nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 386:
Line 386: + + + + + + + + + + +
→You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me: A fantasy
Scientist: We conjecture that man evolved through a series of steps to its current form by slight mutation as observed in other life forms as well as supported in the fossil record.
Scientist: We conjecture that man evolved through a series of steps to its current form by slight mutation as observed in other life forms as well as supported in the fossil record.
Notice how the bible literalist would provide a definitive answer whereas the scientist would not, a conjecture is not an absolute. This again is a prime example as to why the scientist (who uses the scientific method) can not employ circular reasoning since they start with nothing in terms of worldview (as limited by the scientific method) and the bible literalist must equate all observations to the bible.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Notice how the bible literalist would provide a definitive answer whereas the scientist would not, a conjecture is not an absolute. This again is a prime example as to why the scientist (who uses the scientific method) can not employ circular reasoning since they start with nothing in terms of worldview (as limited by the scientific method) and the bible literalist must equate all observations to the bible.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Your point of what a scientist in feudal China would conclude would have some validity if there actually were scientists in feudal China who came to the conclusion that the world was millions of years old. But there weren't, so the example proves nothing.
:Much of the rest of your argument presumes that evolutionary scientists are as objective as possible and don't let their ideas intrude into their science, whilst creationary scientists are not so rigorous. But this is merely painting a rosy picture of evolutionary scientists that doesn't match reality.
:In reality, evolutionary scientists are every bit as influenced by their worldview as creationary scientists. Evolutionary scientists work on the principle that matter is all there is (i.e materialism). This is not an ''observation'', but an ''assumption''. Take for example this quote from Richard Lewontin:
{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. <br /><br />It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.}}
:Also, when talking about "the burden of proof", keep in mind that we are not talking about empirical science so much as ''history''. We're not talking about laboratory experiments to see if we can tranform a reptile into a bird, but about whether this event actually happened millions of years ago. Even if we found that we ''could'' transform a reptile into a bird, it does not logically follow that it necessarily happened millions of years ago. That is a fact (or fallacy) of ''history'', not empirical science.
:And the views of people such as Gould and Michael Ruse are that evolution was the result of ''rejecting'' the biblical account. It wasn't a dispassionate look at the evidence, but was based on a worldview that was hostile to God. Yes, the ''scientific method'' ignores religion, but the scientists practicing it very often don't.
:As I tried to explain, using an argument based on an assumption to claim that the assumption is thereby proved is a circular argument. Simply making an argument within the framework of a particular worldview is not a circular argument. Again, your "who created the universe" argument is a conclusion based on the Bible (or not), but is not a "circular argument"—''there is no circle''!
: Your "how did man come to be" example is also fallacious. First, since when is it wrong to be certain of one's conclusions? You seem pretty certain that what you are saying is correct, yet criticise "Bible literalists" (an incorrect term anyway) for being sure of their views! Secondly, almost every scientist will insist that the evolutionary story is definitely correct. They will be prepared to accept that some of the details could be changed, but not the basic premise. (Creationists will also accept that some of the details could be changed.)
: So in summary, your idealistic word picture of unbiased objective evolutionary scientists vs. biased, unobjective creationists is nothing but a fantasy.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:25, 31 January 2008 (EST)