Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 26, 2019, 4:59 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
#21
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
I'm a scientist and a Christian. I believe in an ancient universe, extremely old earth and the evolution of life from simple to complex, with man being part of that evolution. I see a dynamic unfolding creation, a creative creation that has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve.

But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).

When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.
Reply
#22
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
(August 31, 2014 at 9:50 am)Michael Wrote: I'm a scientist and a Christian. I believe in an ancient universe, extremely old earth and the evolution of life from simple to complex, with man being part of that evolution. I see a dynamic unfolding creation, a creative creation that has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve.

But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).

When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.

My bold. Are you serious? A quick search online will date the planet as over 4 billion years old, so do you really expect us to debate this with people who are too lazy to use google?
Reply
#23
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
I don't think ad hom arguments about laziness help the scientific cause much either. I tend to find ad hom argumentation lazy (if not dishonest).
Reply
#24
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
(August 31, 2014 at 9:50 am)Michael Wrote: But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism.

Why are you privileging young earth creationism as something that must be engaged with, over... say, geocentrism? Or the flat earth belief? They have exactly the same level of evidence, and are facing a vast, some would say insurmountable wall of evidence contradicting them; why is young earth creationism so special?

And that's not even entertaining the idea that science already has engaged with young earth beliefs; they have been proven conclusively wrong, and science has moved on. Don't mistake a determination that's already been reached, with sufficient supporting evidence, with an unwillingness to further discuss the issue. It's not like the creationists are bothering to bring positive evidence for their claim to the table.

Quote: It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives.

So, if you have a phenomena that has been confirmed through multiple lines of archaeological and experimental evidence, plus can literally be observed to happen, and someone just asserts that it isn't true... we have to take that seriously? Like, at all? Thinking

And when their best counter-argument is that we don't know everything about the phenomena- that, again, we can observe- that somehow makes them more credible? Undecided

Quote:This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist).

And if they bothered to look for answers to those questions that confirm their claims, rather than taking the fact that there are unanswered questions as proof that they are correct and evolution is wrong, then that'd be okay. As it stands, the ID proponents go to no effort to research, nor to publish in a peer reviewed manner. Instead, they're lobbying for political power, they're skipping peer review altogether to write books, they're creating their own journals out of whole cloth to avoid having to face the scrutiny of anyone who might not already agree with them. Look at any given ID website and you'll see a statement of faith affirming a presupposition toward ID, and a dismissal of all evidence to the contrary.

Hell, even their hypothesis is an unfalsifiable mess that shifts the burden of proof! As a scientist, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Quote: It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known.

If the answer is not yet known, you wait until evidence is found before you engage with the question. What you don't do is enter into public debate with people who have a track record of taking the fact that the answer isn't known and spinning that into "evolutionist scientists can't even answer our hard hitting questions! Evolution must be wrong, and design must be right!"

Quote: But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love.

So what research is there that points to ID? What testable hypotheses are being generated by ID? What evidence does ID have; positive evidence, not merely holes in the alternative?

Isn't all that a part of the science you know and love too? A pretty big part, that's completely absent from ID?

Quote:An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).

Ah, there's your mistake: rather than being the "weakest" point of science, evolution may just be the most well supported theory in all of biology, if not science itself. To question evolution on individual unanswered questions, in the face of the true weight of the evidence in favor of it, is like questioning the color of the sky because we don't know absolutely everything about light refraction.

Quote:When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.

Tell you what: when creationism and ID start behaving like sciences, when their proponents start playing by the same rules as real scientists and obeying a code of ethics and honesty like the real scientific community does, then they get a seat at the table. Until then, you're just unfairly privileging your favored brand of mysticism over any other.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#25
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
(August 31, 2014 at 9:50 am)Michael Wrote: But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives.
I think it is more the recognition that YECs are not seeking to improve scientific understanding through questions and debate; they seek to revamp that understanding completely based on a claim of absolute and certain knowledge. You don't have to be a YEC to question current theories and knowledge about the Earth and its past, and scientists can continue to challenge each other and further their knowledge and understanding without throwing a god-shaped wrench into the works.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
#26
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
(August 31, 2014 at 9:50 am)Michael Wrote: I'm a scientist and a Christian. I believe in an ancient universe, extremely old earth and the evolution of life from simple to complex, with man being part of that evolution. I see a dynamic unfolding creation, a creative creation that has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve.

But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).

When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.


In general, those who deny evolution on religious grounds are infected with crappy theology. Theism as such does not entail ignorance of science nor blind acceptance of doctrine. When confronted by crappy theology by one of my younger brothers, I always try to suggest ways in which evolution -including man's place in it- is compatible with theology. The number one thing wrong with crappy theology (as with crappy scientism) is that it is authoritarian. Anyone concerned with moving away from the dark ages should promote good critical thinking, not adherence to one championed conclusion or another. Nice to have your example to point to, Michael.

Can you elaborate on what you think is a good question asked by intelligent design advocates?
Reply
#27
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
(August 31, 2014 at 10:16 am)Michael Wrote: I don't think ad hom arguments about laziness help the scientific cause much either. I tend to find ad hom argumentation lazy (if not dishonest).

You didn't say whether you are serious or not.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Now I'm not lazy anymore. That took me a few seconds to post, so now it's the YEC's who are lazy for not doing so. If anyone asks you about it, you have the link.

You know, you often make some good points and then end up shooting yourself in the foot.
Reply
#28
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
Whateverist. I think the good questions IDers ask are especially around what they call irreducible complexity; how did systems with complex mutual-dependency evolve? I think that's an area where evolutionary science is currently weakest (certainly in being able to produce good evidence rather than to propose possible solutions), though progress is being made on what may have been the precursors to, for example, the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/protein system (taking the most fundamental form of 'irreducible complexity'). Having people outside of science pointing to the weakest bits is, I think, actually useful: antagonists are often better at critical review; which is why Plato always developed his philosophy in a dialectic setting (developing his argument with Socrates arguing against his detractors).

There are also some more tangential, but interesting, questions raised by IDers about the nature of information though I think that philosophy rather than science is the better partner to engage with those questions.
Reply
#29
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
Are there any examples of irreducible complexity which can not be shown to be the result of some underlying structural or chemical properties of the organism? If any creator was involved, it sure seems to have done honest work without relying on any magic. Everything we study seems to be fully entwined in the fabric of reality. So far as I am aware, there are no black prisms of the sort that appear in 2001 A Space Odyssey. These are what I think of when I hear "irreducible complexity".
Reply
#30
RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
Yes lets have scientists debating creationists
Geologists debating flat earthers
Psychologists debating psychics
Doctors debating homeopaths
Biologists debating leprechaunians and unicornians
Therapists debating schizophrenics
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain

'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House

“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom

"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  An article entitled "Statements that evolutionists can't answer" potch 14 1708 April 27, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Last Post: SteelCurtain



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)