Creationists, their Statements of Faith, mainstream science

[rikuoamero]

Something confuses me here. Creationists and creationist groups tend (more often than not) to have Statements of Faith that essentially push as primary a dogma and holy book over any and all data either previously gathered or yet to be gathered. Look up ICR or Carm, or Answers in Genesis.

What I find confusing is the approach by mainstream scientists to work published by creationists and creationist groups. Papers are written refuting the creationists work...but my confusion is why they do this refuting at all. Why bother? A scientist who is bound by a Statement of Faith cannot be trusted to have not done any tampering with his work; indeed, the SoF requires it!
Why don't mainstream scientists just say, whenever ICR et al publish "You have a Statement of Faith, therefore your work is not valid scientific work" or words to that effect? Why bother going through the creationist publication at all?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 68 by Guy Threepwood]

So you believe that witnessing a single celled organism be "selectively bred" into a dog is required evidence to suggest that evolution is not "speculation"? I'm not sure we can continue this discussion.

Of course not. it would merely prove that it could be done with the aid of intelligent agency... the same happening by purely spontaneous mechanisms would still be speculative.

Sorry to be such a stickler for empirical evidence, but ultimately, we are interested in the truth, are we not? claiming 'proof' and 'fact' is to close the door on any competing theory.. so we have to be very strict about applying those terms do we not?


You claim that we can produce a new dog breed through selective breeding.

And we both agree that this is fact. Not because of any religious/materialistic implication either way, but simply because we can empirically observe, measure, repeatedly test this claim

Now if you claim all dogs developed from single celled organisms through naturally selective breeding ...

can we or can we not empirically observe, measure, repeatedly test this claim?


You seem like a reasonable logical person to me. but are you really saying that you don't see any difference whatsoever, in the degree of speculation involved between these two claims?

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 71 by Guy Threepwood]

I have never personally done any of those things, and I don't know many that have bred wolves for instance into dogs, cross breeding after traits have already come through from hundreds/thousands of years of selective breeding is different to the process we know did happen in order to get the many breeds of dogs we know and love today. I imagine you are willing to concede that it is an established fact that dogs were bred from wolves. If so, on what grounds do you do so since nobody alive witnessed this and in fact there aren't written accounts either?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 63 by Realworldjack]

Can we stop with the absurdly long posts that just repeat the same comment, please? We disagree on a scientific fact, we can agree on that at least. So there is no point engaging on the idea if "evolutionists" hold a bias or not since we disagree on the subject matter for which you assert they (the entire scientific community) hold a bias for.

I can't exactly recall if we agree on the concept that bias is reliant on positive assertions, but I'm willing to re assert that in order to get this discussion back on track.

Can we stop with the absurdly long posts that just repeat the same comment, please?

Sure! All you have to do is to acknowledge that "evolution in its totality" is not considered a scientific fact, because it is not.

We disagree on a scientific fact, we can agree on that at least.

I am afraid not. Because you see, it is not like we simply have different views of what a scientific fact would be, because we cannot hold a view on such things. In other words, a scientific fact, is not up for opinion. Rather, a scientific fact, is necessarily an observation, and evolution in its totality has not been observed, therefore it cannot be rightly said to be a scientific fact. It's that simple, and your opinion does not change this fact.

More than likely you were under the impression that evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact, because you have not read the articles you have supplied carefully. Next, we have already agreed that the news media can be bias, and will report the news toward their particular slant. With this being the case, it all depends on how the news is reported.

In the same way, science can be reported toward a particular slant, and it could depend on the slant of the reporter, as to what slant you may be getting, and as I have demonstrated the articles you have supplied, all but say evolution in its totality would be a scientific fact, but they stop short of it for a reason.

Now, I am not saying that the authors of the articles you have supplied would have a bias, but I will say, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, more than likely it's a duck."

So there is no point engaging on the idea if "evolutionists" hold a bias or not since we disagree on the subject matter for which you assert they (the entire scientific community) hold a bias for.

You see, this demonstrates that you do not read carefully at all, and this is one of the reasons the posts are so long. Because I have never "asserted" that any evolutionists at all, WOULD hold a bias. Rather, what I have said was, "since neither evolution in its totality, nor creation have been demonstrated to be a fact, there would be a possibility of bias on both sides of the equation."

You then went on to assert, that evolution would be a scientific fact, and it would be impossible for one to have a bias, simply by accepting what indeed would be a fact.

Therefore, we have now spent well over 2 weeks with me attempting to get across to you that evolution in its totality has not been proven to be a scientific fact, which would demonstrate that there would indeed be a possibility for bias.

So again, to be absolutely clear, I have never once asserted that any evolutionist would be, or are bias. Rather, I have suggested that they can, and could be, which is what the whole argument is about.

In other words, if evolution in its totality were to be a scientific fact, then you would be correct to say that it is impossible for the evolutionists to be bias, since they would simply be accepting that which has been demonstrated to be a fact. However, since evolution in its totality has not been demonstrated to be a scientific fact, therein lies the possibility.

I can't exactly recall if we agree on the concept that bias is reliant on positive assertions, but I'm willing to re assert that in order to get this discussion back on track.

Tell you what, I am not sure I buy what you say here in its totality, but for the sake of the argument here, I will go with it.

With this being the case, claiming evolution in its totality has indeed occurred, would indeed be, a positive assertion, would it not? So then, according to your own logic we now have the possibility of bias. Also, when one makes a positive assertion, that has not been demonstrated to be a fact, this also opens up the possibility for bias.

Therefore, asserting that, "evolution in its totality has indeed occurred" would be a positive assertion, that has not been demonstrated, which means according to your own logic, that there very well could be a bias.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 73 by Realworldjack]

Since you really won't let it go, here is an example of speciation which was witnessed and studied first hand by professionals.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-galapagos-species.html

Can we let it rest now, it is getting so tiring debating something I didn't want to debate in the first place.



So, since speciation has occurred and been documented, we can move forward knowing that yes, indeed new species do evolve from other species, usually filling a niche or out-competing their ancestors and other organisms. Let me guess, you still want to debate evolution and that historically speaking there is no proof it was to the extent described with evolution?

I'm sorry you are so caught up on 1 source and their choice of words, but I can't help you. The academy is solid, it is only fair to defer to them. Recently a cardinal in Australia, the third highest ranking Catholic official was convicted of child sex crimes, the Australian justice system found him to be guilty of these crimes. They are an established body whom it would be quite correct to take their judgement as true. Should we consider this when arguing over the Catholic church and their involvement in child sex crimes or should we consider it a bias to defer to the authority of the Australian justice system? Why would it be different for evolution and the 20 different scientific fields involved in understanding it's current and historical processes? How could it be bias to use trusted sources and overwhelming professional consensus on matters that directly concern their professions and study? I understand that you disagree with whether or not evolution is understood to be a scientific fact but you do know that the entire academy and worldwide educational bodies back the notion. So, since this isn't a debate on evolution, the worldwide scientific and educational consensus on the matter is an overwhelmingly reliable source base to make the statement that, "the fact of evolution is a reality." It would be unreasonable to say that that statement is not well supported and is reasonable to continue debating under this framework.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 71 by Guy Threepwood]

I have never personally done any of those things, and I don't know many that have bred wolves for instance into dogs, cross breeding after traits have already come through from hundreds/thousands of years of selective breeding is different to the process we know did happen in order to get the many breeds of dogs we know and love today. I imagine you are willing to concede that it is an established fact that dogs were bred from wolves. If so, on what grounds do you do so since nobody alive witnessed this and in fact there aren't written accounts either?

Not at all

"Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves"

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/ac ... ted_wolves

^ which would also explain why there is no record of this happening, it didn't!

Again that was merely speculation, based on superficial morphology dating back to pre-DNA Victorian times (i.e. they are both furry with a leg at each corner and teeth at one end- so they must be directly related)

But 21st C genetics is revealing a different picture, form follows function, not necessarily direct ancestry


As Raup, curator of Chicago Field museum once said " ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time"

because so many have fallen to deeper scientific investigation

That does not disprove common ancestry of course for dogs and wolves, but it pushes the common ancestor back into the speculative shadows once more.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 75 by Guy Threepwood]

Just to clarify, you are aware that they are the same species? But I'm not sure you adequately answered the question, you simply deferred it to a common ancestor who would still also be the same species but, this doesn't address the issue. Do you accept that the many breeds of dog were domesticated from a wild canine into the many forms we know today?

[Zzyzx]

.
Canis lupus is the species name that includes a number of ‘canines’ divided into many sub-species including various wolves and domestic dogs. All are members of the same species and can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 75 by Guy Threepwood]

Just to clarify, you are aware that they are the same species? But I'm not sure you adequately answered the question, you simply deferred it to a common ancestor who would still also be the same species but, this doesn't address the issue. Do you accept that the many breeds of dog were domesticated from a wild canine ancestor into the many forms we know today?

I believe they are labelled as the same species, explicitly because of the belief that they were directly domesticated from Wolves? They can also interbreed, but that doesn't stop many using neanderthals as an example of a different human species..

The reason for all the revisions and confusion is again, that these are not directly observable, testable events- we can only try to remotely reconstruct a hypothetical history.

If dogs from wolves is 'fact' then it would at least be useful to have another word for something that is actually directly testable, demonstrable, unambiguous, like modern day breeding, don't you think?

Do you accept that the many breeds of dog were domesticated from a wild canine ancestor into the many forms we know today?

I agree with the study, the split appears to predate agriculture at least- so humans may have been barely 'domesticated' themselves- they also use the word 'co-evolve'-

so how much may have been selective breeding? how much may have been natural selection? Without knowing I think there is a third factor to consider- how much may have been predetermined design?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 75 by Guy Threepwood]

Just to clarify, you are aware that they are the same species? But I'm not sure you adequately answered the question, you simply deferred it to a common ancestor who would still also be the same species but, this doesn't address the issue. Do you accept that the many breeds of dog were domesticated from a wild canine ancestor into the many forms we know today?

I believe they are labelled as the same species,

We are aware (are we not?) that ‘species’ is a category in a human-produced classification system. It is, therefore, a mental / artificial construct applied (often imperfectly) to the wide variations in nature.

explicitly because of the belief that they were directly domesticated from Wolves?

Taxonomy is a bit more complex. Many factors, including DNA when possible, are considered in the classification system.

They can also interbreed, but that doesn't stop many using neanderthals as an example of a different human species.

Interbreeding is ONE of the factors considered.

The reason for all the revisions and confusion is again, that these are not directly observable, testable events- we can only try to remotely reconstruct a hypothetical history.

If we can ‘only try to remotely reconstruct a hypothetical history’ without directly observable, testable events in this case, let’s apply the same standard to Bible stories and consider them hypothetical.

Agreed?

If dogs from wolves is 'fact' then it would at least be useful to have another word for something that is actually directly testable, demonstrable, unambiguous, like modern day breeding, don't you think?

What is your interpretation of the relationship between dogs and wolves – AND upon what is it based?

Do you accept that the many breeds of dog were domesticated from a wild canine ancestor into the many forms we know today?

I agree with the study, the split appears to predate agriculture at least- so humans may have been barely 'domesticated' themselves- they also use the word 'co-evolve'-

so how much may have been selective breeding?

Notice that there are over thirty sub-species of wolf. Would that indicate ‘selective breeding’?

how much may have been natural selection? Without knowing I think there is a third factor to consider- how much may have been predetermined design?

What, exactly, is verifiable evidence that ‘predetermined design’ was (or may have been) involved? Is the suggestion based upon study of biology and genetics or is it based on theology?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 79 by Zzyzx]

We are aware (are we not?) that ‘species’ is a category in a human-produced classification system. It is, therefore, a mental / artificial construct applied (often imperfectly) to the wide variations in nature.

agreed, it's not a precise measure of similarity or differences.

If we can ‘only try to remotely reconstruct a hypothetical history’ without directly observable, testable events in this case, let’s apply the same standard to Bible stories and consider them hypothetical.

I consider both a matter of faith, only one openly makes that acknowledgement, the other claims fact.

'blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such'

What is your interpretation of the relationship between dogs and wolves – AND upon what is it based?

I agree with the study in the article, it's a very intriguing question, not settled fact by a long shot- as is life in general.

Primarily form follows function, they are similar animals because they live similar lifestyles in similar habitats.
Likewise for Chevy and Ford pickup trucks, the similarities in no way suggest one morphed from the other..

IT is DNA analysis that showed the animals were less similar than superficial appearances suggested, and we see this pattern emerging across the record.

The smooth gradual transitions have become more difficult to find, not easier.

What, exactly, is verifiable evidence that ‘predetermined design’ was (or may have been) involved? Is the suggestion based upon study of biology and genetics or is it based on theology?

based on genetics, epigenetics, the fossil record and direct experimentation

For macro evolution, new animals need new information, and the pre-existence of key information is now being used as a secular argument by some, to overcome this hurdle- i.e. 'no need for divine intervention- the information was always coded in DNA, & triggered by environmental conditions at later stages, (possibly involving epigenetics )

The point being; being skeptical of ToE does not equate to a theistic bias- no more than the Big Bang did, even if it had theistic implications for some.


In many ways I think Darwinian evolution mirrors the classical model of reality it was born into, where a handful of simple laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in- is bound to produce interesting results eventually. And it was perfectly logical to extrapolate this model into life

But what we found was that classical physics was fundamentally inadequate- physical reality required a lot of pre-determation, information, instructions to follow- and I think the same picture is emerging for life.

Whether we put that down to an intelligent agent or random info generator (multiverse) is another question, but either way- Darwinism it aint!