesis, but where there is an opportunity to constrain the debate to what actually constitutes evolutionary theory I think we should do so. "I'm happy to talk about scientific theories of the origin of life, Mr. School Board Member, but please understand that the theory of evolution does not address that topic and it's not included in the curriculum recommendations under review."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Opponents... That is the crux of the problem here. There are no "opponents" in the scientific method.
Huh?
There are people who want science classes to teach real science. Then there are people who want science classes to pretend that ID and Creationism are science, and to teach them instead.
How do you say that those two groups who want two completely different things aren't opponents?
quote:The job of science is to gather evidence, test theories, let us know which thoeries work, and give us evidence to support our faith in those theories that hold up under testing.
I don't see how you think anyone can have an honest conversation with you when you going to transparently equivocate.
"Faith" is the wrong word here, and you know it.
quote:Scientists, including those of opposite viewpoints, are working together towards this end, whether they know it or not.
But the people trying to tear down evolution and replace it with Creationism aren't scientists. They aren't doing science.
quote: The trouble is that parts of the scientific community tend to begin to believe their theories are "the blinding light of pure reason" which must be defended against the forces of darkness.
Oh please.
ID is logically fallacious, and totally unscientific. Creationism is flat-out counter-factual.
What kind of pomo-empty-headed silliness are you operating under where saying so is some kind of terrible arrogance?
quote:That is the point at which you leave the scientific method and step into the realm of dogma - where your scientific theory becomes more like a political or religious faith.
Okay, so who exactly is doing that?
Can you point us to, say, a peer-reviewed journal article in which you believe that the authors have overstepped their bounds?
Or how about a talkorigins article?
Because if you ask for Intelligent Design arguments which are factually false and woefully illogical, I assure you, it won't take people on this board 5 minutes to bury you in them.
But where is your evidence that this awful dogmatism is the problem with the people who support good science?
quote:And it is only a small step from there to using nonscientific "tactics" to enforcing one's faith - calling dissenters "idiots",
I'm sorry, but when someone supporting ID makes a claim (there's no way for the eye to have evolved step by step), and the claim is easily proved false (there are all kinds of ways it could have happened), that's idiotic.
quote:labeling them "unscientific",
Words mean things. ID and Creationism are not scientific.
In the context of debates over evolution, the label is extremely important, because you can't teach unscientific things in science class as if they were science.
And what gets taught in science class is the crux of why this is being argued.
quote:positing all sorts of shady motives for them,
The record is pretty clear. Professional Creationists are dishonest. If people don't want to be judged by the company they keep, that's their problem.
quote:pressuring them, attempting to hold back their careers,
Those charges are ridiculous. The most recent fellow failed to get tenure because his non-ID peers brought in 100x the amount of grant money that he did. Do you think that ID advocates should get special treatment because of their religious beliefs, should get tenure over people who keep their religious life out of their office, and actually do their jobs better?
quote:and time again scientific theories have gone up against political and religious pressure, and the science has consistently won. The undeniable evidence always ends up being...well...undeniable!
Then why don't you believe that ID can prove itself in that arena the way all scientific ideas have: through publications in peer-reviewed journals?
Why do you argue that its advocates should get sweetheart tenure deals, that its non-scientific nature shouldn't be mentioned, that the dishonesty of its advocates and its arguments shouldn't be pointed out?
quote:I don't see why science has anything more to be afraid of this time around.
Students should be taught good science. They should not be taught that unscientific, crappy theology is good science. Why are you so resistant to those notions?
quote:Using political "tactics" to advocate scientific theories only serves to muddy the waters.
You have to be kidding.
ID and Creationism ARE political issues. Scientifically, Creationism is dead. It's not science. If you disbelieve me, feel free to point out where Creationist and ID advocates are publishing their original research subject to the peer-reviewed of the scientific community
It is a purely political movement. Simply pointing that out, however, is not enough to stop school boards from gutting science requirements, if the parents do like they did in Dover and vote in Creationists. That's why anti-Creationism has to be political too.
Unless you really like it when school boards shell out a million dollars to the ACLU every time Creationists win control of a school board.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:definitions of terms very much are decided by popular opinion, by the way.
Then, we Americans all communally define God as the existing deity who created life?
Uh oh!
quote:The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying "Life cannot start, nor evolve, without a god; therefore the account of creation in Genesis must be true, and therefore evolution must be false, and therefore you should not teach it in schools."
There are your opponents. The job of scientific method is not to fight your enemies, nor are theories defined by this fight because you want them to be. Evolutionary Theory is a mechanism used to explain and predict. It happens to be a fact that it explains and predicts the processes of living organisms and that it happens not to explain or predict where life originated.
quote:So, to deal with this, you have to start at the beginning, and that involves showing that abiogenesis without gods is possible, although not required.
And, -- amazingly enough -- this does not and should not involve making abiogenesis part of evolutionary theory, or thinking that it is.
A lot of what you are saying indicates that you're excusing lapses in reason because you want these broad tools to use against Creationism. That you're going to permit some nonprofessionalism for the sake of purely tactical, competitive concerns versus Creationists. As though it were necessary to fall away from the principles of science to combat the nonscientific. I see no such necessity and I would still object on principle anyway.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly, yes, but the fact remains that most people do believe abiogenesis is part of evolution; so if you try to define things properly, you just look bad because Average Joe thinks you can't answer, so you're weaseling out. The only way to fix this would be a massive education campaign, and in that case, why not cut out the middleman and just educate people about how abiogenesis can happen? It's more important that they have good information than good definitions. Besides, it's not as though we haven't got perfectly good theories of abiogenesis, even if they are not as strongly experimentally supported as evolution. Let's stop the boring debate about definitions, which makes us look bad, and get on with the cool stuff like self-replicating pieces of clay. Abiogenesis is really interesting, we shouldn't be excluding it from the debate anyway. It's exactly what we need to make science look sexy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: In fact, looking at the genetics of the different species, I imagine it'd be pretty easy to see if an entity was doing, say, gene splicing in the past. Because then we'd see stuff similarly weird as the jellyfish genes placed into mice. We don't see that sort of thing, the splicing of genes that may be beneficial or do weird things from an animal or plant that's definitely not close genetically, to another animal that could use it, except when we do it.
Of course, if we see anything like the tinkering we humans have done (which we haven't) it'd be quite interesting. Incredibly so.
Somehow, I never imagined God using a "hack" method such as gene splicing to advance evolution. Instead, I picture him directing his servants (spirits, angels, whatever you want to call them) herding, separating, mating and pairing groups of species to gether to advance evolution over millions of years, with maybe some rare, subtle tweeking. Gene splicing seems so... amature.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Possibly, yes, but the fact remains that most people do believe abiogenesis is part of evolution; so if you try to define things properly, you just look bad because Average Joe thinks you can't answer
It's not impossible (or even very hard) to frame evolutionary theory and abiogenesis correctly in a manner that does not make you look like you're trying not to answer something.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Somehow, I never imagined God using a "hack" method such as gene splicing to advance evolution. Instead, I picture him directing his servants (spirits, angels, whatever you want to call them) herding, separating, mating and pairing groups of species to gether to advance evolution over millions of years, with maybe some rare, subtle tweeking. Gene splicing seems so... amature. "
I'd totally love to see the angels doing that, but as it is... no evidence that that's how it occured...?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Possibly, yes, but the fact remains that most people do believe abiogenesis is part of evolution; so if you try to define things properly, you just look bad because Average Joe thinks you can't answer
It's not impossible (or even very hard) to frame evolutionary theory and abiogenesis correctly in a manner that does not make you look like you're trying not to answer something.
Fair enough, but that's not what was being done in the comment that prompted this whole discussion.
quote:A lot of what you are saying indicates that you're excusing lapses in reason because you want these broad tools to use against Creationism. That you're going to permit some nonprofessionalism for the sake of purely tactical, competitive concerns versus Creationists.
It doesn't make you less professional to meet people on whatever battleground they choose, especially since we can win on either one. Make a note, if you must, that abiogenesis isn't strictly part of evolution, but don't stop there. Go on to show how we think it occurs. What I'm objecting to is not so much the pedantic definition, although I do think that's remarkably boring, but rather using that as an excuse to stop the discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "Somehow, I never imagined God using a "hack" method such as gene splicing to advance evolution. Instead, I picture him directing his servants (spirits, angels, whatever you want to call them) herding, separating, mating and pairing groups of species to gether to advance evolution over millions of years, with maybe some rare, subtle tweeking. Gene splicing seems so... amature. "
I'd totally love to see the angels doing that, but as it is... no evidence that that's how it occured...?
I'm not even sure it would be possible to distinguish between directed species populations and natural migration, since I would expect less than 1% of population would even require any type of intervention to control the flow of evolution. In any event, there is about as much "evidence" for this conjecture as there is for M-theory. (Not that I'm disparaging M-theroey. I think it is an elegant and intriguing theorey, but with our current level of technology there isn't any conceivable way to validate the theory with physical experiments.)
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you say that those two groups who want two completely different things aren't opponents?
Both groups I am talking about want the same thing: They want the world to be informed with the truth. If they all agreed on what the truth is, I'm sure they'd all agree on what should be taught. That they'd don't agree on what the truth is, and thus don't agree on how to act, does not make them enemies.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both groups I am talking about want the same thing
The record in the posts is clear: the two groups we are talking about are Creationists, and supporters of mainstream scince.
This isn't a case where there are two equal sides to the argument. Evolution has the facts, Creationism, no matter of what stripe, just doesn't.
quote:They want the world to be informed with the truth.
They want the world to be told that their chosen religous beliefs are unquestionably true. That's not the same thing.
quote:If they all agreed on what the truth is, I'm sure they'd all agree on what should be taught.
They never will.
A trivial example, Creationists want to teach that the human blood clotting cascade functions such that blood will never, ever clot unless all elements of the cascade are present. And that this furthermore proves that God designed it.
People who support good science would teach that dolphins lack one of those genes, but their blood clots fine. And even if there were no examples for that system, the second conclusion does not at all follow from the first.
This has been known for years. Creationists don't want to change their version of the "truth". Do you suggest that the scientific community should cave in instead?
But those facts are really not the issue. People who support good science want to teach that the best way to understand the physical universe is to look at it. Creationists want to teach that the best way to understand the physical universe is to accept whatever the bible says, because everything it says must be true.
How do you propose to get these two sides to agree on, say, the "truth" about the age of the human species?
quote:That they'd don't agree on what the truth is, and thus don't agree on how to act, does not make them enemies.
Creationists and their supporters sabotage the education of children.
I oppose the sabotage of education.
Why is that so awful to say?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps we could modify most of those to, "Creationists who assert creationism is scientific and should be taught in school"? There are creationists who do not believe creationism is scientific, but that it is necessarily true for religious reasons. Some of them even do very capable science (including, rarely, things directly related to evolutionary theory), presenting their results within the framework of science while maintaining their religious beliefs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, the divide here is between those who are looking at interpreting and understanding the rules vs. those that are trying to find the intent behind the rules.
Looking at it from a D&D perspective - those rigidly defending evolution are focused on the rules of the game as written, while those rigidly defending intelligent design are focused on the role of the game designer (or even the DM).
I don't feel these two things have to be mutually exclusive.
With regard to "evolution vs. intelligent design" - I don't know why this has to be a binary argument. If you want scientific skepticism, wouldn't it be more "evolution v. not evolution"?
I don't think "creationism" or "intelligent design" should be barred from schools. They have their place - but that place is a Philosophy classroom, not a Science classroom. In Science you discuss the rules and how they are applied, in Philosophy you can discuss why the rules are they way they are.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Creationists and their supporters sabotage the education of children.
I oppose the sabotage of education.
Why is that so awful to say?
Because it is misleading. Creationists oppose the sabotage of education too - just as you do. That's the whole point of trying to get creationism in school. Your ultimate goals are the same - to spread the truth.
Now, you can put all sorts of words in the mouths of Creationists if you want to, but it isn't going to convince me that that they are some sort of evil creatures bent on fooling the world into believing things they know are false. That's no more accurate than rhetoric like "the terrorists kill because they hate freedom". It's obvious you don't buy into the Creationist argument, but Creationists DO buy into their argument. They think it is the truth. They think it is misleading to teach children otherwise. They DO think the facts are on their side. You might believe otherwise, but in my view if they didn't consider Creationism to be the truth, I can't imagine they would want it to be taught to children instead of evolution.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Creationists oppose the sabotage of education too - just as you do. That's the whole point of trying to get creationism in school. Your ultimate goals are the same - to spread the truth.
Well now, we are just arguing over what "truth" is.
If someone honestly believes, for religious reasons, that 2+2 = 5, and they want that taught in schools, is it really helpful to the conversation to refer to that belief as "truth"?
Are reasonable people really supposed to bend over backwards and say that anyone can argue to teach anything in school as long as they think it's "truth", no matter what the facts are?
Creationism isn't about the facts. It's just not.
Experts all over the world, experts who are Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Daoists, all agree that evolution is a solid scientific theory.
The only people who are Creationist are Creationist because it's their faith postion. If the evidence were compelling, then the conclusion would be shared by people who aren't conservative Protestants, but such people are virtually unknown.
It's not about the facts.
quote:Now, you can put all sorts of words in the mouths of Creationists if you want to
They say enough without any prompting. Dembski, the major Intelligent Design advocate thinks that science doesn't spend enough time studying angels.
Angels. Really, I'm not creative enough to make that up.
quote:but it isn't going to convince me that that they are some sort of evil creatures bent on fooling the world into believing things they know are false.
Oh please. They want the school system to tell children that their conservative Protestant beliefs are totally unquestionably right. That's what it's about. It's not like they really care about Punnett squares or genetic drift.
quote:That's no more accurate than rhetoric like "the terrorists kill because they hate freedom". It's obvious you don't buy into the Creationist argument, but Creationists DO buy into their argument.
It's not just me. Hindus don't buy it. Buddhists don't buy it. Atheists don't buy it. Virtually no Catholics or Jews buy it. No one "buys" Creationism unless they start their as part of their religious belief.
If you think that Creationists have a legitimate, honest, scientific argument to make, then why don't you pick one and defend it with evidence and sound reasoning?
quote:They think it is the truth. They think it is misleading to teach children otherwise.
As do flat-earthers.
quote:They DO think the facts are on their side.
Oh please.
No one on earth is a Creationist because they concluded it from the facts!
If that were the case, why wouldn't there be Hindu and Buddhist Creationists?
People are Creationist because it's their faith. Professional Creationists know that in order for their beliefs to have the same respect that science gets, they have to say that there are facts on their side. And laypeople know that what they are told sounds good, so they repeat what they are told when asked to make a case for the reasonableness of their beliefs.
quote:You might believe otherwise, but in my view if they didn't consider Creationism to be the truth, I can't imagine they would want it to be taught to children instead of evolution.
Of course they consider it to be true. That's why they want it taught.
But they are wrong.
Do you see that there is a difference between respecting a person, and their right to hold an opinion, which is pretty much considered a good thing to do all the time, even when we don't like the opinion, and respecting the opinion itself?
When an opinion is obviously counter-factual, and grossly illogical, it doesn't deserve any respect at all.
Honestly, you sound like the sterotype of the wishy-washy liberal, who can't bear to condemn any notion, no matter how barbaric or crazy, because it would force you into the position of saying that not every point of view is perfectly equally legitimate.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's also important to note that there are creationists out there (Somewhere, in the great expanse of the Earth) that don't want creationism to be taught instead, but they want it taught too.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ID and Creationism different things?
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinda-sorta. The ID movement is what they came up with when the latest surge of creationism proper lost in the courts, and the main spokesmen are different. (Creationists are like cockroaches, you can't kill them, you can only force them back and keep them in check.) Anyway, the avenues of attack are different but the end goals are the same.
As for wanting it taught "too", fine, put it in religious class. If somebody wanted phlogiston theory taught, it wouldn't get any better just because they very graciously permitted oxygen to be mentioned as well. Besides, if you teach biblical creationism, why don't the Moslem, Hindu, and Native American versions get a look in as well? And I'd like to plug the Norse creation myth as well, just because 'Ginnungagap' is such a fun word to say. Each of these has just as much evidence going for it as the biblical kind, that is to say, zero. (Although Hindu creationism does at least get a Universe some millions or billions of years old. And a human history of similar length.)
By the way, there actually do exist Hindu and Buddhist creationists, they just have a different myth.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Creationism isn't about the facts. It's just not.
That's just plain not true. Creationism is about the facts as Creationists see them, just as the support of evolution is about the facts as supporters of evolution see them. It's not like the Creationists out there saying "Well, all the facts say I'm wrong but I'm going to believe it anyway." No, they are saying "the facts show we are correct" or at worst "we don't yet have all the facts, but when we do it will show we are correct."
quote:If the evidence were compelling, then the conclusion would be shared by people who aren't conservative Protestants, but such people are virtually unknown.
quote:Honestly, you sound like the sterotype of the wishy-washy liberal, who can't bear to condemn any notion, no matter how barbaric or crazy, because it would force you into the position of saying that not every point of view is perfectly equally legitimate.
But not all things are what they sound like. After all, I'm more than willing to condemn the notion that scientists need to be in the business of supressing dissenting viewpoints like Creationism or Intelligent Design. It really has nothing to do with whether or not these viewpoints are "legitimate". It has to do with how science can best find those viewpoints that are legitimate and consistent with the evidence. As long as science is about the facts, those theories best supported by the facts will inevitably rise to the top. It is only when scientists become dogmatic and begin using unscientific political tactics to advance their theories that the waters become murky, scientific theories start to look like political positions, and inferior theories end up looking no better or worse than those theories well supported by the facts.
quote:When an opinion is obviously counter-factual, and grossly illogical, it doesn't deserve any respect at all.
This is contrary to the spirit of reasoning that science is based upon. All opinions deserve respect - that is the only way you can accurately determine whether or not it is counterfactual or grossly illogical. Otherwise you end up like those who thought it wasn't possible that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or who thought it wasn't possible that the continents could move, or who thought it wasn't possible that man might descend from "apes" - all things that have seemed obviously counterfactual or grossly illogical to many at one point or another, and which have been found true because there were those willing to respect them enough to actually consider that they might be true.
posted
Science class in high school (and before) is not much about doing science. If that were it, we'd thrust people in classrooms with experimental equipment and say, 'have at'.
It is about learning how to do science, and learning about discoveries in science, and recreating discoveries in science.
It is perfectly possible to publish a creationist paper or an ID paper in a peer reviewed journal, given a sufficiently strong argument to pass the peer review process.
That does not mean creationism and ID have places in science class. Designing a curriculum for school is by its nature suppressing viewpoints that are not conducive to the particular goals of a class. There is limited time. Subjects cover huge areas. No matter what curriculum is designed, viewpoints will be suppressed. Since we are then very much in the business of suppressing viewpoints in education, there must be an evaluation process. In a science class, creationism and ID don't make the cut.
Luckily for us, just because someone believes something is true doesn't get it taught in schools. You keep pointing out the convictions of creationism and ID supporters as if it matters; it is practically irrelevant. In front of very science textbook, in front of every datum presented in a science class, there is an implicit (and sometimes explicit) "as seems most/very likely given the framework of the scientific method" (except for the philosophy of science parts, such as the scientific method itself, which are wrapped in a similar meta-statement). Unless creationism and ID ideas can be broadly evaluated to meet that criteria, they don't belong in a science class.
And no, I'm not saying that nothing that fails to meet that criteria gets into science classes, I'm saying it shouldn't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but that is just a matter of voting in the right school board members who will make sure schools use the right textbooks. I don't think achieving that requires the scientific community to behave in the way that this movie seems to be complaining about. I don't think anti-creationism scientists shunning pro-creationism scientists has much influence on the picking of textbooks for schools - beyond possibly making the scientific community look oppressive to outsiders and giving voters the impression that the whole issue is just some sort of liberal vs. conservative thing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
You're making an awfully large number of assumptions about the nature of a movie you haven't seen, and the truthfulness of its claims, to be criticizing scientists based on it.
In an ideal world, people wouldn't be ridiculed for believing in creationism (though many supporters of creationism would be ridiculed for certain specific statements). Of course, in an ideal world people wouldn't be ridiculed for many things rejected by the majority, in and out of science. I don't see any evidence scientists who do ridicule are being that egregious in comparison to the normal range of human behavior. Something to improve, yes. Something to consider overly distortionary, no.
As I said earlier, there are people who believe in creationism and are published scientists. Some are moderately well known in their fields, much as with people who believe in just about anything. That creationist and ID papers don't get published in major peer-reviewed journals doesn't need to be explained by the contempt some hold for the ideas when it can be far more easily explained by the lack of scientific support for the ideas, which is the cause of much of the ridicule.
There is ample evidence of scientists about-facing on ideas once-ridiculed that good evidence was discovered for.
Most scientists I know who campaign against creationism and ID being taught in schools (not against it being published; they don't have to campaign against that, it doesn't have the merit) don't ridicule their opponents, btw. That tends to be a more off-hand sort of thing. They try to either methodically explain why a variety of the creationist/ID arguments are unsupported by the evidence, or how the scientific method works and why creationism and ID do not fit within it.
The reason they campaign tends to be because for a long time scientists assumed that something so utterly beyond the pale of scientific evidence would not find a foothold in science classes. But it did, and threatened to take over entire state curricula. Unsurprisingly, scientists found they had an interest in seeing what students were being taught to be science was at least minimally part of the science being done in the real world.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's just plain not true. Creationism is about the facts as Creationists see them,just as the support of evolution is about the facts as supporters of evolution see them.
They why is it all the educated people of every faith agree that evolution fits the facts, and no one who isn't a conservative Protestant agrees that the facts fit Creationism?
quote:It's not like the Creationists out there saying "Well, all the facts say I'm wrong but I'm going to believe it anyway."
Really? You want to argue that not a single Creationist argues that dino fossils are meant to "test" good Christians?
Not a one?
No, most Creationists just don't know the facts. The people they get their info from either don't know them, or make a living lying and distorting them.
Seriously, if you want to be buried in examples of professional Creationists lying, it can be done. Talkorigins has a huge list of dishonest quote mines. And that's just one kind of falsehood.
quote:Actually, members of all sorts of religions reject evolution:
See, here's what I'm talking about.
I never, ever said that no one who wasn't a conservative Protestant rejects evoltuion. That's a fact, you can read my posts.
But you didn't care. You argued against something I never said.
You would say that I have my "truth" of what I wrote, and that you have your "truth" about what I wrote. I say that the "truth" is what the message board recorded I wrote, and that I'm right about what I wrote, and you are wrong.
But to get back to the point I actually made...the Institute for Creation Research makes its members sign an oath stipulating all the conclusions they find to be unquestionably true, including the claim that god consists of Father, Son and Holy spirit, and the Bible is infallible and compltely authoritative.
Is this how people who are honestly looking at the facts operate? Does this suggest to you that the members of the ICR think that members of other faiths will be persuaded by their evidence?
quote:After all, I'm more than willing to condemn the notion that scientists need to be in the business of supressing dissenting viewpoints like Creationism or Intelligent Design.
Who's supressing anything?
Creationists are perfectly free to open museums, host websites, preach at church revivals, they can do whatever they like. They can even produce wildly misleading movies.
They just can't teach religion as if it were science. And when they say ridiculous things, honest people have the right to point outhow ridiculous those claims are.
Do you think that is wrong?
quote:It really has nothing to do with whether or not these viewpoints are "legitimate".
But isn't that what you are arguing? That they have their truth, and I have mine, and why am I so mean as to not treat their truth with the respect that my truth gets?
quote:It has to do with how science can best find those viewpoints that are legitimate and consistent with the evidence.
Correct. The way to do that is to actually look at the real world. It turns out that this method works really, really well. Real science is accepted by people no matter what their religious faith. And when there are disagreements about what the best conclusion from the evidence is, those disagreements don't fall along faith lines.
Does Creationism work that way?
quote:As long as science is about the facts, those theories best supported by the facts will inevitably rise to the top.
Of science, yes. But they won't be taught in schools if Creationists are elected to school boards.
quote:It is only when scientists become dogmatic and begin using unscientific political tactics to advance their theories
Creationism is a POLITICAL movement. It's not science. Scientifically, it's dead.
If you disagree with me, make your case. Show us the original research, the peer-reviewed papers.
Scientists have been publishing papers about evolution for 150 years. Do today's Creationists care? Has it kept Creationism out of the classroom?
Nope. How will doing more science change that?
quote:that the waters become murky, scientific theories start to look like political positions, and inferior theories end up looking no better or worse than those theories well supported by the facts.
Funny how this is exactly what Creationists do, and you don't seem to care to condemn them for it.
quote:This is contrary to the spirit of reasoning that science is based upon. All opinions deserve respect - that is the only way you can accurately determine whether or not it is counterfactual or grossly illogical.
Oh, so you think that Creationism still deserves the benfit of the doubt?
Then by all means, defend it.
Because the rest of the educated world has long since measured Creationism, and found it wanting.
quote:Otherwise you end up like those who thought it wasn't possible that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or who thought it wasn't possible that the continents could move, or who thought it wasn't possible that man might descend from "apes" - all things that have seemed obviously counterfactual or grossly illogical to many at one point or another, and which have been found true because there were those willing to respect them enough to actually consider that they might be true.
You have it backwards.
Once the evidence started to show that those strange things were true, then it was rational to start believing they were true.
But not before.
You start with the evidence, then you see what conclusion you have to draw from it. And when you collect more evidence, then you change your conclusion.
What Creationists do is they have their Bible, the bible tells them what their conclusion is, and then if pressed, they spout argumetns and 'evidence' that supposedly support their faith position.
Once again, if you have a real example of scientsts acting arrogently, why don't you post it so the rest of us can see it?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But isn't that what you are arguing? That they have their truth, and I have mine, and why am I so mean as to not treat their truth with the respect that my truth gets?
No, that's actually not what I'm arguing at all.
quote:Once the evidence started to show that those strange things were true, then it was rational to start believing they were true.
I didn't say it was rational to believe all theories. It's obviously irrational to think theories that conflict with the evidence are as true as those that don't. My point was that you should still respect them nonetheless, even if you don't believe them. And by "respect" I mean refute their theories only with the facts, through the scientific method, rather than by villifying them as the "opponents" of true science.
quote:Once again, if you have a real example of scientsts acting arrogently, why don't you post it so the rest of us can see it?
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn - Kuhn studies over hundreds of years of the history of science, and demonstrates how science as a community acts in a dogmatic fashion, circling the wagons around the dominant scientific paradigm and resisting (often aggressively) attempts to refute it. As Kuhn says:
"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise dervies from the community's willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost."
I think the history of science demonstrates that the scientific community has a habit of approaching its dominant theories in this dogmatic fashion, as if they know it to be true. (Fortunately, it also demonstrates that eventually a scientific revolution comes around resulting in new and better theories.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I think you completely misunderstood what Kuhn was saying. Normal science is in no way the same as science as a whole. And his description of the puzzle-solving aspect of normal science cannot be accurately be categorized as you said: "act[ing] in a dogmatic fashion, circling the wagons around the dominant scientific paradigm and resisting (often aggressively) attempts to refute it.", but rather a period where most people working in "normal science" mode see evidence that contradicts the accepted theory as produced by errors in methods or at most, explained by special cases or small alterations in the accepted theory. He goes on to say that when enough evidence piles up or particularly clear evidence is brought up, there is a dramatic scientific revolution.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's obviously irrational to think theories that conflict with the evidence are as true as those that don't.
So what?
Creationists believe all kinds of things that conflict with the evidence.
Yet you don't have a critical word to say with regard to them.
quote:My point was that you should still respect them nonetheless, even if you don't believe them. And by "respect" I mean refute their theories only with the facts, through the scientific method, rather than by villifying them as the "opponents" of true science.
Are you seriously laboring under the notion that Creationism hasn't been thoroughly refuted already?
For goodness sakes, scientists in the 1800's realized that the earth was teribly old, that orgnaisms had lived and gone extinct, and that there was no global flood. They all stopped being Creationist 100 years ago. Why didn't you know that?
Refuting with facts DOES derail bad science hypotheses. 100 years ago, it did the trick.
It will NOT derail Creationism, becuase Creationism isn't science. All the real Creationist scientsts switched camps 100 years ago, and surely you aren't going to argue that the evidence has gotten better when it comes to supporting Creationistm, are you?
It's not vilifictation to call a spade a spade.
Creationism isn't science. It's purely political.
quote:"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise dervies from the community's willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost."
I think the history of science demonstrates that the scientific community has a habit of approaching its dominant theories in this dogmatic fashion, as if they know it to be true. (Fortunately, it also demonstrates that eventually a scientific revolution comes around resulting in new and better theories.)
Thank you for proving my point.
You can't come up with a single actual example.
And I will be waiting until doomsday for you to come up with a single example of a scientific point where you think that mainstream science is wrong, and Creationism is right.
Kuhn is writing about scientific ideas being overturned by scientific ideas.
Does this mean that you are prepared to argue that Creationism is in fact, science?
Because I think it's time that you make that argument, or stop with your whole "Poor Creationists, no one wants to engage them scientifically" nonsense.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science is waiting for a scientific defence of creationism to respond to. Without a scientific argument for creationism, there can be no scientific critique of the hypothesis.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Creationists believe all kinds of things that conflict with the evidence.
Creationists even believe things that contradict the Bible, the very book they claim to derive their belief from. Mere science or objective reality (which has, after all, a distinct liberal bias) has no chance.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Science is waiting for a scientific defence of creationism to respond to. Without a scientific argument for creationism, there can be no scientific critique of the hypothesis.
Fortunately the world of talk radio and ministry groups have no need to be concerned with such trifle things.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. but the lack of scientific argument is why tresopax's argument is not only idiotic, its irrelevent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
It seems like you aren't interested in any examples I'd be giving or understanding my position, except insofar as you can poke holes in them and/or attack Creationism. I pointed you to Kuhn's historical analysis, but you don't seem interested in considering that real evidence. I could give you specific examples (famously biologist Richard Sternberg which is mentioned in this movie, less famously my professor who treated Creationism with a great deal of disdain, or even the attitudes of scientists on Hatrack, etc.), but is there any chance you wouldn't immediately come up with some reason to reject it as a valid example, regardless of how valid it actually is? If you really want to know what I think or if you really want to know why one might want to respect Creationism, then I'd be happy to answer your questions. But if you've already decided with certainty and do not respect my position, then I'm not sure how answering more questions would help anything.
quote: think you completely misunderstood what Kuhn was saying. Normal science is in no way the same as science as a whole. And his description of the puzzle-solving aspect of normal science cannot be accurately be categorized as you said: "act[ing] in a dogmatic fashion, circling the wagons around the dominant scientific paradigm and resisting (often aggressively) attempts to refute it.", but rather a period where most people working in "normal science" mode see evidence that contradicts the accepted theory as produced by errors in methods or at most, explained by special cases or small alterations in the accepted theory.
I agree that normal science isn't science as a whole. But it is science as it is most commonly practiced, and I think evolution is in a phase of normal science right now as we speak. "Circling the wagons" may have been overstating it, but I think Kuhn definitely shows that during normal science scientists aim to defend the paradigm rather than actively question its validity. Counterinstances are treated not as reasons to doubt the truth of the theory, but rather as errors that need to be corrected in some way so as to be consistent with the theory's truth. The truth of the paradigm is simply assumed to be true, until the point that a paradigm shift occurs. And during normal science, speculation outside the paradigm isn't really considered science at all. This all is what I referred to as the dogmatism of science - this notion that science knows the answer, and that scientists must "puzzle-solve" to make the evidence fit the answer we already know.
quote:I know. but the lack of scientific argument is why tresopax's argument is not only idiotic, its irrelevent.
As for the "idiotic" comment, that's a blunt ad hominem.
As for the lack of scientific argument... I am not a Intelligent Design supporter. I believe in Evolution. And I am not a scientist. So I don't see how I could possibly give a very good scientific case for something that I neither believe in nor have studied in detail. But, again, as I said I am not making that argument. I am NOT saying Creationism is true or has valid evidence supporting it. My argument is a broader complaint about how we treat dissent to accepted scientific theories, regardless of whether that dissent is well supported or not.
I must say, it is difficult to take a middle position on Hatrack. Must I choose between either accepting and proving Creationism or rejecting Creationists as evil monsters? Can't I respect the need to treat Intelligent Design fairly without going so far as saying Intelligent Design is true? Why am I inevitably lumped into one extreme or the other?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not like the Creationists out there saying "Well, all the facts say I'm wrong but I'm going to believe it anyway."
They do, actually. Here is Kurt Wise, poster-child for creationists because he has a PhD, on the subject:
quote:Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
He's honest about it; few are. But that's their stand.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As for the "idiotic" comment, that's a blunt ad hominem."
Really? Where did I attack your character as a means of attacking your argument? No, Tres, I called your argument idiotic.
And it is. It relies on a whole bunch of false assumptions provided to you by creationists who treat scientists far worse then scientists treat creationists.
And, of course, those creationists aren't doing science... and demanding that their mythology be treated as science, which is why your argument is also irrelevent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
A distinction needs to be made here: That the Bible says it is true is a fact, even though it is not scientific evidence.
He still doesn't say he'd believe creationism even if ALL the facts said he's wrong. Rather he believes that the one fact that the Bible says it is true trumps all possible scientific evidence. Not very scientific, but it is certainly a logical argument based on the facts (or in that case "fact" singular), as long as you think the Bible is so infallible that it outweighs any other possible scientific evidence.
quote:And it is. It relies on a whole bunch of false assumptions provided to you by creationists who treat scientists far worse then scientists treat creationists.
Nothing I've said relies on anything a creationist has said. I'm sure there are plenty of creationists who treat scientists worse than scientists treat creationists, but given that the folks at Hatrack seem to already agree on that, I don't see much purpose in spending time pointing out what creationists are doing wrong.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the lack of scientific argument... I am not a Intelligent Design supporter. I believe in Evolution. And I am not a scientist. So I don't see how I could possibly give a very good scientific case for something that I neither believe in nor have studied in detail. But, again, as I said I am not making that argument. I am NOT saying Creationism is true or has valid evidence supporting it. My argument is a broader complaint about how we treat dissent to accepted scientific theories, regardless of whether that dissent is well supported or not.
Well, thank you.
I grew up with some family members who believed in creationism and others who believed in evolution and, while in the end I fall to the evolution side of the house, it amazes me how disrespectful and dogmatic those on both sides of the house are. And "dogmatic" and "scientific" don't seem to go together to me. But you can't say that, because then suddenly, you're on the creationist side. There really is no middle ground... and both sides are embarassing.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like you aren't interested in any examples I'd be giving or understanding my position, except insofar as you can poke holes in them and/or attack Creationism.
That's just great.
I ask you twice for specific examples, you refuse to provide any, and then when I point that out, you assert that I wouldn't be interested anyway.
That's a really honest argument you have there.
quote:I pointed you to Kuhn's historical analysis, but you don't seem interested in considering that real evidence.
That's because a quote from a philospher isn't evidence.
quote:I could give you specific examples (famously biologist Richard Sternberg
Ah, well go on then with Richerd Sternberg. Panda's Thumb has a long series of posts about the facts in that case, I'm confident that this resource will be more than sufficient to prove that Sternberg was treated fairly.
quote:less famously my professor who treated Creationism with a great deal of disdain,
Well, Creationism deserves it. It's a counter-factual, illogical idea.
It was disproven 100 years ago, remember?
Do you think it is okay for geology professors to be dismissive of flat-earthers' claims?
If you do, what is the difference between the claims of flat-earthers, and the claims of Creationists?
quote:but is there any chance you wouldn't immediately come up with some reason to reject it as a valid example, regardless of how valid it actually is?
Well, I guess you don't need to bother to try to come up with an example, since you aleady know what I will say.
Wow, that makes it pretty easy for you to claim to win any argument. You just tell yourself "the other person was never going to be able to deal with my mighty arguments, so I won't bother making them".
quote:If you really want to know what I think or if you really want to know why one might want to respect Creationism, then I'd be happy to answer your questions.
Forget Creationism for a moment, how much respect do you have for the idea that gravity is caused by tiny fairies pushing everything towards earth?
How much respect do you have for the idea that disease are caused by demon posessions?
How much resepct do you have for the idea that the capital of Illinois is Chicago?
I have no problem admitting that those ideas are utterly stupid, and I don't respect them in the slightest. And I bet I'm not the only one on the board who thinks so
And you?
quote:But if you've already decided with certainty and do not respect my position, then I'm not sure how answering more questions would help anything.
Now you are confusing the picture.
Creationism is bunk. Total bunk. I've seen more than enough evidence to know that's the truth. And even you don't want to defend it, becuase I've asked you to do so twice, and you can't.
Your position of thinking that all ideas, even the totally ridiculous ones, deserve to be treated with the same respect as scientific theories which have been abundantly supported for 100 years, just because the adherants claim the idea is scientific, that's the one I wanted you to defend, with reasoning and evidence.
But you have done a terible job. your "they have their truth, and you have yours" is laughable. Your one pale example of Sternberg is also pathetic when examined. They guy used his authority to by pass peer-review to publish a terrible paper that was totally inappropriate for the journal.
quote:but I think Kuhn definitely shows that during normal science scientists aim to defend the paradigm rather than actively question its validity.
You have to be kidding.
In order to make your case, you have to prove that it's happening in evolution. How can you not see that?
So for starters, point out the evidence that the scientific community is avoiding.
Heck, point out the SCIENTIFIC argument that the wagons are being circled agaisnt!
quote:Counterinstances are treated not as reasons to doubt the truth of the theory, but rather as errors that need to be corrected in some way so as to be consistent with the theory's truth.
Example, please.
quote:The truth of the paradigm is simply assumed to be true, until the point that a paradigm shift occurs. And during normal science, speculation outside the paradigm isn't really considered science at all.
So you are actually arguing that no one thought taht Einsten was doing science until his ideas were accepeted?
How do you think he got his papers pubilshed if no one thought they were science?
Do you claim that there was some brave Sternberg pushing them through over the objections of the mainstream community?
quote:As for the "idiotic" comment, that's a blunt ad hominem.
No, it's not. He didn't call you idiotic, he called your idea idiotic. And it is. You are claiming that ideas whose scientific merit died 100 years ago should still be treated as valid scientific alternatives.
quote:As for the lack of scientific argument... I am not a Intelligent Design supporter. I believe in Evolution. And I am not a scientist. So I don't see how I could possibly give a very good scientific case for something that I neither believe in nor have studied in detail.
Oh please.
You are arguing that the whole community of scientists is wrong to dismiss Creationism.
That means that you think you are a better judge of science than all the world's scientists.
If you can't defend your claim, withdraw the argument. It's the honest thing to do.
quote:But, again, as I said I am not making that argument.I am NOT saying Creationism is true or has valid evidence supporting it.
You have argued that because some people THINK there is valid evidence, that the rest of us need to treat Creationism as if it has valid evidence.
And you are esentially arguing that the rest of us are wrong when we label Creationism as not science. That means you must think there is evidence, since science requires evidence.
So either you know what evidence led you to that conclusion, or you are making things up.
So if you disavow knowing of any evidence which supports Creationism, we are left with option B.
Which we all knew from the start, but thanks for making it clear.
quote:My argument is a broader complaint about how we treat dissent to accepted scientific theories, regardless of whether that dissent is well supported or not.
Ah, see, here is the sticking point between yourself, and most of the people on this board.
I think you would agree that there is not a lot of scientific support for the idea that angels have a big impact in how the world works.
Most of the people on this board figure that that fact means that science should not spend anytime attempting to research angel activites.
But Creationists like Dembski think that it is a failing of science to ignore all that angel activity, and if you actually believe the argument you are making, you should too.
quote:I must say, it is difficult to take a middle position on Hatrack.
Oh spare us.
There are a lot of things in this world where there are at least some good evidence and argumetns on both sides.
But Creationism is NOT one of them. The sooner you see that, the sooner you can stop arguing in favor of more angel reserach.
quote:Must I choose between either accepting and proving Creationism or rejecting Creationists as evil monsters?
You have to choose between accepting lunacy and rejecting it. Most intelligent people have no problem choosing the latter.
quote:Can't I respect the need to treat Intelligent Design fairly without going so far as saying Intelligent Design is true?
But you don't want to treat Creationim fairly. To treat it farily would be to judge it like all scienticfic ideas are judged, whicih would lead you to reject it.
But you won't do that. You want it to have the respect of a scientific idea without being science. Why is that fair?
quote:Why am I inevitably lumped into one extreme or the other?
You chose to argue that Creationism should be treated like science. It's not our fault there's no way to do that without looking like a loon.
You can forget responsing to everything I wrote if you will just answer one simpe question:
What is the difference betwen wanting science to spend more time addressing the concerns of Creationists, and wanting science to spend more time studying the workings of angels?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Creationism and ID are not trying to say we believe God created the earth. They are saying, we KNOW God created the earth and you must too. They are trying to force people to believe in their religion using science to do so. Is it any wonder scientists go, wait a minute. This is NOT science. This is faith and we will not allow faith to be treated as science. If you say ID is a science, you are making faith into a fact. Not only is the science bad, but it is intolerant.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I suspect that Tresopax will, in his usual way, focus on the style and tone of your post in his response ("wah wah you [and by extension all scientists] are so RUDE and ergo INTOLERANT") rather than the substance of your arguments, but this is nothing new.
Regarding Kuhn, Tresopax is missing the real relevance, which is, ironically enough, that evolutionary theory itself is the better scientific explanation that overthrew the previous creationist paradigm. Kuhn also writes that such a transition should take approximately one generation after accumulation of significant evidence in favor of a new theory (and against the old theory), since that is the length of time for the "old guard" to literally die off. This is exactly what happened throughout the early 20th century. As we accumulated more evidence, from fields as diverse as paleontology, chemistry, ecology, and most powerfully of all, the newly born fields of molecular biology and genetics, the remaining holdouts against evolutionary theory within the scientific community passed on. The story diverges from Kuhn's in that in this case, the evidence was so strong (and grew so rapidly, once molecular techniques were invented), that the holdouts were far and few between.
Since then, the evidence for evolution has only increased in number and strength. As swbarnes2 noted, the biological sciences community has long since moved past the incredibly basic question of "Does evolution occur?" Heck, we've long since answered questions like "What are the mechanisms through which evolutionary change occurs?" and "What sort of pressures, both internal and environmental, can spur natural selection?"
Is another paradigm shift possible in the future? Sure, hypothetically, if someone either comes up with a better theory that fits the evidence, or finds some evidence that truly damns Darwinism to the pit of discarded hypotheses. Do I think this is at all likely? Speaking as someone who is just starting out in the professional field, and therefore (if we take Kuhn as gospel) should be among the most likely to jump on a new paradigm, I really don't think so. At this point, overturning evolution wouldn't be like replacing Newtonian physics with relativity theory. It'd be more analogous to discovering that inertia doesn't exist and that even in the absence of a force, we actually do naturally slow down in Aristotelian fashion.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: At this point, overturning evolution wouldn't be like replacing Newtonian physics with relativity theory. It'd be more analogous to discovering that inertia doesn't exist and that even in the absence of a force, we actually do naturally slow down in Aristotelian fashion.
I agree with the rest of your post and think that this is a particularly important point. The concept of evolution itself is not an interpretation of the data, it is the data (if that makes sense). In other words it is an observation, not a theory. For example, iirc, we have fossil records for over 20 (possibly 40 I forget) distinct primate species closely related to modern day humans. We don't currently know the exact progression from primate to human, but the fossils still show the evolution of bipedalism and a larger brain.
I don't know if that made sense so I'll put it another way. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the evolution that we see in the data. Theories that deny evolution (ex: creationism) are automatically rejected not because of dogmatism but because they clearly ignore data. Theories that deny evolutionary theory (ex: intelligent design) are generally rejected because they are unsubstantiated. For example, to make intelligent design a credible theory, proponents have to show that evolution is either impossible or astronomically unlikely given the laws of our universe. At the moment, the evidence put forth for either of those claims is extremely flaky and consists of a combination of attacks on evolution (red herrings) and a series of pitifully invalid thought experiments (along the lines of Ron's silly "Where is there NOT evidence of ordered design?").
I don't know if I made any sense. I'll try to clarify if people find this post confusing (some of the sentences felt awkward as I typed them).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I grew up with some family members who believed in creationism and others who believed in evolution and, while in the end I fall to the evolution side of the house, it amazes me how disrespectful and dogmatic those on both sides of the house are. And "dogmatic" and "scientific" don't seem to go together to me. But you can't say that, because then suddenly, you're on the creationist side. There really is no middle ground... and both sides are embarassing.
Exactly.
quote:At this point, overturning evolution wouldn't be like replacing Newtonian physics with relativity theory. It'd be more analogous to discovering that inertia doesn't exist and that even in the absence of a force, we actually do naturally slow down in Aristotelian fashion.
When Kuhn describes paradigm shifts, he doesn't paint them as "overturning" the old theories. It is more akin, I think, to changing all the rules, concepts, and definitions so that the old data all still stands exaclty as it always was, but suddenly appears entirely different because it is looked at through a different lens. For instance, relativity didn't overturn Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics operates as it always did, but through the new rules and concepts of relativity it is now understood in an entirely different fashion which can explain the exceptions that the original Newtonian paradigm could not. Similarly, if a paradigm shift occured in regards to evolution, I doubt it would "overturn" evolution. Instead it would change the way we look at evolution and understand it. All the data supporting evolution would still be there but we would see it in a different light, under new rules that could also explain whatever problems we've had with evolutionary theory.
quote:The concept of evolution itself is not an interpretation of the data, it is the data (if that makes sense).
Yes, that makes sense. But I think that is always the case with scientific paradigms. For instance, Newtonian physics probably appeared to BE the data - since for the most part it held true in all the data. And as I alluded to above, when the paradigm shifted, that data didn't go away. It was just all of a sudden understood differently.
If this were to occur with evolution, it couldn't deny the data that supports evolution. It would have to take same data and apply different rules or concepts to it, so that we understand it in a different way. And that new paradigm would then appear to BE the data, just as evolution does now.
posted
I haven't read Kuhn, though I've wanted to for years. But paradigm shifts can occur on different levels. The Relativity paradigm didn't prove Newtonian physics wrong but made them a special case or approximation. Other shifts can be more dramatic, like when heliocentric models of the solar system overturned the geocentric ones. The geocentric model is not a special case or approximation: it's just wrong.
This is pretty much what happened when evolution and other fields overturned creation theory, at least YEC theories.
Also Tres, when discussing shifts taking generations, it's not just about old data: new data is amassed all the time. This happened with Newton's theory: the unexplained precession of Mercury wasn't observed until 1859.
quote: "I must say, it is difficult to take a middle position on Hatrack."
Oh spare us.
There are a lot of things in this world where there are at least some good evidence and argumetns on both sides.
But Creationism is NOT one of them. The sooner you see that, the sooner you can stop arguing in favor of more angel reserach.
You haven't been initiated to Tres's incredible ability to pick a position that defies the known laws of physics. He isn't in the middle, it's more like an argumentative black hole this time around. It's really amazing to see, but according to him I would venture to say there are no facts, truths, opinions, experiences, viewpoints or beliefs that are concrete. I think he does it for fun.
I could be wrong. After all how can I really know Tresopax? How can anyone say anything about him?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
