The Engine Of The Fairytale

[Adam Nagy 50]

I believe this topic needed a new thread to answer the questions bellow:

 

Applied Evolution: Phylogenomics And Comparative Genomics

 

I think you misunderstood my question.  Let me rephrase it. 

 

It seems the fundamentalist Christian community (if your post above is any indication), feels there is a concerted effort on the part of the mainstream scientific community to suppress any public discussion about the "controversy" surrounding evolution versus creationism or intelligent design.

 

1) What is it that motivates scientists to suppress legitimate challenges to the widely held conclusion that the way living creatures got here is through evolution?

 

2) What is the mechanism inherent in the scientific method that would enable a worldwide conspiracy of this sort to take root?

21170[/snapback]

I think these are great questions. I would say they are mostly philosophical in nature. That's why I pulled it out of the Evolution/Creation section.

[Adam Nagy 50]

It seems the fundamentalist Christian community (if your post above is any indication), feels there is a concerted effort on the part of the mainstream scientific community to suppress any public discussion about the "controversy" surrounding evolution versus creationism or intelligent design.

First off:

 

I would replace "mainstream scientific community" (since this is so ambiguous) with evolution activists and/or public educational establishment.

 

1) What is it that motivates scientists to suppress legitimate challenges to the widely held conclusion that the way living creatures got here is through evolution?

I would point back to the time when Darwin was in the minority (which wasn’t that long ago, BTW). I would say from Darwin’s success and all the way through the scopes/monkey trial and up through the Cold War, Christians lacked knowledge and understanding. Even though I believe they had the truth, they did not understand it. They were lazy and uninterested in their own beliefs but clung to them without knowledge. The Bible warns about zeal without knowledge. I would say Darwin’s success is something the Church deserves partial credit for.

 

So to counter the attack from Darwin’s speculative theory, the Christians did the same things that the Darwinists are doing now. They made a concerted effort to suppress the opposition, which actually fueled the fire, like it is today.

 

Eugene Scott and others use smear campaigns, education suppression efforts and law enforcement to keep people unaware of the critical assault on Darwin’s crumbling theory.

 

At the time of Darwin the shoe was on the other foot, the Christians were too lazy and uneducated to understand the varsity of the 2000 – 3500plus year old eye-witness testimony that they were toting to church every Sunday under their arm. So they led a smear campaign. They should have rolled up their sleeves and looked at the evidence like the way YECs are doing today.

 

This is my opinion.

 

2) What is the mechanism inherent in the scientific method that would enable a worldwide conspiracy of this sort to take root?

21170[/snapback]

This question is utterly faulty. Please explain to us what this has to do with the scientific method? Explain to us why the scientific method must be the cause of the battle. I would replace “scientific method” with the words “human nature”. After this, your question would be phrased correctly. Would you care to rephrase it?

[Adam Nagy 50]

I notice the potential nature of this thread. I would highly recommend anyone engaging in this discussion to read Fred William’s short clarification of terms:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

 

If this sounds unreasonable to anyone, I’m sure Fred would like any input.

 

This is a good refresher, too:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles...ndefinition.htm

[Guest shpongle]

I notice the potential nature of this thread. I would highly recommend anyone engaging in this discussion to read Fred William’s short clarification of terms:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

I looked at that list and have a point of contention with his definition of science:

 

This naturalistic-only view of science also limits the amount of knowledge obtainable, and therefore subverts the true meaning of science. Consider arson investigation or the SETI project – both have rightly been called scientific, and are used to determine if there is an intelligent source connected to the evidence gathered. It is a double standard to agree this is scientific, yet on the other hand deny that the same principles do not apply to origins and the question of intelligent design. The word science should also not be watered down to such an extent that it embraces speculation. Bottom line: Do not pigeonhole the word science into the naturalistic-only box.

He seems to equate naturalism with unintelligent. This is not the case*.

 

For example, arson investigation or SETI search for intelligent causes. But these causes are still naturalistic in the sense they are bounded by physical laws of the universe.

 

Why scientists don't invoke supernatural explanations for observed phenomenon is that supernatural explanations are not bounded by any physical laws. So therefore, there is literally no limit on supernatural explanations nor any way to properly compare them. The key is not a difference between unintelligent or intelligent (which are vague terms anyway). The key is a difference between supernatural and natural.

 

* (As an aside, I realize the term natural does get used a lot in the context of natue outside of human intervention, which is probably where the confusion lies. But I think it's important to understand that naturalism in science--more specifically metholodigical naturalism--is grounded on physical laws of the universe and designed to exclude supernatural explanations that are unbounded by those laws. Reason being that since supernatural explanations are unbounded, they are inherently untestable and uncomparable with anything else.)

[jason777 1]

All scientists use natural and observable mechanisms to form theories and conclusions.Creationists assume that God ceated everything,so things that dont fit current naturalistic theories is what we predict.

 

Paleoentology for example,assumes evolution and millions of years.Not from the evidence they observe,but from their starting point.

 

HISTORICAL – NOT EMPIRICAL, John H. Horner "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it’s easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19

 

Thanks.

[Dave 25]

Why scientists don't invoke supernatural explanations for observed phenomenon is that supernatural explanations are not bounded by any physical laws.  So therefore, there is literally no limit on supernatural explanations nor any way to properly compare them.

 

But I think it's important to understand that naturalism in science--more specifically metholodigical naturalism--is grounded on physical laws of the universe and {it is} designed to exclude supernatural explanations that are unbounded by those laws.

21181[/snapback]

Shpongle,

 

Read the bolded portions of your statement as one complete sentence. In other words, if one tries to impose something (natural laws) on supernatural explanations that don't belong there, it illogically follows that one should reject the supernatural explanation because you can't impose the natural laws on it.

 

It illustrates perfectly why scientific naturalism will always fail to find all of the right answers. In short, to exclude the supernatural from the natural is to deny oneself the ability to understand all of reality. To throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Or, my favorite saying, to do science with half your brain tied behind your back.

 

Also, your statement, "there is literally no limit on supernatural explanations nor any way to properly compare them," is not true. Once one accepts all of reality, the natural and the supernatural, one can then accept the guidelines given us by the Creator for understanding His creation. To the discerning Bible reader, it is not a free-for-all, anything goes kind of science. There are definite guidelines, rules, for understanding His creation.

 

Take for example the infamous "flying spaghetti monster" theory. It's instructive to note that it is a construct of an atheist to mock believers. Nowhere, and nohow has any Bible-believing scientist suggested such an absurd thing be any kind of valid scientific reality. Yet, the FSM has been indelibly linked with believers.

 

It's no accident, or coincidence, that a large majority of the "fathers of modern science" were believers who started with the Bible, and ended up making the discoveries that are the basis of science today. Not only did a belief in the supernatural not hinder them in their discoveries, it actually lead them to them.

 

Do you suppose it's no small coincidence that a "falling away" of real science has occurred at the same time there has been in our culture a "falling away" from faith? The farther that man falls away from God, the more he gives himself over to fanciful, made-up, unsubstantiated theories about God's creation?

 

Dave

[Guest shpongle]

In other words, if one tries to impose something (natural laws) on supernatural explanations that don't belong there, it illogically follows that one should reject the supernational explanation because you can't impose the natural laws on it.

From a scientific standpoint, yes. Because if you can't put a limit on a particular idea for the basis of comparison, you're left with little more than philosophy. Which can you debate until the cows come home and get absolutely no where.

 

Also, your statement, "there is literally no limit on supernatural explanations nor any way to properly compare them," is not true. Once one accepts all of reality, the natural and the supernatural, one can then accept the guidelines given us by the Creator for understanding His creation.

Okay, let's try this as a thought experiment:

 

I believe the universe, Earth, and plants, animals and people were all created about 9 billion years ago by Brahma, the Hindu deity of creation.

 

Do you agree with this?

[Adam Nagy 50]

I believe the universe, Earth, and plants, animals and people were all created about 9 billion years ago by Brahma, the Hindu deity of creation.

 

Do you agree with this?

21222[/snapback]

No offense, but this thread is getting derailed.

 

I think you’re test is interesting though. Why don’t you start a new thread in a section that we can talk about meta-physical issues and shoot us the link?

[Guest shpongle]

No offense, but this thread is getting derailed.

 

I think you’re test is interesting though. Why don’t you start a new thread in a section that we can talk about meta-physical issues and shoot us the link?

21229[/snapback]

Sure, here's a new thread: Can You Distinguish Between Different Supernatural Origins?

[Adam Nagy 50]

All scientists use natural and observable mechanisms to form theories and conclusions.Creationists assume that God ceated everything,so things that don't fit current naturalistic theories is what we predict.

21184[/snapback]

This is an interesting perspective. I have no respect for the way the God-of-the-Gaps argument is framed by atheists/agnostics because I see the distortions in this tactic.

 

However, I see why it is a darling of the anti-creationist because they think they can paint us into the lazy "Oh, God-did-it" corner when we proclaim that the Universe declares His majesty.

 

The philosophically blinding nature of “We just haven’t figured it out yet…” or "...it just takes too much time." is far more dangerous and counterproductive then making observations and tests and demonstrations of God’s law and giving Him credit for His handy work.

 

I wonder how many hours have been wasted by extremely intelligent people putting their thought and effort into distorting the obvious design around us to paint a time/chance explanation and things like butterfly metamorphosis are simply ignored for data that’s more conducive to the undirected mindless origins argument.

[Adam Nagy 50]

He seems to equate naturalism with unintelligent.  This is not the case*.

You're correct. This is neither the case nor what he's doing. He's clarifying that naturalists put an artificial barrier between observations and the best explanation, if that explanation seems to point outside the box.

 

This isn’t even a totally proper perspective though, because even naturalists semi-acknowledge the supernatural, every time I hear someone explain the Big Bang or how life self assembled the unnatural (or supernatural) undertones are plentiful, their true nature just gets deceptively denied.

[Adam Nagy 50]

<_>

[de_skudd 41]

Why scientists don't invoke supernatural explanations for observed phenomenon is that supernatural explanations are not bounded by any physical laws.  So therefore, there is literally no limit on supernatural explanations nor any way to properly compare them.  The key is not a difference between unintelligent or intelligent (which are vague terms anyway).  The key is a difference between supernatural and natural.

There are scientists who differ with your opinion:

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. MICHAEL RUSE

 

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews

 

“We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it…A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend…I agree with him that Darwinism contains ‘wicked lies’; it is not a ‘natural law’ formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century.” Kenneth J. Hsu

 

"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ..." H.S. Lipson

 

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ... exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." Louis Trenchard More

 

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." R.L. Wysong

 

There are many more, but for the sake of space, I'll leave it at these...

[Adam Nagy 50]

There are scientists who differ with your opinion:

22208[/snapback]

Thanks for the quotes, de_skudd, I'm surprised nobody bit on this thread. I hope it struck a cord.