Science V Creationism on the Internet.

[Furrowed Brow]

I ‘ve been having a debate with a creationist on another forum. The debate goes back months. Some of the basic areas covered are:

DNA is conservative and non innovative.
Any variation brought about DNA mutation is limited to “kinds“ of animals. I.e. birds may grow longer beaks, but reptiles do not turn into birds.
The fossil record does not support macro evolution/common descent.
Evolution imposes its own assumption on the evidence.
Quotes from evolutionist like Gould and kitts have been cited, as arguments against evolution. Quotes that say there is no fossilised evidence to support the evolutionary text books, and in the case of Kitts the fossil record does not support evolution. Though both are quoted out of context.
There is no such thing as a simple cell.
Arguments from irreducibility.
Abiogenesis


One problem I have faced is my own lack of biological/geological/paleontological training and consequently lack deep knowledge of evolution and the evidence. It seems to me the creationist is at an advantage in so far that if one tries to research the background to any of these subject on google, you are just as likely to land on a creationist website. In fact I’d say if I just went by google searches then in the science v creation debate science is losing; for the creationist argument is more accessible. To begin to imbibe the creationist point of view requires a limited amount of searching, and reading, and their main complaints are avaible in snappy half page arguments; whilst to counter them requires far more searching, effort and reading. In short - when it comes to the internet - the creationist have got their PR act together and science has not.

So I think an evolutionary resource is needed that counters the creationist misinformation. I know there are some pages that already attempt to do this. But I had in mind something written by experts that can cite up to date evidence, and if needed goes in to detail, yet is able to offer accessible commentary to the non expert. One problem I have come across is that I find a possible scientific paper that may on one specific point or other address a point I could cite to reposte to a creationist complaint, but if I want to read beyond the abstract I have to make a purchase. But If I can't get a glimpse of the article I don't know for sure if it is really going to be of use. So I am thinking of a resource that makes relevant papers available, and maybe even gives an extended abstract.

However rather that just make information availble or a site that purveys an up to date picture of evolution research, I think such a resource needs to systematically set about dismantling the Creationist/Id claims and complaints. I have in mind a resource with the title “Science versus Creationism” but one written and updated by evolutionists and not creationists.

Anyone know of anything like this already?
Is Creationism Winning in Cyberspace?

[micatala]

I thank Magus for addressing many of the points in Fisherking's post #49. I'll add a few additional comments.

The global flood is perhaps the weakest and most thoroughly refuted aspect of the YEC model. Ice cores in multiple locations, tree rings, a mound of geological data, etc., all falsify a global flood, at least from an empirical standpoint. The only hope for this model is that God conducted many massive interventions to keep Noah and company alive.

No, from a philosophical naturalistic standpoint the evidence (of the global flood) is assimilated into their paradym.

First, if there is evidence that falsifies a global flood, it does not matter how much other evidence is found that can be made consistent with the global flood hypothesis.

Second, mischaracterizing evidence as 'philosophical presuppostitions or paradigms' might be good rhetoric, but it is fallacious thinking.

The evidence that there is no salt within any ice layers in Greenland and elsewhere requires no interpretation. It is evidence. This evidence is inconsistent with a global flood covering these ice layers. This requires no 'philosophical presumptions' and no interpretive assimilation into a paradigm.

Again, the choices are either:

A. God miraculously intervened to keep the global flood waters from leaving evidence in the ice sheets or
B. The Global flood did not occur.

Fisherking might consult Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe site for its discussion on the global flood. No friend to evolution, even Ross accepts that the flood could not possibly have been global in extent.

He also points out the bad theology that goes into interpreting Genesis to imply a global flood.

For example:

A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.

. . . . . . .

As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.

Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia.

What does the geological data tell us about massive floods in the earth's history? The evidence shows that the only place in the world where massive flooding has occurred since the advent of modem man is the region of Mesopotamia.

Thus, the global flood hypothesis is not only falsified scientifically, it is also dubious biblical interpretation.

[Fisherking]

Why do scientists employ methodological naturalism?

I have no problem with scientists employing methodological naturalism. (1) Neo-Darwinism is not methodological naturalism though.

It is not the scientists who are "threatened" but rather the creationists methinks. That is why creationists often misportray and deliberately confuse methodological naturlism and philosophical naturalism.

It would depend on which scientists. I do not see the methodological naturalists feeling threatened either way. (2) Neo-darwinism(philosophical naturalism) appears to feel threatened(reminds me of wacking a hornets nest) any time creationism or intelligent design comes up. (at least on this site)

(1) Please explain why and what do you mean by neo-darwinism?
(2) Those you call neo-darwinists feel threatened because of the political power of Christianity and thus the creation story in a country such as America. Science is being threatened by religion. I think that's sufficient cause for concern.

1. Neo- is a prefix, derived from Greek that connotes a "new" or recent form of something, or a revival in a modern form.--Darwinism

[Fisherking]

As it is, the theory of evolution has produced massive breakthroughs in the fields of medicine, agriculture and ecology

,
What are these massive breakthroughs the theory of evolution have provided us?

and has given the scientific community new insight into geology

Examples please

not to mention spilling over into linguistic theory (helpynge us explayne whye wee no langer speke Midele Englisshe) and economics. And that's only the surface of the benefits the theory of evolution has had for humanity

Maybe you could give examples of how the theory of evolution has helped explain why we no longer speak middle english, how it has helped economically, and what benefits it has provided to humanity?

It would depend on which scientists. I do not see the methodological naturalists feeling threatened either way. Neo-darwinism(philosophical naturalism) appears to feel threatened(reminds me of wacking a hornets nest) any time creationism or intelligent design comes up. (at least on this site)

That we have among us theistic "believers" in Neo-Darwinism plainly shows the invalidity of your association.

What association, that philosophical naturalists claim to be theists? How does that invalidate what I have been saying? That Neo-Darwinists claim to be theists doesn't mean they adhere to methodological naturalism--as you can see, many do not.

[Fisherking]

If you did, you also might want to mention what empirical observations [Charles Darwin] made, and what philosophy he used to interpret the data he observed.

The theory of evolution, according to Charles Darwin:

Observation: Every organism produces more offspring than will actually survive to adulthood.

Observation: There is natural variation among these offspring.

Observation: Traits are passed down from one generation to the next.

Observation: In each generation the survivors do so because they possess some advantage over the ones that don't, and because they survive, they will pass that advantage on to the next generation. Over time, therefore, the incidence of that trait will increase in the population.

Myself and most creation scientists observe the same thing. You and I will not disagree with the observations outlined above. The disagreement comes when these observations are assimilated into Neo-Darwinism, which takes these observations and assume small-scale micro-evolutionary changes can be extrapolated indefinitely producing large-scale macro-evolutionary changes. Methodological naturalism can observe what you outlined above. As soon as one claims these observations lead to something we have not observed(macro-evolution), it has become something more than mere observations.

[Undertow]

If you did, you also might want to mention what empirical observations [Charles Darwin] made, and what philosophy he used to interpret the data he observed.

The theory of evolution, according to Charles Darwin:

Observation: Every organism produces more offspring than will actually survive to adulthood.

Observation: There is natural variation among these offspring.

Observation: Traits are passed down from one generation to the next.

Observation: In each generation the survivors do so because they possess some advantage over the ones that don't, and because they survive, they will pass that advantage on to the next generation. Over time, therefore, the incidence of that trait will increase in the population.

Myself and most creation scientists observe the same thing. You and I will not disagree with the observations outlined above. The disagreement comes when these observations are assimilated into Neo-Darwinism, which takes these observations and assume small-scale micro-evolutionary changes can be extrapolated indefinitely producing large-scale macro-evolutionary changes. Methodological naturalism can observe what you outlined above. As soon as one claims these observations lead to something we have not observed(macro-evolution), it has become something more than mere observations.

To confirm predictions regarding macroevolution, we can observe and test fossils. If a set of fossils is proposed to have evolved into another set or an extant species, there are some changes in physiology which must have taken place. Testing common ancestry between two extant species can also be done by comparing any number of homologies, including DNA sequence, karyotypes and thier chromosomes markers. As an individual into creation science, how do you explain fossils and the implication of common ancestry between humans and chimps because of homologous DNA sequences, chromosomes and thier markers?

Also, as an individual into creation scientist, I'd love to see if you have any tests or studies to confirm predictions regarding the method of creation using empirical evidence. Or do you guys just focus on bagging evolution?

The case for common ancesrty didn't stop at proposing that microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution, so no, the basis for accepting macroevolution is not a philosophical one, it's a methodological one with respect to testing fossils and homologies, among other things. This methodology gives results which at least provide basis to accept a naturally occuring phenomenon of common ancestry.