Should Creationism be given EQUAL TIME?

[RadicalModerate]

That seems to be more a proof of both my points, that the scientific method is a rational categorisation and assessment of observation and that it does have a lot to do with the basic intellectual and philosophical assumptions one makes, than is proof against them.

How does personal bias escape the testing/analyze results/report results steps in the scientific method?

 

[Wessexman]

How does personal bias escape the testing/analyze results/report results steps in the scientific method?

We're not talking about personal bias, but basic intellectual and philosophical assumptions that scientists tend to share. Biologists tend not to consider whether the modern assumptions about the nominalistic, mechanistic (or anti-teleological), positivist and Cartesian nature of reality are incorrect, unless occasionally when they are considering anomalies cast up from the acceptance of these perspectives and they have a bit of philosophical knowledge.

 

[Manc Skipper]

A textbook example of sesquipedalianism if ever there was.

 

[Wessexman]

A textbook example of sesquipedalianism if ever there was.

Those aren't long words unless you only read at the level of a 10 year old, but one can use the appropriate terms or give long descriptions. Would that be any better? In no sense do such petulant and childish comment refute my criticism. Indeed, seeing as evolutionists like to pretend everyone else is stupid and their position is so obviously correct and beyond rational dispute, then it is indeed rather counterproductive to that act, isn't it. Go ahead, then bring on such dismissals, it can only help my position the more you offer insults for arguments.

 

[RadicalModerate]

We're not talking about personal bias, but basic intellectual and philosophical assumptions that scientists tend to share. Biologists tend not to consider whether the modern assumptions about the nominalistic, mechanistic (or anti-teleological), positivist and Cartesian nature of reality are incorrect, unless occasionally when they are considering anomalies cast up from the acceptance of these perspectives and they have a bit of philosophical knowledge.

If scientists were to focus on the philosophy of their studies, rather than the data, I doubt much would get done.

You can wax on and on about the epistemology of scientific knowledge and facts until you've broken everything down to mere nothingness, but what good does that bring you? When have scientific breakthroughs that benefit humanity ever come through the over-bearing debate between rationalism and constructivism? You're kind of bringing up a non-issue and making it seem like it's a fatal flaw in the science of evolution.

This is a thread about the science and teaching of the facts of evolutionary biology, not a deconstructivist pissing contest.

 

[Wessexman]

If scientists were to focus on the philosophy of their studies, rather than the data, I doubt much would get done.

Yes, but we shouldn't forget this limitations when we think about these areas.

You can wax on and on about the epistemology of evolution, but when it comes down to every day data, it doesn't really matter.

How do you know it doesn't matter? We are not talking about just data, but about how the data is put together to come to conclusions.

 

[RadicalModerate]

We are not talking about just data, but about how the data is put together to come to conclusions.

So explain how this fits into the idea of genetic drift?

You're going to have to form a more cohesive argument than just throwing out shallow ideas of how the philosophy of knowledge relates to evolutionary biology.

 

[Wessexman]

So explain how this fits into the idea of genetic drift?

You're going to have to form a more cohesive argument than just throwing out shallow ideas of how the philosophy of knowledge relates to evolutionary biology.

How is this relevant. I have mentioned basic concerns previously. What you seem to be doing is trying to get me to answer technical questions about particular biological theories that I know little about. If you answer my original concerns, about causation and such things, then we can find a more technical area to discuss.

Also we're not just talking about 'doing science', but fully understanding and evaluating it.

You are simply using two common scientistic tactics; pretending that thinking right is less important than the results of observation without showing why, or in other words appealing to consequences, and trying to always make it a discussion of very technical areas of a particular science so that you can catch your opponent off guard in some technical point and miss the substantive import of his anti-scientistic argument.

 

[Wessexman]

When the hypothesis is tested, it is assumed that it is wrong, or at least probably wrong. Only after it has been proven over and over, and every possible way of falsifying it has failed, is it accepted as a theory.

I missed this, but my point is that scientists tend to except modern ways of thinking. They do not test these. My larger point is the intellectual and rational way we approach scientific study matters a lot.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I missed this, but my point is that scientists tend to except modern ways of thinking. They do not test these. My larger point is the intellectual and rational way we approach scientific study matters a lot.

Well, scientists of today do tend to use modern ways of thinking instead of watching for miracles from the sky, that is true.

The science of evolution is a description of the way in which organisms we see today came to be the way that they are today. It does not address the philosophical question of why they, and we, are here at all. It doesn't address the question of what happens to us after we die. it doesn't address morality. If simply describes what happened, and what continues to happen. The theory has stood up to a century and a half of debate and research. No one is going to be able to refute it on an internet forum, sorry, never going to happen.

I personally believe that there is a creator who started the whole thing in motion. I believe that there is an intelligence greater than ours that is behind the whys of life. I can't prove any of that, can't subject it to an experiment. No one can disprove it, either. It is a philosophical stance.

But that evolution describes how the organisms we know today came to be how they are is indisputable.

 

[Wessexman]

Well, scientists of today do tend to use modern ways of thinking instead of watching for miracles from the sky, that is true.

Or say ruling out final causation in favour of mechanistic, efficient causation, even though this leads to Humean puzzles like the problem of induction. Or say trying to break every down into as quantifiable parts as possible. Or accepting Cartesian divisions between Res Cogitans and Res Extensa, which some have posited have made quantum physics such an insoluble and mystifying field. Or falling into obvious illogicality like trying to explain consciousness in terms of unconscious things or trying to get the greater from the smaller.

The science of evolution is a description of the way in which organisms we see today came to be the way that they are today. It does not address the philosophical question of why they, and we, are here at all. It doesn't address the question of what happens to us after we die. it doesn't address morality. If simply describes what happened, and what continues to happen. The theory has stood up to a century and a half of debate and research. No one is going to be able to refute it on an internet forum, sorry, never going to happen.

I personally believe that there is a creator who started the whole thing in motion. I believe that there is an intelligence greater than ours that is behind the whys of life. I can't prove any of that, can't subject it to an experiment. No one can disprove it, either. It is a philosophical stance.

But that evolution describes how the organisms we know today came to be how they are is indisputable.

I do not pretend to be able to simply disprove evolution. But I feel it, and particularly interpretations of it, are far more flawed and open to question than is often allowed.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Or say ruling out final causation in favour of mechanistic, efficient causation, even though this leads to Humean puzzles like the problem of induction. Or say trying to break every down into as quantifiable parts as possible. Or accepting Cartesian divisions between Res Cogitans and Res Extensa, which some have posited have made quantum physics such an insoluble and mystifying field. Or falling into obvious illogicality like trying to explain consciousness in terms of unconscious things or trying to get the greater from the smaller.
I do not pretend to be able to simply disprove evolution. But I feel it, and particularly interpretations of it, are far more flawed and open to question than is often allowed.

So, what interpretations of it are flawed and open to question?

 

[Ikari]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have you seen the "respect for another's political beliefs" on this board? There are some, but there are a lot of blind partisans as well.

 

[Wessexman]

So, what interpretations of it are flawed and open to question?

Well particularly naturalistic and reductionist ones. But I think the evidence and consistency of the whole theory is quite overstated. I believe in China they accept the theory but read somewhere they consider the Anglo-Saxon complete faith that it is totally beyond question, and our general enthusiasm for it, as somewhat strange. I believe even on the continent it is not as much an article of faith as it is in the Anglo-Saxon world. By open to question I simply mean that, particularly when we don't think only according to heavily naturalistic assumptions, there are holes in the evidence that leave questions and that a lot of the interpretation does seem to depend on your assumptions to begin with.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well particularly naturalistic and reductionist ones. But I think the evidence and consistency of the whole theory is quite overstated. I believe in China they accept the theory but read somewhere they consider the Anglo-Saxon complete faith that it is totally beyond question, and our general enthusiasm for it, as somewhat strange. I believe even on the continent it is not as much an article of faith as it is in the Anglo-Saxon world. By open to question I simply mean that, particularly when we don't think only according to heavily naturalistic assumptions, there are holes in the evidence that leave questions and that a lot of the interpretation does seem to depend on your assumptions to begin with.

Naturalistic = it happened by naturally, by itself. Some people do interpret it that way. Of course, there is no evidence that it happened any other way, now is there? Belief in a creator is just that, a belief. There is no scientific evidence for one. On the other hand, evolution does not prove that there is no creator either.

Reductionist = putting the facts together to make a unified theory. That's how science works, whether it is the theory of evolution, global warming, or some theory that no one questions because it doesn't challenge their belief system.

Our "enthusiasm" for a theory that has been proven for over a hundred years and forms the basis for modern biology, one that is confirmed every time new facts come to light (think, DNA as an example), is not strange at all.

There simply is no competing theory of how life came to be the way it is.

 

[misterman]

The childish mockery of religion on this thread would be unbelievable if it weren't so common. I call it "childish" because as adults, we learn to respect one another's religious and political beliefs and how much meaning they have to some individuals.

There is really no need to be condescending or rude.

What is the point of posting something like this? Do you believe that you will "convince" a religious person to drop religion because you've mocked it as dumb?

Mocked it as dumb? Are you saying his beliefs are dumb, or a joke? Now who is being disrespectful?

 

[Boo Radley]

Then how do you organise and categorise your observations. In the most basic sense if you do not know that effect follows cause, or that things that share the same properties, like two humans, in some sense share the same quality or nature, then how can you use your observations?

Easy.

CAtegory #1) Height

Category #2) Weight.

It really isn't hard. But I would be interested in what you think they share. Many scientist, for example, believe in God. Many actually believe God created the Universe. They just don't predetermine they know how. So, they do what scientist do. they examine, observe, theorize, confirm, reexamine, and adjust.

 

[Miss Y'vonne]

It should have equal time with phrenology, necromancy and astrology.

And alchemy.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Scientific items supporting creationism should have equal billing with scientific proof for other theories. Public schools should not be teaching any religions beliefs in a science class - reserve that fo classes like comparative religion, cultural beliefs, etc.

 

[Wessexman]

Naturalistic = it happened by naturally, by itself. Some people do interpret it that way. Of course, there is no evidence that it happened any other way, now is there? Belief in a creator is just that, a belief. There is no scientific evidence for one. On the other hand, evolution does not prove that there is no creator either.

I think not only is the evidence weak for evolution, and largely depends on the assumptions you have to begin with, but I think there is evidence that its full naturalistic version, with only efficient and horizontal causes. For instance without final causes then Humean puzzles of causality arise. Also the question, posed even by the likes of Karl Popper against evolution, how what is not alive, not consciousness and not self-aware can become alive, conscious and/or self-aware. As Popper said, it is usually said look to physics for the answer Or what about the insoluble problems of naturalism, like C.S Lewis' argument from reason?

Reductionist = putting the facts together to make a unified theory. That's how science works, whether it is the theory of evolution, global warming, or some theory that no one questions because it doesn't challenge their belief system.

Reductionist=Removing important areas of reality because one's narrow field of vision doesn't allow it.

Our "enthusiasm" for a theory that has been proven for over a hundred years and forms the basis for modern biology, one that is confirmed every time new facts come to light (think, DNA as an example), is not strange at all.

DNA is an example of something that doesn't fit into a naturalistic, non-teleological reading of the theory, seeing as it is about information, which makes no real sense from such a position.

There simply is no competing theory of how life came to be the way it is.

Of course, because the only stable view of the theory of evolution across its history is a naturalist explanation of life using only efficient and horizontal causality. And common, modern assumptions rule anything else out as unlikely, of course there is no competition.

 

[Wessexman]

Easy.

CAtegory #1) Height

Category #2) Weight.

What are these? Are they properties or modalities or things in their own right or the sum of other things or just concepts? How do we make use of these or measure them? How do we explain them, such as their causes? When we measure them how do we deal with problems like the relativity of measurement and the fact that each point in a straight line is indefinitely small and indefinitely large making such measurement even more relative, as it is literally only the distance between two immeasurable points, and lacking in exactness?

 

[Ben K.]

DNA is an example of something that doesn't fit into a naturalistic, non-teleological reading of the theory, seeing as it is about information, which makes no real sense from such a position.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. DNA is as much "information" as the proteins it is responsible for producing and the tissues and organs that arise from that working in concert and sequence together or even the molecules that work in concert and are stable enough to form said nucleotides. Just because humans anthropormorphise things like DNA and compare them to language and code to simplify understanding does not mean anything other than our language is at times crude. and heavily biased towards anthropomorphism.

 

[Boo Radley]

What are these? Are they properties or modalities or things in their own right or the sum of other things or just concepts? How do we make use of these or measure them? How do we explain them, such as their causes? When we measure them how do we deal with problems like the relativity of measurement and the fact that each point in a straight line is indefinitely small and indefinitely large making such measurement even more relative, as it is literally only the distance between two immeasurable points, and lacking in exactness?

By obersvations. Patient B eats junk food and plays video games all day. Patient C exercises regularly and eats friuts and vergitables. By observation I can make reasonable assertions. Agian, not hard.

Why didn't you answer the rest of the post?

 

[Wessexman]

By obersvations. Patient B eats junk food and plays video games all day. Patient C exercises regularly and eats friuts and vergitables. By observation I can make reasonable assertions. Agian, not hard.

Why didn't you answer the rest of the post?

Why didn't you answer mine? You are simply ignoring the issues at hand, in favour of simplistic examples which you think will be uncontroversial.

Even in your example though it all depends on your parameters and the assumptions you make there and the reason you use to make those reasonable assumptions.

 

[Wessexman]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. DNA is as much "information" as the proteins it is responsible for producing and the tissues and organs that arise from that working in concert and sequence together or even the molecules that work in concert and are stable enough to form said nucleotides. Just because humans anthropormorphise things like DNA and compare them to language and code to simplify understanding does not mean anything other than our language is at times crude. and heavily biased towards anthropomorphism.

The problem is that outside that anthropormising it cannot be understood. Like human thought and consciousness DNA cannot be understood except in terms of intentionality, philosophically speaking, or in terms of it carrying with it information of things, or pointing towards things, outside its chemical state. Try and ignore this in favour of naturalistic, non-teleological understandings and any explanation become incoherent. How can a chemical state be of another or of some other thing?