Laurence Tisdall On Evolution
November 10, 2007Here is a debate I came across that was held on the Michael Coren show. This is one of the most interesting discussions I’ve ever seen on Creationism/ID (Intelligent Design)/Evolution. If I wasn’t a Christian I may have considered leaning towards Creationism or ID after watching this. It’s interesting that while the Christian (Laurence Tisdall) wants to talk about science and evidence, the Evolutionist (Jason Wiles) wants to change the topic. The only thing I hear the Evolutionist claiming is “Evolution is true because it is, it’s the majority position among scientists, or, I know of websites which counter Creationist arguments therefore I don’t need to try and explain anything.” The Evolutionist seems to have kept avoiding the Creationists challenges to him, esspecially how information within DNA can create itself.
Most people charge Christians or ID advocates for coping out by accepting that a Creator is a sufficient explanation for human existence. But as Tisdall says “I believe in a Creator because of what I do know (ie. life can only come from life), not because of what I don’t know (ie. using a Creator as an arbitrary answer to an unsolved problem). It is scientific to say there must be a Creator (just as it is scientific to say a computer program had a programer), but it is a metaphysical claim to say who that Creator is specifically. I also like the other point that Tisdall brings up about Galileo. The majority of scientists in Galileo’s day thought the earth was flat, but that didn’t make it true. The same with Evolution. Just because a supposed majority of scientists believe Evolution is true doesn’t mean the truth bell rings and it becomes so. Please watch this video for yourself and comment below with your own opinions.
You can also visit Tisdall’s website here for more Creationist/ID resources.
I watched the debate, but it was rather disorganized. Clearly Tisdall is much brighter than Wiles. No question that Wiles was the one ‘coping out’ in this review. It starts out with Wiles saying he really does not want to be there. No kidding. He has no background, skills, or facts to support his position.
shandai!
I know it!
I saw the show before this article but i agree completely. It was sad how the EVOLUTIONIST didnt have any information and kept telling people to go on a site. obviously he didnt have anything to say,if he had, he wouldnt refer to people who had timeto sit down and carefull word their answers.
God Bless.
Mita, that’s awesome! You put it great. And yes… he was quite the EVOLUTIONIST wasn’t he?!
Well they took a prominent debater such as Laurence Tisdall from the creationist right, they did not take such a man from the Evolutionist left. Why would you put someone who has little background at debating vs. someone who is as experienced as Tisdall at reciting things he ‘knows’ to be right?
I wish I could see a debate who’s advocates were both prominent. Have you seen one? If so, I’d appreciate it if you sent it my way. Every time the Discovery Institute is in the media, the same arguments are raised and the Evolutionist only says “well who is this designer?” and it never gets past that. For some reason, ID can’t be accepted as science by secularists unless the designer is identified. I don’t know who/what made Stone Henge but I infer that it was designed. I agree with you though, I wish there was a debate with people who represented each side well.
I watched this and my reaction was the following:
The “Creation scientist” seems to be basing his debating strategy in the fact that it take only a couple of seconds to make a false or misleading statement, but at least tens of minutes to intelligently explain why it is false or misleading.
And that strategy is:
1. Talk so fast that no one has time to think whether what you are saying makes any sense.
2. Bring up so many unrelated topics that your opponent will have no time to respond.
3. Keep interrupting your opponent so that he can’t respond and keep throwing more irrelevant arguments at him to attempt to disrupt his train of thought.
4. Don’t listen to anything he says.
5. Take every possible advantage of the fact that academics tend to think before they speak. This slows them down. You don’t have to think as you have all the answers memorized.
6. In general, attack! attack! attack!
Do you consider this a rational means of arriving at any semblance of truth?
(I’ve read references to the “Gish Gallop.” Is this what they were talking about?)
D.R., how about this strategy… “go to this website.” The thing is, this is too large of a topic to be handled in the short time they had to explain. I’m sure there are scientists who could have countered all of Tisdall’s points. I personally believe Tisdall did a good job of representing the Creationist side. I appreciate it when Evolutionists do a good job at representing their side. I would think Evolutionists would want Creationists to come to the table with some substance too.
Clearly they had the wrong evolutionist there to debate. His rhetorical skills were hideous. I’m not an evolutionist, but I think they could have gotten some brighter lights on the evolutionary side of things to make a reasonable defense.
Tisdall was very well spoken, but jumped around too much. I like it when two sides take one particular point and grapple with it til it’s been exhausted.
l was atheist before and though lm not christian l have a weakness for a good debate, good rational flow of thoughts anbd outlining of points.
I was dissapointed.
It was a one-sided hammering by an intelligent man facing someone who was…let’s just say…sadly a let down.
I will like to see Tisdall talk to an evolutionist who has done his reading, knows what he is talking about and who has a knowledge of his subject area, has passion and insight – and not just knowledge of websites.
I agree Ken, I visit Tisdall’s website every once in a while hoping that he’s had some more public interaction with Evolutionists. Like you, I wish I could see him debate these things with an Evolutionist who knows his stuff.
May I ask, why aren’t you an atheist anymore? Where does your worldview stand now?
ok, so i see this video and all i can say is that tisdalls debate method isn’t very christian like. how can one consistently interrupt the other and then claim anything other than disenfranchisement? i think that wiles was lacking debate skills but even someone who had all the knowledge necessary to refute tisdalls weak points and the debate skills, what could you do against terrible manners? tisdall is a charlatan and anyone with a sense of propriety should realize this.
how about i debunk his ridiculous claim of “no new information” right here. he makes this claim and frames the argument as if evolution would require a new type of information to be valid but never defines what this “new information” would have to be. then he conjures up ideas about cross speciation which has nothing at all to do with evolution. it’s a matter of fact that he refuses to acknowledge that there is new information in the form of mutations. he would argue that this isn’t new but only a restructuring of old. this is completely not true and very disingenuous on his part. new information according to him would require the materialization of something that has never existed when in fact a restructuring of genetic code can and does create new information without any magic at all. look at it this way. if we have TAP but have never had PTA a mutation could restructure TAP into PTA and voila! new information.
So, I decided to jump into this discussion and make a few comments about the “debate”. Firstly, Jason is a top knowtch evolutionist finishing his doctorate at McGill specialization in evolutionary education. Though he clearly has less experience in debating (I have done 17 debates with 2 more coming this spring – most in French), he did use the same arguments that are used at all the debates I do, that being mainly ad hominum.
Keep in mind a TV program is not quite like a university debate. In this case the TV host was quite involved and so that makes the situation less clear then it might have been.
Cirri bings up an interesting point… do mutations create new information? Well in a way they might but the information produced is either almost neutral in affect or pathalogical (deadly). So maybe it would be better to say new “useful” information. Because for the information to be carried forward and be benificial to the species, it would have to affect the survival of the species. Now here is the kicker… natural selection selects for extreme utations (kills them off) but cannot select for almost neutral mutations. So every generation species increase the mutational load and there is nothing that can be done about it – this is called genetic entropy. It makes evolution through mutations simply impossible. By that I mean, you are never going to see chimps becomes humans through mutations and natural selection, ever.
I do not understand the need to not simply accept that life was created by an intelligent Creator. It is the simplist and cleanest explanation and it fits with what we already observe in nature today. There is a need for a programmer, if we have a program. To suggest a program, programs itself without an outside intelligence to organize things is simply rudiculous and goes against everything we know in science, in my opinion.
Oh, and Cirri, mutations are only restructuring of the old information – prove to me otherwise.
Have fun all.
Laurence
laurence,
before delving into the topic i’d like to ask you to speak to why you choose(make a conscious decision) to “debate” in the manner that you do. how is constantly interrupting and out talking your opponent a positive thing for your side or the common good. i’d really like an explanation because at this point i can only see two; you get excited easily and forget your manners or this is a purpose driven tactic without regard to having a fair discussion. this question is very important because not only did this happen in the debate but now you are accusing your opponent, on an internet blog, where, unless notified, he can’t even defend himself, of ad hominem. this really calls your motivation into question.
i shouldn’t have to tell you that it’s impossible to “prove” something to you because science doesn’t work off of proofs. that’s why science is so great because it allows us to model the world around us based on what we know works best at the moment, without imposing a dogma that restricts us from continually learning more than we were previously able. this is a huge mistake on the part of creationists to imply that if science doesn’t have a complete answer now, then it must be wrong and we must fill in these knowledge gaps with a god.
as far as new information, you are still using scandalous tactics. first you say that mutations “might”, “in a way” produce new information but that the information will be neutral or pathological. now, we both know that anyone who can use a search engine can find plenty of examples of beneficial mutations from bacteria all the way to humans so why are you still asserting not only that there are none but that they are either neutral or pathological? this is disingenuous because we both know that they are almost all nearly neutral and that a negative or positive distinction relies largely on environment. and how funny is that? that we know evolution varies depending on environment and relies on slight shifts (nearly neutral)throughout long periods of time.
now, if you believe in the biblical creation story and noahs ark, how do you explain humans having more than 16 alleles, anywhere? i have to say that information theory is not on your side, no matter how many times you use vague terms like, “new information”.
why would anyone simply accept something like a creator especially when it’s not a fact. you are presenting your opinion, which you absolutely can not definitively show to be true, as a fact. this is a horrible thing for any scientist to do, to present an unfounded opinion as immutable fact. you say that there is a need for a programmer if we have a program but you fail to see that you are comparing obvious man made products with natural phenomena. that is a fallacious argument based in ignorance of whether or not there is a prime mover and what that prime mover might be. to connect this question to evolution is ridiculous because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe but with the diversity of life. it’s chicanery to conflate a lack of origin knowledge with an argument against evolution. this intentionally preys on those who don’t have the education necessary to make these distinctions, though, you undoubtedly know this.
again with the mutations are “only” restructuring of old information. i agree. i already said that but you missed the point that restructuring of old information can produce new information. my example was very easy but i’ll show again. if you have always had PAT but never TPA and a mutation causes TPA then, presto chango! you have new information. you are asking for magic, basically. you want someone to show you a magical something manifesting in front of your eyes before you will admit that evolution happens. you see, i can’t even define this something with any word other than “something” because you can’t or won’t define it for us.
i don’t have a problem with your personal beliefs at all. i do think that with the evidence that we have now, believing that an incomprehensible being poofed life into existence as we see it now is wacky compared to an extremely slow natural progression but you have every right to believe what you want. the problem comes when you attempt to pass off your opinion as a fact. even if you have what you think is evidence for what you are saying, you don’t even bother to go through the rigors of test, repetition and peer review. why not start by publishing one airtight paper on a specific subject that hasn’t yet been scrutinized and failed to stand up to scientific rigor? doesn’t that seem like a better option than feeding off of other peoples outdated creationist objections and presenting your own personal opinion about them as fact? i think, if you could find something like that, that could stand up to peer review, then you wouldn’t have to delve into the dishonest realm of proposing your opinion as fact to uneducated religious peoples.
cameron, you posted here that you would like to see a better debate. here’s a good one that has two teams, not just two people so there’s more diversity in explanation and view. it’s a little old but still has some great points.
Cirri,
I am a Television producer and I’ve been working in tv shows for a while. I am not trying to defend Laurence. But, the format in those kind of shows is just like you saw it. What I mean by this is that you expect this kind of interactions from both sides at the point to get excited. Honestly, I don’t think his manners are something to be upset about it. He was doing his job. Tv shows are like this. If you look carefully, there was almost a whole section of the show only for Wiles (that’s a lot of time)
If you ask me, Wiles was more than prepared to “talk back”, but apparently he didn’t have the answers that were asked to him. Laurance in the other hand, was in all his right to ask for proves. From a TV producer prospective, his manners were not out of context at all. Wiles had plenty of time to refute. And Laurance has many things to say in a short period of time. Maybe you interpret this in a different way.
As you saw in the show, there was a host. His job is to control the discussion.
I thought you should know this my friend.
And I’ve seen that already, but thanks Cirri.
I watched this last night. Laurence, this is for you. I don’t know why it was never brought to your attention, but as a scientist you should understand that not knowing how something is done does not prove anything other than you don’t know.
Claiming that creationism exists because no one has come up with an explanation is not science, it’s imposing a belief system. How many times did you ask Jason to give you an explanation and based on him not providing one, you claimed you proved your point.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I believe in god and think this whole ‘deny the evidence because it doesn’t fit my belief system’ is plain nuts. Science attempts to observe and quantify while religion attempts to explain the nature of god and what god wants (how pompous is that?).
This whole religious/science thing is like to guys bickering where one says “The house is made of wood” while the other argues “No, it was built by Joe.” It’s apples and oranges. no wonder Jason was hesitant to even do the show, the debate (as he suggested), makes no sense.
Miker,
I don’t think we heard the same “discussion” (as it wasn’t really in a debate format). Laurence said repeatidly that he believes in a Creator based on what he does know, NOT on what he does not know. Namely, that intelligence only comes from intelligence, information only comes from information, and life only comes from life, not non-life, etc.
Further, If we call science “the observable” and religion the “non-observable” then these two are interconnected and can’t be seperated, which the Naturalist doesn’t realize. Namely, because we can’t empirically account for empiricism. Just as we don’t empirically account for God, as He is outside of time, made of spirit, is eternal, and is personal, so we don’t account for empericism with the empirical (which is a big foundation for why we can even do science). To have empirical science you need observers who can observe the observable. None of these can be accounted for by what is observable but only by what is not observable. Intelligent lifeforms (“observers”) most likely do not come fron non-intelligent non-lifeforms, and we have never seen the original intelligent lifeform source. The ability to use logic and “observe” requires absolute abstract meanings to exist, but since they are abstract we can’t empirically detect them. Lastly, the “observable” exists in time and space and was caused by something. Yet you can’t have an infinite amount for causes in time. We have never detected this first or primary cause.
Therefore, in this sense, science assumes that which is non-empirical to account for the empirical.
“Laurence said repeatidly that he believes in a Creator based on what he does know, NOT on what he does not know.”
That’s just it, he doesn’t know, he believes. Just as you and I have our own beliefs. He has no proof that the world is 10,000 years old. At best he can claim there’s no proof that the world is 5 billion years old either. And that means nobody can say for sure, and yet he (as well as others) claim that there is a truth.
You say that “…intelligence only comes from intelligence, information only comes from information, and life only comes from life, not non-life, etc.” Can you prove it? And, I mean prove it without speculation or belief. This is the kind of questioning that was used to “prove creationism”
Evolution is not a claim as to whether or not there is a creator, it merely attempts to make sense of data. Why then is it that the creationist attempts to debunk evolution? Why do creationist presume to know how God made everything. Who are we to say that evolution is not part of god’s plan?
And, who are we to describe the nature of god? You say that he is out of time. Does this mean he is not in time? You say that he is made of spirit. Does that mean he is not made of other things?
When anyone attempts to describe God, it always ends up limiting something that has no limit while attempting to explain something that can’t be quantified. When we describe God, we are creating something in our own image.
I believe God is much greater than that. And who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to say whether or not evolution is part of Gods plan.
Miker,
So what? That’s how science is done. Since no one knows for sure, we are left with differing interprations of the same evidence.
Yes we can prove that intelligence only comes from intelligence. We prove it inductively, NOT deductively! We prove it with propensities or liklihoods, NOT with 100% certainty. We don’t know that the sun will rise tomorrow with 100% or that the laws of physics will hold with 100% tomorrow like they have in the past. But if the latter two get to serve as prove for an inductive conclusion, why can’t the former? Because it deals with Creation so it’s an exception to science and you get to have a double standard?
Much of science, especially Evolution is done by speculation and belief! Again, you’re imposing your double standard. I’m assuming because you don’t like the idea of science leading to a Creator. If that’s your reason it’s an unfair and unfounded reason.
That’s the thing, Evolution doesn’t account for data. Intelligence accounts for data. ID advocates don’t deny all of Evolution but Naturalistic interpretations of it, namely that things become what they are intentionally and they couldn’t have become what they are unintentionally. And Evolution assumes that life came about somehow and doesn’t answer how it did. It only assumes the possibility of life somehow and then advances the theory that such lifeforms evolve.
I have no problem saying Evolution was part of God’s plan, but the evidence sucks for Evolution anyways so it’s hard for me to assume that. And no Creationist knows how God created things, they just believe He did. Kind of how Naturalists don’t know how things evolve to be more complex or how DNA code came about but say they just did.
We would describe the nature of God in 2 ways. 1. through natural revelation, and 2. through special revelation which would be mostly through Scripture.
God is not in time but holds time together within His own being. He is made of Himself. The substance is not created nor can it be uncreated. It’s hard to say that God is not physical because we don’t even know what the physical ultimatly is, but for shorthand say He is spirit.
The idea that you can only know something by quantifying it is itself not quantifiable. Thus you imposing an inconsistent standard along with a double standard. We can’t exhaust God in our limited conventions of language. We can barely exhause how electricity works with our language, let alone God. These are arbitrary statements which are void of any meaningful points on your part.
How is a God who is all-knowing, uncreated, outside of time, all powerful, and is Triune something in our image when we are not any of these?
What kind of Evolution are you talking about? Maybe micro evolution is but macro isn’t? And anyone is free to look at the evidence and Scripture for themselves and see what the most rational conclusion is. God has certainly give us much to work with to answer these things. May the most informed argument win.
Ok, let me put it this way. Science is collecting data, observing data, testing data and attempting to find a model that explains what is observed. This model is also known as a theory. Theory is not fact, it is a model. It does not become fact until all parts are completely understood and proven.
–The key here is that data is analyzed and conjectures are made based on this analysis.– This is science. Evolution is a theory. Evolution is science.
When you reverse the order of events, i.e. assume the model (or theory) and attempt to observe the data in such a way as to support your conjecture, you do not have science, you have philosophy. Philosophy is what had people believing that two spherical objects of different weight would fall to the earth at different rates. This philosophical conjecture was disproved via scientific experiment.
Creationism is not science, creationism is philosophy. It starts with assuming the bible is a factual description of how our universe and mankind came to be and then attempts to observe data in such a way that it supports the conjecture. This is backwards, this is not science.
History is full of examples of religion attempting to dictate as if it were science. For example, one of the more famous events is the treatment of Copernicus. Copernicus wrote a book entitled De revolutionibus in which he claimed among other things, that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it orbited around the sun.
In answer to this, the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be “corrected,” on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun doesn’t was “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.
Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun rotates around the earth?
Evolution is still a theory and it may turn out that there is another answer. Science will continue to investigate and modify conclusions based on new information. That is how science works, evolution is science.
Religion will continue to make faith based assumptions and attempt to mold data into something that supports their belief. Creationism would never cause a stir if all it claimed was that God created the universe. But, this is apparently not creationism. It seems that creationism is an attempt to prove the literal translation of the story of creation in the bible and to debunk science and an attempt to “correct” things that disagree with this particular story.
By the way, there are different versions of the bible, different translations, and religious scholars still argue over the meaning of its contents. Who is right?
Evolution and Creationism are two different things and arguing that one is right and the other is wrong is just plain nonsense.
Miker,
“let me put it this way. Science is collecting data, observing data, testing data and attempting to find a model that explains what is observed. This model is also known as a theory. Theory is not fact, it is a model. It does not become fact until all parts are completely understood and proven.
This is where you are revealing that you are just as bias as the religious nut, only a different kind of nut. Scientists are not unbias or specially neutral to their models. They also may choose a model which supports their anti-Christ beliefs.
The key here is that data is analyzed and conjectures are made based on this analysis.– This is science. Evolution is a theory. Evolution is science.
No, a theory is what you have when much of the evidence is theoretical not not tangible or directly observable. Evolutionary theory is based on much indirect evidence.
When you reverse the order of events, i.e. assume the model (or theory) and attempt to observe the data in such a way as to support your conjecture, you do not have science, you have philosophy.
Science is extremely philosophical, such as the idea of what “life” is, why we should do science, or what is the best method to collect or interpret data. But again, even non-religious scientists are just religious in their own way and want to make thier data fit their own favored beliefs. You’re just making baskets here and subtracting points from your own scoreboard because I can turn all of these arguments the other way too.
Philosophy is what had people believing that two spherical objects of different weight would fall to the earth at different rates. This philosophical conjecture was disproved via scientific experiment.
We have not proved with 100% certainty that they will behave this way all the time, only that they have given the times we’ve tried it. Something is only constant as long as it is constant. To the extent that anything else is possible, is the extent the scientist has faith. But we are all scientists really, thus all have faith.
Creationism is not science, creationism is philosophy. It starts with assuming the bible is a factual description of how our universe and mankind came to be and then attempts to observe data in such a way that it supports the conjecture. This is backwards, this is not science.
This is a broad brush. There are different types of Creationism and unless your omniscient, one of the positions could potentially be true.
History is full of examples of religion attempting to dictate as if it were science. For example, one of the more famous events is the treatment of Copernicus. Copernicus wrote a book entitled De revolutionibus in which he claimed among other things, that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it orbited around the sun.
And in recent history we have non-religious people trying to dictate that Naturalistic Evolution is true, when there is much evidence against it. What’s your point?
Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun rotates around the earth?
Scripture is not explicit on that issue, thus it doesn’t directly answer that question. It is primarily a book of Christ and the gospel of salvation. It does answer why we should do science as we are to do all things unto the glory of God. Science itself doesn’t account for itself nor can it tell us why we should do it.
Evolution is still a theory and it may turn out that there is another answer. Science will continue to investigate and modify conclusions based on new information. That is how science works, evolution is science.
Reasons to reject Evolution is science too.
Religion will continue to make faith based assumptions and attempt to mold data into something that supports their belief. Creationism would never cause a stir if all it claimed was that God created the universe. But, this is apparently not creationism. It seems that creationism is an attempt to prove the literal translation of the story of creation in the bible and to debunk science and an attempt to “correct” things that disagree with this particular story.
I’ve already pointed out your double standards with this type of thinking.
By the way, there are different versions of the bible, different translations, and religious scholars still argue over the meaning of its contents. Who is right?
The same for science. Who is right? May the most informed argument win.
Evolution and Creationism are two different things and arguing that one is right and the other is wrong is just plain nonsense.
Arguing that Naturalistic Evolution can account for DNA, life, and intelligence is just plain nonsense. You still haven’t shown me why it’s more rational to believe that these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence.
Hrmmm, how do I even begin to address the… oh never mind. I will attempt this one more time and then I am done with this thread. And since we are now playing the “quote” game, I will try to make this short and to the point.
1) “This is where you are revealing that you are just as bias as the religious nut…”
Ok, not really sure what to say about this, although I think I am beginning to understand what you mean by “religious nut.”
2) “Scientists are not unbias or specially neutral to their models. They also may choose a model which supports their anti-Christ beliefs.”
Ok, let me put this another way, science does not “choose” based on a “belief.” If a model is “chosen” based on “belief,” then it is NOT science.
And by the way, believing or not believing in god has nothing to do with science, which I have been attempting to explain. They don’t overlap. Practicing science does not preclude one from believing in god. The atheist has no fact or evidence to support their belief and for them to try to prove there is no god is as silly as someone trying to prove there is a god. Faith needs no proof, faith is not science. But I digress, back to the “quoting.”
3) “No, a theory is what you have when much of the evidence is theoretical not not tangible or directly observable.”
Ok, I especially like the first part “a theory is what you have when much of the evidence is theoretical…” But, let me give you a textbook definition of theory.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
1.it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2.makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
A theory is a speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence. If you want to call it something else, then you need to give it a different name or at least let me know what you want to call “speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence.” If you want to call it something like “neptopling,” then I will tell you that Evolution is neptopling and Creationism is not. But for now, I will stick with the word theory.
By the way, evolutionary theory is based on years of careful analysis of an overwhelming amount of evidence. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god. I know because I believe in god and do not presume to know how god went about making our universe.
4)“But again, even non-religious scientists are just religious in their own way and want to make thier data fit their own favored beliefs.”
This is just another example of what science is not. When someone attempts to “make thier data fit their own favored beliefs” they are not practicing science.
5) “We have not proved with 100% certainty that they will behave this way all the time, only that they have given the times we’ve tried it.“
Actually, welcome to the present age. We have proven with 100% certainty that they will. Laws of gravitation are no longer theory they are fact. I’m pretty sure we don’t even want to go to discussing fact, should probably just stick with theory.
6) “There are different types of Creationism and unless your omniscient, one of the positions could potentially be true.”
I agree with this statement. If creationism means that God created the universe, then I believe in creationism. I do not believe because of science, I believe because of faith. And my belief does not in anyway contradict the theory of evolution.
7) “And in recent history we have non-religious people trying to dictate that Naturalistic Evolution is true, when there is much evidence against it. What’s your point?”
You have it backwards, let me fix it for you “..in recent history we have religious creationists trying to dictate that evolution is false in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Again, it’s belief trying to call itself science. Creation is something you believe in. Evolution is a theory, it is science.
Ok, back to this again, a religious belief is not a reason to reject a scientific theory. If you have scientific evidence that rejects evolution, present it. Write a paper and you will become famous. And I’m not even being funny here. A discovery of this magnitude will make you as well known as Darwin.
9) “The same for science. Who is right? May the most informed argument win.”
Again, you confuse belief with science. Science is not a popularity contest or something that is dictated by the best debater, it is simply observation, experimentation, etc…
10) “You still haven’t shown me why it’s more rational to believe that these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence.”
Exactly! No one can show you what to believe. Science is not about believing, science is about evidence. Faith is about belief. I think you are starting to get the idea!
I will say this about the nature of DNA, life and intelligence. I don’t thing science has scratched the surface of what there is to know about these subjects. And there may be some things that science will never know. This in no way is any sort of proof to the philosophy of creationism and intelligent design. In my opinion, science will never be able to prove or disprove those. They are based in faith and belief and science has nothing to do with faith or belief.
I wish you the best as you journey through life. God bless,
Mike
Miker,
Science does not “choose” as it is not a thing or a person but entails ways of gathering and interpreting data. The people who gather data have tendencies (great and small) to interpret the data in accordance to their worldview, especially Naturalistic Evolutionists. People who observe and analyze data “choose”, not science itself.
And by the way, believing or not believing in god has nothing to do with science, which I have been attempting to explain. They don’t overlap.
Sorry, you’re wrong and you haven’t offered any reason other than your blank assertions. It has everything to do with it, especially because God accounts for science. I expained in my first reply to you why empericism doesn’t account for the emperical, only the non-observable does. In other words, without God, science can’t exist, nor can there be a reason for why we do it.
Practicing science does not preclude one from believing in god.
But practicing science assumes God’s existence (or something extremely similar), whether one knows it or not.
The atheist has no fact or evidence to support their belief and for them to try to prove there is no god is as silly as someone trying to prove there is a god.
There is lots of proof for God’s existence, just not emperical proof. But I’ve already shown why that doesn’t matter and how we except truths which we haven’t observed with our 5 senses. I’m glad this is your last reply because I don’t think you are listening.
Faith needs no proof, faith is not science. But I digress, back to the “quoting.”
Which kind of faith needs no proof? The Christian faith which excepts the truths of God’s Word is based on the testimony of the Spirit living in us. It does not exist in a vacuum.
A theory is a speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence. If you want to call it something else, then you need to give it a different name or at least let me know what you want to call “speculation based on direct observation of tangible evidence.” If you want to call it something like “neptopling,” then I will tell you that Evolution is neptopling and Creationism is not. But for now, I will stick with the word theory.
I agree that a lot of the evidence can be tangible, but theories usualy use indirect tangible evidence. We can’t repeat the Big Bang or directly observe it, like we can with dropping to stones from the same height that are different sizes, but we can make inferences based on what we are limited to observe. That was my point. That is why I said that theories are generally very theoretical, hence speculative.
By the way, evolutionary theory is based on years of careful analysis of an overwhelming amount of evidence. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god.
You have pointed our how religious folk try to fit data into their prefered models and I have explained how Naturalists for example do the same. So I could make a similar statement and say “rejection of Evolutionary theory has nothing do to with whether or not you believe in god”. There you go! By the way, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Naturalistic Evolution didn’t happen, nor macro Evolution.
I know because I believe in god and do not presume to know how god went about making our universe.
Jesus said that He is the only way to the Father and that those who reject Him will perish under the wrath of God, so I hope the “god” you believe in is the Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. Further, we do know how God made the universe. He spoke it into existence. The specific chronology of events is debatable.
This is just another example of what science is not. When someone attempts to “make thier data fit their own favored beliefs” they are not practicing science.
Then many scientists, especially Naturalistic Evolutionists, today are not scientists according to you.
Actually, welcome to the present age. We have proven with 100% certainty that they will. Laws of gravitation are no longer theory they are fact. I’m pretty sure we don’t even want to go to discussing fact, should probably just stick with theory.
What do you mean that gravitation is “fact”? That’s a vague statement. Fact in what sense? What causes gravitation and what it is in its essence is still under debate. But all that has nothing to do with my point which was that just because gravity operates the way it does in the present, doesn’t mean it always will in the future. Laws don’t tell us what “should” happen, but only what “does” happen. Thus, one is using faith when they assume that a law will continue as it always has.
I agree with this statement. If creationism means that God created the universe, then I believe in creationism. I do not believe because of science, I believe because of faith.
More correctly, one would ultimately believe anything because God is the source of the laws of logic and we are created in His image, thus pocess the ability to use logic as well. Second, one would only know a truth because God in His grace has enabled one to know it, whether it’s a practical truth or a spiritual one. Third, science is natural revelation of God, not special revelation. Hence, why it is proven (inductively – as all science is done) that DNA code comes from a coder, life comes from life, and intelligence comes from intelligence.
And my belief does not in anyway contradict the theory of evolution.
It does with Naturalistic interpretations of Evolution.
You have it backwards, let me fix it for you “..in recent history we have religious creationists trying to dictate that evolution is false in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Again, it’s belief trying to call itself science. Creation is something you believe in. Evolution is a theory, it is science.
There is no overwhelming evidence that Naturalistic Evolution is true or that macro Evolution is true. The science leads to Creationism because DNA code can be proven (inductively – like all science is done) to come from a coder, life comes from life, and intelligence comes from intelligence. Since you still have a hard time with these facts, you are tangible proof that an Evolutionist tries to fit the data into their prefered model – the very thing you are against. Thus, you are against yourself but don’t admit it.
Ok, back to this again, a religious belief is not a reason to reject a scientific theory.
I agree, and a religious belief (such as Naturalism) isn’t a reason to be in favor of a scientific theory!!!
If you have scientific evidence that rejects evolution, present it. Write a paper and you will become famous.
This is your blank assertion. How do you know I will become famous if I do? Maybe I will be right and be rejected like Copernicus and Gelileo were (who were Deists by the way).
And I’m not even being funny here. A discovery of this magnitude will make you as well known as Darwin.
Not true. Darwin wasn’t even the first person to come up with the theory. So you’re mistaken on that score. Second, since there is no single discovery which absolutey proves macro Evolution which made someone famous, I see no reason to do similar. Darwin provided a lot of evidence for micro evolution, however. Then he said that if there were no intermediary “species” to link other “species” then his theory of macro Evolution would fall apart. We haven’t, so his theory has fallen apart to him.
Again, you confuse belief with science. Science is not a popularity contest or something that is dictated by the best debater, it is simply observation, experimentation, etc…
Again, you are confused that science is somehow neutral or that interpretations of evidence is never bias. I never said it was determined by debate, that is YOUR filter. But those who are most informed of all the possible evidence for and againsnt it should win.
“You still haven’t shown me why it’s more rational to believe that these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence.”
Exactly! No one can show you what to believe. Science is not about believing, science is about evidence. Faith is about belief. I think you are starting to get the idea!
I can show you how DNA code comes from other DNA code, how life comes from life, and how intelligence comes from intelligence. That is my belief because of the evidence. It would by YOUR faith that all of these can come from non-DNA, non-life, and non-intelligence. Sounds like you have great faith when on the other hand you claim to not confalait your faith with your “pure” scientific thinking. I have already shown you why you have faith as a scientist on 2 scores now, and you have not shown why I am incorrect. I’m waiting.
I will say this about the nature of DNA, life and intelligence. I don’t thing science has scratched the surface of what there is to know about these subjects. And there may be some things that science will never know. This in no way is any sort of proof to the philosophy of creationism and intelligent design. In my opinion, science will never be able to prove or disprove those. They are based in faith and belief and science has nothing to do with faith or belief.
I never said we had to exhaust all knowledge of these subjects before we can come to conclusions on them. That seems to be your mistaken idea. But we can still infer and prove that these only come from a coder, life, and intelligence. Now you are appealing to ignorance. Well I can do the same thing! Creationsts don’t know how God first brought about these things in full detail but maybe someday in His grace He’ll show us, just like He’s shown us how everything else works via His gift of science (which only He can account for).
Trying to explain God to an atheist that has to see God through his microscope is like trying to explain love to a computer that has to turn everything into numbers. What if everyone was deaf except for one person? I mean really, the only reason we believe in sound is because we experience it. Scientifically, it’s movement, something we should feel, not “hear”. But because others also “hear”, we ignore the scientific narrow minded rules and accept hearing as possible. Because lots of people hear. Aren’t there enough people who experience God? Isn’t it possible that something real is there that science doesn’t understand?
Great points Isaac. The die hard empericist would argue back that hearing is physical b/c particles are creating frequences which go into your ear and then your brain by which you can distinguish the sounds and understand, thus is a physical process, etc. blah blah. The real problem isn’t “science” but the bias that “pure” science is only emperical, or only applies to that which we can observe in the physical realm. The thing is though that empericism itself doesn’t account for the emperical!!! You can’t observe a scientists “belief”. Fruther, emperical science requires observers who observe the observable, not of which can account for themselves but something beyond them must account for them. Observeration requires thinking which requires abstract absolute universal meanings. To have observers requires life, which is better explained as comeing from life, not non-life. The observable is the physical realm which can’t account for itself but is finite, thus began from something outside itself. Thus, a Naturalistic worldview internally refutes itself.
Further, empericism only looks at finite matter. Yet God is eternal and immaterial, so emperical proof for God’s existence is a bit silly, let alone for all proofs because you can’t physically proove one’s “belief”, even a scientific belief. There are fine ways to prove God’s existence, it’s just that pedantic biased fundamentalistic empericism conveniently throws out the whole endeavor making science 1. inconsistant and 2. limited. But maybe it’s limited for a reason by Naturalists who supposedly only accept emperical evidence? Maybe b/c they’re hostile to God like Scripture states, thus limit science to supposedly deny His plain existence. But one science experiment we all participate in to see if God exists is death. Can’t wait! Also when Jesus returns that will be physical evidence for everyone. The very one who invented the physical realm and holds it together will show up, judge everyone, and demand His full Lordship! Can’t wait for that too!