A poll for creationists

[Subduction Zone]

I definitely agree with you that it *is* possible to know that the theory of evolution is correct, at least with a level of confidence that is as high as we can get in any field outside of mathematics. However, I think creationists' failure to accept evolution relates less to lack of intelligence, and more to a weakened ability to not be self-deceptive. I know plenty of very intelligent creationists, and I also know many average-IQ (or lower) people who accept the fact of evolution. I think that some people are more easily prone to believing what they want to believe, and others are better at segregating what they *wish* to be true from what is actually true.

Please note that a lower intelligence was only one reason that some don't accept evolution. A weak faith that gets threatened by reality is also a cause. Some Christians make the error of an all or nothing approach to the Bible. Their faith gets threatened by any part of it being false. Plenty of these people are intelligent, but since they want to believe the y go through severe cognitive dissonance when it comes to the sciences.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Please note that a lower intelligence was only one reason that some don't accept evolution. A weak faith that gets threatened by reality is also a cause. Some Christians make the error of an all or nothing approach to the Bible. Their faith gets threatened by any part of it being false. Plenty of these people are intelligent, but since they want to believe the y go through severe cognitive dissonance when it comes to the sciences.

Yes, I agree, and I'm sure a lower intelligence can be the issue in some cases, but I think it's a secondary one. I think many people want to be contrary to mainstream science, whether it's in the case of evolution, or climate change, or vaccinations, or other issues.

 

[Kenny]

What we have to understand that regardles... the debate is still on and by people of intelligence on both sides. To say that if one disagrees on the basis that "one is not a bio scientist", would be a wrong determiniation on two accounts... 1) That if one has a doctorate in one arena, he is still ignorant on having a position of thought if it is not within his area of studies. I would rather subscribe that any accomplished person can read, understand and have an educated position on any field. 2) Since there are scientists who have a differing position, then it is still debated. If the only answer to a differing position is that "they are simply ignorant" is a fallacy in an of itself.

So we have two accomplished people:

Benjamin Jeremy "Ben" Stein (born November 25, 1944) is an American writer, lawyer, actor, and commentator on political and economic issues. A graduate of Columbia University, Stein began his career in law, graduating as valedictorian from Yale Law School.

and

Clinton Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Sciencefrom 1995 until 2008.

Both accomplished, both intelligent, both in different positions and debating. I would find it hard to say that either are ignorant or stupid but they do have differing positions:

 

[Subduction Zone]

What we have to understand that regardles... the debate is still on and by people of intelligence on both sides. To say that if one disagrees on the basis that "one is not a bio scientist", would be a wrong determiniation on two accounts... 1) That if one has a doctorate in one arena, he is still ignorant on having a position of thought if it is not within his area of studies. I would rather subscribe that any accomplished person can read, understand and have an educated position on any field. 2) Since there are scientists who have a differing position, then it is still debated. If the only answer to a differing position is that "they are simply ignorant" is a fallacy in an of itself.

So we have two accomplished people:

Benjamin Jeremy "Ben" Stein (born November 25, 1944) is an American writer, lawyer, actor, and commentator on political and economic issues. A graduate of Columbia University, Stein began his career in law, graduating as valedictorian from Yale Law School.

and

Clinton Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Sciencefrom 1995 until 2008.

Both accomplished, both intelligent, both in different positions and debating. I would find it hard to say that either are ignorant or stupid but they do have differing positions:

Why do you use dishonest sources? That interview has been refuted many times. There are two things wrong with it. First Ben Stein lied about his motives in setting up the interview with Dawkins, second Dawkins was asked an incredibly foolish question and he did his best to answer it.

Ben Stein is very intelligent, until the subject of evolution comes up. Then a rather severe cognitive dissonance strikes and he can no longer think rationally. Ben Stein's approach to the theory of evolution demonstrates that at the verybest he is incredibly ignorant. Though if he is as intelligent as you think that is it only means that he is incredibly dishonest.

Do you want to go over how "Expelled" has been totally refuted in almost all claims? One of the problems with creationists is that they rely heavily on PRATT's. Do you have anything of substance? Do you have any reliable verifiable evidence for your beliefs? False attacks against the theory of evolution are not evidence for creationism.

 

[Kenny]

It is the interview... not the movie that I was interested in.

But you can change the subject if you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is the interview... not the movie that I was interested in.

But you can change the subject if you want.

The interview is bogus. Some of the questions answered were not the questions asked. Editing in post:

 

[Kenny]

A

The interview is bogus. Some of the questions answered were not the questions asked. Editing in post:

Again... you want to talk oranges and I am talking apples...

Go back to what I said... study it carefully and see if you can finally talk about what I was talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A

Again... you want to talk oranges and I am talking apples...

Go back to what I said... study it carefully and see if you can finally talk about what I was talking about.

Wrong again, I know what you are talking about. If anything you did not pay attention. The interview, which was part of the refuted movie Expelled, was bogus. Dawkins was answering different questions. The answers did not match the "questions".

When you use dishonest sources you only make it worse for you. Do you have anything of substance? Relying on dishonest people only makes you look dishonest yourself, and I am sure that you don't want to be perceived as being dishonest.

 

[Kenny]

Wrong again, I know what you are talking about. .

You OBVIOUSLY don't and since I don't go for strawman tactics, I will stick with the subject.

 

[shunyadragon]

I always want to lay the foundation before one can move forward. Take the above statements.

Your statement states that the Bible is faulty. We expect people to challenge statements that don't have support... whether science or Bible.

Actually, no I did not. I said the logic, reasoning, and evidence for the Bible is not the same as for science, particularly the science of evolution and abiogenesis.

We don't accept the Bible on the basis on the basis of "faith".

I believe there is a very strong element of 'faith' for the basis of the belief is what the Bible claims to be dependent on the view of the different Churches.

There are limited presuppositions for the basis of the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis, and the they are basically nature is predicable and consistent in time and space for the macro world.

Which you deduced from a position of thought that was not correct. So, as I mentioned before, we start from the basis of understanding debate. We also understand that science. Is that a science position?

The essential nature of the knowledge of science is not a product of debate.

But it comes from things like Danny Phillips, who years ago was a High-school junior in the Denver area, who challenged the statement that all life came form a tiny protozoan that went beyond the scientific evidence since it could not be confirmed by experiment or by historical studies of fossil record. It challenged the school's Nova program because of honest debate.

Darwainists were infuriated and flooded the city's newspapers with letter that were filled with vitriol which doesn't exemplify scientific thought and procedures.

That is what prompted my statement.

One anecdotal case should not prompt the statement.

Darwinists does not translate into scientists nor science, and is actually a derogatory term. This is not a good anecdotal example. and does not exemplify scientific thought and practices,.

Actually the modern view in science is it is the genetic link between the most primitive microorganisms and later more complex organisms, and also not one single microorganism. There are of course no fossil evidence for this, but recently there has been found some fossil evidence for the transition in the form of more complex single cell organisms.

From my perspective as scientist, no vitriol, but the fallacy would be a negative argument from ignorance as a product of finding fault with the theory of evolution without a constructive purpose.

An interesting issue is the use of names, such as Darwin and Dawkins, as individual personalities and philosophies as representing science, which is not the reality of the nature of science particularly evolution, abiogenesis, physics and cosmology. The ultimate reality of scientific knowledge is it is ultimately independent of individuals, personalities and philosophies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You OBVIOUSLY don't and since I don't go for strawman tactics, I will stick with the subject.

Oh my the irony. The dishonest editing in the video that you linked formed a classic strawman.

 

[metis]

Do we, as Bible believers, get the same leeway?

Of course.

BTW, are you making the assumption that scientists that accept the basic ToE are not "Bible believers"? Surveys of scientists indicate that roughly half of them are theists, and surveys of Christian theologians indicate that most of them (around 70% if my memory is correct) do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

As there are variations in hypothesis.

Of course.

But, more seriously, is it objectively derived evidence or subjectively derived interpretation some times"

Subjectivity is not evidence but interpretation can be, which is why peer review, which can be sometimes quite brutal, is necessary. Even though a scientist may work alone, what they find as evidence must be open to full observation from others.

Take for an example... the placement (location) of eyes. Is it chance? Or is it God? If chance, do we have some with three eyes so that no animal can sneak up on you? (Survival)

So, IMV, much of it is subjective interpretation.

Now we're into the hypothesis stage, and what's required there is for one to state a hypothesis that must include evidence that it is at least possible. We cannot just put forth an idea without any supporting evidence and call it a "scientific hypothesis". And scientific papers to form hypotheses are a pain in the butt to write, let me tell ya.

And the debate goes on

Actually not when it comes to the basic ToE. It's only a debate with those who use their interpretation of their scriptures as a set of blinders.

Life has evolved and still is evolving, and this we know with certainty. We can "debate" the specifics, and we can debate what the ultimate Cause may have been, but we know that life changes over time, which is why you've become more senile with age.

Take care, my friend.

 

[Quintessence]

Please vote.

I get the impression that you meant to limit this poll to Biblical creationists who interpret their scriptures literally, since there is no "I am a theistic creationist" option. Theistic creationists don't need to "change their mind" about it because they already accept biological evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Isn't it dishonest to talk about evolution without first of all facing certain foundational questions?

What foundational questions? If you are referring to the origins problems - where did the earliest form of the universe come from, and how did the first life arise to begin evolving - those riddles may never be solved. In the meantime, we have a useful theory of evolution. Why would we wait for the answers to the origins problems to work on the matter of biological evolution?

What is behind the diligent search for fossils all over the globe? What else than to find some evolutionary chain from microbes to man that would eliminate God?

We don't need to eliminate God. God never enters into the process.

What's behind the diligent search for fossils and all other evidence that scientists examine and interpret it the desire to understand how our physical reality operates, how it got to be the way it is, and how we expect it to be in the future. So far, the scientific program of the last several centuries has generated many useful scientific theories, none of which need a god.

It's actually the other way around. The creationists are trying to insert their go into a body of science that has never needed it. They're trying to find a job for their god, something that only it could do, not blind, undirected natural forces. That's why He's called the god of the gaps. Jobs are scarce and getting scarcer. What else is left for this god to do apart from being the source of the primeval universe and primeval life? And we have tenable hypotheses that also don't involve gods - the multiverse and abiogenesis hypotheses.

Furthermore, after centuries of examining nature at multiple scales, through microscopes and telescopes, no evidence for a god has been found, by which I mean that we have found nothing better explained by invoking a god. That's meaningful. You'd probably agree that the longer you go without finding your wallet, the more likely it is that you won't - that it was lost or stolen.

We've already proven that man is more than his physical body, but that fact is avoided by atheists because it points to God.

What fact points to a god? None that I'm aware of.

What has been proven (demonstrated or discovered is a better term) about the physical body was also elucidated by research scientists, many of whom are atheists.

Atheists are materialists. For them nothing exists except matter

That is incorrect as well. Perhaps you should let us speak for ourselves. This atheist specifically denied being a materialist in a recent post.

Spoiler

I have no problem with that. My position on materialism is the same as with gods in general - agnostic. I really have no way to know whether the fundamental substance of reality is matter (materialistic monism), mind (idealistic monism), neither (neutral monism), or both (dualism), and so I don't choose any. I recognize them all as logically possible constructs, and have no way to rule any of them in or out, and therefore don't. It would be a leap of faith to do otherwise.

I guess that the refusal to assert that materialism is correct makes me an amaterialist in the manner you describe.

It seems that you don't acknowledge the possibility that a person can truly say, "I don't know" and stop there without picking a favorite. link
​

Allegedly, man is no more than his physical body.

Another straw man.

You're making our arguments for us, but not in the way we would. When have you actually heard anybody make a "nothing but" argument regarding man?The reductionist fallacy overlooks the concept of emergent phenomena - phenomena seen at one scale but not another. No water molecule is wet or liquid. Wetness and the physical state of a collection of water molecules are emergent phenomena not seen in single H20 molecules.

Who says that the collected works of Shakespeare are nothing but a bunch of letters, spaces, and punctuation, another reductionist fallacy? His genius doesn't emerge until we organize large numbers of those characters.

The essence of mankind cannot be fully elucidated even when considering a complete human organism. There are phenomena that don't emerge until we have collections of people, including Darwinian evolution and war.

The materialist thesis is easily disproved. Thoughts are not physical nor are ideas.

You don't understand what materialism is. Materialism doesn't deny the existence of thought, or call thoughts material. Materialism says that thought emerges from matter when collected and arranged in the right way.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I definitely agree with you that it *is* possible to know that the theory of evolution is correct, at least with a level of confidence that is as high as we can get in any field outside of mathematics.

Interesting topic. They say that scientific theories can never be proven, just falsified, but it seems to me that the heliocentric theory of our solar system and the germ theory of infectious disease have been proven.

Regarding evolutionary theory, if it is wrong, what could possibly be right except a deceptive intelligent designer scenario? Even if that legendary precambrian rabbit were to surface, the mountains of evidence supporting the now overthrown former theory of evolution still remains. What hypothesis could account for that apart from a decepetive designer hypothesis, one that either made a mistake creating the geological column, or left an Easter egg behind for us to find to blow our minds and amuse it?

And that's no help to our Christian and Muslim creationist friends, because that's not a description of their god, one that allegedly reaches out to man in an effort to reveal itself, be known, be loved, be obeyed, be trusted, and be worshiped. It need not be a god at all. A sufficiently advanced civilization that arose naturalistically (unguided abiogenesis and evolution) would probably seem likelier than a Loki-type mischievous god.

What we have to understand that regardles... the debate is still on and by people of intelligence on both sides.

The debate among lay people is not relevant to the scientific community, which considers the matter of Darwinian evolution settled science. People like us can discuss these matters for our own edification, but the scientific community doesn't care how we decide. I happen to agree with their consensus position, but they don't care, and in my opinion, that is how it should be.

That's what's meant by there being no debate. Our debate is irrelevant.

surveys of Christian theologians indicate that most of them (around 70% if my memory is correct) do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

I would say that if a God is inserted any place into Darwin's theory, it is no longer the same thing.

If these Christian theologians want to posit that somehow, man got a soul, and that man was made in the image of a god, then they have rejected the scientific theory even if they say that they accept it. They may not realize the irreconcilable difference between Darwin's theory and any form of theistic evolution, but it is there nonetheless.

Now we're into the hypothesis stage, and what's required there is for one to state a hypothesis that must include evidence that it is at least possible.

I would quibble a bit here and say that anything not shown to be impossible is by default possible. Possibility need not be demonstrated. Impossibility does, and until it is, an idea remains possible.

Notice also that there are two different meanings of possible. A thing may be known to be possible in the affirmative sense, especially if it has been observed in the past, things like the next airplane I fly in crashing or winning the lottery.

Other things may in fact be impossible, but that fact cannot be or hasn't been demonstrated yet. Undirected, naturalistic abiogenesis may be impossible, but until that potential truth is determined to be the case, we call the idea possible.

We cannot just put forth an idea without any supporting evidence and call it a "scientific hypothesis"

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? Which "case study"?

I do not consider what @KenS referred to would qualify as a "case study." It was more an anecdotal story. A "case study" would be more a controlled scientific study,

 

[metis]

I would say that if a God is inserted any place into Darwin's theory, it is no longer the same thing.

But the basic ToE in no way removes the hypothetical possibility that there could be theistic causation. Matter of fact, Darwin himself was a lay Christian preacher in the Anglican church. Also, about half the American biologists accept the basic ToE, according to a survey I saw a few years ago.

When I first started teaching about human evolution in my anthropology course, I quickly learned that I had to explain to my students that the ToE should not in any way go against their religious faith. Most Christians and most Christian theologians do not see a conflict as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Possibility need not be demonstrated. Impossibility does, and until it is, an idea remains possible.

But this is not how we work when it comes to scientific hypotheses.

For example, if I say that I believe the world is coming to an end tomorrow, in order for that to be a scientific hypothesis I have to provide what evidence leads me to this possibility? Yes, I can have my own personal hypothesis, but a scientific hypothesis is part of a scientific inquiry and not just a personal opinion. These are formal papers that tend to be extremely lengthy and extremely boring to read.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hello Subduction Zone, I liked the second part of your response and will address that at the end of my response. Some things are right there in front of us, all we need to do is figure out how it works, others we have to look for. Science looks for items in archaeology if feel they want to find something if they are not sure it exits. Physicists will look for particles not even knowing if they exist. So I do not see it as being unreasonable to look for something that could possibly exist.

There is a problem here as to how Methodological Naturalism works in terms of the falsification of hypothesis. Particular example in cosmology, physics, evolution and abiogenesis is that hypothesis makes predictions based known evidence. For examples: (1) Physicists over recent history has made predictions concerning the existence of the basic particles that should exist, and yes the research confirmed their predictions and the found these basic particles of matter. (2) In evolution the scientists made predictions as to what fossils should be found as intermediaries of existing fossils, and where in the strata these fossils should be found. The intermediary fossils of whales and other sea mammals were indeed found where they were predicted in the strata between more modern whales and primitive intermediaries. (3) In the science of abiogenesis the scientists predicted the geologic environments (ocean sea vent deposits) where the the most primitive fossil life forms and residual chemistry of early life would most likely form. The research found this in rock formations in this type of rocks. Researchers are concentrating their efforts in predictive models of the formation of life in the environments like those of ocean sea vents. The current 'predictions' of the formation of life is based on the energy source and chemistry of the ocean sea vents for the formation of primitive life.

I would need to look up some of the court cases, but from what I remember the cases for ID being taught in schools. These were decided against ID as it was felt it was a back door to religion in schools and is against separation of church and state. The poofs for ID was not a part of the decisions.

I have looked closely at the Dover Court decision, and the work of the Discovery Institute. In the court decision the judge was specific that the creationists had failed to present the foundation science, falsifiable hypothesis, supporting Intelligent Design. In fact, some of key scientists supporting ID would not testify at the trial. The problem extends to work of the Discovery Institute that has failed to present a falsifiable hypothesis using scientific methods to support Intelligent Design.

I am glad to see you do agree that someone can have a different opinion on science without resorting to calling them 'Ignorant', 'uneducated', or 'goat herders'. I respect that.

No problem, but it is unrealistic to expect those that compiled the Bible to know nor understand the science behind the contemporary Physics, Cosmology, Evolution and Abiogenesis.

I do not agree with everything about evolution, however to disagree with every part of it would be like denying gravity. But when these discussions come up on evolution vs creation, I usually stay away, because I feel they are the wrong argument. Creation does not vs evolution, it should be more of an beginning of life discussion. Was life created or did some type of life form come from some inanimate object. I feel neither one has any more evidence proving one or the other.

I believe God used natural laws and natural processes as understood by science to Create and Reveal the nature of our physical existence and life.

It becomes a contradiction of increasing magnitude to make these theistic objections to the well grounded science of Physics, Cosmology, Evolution and Abiogenesis.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the basic ToE in no way removes the hypothetical possibility that there could be theistic causation

Darwin's theory could be modified to accommodate gentle nudges in the course of evolution by an intelligent designer, but I wouldn't consider it Darwin's theory any more. Darwin says that undirected variation in biological populations subjected to natural selection, also an undirected process, can account for the tree of life and the evidence of extinct forms that we see around us today .

If it required a god's help, that's a different theory in my opinion. It's still a theory of biological evolution, but not Darwin's theory.

about half the American biologists accept the basic ToE, according to a survey I saw a few years ago.

I'm assuming that you meant theologians or something similar (Christians, clergy). I expect that over 90% of biologists will say that they provisionally accept the correctness of Darwin's theory.

When I first started teaching about human evolution in my anthropology course, I quickly learned that I had to explain to my students that the ToE should not in any way go against their religious faith.

That's probably a good idea. I don't believe it for reasons given, and I might have worded it differently since it wouldn't be an honest statement of my position, but it would definitely be a mistake to begin by saying what I just did. Notice that I do not claim that Darwin's theory rules out a god. It simply fails to include any gods from its proposed mechanism.

Maybe the creationists are right. But if they are, Darwin was wrong, or at a minimum, his idea was incomplete in a critical way.

Most Christians and most Christian theologians do not see a conflict as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

I understand that, but as I've already said, I think that they are wrong about there being no conflict between theistic evolution and Darwin's theory.

Deistic models may be compatible with Darwin.

But this is not how we work when it comes to scientific hypotheses. For example, if I say that I believe the world is coming to an end tomorrow, in order for that to be a scientific hypothesis I have to provide what evidence leads me to this possibility? Yes, I can have my own personal hypothesis, but a scientific hypothesis is part of a scientific inquiry and not just a personal opinion. These are formal papers that tend to be extremely lengthy and extremely boring to read.

Maybe we're using the word scientific differently here. That adjective when applied to a hypothesis or theory simply means that the idea is at least in principle falsifiable. You don't need any evidence that the world may end tomorrow for it to be your hypothesis. Without evidence, we have no reason to take it seriously.

But I'd say that it is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable. If we make it through the day tomorrow, your hypothesis has been disproven. That's science to me.

Good discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Darwin's theory could be modified to accommodate gentle nudges in the course of evolution by an intelligent designer, but I wouldn't consider it Darwin's theory any more. Darwin says that undirected variation in biological populations subjected to natural selection, also an undirected process, can account for the tree of life and the evidence of extinct forms that we see around us today .

If it required a god's help, that's a different theory in my opinion. It's still a theory of biological evolution, but not Darwin's theory.



I'm assuming that you meant theologians or something similar (Christians, clergy). I expect that over 90% of biologists will say that they provisionally accept the correctness of Darwin's theory.



That's probably a good idea. I don't believe it for reasons given, and I might have worded it differently since it wouldn't be an honest statement of my position, but it would definitely be a mistake to begin by saying what I just did. Notice that I do not claim that Darwin's theory rules out a god. It simply fails to include any gods from its proposed mechanism.

Maybe the creationists are right. But if they are, Darwin was wrong, or at a minimum, his idea was incomplete in a critical way.



I understand that, but as I've already said, I think that they are wrong about there being no conflict between theistic evolution and Darwin's theory.

Deistic models may be compatible with Darwin.



Maybe we're using the word scientific differently here. That adjective when applied to a hypothesis or theory simply means that the idea is at least in principle falsifiable. You don't need any evidence that the world may end tomorrow for it to be your hypothesis. Without evidence, we have no reason to take it seriously.

But I'd say that it is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable. If we make it through the day tomorrow, your hypothesis has been disproven. That's science to me.

Good discussion.

I take a different perspective of the possibility of Creation by God and scientific evolution, abiogenesis, physics and cosmology. The concept of Intelligent Design is a very wrong headed concept from the beginning, It describes an anthropomorphic hands on God that manipulates, "nudges?," things along so that nature works properly and life and humanity result from God's 'Plan" as if God was some sort of an engineer.

To try and combine this with science is an aberrated contradiction that describes a God that does not exist.

The only viable alternative is IF God exists the sciences describe the human view of how Creation took place.