Are You a Creationist or an Evolutionist? (See Post For Details)

[Letum]

For every set of facts, there will always be a variety of explanations that fit.

Coming up with an explanation is easy, deciding which explanation is correct is not.

Both biology and religion offer explanations of the origin of species that fit the facts.
there are several tools that can help us decide the correct explanation.

1)
Firstly we should consider which explanation speculates the least about things
beyond the face value of the evidence and makes the fewest claims about the
existence of entities that are not in the evidence

2)
We should also candider how well the explanation coheres with other facts and
explanations that are uncontroversially believed to be true.

3)
A good explanation should allow the creation of testable hypothesis that can be
confirmed or disconfirmed. It should be possible to imagine some hypothetical, yet
somewhat credible, evidence that would disprove the explanation.

4)
Finally the explanation we chose should be comprehensive in leaving as few loose
ends as possible, generating fewer additional questions and leaving the least
unexplained.


Lets use the example of a man found hanging in a sealed room with one door locked
from the inside. The only objects in the room are the man, the rope and hook he has
hanged from and a stool on it's side just below his feet.
Based on these facts, the police come up with two explanations.

Explanation One:
The man entered the room and locked the door. He than stood
on the stool and put his head in the noose and kicked the chair away.

Explanation Two:
The man entered the room and was attacked by a daemon
who killed the man in a way that gave the body the physical appearance of a death
by hanging. The daemon then put the man in to the noose and placed the chair
under him to make it look like a suicide. Finlay the daemon locks the door and walks
away through a wall.

To decide which is the correct explanation we will use the 4 tools above.

Tool 1) Explanation One:
The explanation has no entities that are not shown in the facts.
Tool 1) Explanation Two:
The explanation posits the existence of the daemon entity, which is not shown in the facts.

Tool 2) Explanation One:
The explanation fits with our understanding of human nature and physics.
Tool 2) Explanation Two:
The explanation does not fit with understanding of how physics.

Tool 3) Explanation One:
The explanation could be disproved if the pathologist found that the man did not die
from hanging.
Tool 3) Explanation Two:
There is no hypothetical new evidence that could disprove this explanation as the
explanation can be adjusted to fit any new evidence imaginable.

Tool 4) Explanation One:
The explanation leaves the loose end of why the man killed himself.
Tool 4) Explanation Two:
The explanation leaves the loose ends of what exactly the daemon is, why it killed someone,
how it walks through walls, how it killed the man with no marks, where it came from, (etc. etc. etc.)

[DeepIron]

In response to your post above, we all know just how infallible science is now, don't we? Man looks at God, defines his relationship and expects God to capitulate and accept. Fair enough. But when God approaches Man, the opposite doesn't hold true. God is held at arms length and exposed to Man's logic and reasoning. That is how I read the forward on Science and Creationism. A process through which self-justification and "reasoning" is applied to explain away something outside of modern sciences ability to quantify and qualify.

Now one might indeed accuse me of being biased or close minded. However, I contend that the opposite is just as true for those whom only the disciplines of science, and nothing less, will suffice. They say, "If I can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or hear it, it doesn't exist."

Quote:
The unfortunate aspect of admitting "belief" is that one is immediatly branded as "religious" and communications with that person are filtered through a "religion colored glass." This sad because it automatically presupposes that the "religious" persons mind is closed to thinking "out of the box" and is shut to anything that doesn't fit with their dogma.

You are illogical here. Religion is believing, science is, trial and error, observation and conclsuion. Religion is belief indeed. you have made a choice, you say you belief in an intelligent creator. But you do not want to be hold responsible for the choice you made..?. By your choice, you already have filtered out what is possible in explanation and what not: you must not know anymore, and must not explain accoprding to standards of reason or science or logic - for you have choosen to believe. Believing and reason do not go well together. In fact, they are mutually exclusive.

No, faith is believing. Why do people continually equate religion with faith? I don't "belong" to a religion. I'm not Mormon, Presbyterian, Methodist, or otherwise. I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the teaching of God through the Bible.

And yes, I'm certainly responsible for the choice I'VE made just as you or anyone else for that matter are responsible for your own choices. And no, just because I've made a committment to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, doesn't mean I can't entertain or be intelligibly conversant in other ways.

Works for you? I fear you need to wait until you are dead to see if it works for you, or not.

Not really. By choosing to believe my life is fuller and contains fewer worries and more happiness than ever before. Of course, this is relative to me and cannot be empirically or otherwise proven. But in my frame of reference this joy exists regardless.

That way, you can almost skip your life, which may explain christians' obessive orientation towards death.

That's stereotyping. Many of the other believers I know, consider "death" as just another aspect of life, a continuation. "To conquer death, all you have to do is die" to quote Tim Rice, paraphrasing Scripture.

Question then is, in your thinking: why have I been created, then? Just in order to die when asking too many question about poison arrows?

No, quite the opposite. I have a very meaningful and full life. I find confort in the knowledge that God has a plan for me, and it's spelled out very plainly. See John 3:16 for reference.

That must be any god's queer sense of humour - which after all eventually may prove the existence of god in fact, finally (at least when you have made a decision to believe.)

I think God has an even queerer sense of humor as found in atheists and agnostics who contend that their own little universe of "self" is impregnable, completely self-centered, self-supported and logical.

@letum, which of the explainations that you've given for the demise of the hanged man do you believe?

[DeepIron]

So let's kick this up a notch, shall we?

Summing up the Darwinism Hypothesis:
1. Nothing produces everything. (Non-deism.)
2. Non-life produces life. (Self-organization of matter, etc)
3. Randomness produces fine-tuning. (simple luck of the draw chance produced our Universe)
4. Chaos produces information. (no particular order to the Universe)
5. Unconciousness produces conciousness. (the mind just happened as a "side-effect")
6. Non-reason produces reason. (reasoning from chaos)

Ok then. All that Man has evolved to, at this point, is the product of physical processes without the direction of an Intelligent Designer. Purely undirected natural process of evolution. Right? Just a bunch of semi-organized bits of protoplasm walking about our planet with nothing better to do than eat, sleep and cr*p and with no higher purpose or meaning in life. The list above should encompass this. Examine each one and consider it if you would.

It stands to reason then, if we're products of evolution as described by Darwin, and there is no ID involved, that Man is also responsible for his own moral values too. I mean, we don't see the intrusion of Intelligent Design anywhere else so it's reasonable to assume our morals are created by the same processes. After all, intellect, as defined by Darwinism and a byproduct thereof, is a result of randomness and natural selection. One would think that morality would find it's center in the human conciouisness as it certainly didn't start with any of the "lower animals".

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

@MrBeast: There have been 28 documented examples of vestigial tails since the late 1880's. 28 out of millions and millions. Why are there no muscles evident in these tails? One might decry, "Their vestigial! The muscles are gone!" If we can have the protruding flap of skin, why then not some muscle as well if indeed they are tails? On the other hand, why are some chldren born with webbed toes? Or polydactylism? Do we point to these and cry, "He's decended from a Duck!" or She's obviously got bat blood in her!". No we chalk these up to "birth defects" and blame the environment or a genetic aberrration of sorts.

Actually the Coccyx does have muscles attached to it. And they are tails. Infact some of the few cases of abnormally large vestigial tails have contained muscle, blood vessels and in very rare cases cartilage and bone.

Webbed feet or extra digits are the result of genetic mutation (as are long vestigial tails). The point about vestigial tails though is that everyone has one most are simply not visible.

In short to have a large vestigial tail is a biological aberration, to have one at all is a well documented medical fact.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

@letum, which of the explainations that you've given for the demise of the hanged man do you believe?

The one that best fits the criteria of a good explanation that I layed out at the start of
the post. Isn't that obvious?

Why do you ask?

I would be intrested if someone from each side of the debate here could use the 4 tools
for evolution/creationism in the same way that I did fro the hanging. (see the bottom of
my above post for the formatt).

[DeepIron]

The one that best fits the criteria of a good explanation that I layed out at the start of the post. Isn't that obvious?

I didn't want to assume anything and I would consider the 4 tools you list as somewhat subjective. Let's examine them:

1) Firstly we should consider which explanation speculates the least about things
beyond the face value of the evidence and makes the fewest claims about the
existence of entities that are not in the evidence

Occams Razors fit this description very nicely. "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

2) We should also consider how well the explanation coheres with other facts and
explanations that are uncontroversially believed to be true.

The issue with this is the definition of "controversy" and it's here, IMO, that a huge breakdown in the Evolution vs. Creationism argument breaks down. How will one get both camps to agree on all "factual" points? Indeed, how does one even arrive at a set of proveable facts given the degree of "unproveability" that exists in both arguments?

3)A good explanation should allow the creation of testable hypothesis that can be
confirmed or disconfirmed. It should be possible to imagine some hypothetical, yet
somewhat credible, evidence that would disprove the explanation.

How does one test for God? Or for that matter, how does one create a living cell from it's basic atomic elements. So far, both have proven to be impossible.

4)Finally the explanation we chose should be comprehensive in leaving as few loose
ends as possible, generating fewer additional questions and leaving the least
unexplained.

In a purely physical sense this may prove conclusive. Unfortunately, in dealing with quantities or qualities that cannot be 'explicitly defined' such as the "fine tuning" aspects of the Universe, the absolute existence of God, etc. the explanation cannot be totally conclusive.

Why do you ask?

Because sometimes intuition can play an important role in discerning truth despite the absolute "logical" results of scientific testing.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

I simply asked you to provide some resources .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/refs.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

[DeepIron]

I've read at some length through the TalkOrigins archives and FAQs. There are certainly a number of relevent points made and interesting theoretical concepts as well. On the whole, the TalkOrigin site is full of wonderful citations, commentary and points of view.

Webbed feet or extra digits are the result of genetic mutation (as are long vestigial tails). The point about vestigial tails though is that everyone has one most are simply not visible.

I'll tell you what. Show conclusively that Man ascended from ape-ancestors and I'll agree. There is no conclusive evidence to support this. Sure, one can invoke homology and make comparisons, as Owen did with his appendages, but until the "missing link" is found, tying modern man to an ape ancestor, the issue is speculative. The phrase "common postulation" is used frequently when discussing other "vestigial organs" as well: the appendix, ears, wisdom teeth and eyes.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck... it must be homologous to a ???

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

In response to your post above, we all know just how infallible science is now, don't we? Man looks at God, defines his relationship and expects God to capitulate and accept. Fair enough. But when God approaches Man, the opposite doesn't hold true. God is held at arms length and exposed to Man's logic and reasoning. ...

(...)


opposite. I have a very meaningful and full life. I find confort in the knowledge that God has a plan for me, and it's spelled out very plainly. See John 3:16 for reference.

Mind if I don't? I'm fed up with scriptures. Even more so when I am expected to take it literally .

I think God has an even queerer sense of humor as found in atheists and agnostics who contend that their own little universe of "self" is impregnable, completely self-centered, self-supported and logical.

Well, believing is not knowing, and trust is not blind belief, but grows from empirical experiences of the past. anyhow, I was just unsure were to put you: to the group of reasonable rationalists admitting that there is also a spiritual dimension in existence, or to the group of those who belief something unproven and want to raise it's prestige by labelling it a reasonable method like to be found in sciences. Now that I know about you, i see that it is pointless to continue the communication, for you prefer to just believe and make yourself unavailable for any argument by that - belief beats any argument, any logic, any empirical experience, any reason anytime - while me refuses to see such a position as an equal to reason, logic, empiry, experience - even true spirituality (which has nothing to do with mysticism and literal believing).

Take care,
Sky

[Herr_Pete]

Am all for evoloution. Im not a dan of the creation idea. To unbelievable for me but i respect other people opinion on the matter.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

I've read at some length through the TalkOrigins archives and FAQs. There are certainly a number of relevent points made and interesting theoretical concepts as well. On the whole, the TalkOrigin site is full of wonderful citations, commentary and points of view.

Heres a site where the pro's are talking. Have fun.

http://www.religious-science.com/mes.../forum-14.html

[DeepIron]

Now that I know about you, i see that it is pointless to continue the communication, for you prefer to just believe and make yourself unavailable for any argument by that - belief beats any argument, any logic, any empirical experience, any reason anytime - while me refuses to see such a position as an equal to reason, logic, empiry, experience - even true spirituality (which has nothing to do with mysticism and literal believing).

So where I have I argued irrationally? I've tried to support my point of view with citations and quotes of scholars and others more learned then myself. I'm trying to see the points of view of others, but what I see are "closed case" statements, hardly debate at all.

I'm available for debate on this subject from anyone who wants to debate it. Not just throw "So what" comments at it...

Now that you know about me? Sky you don't know anything about me other than I believe in a God and a Resurrection. And because you know this, you judge me unable to reason, or be reasonable.

And no one yet has answered my questions regarding our sense of moral values...

Thanks Fish, I'm having a lot of fun here already!

[Letum]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Because sometimes intuition can play an important role in discerning truth despite the absolute "logical" results of scientific testing.

Ah ha! so you wish to abandon logic to some extent?
In the case I shall take a lesson from my signiture.

[DeepIron]

Ah ha! so you wish to abandon logic to some extent? In the case I shall take a lesson from my signiture.

Certainly! I never intended to approach the question of Evolution vs. Creationism from a coldly logical point of view. There are too many unknowns, too many unproveables for logic to be successfully applied.

So, let me address your question, with a question. How often in science, have researchers followed their intuition even in the face of logical reasoning? I know that over the years I have read stories of great scientists who, for some reason or another, listened to that little voice that said "try it this way".

My point being this, not everything in the world is "black and white". Logic has it's place in reasoning, but so does intuition. To suggest that everything in the world is qualifiable and quantifiable is folly IMHO.

Explaining deja vu, or lucid promonition for example has not found a logical explanation thus far...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Now that you know about me? Sky you don't know anything about me other than I believe in a God and a Resurrection.

DeepIron, it simply is fact for me that reason and belief are mutually exclusive. It is pointless to argue with reason and argument with somebody who has choosen to believe something, or to quote the motto of the site Fish has just linked to: "It is impossible to use reason to change an opinion reached without it." you think you use reason nevertheless, but much of ewjhat you pointed at regarding sciences and it's arguments I consider to be serioulsy twisted. Belief is not reason, and so is religion as well. You can't have both. If you choose to beliegve, your reason submits, and logic capitulates. You give up your independant thinking. That is the essence in EVERY religion or cult.

I am not describing myself as a Buddhist but have sympathy for much of what is to be found there, however I know a lot of Buddhists who would strictle reject a description of buddhism being a religion. In fact it is the most drastic empirical approach on world and life that I know both in East and West, science, mythology or philosophy. It means: see yourself, check yourself, understand your existence on the basis of your own experience, examine your mind and become aware of how it functions and how it forms your image of yourself and the cosmos "around" you. believing is cheap. gaining knowledge is much harder. that is a life-long scientific project, but it is a hundred thousand times better than just believing that man is plum pudding because you read a recipe for plum pudding in your grandmothers cooking book.

Your other aspects of life and personality i am not so much interested in, since my interest in you is limited to the object of this discussion - here I found you, and here we separate again. You have defined yourself as a believer, okay, I can live with that since you do not give me the impression you wish to enforce your belief onto others and make it the dogma of public life. But I also know that you have set a line beyond which you do not will to accept reasonable argjment. Your strange distortions of some "scientific examples" you gave illustrate that. It is here where it becomes pointless for me. Also, some comments gave me the impression you do not really understand all of what I said, at least you interpreted it wrongly, in parts.

but again, you do not seem to try imposing your religion onto the world and public life and national systems, so I can very well let it go and must not feel tempted to fight with you, for what you believe in your private home is of no real interest for me and is your own business. so i say "take care, mate", and would eventually pick another partner for further discussion. but in fact I am already in overtime.

So: take care, mate! Hope your beliefs nevertheless pay off for you in any way.