• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Top Three Mistakes Of Creationists?

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
angellous_evangellous said:
1) Using the Bible as a science book
2) Refusal to make naturalistic assumptions in interpreting naturalistic evidence
3) Insistence that revealed truth is the same as empirical data

I second that.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Only definition 2c. equates with your concept of evolutionary fact here Fluffy. And the same definition can be applied to the Bible.

2a applies as well. Evolution has been demonstrated to exist to the same extent has Chaucer has been demonstrated to exist. However, that is irrelevant since a dictionary is not going to give you an accurate enough definition for something which requires as much philosophical analysis and debate as the term "fact".

There are 3 stages of knowledge:
That which has been demonstrated to be absolutely true (ie that which is indubitable)
That which has been demonstrated to be reliably or reasonably true (ie fact or belief)
That about which no demonstration of truth has been made

Notice that truth is both the word given to the truth-false scale and to the positive end of that spectrum and I use the term above in its former capactiy.

The last option covers some aspects of faith such as those aspects of faith that do not contradict any previously held assumptions. If one has accepted the laws of reason (ie is not an irrationalist) and has a faith than contradicts previously held assumptions, then it lies in the same category as fact and belief since it would be a fact that the faith was false.

A fact is a belief because it is not a certainty. However, a fact also must conform to certain other restraints such as degree of reliability etc. However, since these restraints are also not certainties, a fact can be said to be equivilant in nature to belief as far as knowledge is concerned. Obviously, practically, fact has much more value, but this does mean that a fact is more true than a belief nor even that it is more likely to be more true than a belief. However, if we accept all of the assumptions that the fact is based upon (eg reality, logic, perception etc) then we have made our fact more reliable than our belief. Similarly if we accept all of the assumptions that the belief is based upon (eg God, the Bible etc) then we have made our belief more realiable than fact. This artificial tinkering with truth should not be taken as anything more than a practical measure however.

Evolution is a belief that strongly coheres with the basics accepted by science. Therefore, it is a scientific fact.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Victor said:
I second that.

:clap :takeabow: :clap


oooohhh, I was so tempted to write:

1) They're stupid
2) They're stupid
3) They're stupid

Sometimes one should just be cordial and identify the actual problem.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Fluffy said:
That which has been demonstrated to be absolutely true (ie that which is indubitable)
There is no such thing, there are no absolute truths, no scientific experiment can be replicated and recreate the exact same results, there are always anomalies.
Fluffy said:
That which has been demonstrated to be reliably or reasonably true (ie fact or belief)
If something is reliably or reasonable true, then to a scientist it is a good working theory. A good scientist should not have the word fact in their vocabulary.
Fluffy said:
That about which no demonstration of truth has been made
This is a belief.

Fluffy said:
A fact is a belief because it is not a certainty.
Fact is the laymans term for what a scientist would call 'a conclusion drawn from statistically significant evidence' or 'a working theory that has yet to be proven fallible'.
Fact in the common tongue implies something that is undeniable, to science nothing is undeniable, their are only varying degrees of likelihood.

In science the challenge is never closed, there are no certainties or truths, people are always welcome to try and prove current theories wrong, and sometimes they succeed. Scientific theories that have survived for decades and seemed to work in every scenario have been proven fallible and replaced. For an example look up steady-state theory vs the big bang theory.

Fluffy said:
Evolution is a belief that strongly coheres with the basics accepted by science. Therefore, it is a scientific fact.
There is no such thing as scientific fact. Microevolution or adaptation is a very good working theory, its source sciences of genetics and population dynamics have yielded good evidence to suggest how organisms adapt to changing environmental (both biotic and abiotic) conditions. There are statistical anomalies, and sometimes experiments give inconclusive results, but as a whole microevolution is a good working theory.
Macroevolution is the extrapolation of adaptation to take into account paleontological evidence for the existance of extinct species.
The study of evolution at work within living populations and paleontology are two separate and distinct sciences. Without genetic samples or observations of the population dynamics of these extinct species, the two largest aspects of the grand evolutionary theory can never be totally fused to a level that will satisy the most stubborn of disbelievers.
However, the evidence in the fossil record is good enough that it can be reasonably concluded that the mechanics of adaptation are what caused the variation of biological forms witnessed in the fossil record. A conclusion is not a fact, it is A conclusion not THE ONLY conclusion.

Evolutionary science is not a single subject, it is the combination of many different biological and geological sciences. It is the combination of many theories which have been logically linked to form a greater whole that makes good scientific sense.
To say "evolution is a scientific fact" displays a lack of knowledge of evolutionary science.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Fluffy said:
This is a good debate Halycon and I can sort of see where you are coming from. However, to prevent taking this thread further off topic, Ill start a new one about fact.
Okay dokey old chap. :)
 

St. Thomas

New Member
The only thing that I find realy irritating about this hole matter, is that most of the times, both parties refuse to see the very real possibility that both could be partially wrong and partially right. Put together the two `partials`that are `right` and you would have a very solid, reasonable, logical THEORY!!
But that`s all you can come up with. A theory.
Proof of what was the first living organim on this planet? IMO that will only be possible after someone invents a time machine, goes back to the time of this organisme coming into existence and whitnesses and documents this `creation`. And even if that were to happen, the rest of us would have to take him/her on his/her word.

I do, however strongly agree with the level of annoyment that arises when reading a posting by a `literal` believer. I am still astonished by there narrow minds. But as said above, the minds of many many more (both scientists and creationists) are not much wider!!
 

Smoke

Done here.
Halcyon said:
Richard Dawkins is arrogant. He's closed minded and foolish in his style of debate. Being arrogant gets you nowhere.
How is it possible to be open-minded about Creation Science/Intelligent Design? Do you really think Dawkins ought pretend to believe that Creationists are at all reasonable? And if arrogance is an issue, do you really think Dawkins' arrogance is in any way comparable to that of the Creationists?
 

Smoke

Done here.
Fluffy said:
I believe Richard Dawkins to be the embodiment of arrogant evolutionists. The arrogance of his opponents by no means excuses his arrogance.
Still, one has to wonder why Dawkins' supposed arrogance is what's at issue here. Shouldn't the arrogance of Creationists be condemned at least as strongly? (Actually, even more strongly, since the Creationists are demonstrably wrong.)
 

Smoke

Done here.
Fluffy said:
The top three mistakes of scientists in refuting creationists:
1) Starting from the premise that creationism is pseudoscience. You will never defeat your opponent in a debate if you assume they are wrong from the start.
It is pseudoscience, and it would be dishonest to pretend it was otherwise.

Fluffy said:
2) Largely arrogant and dismissive attiude. If you believe you are right then you are blessed with the intelligence and maturity to overcome such petty failings.
I'd really like somebody to explain why they believe this is so. If there's anything in the world worth being arrogant and dismissive over, it's Creationism.

Fluffy said:
3) Presenting evolution as fact rather than as the most reasonable, likely explanation.
Do you believe it's a mistake to present gravity as a fact? Why? Evolution is at least as certain as gravity. There is very little in realm of human knowledge that is as certain as evolution.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Sunstone said:
We've all seen creationists come onboard and repeat again and again the same mistakes. But if you had to rank the typical mistakes of creationists, which ones would you rank as the top three? Why those three?

Why do creationists make the same mistakes over and over again?

These are some mistakes I find surprising because they are so elementary yet they are consistently put forward by those representing the YEC view.

1. That humans evolved from monkeys.
2. That evolution is totally 'random.'
3. Confusing the Theory of Evolution with abiogenesis and 'the big bang.'

These things are taught in high school and it really makes it hard for me to engage in serious discussion when they make these mistakes. Actually, I have pretty much given up on any kind of serious discussion about evolution on the internet.

luna
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Is there any particular reason why creationists just don't seem to get it; why they repeat the same mistakes over and over again, much as if they are incapable of learning? Does this have something to do with all the propaganda out there telling people that the creationist's views and questions are legitimate and make sense? Or is there some other reason creationists just don't seem to get it?
 

rocketman

Out there...
Sunstone said:
Is there any particular reason why creationists just don't seem to get it; why they repeat the same mistakes over and over again, much as if they are incapable of learning? Does this have something to do with all the propaganda out there telling people that the creationist's views and questions are legitimate and make sense? Or is there some other reason creationists just don't seem to get it?

Many of them appear to have very open minds!

At the end of the day most of them don't dispute the evidence, just the interpretation thereof. This is extremely frustrating to those of a mainstream view, and vice-versa for creationists. There are plenty of amateur creationists out there making obvious mistakes, but there is no shortage of creationists who have a clear head, a serious scientific background and a strong distaste for psuedoscience. Here's a few scientists [600+] who question evolution:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

As time goes by and the creationist movements sharpen their arguments we are seeing some very interesting engagements between the more acerbic intellects on both sides. It's interesting to compare opposite views on the same piece of evidence by searching through talkorigins and then jumping over to AIG or ICR. I would suggest that much of what creationists say is not neccessarily a mistake but rather an hypothesis which tends to be unprovable, rather like some aspects of evolutionary theory. By the way, many people are surprised when they realise just how much of evolutionary theory some creationists actually accept, eg:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0627misconceptions.asp

The problem is not with that which has been observed [who could argue with that], but rather with that which has been inferred, and let's face it, lots of the pre-historical aspects of evolutionary theory have indeed been inferred. This leaves some room, however miniscule, for an alternative idea to be considered. Remember the Copernican view of the universe? It was once considered a pretty silly thing, what with observation leading the inferences, who would argue? But the church etc got it wrong, very wrong. I would not be surprised one iota if pre-historic evolution turns out to be a wild-goose chase.

As long as there are serious and mature-minded creationists who stick to science when debating science and can admit when they have made a mistake, then I for one will be happy to watch the debate. Creationism is a pariah to science, and an easy target for some, but it is getting more and more serious. Perhaps we would do better to ask what are creationisms 'three biggest challenges to science' rather than having a go at them.

Yes, we all know what drives creationists, but for anyone who has never read any creationist arguments and thinks that creationism is soley a clumsy amateur outfit prone to mistakes, I would suggest the following articles to get a feel for where this movement is going [off the top of my head, 'cause I've read them recently]:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_2/tertiary_stratigraphy.htm
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol19/costtheory.pdf
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

and so on and on..
 

Fluffy

A fool
Still, one has to wonder why Dawkins' supposed arrogance is what's at issue here. Shouldn't the arrogance of Creationists be condemned at least as strongly? (Actually, even more strongly, since the Creationists are demonstrably wrong.)

I do that as well... Usually to a greater extent because I at least agree with Dawkins. That is my personal failing, however.

It is pseudoscience, and it would be dishonest to pretend it was otherwise.
I do not understand how you can make such an absolute conclusion based on what I assume must be an inductive argument.

I'd really like somebody to explain why they believe this is so. If there's anything in the world worth being arrogant and dismissive over, it's Creationism.
Because being arrogant and dismissive over something does what? It is more constructive to be patient and tolerant. By all means fight such movements as the push to put Creationism in science class as hard as you did before but I see no reason to embitter yourself whilst widening the gap between the sides because of arrogance even if the other side is guilty of it.

Do you believe it's a mistake to present gravity as a fact? Why?
I believe it is a mistake if fact is misrepresented to be absolute truth which you yourself commit here: "It is pseudoscience, and it would be dishonest to pretend it was otherwise."

Evolution is at least as certain as gravity.
I agree to a certain extent although I still feel you are committing the same fallacy as above.

There is very little in realm of human knowledge that is as certain as evolution.
And this is where I disagree with you. There is very little in the realm of human knowledge PERIOD. Evolution is not knowledge. Gravity is not knowledge. If they were knowledge then there would be nothing to distinguish them from absolutely certain knowledge such as the various forms of foundationalism.

Is there any particular reason why creationists just don't seem to get it; why they repeat the same mistakes over and over again, much as if they are incapable of learning? Does this have something to do with all the propaganda out there telling people that the creationist's views and questions are legitimate and make sense? Or is there some other reason creationists just don't seem to get it?

I feel it is a combination. There are some creationists (ie its leaders) who are overwhelmingly close minded and arrogant and so their inability to get it stems from their own problems. However, it is when a scientist, sick and tired of dealing with such arrogance, reacts to a creationist (who only believes the way he does because of his upbringing) in a similar way to how he dealt with creationist leaders when he eternally turns that creationist away from the scientific mindset.

There is no motivation to show creationists what is right. Merely to show them why they are wrong. Whether you view that as right or wrong is up to you but I don't find it surprising that creationists fail to convert over in droves in light of this.
 

EnhancedSpirit

High Priestess
1. Not seeing that creation and evolution work together. (an indepth study of Genesis is required to explain this).

2. Not understanding that the material world is 'temporary' and is a reflection of the spiritual side of nature which is eternal.

3. Believing that by understanding how the world works and labeling things somehow takes away the wonder of the creator. Science does not take away from God, it just helps us better understand.

If I were to learn exactly how a phone works, I would not give any less credit to the man who invented it. Evolutionists believe that life was created through some accidental happenings, I wonder if this is also how the lightbulb was created. Through accidental collections of parts until something that worked came along, and survived.

The biggest problem is that creationists are trying to describe spiritual matters by using words that are made for the material world, while the scientists are more concerned with the material world itself.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Enhanced Spirit, as someone who is both a non theist most days and a pantheist on Tuesday afternoons and Thursday mornings, I am very sympathetic to the notion that there is a spiritual side to reality. Yet, I am not at all convinced there is any way of proving such a notion. That is, it must at best remain speculative. Therefore, I fail to see how it can be characterized as a mistake on the part of "evolutionists" to reject such speculations as speculative. Could you elaborate a bit for me on why it can indeed be considered a mistake to do so?
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Rocketman,

Your post intrigued me. I have long been an avid spectator and participant in the ongoing creationism/evolution debate. The one thing I have been searching for, and yet have been unable to find, is someone who can actually explain the creationism theory to me, as a scientific theory. That means no talking about god, and no using the antithesis of an entirely separate theory, (evolution), to try and prove your own. It does, however, warrant talking about creationism's "mechanism," and its ability to be observed, amongst other things that are necessary for a scientific theory.

If this idea is deemed off-topic, we can take it elsewhere.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Opethian said:
I don't want a reasonable debate with creationists because having a reasonable debate with a creationist is impossible and useless.
I am glad that I am not this close minded. Hopefully not all of those who reject God outright are as unreasonable as you are.
Opethian said:
If close minded means shutting out impossibilities. I understand being arrogant gets nobody anywhere, but I'd really like to see some examples at what you think is arrogance displayed by scientists.
Check out your first statement for arrogance. Of course, you may not see yourself as a scientist.
 

alexander garcia

Active Member
Hi, can some of you explain a little more what you are speeking of as to your piont, because as far as so called scienceplease remind us how many times your so called science has been proven wrong? EVERY time would be pretty close. is the world still flat? Lets just look at your scientists if the claims of science are so true you must all have the same opinion. NOT! What took out the dinosaurs? Impact, volcano, space flu? Doesn't it depend on who needs a grant?
 

rocketman

Out there...
Ceridwen018 said:
Rocketman,

Your post intrigued me. I have long been an avid spectator and participant in the ongoing creationism/evolution debate. The one thing I have been searching for, and yet have been unable to find, is someone who can actually explain the creationism theory to me, as a scientific theory. That means no talking about god, and no using the antithesis of an entirely separate theory, (evolution), to try and prove your own. It does, however, warrant talking about creationism's "mechanism," and its ability to be observed, amongst other things that are necessary for a scientific theory.

If this idea is deemed off-topic, we can take it elsewhere.

Hi Ceridwen018.

To my mind your question is actually important to the topic. I'll show you why in red.

As you know not all of creation theory can be debated scientifically. Both sides generally agree that anything supernatural can't be tested. Where creationism implies a physical outcome, such as the Flood, then one would expect to see evidence today. The first article I linked to in my last post shows how this is handled. Then there is the much larger area of debate which involves disproving mainstream science claims, such as stellar evolution. [There are actually two seperate elements: did it happen/could it have happened, but these are often grouped together]. Many people don't realise that creation theory covers almost all disciplines of science, which is why things like cosmology and abiogenesis are often haphazardly injected into debates about evolution, ie: creationists traditionally look at the whole picture, but that's changing as they sharpen their skills in specific debating.

To answer your question, the science of creation theory is twofold: to prove the biblical account where it is possible to do so in a testable manner, and to disprove by testable means anything which argues against the biblical account, the most public example is of-course evolution. Notice I didn't say 'prove it with scripture', nor have I invoked an anti-thesis. Naturally, the variation in interpretation of the biblical account means that there is variation amongst the strains of creationism, but they all contain plenty of science-without-religion arguments. To understand the depth and scope of creation theory one is forced to review as much material as one can, much as one would do for evolutionary theory. If one ignores the religiosity, one will find plenty of serious and challenging science therein, imho. In a debate, the needs of creation science can be satisfied without invoking the supernatural - a distinction that is much more polite to non-theists I think.

Also, we cannot discount the overlap between the two sides. Critical intersections between the two stem from that which has been observed. For example, natural selection/minor speciation. Such events, when observed [as opposed to inferred] actually show a reduction in the gene pool. This is logical to a creationist who holds to a concept of the 'winding down' of creation since the 'fall' of Adam, itself a central logic driver for young-earth creationists. A similar intersection would be corruption through mutation. I read in one of your threads once that you don't think facts can be interpreted more than one way. Actually they can, eg; mainstream science is still divided to varying degrees over many issues such as dinos=birds, cosmology, parts of quantum mechanics and so on an on. They have the same facts but different interpretations. If creationists agree with science on most if not all of the evidence then it would seem that any 'serious' mistakes they might make are limited to the interpretaion of that evidence.

I looked up that thread of yours I just paraprhased, the one where you critique the AIG website. Anyways, you said "I was interested to see that many of the arguments used by creationists on these forums do appear on this "do not use" list, though." http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19099&page=2 So you have seen for yourself that the creation movement does not all move forward together at the same time. There remains some psuedoscientific approaches within creationism, but the more level-headed creationists are gradually correcting their peers. Ironically, the 'evolution' of creation science is being sharpened by the critiques of mainstream science - unnatural selection is building a smarter and more agile beast! Creation science remains radical, but not necessarily impossible. Whatever the scientific mistakes of creationists in the past, they are certainly making a lot less nowadays.

I'm sorry for the long-windedness of this post and/or if I have merely told you that which you already knew.

Peace.
 
Top