Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

My how superior we all are. Aren't we?Percy started with a somewhat slanted, but interesting question. Faith gave an excellent explanation, even if I felt Faith may have had some errors about science and evolution. In fact it was such a good reply, I wondered where the heck (s)he was all this time. This was quality writing.I did not think it called for people to point out every error, and I found it a bit interesting that no one (at least not till later) admitted some of the tentativity of Evolutionary Theory, which seemed to me what Faith had been driving at.I think this would have been a nice place to find out how communication can occur between evolutionary theorists and creationists regarding how we treat science in general and theories regarding earth/life history in specific.Is there a slant at EvC? Well yes, and some of it is with good reason as will happen when one side is presenting better hands consistently. That kind of slant can't really be helped. However there is also a bigotry by many "evos" here based on the fact that they have played winning hands in the past, which seems to have granted them an illusion everything they do must be gold... and in some strange cases a justification for not using reason in other circumstances.In fact, evos here that do very well on evolutionary theory arguments sometimes thoroughly reject reason and evidence once the evc issue is no longer the topic, though science may be. In those cases I have seen evos continue to bash creationists outside evc topics, based on the fact that the creos were not winning on evc topics.I guess what I am saying is that it does appear that there is a bias against creos in that they are treated as if they have nothing worthwhile to say or believe. There is a smugness by many evos just because they happen to use scientific method on evc questions, they must be superior across the board (nevermind the lack of science anywhere else).I'm not going to get into a huge finger pointing session, but will use as my evidence the fact that I have on several occassions had to (or felt I had to) defend creos regarding their nonEvC beliefs from evos that were simply punking on them in the most hypocritical fashion. And when I defended these creos I got no support, just disappearing acts from the evo side.Thus if they cannot come on here and discuss anything without getting punked on, despite using equal criteria as evos (ie if they cannot get cut slack on issues where even the evos are no longer using evidence and logic), then there is a problem... There is a problem.If they felt they could at least get some traction then perhaps it would be a bit more interesting to try and bridge the gap on some of the more stubborn aspects of EvC.Oh, before anyone pulls out the PCKB card, let me say I admit some culpability for smugness and jumping on creos when I smell blood regarding EvC. I am only saying this as I think we all could have cut Faith some slack and noted the excellent writing and perhaps some of our own weaknesses. That did not appear to be the case.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't think I saw that one. In any case I do agree that people can come on with a complete lack of knowledge and so deserve a bit of "correcting" and if they persist then perhaps a bit of "heckling" (though Faith truthfully pointed out that really doesn't solve anything).I also think some people feel more put upon than they actually are, especially some of the more obstinate types.But the question is if their is a general bias such that one side gets a bit more unnecessary derision/maltreatment than the other. I think there is and it is coming from the evo side. It isn't so much on EvC matters in specific, though sometimes it can be, but it usually gets thrown back into that (with evos citing EvC victories to somehow make them look good outside EvCm topics).I guess this is just to say you are right and I didn't mean to say no one ever deserved the hard time they got... or are going to get.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But honestly Percy, isn't it true that outside of purely EvC issues, though they may still be scientific ones, creos are generally treated worse than evos on this very matter?Haven't evos hopped all over creos on some matters, and then disappeared or continued punking without acknowledgment when evidence and reason were shown not to be on the evos side, and perhaps the creos had a leg to stand on?I think it may be more correct to say conservative vs liberal rather than creos vs evos, but that is usually how it pairs up (in non EvC topic arguments). Liberals act as if they have righteous truth because they have science and logic on their side, without actually doing their homework to see if they are, and swinging them around nominally in order to make the creos look like they are throroughly bankrupt.One good thing that might come out of this discussion is an admission that both sides need to clean up their acts regarding evidence and logic as per the stated guidelines.Another thing could be getting down to an understand of what science is between these camps as it relates to truth or "reality", so both sides understand when they are taking about something beyond science, and whether they really need the support of science for their position.I don't mean to come off like I am dismissing your posts. I am in general agreement with what you are saying, including the specifics in your exchange with Faith. But I do think a larger picture of bias can be seen if we look at how people conduct themselves. It is certainly not inherent, and can be improved.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I wouldn't. As far as I can tell a few of the worst posters regarding evidence and logic are concerned are evos when dealing with topics outside of the direct EvC debate, and this can include other science topics.I think these evos are cut slack that no one like Buz, Faith, or Mike are given, and often seem to be held in high regard despite the obvious tactics they share with the above (even if put more eloquently).Mammuthus was correct that i was driving at the fact that every side has the same level of bad behavior temperament wise, but I want to make clear it also extends to evidence and logic.I don't think it is useful to debate which side is more lacking as it is not groups posting, it is individuals. The fact that the lapses of evos are given kinder treatment than those of creos however is and indicator of general group bias.I think there is a background debate missing (or neglected) regarding what science, evidence, and logic are... not to mention truth. I think that causes much of the talking past each other and feelings of resentment.Percy may very well be right (or what I think he is saying) that creos are essentially avoiding the task of debate, and substituting whining that they are oppressed rather than admitting they might be wrong. Okay. But then I think that background debate must be had so that common ground, and ground rules, can be found for discussion. Maybe they'll still cry when the going gets tough? Maybe, but then I'd keep looking at the individuals as cutting and running (or whining) and not the group.If creos have more whiners and less good debaters, that will not lessen the fact the evos suffer the same issue and have a bias for cutting slack to other evos.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Obviously impressions are subjective. But lets try and get a bit more objective if we can.When we talk about cutting people slack, that to me is overlooking errors they commit in order to allow them to continue holding their position, or at least to keep attacking their opponent on an issue.Using that definition I am hardpressed to say where you have seen creos get cut slack on anything. There is a bit of a pile on with usually most any detail they get wrong or are perceived to have gotten wrong. And yes, I have been within those piles so I am not just pointing at others.They usually get ridden until they give up and leave, or there is a back and forth repetition until a thread is closed.This is not so true of evos. When mistakes are made, or the person is wholly errant but on the "right" political side, then I do not see the pile ons that creos get. I have even tried to start some, only to watch people disappear. Yes it happens some of the time, but it is much rarer than what is seen for creo departures from evidence and logic.Do you really see this site as people leaving creos to say what they want, while evos are generally attacked en masse?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh, well outside of strictly EvC debate, particularly Coffee House Topics, I have seen pretty many "easy to rebut" statements come from evos, that get the total kid glove treatment from other evos. I have also seen plenty of inflammatory attitude from "our" side.Heck I was really amazed when people picked on Buz for disappearing when several evos obviously pack bags and head out once their logic and evidence have been appropriately questioned.I do not see people attacking evos as much as much as I see people attacking creos for their bad habits.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree with this, but do not believe it is held consistently, especially by evos toward other evos. I think it is something both sides need to start getting a handle on. That is an interesting analysis. However not all arguments are of such detailed issues, and rely more on simply attribution of fact (some citation) and logic. Maybe evos are generally more clever writers and so are caught less?I dunno. I suppose that could be the case, but that doesn't help the issue. I've seen evos correctly caught out by creos as well as me, and the room falls silent. When creos duck and run they are almost always called on it. I think it is safe to say that when evos duck and run they are not usually brought to task for that behavior, especially by the community, and if the excuse "I was busy" is given, then they are somehow believed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I didn't want to get into specifics of who I thought was guilty of such a thing, even if people want me to talk about it. It isn't relevant to solving the problem.I will address your post in specific because we sort of have a history and I think it has an illustrative point. Yes, you were guilty of this on a couple of occassions and I kept holding your feet to the fire about it. Unlike most of the cases I am talking about (and this is on both sides) you admitted this was your problem.Thus when Buz had his thread it seemed at least more honest for you to be addressing him about his fault in this regard as you had the honesty to discuss your own shortcomings on that same topic.We all have flaws, I certainly have mine, and as a "group" I think both sides need to clean house and not dwell on whose house is more messy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, this is what I'm getting at exactly. I guess I felt to address just the creo half of the "problem" was itself showing that the creos had a point about bias.Whether one "side" has more of such issues than the other is irrelevant, members need to be fair in how they enforce the requirements for evidence, logic, and good debating.By this I don't mean to say people need to start bickering and fingerpointing more, just that we need to be a bit more honest and hold our "side" to better evidence and logic. Hopefully that can be done without bitterness (though perhaps I am not a good rolemodel in that department).(NOTE: As far as the actual question raised in this thread by Percy, I think there are also other issues which prevent good dialogue and create perceptions of bias which aren't there. I think most creos (at least this seems to be what is emerging from my vantage point) have a different view of what science is and what its role is and so how it needs to be approached. That sort of makes these discussions like two groups building a single railroad from opposite ends of the country and missing the connection in the middle... only to blame the other side for the screwup.)

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree with this, but I want to put some sympathy in for the evos here as well.Science as it is known today is a process. Evos are speaking about this process and its results. If you have a different belief in what science is or how it should operate then that could be valid, but it is not a fault of the evos if they do not understand this method and I think there is good reason for them to expect modern science to be the standard unless it is specifically noted beforehand that it will not be used.Much frustration I believe occurs exactly because they are speaking from the long history of building the process and what its application has rendered only to find themselves being called biased toward some metaphysical position with no basis. It does have a basis, a very firm one. It is what we have been using for the last few centuries to develop the industrial and now the information age.While you are right that some of what is said regarding the results of its application should be more tentatively phrased, tentative does not necessarily mean equal to any and all other theories. Just because theory X may not be the right theory, does not mean theory Y is even a contender, much less be respected as a valid contender.I guess this is to say while some evos aren't careful to delineate what is tentative, many creos approach the subject as if there are only two choices and they only need to poke holes in evo to prove creo, rather than show reason for creo (even within a different standard).There is also the tendency to use logical possibilities as criticisms of theories. Again, this may go back to a fundamental difference in how science is approached, but to modern science there needs to be more than simply a logically possible explanation if one is going to criticize a logically possible explanation that has been studied and takes into account many different phenomena.Doing the above, as well as embracing any possible theory which sounds similar to creationism (including ones that conflict with other stated beliefs or theories) makes it seem as if some creos are adopting an "any port in the storm" method of argument, and frankly the latter problem is a logical error no matter if creos approach science differently.Don't evos have a right to expect a sound coherent theory or model if one is going to challenge their sound coherent theory? Obviously sound and coherent does not equal right, which is why evo can certainly be challenged, but overthrowing one theory usually requires something better to replace it with... and I don't mean morally better.Hmmmmm, let me wrap up. I think you have a point, and a discussion on science may be necessary before we can discuss its products without bickering based on disjointed background beliefs. However with this, as well as a need for more tentative language regarding some scientific products, creos should be careful not to try and squeeze more out of tentativity than it really has to offer.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks, I think you have an excellent writing style. I wish I was as clear and straightforward in my writing. As it happens I think some of my lack of clarity resulted in some misunderstandings... My apologies for not making my point clearer. You are correct with the above assessment. The ToE and geologic timelines are products of the scientific process and not the process itself, nor necessary for the continued function of the process. Let me start again...There are many possible methods for gaining "knowledge" about the world. Whether knowledge equals coherent models for practical understanding/control, or having absolute truth, is a debatable issue. Over time methods have been refined and even the idea of what knowledge is has shifted.Modern science is the process or method of gaining "knowledge" (as coherent model, favoring accuracy over absolute truth) which has been developed over centuries, making its greatest gains and solidification during the last 3 centuries. Thus I am talking about the rules of how theories are constructed and investigated.It is this process which has resulted in many advancements, two being the industrial and information age. Thus there is a basis for trusting the techniques this process contains.Two other products of this process's application are the ToE and the current Geologic Timeline. Evos are generally consistent (in EvC debates) of arguing from and for the process, and expecting opponents to do the same.I think this is a major sticking point as it seems to me creos are coming from a different assumption of what science is and what its processes should be. This is supported very well by the frequent attacks by creos on methodological naturalism, as well as IDist attacks on the same as well as calling for returns to inductive reasoning and rejection of staples such as Occam's Razor.To be honest, there is no inherent problem to using a different method of gaining knowledge, and while the successful history of the modern scientific method gives it some advantage in discussing its merits, does not mean it is the only or best method of reaching a conclusion (especially if one has a different idea of knowledge).I think creos need to step back and assess what they really think of science, or methods of gaining knowledge, and even what knowledge is, and perhaps admit to themselves that they are approaching the debate not to attack the ToE within the framework of modern science (which unfortunately is the claim going on right now) but the very process of how science works.Given that the EvC debate is generally occuring within the context of what children should be taught in science class, this is why evos have a valid expectation that when arguments are brought forward, that they are from the framework of modern science... the current [i]process[/].If we are asking what should children be taught what is the product of scientific method as applied to life history, the ToE is the best model that has been established and if it is going to be attacked must be done through the established rules of modern science. Only if we are asking what should children be taught science is and how it functions, do we raise the ability to attack the ToE through alternate methods, though modern science itself must first be rejected.See, right about now I wish I had your or Sylas's clarity in writing. I hope the above made sense. Actually this is not wholly accurate. I don't want to get into a huge debate on any of the specific issues of ToE or OE (old earth) timelines. That is for internal threads. But I did want to point out that this was not the way it occured, and the scientific process later discovered other techniques which coincidentally found more corroborating evidence (that is it matched the expectations based on earlier models). Its that kind of stuff (and I realize you gave a nod to the significance od radioactive dating) that adds to the strength of the prevailing model. But this is inaccurate. I am an evo and I am giving creos all the credence I give everyone else. I have even defended creo positions, especially those outside the strict EvC debate. There are others who give them credence, and I believe Percy does or he wouldn't have started this site at all.If we want to be honest, I know of no creo site which grants any credence to evos such that they can even become or remain members for long. This is not to cast a shadow over all creos, but to make a point that this site at the very least holds a number of members that give creos credit at the beginning and are hoping for a dialogue.If you want an admission that no evo thinks a creo is going to win the debate, you are probably right. I don't think you'll win, especially within the framework of the modern scientific process. This is not to say the process was designed to slight creos, or any religious doctrines about material existence, only that the process seems to have generated enpugh products that are inconsistent with one specific doctrine.Yet this belief does not mean I reject a creo stance out of hand and right off the bat.I mean I assume you think you'll win, but are willing to see what comes of debate.Oh yeah, let me say I am not saying all evos will be fair. I have seen enough bad evos all over the place, much less at EvC, to readily admit some will be as dogmatic as the stereotypical bible-thumping preacher. Its just that this does not apply to all and we should go in with the assumption it won't be the average conduct displayed. It is this statement in specific which makes me believe that we are discussing different concepts of science, scientific method, and knowledge. You appear to be arguing that science has operated by deductive reasoning, rather than inductive reasoning, as well as exhibitin one of the problems I mentioned which is stating that a few unconnected logical possibilities form a coherent attack against ToE or OE.This makes you wrong from within the framework of the modern scientific method, which is why many evos will rush to criticize each point, but not wrong in an objective sense. Science is a man-made process. I will be one to argue the merits of modern science over alternative methods, but I will recognize there are issues with its use that means it is not the only possibility.Thus several debates are formed.1) What is knowledge?
2) What is the proper (ie best or most worthwhile) method of seeking knowledge?
4) What method should children be taught?
5) What products of the method should be taught to children?
6) If the products have ramifications on religious doctrine, can or should these be ameliorated through some instructional tool?Hope this all made sense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Whoops whoops whoops... I did not mean there are no inherent problems to any method. What I meant is that there was no inherent problem to having a rival method, or arguing for it.Yes, arguments must be made to work out problems and get to a preferable theory and set of mechanisms. That is why #1 and 2 on my list of debates regard getting that squared away.I do agree that every method toward knowledge is flawed in some way and we are trying to overcome those flaws. Methodological naturalism certainly has some. But I feel the trade of (flaws vs gains) are immense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Again, this statement betrays not necessarily a wrong view of how science can work, but rather a misunderstanding of how modern science does work. It is adequate methodology (worked out largely over the last 300 years) which determines whether it is science according to its modern meaning.For example I could not go into a chemistry lab and simply ask scientific questions and employ scientific concepts and believe I will receive a passing grade (at school), keep my job (at work), or get published (in a peer-reviewed journal).I must use the correct methods to answering the questions, and employ all modern scientific concepts.It is possible to argue that these methods exclude logically possible explanations which may be the truth. For some that may be reason to weaken rules of investigation, but the counterargument is we have seen the errors which result from weaker rules/methods and they are not worth the possible benefits. That is a debate and perhaps one of the first that needs to be worked through.In any case, it needs to be understood upfront that what we call science today, thus modern science, is a set of extremely stringent demands on evidence and logic leading to a conclusion in order to build a model regarding natural phenomena.Just as much as I think it is a duty of evos to understand the tentative nature of conclusions and the weaknesses of methodological naturalism (MN), it is the duty of creos to come to understand that MN is the backbone of modern science, and that to bring in evidence or logic outside that framework requires an argument for abandoning modern science itself.Again, since EvC debates traditionally center on what we must teach kids in science class regarding tenets of science (current scientific models of how things work/worked), to argue they must not be taught evo, or to be taught creo, is to argue they should be taught something other than modern science. All of this appears to add up to a great argument of why in science classes, evo theory should be taught. Regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, there is only one solid conceptualization of species diversity and geologic activity, and it is the result of modern scientific method.The above argues that creos need to get a firm and coherent set scientific principles if modern scientific methodology is inadequate (currently it is scattershot or patchwork), and develop a solid concept (singular model).Asking that children be taught to ignore what current science does have as a pretty solid model, because a currently noncoherent model may form later, does not seem satisfactory. And to avoid debate on what I mean by noncoherent, I am not saying false, just not put together as a complete model. This appears to be an attitude shared by some evos as well. The idea being that once you add in Biblical theories you must also teach the scientific objections to them. You can't simply mandate objections to evo, and throw in the Bible, without allowing the same airing of objections to the Bible.Of course this is one of the main arguments for keeping the Bible out of science courses altogether. Simply teaching evo as part of scientific models regarding the world does not in itself reject any religion or refute any religion. Forcing people to add religion into that class will open the door to anti-religious arguments. Well this is an interesting viewpoint. Which is evo and which is creo? It appears to me that evo was the theory which overcame general problems in creo-type models. And now creos are acting as if they are coming in to overthrow problems in evo models.I suppose it can all be cyclical, but I want to ask you honestly about something... Has it ever made sense to teach the possible paradigms which might replace the current one, before the new paradigms have been rigorously established?This is critical to the concrete EvC debate in schools. I think you may have misinterpreted what Percy was driving at. He did not reject out of hand creo sides of debate. What he did was explain what bar creos need to match while engaging in debate. It is not a one-sided bar, evos are also set to the same standard. And the standard itself is not biased. Plenty of models have been rejected, and certainly some regarding evo.Do you honestly believe that the creo model of earth history and species diversity has been hammered out? If so, then Percy should be easy to answer. If not, then Percy's comments are correct. It does not exclude creos from debate, only shows the bar everyone is expected to meet with regard to evidence and logic within a proposed model.If there are objections to the level of evidence and logic required in a model, then we are discussing a debate on science, and scientific method.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Biology is a true science, as well as geology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Each is a field of study where the modern scientific method has been applied, and models generated.In order to say one is challenging the ToE or OE timelines, one will be challenging certain models that chemistry has produced, and techniques used, as they have ended up supporting both the ToE or OE.But I don't want to get into that detailed of a discussion here. More important, and I am really thinking this is becoming obvious, is that you need to learn a bit more about the history and philosophy of science. Doing so may help you be able to differentiate between problems with models a method has generated and a problem with the methods themselves. There seems to be an equivocation going on here right now. Here is an example... What you seem to be saying is that all creos are doing is attacking the models evos have constructed, without realizing that this description of how the models were generated (and valid methods of countering it) are not from the framework of modern scientific method.Certainly the above analysis could be made from a different framework, and one that did exist for a time. However it is no longer used and is not how theories (models) are established or perpetuated.What you are describing is a Deductive method. Current scientific method (and it's been pretty solid in the physical sciences for over 100 years) is Inductive. Yes, both may use initial evidence to form a general theory which is inductive reasoning, but what they do next is different.Indeed, one can see that very recently (like this last week) scientists have found something which presents a challenge to a very important (assumed universal) mechanism of inheritance within the ToE.That was one of those "extrapolations" and "imaginative scenarios", and a very important one. Yet it is seeing some revision. Likewise, you seem to hold some veneration for Chemistry, yet much of it is filled with extrapolations and imaginative scenarios.Indeed with the amount of evidence used to build the initial OE and ToE theories, if you have a problem with that then I am unsure how you accept Chemistry at all. Just last century were numerous revisions of what atoms were, as well as electrons, and frankly we still don't really "know" (especially electrons). The imaginative scenarios chemists use and continually test, are there because of their practical use and consistency of discovery and coherency of explanation.That is directly analogous to the ToE to biology and OE to geology. New models can be generated, as well as old ones readvanced, but it is how they are constructed and how they are compared which determines if we are doing modern science or not.Given the nature of the creo models, which I assume you are accepting is not coherent yet (due to lack of interest within overall science perhaps), it is hard to say that it stands worthy to be called "in competition". But lets say it is ready, then how shall we compare them?If you believe they cannot be compared because they are simply separate theories which explain the data differently, then you are arguing for a totally different view of scientific methodology.If you believe they can be compared, then doesn't it have to be within the same methodological framework we use in science toward all other theories, that is have the same expectations of coherence of model and nature of evidence? Well I'm not really talking about specific EvC debates here on the EvC site, I was trying to bring out the fact that the reason why EvC debates exist at all (in general) is due to issues regarding instruction of biological science in schools.I hope we can both agree that that was the reason they began and why we are still discussing them today. I'm not sure what to take from the above. I believe there are Constitutional issues which apply and are not specifically related to strict EvC debate. And in any case I am not sure that the above means a rejection of teaching current scientific theory.For example it seems to me one can believe the above and just mean that religious moral instruction should be within school curriculum, and not that biological sciences not be taught (or not taught according to modern scientific principles and their current models).To be frank, I wish you hadn't let me know you concur with the above. I found it quite insulting to me personally.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You seem to be missing the point. We would all agree that one can remove the ToE and OE and not destroy "science". The methods are not contingent upon any theories derived from them. In this you are completely correct.However this does not mean you can then diminish ToE and OE, as superfluous and disconnected from science. They are the current, best models that the methods we currently call science have produced.It may be valid, debatable, that the ToE and OE exist as the best models because so much energy has been put into exploring evidence which has by chance continued to support those models, rather than alternative models which may also be supported by all of the evidence, but no one has done all the work necessary. Or perhaps that some experiments/observations remain to be conducted/seen.This means the ToE and OE are not silly and saying so is a bit of a black mark in objectivity. They are the current best models produced, even if you believe they will be undercut with more research or once the complete creo model has been established.Of course maybe by saying "mostly untouched by all this scenario building" you mean that "true science" does not involve scenario building? I hope this is not the case as science most certainly does. If you think biological modelling is problematic, chemistry simply cannot be acceptable to you. The Periodic chart is not a fact, it is simply a useful tool which involves the formation a conceptual model (imaginative scenario) of elements.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)