Creationists Call for Debate

[Navigator]

I think that has been my point. Go back and count how many times I’ve agreed to the definition of evolution.

Perhaps it has been disguised by the fact that people use the term evolution in various ways.

So I’ll narrow it down for you. I think the discussion of origins is somewhat beyond the realm of science, and encompasses various other disciplines, including philosophy. The two branches of origins can be defined as Naturalism, and Creationism. Both include a philosphic element that either includes or excludes external sources that cannot be tested by scientific method.

If you use the strict definition of evolution defined above and at the parlor, and then pit that against creation then you are comparing apples to oranges, since by your admission evolution has nothing to do with origins, but creation, by definition does.

So perhaps since the original topic at the Pizza Parlor was ‘Theistic Evolution’ v. ‘Creation Science’, two explanations of how life orginated from a theistic perspective, the injection of ‘evolution’ as a scientific theory had nothing to do with the topic started by Mr. Anderson.

If we want to inject naturalistic mechanisms for the explanation of origins into the argument, that is fine, but also be prepared to discuss the philosophy of naturalism that accompanies such mechanisms.

Or have I missed second base again?

[tracer]

Navigator wrote:

If you use the strict definition of evolution defined above and at the parlor, and then pit that against creation then you are comparing apples to oranges, since by your admission evolution has nothing to do with origins, but creation, by definition does.

The thing you have to be careful of here is that there are a few different things you can mean by “origins.”

You could mean the origin of:
[ol][li]the cosmos[/li][li]the Milky Way Galaxy[/li][li]the solar system[/li][li]the Earth[/li][li]life, or[/li][li]the human species[/li][/ol]Evolution would be relevant to discussions about the last (6th) kind of “origins” listed above, but not to any of the others.

[Navigator]

I was specifically interested in the last two, life on earth, and human life. Thanks for making that clear.

[JDeMobray]

*Originally posted by Navigator *
So I’ll narrow it down for you. I think the discussion of origins is somewhat beyond the realm of science, and encompasses various other disciplines, including philosophy.

I’m going to have to disagree with you here. (I believe) that the scientific method is capable of adressing “origins”. Now to be fair, evolution has a lot more supporting evidence right now than hypotheses like abiogenesis, but remember nothing in science ever springs out fully formed from the head of Jupiter.

Is science right now capable of giving a complete picture of ‘what came before?’. No.

But we’re working on it ;).

The two branches of origins can be defined as Naturalism, and Creationism.

Sure, that’ll work for me. (I haven’t heard anyone espousing a different view; Polycarp and a few others’ Created Naturalism nonwithstanding.)

Both include a philosphic element that either includes or excludes external sources that cannot be tested by scientific method.

So they both either include or exclude the same thing. Hmmm, okay. I don’t quite get what you meant by that. . . (‘Both the KKK and the NAACP either include or exclude minority members’)

**If you use the strict definition of evolution defined above and at the parlor, and then pit that against creation then you are comparing apples to oranges, since by your admission evolution has nothing to do with origins, but creation, by definition does.

**
Evolution has everything to do with the emergence of us. Evolution doesn’t neccesarily have much to do with the rest of Christian cosmology, but it doesn’t really have to. “Origins” taken to mean the creation of everything is simply to broad of a definition. Evolution deals with a very specific aspect of “origins”, the part that goes:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So perhaps since the original topic at the Pizza Parlor was ‘Theistic Evolution’ v. ‘Creation Science’, two explanations of how life orginated from a theistic perspective, the injection of ‘evolution’ as a scientific theory had nothing to do with the topic started by Mr. Anderson.

Now I’m confused. What do you read ‘Theistic Evolution’ to mean? I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the intent was to look at the differences between the evolutionary theory and literal creationism. I read ‘Theistic Evolution’ as something similar to what Polycarp has put forward (Sort of an old-earth-but-everything-set-into-motion-by-God view. Very indepth.)

If we want to inject naturalistic mechanisms for the explanation of origins into the argument, that is fine, but also be prepared to discuss the philosophy of naturalism that accompanies such mechanisms.

I don’t think anyone here has given the impression that they are unprepared to discus their theories.

[JDeMobray]

I just re-read what I posted and realized that some of it (specifically the KKK-NAACP thing) sounds a bit hostile.

I’m really not trying to be a jerk, here. I’m kind of sarcastic in “real-life” and it sometimes carries over into my online writing.

I apologize in advance if my flippancy bugs you.

[Navigator]

no problem… I didn’t like that sentence when I wrote it…

The Naturalist position excludes anything that can’t be described by scientific method.

The Creationist position includes things that can’t be described by scientific methods.

Is that more helpful?

[Triskadecamus]

Nav,

I think you have a slight misapprehension about the scientific method, and that leaves you missing the point on occasion. Good scientific investigation does not require that every fact have a “naturalistic” explanation. It doesn’t even suppose that there must be an explanation at all.

It seeks to define every measure possible of the phenomenon, and reproduce those observations under as controlled circumstance as can be arranged. The causing agency, if any, is examined only if evidence shows that such an entity is likely to exist, and can be examined. In the case of evolution, as originally described by Darwin, very little of the cause of evolution was examined. The results were examined extensively, and comparisons made in widely divergent location and species. That led to a theory on the nature of the phenomena whereby existing species change, and become new species. Why is never even considered, and the question of God, or God’s purpose is never addressed.

In the many years since Darwin there have been great strides taken in understanding the details of the mechanism of inheritance, and diversification of genetic populations both within, and among species of many different types. Cause and effect are examined now, on a case by case basis, within the confines of specific speciation events under consideration. (Such as the famous moth color characteristics in England.) Still, this is an examination of how, nuts and bolts of survival benefit, and statistical outcomes. Why, or for who’s purposes is never examined, because it is not amenable to control in the scientific sense.

Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and the mechanics of planet formation are highly theoretical, but still must meet the rigor of testability, repeatability, and measurability that limit all investigation under the scientific method. In the case of events and phenomenon which because of their nature cannot be directly observed, extreme caution is needed, and the reliablility of such conjectures are always subject to immediate review, when better observational data become available.

The will of God, even supposing that you have gotten past the question of the existence of God, can never be examined with the tools of science, since God must exceed the measurment limits of any theoretical apparatus with which we might examine Him. Science is not made less useful by this fact, since science never attempts to reach beyond its grasp. Conjecture is only the very first step in the scientific method. While dreamers make the best scientists, they do so by waking up from their dreams, and creating tools to make dreamed of things into real things.

[Navigator]

Tris,

Thanks, I agree. I never said Science was limited by being Naturalistic, indeed it has to be.

I think the Origin of life, and even Cosmology is better examined in the realm of Philosophy. I think Philosophy can better answer some questions even if we never have an empirical method to nail down the Hard Science of it.

[DoctorJ]

Let’s say I have a patient whose kidneys are failing, and I don’t know why. I have a pretty good understanding of renal failure, but this guy doesn’t seem to have any reason for it at all.

Of course, it is possible that he has angered the Invisible Demonic Trolls, who are using their Demon Magic to shut down his kidneys. It is a possibility–they’re invisible, so they can’t be seen, and they have Magic, so they could cause renal failure if they wanted to.

Am I being intellectually dishonest when I leave the wrath of the IDTs out of my differential diagnosis? Should I keep searching in earnest for an organic cause, or should I chalk it up to Troll Magic and move on?

Let’s say I do, eventually, find a really obscure cause for this man’s renal failure. “Oh, come on,” says the Trollist. “You’re talking about an indescribably rare process. How likely is that? Why didn’t you even consider the possibility of Invisible Demon Troll Wrath?”

This is a silly example, but it should provide some idea of why science and the supernatural don’t mix. I concede that in the above example, the renal failure could possibly be caused by invisible demon trolls. They could have just set the disease in motion. They could have carefully orchestrated each step of the disease process. I could be wrong about my diagnosis, even though all the evidence indicates it.

I don’t, however, feel that I’m doing the patient (or the practice of medicine) any harm by limiting my speculation to the natural world.

I’m sure this example will make much less sense to me in the morning.

Dr. J

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I think the Origin of life, and even Cosmology is better examined in the realm of Philosophy.

Why?

Do you object to gathering data before drawing conclusions?
Are you more comfortable speculating in a vaccuum than testing your ideas to see whether they conform to the material Universe?
What possible reason is there to exclude these areas specifically from scientific inquiry?

[David_B]

About a page ago, Nav said:

My point is that taking evolutionary theories and saying that they define the origins of life with no other alternatives is a faith based statement. Until we can repeat an event that demonstrates abiogenesis, or panspermia, or any other Neo-Darwinist theory we are left with faith based assumptions that nothing supernatural happened.

It is not “faith” to not include “supernatural” claims. It is merely a lack of faith in said supernatural claims.

I don’t think that the invisible trolls mentioned by DoctorJ had anything to do with the creation of the world either, but that doesn’t mean I have faith against the trolls. Using your daffynition of faith would make everything in the world an issue of faith, to the extreme.

[Navigator]

Spiritus

Do you object to gathering data before drawing conclusions?

No.

Are you more comfortable speculating in a vaccuum than testing your ideas to see whether they conform to the material Universe?

No. Lets go seed a planet, so we can test panspermia.

What possible reason is there to exclude these areas specifically from scientific inquiry?

None. Is there is a reason to exclude theistic philosophy from the subject of how life began on this planet?

predicttion: yes, because it isn’t testable with empirical evidence, and the wheel starts all over again.

David

It is not “faith” to not include “supernatural” claims. It is merely a lack of faith in said supernatural claims.

I was implying that the faith you employ is a faith in Naturalistic philosophy, which you may define as a ‘lack of faith’ if you want to.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

No. Lets go seed a planet, so we can test panspermia.

Your response displays either an extreme ignorance of the nature of scientific experimentation or an intellectual dishonesty. It is no more necessary to seed a planet to test a panspermia hypotheses than it is necessary to travel through time to test the theory of plate tectonics.

None. Is there is a reason to exclude theistic philosophy from the subject of how life began on this planet?

predicttion: yes, because it isn’t testable with empirical evidence, and the wheel starts all over again.

There is no reason to exclude theistic philosophy from discussions of how life began on this planet.

There are many reasons to exclude theistic philosophy from scientific inquiries into how life began on this planet.

There are many reasons, in fact, to exclude theistic philosophy from scientific discussions, and scientific education, of any kind. They are pretty much the same reasons we have to exclude nihilistic philosophy from scientific discussions of any kind.

I have no idea what wheel you are referring to. Philosophy is not science, it is not bound by the rules of science. It is entirely reasonable to exclude the arguments of philosophy from the principals of science. It has also, historically, proven very useful to do so.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I was implying that the faith you employ is a faith in Naturalistic philosophy, which you may define as a ‘lack of faith’ if you want to.

This is a rhetorical trick which I commonly encounter in these discussions. Faith is a word with many connotations in the english language. To equate not-believing in that for which there is no objective evidence to actively believing in that for which there is no objective evidence is to abuse distinct connotations of the same word.

I tell you this quite plainly: if your faith in God is equivaent to my lack of belief in Quetzalcoatl, then your faith is a trivial and ridiculous thing.

[Navigator]

just a definition, then you can have the last word, since I am an ignorant, dihonest, trickster… :rolleyes:

[quote]
faith (fâth)
n.
[list=1][li]Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing.[/li][li]Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.[/li][li]Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.[/li][li]Often Faith. Theology. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.[/li][li]The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.[/li][li]A set of principles or beliefs.[/list=1][/li]
I agree with you Spiritus that Faith in the theological sense should be used in the way you voiced.

I think that faith, in the first definition, is what I mean when discussing the philosophy of the origins of life on this planet. For both the theists and the naturalists.

While others may see definition two as the theist position, and definiton one as the naturalist position.

God Bless.

[jab1]

Is astronomy a science? It cannot do experiments to see how stars and planets form. It can only observe and make theories to explain what has been observed. In this way, it is much like paleontology, in that we cannot observe dinosaurs to see how they behaved, we can only look at their fossils (and not just fossil bones, but also fossil footprints. A recent show on the Discovery Channel was about the interpretation of those famous tracks at Glen Rose, Texas. The people involved believe the tracks show a predator stalking and attacking a herbivore. A change in the frequency of and the distance between the predator’s steps showed where it changed its stride to match that of its prey in order to lunge and take a bite. IF the predator’s teeth were as full of toxic bacteria as today’s Komodo dragon’s teeth are, a single bite may have given the herbivore a fatal infection.)

Now, I started this with a reference to astronomy. Here’s why: Astronomers have recently announced the discovery of 18 planet-like objects roaming free through space; IOW, they do not orbit any star.

The finding is certain to upset current theories of how planetary bodies form, experts said.

No doubt some creationist is going to say, “Well, since your theory was inaccurate, you cannot say you will EVER understand where planets come from. And it’s also possible that evolutionary theory is also wrong. So there.”

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Navigator *

*Originally posted by Triskadecamus *

People make up lies about science, and about simple matters of fact, and then claim those lies are proof of God. People deny that God is greater than their understanding, and seek to prove His nature, and predict His acts. The fact that such things are laughably poor science is certainly true, but if you are a Christian, you might consider that these are not the real failures of Creationism. I firmly believe that Creationism is the active work of those who wish to ridicule God himself, with lies, and blind trivialities. And the faithful themselves are the targets of this temptation.

I was with you up to the point of people wishing to ridicule God. I think that is part of our nature while in these tents. All of us like to ridicule God, thank goodness for Grace, n’est pas?

Jon, I’d like to point out here that there’s a difference between the cycle of sinning, repenting, and being forgiven, and unrepentantly sinning.

It’s like the conservative Christian view of the moral difference between gamblers and homosexuals: in that view, the gambler sins by gambling, repents and prays not to yield to that temptation again, and is forgiven. He may fall to that temptation again, but it’s an honest failing. Meanwhile, in that view, the homosexual who sins by committing homosexual acts, or by desiring persons of his/her gender, and who does not repent of it, cannot be forgiven, and therefore cannot be accepted, in most evangelical churches, as a church member in good standing.

I think you see my analogy: the creation ‘scientist’, as Tris ably points out, damages the Christian faith by using lies to try to ‘prove’ the falsity of evolution or the literal truth of the Biblical creation stories. Where I’m taking this, of course, is that the creation ‘scientist’ continues to lie in this manner, does not repent of his actions, and is therefore in exactly the same moral position that most evangelicals claim homosexuals are in.

Yet creation ‘scientists’ are considered to be citizens in good standing in the evangelical world, while, as I’ve pointed out, gays aren’t (assuming they have no desire to renounce their orientation). What gives?

[Navigator]

okay… I feel like Al Pachino in GF III…

Rufus, thank you for exanding on Tris’ rant. I see your point. Question, have you read Yancey’s ‘What’s so amazing about Grace?’? Very enlightening to me, as have other books on Grace, but that really isn’t the topic of this thread, so can I go home now?

[RTFirefly]

Hey, I didn’t mean to chase you away; it was just that you seemed to be missing Tris’ point. And I apologize if I came on a bit intensely there; I was writing that post in between running programs at work on what was supposed to be a day off, and trying to finish quickly so I could go home and get the house ready for company.

IMO, the question isn’t about grace, though; it’s about how a Christian community deals with sin in its midst. In my example above, the evangelical community has vastly different attitudes toward what should be, on its own terms, equally serious sins. I believe the reason creation lie-entists are embraced by evangelicals is that they’re on the ‘right side’ of the issue, from the evangelical standpoint. And we, as Christians, shouldn’t be about sides; we should be standing for the truth.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Actuall, your definition 5 seems to clearly deliniate the position of Christians regarding the origin of life and teh Universe. The difference between a literalist and a non-literealist is simply a difference of dogma. (Okay, not simply.)