Talk:Baraminology

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Contents

This article is excellent, but I would like to know what sources the author used before I go in and editing. After all, perhaps he has better sources than I do. --Ashens 10:40 27 February 2007 (EST)

The best reference to date is the review article "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms", by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in CRS Quarterly, Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000. I have added this reference to the article. Dr. Richard Paley 14:09, 27 February 2007 (EST)

As someone well-trained in biology, I would be interested in more support for this theory, for instance, physical/genetic evidence. Thanks. Palmd001 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Physical/genetic evidence for what exactly? The article is about a classification system. Philip J. Rayment 07:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. DrLib 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't really make sense. The categories are defined along the lines of interfertility; whether or not that is a meaningful basis for making a distinction is a matter of opinion, not something for which you produce evidence. It is, in fact, similar (but not the same) as the distinction for species. Do you want to offer evidence that the species definition is a "meaningful distinction"? Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Not exactly. Baraminology makes a claim that these various species are distinct in an important physical sense, that they were created separately. The claim is made that this is scientific. It should therefore be testable. JoshuaZ 10:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Joshua's back! The claim that they were created separately should be testable, or the claim that they are or are not interfertile? The latter is testable, and that is the bit that's claimed to be scientific. And how do you test whether two creatures are the same or different species if one or both are known only from the fossil record? Does that mean that classification of most extinct creatures is not scientific? Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT))
Whether classifications schemes for species are in general scientific is a difficult philosophical question. However, Baraminology unlike standard classification systems claims to be more than a classification system but a reflection of how things were actually created. Thus the lack of falsifiability becomes relevant. In particular, how can one ever tell that two species are definitely not in the same baramin? Answer: One can't. (I think there are also serious Biblical problems with baraminology but thats a separate issue). JoshuaZ 11:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
That sounds more like an objection to Baraminology on the grounds that the supernatural is involved, rather than an objection of any substance. And I don't accept that you can't ever tell that two creatures are definitely not in the same baramin. You probably can't at present, but an improved knowledge of the genetic code might allow us to determine that in the future. And I don't think that there are biblical problems with baraminology. Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
If my objections were involvement of the supernatural that would be a serious problem by itself not an objection lacking substance. Once the supernatural is involved, experiments are useless. However, the problem is more serious than that- even without supernatural intervention, one still cannot say that any two animals are not in the same baramin. (It isn't at all clear how genetics would help matters. And if anything, baraminologists have rejected using genetics as a determinant because it almost certainly would put humans and chimps into the same baramin (citation forthcoming, give me a day or so)). Furthermore, there are serious Biblical problems- Leviticus 19:19 doesn't make much sense if baraminology is correct and moreover might even imply that attempts to interbreed to determine baramins are sinful. JoshuaZ 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
It is rubbish to suggest that once the supernatural is involved, experiments are useless. Genetics would help if we can determine the designed mechanism of preventing two different creatures breeding. Given that, I fail to see how humans and chimps could possibly be put in the same baramin. As far as Leviticus 19:19 is concerned, see here and here. Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Once the supernatural is involved you have no idea whats going on. For all you know you could have complete omphalism or could have the universe created last thursday. As to the matter of determining "the designed mechanism of preventing two different creatures breeding" I have never seen any baraminologist assert that there is a specific mechanism that has been implemented to prevent them from interbreeding (this would raise its own issues. What if for example the mechanism became inoperative due to a mutation). Incidentally, here is one example where baraminologists have rejected using genetics as a test: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html . Continuing on to the matter of Leviticus 19:19, the argument being made by Ross is not quite the same the argument I am making-the issues are 1) The verses even under the intertrepation given by AIG and its splinter group still imply that doing crossbreeding tests of fertility is Biblicaly forbidden 2) The simple meaning of the verse implies that there are groups which are somehow distinct but are able to interbreed. If not, it isn't at all clear to me what under their interpretation the verse is meant to prohibit. JoshuaZ 14:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

"Once the supernatural is involved you have no idea whats going on. For all you know you could have complete omphalism or could have the universe created last thursday.". That's only true if you have no knowledge of what the supernatural being might do. It is not an inherent problem of there being a supernatural being.

Creationists don't propose that God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try; they propose that God designed the creatures in such a way that they could not interbreed. A genetic mechanism would seem the obvious way to do this.

The link you provided does not (as far as I can see) say that baraminologists reject using genetics. I can see where they've found a particular genetic test ineffective, but that's not the same thing.

I didn't link to AiG, and CMI is not a "splinter group". Your reply indicates that you haven't read the links properly, as they specifically raise the possibility of the verse referring to not interbreeding between different breeds within the same baramin. And what you think the verses "imply" may not be what is actually meant. To put it another way, do you think the verses were meant to prohibit crossbreeding tests for the purposes of scientific research, or for other reasons?

Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

First, regarding the issue of supernatural beings, you assert that you might somehow know what the being will do. The whole point of something being supernatural is that you don't know- it doesn't follow laws of reality. One might have faith or such about the nature of such an entity but any question involving it is outside the purview of science. Continuing onwards, I didn't assert that "God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try", however no one has detected any such "genetic mechanism" as you assert and I again wonder what happens if a mutation disables that mechanism. As to the issue of rejection of genetic tests, the tests that were ineffective are the most basic genetic tests possible- it would be likely more accurate to say that the genetics do not support the existence of a separate human baramin (assuming that has any meaning). I'm not sure what you mean when you assert that CMI is nto a splinter group from AIG (what term would you prefer? Breakaway group?). I did read the links, and there response about the verses is less than satisfactory. Among other issues, they state verse uses the word k'layim כִּלְאַיִם rather than (min) מִין and try to argue that the verse is somehow talking about a different category. In fact, k'layim means a mixture, it isn't a parallel word, and then attack Ross for his poor understanding of hebrew. (The whole thing really isn't that suprising when you consider the word "baraminology" anyways). I don't pretend to know why God would make such a commandment, although the Talmud seems to think that this law is to prohibit essentially messing with the natural order as God constructed it. Now, if the natural order as constructed didn't have problematic interbreeding, that doesn't make much sense. JoshuaZ 22:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Although this is an old discussion, I should have replied to it at the time but must have overlooked doing so.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that the "whole point of something being supernatural is that you don't know"? One of the main points of the Bible is precisely to tell us something about the supernatural Being referred to as God.
If God doesn't step in to prevent two different baramin interbreeding every time they try, that suggests that there is a designed mechanism to prevent such. If a mutation disables that mechanism, then I guess it might fail to prevent it, but that's getting rather hypothetical, isn't it? And it is clearly wrong to claim that no one has detected any such genetic mechanism when we already know that there are very real genetic barriers to two different creatures interbreeding. Dogs and cats cannot interbreed, for example, because of just such genetic mechanisms.
If the tests for distinguishing human baramin are the most basic possible, doesn't that merely suggest that more specific tests would do a better job?
CMI is not a splinter or breakaway group from AiG simply because CMI is the older/parent group from which AiG "broke away".
Your response regarding Leviticus 19:19 doesn't make any sense. The link I provided pointed out that the verse is not talking about baramin. Your response doesn't deny that, and goes off on tangents.
And going back to your earlier response about species, I questioned whether species are any more testable, and your reply amounted to saying that baraminology is supposed to be about reality, so should be testable. Are you claiming that species definitions have nothing to do with reality?
Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example. You said:

“Creationists don't propose that God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try; they propose that God designed the creatures in such a way that they could not interbreed,” In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark” If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
Yes, that baramin were created is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
"How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely not a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
  1. There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
  2. There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
  3. There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God because they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See Natural science#Beginnings for more on this.
Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.

Fair enough. Philip J. Rayment 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Genetic degradation

If Adam lived for 930 years, and humans have been around for about 6000 years, and now because of genetic degradation, the average human lifespan is (in the developed world) only between 77 and 81, you could plot some scary lines on a graph! (Top-of-my-head approx calculations: 90% decrease in 6000yrs, in another 6000yrs the average life expectancy would be about 8yrs) I'm sure that this would be to oversimplify things though, because the average lifespan of an ancient Greek was reportedly only 28 and many factors affect the figure, but presuming we're dealing with the upper-boundary of possible ages in Adam's age and current developed-world life expectancy, what is the principle or theory at work here behind the claim of the link between genetic degradation and life expectancy? Orgone 09:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I am guessing you could not read the article being cited. That website is experiencing temporary tech difficulties. Conservative 09:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Ill read up on it when the sites back up, i just wondered if it was a speculative hypothesis or if there had been research in to the link aswell. Orgone 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I've replaced the link with a link to the original, and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after Noah's Flood. Philip J. Rayment 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

the hypothesis that some unknown gene is lost and leads to shorter life, is at least possible hypothesis, though it is untested and they gave no good reason to belive it. I think the telomere degredation in itself is a dead end, as studies with rats overexpressing telomerase (adds base pairs to keep telomers from degrading)just led to cancer. (you would need your telomers not to degrade, but many other things as well?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damien (talk)

Human evolution

I've removed from the article a comment that Elrond put in. Although in principle similar to a {{fact}} tag, it is not the sort of thing that should be in the article, and would be better discussed here. Below is the sentence from the article with Elrond's insertion bolded:

(This is in contrast to the conclusions of evolutionary theory, which holds that the same process that separated man from beast also separated the human races from one another (reference very much needed here...... it is highly doubtful that any mainstream evolutionary biologist believes this to be the case today)

I could believe that Elrond's point could be correct, hypothetically, but is it in practice? I also quote here a proposed explanation of evolution that Kww put on the evolution talk page[1] (my emphasis):

the prevailing scientific view is that all living organisms are descendants of a single common ancestor, and that all differences between these species are the result of evolution

This seems to be a direct contradiction of Elrond's claim.

Philip J. Rayment 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Cypam's edit

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:

  1. Insertion of a claim that not all creationist accept baraminology. His reference supports that not all creationists are Christian (which is not disputed), bot not that not all creationists accept baraminology. And that is a claim that is not explicitly made in the article anyway.
  2. Reinstatement of Aengus2's twice-previously-reverted claim of what some critics might claim plus a dogmatic statement that baraminologists are wrong. It has previously been reverted on the grounds of being an "uncited claim which fails to recognise the arguments". It is still uncited, and still misses the point (by being dogmatic), and any editor who reinserts it in this fashion (uncited and dogmatically) will earn themselves a block.
  3. An obtuse paragraph that is clearly designed to parody the alleged difficulty of baraminology by being difficult itself. It is making an uncited opinion about baraminology in a way that is deliberately obtuse, and has been reverted three times by two different sysops. Reinstatement of it without approval (which will not be forthcoming without a compelling case being made) will also be grounds for a block.
Philip J. Rayment 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)


  1. Not sure what your talking about. For example, in Apache myth there is no concept or word for "Noah's arc", therefore the notion of baraminology is not even defined in their logos. This is what is known in logic as "proof by construction," and follows directly with even a rudimentary understanding of language. For example, if you said "creationists believe in purgatory," and I showed that, for example, the Yanomono tribes of South America are characterized as creationists and yet have no judeo-christian suppositions (in particular a word purgatory) in their mythos, then the consequence of that is that not necessarily all creationists believe in purgatory. To publish something saying this is pointless. It would be equivalent to to asking for a reference that states that "not all rocks are trees." Such a statement is a proof by construction, simply using standard definitions.
  2. What do you mean by dogmatic? It's possible your right, but based on your "techniques" then every sentence in the article needs to be cited. If you could possible clarify the point? It seems the point of knowledge is to resemble the truth by circumscribing the edges of the known (facts which are reproducible from the natural world) or hypothesized aspects of a problem. If however the only point is to re-assert a certain seemingly inviolable premise, then first off, it is a dictionary and not an encyclopedia, and second there is no need for any language whatsoever, you could just suffice with, "I am correct, you are wrong; because we say so."
  3. No, it is rewording a colloquial criticism of baraminology in a way meant to be suggestive of the tendency of baraminologists to conveninetly ignore reality by superimposing a transparent and simplistic collection of terms which are bijective onto already existing terms, but affectively create an illusion of depth. For example, if I rename cooking to lilkhast, and then proceed to define known cookware with words that end in "lilk", this has not effectively accomplished anything but perhaps a sort of re-invention of Babel. Cypam 15:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  1. I didn't realise that you were talking about "traditional" creation stories. In that case, you are technically correct in saying that baraminology doesn't apply to all creationists, but note two things: (1) Believers in those creation stories are not normally what is understood by the term "creationist" (and how many actually believe those stories today anyway?), and (2) I'm yet to be convinced that non-Christian creationists such as Muslim and Jewish creationists don't go along with baraminology. So at best, your statement limiting it to just Christians has yet to be shown to be the case.
  2. By "dogmatic", I mean that you were asserting something to be true without anything to substantiate it. Specifically, "incontrovertible evidence for mutations and natural selection at the molecular level". You are making a claim that it is impossible to deny the evidence that is supposedly against baraminology. I also said in my edit comment that your edit "fails to recognise the arguments". The point is, that creationists accept that there are mutations, and accept natural selection (which was first described by a creationist), but reject that the existence of these two mechanisms refute baraminology.
  3. Whether it is intended as a parody or to "be suggestive" is splitting hairs. Either way, it is totally unnecessary. Your assertion that baraminologists are using obscure terms to ignore reality is itself an unsubstantiated assertion.
Philip J. Rayment 23:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Plants on the ark?

plants

not included on the ark? survived the flood? comments?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kcarey (talk)

Plants were not mentioned as being on the ark, although there would have been plant material for the purposes of food, and this might have included seeds that could be planted after the flood. Apart from that, plants could have survived in floating mats of vegetation outside the ark. Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


response to top section

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal. B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are


a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true - I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. Ex. If ghosts exist one day we will be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on their reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-and can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this process in science (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions: Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption 1) There is a god (not proven assumed) 2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed) 3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings) 4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this 6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true. so in the end: Senerio 2 assumes 1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption available to study the universe/existance(that is why i choose senerio 2) And It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it. my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science) -Damien PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

"How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point.": I don't. All science is built on assumptions. How do we prove scientifically that we can trust our senses when we make scientific observations? How do we scientifically prove that our brains are correctly understanding what we observe? How do we scientifically prove that the laws of science have always been the same? Or are always the same throughout the universe? None of these can be scientifically proved. They are all foundational assumptions that we make. Many scientists also make the foundational assumptions that everything can be explained without resorting to invoking the supernatural, but that assumption can't be scientifically proved either. And some have a foundational assumption that the Bible accurately describes history. That also cannot be proved scientifically.
"The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text.": You say that as though a "religious text" is inherently unreliable, but what we are talking about here is claimed to be an account provided by the omniscient and infallible Creator, and if that claim is correct, there is no reason to doubt its accuracy.
"There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise).": See biblical accuracy. A very large number of the Bible's claims can be tested, and very many of those claims have been shown to be correct.
"It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.": We don't just "pick one" like tossing a coin. As alluded to above, the Bible has withstood a great deal of scrutiny.
"In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out": In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out
"(ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point).": Incorrect. Dating methods are refuted with solid arguments. They are not simply "thrown out".
"It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific.": So why do so many people use science to say that it is the wrong view? And how is it different from evolution in this regard?
"Science is not biased like this...": No, science isn't, but scientists often are.
"...unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view...": No, I don't.
"...and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result...": No, they interpret data according to their naturalistic worldview.
"...but rather to disagree with Christianity...": Yep, some of them do that[2].
"...and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity...": Yep, some do that too. See Flat Earth. Note that I'm still not claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.
"Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god...": Yep, there's evidence of that. See Lewontin quote linked above, for one. See here for another.
"...or created evolution theory to attack the view of god...": According to evolutionist Michael Ruse, "...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."[3].
"...our main theories-gravity, evolution etc ...": Gravity is an example of something that we can observe and test. Microbe-to-man evolution is not observable or testable. They are like chalk and cheese, and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".
"...deceits are found reasonably quickly.": But we are not talking about deceit, but about a worldview that excludes God a priori.
"However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?)...": As I said, I don't. That is, I don't believe in a large number of scientists agreeing together to put forward a view that they know to be untrue.
"As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians...": I said modern science generally, not every single field of science.
"...most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default": As I pointed out, that they were Christians was not coincidental, but the reason they started science.
"They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc.": No, they were coming from the basis (not bias) that God created the world. The idea that the sun revolves around the Earth predated the science (it originated with secular views) and was one of the first things thrown out by those creationary scientists.
"That is what is happening today.": That is what is supposed to happen with science, but that is not what is happening with evolution.
"I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?)": No, I would not say that. And every point like this that you've got wrong is a point where I take the standard view of the leading creationists. That you have so idea what creationists actually believe shows that you really have very little idea of the idea that you are arguing against. Do you agree with arguing from ignorance?
"As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories)...": No, it is not necessary. I also know many Christians who are scientists, and they don't see the need for this.
"...while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science).": Teaching based on events that didn't occur are meaningless (e.g. a teaching of the Bible is that when a man and woman marry, they become one, because they were one originally (i.e. God made Eve from Adam). So if they weren't one originally (Adam and Eve didn't exist), where does that leave the "underlying" teachings?). And biblical faith is trust based on evidence, not without or contrary to the evidence.[4]
"If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.)...": That assumes that human beings are sufficiently objective to do this. And yet I know of many scientists who have been convinced of creation because of the evidence. That is, they became Christians for other reasons, but continued, like the scientists you know, to believe in evolution. They changed from evolution-believing Christians to creation-believing Christians because of the evidence. Yes, in most cases they were Christians first, but given that you can't believe in creation without believing in God, that's not surprising. That is, going from believing in evolution to believing in creation, or believing in no God to believing in God, is a big change. It's a doubly-large change to do both at once, to it's not surprising that one happens before the other, and they are not going to believe in creation without believing in God, so believing in God comes first. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they then start to believe in creation because of the evidence.
"(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am)": When they are indoctrinated into just one view, and they have that much peer pressure, what else would you expect?
"a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree": See above. That assumes that their objectiveness outweighs their worldview. If creation is true, that means that they are answerable to their Creator, and they don't want to believe this. And it is true that most never see the creation science data.
"I doubt A,B and C": What about D: They never see the creation science data and even if they did would not be convinced until they changed their worldview?
"by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable.": What about detecting the results of? For example, concluding that design exists in living things so there must be a designer? You are not directly detecting the supernatural, but you are detecting evidence of His existence.
"You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence.": There is plenty of evidence of God's existence. Are you unaware of it?
"In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything...": And yet you do, as I mentioned. You assume that your brains are capable of correctly understanding the data, and that your senses are accurately observing that data, for starters.
"...in popular subjects frauds are found quickly": Not necessarily. Piltdown Man took about 40 years to be discovered as fraud. Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, although long known to be fraudulent, are still found in some textbooks.
"If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god.": No I don't. As explained above, all views start with some assumptions. It is unreasonable to ask of me something that you don't ask of yourself. If you wish to assert that scenario 2 is correct, that God is not involved, you first must give evidence that all things can be explained without God. Or accept that basic assumptions are involved in any scenario.
"I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct ": Naturalism claims to know what it will show ahead of time—that naturalism is correct. It works both ways.
"THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG": EVOLUTION IS NEVER WRONG. That works both ways as well.
"If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)": Evolutionists think the same way. And for the biblical view, that's actually worked pretty well in the past. Archaeologists used to claim that the Hittites recorded in the Bible never existed. But the Bible was right and the archaeologists were wrong. That example can be multiplied many times over. If something appears to disagree with the Bible, it's probably not the Bible that's wrong, based on past experience.
"Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point.": Agreed. But scientists do. Why is it that you seem to consider secular scientists as synonymous with "good science", but not creationary scientists? Please either talk about science, or scientists. Don't conflate the two.
" there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption": There is reason, actually. If our senses are the result of a giant cosmic accident (the Big Bang) followed by myriad more accidents (including all the evolutionary mutations), then we have good reason for thinking that they can't tell us anything useful. Observations are that things that are designed well work well, and things that are poorly designed, or not designed, don't work well. So if our senses were not designed, then we should expect that they give us poor information.
"Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses.": So, the naturalistic view says that we are not designed; the creationary view says that we are; our observations are that designed things work better than undesigned things, so isn't this a test of sorts of which view is correct? You seem to be arguing that the fact that they work means that the assumption that they work is correct, and that would be true. But you also seem to be arguing that the fact that they appear to work justifies the view that they work despite not being designed. This, however, is a case of rationalising your favoured viewpoint despite the evidence, because if anything the fact that they appear to work supports the idea that they were designed!
"How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense...": Yes, it is a sort of test. So which explanation does that support? That they were designed or that they were not designed?
"(that is why i choose senerio 2) And It is tested to a small degree ": But that test is of a prediction made by scenario 3, not scenario 2!
"...my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific": It's just as scientific as the naturalistic view.
"...it fits data to a preconcieved picture...": Just as does naturalism.
Philip J. Rayment 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)


Thank you for your informative responses. I very much value challenging my view points. After all if you can’t challenging them and still believe them you shouldn,t hold them (this we probably agree on, but just come up on the side of opposing views). My main points perhaps need to be clarified 1) I think the assumption we can trust our senses, is a lesser assumption than we have all the answers in the bible (history , how and when the world was created etc.). - if the bible was correct our senses would lead us to this conclusion eventually anyways 2)“In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out” ‘Many scientists have a good counter argument to data and do not simply throw it out. If not how do you account for most scientists not excepting this data, and most of the creation science work not being published in secular science journals. That is without resorting to a mass conspiracy as an answer, as it would no longer be a few individuals it would be a large majority of people going to conferences, writing text books, reviewing journals--your everyday go to work scientist who is sent the article to review. Note that I'm still not claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.” “and gullible followers who swallow that.” - I think you underestimate how much , interpreting data, critique and debate is done at any conference or when a peer review is done. 3) As for my use of science vs. scientist I suppose I should be more careful. Let me clarify: I agree scientific merthods are not biased, and that scientists can be. However so many scientists come from so many different back grounds and different biases, I can’t imagine getting all these scientists to agree to publish something that isn’t convincing data or at least a good starting point . The method of a rigorous peer review will eliminate a lot of this bias(of coarse not all), as the biases will be different (various culture, religions, etc.)- this leads me to belive that in general the literature is heading towards the correct answers in most fileds including evolution, (with some hick ups along the way). And that it isn’t fundamentally flawed in regards to the majority of what gets published in this field. - I guess we disagree

4) “…and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory". The assumption of evolution is very fundamental in science in many fields. It speeds up research in many areas 1) DNA regulation 2) figuring out undefined metabolic pathways in an organism 3) identifying how various cellular secretion systems work and what protiens are involved

4) targeting drugs to retroviruses (ex. HIV) -Most scientist in these fields believe in evoloution, and use it’s assumptions everyday to forward there work faster…. (I realise HIV still has no cure ,but the some drugs and many new novel ideas on how to defeat HIV we have would not be available if it wasn’t for our assumptions of evoltution)

5) “"I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?)": No, I would not say that. And every point like this that you've got wrong is a point where I take the standard view of the leading creationists. That you have so idea what creationists actually believe shows that you really have very little idea of the idea that you are arguing against. Do you agree with arguing from ignorance?”

- I appologise for putting words in you mouth. I was in error. This was the view of the people I have talked to who were creationists. It is very possible it is not the view of the majority. I didn’t even realise there was a standard “creationist view” on these things. However this was not part of any main point I was making and not that relevant to the discussion. I have a better understanding o science particularily of molecular biology and evolution, than these side matters and will try to restrain my comments to theses things.

6) "Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god...": Yep, there's evidence of that.

Bias may explain on or two people, why do the majority agree I don’t think it’s a hate of god as many scientists believe in one ( even evolutionary ones)

7) If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.)...": “That assumes that human beings are sufficiently objective to do this” - I believe they are.. Scientists often change their minds on things in the face of good evidance. Some of them may be things they have steaked their careers on. Yet in the face of data had no choice but to change their minds. I don’t belive the majority to be so unobjective. It wouldn’t be overnight but the popular view would change in the face of the evidance. That’s how all theories come to be accepted. You would want it to be a rigorous process and it is.

8) "...in popular subjects frauds are found quickly": Not necessarily. Piltdown Man took about 40 years to be discovered as fraud. Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, although long known to be fraudulent, are still found in some textbooks.

That’s a shame that that happened ( or if frauds are still in texts) but these are hardly the corner stone of evolutionary theory and doesn‘t reflect significantly on the validity of the theory as a whole. There are so many better reasons in countless subjects to believe in evolution .I doubt a majority of these fields basic assumptions ( age of earth, the way we inherit genes, the majority of the fossil record, ) are all mostly frauds. The science community in general would call a fraud a fraud if found out - Unless you think really lowly of most scientist.

9) "THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG": EVOLUTION IS NEVER WRONG. That works both ways as well.

Not true evolutionary theory changes in the face of new evidance, it must change and incorperate new findings to be relevant and fill in more details. The bible is the bible AS IS, final answer.

10) There is reason, actually. If our senses are the result of a giant cosmic accident (the Big Bang) followed by myriad more accidents (including all the evolutionary mutations), then we have good reason for thinking that they can't tell us anything useful.

No….If they weren’t designed to give us useful information, they may tell us something useful or may not. These processes do not proclude useful senses, and evolution would infact select for things that are useful. But from a philosophical stand point you are correct in that we can’t know for sure if they are working to give us correct info., and that is why acknowledged it is my base assumption that we can trust our senses.


11) Observations are that things that are designed well work well, and things that are poorly designed, or not designed, don't work well. So if our senses were not designed, then we should expect that they give us poor information.

- Why do you assume only designed things work well? Many things in nature work well. Many scientists would say they are not designed. You say they are designed because you assume a designer. Of course you observe designed things work well and non-designed things don’t work well, when your criteria for differentiating designed from not designed is if it works well. How could you ever find a non-designed object that works well, when you assume all objects that work well are designed (and things that are poorly designed, or not designed, don't work well). Good evedance for design would be non-hearsey evidance of a designer.

12a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true - I doubt A,B and C.


“a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree": See above. That assumes that their objectiveness outweighs their worldview-Again I think it does, we disagree.

“If creation is true, that means that they are answerable to their Creator, and they don't want to believe this.”- I never understood this. Why wouldn’t I want this, unless I was a very imoral person most scientists I know are very moral. I think this wouldn’t likely explain many people .

And it is true that most never see the creation science data . - It would explain some not likely most certainly not all "I doubt A,B and C": What about D: They never see the creation science data and even if they did would not be convinced until they changed their worldview?”

- D) is just A) added to C) as their world view would be changed unless :Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass ( as there are many scientists who have seen the data) say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true

13) “Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses.": So, the naturalistic view says that we are not designed; the creationary view says that we are; our observations are that designed things work better than undesigned things, so isn't this a test of sorts of which view is correct? You seem to be arguing that the fact that they work means that the assumption that they work is correct, and that would be true. But you also seem to be arguing that the fact that they appear to work justifies the view that they work despite not being designed. This, however, is a case of rationalising your favoured viewpoint despite the evidence, because if anything the fact that they appear to work supports the idea that they were designed!

- Only if we assume non-designed things don’t work well, when our criteria for design is if it works well.. This is a self fulfilling prediction.

"How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense...": Yes, it is a sort of test. So which explanation does that support? That they were designed or that they were not designed?”

- It only supports our senses appear on the surface to work. And this was my only point . Despite the fact my sense work is an assumption, I have decent reason to believe this

14) "It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific.": So why do so many people use science to say that it is the wrong view?

-I don’t do this - I think science should be taught in sceince class ( a section covering evolution in an aproppriate grade so they could understand it properly)

And that religion should be taught in a religion class ( with a section on creation beleifs (and their “science”) of all religions And I am refering to in public schools for all people. It would promote tolerence. And would solve the problem of people saying we only expose kids to one world view.


-Damien

Personal tools