While reading The God Delusion, I came upon a passage in which Dawkins aptly describes one of the major flaws of creationist/I.D. attacks against evolutionary theory. It centers on the "unfortunate" strategy of said opponents to point out gaps in scientific knowledge, then claim that Intelligent Design fills those gaps. For example, an IDer might take a particular part of an organism, claim that its irreducibly complex, and when a comprehensive answer is not immediately given, assert that evolutionary theory has been overthrown in favor of "God did it." There are many problems with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn't follow to argue that because a particular part of theory A fails, then theory B is correct. Furthermore, the driving force behind scientific inquiry is ignorance. Rather than assume B, that God did it through design, a scientist, driven by curiosity will take a critical approach and study said problem. Unfortunately, during the intermediate period, ID pamphlets will proclaim an organism to be IC (irreducibly complex) thus disproving evolution. As Dawkins states, "Intelligent Design -ID- is granted a Get Out of Jail Free card, a charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution."
This of course goes without saying that interjecting an intelligent supreme being into the mix is in itself faulty logic because it raises far more questions than it answers!
What do you think?
Faulty Logic of Creationists/IDers
Moderator: Moderators
Faulty Logic of Creationists/IDers
Post #1Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
Post #41
Achilles,
Did Adam and Eve therefore exist?
If not, then doesn't Jesus' genealogy in Luke, tracing it all the way back to Adam and Eve, have a problem right at it source. If they did exist, then don't you clash against the science?
Another question, probably off topic and PROBABLY addressed elsewhere is whether Adam and Eve were homo sapiens, or were they a point further back along our evolutionary chain?
Regards
Luke
Did Adam and Eve therefore exist?
If not, then doesn't Jesus' genealogy in Luke, tracing it all the way back to Adam and Eve, have a problem right at it source. If they did exist, then don't you clash against the science?
Another question, probably off topic and PROBABLY addressed elsewhere is whether Adam and Eve were homo sapiens, or were they a point further back along our evolutionary chain?
Regards
Luke
Post #42
Having just read it I'd like to make a comment or two. The overall sentiment is obviously to be commended by anyone concerned about the dissension that they can see is forcing people into taking more and more extremist views. But there remains an intrinsic bias that would hinder any truly impartial investigation into the science that the essay so implores the Christian to take heed of. I can't see a way around this unless the Christian admits that a degree of disambiguation may be called for when assesing the origins of the universe.achilles12604 wrote: It is really fairly close to what I hold to be true, with just a couple minor adjustments. It is long so read what you want.
So what are the ASA all about?The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary
Dr. Joshua Zorn
©1997 by the American Scientific Affiliation
How can science be practised with integrity when such a key assumption is indelibly written into the mission statement?http://www.asa3.org wrote: The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #43
QED wrote:achilles12604 wrote:
It is really fairly close to what I hold to be true, with just a couple minor adjustments. It is long so read what you want.
Having just read it I'd like to make a comment or two. The overall sentiment is obviously to be commended by anyone concerned about the dissension that they can see is forcing people into taking more and more extremist views. But there remains an intrinsic bias that would hinder any truly impartial investigation into the science that the essay so implores the Christian to take heed of. I can't see a way around this unless the Christian admits that a degree of disambiguation may be called for when assesing the origins of the universe.
The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary
Dr. Joshua Zorn
©1997 by the American Scientific Affiliation
So what are the ASA all about?http://www.asa3.org wrote:
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
How can science be practised with integrity when such a key assumption is indelibly written into the mission statement?
How can atheists be trusted to run charity businesses without a set of absolute moral standards?
They say right in their statement that they are scientists that share belief in God and . . . wait let me quote.
a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
They then proceed to write a paper which places science at the forefront. Francis Collins, and William Falk both think along these line. Look up their bios but they are both eextremelywell respected in the science community. Interestingly they both also converted from Atheism.
It seems to me that your real question is " How could we trust anyone who believes in God?" While this smacks of oppressive Governing bodies throughout all of history, let me simply point out that this statement in itself is pure, undiluted prejudice, bias, and assumption.
This is actually rather detracting from your usually highly intellectual and even-minded thoughts. I am a little surprised.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
Post #44
That's another debate and while it might set a few religious heads nodding it ignores what else "an absolute moral standard" might be in order to be used in a disparaging manner.achilles12604 wrote:QED wrote:How can science be practised with integrity when such a key assumption is indelibly written into the mission statement?
How can atheists be trusted to run charity businesses without a set of absolute moral standards?
You're pointing out their strong commitment to their integrity in the practice of science right?achilles12604 wrote: They say right in their statement that they are scientists that share belief in God and . . . wait let me quote.
a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
They then proceed to write a paper which places science at the forefront. Francis Collins, and William Falk both think along these line. Look up their bios but they are both eextremelywell respected in the science community. Interestingly they both also converted from Atheism.
If you detect any even-mindedness in my thoughts it is probably because I can see a distinct ambiguity between the deliberate and accidental creation of our universe and I'm constantly on the lookout to see what our best intellectual endeavours can do to resolve this all-pervasive symmetry. In the meantime, I am compelled to point out any faulty logic that I can see in the reasoning of others. Most mistakes arise from faulty assumptions.achilles12604 wrote: It seems to me that your real question is " How could we trust anyone who believes in God?" While this smacks of oppressive Governing bodies throughout all of history, let me simply point out that this statement in itself is pure, undiluted prejudice, bias, and assumption.
This is actually rather detracting from your usually highly intellectual and even-minded thoughts. I am a little surprised.
Thus I would be equally concerned about any agency that had "a disbelief of God" written into its mission statement. I'm sorry if this attitude disappoints you but it seems like the only reasonable one to adopt. I think you might have been going a bit OTT calling this "undiluted prejudice".
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #45
My assertion about your statement promoting prejudice was directed at this sentence.
I do not read their statement as discovering science through belief in God. Their statement indicated discovering science while at the same time believing in God. So your sentence, given my understanding of their mission statement came off sounding like
" How can we trust anyone to practice integrity in science while they hold beliefs that are so ridiculous"
This is a presumptiouous and fairly arrogant statement. This is why I was surprised to read it coming from you. However . . .
Now that you have clarified that you were reading their mission statement differently than I, I can understand where you were coming from.
Lesson learned for myself : Don't assume you know what they are really saying even when you are reading it right in front of you.
As for their mission statement, I still firmly hold that individuals can both be very devout believers and also perform exceptionally well in science.
How can science be practised with integrity when such a key assumption is indelibly written into the mission statement?
I do not read their statement as discovering science through belief in God. Their statement indicated discovering science while at the same time believing in God. So your sentence, given my understanding of their mission statement came off sounding like
" How can we trust anyone to practice integrity in science while they hold beliefs that are so ridiculous"
This is a presumptiouous and fairly arrogant statement. This is why I was surprised to read it coming from you. However . . .
Now that you have clarified that you were reading their mission statement differently than I, I can understand where you were coming from.
Lesson learned for myself : Don't assume you know what they are really saying even when you are reading it right in front of you.
As for their mission statement, I still firmly hold that individuals can both be very devout believers and also perform exceptionally well in science.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
