Seeing if we can get our discussion back to one post....
Sherlock Holmes wrote:Lets abandon the flat-earth "analogy" shall we, it isn't helpful here.
Why? IMO it’s a pretty apt comparison. Both are denials of long-standing and widely-accepted scientific conclusions, primarily for religious reasons.
I understand your reaction to what I'm saying but I think there's more to this than you might think.
You are paraphrasing too "agree that any data or other information they come across that even appears to contradict the Bible will automatically be deemed 'invalid'". But that isn't what's written there, you already did quote it earlier, so here it is again with an additional sentence included:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information
That amounts to them saying that there is no observation that contradicts (what they refer to as) "the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation". They're also saying that if someone claims that there is, then that someone is in error, there's a misunderstanding, the issue is only an apparent issue not a real one.
They are focusing on claims that evidence is counter to scripture and regard these as only apparent not real, it's not data that they'd deem invalid but the interpretation of it, the inferences from it.
I don't regard that as anti-science at all, for centuries science progressed in leaps and bounds by people who like held the same or similar views of scripture. A good example would be Galileo who did not for one second think that the Bible was wrong, he argued that the Church had misconstrued, his position was very similar, if science appears to contradict scripture then it is us who are in error not scripture, are you going to label Galileo as anti-scientific?
Again, I honestly don’t know what else to say here. If you truly don’t see that statement as anti-scientific, IMO that seriously calls into question your ability to discuss this subject rationally. Again I have to wonder if it’s just that you agree with the statement. Do you?
I don't mean to, but most evolutionists here do very quickly resort to labelling me a "creationist" when I critique evolution or the Cambrian explosion. This happens often, and most of the time I've made no mention of God, creation, the Bible. I often begin and focus wholly on the data, evidence, record, etc. It is a means of attacking me, that to disagree with the prevailing view is justification for calling me a "creationist" this is all part of the problem, the very idea that a person could disagree with some claims of evolution means that must be a "creationist".
It’s interesting that you see “creationist” as a disparaging term. Most creationists I know are rather proud to describe themselves as such. So I have to ask….what is your view regarding the history of life on earth? Are you a young-earth creationist? Old-earth creationist? Something else?
I can't agree, you are implying that any organization that today has those rules is by definition not a scientific organization but why? this sounds like a No True Scotsman argument.
Um….yes, I am arguing that an organization that requires its employees to sign something like AiG’s statement of faith is not a scientific organization. Oh, and btw….AiG even describes themselves as a Christian apologetics ministry.
https://answersingenesis.org/ So it looks to me like you’re kinda even disagreeing with AiG!
Right so popularity is a factor, peer pressure more so than informed understanding. People don't want to be called names like "creationist" or "Bible thumper" or any of the other often disparaging terms so anyone on the fence will likely just shrug their shoulders and think "OK, I might as well go with Darwin, sounds reasonable to me" and that is true of most of the general public who are passive with respect to science.
Most of the folks I’ve talked with about this issue made it clear that they really don’t care all that much about it; it’s just not really relevant to their daily lives. The main ones who do care are either folks who work in science (and thus are interested in defending science) or are Biblical creationists who see science education as a threat to their prospects of gaining converts.
I see well if its hard to say how can you hold the position that it was not instantaneous? that the umpteen already differentiated phyla suddenly appeared? are you admitting that it could have been?
Wait….is it your position that Cambrian-era organisms appeared in a flash….literally “instantaneously”? If that’s what you mean, then no I don’t see that as reasonably possible.
Why? did you not read about Chomsky and the Holocaust "denier"? It's a matter of labels and definitions, I mean what is "flat earthism" anyway? what is a "holocaust denier"?
It's fine absolutely fine to disagree with the majority, to beg to differ from the prevailing views, when that is not tolerated, when people are persecuted or ostracized for that then we are - as Chomsky alluded to - adopting the very methods embraced by Stalinism, Nazism or Spanish Inquisition.
Is a person who question some claims about the Nazi extermination program a "holocaust denier"? This is the point Chomsky emphasized and despite himself being a Jew defended the right of the Prof. to express his opinion, share his views, not be silenced by some official ministry of truth.
I've never been a fan of knowledge suppression, sure I'm not saying we actively teach and instruct and test students on the idea the earth is flat but we should not hide it from them, it should be mentioned, there may well be some valuable lessons to be learned from it.
If someone advocates the earth is flat then why not ask the kids how we can decide? what do they think we could do to see if it is or is not? You might be surprised at how many things need to be assumed to show that the earth is not flat, there's some valuable lessons to be learned by being objective and unbiased when studying such claims. Someone might think the earth is flat and actually have a reasonable basis for that, it might not be their fault, they might genuinely have good reason to think its flat, not saying they are right only that they might have reasoned well but missed some detail perhaps.
I once knew a guy who would drop into a local pub that we computer programmers often hung out in in the early 1980s. We were mostly in our 20s and most of us were pretty bright and well versed in technical subjects. This guy was kind of famous in the pub for arguing that the earth was flat and I remember many an evening when some of us, me included would merrily "debate" with him as we supped our ale. He held his own, he'd often stump one or more of us not because we were idiots but because we were not mentally or epistemologically equipped to scientifically defend our belief in a globe. That was a valuable experience, I'd almost forgotten about it too, but the whole exercise was instructive, he knew the earth was not flat of course but man he could defend that it was pretty well.
Avoiding censorship, avoiding declaring unquestionable truths is not the same as having no structure or scope to a subject. Making kids aware that there are minority views, that not everybody shares the majority view, that there are examples where a majority may have been wrong, that there are examples where a minority turned out be right, etc., that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
If a kid did wonder about those things, then what harm is that? they might learn unexpected things about geography, map making or the Nazi party, the nature of the history of WW2 and so on. You seem to be worried that only bad consequences can arise and discount any possibility of a good.
Honestly, after I asked you for specific recommendations on how you’d change how science is taught and you replied “add a philosophy requirement”, I’ve kinda lost interest in discussing this sub-topic with you.
Are they required to teach "evolution is a fact"? because that right there is anti-science !
Again, evolution is a fact.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:11 am
I have no trouble with facts, it is extrapolations claimed as facts that I have a serious problem with. Evolution as the mechanism for all life we see today is quite simply an inference, it is scientific induction, as I said before induction from facts does not a new fact make.
Well....yeah. As I keep pointing out, every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. Thus it's entirely reasonable to infer that the same is true of the past. It's really no different than geologists inferring that specific types of ash came from volcanoes, since we only see that same sort of ash coming from volcanoes today.
Tell me more about this claim for "new species" please.
We've seen multiple examples of the evolution of new species, both in the lab and in the wild, and in diverse taxa such as plants, insects, birds, reptiles, and fish. Even some young-earth creationist organizations acknowledge this reality (speciation is needed under their Biblical flood scenarios).
No, such assumptions are not only unreasonable they are scientifically irrelevant and a discredit to science and scientific debate. They are simply fallacious arguments like the genetic fallacy or ad hominem attacks.
Oh, well maybe that's something we need to clear up. There is no scientific debate between evolution and creationism. As I said before, creationism (in all its forms) is 100% scientifically irrelevant and has been for at least a century.
My presumed motive for critiquing evolution is not important, not if we're pursuing a scientific discussion, science as you well know deals with observations, inferences, models, data, tests not the personal beliefs, gender, race or sexual proclivity of the individuals.
Yeah, it kinda is important. If you're the type of creationist who agrees with AiG's statement of faith for example, that tells me a lot about how you approach the data and whether it's worth the effort to provide you any. So if you could answer, I'd appreciate it.
As soon as you permit this kind of thing it becomes theater, like me saying "Pretty much every evolution organization that's existed has had an overt non-religious motive".
If you had evidence of that, it would certainly be noteworthy.
Fair question, my primary motive is to leave a public record of exchanges like the one we are having. Then open minded individuals, those who may not have a huge attachment to God or evolution, can see the discussion unfold and assess for themselves the merits of our respective cases.
Am I a Christian? I suppose I am, I am of the opinion that Christ did exist and the records we have are representative of true events, that he possessed and shared knowledge that to this day is profound, sometimes puzzling, in many ways fantastical.
I'm happy to discuss these question too but I don't want to derail this thread, my motives are irrelevant though an argument rests on its premises and reasoning nothing more.
That didn't really answer the question I asked. Are you a creationist? If so, what type (young earth, old earth, ID creationist, something else)?
As you wish, it is though
irrelevant, it seems little more than grasping for some kind of argument from authority.
LOL...this is a pretty standard creationist two-step. You present the "dissent from Darwin list" as if folks should find it compelling, but then when you're shown that it pales in comparison to the number of scientific organizations across the world, you wave that away as "arguing from authority". Well then.....what was your point in citing the dissenters list, if not to present it as some sort of authority? By what metric are the signatories to that list compelling, but the agreement from the worlds' academies of science not?
So, you'll be signing it then? if not why not?
Because as this thread shows, it's primary use is for evolution denying propaganda.
I do not believe the Cambrian animals evolved, there was no common descent, the first emergence of the phyla (pretty much the same body plans that exist to this day) was sudden and is not the result of differentiation over hundreds of thousands of generations, the presumed "branches" never existed. There is no evidence for any of these claims yet each claim has to be true for the Cambrian animals to have evolved.
If I reason correctly then this amounts to a falsification of the theory, if the Cambrian fauna spontaneously appeared then we know that life can spontaneously appear (we already know that the universe spontaneously appeared) and we can by extension conclude that the mechanism of evolution (which may still play a role once an organism exists) is not how life developed.
This should clear it up.
No, you didn't answer the question I asked. I asked if you believe that no population has ever evolved,
ever. Do you believe that not one has ever evolved a new trait, ability, or genetic sequence? Not one new species has ever been observed to evolve? Forget the Cambrian for a second and focus your answer on what I actually asked.
I do not know the scope of your question, perhaps you can give me examples and ask if I regard that as compelling evidence that the Cambrian fauna must have evolved.
I'm not asking about the Cambrian. I'm asking about
over the course of the history of life on earth, do you believe that no population ever evolved a new trait, ability, genetic sequence, or species?
I'm OK with facts, populations do seem to change over time but whether we can say they "evolve" is another matter.
Why?
No I'm not equating them, and rather than ask me questions why not answer "Why, tell me why, I should believe each of the phyla had an ancestry, that any pair of phyla had a common ancestor when there is no trace of them?"
What other mechanism do you know of that generates new species? You seem to be arguing that the past was completely different, and that new species came about via some non-evolutionary means. So what do you believe happened?
Sudden is used to convey the absence of evidence for gradual, that is to convey the absence of what one would reasonably expect had they evolved. Sudden indicates an inconsistency with evolutionary expectations which rely on gradual, as in no evolutionist argues that jellyfish can become an animal with a thousand times the complexity in a few generations.
You're kinda dodging the point. When paleontologists describe the Cambrian explosion as "sudden", they're talking in terms of tens of millions of years, are they not?
Like "atheism" there are many to choose from but it wasn't claimed to be a definition, it was an answer to how I'm using the term here.
So you just made it up?
No, I would not call it a conspiracy. It is better described as a system that has become intolerant of dissent, a dogma.
What do you think is driving that alleged intolerance of dissent? Why would scientists do that sort of thing?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.