All true scientists believe in evolution?

[nikolayevich]

I've replied here, rather than on the now 11 page debate thread on creation / evolution which has brought up numerous questions that on their own merit deserve further prodding. Note that the title of this thread is only loosely based on the subject of my response to a post and is a perception that this poster (yours truly) has gleaned from much study on the creation / evolution controversy.

I see theories of creation and evolution - which I guess, to generalise, represent the views of theologians v scientists...

Unfortunately it's not just a generalization but one that I think can be shown to be untrue. It is not people who have an understanding of God versus people who have an understanding of Science. This is a misrepresentation I think many creationists on this forum are trying to correct.

Most creationists (especially the debating kind):
1) Were taught and / or have taught science and related subjects
2) Love science

To say that creationists disagree with certain scientific [teachings] may be an understatement, but to show them as against "science" as a result is verging on tragic.

Yes, and of course:
3) Believe in God.

But how this makes the debate against science from the point of view of a creationist is confusing at best. It is true, there can be certainty, that much of the public sees this as creationists against scientists, but let's move to a better representation of both camps.

Creationists against science is likely one of the more prominent straw men out there, which is why we see evolutionists pose questions which start with that assumption. See A Fundamental Difference between Creationism and Science as an example of a statement which begs the question.

...as being like the vertical posts of a ladder with many linking rungs linking the two - between them we can climb to reach the truth. I can't see why so many people think the two theories are mutually exclusive, because to my mind, all they do is add weight and truth to one another.

The problem with the way this is couched is that you started by mentioning that you see things as theologians against science. You then proceed to mention that you don't see why the two [theories] can't go together.

They are not the same. The theories are different things, in a different way from theists and scientists. It doesn't mean that the theories or the people of varying persuasion can't cooperate. It's just important to delineate exactly what you "can't see why" about.

These are very different questions which both seem to appear in your post in a combined way, so makes it difficult to answer. (Thanks for your patience while I try here)

I think that few creation scientists would ever argue that theism and science can't go together unless they misunderstand their own position. I don't mean to pick your statement to death, but think think that in discussion about creation and evolution (and everything else in debate), terms carry a lot of weight and meaning. You may intend something here that is very different than what is being read.

If you meant to say creation scientists as being against science, then you can certainly say that, though I think it's a strange proposition. I don't know that that was your intention but since this argument is certainly appealed to in various circles, I thought I would make the point. When a scientific community embraces statements about creationists being non-scientists, what usually results are ad hominem comments and other things which have nothing to do with science.

One problem, I think, is that many widely accepted, 'text-book' explanations or interpretations (of each) are based on fundamental misapprehensions. I think that religious-minded - or 'spiritual', if you like - people have an intuitive, creative understanding of the truth in our universe, but frequently lack the scientific knowledge which would give their ideas credibility. They see the overview, or the holistic view, whereas scientists tend to look at the microcosm and to reduce things to their lowest denominator - experimentation usually involves separating out elements in order to produce an explicable, measurable result, which is not conducive to seeing the overall picture.

It may be true that many 'spiritual' people lack scientific knowledge to give their ideas credibility, but I would say the same about any group of people. I don't believe for a moment that people with faith are any less able to understand scientific concepts than any other people group of a particular persuasion. It seems, from much reading on the subject, however, to be a pervasive notion. It goes back to an implied belief that creationists are not within the realm of scientific understanding, have generally 'misapprehended' evolution or are pitted against science.

I am interested in seeing how evolutionists on this forum generally view, or have viewed creationists. As unscientific, or as simply scientific with an alternate view. I'm sure both are represented on the forum. Again, the subject of this thread is titled after my own experience with these things and rather than trying to pigeon hole all evolutionists, I thought it might spark some good conversation.

Also, have any of you had your perception of your opponents change since debating here? (not your views on creation, just your perception of your debate alternates' argumentation). Are creationists more unreasonable than evolutionists?

[ST88]

Creationists against science is likely one of the more prominent straw men out there, which is why we see evolutionists pose questions which start with that assumption. See A Fundamental Difference between Creationism and Science as an example of a statement which begs the question.

This is a good point. I have been guilty of this if only because I allowed the terms of the debate to color my arguments. Most times, I use the word science to cover the entirety of the material science fields exclusive of Creationists. Because evolution is the most widely accepted theory within the sciences, I have made this generalization for the purposes of argument.

However, I think it is possible to pit Creationists against scientists when discussing things like radioactive dating techniques and astrophysics, as the Creationist view must deal with this evidence in some way, and it is most often to deny its validity.

I think that few creation scientists would ever argue that theism and science can't go together unless they misunderstand their own position.

As would it be incorrect to say that most scientists don't think the same thing. Many arguments I have seen and heard from the Creationist side include "atheist science" rhetoric. I assume that this is because the atheists are the ones who are most vocal in their refusal to accept any Creationist thought. But the mis-characterizations go both ways.

I am interested in seeing how evolutionists on this forum generally view, or have viewed creationists. As unscientific, or as simply scientific with an alternate view. I'm sure both are represented on the forum.

It has been my impression that Creationism is more of a philosophical position than a scientific one. The science involved is largely theoretical and most often conflicts with observed evidence, such as observations of supernovae. In order to explain the conflicts, alternate hypotheses of how the science works are offered, such as the variability of the speed of light. But, as far as my limited understanding of science goes, these theories are all intended to make the physics (or the chemistry, or the geology, etc.) fit the model.

Young-earth Creationist theories are very entertaining if nothing else. They are like hyptothetical case studies in a science fiction novel. If a futuristic mad scientist was to create a world in much the same way God is purported to have done, this mad scientist could probably set up a world much like Eden and then unleash a torrent of water in much the same way as the Global Flood. It's an interesting story. And it is instructive, to a point. YEC theories present an alternate view of the evidence that forces the old-earthers to think about just exactly what the evidence proves or supports.

Again, I mildly object to the term evolutionist because it implies an exclusive adherence to the theory. Evolution as a theory is not an end in itself, it is merely the expression of how most scientists currently understand the evidence. But I guess it's useful for the purposes of debate, as long as everyone understands what the actual meaning is behind all the shortcut terms we use.

[rjw]

Hello nikolayevich

I will confine my opinions to YEC.

You wrote:-

I am interested in seeing how evolutionists on this forum generally view, or have viewed creationists. As unscientific, or as simply scientific with an alternate view. I'm sure both are represented on the forum. Again, the subject of this thread is titled after my own experience with these things and rather than trying to pigeon hole all evolutionists, I thought it might spark some good conversation.

It depends on what the creationist is studying. If he/she is studying (say) the structure of the atom, then the creationist is mainstream. However, when he/she steps into a mainstream field in which religious belief may be offended, then a peculiar transformation takes place. The standard metaphysics, axioms, rules and methodologies of science are revoked in favor of an inconsistent mix of supernaturalism and naturalism and rules, axioms and methodologies which are very selectively and inconsistently applied.

In such a situation, I still call creationists scientific because they kind of go through the motions. But that is about all.

You wrote:-

Also, have any of you had your perception of your opponents change since debating here? (not your views on creation, just your perception of your debate alternates' argumentation). Are creationists more unreasonable than evolutionists?

My perception of YECs generally becomes more dismal as time passes. This is not a criticism of YEC personalities – rather it is a criticism of YEC science and YEC attitudes to the outside world.

I was born and bred a Christian and as a youth/young man was very active in the Church. As a young man I totally lost my faith. I am now an atheist. In my mid 40’s, I began debating YECs to see just how good it really was – having been raised within a church that was to a large degree fundamentalist. (One never really walks totally away from one’s formative years.) I fell into this exploration by circumstance – a request from my brother (a teacher) to assist in a debate with a couple of YECs at his school who wished to engage him. It was a non event. We opened by critiquing an article from AiG. Our opponents never responded, despite many promises and despite several other essays being sent to them. From there I began an exchange of letters with Dr Sarfati, Dr Walker and Mr Lamb at AiG in Australia. That exchange lasted a few years then AiG appeared to give up corresponding. From there I came to these bulletin boards.

While my childhood experiences taught me that Biblical fundamentalists were no better or worse than the rest of society and in my exchanges with AiG I found Tas Walker a seemingly beaut bloke, that exchange with AiG showed me the utter sloppiness of YEC science.

These YEC bulletin boards continue to reinforce that notion.

I found AiG to misrepresent the mainstream terribly, that it was often evasive, used double standards, shifted goal posts to maintain its arguments, often used sheer sloppy arguments to make a point etc. Followers of AiG accordingly adopt those methods, oblivious it would seem to what is going on.

Only a few YECs I admire as debaters. There was one bright lad on another board who actually attempted to confront the mainstream with well constructed arguments. There have been a few others who have agreed that the mainstream does have the arguments and the evidence but that their faith is really important to them and they wish to withdraw from the debate. I cannot argue against that honesty.

Frankly I think that YEC science has to be so sloppy because it is backing a loser as far as science goes – hence it has no choice but to adopt the dubious methodologies it does.

As I pointed out at the beginning though, this only applies to areas in which YEC religious belief is offended. Otherwise a YEC scientist is normal/mainstream.


Hope this post is not too offensive.

Regards, Roland

[Jose]

To say that creationists disagree with certain scientific [teachings] may be an understatement, but to show them as against "science" as a result is verging on tragic.

Yes, indeed. A great many are quite scientific. As rjw noted, a great many are in scientific fields where a creationist view presents no conflict with the science, and they do great scientific work.

But there is also the converse problem: that creationists often present "evolutionists" as godless heathens, and tell their audience that there is a very strict, and very absolute choice between evolution or religion. In an effort to show how absurd a belief in evolution obviously is, they attack science and scientists. It is thus the nature of the debate that creates the apparent dichotomy between science and religion. As with political campaigns and football teams, things seem to devolve into an us vs them kind of mentality.

I appreciate this forum because it seems to try very hard to stay above the fray, and hold the discussions as among friends. Frankly, this is unusual.

I am interested in seeing how evolutionists on this forum generally view, or have viewed creationists. As unscientific, or as simply scientific with an alternate view. I'm sure both are represented on the forum. Again, the subject of this thread is titled after my own experience with these things and rather than trying to pigeon hole all evolutionists, I thought it might spark some good conversation.

I seem to be in the same general area as ST88 and rjw. The vocal creationists with whom I have dealt (not many) tend to raise their voices as they raise the objections that have been frequently explained (the second law of thermodynamics, the Paluxy footprints, etc.). The general approach is rather like, "well then, if you're so smart, how do you explain this..." It's a good tactic for an audience that doesn't know the science, because it is very easy to come to an area that a scientist just doesn't know about, and must therefore say "I'll have to look into that." The creationist then tells the audience "see--science doesn't know. Creation wins."

This kind of performance tends to make us think of creationists as argumentative, scientifically-uninformed loudmouths.

The larger number of creationists I have met are much more sensible. They admit not knowing the science, and are interested in learning what it might be, and why we find it compelling. They also make no secret of the fact that they don't expect it to be compelling, if for no other reason than that they have spent a great many years assuming the truth of a very different model of the world's history. With these people, it is possible to have a discussion, and follow it where it leads.

I have learned, or think I have learned, discussion methods that aren't too offensive, and that lay out my understanding without insisting on immediate acceptance. The important thing is to explain some of the science.

The bottom line, though, is that there is a fundamental differnence in one's conception of how the world works if one follows the creationist viewpoint, or if one follows the scientific evidence to where it leads. My gut-level feeling is that this is only a problem because of the "other stuff" tied up in the fundamentalist creationist viewpoint: that if evolution is true, the bible is 100% wrong, and the world will suddenly become immoral chaos. I think that the real argument is about the "certain chaos" rather than about the science.

[nikolayevich]

I appreciate each of the comments related to this topic. In trying to understand the evolutionist perspective, I would like to know the best points to debate rather than the weakest points or arguments which are not held by evolutionists on this forum.

If I am correct in my understanding of each of your comments, a creationist can be scientific, though it has been observed that many present bad or flawed science for the purposes of origins. Is that a fair description?

From my perspective it seems reasonable to hold this as an opinion, so I'm just checking that I'm not misstating. I have found the same to be true with many evolutionists, and believe I can share the frustration when you find this is true in either camp. I am certainly disappointed when finding a creationist using flawed or totally unsubstantiated reasoning.

One example I can think of, is a group of creationists who over the past decade have tried to show that a particular geological formation on Mt. Ararat is the remains of Noah's Ark, and that therefore the flood is proven historical. Other creationists have called to question the veracity of the ark finding, and suggested that there is no confirmation apart from the formation resembling what could have looked like a ship of sorts. Using this type of 'evidence' to prove something even greater, is far from good science.

I have no issue with scientists, believing they may have found such an historic relic, rallying the world to substantiate it, but, before further investigation, as should be with the process, or if more and more doubt compounds, it should hardly be used to corroborate other theories or beliefs.

Jose: We've previously spoken about scientific teaching as being sub-par and I was hoping you might have caught the Nova special on PBS the past couple of nights called "Origins"?

What I'm really wanting to know is what good scientists (including any here) think about the production value of this one. Why I relate it to this topic is because I would hope that creationists and evolutionists alike would desire better, more scientific arguments be used for origins.

It appeared to me (having watched a little more than 3 out of 4 hours of the mini-series) that well learned evolutionists might be disappointed in the overall delivery of the evolutionary message. To be sure, the aesthetic quality of the series was brilliant, some of the 3D modeling was very poignant, and in particular the filming of various cephalopods was stunning (my favorite part actually... I had never seen the true abilities of these creatures to change color and texture). The problem I found was in the logic used to explain, not the observations of the scientists, but what these observations suggested. In addition, statements (ones which are not able to be taken for granted by the general public) were made which were not backed up, except by way of being said by interviewed scientists with great credentials. If anyone is interested, I could explain in more detail. I'm hoping someone has seen this series? If so, what were your thoughts on it? What parts did you feel were scientific, or were not? Was this program representative of the general evolutionist position?

[Jose]

If I am correct in my understanding of each of your comments, a creationist can be scientific, though it has been observed that many present bad or flawed science for the purposes of origins. Is that a fair description?

This is probably fair. Unfortunately, it must also be added that there are those who present neither bad nor flawed science, but what might most chariably be called "pretend" science--scientific-sounding words and arguments that are completely non-scientific. That is, these guys know what they are doing, and their intent is deceive. They do this because it works.

This is relevant to your later question about the Origins show (which I have not seen, since I usually don't watch TV). I presume that this show was like others, including the superb one that was developed in part by one of my colleagues. These shows have a difficult task: keeping the audience awake and interested, while at the same time describing things that require far more background than the average viewer has. You just can't talk about DNA sequences of mollusc genes, and the computer algorithms used to compare sequences among organisms, and go from there to the implications of these comparisons, without losing the audience. It's hard to do even in a college classroom, where they pay to have you tell them these things, and have taken the prior courses!

Nor will you get very far talking about the role of the sonic hedgehog gene in limb morphogenesis, and how changes in expression patterns of regulatory genes alter whole suites of embryonic structures. It's just too much.

So, the producers do what producers do: choose the fantastic photography, the deep-voiced narrator, and the simple conclusions. That is, the express purpose is entertainment, with some scientific information. It is not to present the evidence for the conclusions.

Therefore, those who wonder how anyone can possibly conclude THIS from looking at THAT is going to be disappointed. The thing to do is seek someone who knows the intermediate steps in the logic, and spend a few hours (or days or weeks or years) working through it.

I am reminded, as I write this, of Barbara McClintock. She was a truly wonderful woman who received the Nobel Prize for discovery of "jumping genes." She could look at a corn kernel with a purple spot on it, and tell you that a piece of DNA had moved from one chromosome to another 17 days after the corn flower was pollinated. Huh? How did she get from here to there?

Many years ago, I became sufficiently interested in this that I read all of her papers, in sequence. It took a long time, and a lot of struggling because they were complex. In the end, though, I could follow her logic. I could even talk with her about what she was doing, and we became friends. (As I said, she was a wonderful person.) But--and here's the moral--I needed to acquire the background to understand her science. Many people didn't bother, which is why it took about 40 years for the rest of genetics to catch up with her, and stop treating her like a kook.

The point of the digression: learning the background is essential to understanding the science. TV is not the place to get it. Where would we get it? I've learned a lot from reading Steven J. Gould's books. The vocal anti-evolutionists deride him, and like to take quotes out of context to pretend he's a flip-flopper, but he writes well and presents the information logically. Another good book is Sagan and Druyan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Of course, these are books that merely touch on a few highlights of a complex field, but they are beginnings.

Perhaps, it might be helpful to think of the TV specials on scientific topics as a bit like Bible Stories. Bible Stories are pretty over-simplified, and leave out a lot of important details. Their purpose is to illustrate the big picture for those who don't have a lot of background, not to replace the Bible itself. If you are puzzled about the details, get out the real books and see if you can get further into it.

There are probably several of us in this forum, a lot of lurkers, and all of those folks on talk.origins, who would be able to answer specific questions as well.

Cheers.

--J

[rjw]

Gidday Nikolayevich,


Nikolayevich:- If I am correct in my understanding of each of your comments, a creationist can be scientific

Correct.

Nikolayevich:- … though it has been observed that many present bad or flawed science for the purposes of origins. Is that a fair description?

This is only partially correct. YECs do horrible science when they criticize the mainstream on issues such as radio-isotope dating, the age of the earth etc. They do horrible science when they attempt to demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs were cotemporary.

Let me explain with further examples.

Several years ago I became tangled (3) with Dr Sarfati (AiG Australia) over an article he wrote in AiG’s family magazine Creation (2). The article reported on a paper (1) presented by Austin and Humphreys (A&H) to the Second International Conference on Creationism at Pittsburgh in 1990. In that paper, A&H claimed to have developed a more accurate evolutionary model of salt flows through the oceans, by which they could provide a maximum age for oceans and hence constrain the age of the earth. They determined a maximum age of 62 million years. Not only did A&H claim to have set up an evolutionary model but they, and Sarfati claimed that the model was generous to evolutionists and that their creation model explained the data better.

Well, the only way in which the model was evolutionary was in the fact that A&H has set up a differential equation to account for the secular variation in inputs and outputs. Their model certainly did not take into account an important aspect of geolocical thinking – namely the recycling of sediments through the earth’s crust. That was ignored, yet one of the papers A&H cited (Livingstone (4)), showed that by incorporating recycling correctly, an age of one to two billion years could be obtained!

Hence the claim by Sarfati and A&H that their model was evolutionary and was fair to evolutionists was a bogus claim.

The paper presented by A&H took some 11 pages. Their own creationist model which explained “the data better” was a short 16 line hand waving exercise presented at the end. Why was it hand-waving? It contained several “God could have”, “God would be expected to”, “The Flood might have” type statements.

Unlike the mainstream papers on the topic e.g. Livingstone’s, A&H model was pure unconstrained speculation. A&H have no idea what God might have done, what He could have done etc. Compare this to Livingstone’s analysis. Livingstone’s calculations were constrained by what was observed in the field, by what was known at that time.

In our brief exchange of letters on this issue, Sarfati made several other outrageous claims e.g.

1) that no evolutionist could fault the model (no one had bothered to try, other that an old earth creationist.)
2) that the calculation of A&H was for a maximum age only hence my critique that 62 million was far closer to the estimated age or 4.6 billion years than it was to 6,000 years was bogus.

The point is this. A&H are perfectly entitled to present their model as a scientific one. But to offer a model that in no way addresses current thinking and pretend that it was nevertheless an evolutionary model that was generous to the mainstream is cheap propaganda. Then to offer a short piece of unconstrained speculation as a better explanation of the data is cheaper yet again.


Consider another example. This paper (5) was presented to me either by a YEC on another bulletin board or by Dr Tas Walker (AiG) as an example of flawed dating systems.

Williams critiqued an article presented in Nature.

In this article, Compston and Pidgeon describe how they dated a series of crystals from an area in Western Australia that had undergone heavy metamorphism and erosion. From these crystals they found one that presented an age of 4.3 billion years (minimum). They claimed that this was the oldest crystal discovered to date.

Williams writes a very short 16 line critique of their paper – in which he states:-

A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit. No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.

What Williams did not tell his readers was:-

a) That one value was not selected and the other 139 discarded. In the context of the claim made by the scientists, this is a cheap shot by Williams.
b) The nature of the area that the geologists examined – extensive metamorphism and erosion thereby causing the scatter of dates.
c) The tests done by the geologists on that single crystal to determine how closed it had been to the escape of argon and potassium.
d) The actual claim made by the authors concerning the relationship of that one crystal with respect to the others.
e) That the spread of dates did indeed provide the geologists with important information concerning the nature of the dates they obtained – despite what Williams writes.

Hence the claim made by the geologists was entirely appropriate, given the nature of the area examined and the interpretation they placed on the data – despite the fact that Williams accuses them of incompetence.

YECs have no means of determining the age of the earth. Existing well understood methods are a threat to their particular interpretation of some Biblical verses. Hence they attack these methods. However such attacks, as that exemplified by Williams are:-

a) a misrepresentation of the article he critiqued. It does not accurately report what the scientists claimed and why they claimed it. Hence Williams’ argument is based on this misrepresentation.
b) bluster and bluff. While his “No statistician would condone …” bit sounds like the argument of a man who has found the fatal flaw in an opponent’s argument, in reality they are the words of a person who has not made his case but is hoping some strong words will add conviction to it.


I could continue but hopefully my point is made. You will find a lot of insults between creationists and the mainstream at the level of these bulletin boards – whether the correspondents are ordinary people or scientists. However, have a look at the research papers offered by both camps. Papers offered by the mainstream:-

a) are constrained by observations,
b) are clear about what is speculation and what is not,
c) stick to the point they are making. They do not “prove” their points by taking cheap shots at their opponents. They make their case by collecting evidence and arguing from that,
d) Offer logical and reasoned arguments for the point they are wishing to make,
e) operate within a consistent framework – the same framework as the rest of science operates in

Papers offered by creationists:-

a) are often unconstrained speculations – e.g. “God could have” type statements,
b) mix speculation with fact and do not distinguish between them,
c) do not argue a case on its own merits. Often they make their case by taking cheap shots at their opponents – the mainstream,
d) do not offer logical and reasoned arguments. Often their arguments are misrepresentations of the mainstream, use double standards, shift the goal posts etc.
e) do not operate within a consistent framework. Naturalism is decried when YEC religious sensibilities are offended. Naturalism is enthusiastically embraced when religion is not offended. When offense occurs, often a mixture of naturalism and supernaturalism results in which there are no clear guidelines as to why the shift is made, other than the fact that religious belief has been offended. The YEC rationale for this peculiar “science” is inconsistent, contradictory and often incoherent. (A good example of this would be Ken Ham’s popular little book The Lie: Evolution (7))


Hopefully Nikolayevich this posting explains a little of why I dislike YEC science so much.

Regards, Roland


The references for this posting are:-

(1) Austin, Steven A. and Humphreys, Russell D., “The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists.”, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 1990 Volume II. Creation Science Fellowship Inc., Pittsburgh, USA. Brooks, Christopher L., editor in chief.)
(2) Sartfai, J, "Evidence for a Young Earth, Salty Seas", Creation ex nihlo,21(1):16-17
(3) Letter from Dr S. Sarfati to R.Watts, 1-JUN-1999.
(4) Livingstone, D.A., "The sodium cycle and the age of the ocean", Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 27:1055-1069, 1963.
(5) Williams, Alexander, “Flaws in dating the earth as ancient”, Creation Ex Nihlo 18(1):14, Dec. 1995-Feb. 1996
(6) Compston W and Pidgeon, R.T., Nature 321:766-769, 1986.
(7) Ham, Ken. “The Lie: Evolution”. Answers In Genesis Ministries. 2001

[nikolayevich]

Creationists against science is likely one of the more prominent straw men out there, which is why we see evolutionists pose questions which start with that assumption. See A Fundamental Difference between Creationism and Science as an example of a statement which begs the question.

This is a good point. I have been guilty of this if only because I allowed the terms of the debate to color my arguments. Most times, I use the word science to cover the entirety of the material science fields exclusive of Creationists. Because evolution is the most widely accepted theory within the sciences, I have made this generalization for the purposes of argument.

I believe this is commonly done- and, it is done by people with my beliefs as well, so I wouldn't hold it against anyone. But it should be evaluated for what it is. I think it must be seen that it is more important in a quest for truth to say someone offers bad science than to say it is not science, as science is always interpretive. After all, we learn now and again that various scientific discoveries made by the very best are wrought to naught in time. When this happens we generally do not say it was without science, but rather that it is not what it seemed, or "everything pointed us in that direction but with better tools we wouldn't have..." and so forth.... Part of the reason this must needs be done is to preserve scientific advancement. We must defend each other's right to a position which may be counterintuitive to our own. Some of the greatest discoveries have appeared so incredulous that they were not looked at as legitimate science until further corroborating positions could be found.

In any field it is evident that there are individuals who use logic and reason, and others who are less concerned with either. If creationists and evolutionists can appeal to logic and reason, then their ideas alone must be dealt with, not simply their personalities. I watched one particular creation / evolution debate on the BBC a couple of years back, where the evolutionist scientists outright slandered their opponent and told him he was lying to children and stupid. The moderator even switched the topic at one point after the evolutionists failed to answer a basic question, by saying to the creationist, "So you believe in Noah and the Ark...?" in an obvious attempt to move from one "incredible" idea to another without allowing either to be properly handled. It could have been ripped apart by a philosophy class as suffering from all manner of fallacies. It was nine parts emotional appeal ("my reason for disbelieving what he's saying is that evolution is so obviously true") and one part grade 11 biology which all parties including the creationist agreed upon.

However, I think it is possible to pit Creationists against scientists when discussing things like radioactive dating techniques and astrophysics, as the Creationist view must deal with this evidence in some way, and it is most often to deny its validity.

Without getting to the core details of the issues, the concept of "creationists against scientists" does not make sense, when the creationists are scientists. How can this be squared? Because these particular scientists don't conform to the norm? It seems that often they are defined out of the argument before one has a chance to evaluate the various points. It seems a bit like cheating though.

Would not a true scientific quotient measure for how well a scientist can handle chemical, physical, biological, mechanical problems? Are creationists any less capable of balancing their equations or even predicting outcomes? Do eigenvectors prefer evolutionists? Of course not. The data is understood by creationists. That the outcomes support evolution is questioned. One group challenging another's dating techniques is hardly unscientific. Internal debate always rages among scientists about results and findings. One only has to look to a courtroom to see that "expert" scientific opinions can go either way and is rarely flawless. Why is there such offense taken at dating techniques? Are dating techniques without flaws? As has been said, bones are not found with labels attached saying, "I'm 3 million years old". The science is much more indirect and there are plenty of variables.

I'm not dogmatic about the precise age of the earth, but I take issue with claims that we can know so certainly by a particular scientific measure. We're dealing with historical science. Much -- including variables -- are left up to conjecture, presupposition, and bias, and no, not just when looked at by a creationist.

I think that few creation scientists would ever argue that theism and science can't go together unless they misunderstand their own position.

As would it be incorrect to say that most scientists don't think the same thing. Many arguments I have seen and heard from the Creationist side include "atheist science" rhetoric. I assume that this is because the atheists are the ones who are most vocal in their refusal to accept any Creationist thought. But the mis-characterizations go both ways.

Absolutely they do. The subject of this thread deals with only one mischaracterizing problem (that of the creationist) but we should probably deal with more. I am all in favor of properly representing evolutionists in my arguments and would be happy to talk more about ways to stem these surface issues that move people away from the real arguments.

I am interested in seeing how evolutionists on this forum generally view, or have viewed creationists. As unscientific, or as simply scientific with an alternate view. I'm sure both are represented on the forum.

It has been my impression that Creationism is more of a philosophical position than a scientific one.

It is often assumed that evolution simply "is", and that it is purely arrived at via scientific observation of the facts. The problem here, from a philosophical vantage point, is that both theories have a chicken/egg scenario which can only be avoided arbitrarily and by no use of science:

Creationism:
One can believe in God as Creator -> Observe science which points to this
or
One can observe science which seems to contradict randomness -> Search for God in the details

Evolutionism:
One can believe in Naturalism -> Observe science which points to this
or
One can observe science which seems to contradict design -> Search for Naturalistic explanations

The truth of the matter is:
For the Creationist and the Evolutionist, both can arrive at their scientific reasoning by their world view position, and both can arrive at their world view position by their scientific reasoning.

To say that the creationist alone has their beliefs and therefore cannot be scientific is arbitrary in light of this and the logic is not consistently applied to the evolutionist. It may be said, "a scientist, if raised by creationists, would be more likely to accept creation", but then I would ask, how many evolutionists raise their kids to believe in creation?

If we want to try each other's position we have to apply the same tests we apply to our opponents to ourselves.

Hello nikolayevich

I will confine my opinions to YEC.

You wrote:-

I am interested in seeing how evolutionists on this forum generally view, or have viewed creationists. As unscientific, or as simply scientific with an alternate view. I'm sure both are represented on the forum. Again, the subject of this thread is titled after my own experience with these things and rather than trying to pigeon hole all evolutionists, I thought it might spark some good conversation.
It depends on what the creationist is studying. If he/she is studying (say) the structure of the atom, then the creationist is mainstream. However, when he/she steps into a mainstream field in which religious belief may be offended, then a peculiar transformation takes place. The standard metaphysics, axioms, rules and methodologies of science are revoked in favor of an inconsistent mix of supernaturalism and naturalism and rules, axioms and methodologies which are very selectively and inconsistently applied.

In such a situation, I still call creationists scientific because they kind of go through the motions. But that is about all.

Hello rjw,

Allow me to turn it around:
It depends on what the evolutionist is studying. If he/she is studying (say) the structure of the atom, then the evolutionist is mainstream. However, when he/she steps into a mainstream field in which a world view may be offended, then a peculiar transformation takes place. The standard metaphysics, axioms, rules and methodologies of science are revoked in favor of an inconsistent mix of omnipotent chance and naturalism and rules, axioms and methodologies which are very selectively and inconsistently applied.

As a rhetorical statement, by no proper measure can either of us accept these statements as anything more than opinion. That aside, I agree with you that there are those who will commit the above offenses in both camps. It relates to my above comments however, that the general problem is one shared by both evolutionists and creationists, no matter how often it is denied.

I was born and bred a Christian and as a youth/young man was very active in the Church. As a young man I totally lost my faith. I am now an atheist. In my mid 40’s, I began debating YECs to see just how good it really was – having been raised within a church that was to a large degree fundamentalist. (One never really walks totally away from one’s formative years.) I fell into this exploration by circumstance – a request from my brother (a teacher) to assist in a debate with a couple of YECs at his school who wished to engage him. It was a non event. We opened by critiquing an article from AiG. Our opponents never responded, despite many promises and despite several other essays being sent to them. From there I began an exchange of letters with Dr Sarfati, Dr Walker and Mr Lamb at AiG in Australia. That exchange lasted a few years then AiG appeared to give up corresponding. From there I came to these bulletin boards.

Well, I'm glad we can discuss these things. I very much appreciate our conversation here.

While my childhood experiences taught me that Biblical fundamentalists were no better or worse than the rest of society and in my exchanges with AiG I found Tas Walker a seemingly beaut bloke, that exchange with AiG showed me the utter sloppiness of YEC science.

One only has to look at the history of the evolutionary quest to see the sloppiness of evolutionary science. It doesn't disprove it or creation science to say it's sloppy, but having come through the system, the "approved" texts and teachings, what I read and discover today, are countless times when evolutionists point to things I found were wrong or misguided, according even to them. Even fraud has found its way to the textbooks on occasion. So evolutionary teaching has hardly been without sloppiness. I'm continually fascinated when learning of brand new texts which promulgate yesteryear's science or present concepts which are highly questioned by evolutionists themselves.

These YEC bulletin boards continue to reinforce that notion.

I don't remember anything about this board being a YEC board in particular. Many here may be YEC's, however the discussion here is fairly well balanced between YEC's, OEC's, Evolutionists, and so forth. My preference is to debate whether God designed/created, rather than assigning a date. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy debating age assumptions as they abound, but I think the question of age sometimes tangents the argument away from the greater issues.

I found AiG to misrepresent the mainstream terribly, that it was often evasive, used double standards, shifted goal posts to maintain its arguments, often used sheer sloppy arguments to make a point etc. Followers of AiG accordingly adopt those methods, oblivious it would seem to what is going on.

I don't doubt this is possible, however I have read much from AiG and have often seen them misrepresented. As an example, I watched a debate recently between Carl Wieland and Paul Willis, where an evolutionist listed a couple of things that AiG said on their web site that his AiG opponent, Wieland, "contradicted" in his statements. The problem was, it wasn't true. Having previously read exactly the documents to which he referred, it was clear that he had twisted his argument to make it appear as though the AiG representative was lying, when in reality, he was falsely accusing his opponent. Actually, numerous times, Willis tried to show his opponent as "hiding" or "keeping" the truth from the audience with accusations and just-so statements which were unfounded.

Only a few YECs I admire as debaters. There was one bright lad on another board who actually attempted to confront the mainstream with well constructed arguments. There have been a few others who have agreed that the mainstream does have the arguments and the evidence but that their faith is really important to them and they wish to withdraw from the debate. I cannot argue against that honesty.

Again, we will always find that evolutionist proponents and creationist proponents have in common their human tendencies, so I would urge people not to believe or disbelieve based on individuals unable or unwilling to defend their position.

Frankly I think that YEC science has to be so sloppy because it is backing a loser as far as science goes – hence it has no choice but to adopt the dubious methodologies it does.

I'd be happy to review some of these methodologies. To which do you refer?

As I pointed out at the beginning though, this only applies to areas in which YEC religious belief is offended. Otherwise a YEC scientist is normal/mainstream.

Hope this post is not too offensive.

Absolutely not. I appreciate your candidness, and tolerance of people like me

To say that creationists disagree with certain scientific [teachings] may be an understatement, but to show them as against "science" as a result is verging on tragic.

Yes, indeed. A great many are quite scientific. As rjw noted, a great many are in scientific fields where a creationist view presents no conflict with the science, and they do great scientific work.

The clear differentiator here is operational versus historical science. It certainly makes sense that scientists can respect each other's work in operational sciences when outcomes are less dissimilar than with historical science.

I appreciate this forum because it seems to try very hard to stay above the fray, and hold the discussions as among friends. Frankly, this is unusual.

I would love to see it become the norm.

I have learned, or think I have learned, discussion methods that aren't too offensive, and that lay out my understanding without insisting on immediate acceptance.

I think this is an accurate self-description.

If I am correct in my understanding of each of your comments, a creationist can be scientific, though it has been observed that many present bad or flawed science for the purposes of origins. Is that a fair description?

This is probably fair. Unfortunately, it must also be added that there are those who present neither bad nor flawed science, but what might most chariably be called "pretend" science--scientific-sounding words and arguments that are completely non-scientific. That is, these guys know what they are doing, and their intent is deceive. They do this because it works.

<sigh> Why people resort to this is beyond reason. I say this agreeing that it happens - on both sides it must be seen - however, it is probably unfair to say that people should not take scientists seriously when propounding design arguments, as a result of some bad seeds and their deception. One important reason this must not be done is that it moves argument into the realm of non science.

You say, "they do this because it works" (referring to non-scientific words and arguments), and I would say something similar about just-so statements by evolutionists about the character of their opponents. There are evolutionists who chime that creation scientists are not scientific, as such a statement does much to dissuade their readers or listeners from taking creationism or its proponents seriously, though such an indictment is ad hominem and should be reserved.

Point to the flaws in theories, we may; to each one's shortcomings and we evade progress. I would hope at the very least, the evolutionists on this forum will point out when one of us creationist guys put forth a phony argument or one intended to deceive. Until then, I think we can rely on the critiquing of ideas.

I presume that this show was like others, including the superb one that was developed in part by one of my colleagues. These shows have a difficult task: keeping the audience awake and interested, while at the same time describing things that require far more background than the average viewer has.

So, the producers do what producers do: choose the fantastic photography, the deep-voiced narrator, and the simple conclusions. That is, the express purpose is entertainment, with some scientific information. It is not to present the evidence for the conclusions.

Therefore, those who wonder how anyone can possibly conclude THIS from looking at THAT is going to be disappointed. The thing to do is seek someone who knows the intermediate steps in the logic, and spend a few hours (or days or weeks or years) working through it.

You are absolutely right about doing proper research. There is no real substitution for this. Part of the problem is there is no unified theory of evolution, and the presentation, though short (4 hours) fairly well showed why this is so. Positing a dozen or so aspects of the theory, the host went through numerous examples of how scientists are currently studying these things. They show (and I commend them on this one point) various sub-theories of individual scientists and their observation and study of certain things, and subsequently show what they find, even when it is not positive support or when it is neither supportive nor dismissive evidence for their theories. One leaves with the knowledge that among these areas, the scientists believe these things happened when the evidence tarries. Though this type of view is generally rebuffed by evolutionists as a misunderstanding, it can be seen too frequently and the shows only make this more evident.

Again, it doesn't position the evolutionists worse than the creationists. It simply leaves much to be desired.

Nikolayevich:- If I am correct in my understanding of each of your comments, a creationist can be scientific

Correct.

Phew!

Nikolayevich:- … though it has been observed that many present bad or flawed science for the purposes of origins. Is that a fair description?

This is only partially correct. YECs do horrible science when they criticize the mainstream on issues such as radio-isotope dating, the age of the earth etc. They do horrible science when they attempt to demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs were cotemporary.

Let me explain with further examples.

Please explain these first ones...

Several years ago I became tangled (3) with Dr Sarfati (AiG Australia) over an article he wrote in AiG’s family magazine Creation (2). The article reported on a paper (1) presented by Austin and Humphreys (A&H) to the Second International Conference on Creationism at Pittsburgh in 1990. In that paper, A&H claimed to have developed a more accurate evolutionary model of salt flows through the oceans, by which they could provide a maximum age for oceans and hence constrain the age of the earth. They determined a maximum age of 62 million years. Not only did A&H claim to have set up an evolutionary model but they, and Sarfati claimed that the model was generous to evolutionists and that their creation model explained the data better.

Well, the only way in which the model was evolutionary was in the fact that A&H has set up a differential equation to account for the secular variation in inputs and outputs. Their model certainly did not take into account an important aspect of geolocical thinking – namely the recycling of sediments through the earth’s crust. That was ignored, yet one of the papers A&H cited (Livingstone (4)), showed that by incorporating recycling correctly, an age of one to two billion years could be obtained!

Hence the claim by Sarfati and A&H that their model was evolutionary and was fair to evolutionists was a bogus claim.

I would not defend AiG's paper not having read it myself, however, that it is bogus based on the above is hardly a condemnation of overall creationist methodology. Scientists of all fields frequently ignore each other on parts of their findings while picking and choosing that which suits their suit, as it were.

One clear example of this that comes to mind, and oddly sounds similar to the above, is recent recalculations of stratospheric ozone depletion leading to global warming. When doing the math which lead to estimations of sharp rising in overall climactic temperature, environmentalists once gave much more dire estimations of when the earth would experience the next natural global crisis. One main reason for this was that the supercomputers doing the crunching were not given the data based on natural ozone replenishment. Since the ozone layer naturally replenishes itself over time, though likely slower than it is depleting, it affects the equation. It wasn't for lack of knowledge, but perhaps these scientists too, were zealous for their cause.

The paper presented by A&H took some 11 pages. Their own creationist model which explained “the data better” was a short 16 line hand waving exercise presented at the end. Why was it hand-waving? It contained several “God could have”, “God would be expected to”, “The Flood might have” type statements.

Oh, that was the other thing one saw plenty of in the aforementioned PBS documentary. Plenty of "it makes you wonder", "we think", "it's possible", "the most likely way these things formed"... Those are from my notes, but as you can see, whether God is in the equation or not, both sides can offer statements which are difficult at best to prove, though it's true that such statements and the name "God" is more offensive to some.

I could continue but hopefully my point is made. You will find a lot of insults between creationists and the mainstream at the level of these bulletin boards – whether the correspondents are ordinary people or scientists. However, have a look at the research papers offered by both camps. Papers offered by the mainstream:-

a) are constrained by observations,
b) are clear about what is speculation and what is not,
c) stick to the point they are making. They do not “prove” their points by taking cheap shots at their opponents. They make their case by collecting evidence and arguing from that,
d) Offer logical and reasoned arguments for the point they are wishing to make,
e) operate within a consistent framework – the same framework as the rest of science operates in

To which mainstream do you refer? Certainly not to the greater group of male and female scientists belonging to the human race. A race with good and noble, and lying and deceitful alike. This assessment is far too utopian for what we see in the world around us. And one doesn't have only to look for Christians to see individuals with motive to further their scientific ideas. Political, social, governmental and corporate agendas do much to sway individuals one way or another. "Publish or Perish" as has been discussed elsewhere on this board, certainly doesn't help to preclude bad science from hitting the journals. Discovery is a hallmark of scientific sage-dom. And how about the "limelight"? Do scientists need to submit good science to make it into the spotlight? Of course not. They need only be controversial, revolutionary, whacky or a host of other things which can cover much of the "mainstream" without necessarily touching any of the good scientists.

Papers offered by creationists:-

a) are often unconstrained speculations – e.g. “God could have” type statements,
b) mix speculation with fact and do not distinguish between them,
c) do not argue a case on its own merits. Often they make their case by taking cheap shots at their opponents – the mainstream,
d) do not offer logical and reasoned arguments. Often their arguments are misrepresentations of the mainstream, use double standards, shift the goal posts etc.
e) do not operate within a consistent framework. Naturalism is decried when YEC religious sensibilities are offended. Naturalism is enthusiastically embraced when religion is not offended. When offense occurs, often a mixture of naturalism and supernaturalism results in which there are no clear guidelines as to why the shift is made, other than the fact that religious belief has been offended. The YEC rationale for this peculiar “science” is inconsistent, contradictory and often incoherent. (A good example of this would be Ken Ham’s popular little book The Lie: Evolution (7))

As sweepingly general as this is, I think it's simply a personality thing, and must be rejected with the former appraisal of the mainstream scientific community as too subjective.

Hopefully Nikolayevich this posting explains a little of why I dislike YEC science so much.

Yes. I even agree with some of your findings. It's only the major conclusions I question.

Sorry for the length...

[Jose]

Thank you, nikolayevich. Very thoughtful. You are absolutely right that personalities play a very large role among scientists as well as among creationists. The problem is that there are too many of them to hit them with a stick and say "behave."

Creationism:
One can believe in God as Creator -> Observe science which points to this
or
One can observe science which seems to contradict randomness -> Search for God in the details

Evolutionism:
One can believe in Naturalism -> Observe science which points to this
or
One can observe science which seems to contradict design -> Search for Naturalistic explanations

The truth of the matter is:
For the Creationist and the Evolutionist, both can arrive at their scientific reasoning by their world view position, and both can arrive at their world view position by their scientific reasoning.

Let's think about this....I will admit that I was not raised on biblical information. In fact, my grandfather believed that children should not be exposed to religion until they are old enough to evaluate the information dispassionately. Neither was I raised as an evolutionist. I was, however, raised in science. So, here's how I arrived at my understanding:

I heard the usual stuff in high school biology. It was too wishy-washy, and too general, so I generally ignored it. I then went to college and majored in biochemistry. At the time, there was no evolutionary context for biochemistry, so I didn't learn much about it there, either. Eventually, I ended up doing research in molecular genetics, trying to figure out how a particular protein works.

For this kind of project, it became essential to look at the corresponding protein in other organisms. It became essential to look at other proteins in the same biochemical domain of cellular activity--and these, too, it was necessary to look at in other organisms. It also became necessary to do genetics, producing mutations and following the effects thereof. From this, it was impossible not to see the footprints of evolution. There are too many DNA sequences that show evidence of common descent with modification to believe that it could arise by chance. While it could arise by creation--designed explicitly to trick us--the idea of a trickster god didn't seem likely.

Well, it sort of goes on from there. Using the evidence of genetics, the mechanisms of mutation, and DNA sequence comparisons, I end up being forced to conclude that, based on the evidence, common descent is the best explanation. I understand the molecular mechanism whereby it occurred, and I can point to examples that are the "proof of principle" for each step. I find it inescapable.

There was no effort to discredit creation, and no effort to "prove" evolution, or even use naturalistic methods over any other. I simply studied the data, and now feel compelled to reach this conclusion.

Most of the evolutionary biologists whom I know are similarly forced by the data to reach the same conclusion. They study various aspects of what is happening now, and what they can infer happened in the past. They accept the basic model because they see no viable alternative that has such great explanatory power (except the trickster god).

Well, I have to run...

[rjw]

Gidday Nikolayevich,

First of all, thank you for your polite reply and reasonable tone.

You wrote:- Sorry for the length.

Don’t apologize. I have a reputation for long posts. It annoys some people but I find it hard to discuss some issues within the confines of a few paragraphs.

Your reply is worthy of a long response. This one is a very long response – your reply opened many issues. Hopefully the moderators will not be too upset - this thread is going no-where anyway.

So here goes.

GENERAL CRITICISM

I think you have to be careful that you are not confusing the normal human foibles of occasional sloppiness, occasional mischievousness, unreasonable bias (not all bias is unreasonable) etc., with systematic and methodological misrepresentation and continual sloppiness.

Very strong words I guess but hopefully my post will explain what I mean.

I think you have to be careful that you are not pointing a finger at evolutionary theory as if it stands isolated by criticisms that can be applied to it and not other sciences.

That issue too I shall address below.

You also need to be careful that you are not comparing research literature with documentaries, books and magazines which popularize science, including evolution and which are often speculative. You need to compare like with like i.e. YEC research with mainstream research. And you need to be careful of the context within which words are used.

I shall address this below.

TURNING A POINT AROUND DOES NOT FOR A POINT MAKE.

To argue that a mainstream evolutionist switches metaphysics, axioms and methodologies when he gets offended at creationism is much like saying that the Christian switches beliefs when he/she gets offended at some other religious belief. It is like saying that the geologist switches metaphysics, axioms and methodologies when offended at those extreme Biblical literalists, the flat-earthers and geocentrists.

You wrote:- Allow me to turn [your point] around:

It depends on what the evolutionist is studying. If he/she is studying (say) the structure of the atom, then the evolutionist is mainstream. However, when he/she steps into a mainstream field in which a world view may be offended, then a peculiar transformation takes place. The standard metaphysics, axioms, rules and methodologies of science are revoked in favor of an inconsistent mix of omnipotent chance and naturalism and rules, axioms and methodologies which are very selectively and inconsistently applied.

Turning my point around by substituting “YEC” for “evolutionist” does not really make a point unless you can be specific. I guess, then that you wish for me to be specific.

As you say above, in both cases, that of the atom and that of evolution, the evolutionist is in the mainstream. In part it is mainstream in that most scientists accept it. But a part of it being mainstream is that the underlying metaphysics, axioms and methodology does not change. For the scientist, (evolutionist) the underlying metaphysic, axioms and methodology do not change whether biology, evolution, atoms, or chemistry are being discussed.

That the evolutionist is offended by creationism has nothing to do with a change in metaphysic, axiom or methodology, any more than the Christian being offended by idol worship means that to argue against it, the Christian has to swap belief systems.

Accusations of inconsistency, selectivity are another thing altogether. They are accusations that can be leveled at anyone in any science. They are accusations that often can be leveled at researchers in all fields of science. Ditto “omnipotent chance” and “naturalism”. All of mainstream science is naturalistic. As for chance – what do you mean by “omnipotent”? Chance does play a part in evolution, but not the total part. But then chance plays a part in physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology etc. With respect to these other fields, naturalism is the ruling paradigm and chance also plays its part. Is it “omnipotent”? If not then why not?

For the YEC, this is not the case however. In using metaphysics, axioms and methodologies, the YEC is not consistent. Naturalism is embraced for physics and chemistry. To see this you only have to read a book written by a YEC. For some explanations of origins though, the system changes. With respect to the origin of the stars and the earth and some of its subsequent history; with respect to the origin of life and some of its subsequent development, the following occurs:-

1) naturalism is no longer the metaphysic – supernaturalism is.

2) The naturalistic axioms are no longer used – a set of supernaturalistic axioms are. (11) (12)

3) The methodology generally moves away from that of collecting evidence and arguing from it to a mixture of propaganda and speculation (see below).

What is science? Ken Ham, in his book The Lie: Evolution (1) defined it as follows (allow me to paraphrase for the sake of brevity):-
“If it cannot be observed, repeatedly, by one of the senses, in the present, then it is not science but rather it is a religion or it is the science of a religion”.

And most YECs I have engaged, repeat this argument in one form or another. Thus I am told:-

“It is irrelevant concerning whale evolution. For one thing the "lab" doesn't have 60 million years to work with.” (2)

“Regardless, this situation would be acceptable … IFwe were able to go out and verify the worthiness of the model and use this information to refine or discard the model. But in this case we can do this only in an extremely limited sense. For instance, much has been said here about the Jean's Mass. Theoretically we can tweek this model all we want but the fact remains that we shouldn't expect to observe (anytime soon) umpteen solar masses of gas condensing into a star.” (3).

“Under these models, how long would it take for a cloud to condense into a star. Question answered.” (4)

“One can be viewed in action in real time while the other can only be hypothesized, systhesized and supersized.” (5)

“There is no way to determine how much beryllium there was to start off with. Thus, you can't tell how old any galaxy is without seeing it form.” (6)

“Essentially when we look at the fossil record we cannot see the mechanisms at work, we only see the ‘end’ result. (All cause in science is inferred. One cannot see gravity, only the effect.) How can we claim evolution (and its mechanisms) as a working cause from looking at the fossil record?” (7)

When these respondents are asked the following question, (and I kind of ask it of you too):-

What status do you give to theories concerning:-

1) the origin of a star’s energy,
2) the origin of the AIDS virus from a micro evolutionary event a couple of hundred years ago,
3) the evaporation of water from the surface of a pond,
4) weather phenomena, say lightning, thunder, snow,
5) the formation of coal,
6) the process by which the atomic nucleus is held together,
7) the quark theory of matter

Scientific theory or speculative hypothesis?

it is ignored by most, or the answer, when supplied is nothing more than a beat around the bush.

The reason why it is ignored goes right to the heart of my point about YECs switching metaphysics, axioms and methodologies.

In the mainstream, whether the scientists is a Christian, a Hindu, an agnostic or an atheist, all of the above theories as well as those of evolution are treated via the naturalistic metaphysic and axioms and the same scientific method of hypothesizing, testing, verifying and theorizing. It is consistent across the spectrum, no matter what the belief of the scientists.

Paradoxically, most or all YECs would answer that the theories associated with the list are all scientific theories. Yet the theories fail Ken Ham’s criteria and their own criteria for what constitutes valid science.

If macro evolution is a religion and requires faith to believe because one “was not there to observe” or we do not have “millions of years to see if it happens”, then equally theories concerning a star’s energy generation are religions because we just cannot get into the centre of the sun to see what happens. Equally, no one was there to see the origin of the AIDS virus a couple of hundred years ago. With respect to the sun I have been told that we can at least observe neutrinos and light. So what? With respect to macro evolution we can observe fossils, and measure and date them. Every objection a YEC can throw at macro evolution can be applied to that list of things accepted by YECs as scientific. Every reason they give for accepting that list as scientific can also be applied to macro evolution.

ToE is just a set of naturalistic theories we apply to explain the patterns we see with respect to extant life and with respect to extinct life, just as the atomic theory of matter is a set of naturalistic theories we apply to explain the patterns we see in matter and the germ theory of disease is the set of naturalistic theories we apply to explain the patterns we see in sicknesses within living things. There is no shift in metaphysic or methodology here, no matter whether the scientist is conservative Christian or atheist.

(And notice that I am not talking about the usual human foibles of name calling, making mistakes, being unreasonably biased, arrogance, ignorance etc.)

So here we have the peculiar situation in that YECs deem the above to be scientific and they happily embrace mainstream ideas, but when it comes to some origins, Ham’s criteria are wheeled out as an objection and in the place of mainstream metaphysics, axioms and methodology, supernaturalism and speculation are deemed to be perfectly acceptable.

When the question is asked as to why this metaphysic and speculation is not applied to the list above, that question too is almost always avoided – despite the fact that supernaturalism and speculation could be applied to that list as easily as it could be to anything in origins. And what is more, that supernaturalism and speculation would find support from the Bible in some cases (e.g. Job’s supernatural descriptions of weather vs naturalistic meteorology. See Job 37.).

Do you see what I mean now when I said that which I did?

To argue that a mainstream evolutionist switches metaphysics, axioms and methodologies when he gets offended at creationism is much like saying that the Christian switches beliefs when he/she gets offended at some other religious belief. It is like saying that the geologists switches metaphysics, axioms and methodologies when offended at those extreme Biblical literalists, the flat-earthers and geocentrists.

Nothing is being switched. People are getting offended, that is all.

The evolutionists is still a naturalist with respect to all of science, offence or no offence. The YEC is a naturalist with respect to much of science then when the science offends, a set of definitions are invoked to remove the offending idea from science. But as I demonstrated, hopefully, that set of definitions removes an awful lot of conventional science from science too. (Hence the general YEC failure to answer my question concerning that list).

YECs cannot have it both ways. If their definitions are used consistently then they must accept that much of what is considered by them to be science, just cannot be. If they wish to consider that list to be scientific then they must seriously consider that their definitions are flawed in a fundamental manner and that evolution is indeed a science. If they wish to hold onto their definitions then their whole notion of science is arbitrary and inconsistent and, as I said, they are naturalists some of the time and supernaturalists at other times.

You claimed that the mainstream did likewise. That is it switched when confronted. But how is this so given that, in ToE, the same system is used as is with respect to all other science?

The mainstream applies its metaphysic, axioms and methodology consistently – no matter what the faith of the scientist is. The person applies the same metaphysic no matter whether the structure of the atom, the structure of the sun, the morphology of T. Rex, the process by which atomic nucleus is held together, the process by which the sun generates its energy, the process by which T. Rex came to be – is being studied.

You think other wise and you wrote that :- The standard metaphysics, axioms, rules and methodologies of science are revoked in favor of an inconsistent mix of omnipotent chance and naturalism and rules, axioms and methodologies which are very selectively and inconsistently applied.

But in what sense is “and inconsistent mix of omnipotent chance and naturalism and rules …. Selectively and inconsistently applied”?

Can you elaborate and demonstrate how this is so? In the process explain the difference between chance and how it is used in evolutionary theory and chance and how it is used in physics or chemistry say. Also explain why naturalism only, is acceptable in physics and chemistry but not in biology.

Continued ...