Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,621 Year: 4,878/9,624 Month: 226/427 Week: 36/103 Day: 5/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations.
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 1 of 6 (359825)
10-30-2006 11:09 AM


nemesis_juggernaut makes some pretty strong claims in The consequences of "Evolution is false" about how creationists and IDers are simply interpreting the evidence differently from mainstream science.
He says:
nj writes:
When I mentioned certain evolutionists tailoring the evidence, I was not inferring 'tampering' with evidence, but more of them trying to find satisfying ways of re-interpreting evidence to suit their agenda. If you haven't noticed from my previous post, I indict certain creationists in a similar vein. It should be no mystery that both evolution and creation have cult followings and there is a sense of allegiance to them. The evidence of this is plain to see on this forum alone. I'm simply saying that perhaps this shouldn't be. Science is supposed to be objective when for so many its anything but.
This implies that the only difference between evolution and creation is a matter of bias. It also implies that no objective truth about the natural world can be established because there will always be other "interpretations" of the evidence.
Continuing:
nj writes:
Well, that is a bit of hyperbole mixed in for added effect. I think what the writer was probably referring to is the difference between punctuated equilibrium vs slight, successive gradations adding up over time. Most evolutionists today have abandoned, or at least placed on hold, the notion of a classic, Darwinian model. And this is because of the inadequacy of the fossil record. Now, most evo's seem to prefer long periods of stasis, with rapid punctuations in between. This is another example of interpreting the evidence differently. Both groups are looking at the same fossils, they are simply interpreting the evidence differently.
The ignorance of the evidence for PE asside, nj brings up a specific example to illustrate how a creationist "interpretations" are equivalent to mainstream "interpretations". At this point I would like to bring up my main point of contention about this. I find that creationist "interpretations", while they may be an effort to explain the evidence differently, do so in a manner that ignores the BODY of evidence for a particular phenomenon. Creationists explain things in a piecemeal fashion. They have a seperate "interpretation" of the evidence that when taken all together is either contradictory, or simply ignores a rather large subset of the entire body of evidence that would force them to abandon the individual interpretations. This is true for every circumstance of creationists "interpretation" that I have ever seen.
NJ then, in order to support his claim, must show how creationism or ID has a workable interpretation that explains ALL the evidence. In the case of the fossil record, he would have to explain how the creationists "interpretation" includes the remaining body of evidence that mainstream geologists use when examining fossils. This includes radiometric dating, fossil sequences, index fossils, ordering, etc.
Another example is given by NJ:
nj writes:
I don't know whether or not Zebras have been found in arctic regions. That really wasn't the point. The point is, if you have a tangible piece of evidence, i.e. a fossil, how two or more groups interpret the evidence is at the heart of the issue. I'm merely distinguishing the difference between evidence and the interpretation of the evidence.
Lets use an example that we do know of. Tropical plants have been found on Spitsbergen island, which is well into the arctic circle. Now, do we interpret that evidence to mean that earth was once wholly tropical or is that interpreted as that region was once closer to the equator and drifted from continental shifting? This is what I mean by interpreting the evidence. We are all looking at the same piece of evidence, (tropical plants in an arctic region), but clearly there are varying opinions on how and why that piece of evidence exists in that region.
To "interpret" that the world was once wholly tropical is to do so in complete IGNORANCE of the evidence that the earth was NEVER wholly tropical. In order for NJ's claim to hold up, there needs to be a creationist interpretation that not only includes the evidence for tropical plants in artic regions but also vast body of evidence for Earth's paleo-climate, plate tectonics, and the sedimentary history of the area. It is a pretty BOLD CLAIM to state that because we find a fossil of a plant in an artic region that the whole rest of the world was once tropical. There is a lot of evidence related to that claim that would impact it and so far that evidence has only been ignored.
The main topic of this thread is if this idea that creationists explanations are merely different "interpretations" of the evidence. While we will inevitably need to discuss some examples such as above, the main thrust of this thread should be about NJ's main claim that the explanations only differ in their "interpretation".
If NJ would like to participate in this thread. I would also like to suggest that it be a Great Debate topic if he would like to avoid the "pile on" process that seemed to take hold in the other thread.
In the mean time, I think the best place for this thread would be 'Is it Science?' since the objective is to support or refute the claim that creationism is a valid science if only a different interpretation. NJ can then post his desires for the nature of the debate, open or GD.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 2 of 6 (359889)
10-30-2006 2:49 PM


Feedback from nemesis_juggernaut
I see that nj is on right now. If there is going to be some delay in getting this promoted, is there a suggestion as to a place where NJ and I can talk about the possibilit of making this a GD?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminPD, posted 10-30-2006 3:00 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 4 by AdminNWR, posted 10-30-2006 3:13 PM Jazzns has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 3 of 6 (359891)
10-30-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Jazzns
10-30-2006 2:49 PM


Re: Feedback from nemesis_juggernaut
You can try getting his attention in the suggestions and questions forum or call him to the chat room.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Jazzns, posted 10-30-2006 2:49 PM Jazzns has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 6 (359894)
10-30-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Jazzns
10-30-2006 2:49 PM


Re: Feedback from nemesis_juggernaut
is there a suggestion as to a place where NJ and I can talk about the possibilit of making this a GD?
There is actually a thread for negotiating GDs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Jazzns, posted 10-30-2006 2:49 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 6:15 PM AdminNWR has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 5 of 6 (360220)
10-31-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNWR
10-30-2006 3:13 PM


Re: Feedback from nemesis_juggernaut
nj said he wants to participate. If you wouldn't mind moving this to GD for us?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNWR, posted 10-30-2006 3:13 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNWR, posted 10-31-2006 6:45 PM Jazzns has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 6 (360228)
10-31-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jazzns
10-31-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Feedback from nemesis_juggernaut

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 6:15 PM Jazzns has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024