Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

Not really. Its just the same idea applied in a different way.

For example, because our nutrition is better, people tend to be taller nowadays. Because of this the brain is further from the heart, so the heart must pump harder to feed it. This means a higher basic blood pressure(by some minuscule amount). In terms of a pump this is called head pressure.

Because of this there must be subtle changes in the strength, size and material of the blood vessels. The heart has to be larger as well. This is a very fine change in form. If the head pressure gets too high, blood vessels can burst, just as a fountain pump would burst a plastic straw.

So if someone is born with the pointless little mutation that their blood vessels are thicker, and they manage to pass this trait on to children, the kids are advantaged to make better use of an enhanced diet, and the the cycle feeds back into itself. Given time over many generations, this and other minor differences accumulate into a different (but quite similar) basic shape.

More blood vessels means more body mass, so now muscles have to maintain more strength, and dietary needs increase. This makes it more and more unlikely that further generations will be taller. That is called a regression to the mean. Its easier to produce a modest body.

So you see, just as slight intolerances to certain foods that your parents have become actual allergies in you, slight advantages in their genes become more fully expressed in you.

So I havent said anything about speciation, right? I'll stop right here and you tell me if what I have said sounds reasonable.

Jono is right, and you have ignored him. If it helps, try substituting a few other words into your argument. Any abstract noun will do. Here is a list of suggestions:
Irrational numbers
Friendship
Government
Capitalism
Fraud

What is the physical evidence for anything on this list?


Then why do you demand material evidence? Do you imagine science is only concerned with material objects?


Are you saying you feel entitled do deny any conclusion arrived at through scientific methods unless there is physical evidence that the methods are right? Even though you know that a method is not a material object?


There are different standards of proof in deduction and induction. I find that many people arguing against evolution switch these standards around whenever it suits them. You have to make clear which standard you mean. Is it clear to you that when you deal with any empirical data you can only demand proof to a statistical criterion?


I have to go with Sand and say: really?


Apply Descartes' argument that you might be deceived by a very powerful demon (the modern version is that you live in the Matrix). What are you observing if your observations are bits that have no existence except in the computer that generates them and in your neurons that are electrically stimulated by the computer? Or you might suffer from an elaborate hallucination. Or you might have the delusion that unconnected observations are connected.


What is is that you call the "sun"? A set of data concerning light and gravity? If what you name is just a data set, what is your physical evidence for anything beyond that data set? Is gravity a material object, or is that just another set of observations that you think are connected? What is it that you call "gravity"?


Prove it.


What standard of "conclusive" do you mean? The sort of standard used in mathematics? By that standard you have no conclusive proof about anything induced from empirical data. Do you want to argue that all hypotheses about empirical data are equally good? Flat Earth? Moon landing hoax? Hindu or Norse or Abrahamic creation myths?



I think you really are saying if scientists have to rely on something that can't be physically proven then anything goes, and anything else that can't be physically proven can claim equal status with any scientific theory. Is that your position in a nutshell?

I'm not saying anything goes at all--hardly the point.

My criticism isn't at science as a whole. It's against those who posit that ONLY physical evidence is valid; and I think most, if not all, true scientists will agree that the role of science is not to prove such things as logic.

So if logic can't be proven, according to this kind of logic (sorry for the irony), then there is no foundational basis for scientific thought. Science has to presuppose certain things to make its claims.

But we can "prove" logic by showing how logic manifests itself in things that just seem to work--even though logic itself is not a physical "thing." Just like math: If you add one object to another object, you get two objects. Add still another and you get three objects. We can say this using the "laws" of addition: 1+1+1=3. But numbers are representational and are meaningless on their own. Math is a form of logic and likewise cannot be "proven" so much as, say, the molecular structure of a cotton fiber. You can't, for instance, run an electrical current through it and separate it's two chief components like you can with water. Electricity, on the other hand, though it is an invisible force, can be physically proven to exist.

Now, getting back to the point, you asked me to prove a particular statement. I was being deliberately silly in making that statement to make a point, but I'll try to clarify. Evolution by nature cannot be "proven," only speculated about. "Hard" evolutionists will say that's because it's too long a process to prove. OK, so you CAN'T prove it. Likewise, I cannot take you back in time and "prove" to you that Creation happened. But I CAN say that existence owes itself to a deliberate creation on the part of a pre-existing Creator, and I can even point to the extreme improbability that abiogenesis (for example) happened purely by accident. Even lab science has trouble with this one, that is, trying to "force" abiogenesis. If radiocarbon and other rock-dating methods are assumed to be correct, you find that MOST likely this process would have taken more time than the Earth is old. What makes the Earth and our universe so special that something so perfect could happen this way?

Ergo, IF creationism is said to be silly, then so must evolution. I'm not saying you have to AGREE with it, just be more careful about how you express your opinions on the matter. Neither side CAN be conclusively and satisfactorily proven at this time beyond simple confirmation bias on both sides of the argument. To refrain from calling anybody stupid or silly is only being fair based on the evidence that we have.

Again, let me say it's not an "anything goes" attitude, so to answer your last question, no, it isn't my position. We HAVE to rely more on things which cannot be proven than some of us here are willing to admit, but that doesn't require "throwing the baby out with the bath." The point is that just because we can't physically PROVE it, it doesn't mean that it isn't useful or even necessary. Science is a valuable part of our lives, so it would be foolish not to validate its study. But it is also (I think) foolish to invalidate those things which we cannot study (the purpose of science is to observe those things which can be observed, not those things which it cannot), especially those unseen things on which science depends (logic).

This conclusion isn't based on ignorance, either. The private school I attended had exceptionally high academic standards considering the area, and though I didn't fare as well in math and science in HS as some of my classmates, I did score well above average in those areas on college entrance exams/aptitude tests--so much so I was only required to take a single college algebra course. I also have a master's degree in music composition, which required an intense theoretical study of set theory and other mathematical and scientific principles as applied to electronic music (though I'm still lost on so-called "computer music," but I imagine if I ever go back for a doctorate I'll get into that then--it's only a matter of time). But even if I hadn't had that level of education, much of what I've said can just as well be validated by much less sophisticated "common sense."

There are two kinds of valid evidence: empirical and correct mathematical reasoning. Everything else is either hypothetical or nonsense. Hypothetical issues must be empirically testable and mathematically consistent.

The religions of the world provide only nonsense. The basic premise of the theistic religions is not empirically testable, nor is it a priori true. So it is nonsense.

ruveyn

Now we going on to abiogenesis. That's a different concept from evolution. In order to understand evolution, we do not have to understand how it all started. Also, I need to point out that just because we don't fully know how something happened it does not mean "God did it". That's called the "God of the Gaps" argument.

One more thing, most of the evidence we have available actually DOES contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis.

If abiogenesis is so improbable, how is it that we are here having this conversation?

Oh, I forgot--God did it!

Who are those people? I don't know of a single one of them. Perhaps it would help if you explain what you mean by physical evidence. The distinction you appear to be making is problematic.


You say it is possible to prove logic through empirical evidence?


I ask again what you mean by proof. Are you saying nothing could ever convince you that evolution is true by the same standards you accept other scientific theories as true? Are you saying no scientific theory can be proven? Are you saying there is something peculiar problem with evolution that makes it impossible to prove? These are three very different ideas. Perhaps you mean something else?


Do you mean you can prove that? Please do.


Creationists often say that, and when I checked the assumptions behind their arguments, I have always found that they assume many events must happen independently. But I have never seen a theory of abiogenesis that makes the same assumption, making the creationist objection a classical straw man argument. Can you do better? What is your reason for saying abiogenesis is extremely improbable?

And as Jono said, you changed the subject. Biological evolution is what happens after the origin of life.


Let's discuss what proof means and what it means to observe something. You appear to think gravity is within the domain of science. I ask your questions about gravity:
What does gravity look like? Can you paint me a picture of it? Can I pick it off a tree?
Where is it? Can I buy a bucket of gravity off ebay?
If you can't give me physical proof of gravity, how may I believe in it? Prove to me that gravity is an observable, material entity.

Well, against a very extreme position, yes, this utterly destroys them. I've actually criticized the kind of position you are criticizing, but, that's because it is a bad position, not because a lot of people put it forward.

So if logic can't be proven, according to this kind of logic (sorry for the irony), then there is no foundational basis for scientific thought. Science has to presuppose certain things to make its claims.


If you mean "literally proven" then no, evolution can't be proven, but then neither can past events be proven. The world could have been brought into existence 5 minutes ago, and we have no compelling proof, but it is considered essentially "proven" that the Holocaust happened, that you were born to your mother on a particular day, and so on and so forth, and in such historical events we can consider one history "proven", another "disproven", and a third to be "absolutely absurd".

I am not sure that lab science having difficulty forcing abiogenesis is anything more than a God of the gaps kind of argument, and the problem is that a failure to solve a difficult problem doesn't mean that the problem is insoluble. Science sometimes grows in increments, and other times grows in inconceivable leaps, and in either case, I have to say that even if abiogenesis required a miracle, evolution could still be true on all of the facts.

As for "most likely" um... you just said that scientists haven't found a way to get it to happen yet, so how can you give an exact time period for this? Not only that, but is your source the scientists or a polemicist? After all, I have heard various aspects of evolution misrepresented in many ways in many different places, so how do I know that your source isn't a misrepresentation?


You're attacking abiogenesis, evolution is a change over time, it doesn't matter to evolution how the first creature got here. Additionally, yes, evolution has been conclusively and satisfactorily proven in the eyes of most as the only kind of satisfactory answer. As it stands, creationism is at this point to be considered an utterly ad hoc hypothesis.


A lot of the question is biology, not audiology or music theory, so I still don't think your point really stands. Even further, the question is also more scientific methodology and epistemology than audiology or music theory as well. So, while I am not going to say that you are dumb, this isn't just "science" because a person can do very well in science aptitude tests and in classes while still not understanding the basic method, and this is more a particular issue, which is evolutionary theory, than anything else. I hope this doesn't come off as condescending, as I think I am trying to engage your position

On that last point, that is not necessarily true. A careful reading of Genesis, even literally and given literary traditions of the various times in which various parts of the Bible was written, the creation story is itself wide open for debate. We can't know for sure, for example what constitutes a day and a night in the creation story. If God is an eternal, spiritual being and all-powerful, a "day" can be a literal 24-hour period, or it can last what might be to us millennia. I don't like to get into debates over the details of what a day means to God because those debates always spin off into quibbling over this detail or that detail and never results in something satisfactory to all people. I prefer to look at it in the sense that either you accept it or you don't. Regardless of specifics, if we are to assume that Moses is the physical author of and that God is the divine inspiration for Genesis, then it suffices that the creation story as God intended it was enough for the earliest readers and interpreters of Genesis.

Further, the Bible is NOT a science textbook. Its cosmology serves its own purpose, and we need no further explanation. Where we run into trouble is when science, which I think of (without getting into more recondite definitions) as the whole of all sets of observations and explanations of the physical world. The Bible does not seek to provide "smoking gun" evidence of the existence of God beyond existence itself, and therefore was written more exclusively for those who are willing to believe it. Science can't provide the "smoking gun" for God, nor can it provide any "smoking gun" for anything it can't directly observe. What HAS been proposed (scientifically/mathematically) is the "many-worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics, that is, the existence of all possible outcomes. Why couldn't one outcome be that a universe might exist in which the creation DID happen in like manner described by the Bible?

OK, I admit I'm out of my league here, as quantum mechanics is not my area. But if one were to hypothesize, based on the many-worlds interpretation, that a universe COULD exist in which God was the Creator, and that everything following happened according to the Bible, then how could it NOT be possible that God would provide insight into His mind through some kind of text, as in the Bible itself? Further, if such a universe did exist (remember, all outcomes are possible) as well as such an all-powerful God, would it not make sense for God to spread His plan for His creation across all universes? If that is true, is it also possible that a loving God makes it possible to reconcile with His people across many universes? If it is NOT true, is it possible that THIS is the universe in which God gave us His word in the form of the Bible, along with the plan of salvation as well as the creation story?

Logic and science suggest the possibility. Thus, if it is POSSIBLE that God exists, it is also POSSIBLE that the creationism is true and evolution is false. If it is also true, based on that perspective alone, then BOTH creationism AND evolution are true, OR both creationism AND evolution are true in a limited sense--that is, certain species have ALWAYS existed, while certain others have shown more radical adaptive variation and limited speciation. I don't mean to ignore other possibilities, of course, except that these are the ones pertinent to our discussion.

Also, keep in mind I never said any of that was conclusive, "smoking gun" PROOF either way. Even if you buy into some sort of "many worlds" hypothesis in favor of the Creation, you can still make the exact opposite case against it (except that one detail of "all possible outcomes" might give you trouble, but otherwise there's still a good case). If you still don't like the idea of the existence of God and "many worlds" is problematic, you can reject the "many worlds" interpretation of QM altogether.

Finally, as I've also already said, QM is not something I'm committed to in any way, so I can only argue based on what little bit I do know. It would do better for someone who actually works in theoretical study to clarify where there may be holes in my understanding of QM, but I don't THINK I'm far off the path.

First of all, if you don't consider the bible to be a science text book, then why is there a need to interpret certain chapters like Genesis as literal truths? Why should there be a problem with reinterpreting them in light of the current knowledge we have? The Vatican has attempted to reconcile Genesis with current knowledge, including no longer interpreting the "seven days" as seven 24 hour days. However, then it's no longer a literal interpretation.

Secondly, it's also not really true that science can only prove stuff that we directly observe. In fact a lot of science is on the basis of indirect evidence. For example, how do we know that the Sun contains hydrogen and helium. We can't land an unmanned spacecraft on the Sun to test composition directly. The Sun's chemical composition is determined from indirect evidence, either by examining the spectral lines of the light emitted (spectroscopy) or by observing the oscillations or waves propagating along the surface of the Sun (called helioseismology, the exact spectrum of wavelengths of these waves is determined by the composition of the medium in which they propagate).

As for quantum mechanics thing, both the many-words interpretation by Everette as well as Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation has to do with the role of measurement in Quantum Mechanics. The equations can describe an electron as being in a number of possible places at a particular time but when we do a measurement, it's only found in place. Just like a cat being both alive and dead at the same time (the famous Schroedinger's Cat), but it's only one or the other when we actually look. This is fascinating topic by itself but it's not relevant here. In this universe, the evidence is against a literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm not talking some parallel universe because that's meaningless.

OK, so we do agree that the Sun IS observable? I mean, we're sure that it at least EXISTS?

And as to whether I know much about QM, I've already said that my understanding of it is limited. It appears that some studies of physics account for parallel universes and so on, but I'm also aware that not all experts agree on it.

Anyway, hardly the point. No, the point of the Bible is not to explain phenomena, just inform the reader that God is the Creator and relate God's relationship with a chosen people and reveal His plan for all mankind. Physical explanations are not requisite for obedience. Further, not ALL of the Bible is to be taken literally, which the Bible itself makes very clear. There are numerous places within the Bible in which certain ideas are NOT to be taken literally, and as far as I'm aware those instances are actually explained in the text itself. Jesus speaking in parables, for instance, was obviously using symbolic language which was later explained. Psalms, proverbs, and songs/poems throughout the OT are plainly to be interpreted metaphorically, symbolically, or some other kind of meaningful artistic expression with a sacred purpose. This is normally fairly obvious. Another user, Sand, pointed out that, taken literally, Genesis 1 is a problem because God created light BEFORE He created the Sun, moon, and stars. A possible explanation that I suggested was that the Earth itself, as a part of creation that demanded special attention, was not originally distinct from the spiritual realm of existence. Genesis 1 says that the firmament was created to separate the waters of the Earth from the waters of heaven. Because laws of nature as we know them would not necessarily be applied in the creation of plants and animals, the only distinction between one day and another would be a period of light and dark, not an exact, set amount of time analogous to our familiar 24-hour day. That length of time could have been anything. If God is taken to be eternal or infinite, then time would have no meaning for Him. In that light, if the length of a day is arbitrary, then Genesis 1 may STILL be taken literally.

The language of the creation story seems to indicate that it IS to be taken literally. I personally find greater comfort in the story understanding it as a miraculous, supernatural event that emphasizes the power of God. For that there need not be ANY scientific explanation!

AngelRho, would you not construe someone was being silly if you suggested that the toothfairy was just a playgame parents play with children and they suggested that this is not proven and it is equally sensible to believe there is an unseen toothfairy mind-controlling parents to take the teeth and replace them with money?

After all, logic is not proven and you really cannot conclude that the toothfairy is just a playgame and not a real, unseen, magical being without using logic. Besides, if there are multiple universes, then there could be one in which the toothfairy is a real, unseen magical being, and so the fairy not being a real, unseen magical being could be false in this universe.

We cannot make a special case every time the usual standards accepted in daily life as pragmatic (if not literal) proof, fail to coincide with some individual's beliefs, be they about the unseen or not. It certainly seems these beliefs cannot all be true since many beliefs about or entailing the unseen are contrary to other such beliefs.

If by usual standards of proof we accept the truth of the existence of gravity and the sun and scientific theories about the properties thereof, even if one or more indviduals somewhere, at some time, might believe that what we are really observing is being misconstrued and is in fact the work of unseen gravity dust, and a flaming chariot driven across the skies by a God, then why precisely would we make an exception in respect of someone's belief about "unseen" things, just because that someone happens to be you?

How is science to pick and choose for which beliefs we must throw logic out the window and invoke the presumption of an "anything could be true or untrue universe" for? Why modern Creationist belief rather than or as well as an unseen mind-controlling, magical toothfairy? Or gravity dust?

I wish my mind was soft enough that I could simply choose to believe in any ol' fictional BS that made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Unfortunately, I am reason's b***h.

I can't say I have all the answers for you. That's the problem of faith. Can you choose to believe in it if you want to? Can you choose to believe in the tooth fairy if you want to? I don't see why not. Funny thing, but my wife and I have talked about this kind of thing before as it relates to our own children. At issue is the whole Santa Claus thing. I personally like the idea because it's just a long-standing tradition that I enjoyed and don't see why it couldn't be something my own children could enjoy as well. It adds to the "magic" of the Christmas celebration. My wife, on the other hand, contends that it is a sort of fairy tale that may lead our children to doubt other things that, to us, are very real. I favor a compromise, an understanding that it's just a tradition and a kind of game that we do as adults because we enjoy giving our children gifts. As a Christian tradition (Christmas, not Santa Claus), it's important to us that they understand WHY we choose to celebrate it and what it actually represents, rather than get excited about what they're getting.

For us, all of us in fact, many of those things we've come to expect require SOME reliance on faith. Logic, as I've often said, is something that only exists in the mind. Well, the mind is shaped differently from perceiver to perceiver. We can't reliably know for sure we're all perceiving the same thing, that our logic from thinker to thinker is exactly consistent or correct. So how do we know with any certainty that our ideas, logic, and thinking really are consistent? We CAN know, but it requires assuming some things about logic and what we're perceiving or thinking about. Something that OUGHT to unite all Christians in doctrinal matters should be the Bible, which in and of itself is unchanging (don't say that it changes through translation: MOST translations today are based on manuscripts that date from the early 200's). From the text and personal experience, much of what can be said about matters of Christian faith can be confirmed by the believer.

If some things can be affirmed by the believer, then it follows that other things may also be true. We believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, so believing in miracles and creationism is not that difficult. Too bad "hard" science isn't so imaginative!

As far as "fairy tales" go, we understand that fairy tales are fictional accounts typically with some kind of apologue. That's a function of fairy tales--DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS BY YOURSELF!! ! You don't want the witch/big bad wolf to get you (evil pedophiles and wild animals). Stay away from the friendly stranger in the black sedan with the candy and the pictures. The claims made by Jesus and His followers are FAR from fairy tales. Indeed, earthly pain and destruction awaits the believer. The eternal reward is worth the wait. And the simple faith required is an easy ticket compared with unsatisfying legalistic approaches (or enduring LIFETIMES to reach perfect peace). So if there is hope, if God keeps His promises, if everything else can be assumed to be true, then why can't creation be true?

I'd say that from a literalist view, one would be somewhat compelled to side with 6 day creationism. One reason is that within the Biblical text, the act of creation is regarded as resembling the Hebrew week, with the Sabbath matching with the 7th day:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

That kind of interpretation of creation makes little sense in the text if "day" was really supposed to be "age" or something else, as I do admit that the actual word used is ambiguous in Hebrew.

Additionally, within Genesis 1, with the passing of each day it mentions evening and morning, which are not aspects of ages, but only aspects of literal days.

Now, I suppose one could still be a brand of "literalist" and hold that the meaning of Genesis was always meant to be symbolic(as opposed to saying that the text is fallible or that later interpreters can reconstruct the text as they please) and the reason is that it is not as if figurative language in something like the Song of Solomon have to be interpreted in a strictly literal manner. The problem I see is with Exodus 20:11, because either the Jews were not literal in interpreting their own scripture, which then itself brings question on a literal interpretation method of scripture based upon the infallibility of it, or we have to say that there was a 6 day creation. Now, I will admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, so maybe there is something I am unaware of that would exonerate an Old Earth Creationist view or something else, but it seems to me that the view has deep problems within it.

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "faith". A lot of the tools used, such as logic, are continually tested and continually work. Calling a reliance on something like this to be "faith" in the same category of believing in a mind control fairy seems deeply problematic.

As for "we can't reliably know for sure we're all perceiving the same thing", this is only relevant if one holds all knowledge to complete epistemological skepticism, the issue is that if we hold knowledge to basic conventional standards, then it is quite clear that logic is the same, as we all get the same conclusions when we use it, and when we do mathematical problems. I mean, logic is so acceptable that we feel comfortable mass-manufacturing machines that do a number of logical issues for us.


How do we know with any certainty that we know things with any certainty? How do we know with any certainty that we don't know things with certainty? At some point, the questions are irrelevant. Some answers are better than others, and that's what we go with. Searching for the ultimate foundations is sort of a waste though, and lacking them isn't this "OMG" problem, simply because of how much trial and error has been used with this problem.


Right, but earlier translations of it were corrupted, as modern scholarship has pulled some things out of scripture, such as the Comma Johanneum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum . Even further, it is not as if your claim about "most translations" really proves that the translations today are all accurate. Even today, scholars still debate about issues, such as the ending of Mark and other things in the modern Bible as well. Even further, the Bible isn't relevant without interpreters, and interpretations are continually changing. And even further again, most Christians are not sola scriptura anyway, but rather the largest denomination is Catholicism, which also weights the teachings of the early Church Fathers. I mean, I suppose you could be technically right on the "unchanging nature of scripture" as this is contingent on the fact that the set of scripture has been defined already, but I doubt that this interpretation means what you are asking for.


And disconfirmed by the ex-believer. I mean, seriously, there are people who have entered churches and the ministry and left with their arguments on why Christianity is flawed.


I'm sorry, giving up on intellectual integrity isn't "imaginative", if anything, it is the most mundane action ever taken. That being said, I don't think serious Biblical scholars today believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture but rather they believe that the Bible "contains statements that in any other literary work would be considered erroneous" - Prof William H Barnes, which I imagine that most scholars would taken as an understatement done for neutrality's sake.



Well, I think the point of calling them "fairy tales" is that the stories are mythical nonsense not to be taken seriously. It isn't that the stories are *literally* the same kind of narration as in fairytales.