What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

I'm proposing this as a companion thread to What evidence is needed to change a creationist, where Lithodid-Man has requested that creationist responses not be discussed. The creationist responses tell me that creationists have trouble seeing when evidence is connected to conclusions. In some cases they draw conclusions unrelated to the evidence, and in others they reject conclusions clearly indicated by the evidence. I'll use this opening post to address Buzsaw's Message 13.Lithodid-Man described his topic this way: Replying now to Buz's Message 13: Buz sees fulfilled Biblical prophecies as evidence for creationism. Since, for example, Daniel predicts the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, therefore there was a global flood.This is a common feature of creationist thought, drawing conclusions about things unrelated to the evidence under consideration, so it seems valid to conclude that to convince creationists of science you first have to find a cure for incredibly fuzzy thinking. There are two problems with this statement. First, science can only comment on the evidence for a phenomenon, and so far there is no evidence of this phenomenon.Second, science doesn't falsify phenomena. It seeks to explain and understand phenomena by gathering and interpreting evidence. It is the hypotheses and theories regarding phenomena that are falsified, not the phenomena themselves.There is a class of phenomena where it is the observations that are in error, such as the canals on Mars and N-Rays, but science takes care of this problem through the requirement of replication. For example, you might get different astronomers to draw pictures of the canals of Mars and see if they match. Astronomers did produce such drawings, and of course they never matched, and so even though some astronomers of note were canal advocates (e.g., Percival Lowell) the possibility of canals on Mars never won broad acceptance within science, and as better telescopes became available it became obvious the canals were not really there, but were just an artifact of staring for a long time at a blurry image. Once again we see the lack of any connection of evidence, in this case supposed evidence for Exodus, to any creationist position. For instance, one would never reason, "Because Exodus happened, therefore there was a global flood." Or more specifically but having nothing to do with creationism, one would never argue, "Because Exodus was a real event, therefore the Red Sea actually *did* part and the Egyptian army *was* drowned when the parted waters returned." This is a legitimate request actually related to creationist beliefs. Buzsaw requests that science explain how the design apparent in nature could have arisen naturally. This is legitimate, too. We've typically done a poor job on the Big Bang, where I think we should resort more often to "We don't know." Not that we aren't working on it, not that we don't have some ideas, but the truth is that we do not as yet know what caused the Big Bang or what came before it. This is the same fallacy as point 2. Science observes phenomena, it doesn't falsify them. All science can say about phenomenon for which there is no evidence is that it is what it is. There's no evidence, so science has nothing to say. Seems like a good question, but the anthropic principle is very difficult to discuss. This is perhaps Buz's best point. Creationists don't accept scientific arguments concerning the origin of life or the origin of species because it just seems so incredibly miraculous that matter and energy could just do this all by themselves without guidance. It is easier for them to accept the miracle of God than the miracle of unguided matter and energy creating life.But this doesn't explain from where springs all the creationist nonsense. Just because it seems impossible for life to spring from non-life, that doesn't mean that science is wrong about the Big Bang, wrong about the age of the universe, wrong about the age of the earth, wrong about radiometric dating, wrong about how floods affect geology, and so forth.To have legitimacy, creationism has to develop consistent criteria for what it accepts and rejects in science. Creationists accept science that gives them better televisions and computers, or spectacular pictures of Jupiter and Eta Carina, but they reject it if it comes anywhere near their belief in the Bible, and this criteria has nothing to do with evidence or the quality of evidence. This inconsistency regarding the assessment of evidence is a primary reason why creationism isn't science, because it illustrates how creationism is just a random list of scientific theories they reject based upon their religious beliefs.--PercyEdited by Admin, : No reason given.Edited by Percy, : Fix introductory paragraph.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

In many threads in which Tesla participates the discussion turns from the topic to trying to convince Tesla that he's talking nonsense. Rather than having this problem engulf yet another thread, I propose that we just ignore Tesla in this thread. Moderation will catch up with him in time.--Percy

Actually, if you read Lithodid-Man's opening post (Message 1) you'll see he said that the reasons didn't have to be plausible.But my Daniel example (and I'm familiar with the whole prophecy, I was just keeping things simple, as always) wasn't an example of an implausible reason, but of making an invalid connection between evidence and conclusions, i.e., arguing that fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy makes it more likely that a global flood really did happen.That's what this thread is about, making invalid connections between evidence and conclusions.--Percy

CFO is not only repeating the mistake of making an invalid connection between evidence and conclusions, but there's also the shadow of the fallacy of argument from authority lurking in the background. CFO already believes that the Bible is accurate and true in every respect, and this is an argument from authority.But he understands that others might not accept that the Bible is infallible, so he argues that the more of the Bible that is shown true, the more likely it is that the portions not yet shown true are also true, which is the mistake you just noted of reaching a false conclusion from the evidence.But even if we accept CFO's premise that proving one part of the Bible true increases the likelihood that other parts are true, that would still be asking science to accept an argument based upon the authority of the Bible, and the argument from authority is one of the most obvious and easiest fallacies to recognize. Science builds knowledge upon evidence, not upon declarations of what is so by supposed authorities. Yeah, pretty much the right reaction. CFO seems to believe that Exodus is relevant evidence regarding evolution while fossils and genetics are not. And that's the whole point of this thread, trying to answer the question of how we get creationists to see that proving things like Exodus and prophecy have nothing to do with evolution.--Percy

Your point has been directly addressed, I don't know how you could miss it. Literacy? Did you mean literal inerrancy? The point you're missing is that arguing in this way invokes the fallacy of argument from authority, and it draws conclusions unrelated to the evidence. More specifically, showing some aspects of the Bible true is unrelated to the truth of other aspects. This is also the fallacy of argument from authority, and it does mean that you believe that proving things like Exodus and prophecy is somehow related to evolution.To believe the argument from authority you must believe that the increasing evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity discovered during the 1920's means that Einstein's pronouncements about quantum theory (e.g., "God does not play dice") were becoming more likely true. But it doesn't work that way. Einstein's pronouncements on both relativity and quantum theory, completely different areas of study at the time, depended only upon the supporting evidence. Their truth or falsity were independent of one another. As Einstein was found to be right about relativity, that didn't mean that his opinions about quantum theory were more likely right.The mistake creationists make is to see relationships and interdependencies where none exist.Science doesn't work the way you would like it to work. Science is based upon evidence, not revelation, not authority, and certainly not upon conclusions drawn from unrelated evidence.--Percy

I think you're using the wrong definition of formal science, and televisions and computers derive more from the engineering disciplines than the sciences, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. You're trying to characterize evolution as a soft science, as opposed to the hard sciences like physics and chemistry. This is an interesting criticism of evolution, not one with much acceptance within science circles, but it isn't really the topic of this thread.This thread is exploring the question of why creationists have difficulty properly connecting evidence to conclusions. Both Buzsaw and CFO seem to believe that if it is demonstrated that the Exodus actually happened or that prophecies have been fulfilled that these comprise evidence against evolution. I've described in my previous posts how this is not only the fallacy of the argument from authority, but also draws a connection between two things that are as unrelated as they could be. Why is it that when talking about evolution, creationists spend much of their time talking about unrelated evidence from Bible instead of evidence from the natural world.--Percy

This is a nearly perfect example of what I'm talking about. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that genetic analysis reveals that the human race went through a severe genetic bottleneck consistent with a mere 8 individuals about 4500 years ago. Keeping in mind that we're trying to think scientifically, why would this result make you think that the fallacy of argument from authority is no longer a fallacy, and that you no longer need seek evidence of a global flood before concluding there was one?--Percy

This is another example of the same thing, creationist inability to make valid connections between evidence and conclusions, with a couple misconceptions about geology and evolution mixed in for good measure, and with the result that I can't figure out what you're actually trying to say.Why don't you stick with your original point? You asked why a genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago wouldn't be considered evidence for a flood, and I asked you why you think the two are related. If we're talking about science, then you need evidence for a flood, not revelation. There are plenty of threads where taking shots at evolution would be on-topic. This isn't one of them.--Percy

Right, exactly. The question is why creationists think evidence for one thing is also supportive of something completely unrelated. I think it all goes back to the Bible, where they believe the more they prove some parts of the Bible true, the more likely it makes it all true.At some level they must realize this is nonsense, because they have no trouble understanding the frequently made point that the discovery of Troy didn't make Apollo and Aphrodite any more real.--Percy

Personally, I prefer walls.--Percy

This is actually two different questions.First is the inherent question of whether historical texts constitute acceptable evidence. Certainly historical texts can provide potentially valuable clues to past events. For example, much effort has been expended trying to identify an astronomical event that might explain the Star of Bethlehem, nothing identified as of yet. The Illiad and The Odyssey both provided clues that there might have actually been an ancient city called Troy, which was found.So the answer is, of course, yes to the actual question about whether Genesis is sufficient reason to seek evidence of a global flood. This search was carried out in earnest by geologists of the 18th and 19th century, to no avail, and to this day no evidence of a global flood has ever been found.But this isn't really the topic. Why do creationists believe that the more the Bible is proven true, the more likely the rest of it is true, too? Why is it that when talking about evolution, creationists spend much of their time talking about unrelated evidence from the Bible instead of evidence from the natural world?--Percy

It's a little hard to tell, but it seems as if you're saying that creationists resist scientific reasoning because it feels like they're being asked to give up their religious beliefs.The extent to which this is true depends upon the religious beliefs in question. There's no problem for those whose only concern is accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts as Lord and Savior. But what if the evidence says the earth is old and your religious beliefs say the earth is young. What conclusions will you draw from the evidence?--Percy

The anthropic principle is the shorthand term for what Buz was referring to when he asked why conditions in our universe seem just right for life. If you do a search of EvC Forum for the word "anthropic", you'll see it gets used here all the time. There was even a thread dedicated to the topic early last year, The Anthropic Principal - Cosmology, you might want to give it a read.Putting the anthropic principle into the context of this thread raises this question: From the fact that conditions in our universe seem just right for life, why do creationists conclude that the earth is only 6000 years old and that there was a global flood only 4500 years ago.--Percy

I don't think anyone finds rejection of modern dating methods frustrating. No one really cares that certain conservative Christian sects reject much of modern science. It only becomes frustrating when they insist that their religious beliefs are science that should be taught in public school science classrooms.You do seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of science, and it might be worth exploring those to see if they lie at the root of creationist inability to engage in scientific reasoning. For example, you say: No one is asking you to trade in your soul. All science requires is following the evidence where it leads. If by "truth" you mean the types of truths that are timeless and eternal, then science doesn't deal in truth at all. Science is tentative, after all.But if by "truth" you mean formulating tentative theories about the natural world based upon evidence gathered through observation and experiment, then science has an excellent track record, the best method ever discovered for figuring out how the universe works. Science doesn't say that people who believe God created the world are crazy. It does say that the evidence supports the theory that the world formed through natural processes about 4.56 billion years old. Science doesn't say this, either. Science is tentative. If science weren't tentative then old ideas could never change and new ideas could never be introduced, leaving us stuck with the science of Archimedes and Aristotle.So I guess the key question is why, sticking with dating as an example, creationists hear about verifications of Exodus or fulfillment of prophecy and conclude that this makes it more likely that science is wrong and the earth is young. To anyone thinking scientifically this seems the height of scientific irrationalism.--Percy

There've been plenty enough replies to this, and they all seem to be making correct points, so I'm going to look at your post solely from the perspective of whether it represents an example of creationist inability to connect evidence to valid conclusions.

1. TheDarin: You oppose that ID should be taught alongside of EVO. Therefore we see you clearly as anti-God.
   ​
   Many people who accept evolution believe in God. I find it impossible to believe you're not aware of this, so obviously there is a significant disconnect between evidence and conclusions.
   ​
2. TheDarin: EVO is a religion taught in our schools - it preaches that religion has no place in reality
   ​
   This is just an accusation with no attempt made to connect evidence to conclusion. The rebuttal is obvious and has been made so many times here I won't repeat it.
   ​
3. TheDarin: I say this because, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.
   ​
   Again, there's no attempt to connect evidence to conclusion. This is just an unsupported accusation. In essence you're declaring that anything that opposes ID is therefore an opposing religion.

--Percy