26
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 222:
Line 222: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→response to top section
: "''...it fits data to a preconcieved picture...''": Just as does naturalism.
: "''...it fits data to a preconcieved picture...''": Just as does naturalism.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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