Objectivity

I came here to find out more about the creation / evolution debate. What do I find? Two out of the top five forum topics are concerning the Bible. I have heard said it many times that creationists are not objective, because they start with the story in Genesis and work from there. It is very evident that many on this forum are no more objective than these fundamentalist Christians. They have their own religion of fundamentalist Atheism.Science should be completely neutral, where each subject is analysed on it’s own merits. Only after the analysis is complete should we then (if we wish) move on to apply the findings to any particular blueprint. In my mind, neither Creation nor Evolution is proved on a scientific level — neither has the kudos to be called a ‘theory’. Do we not have the guts to say ‘We don’t yet understand how this happened’?Can anyone recommend a forum that has a neutral attitude, makes a clear definition between theology and the natural sciences, and respects it’s members without resorting to either rabid extreme?

Hello Visitor, Welcome. ( I would suggest you read the Suggestions for Evolutionists and for Creationists posts in the Welcome visitors thread and then try registering and joining in).
Message 1 and Message 1I think it is clear that it is difficult for individuals to be objective. There are religious scientists, agnostic scientists and rabidly atheistic scientists. I'm sure that their individual beliefs have an influence on their thinking.That is why the process of science has proven to be so valuable. It does a pretty good job of removing those individual views from the final consensus results.The reason why the most active topics here are usually biblical is mostly because the creationists don't stick to the scientific topics very long. It is rather hard for them it seems.There are, of course, a few of the non-believers who enjoy attacking the Bible or more so, attacking the literalists interpretations that some believers want to push down everyones thoats. They contribute to the activity of the faith and belief topics.You comment about "fundamentalist atheism" doesn't seem to be very relevant since we have hear some believes who are also scientists and a significant number of scientists are believers.Of course, the creationists ideas of a young earth, flood and static "kinds" were examined by scientists who believed them. They found them to be false and changed their understanding of the world around them. This was all done almost 200 years ago. It seems odd that some can't understand the facts in front of them after all this time and the gathering of so much more data.

What do you think it would take for evolution to be a theory? What evidence would you accept? Maybe something like:1) an identified, observed mechanism for species change
2) observed examples of speciation
3) a convergence between ancestries inferred from taxonomy and genetics
4) a fossil record displaying a general trend of increasing complexity and differentiation of formWouldn't that be enough to support the position that the mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to account for the diversity of life on Earth?So, since all of that exists, why don't you think evolution is supported enough to be a theory?

quote:

---

Science should be completely neutral, where each subject is analysed on it’s own merits.

---

Not exactly true. Science favors theories that are supported by observable and testable evidence. Some complain that there is a bias in science. There is. A bias towards theories with testable evidence and theories that can be falsified through the same evidence.Young Earth Creationism, 6 day creation 6,000 years ago, has been falsified by the evidence. Whether or not God had a hand in the creation of the universe or life on earth can never be answered by science. However, the mechanism by which life speciated is well understood and evidenced. This mechanism is evolution.

quote:

---

In my mind, neither Creation nor Evolution is proved on a scientific level — neither has the kudos to be called a ‘theory’.

---

Evolution is supported by the fossil record, genetic phylogenetics, correlation of cladistsics and stratigraphy, observed speciation events, and observed instances of natural selection acting upon the variation within a population. Mutations have been shown to be random, not guided, and the earth/universe has been shown to be billions of years old by multiple, independent measurements. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is supported by Genesis, and that is about it. So, who is being more objective, YEC's or evolutionists?

Not to mention that a big fat wad of YEC rhetoric (I won't demean the word theories by applying it do their ideas) doesn't even have a biblical basis - it is just plain made up. (Juveniles in the ark, hydroplate 'theory', etc., etc.)

"The reason why the most active topics here are usually biblical is mostly because the creationists don't stick to the scientific topics very long. It is rather hard for them it seems."Granted. But a look through this site will show that this is a two way street. It seems that many evolutionists can’t resist the chance to take a pot shot on religious grounds, even when there is no need to do so."You comment about "fundamentalist atheism" doesn't seem to be very relevant since we have hear some believes who are also scientists and a significant number of scientists are believers."You are right up to a point, my comment cannot not include everyone, but as you say yourself ‘There are, of course, a few of the non-believers who enjoy attacking the Bible or more so, attacking the literalists’."Not exactly true. Science favors theories that are supported by observable and testable evidence. Some complain that there is a bias in science. There is. A bias towards theories with testable evidence and theories that can be falsified through the same evidence."Granted. But I have to offer my apologies for not making it clear that I was referring to the fact that Science should be neutral (separate) from theology.Does no one agree that it would be more objective if we could study the two areas independently? I fear that it would be just as impossible for many evolutionist posters to separate the two areas, as it would be for many creationist posters.Let me put my original question another way: Does anyone know of a forum where there is less mud slinging?

Well, personally, I think you did a bit of mud slinging yourself in your post above, but...I've seen a number of forums, and this one is real low in mud slinging and real high in information. There are some creation boards with tough moderators who throw out the evolutionists, and those boards do a lot of patting each other on the back rather than slinging mud. I don't really want to suggest any, but I'm sure you can find them or others will. This is true. There are some ornery people on this board. On the other hand, this is what I meant by you slinging mud in your original post. Here you backtracked, at least, which is good, but your original statement put evolution and fundamentalist atheism together, and then said evolution isn't worth being called a theory. That's all false and it's pretty accusatory. Backing up and saying, "Well, my point stands because there are some evolutionists who like picking on believers" doesn't do much for me. Believers come here putting their beliefs up for debate (I'm a believer, too), so it should come as no surprise that the challenge is taken up by those who enjoy doing it. It's not their fault that creationists and literalists are such easy targets. I doubt it. I don't agree. People in general are not prone to objectivity. There are a lot of good objective, unbiased evolutionists on this board, but I personally think that's only because they're right and thus the evidence soundly backs them up. I suspect on more debatable subjects, like politics, they're not so objective.

quote:

---

Granted. But a look through this site will show that this is a two way street. It seems that many evolutionists can’t resist the chance to take a pot shot on religious grounds, even when there is no need to do so.

---

Again, you are equating evolutionists with anti-christians. There are christian evolutionists. In fact, Darwin himself was a believer, although he struggled with his faith till his death. Often, religious posters post what they think is archeological evidence for events in the bible. Sometimes that evidence isn't as strong as it seems at first, and so people familiar with the evidence tend to take pot shots. Another "mud-slinging" scenario is when creationists new to the site trot out PRATT's (points refuted a thousand times). For example; moon dust not thick enough on moon, the sun is shrinking, etc, etc. We have all seen these quite a few times, and for the most part they have been refuted for 10 years or more. Another touchy spot is quote mining, where creationists will take a quote from an evolutionist out of context so that it matches with their ideology. We find it interesting that creatinists will only take the word of an evolutionist when what they are saying agrees with creationist presuppositions, but will not take their word when they say evolution is well supported.Anyway, enough griping. Just remember that 99% of the time people are attacking your evidence or logic, not you personally. If you take everything with this frame of mind it may make things a little easier. I have met a few creationists on this site that I wouldn't mind sitting down and having a few pints with (root beer for those who are afraid of EtOH).

quote:

---

But I have to offer my apologies for not making it clear that I was referring to the fact that Science should be neutral (separate) from theology.

---

Science is neutral. Science is never used to prove or disprove any diety. What it does test is hypotheses made by followers of a certain faith that pertain to the natural world. Science is areligious. It does not favor one religion over the other by not considering any of them. Christian Creationism is much less neutral, it chooses one diety out of hundreds and demands that supernatural forces are at work. Two different approaches that really can't be combined.

quote:

---

Does no one agree that it would be more objective if we could study the two areas independently? I fear that it would be just as impossible for many evolutionist posters to separate the two areas, as it would be for many creationist posters.

---

You have to study creationism and science independently. Science deals with the natural world through natural phenomena while Creationism deals with the world through supernatural phenomena. Whenever you insert supernatural powers you are no longer doing science.

quote:

---

Does anyone know of a forum where there is less mud slinging?

---

Nope, and I have looked at quite a few. IMO, this is by far the most in depth and least "hot-headed". Yes, insulting things are said, but usually not without provocation. Quite simply, if you state something be prepared to back it up with references and evidence. If you do this no one will have a problem. Hope to read some of your posts in other threads soon. Good luck.

quote:

---

Granted. But I have to offer my apologies for not making it clear that I was referring to the fact that Science should be neutral (separate) from theology.

---

But the fundimental root of the Evolution/Creationism debate is that some people are pushing their theology into science. When theology attacks science, science will fight back.Moose

Hi all, I'm new here (I'm not visitorxxx before you ask).Just wondered if anyone has ever tried arguing the others position on any given point before? As an experiment, would an evo and a creo pretend to swap sides for a quick debate (as genuinely as possible), and would the results be the same as arguing from their real viewpoint?

Swapping sides.I've had a go at that when the debate gets slow. However, it turns out to be very, very hard. Just try picking the creationists side and argue any of the many points put forward by, say, Answers in Genesis, for a young earth, flood or against evolution.There are a whole pack of preparted answers to the so-called 'answers' in genesis. They don't seem to come up with anything new after years and years to it gets pretty silly pretty quickly. That is, I guess, why the creationists come in here guns blazing, posting copies of stuff from AIG (and far worse sites) and then quickly either leave or stick to the faith and belief forum.I guess I'm just not imagininitive or creative enough to come up with any arguments that seem very satisfying. You can try if you want.

quote:

---

But a look through this site will show that this is a two way street. It seems that many evolutionists can’t resist the chance to take a pot shot on religious grounds, even when there is no need to do so.

---

I don't think that you will find many of this site's evolution supporters, who also happen to not be religious, regularly taking believers to task simply because they believe.I really have no problem with religious people saying that they do not accept the ToE on religious grounds. What I do object to is when they go on to say that they the ToE also does not have any scientific merit and that 'scientific' Creationism is much more scientific and correct, and therefore should be taught in public schools.

quote:

---

Does anyone know of a forum where there is less mud slinging?

---

Nope.This is pretty much the best on the net.This is a pretty mud-free place, really.

I've also tried this, Ned, and I can't do it either. Using YEC arguments I ended up arguing that it was scientifically impossible for me to grow from a single cell to an adult human... You just can't be objective when an inherantly subjective supernatural force is brought into the debate.

That's rather odd L, for if you give me the cell I can pretty well get any evo position I would like despite that fact that some of the best thinkers (Lewontin,Gould, and Mayr) would not think my thoughts. Getting the cell without the German history is nair impossible but not using Haeckel's underbelly is even probable if one has a cytoplasm for any protoplasm.

er, thanks Brad.
can anyone translate?