quote:
First of all let me confess that I didn't think through my list carefully at all but simply tossed out a bunch of stuff that's sort of in the ballpark but also a bit whimsical, to answer the challenge to explain evolutionist assumptions not shared by creationists, that stack the deck at this site. So I may in fact disagree with some parts of my own list as I'm force to think about it.
Kudos!
quote:
Yes, this is one way the site is stacked against creationists as some of us do not consider evolution to be proven despite all the assertions that it has.
Not "assertions."
Evidence.
It doesn't matter if some of you do not consider evolution to have an evidenciary basis, because it does. Using the theory works, and making predictions using the theory works, regardless of if you believe it does or not.
quote:
My reasons are being argued wherever I post here. You may not think they are convincing, but that's not the subject here. The subject here is how this site is stacked against creationists and the adamant belief that evolution has been proved is a biggie.
Two things:
Let me repeat what all of us have said, which is that nothing in science is ever "proven" in a mathematical sense.
Also, the evidence is stacked against creationists, and since this site requires scientific claims to be supported by evidence, that's just too bad for the Creationists who want to try to support their religious beliefs with science.
Why should we give special treatment to Creationists in scientific, empirical debate?
In what way hasn't it been "proven" scientifically? That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you should describe what you think "scientifically" is?
quote:
It hasn't been proved by your own standards is what I mean.
Sure it has.
quote:
You apply your reasoning with prejudice and ignore evidence against your beliefs.
What evidence? We have been asking to see some scientific evidence in support of the various Creation scenarios brought to the table but we haven't seen any so far.
quote:
Etc. Again, this is not the place to debate this. It is merely another statement of a position held here with absolute certainty
Not "absolute certainty".
It is called "provisional acceptance", actually. We accept the ToE to be the best current explanation of the evidence, but would (and have) adjusted our view in the light of new, compelling evidence.
We constantly ask to be shown this compelling evidence, but we are always disappointed.
quote:
and enforced by outrage and indignation upon occasion against creationists who challenge it, that stacks the deck against creationists who dispute it.
Creationists do not typically "challenge" scientific theory in any meaningful way, often choosing instead to object to scientific findings which contradict what they would like to be true. They are often nearly or completely uninformed about the science they are trying to criticize, and thus frequently make very basic errors. Another basic logic error they make is because they believe in their faith/religion dogmatically, they project onto anyone who disagrees with them a similar dogmatism.
quote:
I will agree with you that for most of the questions concerning evolution we are dealing with physical evidence, certainly. But an example of nonphysical evidence is witness testimony such as written histories.
But in science, written histories cannot be the only line of evidence for a concept to be widely accepted. You need multiple lines of evidence.
quote:
And I also had in mind reasoning itself, as in good or bad reasoning FROM evidence, which is nonmaterial evidence in a certain sense in its own right, which I have to admit isn't exactly "evidence" but it makes a point about how this place is stacked against creationists.
No, that's called "inference", and is a basic part of all science.
quote:
If you draw the wrong conclusion from the facts presented, your faulty reasoning is what is determining the scientific conclusion rather than the evidence itself, even though it is erroneous.
That's why we have the system of peer review and the repeatability of results in science. An individual finding might be in error, but if 100 repetitions, by 100 different labs, all come to a similar finding, then the chances that the finding is correct are much greater.
This is why the ToE is so strong; the basic premise has never been falsified, even with millions of individual tests of that premise over 150 years.
quote:
Although of course you wouldn't agree that evolutionists are guilty of this, that's my point, creationists have a different view of all this, but it is the evolutionist views that prevail here, right or wrong, and this is how the deck is stacked against creationists.
But we could certainly be wrong! It's just that it's
evidence that will show us to be wrong.
What is your evidence that we are wrong?
Much more importantly, what is your positive evidence that your version of Creationism is correct? Remember, it has to explain ALL of the data better than the ToE, be falsifiable, etc.
quote:
Yes, but this is really a strange idea, common though it is, as if people simply "believe" in things without the slightest evidence or reason to believe them. People are not made that way.
Of course you have a reason to believe in the religion that you do, or in religion in general. Somebody told you about it one time, and probably when you were a child.
That's why the largest determinants of what religion a person follows is their place of birth and the religion of their parents.
It is also true that religious belief has an evolutionary benefit, because it aids group cohesion. A group of people who all think the same way is powerful, while a group of individual thinkers is likely to harbor more dissent.
quote:
We may believe many things on bad evidence or may have faulty ways of thinking about evidence but we never believe anything at all without having what we think is good evidence for it.
Logic is not at all natural for humans. This has been well-understood in Psychology for a while now. We survived as a species for a long time by making snap judgements about things that we didn't stop to consider, and we still do exactly that, every day. Ever hear anything about wanting to make a good first impression, and that people make broad judgements about each other within the first few
seconds of meeting someone new? This is basic human nature, not "careful, reasoned thought and consideration".
quote:
Well, what the USA and other western democracies were supposedly founded on was a basic respect for human beings.
Yes. And also freedom from religious oppression by the government. (see my sig quote below)
quote:
It was the Christian influence on the West that brought this about gradually over the centuries.
You do know that many of the Fouders were not Christian, and actually partially based the US secular government upon the values of the Pagan democratic system of Rome, don't you? In fact, several of our prominent Founders were quite strongly anti-religion, such as Paine.
quote:
There is no license to vilify and condemn others for merely having a different point of view than you have. The arrogant self-righteousness you and others express about this issue is what is dangerous and opposed to democratic values.
Which group is more arrogant and self-righteous; the group which believes that only science should be included in public school science curricula, and that the Estblishment Clause of our Constitution should be upheld, or the group which believes that their particular non-scientific religious view should be taught by science teachers and paid for with taxpayer funds?
quote:
But the point, again, is that this attitude here is so thick you'd need a sledgehammer to crack it, and is most definitely exactly what I mean about how the deck is stacked against creationists at this site.
Which person is more arrogant; the one who claims that all scientists are buffoons and that, even though they have no training in any scientific area, and in fact has never been to college at all, they can show in a couple of paragraphs that 150 years of scientific work is a pile of garbage, or the one who has studied for years, earned a degree, and works in the field, and does his or her best to be patient with the first person but is starting to get tired of the same, tired, ignorant arguments being spewed at them over and over?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2005 12:52 PM
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson
™ Version 4.2
