I believe I gave an example. It is a fact that evolutionists claim that similar animals do not necessarily have similar proteins. When creationists claim that evolutionists claim that similar animals do have similar proteins, they are obviously incorrect.
Bear in mind the context of my use of the term, “pure facts.” You had presented education as being a process of telling people what to believe. I countered that even if educators merely make statements of what is a fact and what isn’t, that alone will steer people away from creationism.
**
My examples were not scientific in nature. Moreover, science “proves” things by using the scientific method. What part of formulating hypotheses and testing them counts as “disproving everything else”?
’
Protein homology overwhelmingly disproves creationism. Creationists state that God created similar animals with similar proteins; in fact, that’s one of the few testable predictions which creationism makes. However, similar animals do not have similar proteins. Ergo, creationism has massively failed one of the few tests to which it can be put.
The reason that I raise what is mentioned, Abe and Ben, is because people with faith, such as I, always try to reconcile it with the new facts we receive, and adjusting our faith in face of the new facts. Well, at least those of us who would not regard those who bring forth new facts as heretics. Our world view is predicated on our’s faith, whatever it may be. So I and probably several others, including those who does not believe in the theories of creationism, will take askance statements regarding our reinforcing the faith according to new facts, or adjusting them, as ‘meaningless exercise’. As evolutionists are changing their theories according to new facts, so are we with faith adjusting what we believe at the same time. Many times it is within the same person.
Those who believe in literal creationism are not so easily subject to changing their views in face of the new facts, for they generally reject out of hand the interpretaion of the new facts that jibe with their world view. You are so bent in arguing with them, because their stubborn refusal is attractive to your forensic skills, that it seems at times you argue past those of us who are otherwise more receptive to your views, but are scared of punching holes in evolutionary theories without being branded fundies ourselves.
I don’t think you should take a dim view of that statement! Remember the difference between objective and subjective: my point is essentially that the two ought not to be confused. Religon is, after all, a rather nebulous topic with no easily determinable answers and pretty much no evidence in support of its claims. The subject matter therein is not absolute and it is open to interpretation and debate (unless you are a hardcore literalist, in which case your subjective belief tells you it is absolute–but it still is not). I won’t even go into apologetics.
The case is radically different for science. Although results are sometimes open to interpretation, no upstanding scientist will accept results as valid unless they are demonstrated to be valid. There is a verification process at work in science.
My main objection with your statement is that, by your own admission, you use science to “reinforce” faith. Right there you have a problem, because you are selecting the data you believe will reinforce belief, and excluding the rest of the data: a clear example of subjectivity as opposed to the objectivity required by science.
If you were taking ALL the data provided by science in order to evaluate your faith, there would be no objection. But selecting reinforcing data and excluding the rest is a poor way to prove anything.
Again, I don’t see a problem with science and religion co-existing. I think people become entirely too excited about this perceived dichotomy. The problems arise when faith stops being a personal subjective item and an attempt is made to elevate faith to an objective level (an example would include selecting objective data to fortify your subjective position–that data is finagled into subjectivity by the simple process of selection). Attempting to consider any religion as objective is simply impossible with the data at hand.
Well, capacitor, you still haven’t found anyone “testifying for atheism.” Perhaps in one of the many other threads in which you have raised this objection?
Opus1, those were some pretty frightening stats. I never would have guessed that the percentage of non-believers in evolution was so high.
There have been a number of comments on college education being an antidote for creationist belief. Good point, but it shouldn’t take that - even a fair to middlin’ high school education should be enough. A trip to the anthropology/archeology section of the local library wouldn’t hurt, either. (Of course, I did go as a young Mary Leaky for Halloween last year, so maybe I’m not all that typical.)
I have had a little bit of luck in arguing with creationists - but the only point they seemed willing to accept was this one:
“OK, if God is omnipotent, maybe they had to ‘dumb down’ his creation techniques to put it into human language. Therefore, the Bible reflects limitations in our understanding of God - it doesn’t require him to operate within those limitations. God created the world in seven days? How arrogant of us to slap a timetable on him.”
It’s annoying for me to have to resort to this, since IANAC, but it at least makes them nod (albeit begrudgingly); rather than argue against their faith, you play up God’s ultimate power. They have a hard time arguing around it without contradicting you, which causes their heads to explode. And if there’s even an outside chance that it opens a crack in the force-field around their brains, it might be worth a shot.
I have never attended college. I don’t remember how young I was, but I was fairly young when I realized that if Genesis doesn’t agree with the rocks, it’s Genesis that’s wrong, not the rocks.
My main objection with your statement is that, by your own admission, you use science to “reinforce” faith. Right there you have a problem, because you are selecting the data you believe will reinforce belief, and excluding the rest of the data: a clear example of subjectivity as opposed to the objectivity required by science.
[unquote]
And yes, Ben, I take the above as an ultimate atheist statement. You incorrectly assume that what I believe in regards to my faith will never be changed or adjusted in face of the data and various interpretations, that it is totally inflexible according to the facts derived from science, and furthermore must be totally discarded in the face of the facts of science that apparently run contrary to the tenents of the faith. That is not fair to us, and furthermore, if you try to debate someone with that approach, you most surely will not win.
For many who believe in the Divine, faith is not just some subjective/objective continuum; it is significant part of the fabric of our lives, as well as science is a part. We try to integrate all factual data we receive from science, and the various interpretations of such data, and put it with what we originally believe. What doesn’t jibe, we rightfully question until it is proven fact. Then our faith will have to be adjusted in regrds to the new facts. This process is similar to the development of scientific theories in a way, except science tend to delve further into the nuts and bolts of the process and application of the new facts.
I see where you are coming from, Capacitor, but that does not validate your subjective argument. You said you had a problem with this:
You then went on to draw a false conclusion:
You are mixing apples and oranges. To begin with, I am not an atheist, nor do I support atheist belief for the reasons I explained earlier. Then,
Look at the very language in use: belief and faith. You are a supporter of a system of belief that at present has no verified evidence in support of it. Does that mean you should not believe? of course not, because you are free to believe whatever you want; however no one else should be expected to take at face value belief (subjective) that is not supported by anything except itself, as in the case of religious belief. When you broadcast comments suggesting that faith is not subjective, or when you imply that this board is full of people who testify for atheism, many people may become annoyed.
You also mention what I interpret to be the “evolution” of religion, and you imply that in the future your faith may very well be modified to mesh better with the data available.
This has little to do with my argument, and I am not assuming anything. We may speculate indefinitely when we talk of the future; but what we are concerned with is the present and the past, or in other words situations for which we have data. At present, there is no verified evidence in support of theism. Given the highly sensitive nature of religion and the lack of supporting evidence, it is not a good idea to 1) be an atheist, or 2) condemn those who choose to be theists. On the other hand, if reliable data that do support theism become available, science will be objective in its treatment of this data. Science may commit errors, but it is a self-correcting process (human belief, because of its roots in several human motives, seldom is self-correcting).
It is a grave error to assume that science = atheism. Science is practiced by scientists as an objective field; atheism is a subjective belief held by some in any given group (whether it is science, accounting, poetry, etc.)
It is the fairest treatment anyone can ask for: an open mind, but strict insistence on analysis of the data and arguments. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say that I “most surely will not win” a debate. In a matter such as this, the facts are plain and the beliefs are another matter. It is not a question of winning. I am not trying to prove there is absolutely no such thing anywhere as God, although we do have the tools to draw a tentative conclusion to that effect (which I already stated I do not fully support).
Faith is subjective according to any definition of the word. What is required in this case is a demonstration of faith as objective, not subjective. Quite difficult, if not impossible, at present.
I see what you mean, and it is a fallacy of sorts. Right now, theism is no more than an undemonstrated, undefined hypothesis that is not predicted or supported by any objective means. Quantum gravity, as an example from science, is a glimmer of a hypothesis that many scientists believed might help eliminate differences in the fields of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Physicists are still talking about it (although the concept has been refined), and some are attempting to formulate complete hypotheses that can be tested. The data do appear to suggest that such a theory is required and predicted; but no one is discussing quantum gravity as anything more than a possibility for which we have defining data. In other words, it is a subject of objective inquiry suggested by a body of evidence; it is not a belief --based on questionable sources-- that may very well be entirely mythical.
This is a topic of great conflict in most religions. Many would argue against you, saying that religion is handed down to humankind by God, and is not to be modified according to the whims of mortals. Some groups even believe that only those with the proper qualifications are permitted to interpret religion. Revisionism and apologetics in other words. And, unfortunately, still unsupported.
What you seem to be labelling as testimony for atheism is in fact nothing more than having an open mind and a critical eye. Certainly, some atheists do abuse this method and attempt to validate their arguments with it, but that does not make it an atheist argument.
[ol]
[li]Stop using the term pseudoscience - it may be accurate, but it’s inflammatory.[/li][li]Likewise other terms such as blind faith - nothing will shut their ears quicker than insults.[/li][li]Hi Opal[/li][li]Are you sure you want to fight? - be aware that Christianity in particular sees itself as victorious in adversity - head-to-head opposition will only make them dig their heels in with more determination.[/li][li]Expect to do some real listening to their reasons for believing what they do, but…[/li][li]Demand equal time (‘I’ve listened to you, may I talk now?’)[/li][li]Make it clear that you’re not trying to destroy their faith in God and not trying to disprove his existence.[/li][li]Don’t be the villain; try to keep your cool.[/li][li]In a one-to-one conversation, If you don’t have the detailed answer to a particular quaetion easily to hand, it’s better to make a note of the question and answer it fully next time (make sure that you do answer it though, or it just looks like evasion).[/li][/ol]
Don’t attack the Bible as being untrue (although this may be your view) - point out that it’s the interpretations that are the problem (even if you think that the Bible is complete rot, all should really be saying is that it shouldn’t be interpreted literally)
Don’t generalise; not all creationists believe that the earth is flat, or that PI=3 or that the earth is the centre of the universe, or that the fossil record was faked by God (find out what you’re actually disagreeing with, I suppose)
You have proved your point for me. The way that I came into my faith is not blind as you depicted. It came from reading the holy texts, incorpoating it with my scientific knowledge, coupled with observations in my life and scrutinizing what I see. For me, I never take my faith at face value. For me, it is a much a struggle as finding the latest facts that proves one scientifi theory or another. It is not ‘pointless’ to me to put my faith in a struggle with what I observe and think through logically.
I am not a fundie. My morals are more in line with my Jehovah’s Witness training, but the main office’s refusal to have an ongoing exchange with other religions, among other things, makes me decide that my belief system will not be tied to one religion, but the best from many.
I don’t believe in chance-based evolution. I do believe that the Earth was created by a Divine being, with evolution and natural selection beng processes that seem to be an efficent method to facilitate creation. There are milestones in the life of the species , such as the development of total reproductive incompatibility with other species, that makes me balk at macroevolution. It is not a false disctinction from microeveolution as depicted.
I am not saying that what I think has been proven or disproven. But I dare not say, nor will allow anyone else to say, that my struggle to reinforce or break down my faith using the evidence before me, is a ‘pointless, meaningless exercise’.
An atheist is diametrically opposite a theist. Whatever definition of atheist you come up with, the defining characteristic of atheism is rejection of belief in God/s, or, to put it more clumsily, a belief in the non-existence of God/s. I disapprove of atheism because it is a very extreme position; but I am not about to tell atheists or theists what to believe. I limit myself to discussing the issues.
Capacitor, I don’t understand yor irritation here. This thread is about fighting pseudoscience, and it seems (I may be mistaken, and I apologize if I am) as if you are trying to do the opposite by claiming scientific support for your belief.
That is all well and good, and it is your business and not mine. I did not state your faith was blind.
Do remember that religion is a rather “hot” field, and there are many faithful who consider your approach illegitimate. There is a certain resistance by many religious organizations when people decide to construct their own systems of belief.
This sounds like pseudoscience, because there is no evidence to support this view, yet you endorse it according to your readings of science. As long as it is your belief that is fine. I am not interested in attacking your belief, because I respect your individuality. However when a statement is made that, to the best of my knowledge, is not the truth, people will obviously be interested in investigating it.
That’s not really the way science works. Your hypothesis is fine, but it is not supported at all except by conjecture. It is a belief. A good deal of this belief is based on the Bible, as you said. It is not science, it is not fact. It is belief.
There’s no reason to bristle. I have stated repeatedly what my point is, but I’ll say it again. You choose to mix a subjective belief --based on a series of myths-- with an objective discipline --based on observation, prediction, verification, etc. That is one of the typical creationist (and others) positions and arguments frequently broadcast to the public. It is not valid and it is not meaningful, but the public buys an awful lot of it: it’s pseudoscience. Once again, your beliefs are not being attacked here, but rather the resulting pseudoscience.
One can be a scientist and be religious at the same time with no real conflict, but when religion becomes an integral part of one’s science (or the other way round) that’s pseudoscience. Such science, instead of being driven by the pursuit of objectivity, tends to be motivated by belief or similar agendas. There’s a long history of such occurrences in history, and it’s not just religion that causes difficulties. Frequently, scientists will refuse to conduct valid science because of their desire to obtain a certain result, secure funding, attain popularity, and so forth. Just look at the Cold Fusion fiasco, if you remember that, or at over 140 years of negative valid findings in the field of parapsychology. Belief --whether it is religious or supernatural or racist or whatever else-- tends to have an adverse effect on science. This thread is about pseudoscience; my take on it is avoid mixing strongly subjective beliefs with science, for the reasons I gave in the last three posts.
Actually, many atheists would define their position as “lacking a belief in God or gods” rather than “believing that there is no God or gods”. (These positions may be characterized as “weak atheism” and “strong atheism”, respectively.) One might also be a weak atheist with respect to gods (or a Creator or Designer of the Universe) in general, and a strong atheist with respect to specific definitions or descriptions of God (or the gods).
At any rate, that would be a whole other thread right there (and one which I’m sure has been done more than once).
…That although faith/religion and Atheism are perfect opposites (although some would argue that Atheism is a religious stance, but no matter), Religion and evolutionary theory are not opposites, neither for that matter are creationism and evolutionary theory (although they have many opposing views and are slowly becoming opposites).
What I think I’m trying to say is that (IMHO) in the Venn diagram of the world, the closed curves of [science] and [faith/religion call it what you will] don’t overlap very much, if at all; this doesn’t make either one any less valid in dealing with it’s native concepts, but it does mean that the native methods of one domain don’t work very well when applied to the concepts of the other (and I believe this applies in both directions).
in other words:
-There’s no point in asking a scientist to show you God; he doesn’t have the necessary apparatus.
-There’s no point in asking God about scientific matters; his priorities lie elsewhere.
IMHO, there is not much discussion going on between Creationists and Evolutionists, just a bunch of people talking at each other. CvE “discussions” seem to go more like this:
a) Creationist attacks the predominant interpretation of evidence for (pick one or more) old earth\universe, macroevolution, etc.
b) Evolutionist responds and shows why the evidence is in fact correct, and the Creationist is wrong.
c) Creationist again challenges validity of evidence.
d) Evolutionist (now exasperated) gives very lengthy explanation of WHY evidence is valid.
e) Creationist ignores lengthy explanation and quotes Bible verse to back self up.
etc. etc.
I realize that this is a simple cariacture, and by no means do I think that all CvE debates go this way, but I have seen my fair share of them. Due to the rather long time (ahem :rolleyes: ) it takes to post here lately, I have been hanging out at the Pizza Parlor, an evangelical Christian message board. Their CvE forum is filled with threads that follow the format I described above. And the underlying problem seems to be the totally different reality tunnels* that Creationists and Evolutionists see the universe through.
Creationists (and here I am speaking of Young Earth Creationists specifically) overwhelmingly view the Bible as their final source of information, and they view scientific discoveries with a very skeptical eye. In their reality tunnel, there are evil forces at work that warp our perception of the world around us, causing us to “blindly” believe in Evolution.
Evolutionists, OTOH, disregard the Bible as myth where the Genesis accounts of Creation are concerned and, in their reality tunnel, have no reason to doubt the validity of the evidence they have before them, or the veracity of the scientists who discovered that evidence.
As such, most CvE debates devolve into “yes it is”, “no it isnt” with great rapidity.
I’m actually in the middle of trying to come to some understanding as to the YEC position, particularly around the following question: “What evidence do YEC’s have that indicates that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old?” I asked the Parlor’s resident “YEC advocate” this question in a recent thread, and his response so far has been very consistent with the Creationist worldview I explained above. He said that first and foremost, he is a YEC because of his belief in the Bible. And he said that he understands where people can believe that (for example) the Earth is billions of years old, but he (and I found this real interesting) is frustrated because he can’t get an Evolutionist to “see his side”. If you look at that thread, you will see that any real debate about CvE is almost impossible becuase YEC’s discount the validity of such basic things as radiometric dating and the Geologic Column.
So I am not at all sure that there is (to get back to the OP) any great way to disprove Creationist “Pseudoscience” - the approaches Mangetout laid out above are a good start though.
Reality Tunnels are an idea I first heard here from our own Cervaise, and I think that they go a long way towards explaining the fundamental disconnect in communication between such divergent groups as fundamentalist Christians and Naturalistic Evolutionists.
into “yes it is”, “no it isnt” with great rapidity.