Split conversation - disturbed over creation v. evolution

[rogero]

Lighten up.

Besides, the word species is not scientifically defined.

But it's scientifically constrained, unlike the YECs concept of "kind" which has no objective definition. If you have one, please let us know.

As far as all life being related by ancestry, that is not a startling idea for anyone acquainted with ancient history.

Yea, it is only startling that intelligent moderns entertain such an antiquated notion now that the awesome complexity of cellular life is known.

You certainly confuse the heck out of this (debatably) intelligent modern. What are you talking about here?

[DunnySaze]

Lighten up.

Besides, the word species is not scientifically defined.

As far as all life being related by ancestry, that is not a startling idea for anyone acquainted with ancient history.

Yea, it is only startling that intelligent moderns entertain such an antiquated notion now that the awesome complexity of cellular life is known.

Wow. You are really impressed with the "look at complex life is, it therefore couldn't have evolved" argument. Do you honestly think we had no idea life was extremely complex before the gene sequencing programs? Some thought it was even more complex before. The number of genes was certainly estimated to be higher at one time, in some cases much higher, than it turns out to be.

The word species is scientifically defined. There are several definitions in fact. But since species evolve (unlike kinds supposedly), there's going to be some arbitrariness to the process. It's like defining a colour. Sure we can see the obvious difference between blue and red, they are clearly different 'kinds' of colour. But where does the line between blue and green fall, or green and yellow, or yellow and orange, or orange and red. There's no way to put a boundary between these pairs that's not arbitrary.

[Tickle Me Goody]

I hope that I have the correct forum for this post. I have failed in the past.



I would like to take exception to the notion that science is a godless endeavor. It is only that if one wants to make it to be so. Even non-organized-religion Einstein wondered about the nature of God in His creation. To those who believe in God, science is a noble endeavor that allows one to see the mind of Creator by examining the nature if His creation. Sure the atheists look to science as all that there is, because they have no other option. That does not mean that Christians proceed on the same basis. I for one am awestruck by God’s creation.



It is clear that the universe runs by mathematical laws. I doubt that any YEC would deny this. The amazing thing (to me) is that God created mankind with the ability to comprehend these laws and understand to some degree the universe He created. In no way do the scriptures contain the knowledge that one can get from science. Can you imagine constructing an automobile using the Bible as an instruction manual? In my mind it borders on sinful to ignore what God has allowed us to see in physical world. It is a valid saying that “those who believe in God see Him everywhere while those who do not believe in God see him nowhere”. It is a very unjust characterization of Christian brothers as dupes of atheists because of the same facts and theories are largely shared. To the atheist, that is all that there is ---- the only game in town. To any theist, God is revealing His nature in his creation. Moreover, the Christian clearly believes in God’s intervention in the history of mankind and in his acts of creation.



There are many places where current science falls short and is not able to figure things out. These currently include what are a called “dark matter”, “dark energy”, and – worst of all – “quantum mechanics”. In this last area, nobody understands how a measurement or observation is made. It appears to be something in which we can only predict the average outcome and have no idea of an underlying mechanism. At least a few Christian scientists see this as a possibility for God to be executing His will directly in the universe.



To toss away the valid study of God’s handiwork (which he equipped humans to be able to perform) and replace it with an interpretation of Genesis is very extreme and warrants far more than the comments that have been tossed out on TWeb (IMO)





Goody

[sylas]

That's not common descent. (Unless your parents and mine have a few secrets they are not telling us... )

Lighten up.

Besides, the word species is not scientifically defined.

As far as all life being related by ancestry, that is not a startling idea for anyone acquainted with ancient history.

Yea, it is only startling that intelligent moderns entertain such an antiquated notion now that the awesome complexity of cellular life is known.

Devastated, I am, that my light hearted rib-tickling humourous remarks about our parents having dark secrets failed to amuse as intended. I even used the funny shifty smilie. Seriously, I am being light hearted! (Spoiler: that last sentence was also funny. ... You guys are a tough audience.)

The point (being expressed here with a dash of infectious light hearted humour) is that the phrase "common descent" refers to different organisms sharing ancestors; and in biology it refers to the notion that all living organisms share ancestry, as long as you go sufficiently far back. It is not a truism; it is a meaningful proposition, which is false in creationist models and true in evolutionary biological models.

There are a number of alternative definitions of the word "species" in use and which apply in different contexts. For extant sexually reproducing organisms, the definition is comparatively straightforward, and relates to reproductive isolation. There are still ambiguities; and this is inevitable as long as we have evolutionary models in which species develop and diverge over time. When it comes to bacteria, or paleo-species, the definitions have a much more arbitrary or subjective character, for obvious reasons. But this has nothing much to do with "common descent", because the term in biology refers to shared ancestry even for different phyla.

The creationist model is a true alternative to common descent. Common descent for all life, as used in biology, does not hold in creationist models. Creationists do allow that some living things have common ancestors, but not others. Even if our parents have behaved with perfect correctitude, and we are not biological brothers, we are still brothers in a larger sense, with common ancestors in the past; most probably well within the last thousand years.

Creationists generally recognize some level of common ancestry at levels a little above the species. They often introduce the notion of a "kind". If I understand creationism correctly, "kinds" are the forms that were created, and what arises since may include some speciation and diversification. Polar bears are regarded as a distinct species from black bears; but the similarities are considerable; Socrates has expressed the idea that they share common descent from an ancestral kind; and I agree.

The problem is, no plain objective definition for "kind" has been given, other than the definition that "kinds" are the original distinct ancestors from which existing forms are descended. With this definition of "kind" we can re-express the biological model as follows... all life belongs to one kind, and the creationist model as there are many distinct kinds. The most important requirement for creationists appears to be Humans form one of these kinds, and that has the same meaning as All humans are descended from common ancestors, but have no common ancestors with any other animals.

That is... common descent within kinds certainly is a truism. It is true by definition of the word kinds. But common descent in biology is not a truism. It is an unambiguous and surprising claim about shared ancestry for all life. It is a claim that creationists consider to be false.

Cheers -- Sylas

[dtyler]

Ethics is a form of knowledge outside science, David. Now, about that empirical data supporting a young earth and global flood...

Not so fast. If ethics is "knowledge", how do we know a particular ethical statement is true or false? What is the methodology for getting this knowledge? What do you say to people who declare all ethical statements to be subjective judgments that are OK for individuals but have no absolute meaning or significance?

If you want to know where I'm coming from in this, I am leading the exchange towards a discussion of revealed truth. I happen to agree with Prof Steve Jones that, if his worldview is true, "values are a human construct." Given a world without God, "values" have no claim to be "knowledge" at all.

My reason for pursuing this point is that you will never understand my position if you cannot recognise the legitimacy of revealed truth in the domain of "knowledge".

If YEC's are practicing science, then where is their data? Geez, how many times do we have to come back to this same basic question?

If this is targetting me, many of my posts are about data. I have never avoided engaging with data - and we do not need to come back to this same basic question. It is already answered. More generally, YECs are contributing to the scientific literature. This is the case in numerous disciplines, including biology and geology. The main problem YECs face is the witch-hunt mentality of the anti-YEC brigade who fail to see the difference between the scientist's worldview and the practice of science.

You either don't understand the empirical data in favor of large-scale evolution, or you're lying. I'll be charitable and presume the former and guide you to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc for a brief overview.

There is a third possibility - but you chose not to consider that.

[SteveF]

If you want to know where I'm coming from in this, I am leading the exchange towards a discussion of revealed truth.

How about leading it towards some evidence for a global flood? Or are you playing around with handwaving philosophy because you have no such evidence?

My reason for pursuing this point is that you will never understand my position if you cannot recognise the legitimacy of revealed truth in the domain of "knowledge".

I think we all understand your position just fine David.

More generally, YECs are contributing to the scientific literature. This is the case in numerous disciplines, including biology and geology.

The number of YECs contributing anything to science is mind numbingly small.

The main problem YECs face is the witch-hunt mentality of the anti-YEC brigade who fail to see the difference between the scientist's worldview and the practice of science.

Utter rubbish. The main problem YECs face is the complete absence of ny evidence for their cause.

If a YECs (or anyone elses) worldview (whatever that vacuous statement means) impinges on their ability to carry out science then of course anti-YECs are going to kick up a fuss. Other than that I couldn't give a monkeys what someones worldview is; theists, atheists, agnostics, little green men from mars can all produce good work, and do - with the possible exception of little green men (as far as we know!).

[Kulindrichnus]

The number of YECs contributing anything to science is mind numbingly small

I liked Glen's post yesterday where he pointed out that the sum total of YEC geolgists is: three. That just put it into perspective for me.

BTW, the fact that we don't know that little green men aren't contributing to science shouldn't exclude it from use in multiple working hypotheses. As scientists we have a duty to take it seriously. Now, which among us is an Alien? Can I have a show of hands?

K

[SteveF]

I liked Glen's post yesterday where he pointed out that the sum total of YEC geolgists is: three. That just put it into perspective for me.

There are more geologists (in training) in my house than that! Still, no doubt we have all been brainwashed by uniformitarian thinking and are not able to see that because sediment is found all over the world there, er must er have been a flood a few years ago. For some reason.

BTW, the fact that we don't know that little green men aren't contributing to science shouldn't exclude it from use in multiple working hypotheses. As scientists we have a duty to take it seriously. Now, which among us is an Alien? Can I have a show of hands?

K

Indeed. It strikes me that our naturalistic worldview is precluding us from thinking outside the existing paradigm. I propose a debate that will change the way we carry out science. This debate should take place on, er, TWeb.

[Monkey Boy]

Not so fast. If ethics is "knowledge", how do we know a particular ethical statement is true or false? What is the methodology for getting this knowledge? What do you say to people who declare all ethical statements to be subjective judgments that are OK for individuals but have no absolute meaning or significance?

If you want to know where I'm coming from in this, I am leading the exchange towards a discussion of revealed truth. I happen to agree with Prof Steve Jones that, if his worldview is true, "values are a human construct." Given a world without God, "values" have no claim to be "knowledge" at all.

I have no wish to engage in debates on philosophy, David. I answered your question. When will you answer mine? Where is the empirical data that indicates the earth is young and a global flood occurred?

My reason for pursuing this point is that you will never understand my position if you cannot recognise the legitimacy of revealed truth in the domain of "knowledge".

I understand enough of your position to know it is not scientific. If only you would acknowledge it as such we would have no disagreement.

If this is targetting me, many of my posts are about data. I have never avoided engaging with data - and we do not need to come back to this same basic question. It is already answered.

Is it? Where is the data that shows that the earth is young and a global flood occurred? All we get is talk about "models". We never see any evidence that anyone has ever tested these models.

The main problem YECs face is the witch-hunt mentality of the anti-YEC brigade who fail to see the difference between the scientist's worldview and the practice of science.

Queue the violins! David and his YEC chums can't produce any data to support their models, so he blames the nefarious "anti-YEC brigade". Who exactly are the members of this brigade? Do you count Glenn Morton as a member? How about the Pope?

There is a third possibility - but you chose not to consider that.

That I'm wrong? I'd consider that, but as of yet no one has shown me the empirical data that supports a young earth and a global flood.

[HRG_new]

If you want to know where I'm coming from in this, I am leading the exchange towards a discussion of revealed truth. I happen to agree with Prof Steve Jones that, if his worldview is true, "values are a human construct." Given a world without God, "values" have no claim to be "knowledge" at all.

This does not depend on the existence of any god. If Allah exists, "Allah has values X" is an objective fact to be known. If the Christian god exists, "the Christian god has values Y" is an objective fact to be known. Just as "Richard Dawkins has values Z" is an objective fact to be known.

But that a god holds certain values doesn't raise those values themselves into objectivity.

My reason for pursuing this point is that you will never understand my position if you cannot recognise the legitimacy of revealed truth in the domain of "knowledge".

And why should we recognize it ? And if so, which revealed truth: the one in the Zend-Avest, the one in the Vedics or the one in the Bible ?

A particular religious text can only be the source of subjective truth. Objective truth can be characterized as "that which stays invariant when you convert to a different worldview".

Regards,
HRG.