Creation/Evolution - What would change your mind for you?

Great Debates
1

Since posting my SO’s response to Mangetout’s two questions and following the debate around Ben’s eleven questions, I have been thinking about the standards of “proof” that an EVOLUTIONIST would like to see from a CREATIONIST before they would be willing to change their minds on this issue.

Obviously, quoting from the Bible is pointless exercise, similarly, refering to http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org and other sites of its ilk will, no doubt, result in “hails of derisive laughter, Bruce.” On the other hand it is useless for a Creationist to look in the established scientific journals, as one doesn’t get publishing space in the establishment by producing work that undermines the (currently) accepted thoeries that underpin an entire branch of the Natural Sciences!! (I am thinking here of the example of an astronomer (whose name escapes me - no cite I am afraid :)) who was working on an alternative explanation of the red-shift in stars and found himself barred from using telescopes and sidelined from the major conferences.)

It is my feeling that people (from both sides of the fence)come to this argument with their minds already made up. and only looking for evidence that strengthens their point of view. I am quickly moving to the point of view that this sort of “debate” is a pointless exercise - no one is going to change their beliefs on the issue because of what is posted on the SDMB.

The question I have then (for people with opinions on either side of the matter) is “What would MAKE you change your mind?”

Gp

2

Flaming letters 50 metres high spontaneously appearing near every congregation of more than 10 people that say “I made everything.” And they’d have to work in all languages simultaneously (so if I’m thinking in French, they’ll read French, and if I think in English, poof they’re English, and the guy beside me will say "hey man, they’re in chinese).

3

Well, (this thread belongs in IMHO, but will probably spark a debate, ho hum) FTR I’m a Christian who has recently abandoned creationism.

The thing that changed my mind from being atheist/agnostic to being a Christian some 15 years ago was God speaking to me (no, really, but I won’t hijack this thread by witnessing) - unfortunately, what I didn’t realise at the time is that this didn’t necessarily mean that I had to take on board the whole set of Christian dogma, so I felt that I had to believe in creation(ism) because it was the only explanation that includes God, right?

Well, over the years, I stuck with it and adopted many of the creationist arguments (“one theory is just as valid as another”, “polystrate trees”, “Radio carbon dating is bunk”, “it’s so unlikely it’s impossible”, “evolution is evil” etc) without ever questioning if they truly fit the facts, in short, I was won over to creationism by persuasive argument and because I thought it was the only compatible system in view of my very compelling spiritual experiences.

Anyway, then I discovered the (mostly)open-minded folks here and began to see that there’s a whole load of evidence that creationists gloss over with glib soundbites, but they never actually address the minutae.
Plus the whole scheme of deciding in advance what the answer is, then going in search of supporting evidence had troubled me for a long time (incidentally, this is something of which the creationists accuse the evolution camp), then there’s the arguments where creationists pick a tiny hole in some fairly marginal bit of evolutionary theory and use that as an argument that the whole thing must be untrue.
And finally the diversionary tactics, which, although I was once taken in by them, I have to admit now that it’s a dishonest argument to say “science doesn’t have the answer to exactly how the universe was formed (a fact which most scientists freely admit*) therefore any theories put forward by science are unsound”

*[sup]That’s what science is - saying "I don’t know, but dammit, I’ll find out if it’s the last thing I do[/sup]

So where am I now? well, the things that I’ve experienced in my journey with God are so profound and compelling that I don’t think I could ever dismiss them (unless I were to admit that I were insane and just imagined the whole thing), but my journey has also led me in the direction of the generall conclusion that God (by whatever method) has equipped me with a remarkable brain/mind(the human brain in general, not mine specifically you understand) and a ravenous desire to know, so why should I accept explanations that require me to suppress rational thinking?

This isn’s exactly the direction of mind-change that you were asking for grimpixie, I hope you don’t mind me sharing my views here.

4

What would change my mind?

Evidence. No matter how much you believe in something, only evidence can prove it.

50-foot high letters of flame are a good start, but no need to be that dramatic. Ordinary, everyday evidence will do just fine.

5

What would you consider as an acceptable source for this evidence?

I would guess that this work by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman wouldn’t cut it, because of opinions like this one.

Much of the “evidence” (I use quotes because it is that concept that we are debating, not to diparage the Creationist point of view) put forward by Creationists contradicts (by its very nature) the established thought/paradigm in the field in question. The point is that you can easily find “evidence” to contradict it - so if you are of the Evolutionist persuasion, you can ignore the “evidence” because there is “evidence” to back up your point of view/belief system.

Letters of Fire would certainly make me change my mind, but the next day, what “evidence” would there be? If you saw Letters of Fire, should that make me change my mind? Is this not about belief rather than “evidence”? Can we ever debate this issue without relying on our belief systems?

Gp

6

Actually, that’s how you get the Nobel prize and undying fame. Einstein undermined the currently accepted theories that underpinned an entire branch of the Natural Sciences when he was some second-assistant bozo working in the patent office. I wish you knew the name of that astronomer.

7

You don’t get “barred” from using telescopes. In general, if you want to use a telescope, you write up a proposal. The proposal describes the scientific background of the observation you want to make, and the goals of the observation. The proposal is peer-reviewed, and if your observation seems well-thought-out and reasonable, and will fit within scheduling constraints, you get time on the telescope. Each proposal is (ideally) considered on its own merits, not on the reputation of the person who wrote the proposal. If a crack observer writes a crappy proposal, it gets turned down. (I’ve seen it happen.) If somebody writes ten crappy proposals, and then finally gets his act together and writes a decent proposal, odds are, he’ll get time. (I’ve seen that happen, too.)

You don’t get silenced by the scientific community by challenging orthodoxy; you are ignored if you do bad science. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that you have proof that the Earth is 6000 years old, you damn well better have the data to back that up, and you work must be meticulously correct, or of course it will be torn to pieces.

If you have an idea that’s very unorthodox, but it’s backed up by good work, most reviewers will let it go through. They won’t shoot you down for not agreeing with everyone else, but they will shoot you down if your data or your math are lacking. You should see some of the crazy ideas that are published in reputable journals! A strange but well-thought-out hypothesis can be published, even if nobody really thinks it will pan out, because 1) an important part of science is considering every reasonable possibility and only ruling out the bad ones, and 2) scientists are, by nature, playful. As long as the hypothesis works with the data we have in hand, and makes predictions that can be tested by future observations and/or experiments, it’s not going to be repressed simply because most people don’t believe it.

It’s really easy to sulk off in the corner and pout that all the reveiwers were just too scared of your revolutionary ideas, but if three scientists knowledgable in your subfield read your work and they all agree it’s crap, then it’s most likely crap. Even if your idea right, the burden of rigorously demonstrating that it’s right is yours. If your proposal or paper or conference talk is rejected, you have the opportunity to go back, reasses your data, rewrite, and resubmit–but you’d better thorougly address the objections of the reviewers, or, guess what, it’s just going to be rejected again.

Those who claim that the scientific priesthood is repressing the work of brilliant creationist scientists rarely have any conception of how mind-bogglingly shoddy their work is. Their biggest enemy isn’t the establishment; it’s their own ignorance and self-delusion.

So, to answer the OP, if peer-reviewed, reproducable results demonstrated that God created the Earth and all the organisms thereon in seven days, I’d be a fool to deny it.

8

If you consider science, reason, and critical thought to be a “belief system,” then no.

They aren’t.

See, here’s the thing: the scientific process depends on hypotheses which are tested against all available evidence. Those hypotheses are altered, abandoned, recreated as the evidence dictates. When a hypothesis is found that is supported by all evidence and is contradicted by none, it’s still open season on it. Attempts are made to accumulate more and more evidence in order to disprove the hypothesis or cause it to be altered.

Gravity is a great example. It’s pretty simple–“things fall.” But add in planetary motion, and the basic premise “things fall” is altered. Add in the behavior of magnetic fields and light, and it’s altered further. Add in quantum theory, and by this time the original hypothesis that “things fall” is so distant as to be unrecognizable. Even as a sound scientific theory (just like evolution), gravity is continually tweaked as our comprehension grows.
So, then . . . all available evidence supports evolution. No reliable evidence contradicts it (and if you doubt that, you haven’t been reading GD very long).

On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence contradicting the various types of creationism, and little or none supporting them.

Admittedly, there is one brand of creationism that cannot be contradicted. It’s known colloquially as “Last-Thursdayism.” In this somewhat specious belief, Allah created the Universe and everything in it in situ. that is, He created everything so that it appears to be billions of years old. He planted fossils, geologic strata, ocean formations . . . and He did it all Last Thursday. Hey, he’s Omnipotent, right? He could do it, and we’d never know.

Last-Thursdayism is something that cannot be contradited by science, nor by logic, nor by any evidence. If it’s valid, there’s not a damned thing we can do about it.

Most thinking people realize that the only way Last-Thursdayism can be valid is if Allah created the Universe deliberately to deceive us. Polycarp calls this god the “Divine Weasel,” and rightfully rejects it, as do I. My God does not need to play tricks.

9

To prove God exists would eliminate faith. Without faith there can be no God. So by proving God exists you destroy him/her. The Babbelfish scenario. I love Douglas Adams.

Seriously? Proof of a God would probably take a nice face to face. It could explain a few things (suffering to begin with) show me around (space AND time). Or maybe some sort of translatable message arising from mathmatics drawn from the nature of the universe. Like in the book “Contact” by Carl Sagan (book alot better than movie).

DaLovin’Dj

“Yes. God came down and stopped these mutha fuckin’ bullets” - Pulp Fiction

10

Got some evidence of that? It’s pretty easy to see why the vast majority of the creationist literature is publishable only by “vanity press”; it’s bad science that doesn’t meet the published standards of the technical literature. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise …

Halton Arp. Currently employed as an astronomer at the Max Plank Institute, getting telescope time, publishing papers and attending conferences (e.g. NEW SCENARIOS ON EVOLUTION OF SOLAR SYSTEM), and whose work is available on many web sites (e.g. ATLAS OF PECULIAR GALAXIES) and in journals throughout the world. His earlier ideas were published even though they undermined the currently accepted theories because they were scientific and met the journal’s standards. Those ideas were considered, investigated, and rejected through the normal processes of science.

Not much use in supporting your contentions.

That’s undoubtable in the case of many creationists, and is explicitly stated by many (e.g. ICR Tenets of Creationism and CRS Statement of Belief and the AIG Statement of Faith). There’s little or no evidence that I have seen that establishes that there aren’t many people on the other side of the issue willing to listen and think. Feel free to provide some. Personally, I’m listening. The real problem is that so much of what the creationists propose as “evidence” is Biblical or ad-hoc or prima facie false.

Perhaps so. However, as long as creationists attempt to hide the religious foundation of their “science” and have it taught in public schools, the debate is important. I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want on their own time.

Since the age and almost all of the history of the Universe, the age and history of the Earth, and the changes and branchings of living creatures over billions of years {all through natural processes) is well-established by literally mountains of evidence, changing my mind about those would require pointing to significant and unmistakable evidence that is not explained by current theories and a coherent and useful theory that explains all the existing evidence and the new evidence. Note that “God chose to do it that way” is not a useful scientific theory; it has no predictive power, and can explain any result, so introducing such into science would destory all of science. “God chose to do it that way” is a perfectly good presonal belief; just please don’t ask that it be taught in the schools as science. It isn’t.

About the origin of life, or abiogenesis (not evolution), there is much less evidence and not much of any solidly established theories. I consider divine origin of life some 3.5 billion or so years ago as a possibility, but my opinion is that it’s unlikely.

11

dalovindj: We’re not talking about proving the existence (or otherwise) of God or gods, that’s something that you can’t disprove (and is seemingly quite difficult to prove as well)

12

The Creationist assertion boils down to one of the following possible scenarios:

a) The world was created by God a few thousand years ago, complete with misleading artifacts and physical data that, when analyzed, disguises that creation by constituting evidence of a universe roughly 15 billion years old, a planet 4-some-odd billion years old, life a couple billion years old, etc.

or

b) The world was created by God a few thousand years ago; the theories, conclusions, and supporting data amassed by scientists claiming otherwise are all misinterpretations, mismeasurements, erroneous impressions, and so forth, and the physical data actually supports Creationism once you look at it carefully.

or

c) The world was created by God a few thousand years ago; the theories and statements of scientists are all fabrications; the data they claim to have is either made up or knowingly twisted and misinterpreted, and the REAL physical data actually supports Creationism, but you’ll have to gather it yourself – don’t trust the scientists’ data!
The lack of evidence to back possibilities b and c is adequately described by other respondents in a dozen prior threads on the board, so I’ll address possibility a –

FIRST OFF: If God is so determined to delude us into believing things that are not true about the universe, and is that good at it, I’m inclined to wonder a moment how it is that I managed to pierce the illusion. If God is choosing to reveal the actual truth to me, does it necessarily follow that I’m supposed to expend energy and effort to convince others of this?

OKAY…: It would have to be a bit better than 10 foot tall flaming letters, even if they persisted and everyday life went on as usual except with 10 foot tall flaming letters obstructing the view. Because that could be my mind playing tricks on me. Look, I’m a schizophrenic and I’ve had God talking to me and telling me I’m the new Messiah, and I’ve found it useful and necessary to remain open but skeptical about the validity of such experiences. Also, it could be GOD playing tricks on me. We’ve got God creating all this misleading evidence and then making with the 10 foot tall flaming letters; both are statements of God, yet they contradict…why ought I to believe the letters over the physical evidence?

Ultimately, I think I would have to feel that my overall understanding of the universe improves, and things make more sense, given the contribution of the new theory that says God created the world a few thousand years ago. If the effects of that contribution tend to create chaos, and make LESS sense of the full range of information available to me, then I’m likely to:

• accept the existence of 10 foot tall flaming letters

• accept the existence of a God who wants me to believe he created the world a few thousand years ago

• conclude that God is lying; and

• continue to believe in a much older world.

13

Mangetout:

It is a prerequisite for creationism that God (in some form) exist. I think my post is in line with the OP question. What would it take to change my mind? Proof that a creator exists. What would constitute proof?

The only way I’m going to be convinced that “God” created anything is to meet him (even then I saw an episode of Star Trek where aliens pretended to be God), or to see a message from him. The religious canons of the world due not qualify as they appear to be written by humans. But a decodable language/message inherent in reality would do the trick as well. Say Pi ends up after umpteen trillion places to start spelling out the Bible, I would probably rethink my stance.

DaLovin’Dj

14

I used to believe that “evilution” was the tool of the devil. But I changed my mind, due in no small part to the creation-evolution threads here on the SDMB. See, the great thing about the GD forum is that you don’t get to make statements on a controversial subject (hell, on any subject!) without being asked to cite your sources. So when I actually examined the evidence, I found that evolution has much to commend it, and creationism almost nothing. Further, I discovered that those religious tracts I used to read that showed what a farce evolution was* were based on innuendo, obfuscation, and outright lies. I am in the middle of reading Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” now so that I can be ready to answer the creationists I know IRL. So while I understand why these debates may seem pointless, let me assure you they are not.

MH

  • I hang my head in shame to admit that I used to read Chick tracts and marvel at this brave man who dared to tell the uncomfortable truth to a world that rejected God. :rolleyes: ::sigh::
15

Damn straight. I’ve got an open invitation for Jesus Christ to come over for breakfast any weekend he wants. We’ll sit down, have some toast and milk and juice, I’ll ask a few pointed questions, he’ll give some answers, and then we’ll see where it goes. Mindless morons banging on my front door parroting the same old lines from the Bible (which I can handily refute with one lobe tied behind my back) don’t qualify.

16

Hey, we all do dumb things. At least you didn’t pay too much for car insurance, right?

-Ben

17

rjung:

I think Jesus likes wine. Wine and bread. You could give him juice, but he’ll probably just turn it into wine anyway.

DaLovin’ Dj

18

:smiley:

19

Like others here, all I ask is good, solid evidence for creation. Don’t give me a line about how an observation can’t be explained by evolutionists; tell me exactly how this provides evidence for creation. Tell me what we should expect to see if creation were true, then show me how that is evinced in nature.

The science of evolution, contrary to what most creationists think, does not operate independent of all else. Molecular biology, geology, population biology, genetics, ecology, chemistry, physics – all play a role in developing a comprehensive theory of evolution. To convince me that evolution is wrong, you’re going to have to convince me that all physical and biological sciences are wrong.

20

<Stoid leaps to her feet, knocking over her uncomfortable metal chair, which clatters to the ground noisily, and applauds wildly until her hands hurt>