Ska, you are not the only girl who posts on this site, though more could only make it better.

Yet another modest proposal: How about starting a school district where all students had to learn about Astronautics in order to graduate from high school, and where any and all discussion of "Prehistoric Origins" was relegated to a 100-level College class? A class which would be an Optional Elective for anyone except Anthropology and (possibly) Biology majors?

Um Brian, that is a joke, and rather a good one, but it is nothing to do with PC or political incorrectness

It does have to do with politics because it is making fun of conservative politicians who take evolution & contraception out of the science curriculum without consulting with reputable scientists and because of biblical beliefs.

Along the same lines:

"Former Presidential candidate Pat Buchannen proudly said that he does not believe in the theory of evolution. He also said he's not too sure about the theory of gravity. He thinks it's a plot by Jews to get people to drop loose change"

Yet another modest proposal: How about starting a school district where all students had to learn about Astronautics in order to graduate from high school, and where any and all discussion of "Prehistoric Origins" was relegated to a 100-level College class? A class which would be an Optional Elective for anyone except Anthropology and (possibly) Biology majors?

Evolution is a fundamental principle in Modern Biology. Moreover, I am opposed to making certain scientific concepts "optional" because some "object" to them on religious grounds. Education must not be about reinforcing ignorance.

Pat Buchanan also believes that "diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody," he speculated that Holocaust survivors were unreliable as eyewitnesses because they were suffering from "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics," and he concluded that gas chambers were NOT used at the camps to exterminate Jews.

The guy is obviously not playing with a full deck.

Anonymous: Yes, I read "1984", which seemed to me to be a warning against totalitarianism. I do not "name-drop", I cite references; I do not try to look smart, I try (with limited success) to be smart. I don't claim to know everything about everyone, but it seems to me that both George Orwell and Aldous Huxley were against totalitarianism, and socialism has been part of a totalitarian regime in most of the places and times it has been implemented. And no, it's not a "belief", but a FACT, that some PC people claim that anyone who disagrees with them is against "Choice".

Josh G.: I was once a Theistic Evolutionist, believing in BOTH the process of evolution AND the existence of God, until I met a scientist named Otto Berg. Otto has 2 EARNED Ph.D.'s, one in Astronomy and one in Physics; he did some of the work on the captured German V-2 rockets; he designed one of the experiments the Apollo 14 astronauts took to the Moon; he continued to work at Goddard Space Flight Center until he was forced into retirement by Clinton-era budget cuts; AND HE'S A SCIENTIFIC CREATIONIST. Furthermore, according to Dr. D. James Kennedy, THE Sir Frederick Hoyle once told him that he (Dr. Hoyle) stopped being an atheist BECAUSE he once calculated the odds for and against one single simple cell EVER evolving, due to random chance, during the entire existence of the universe. THEREFORE, evolution remains a theory, not a fact. Scientific Creationism DOES NOT begin and end with "religious grounds", it's based on people saying, "What about such-and-such?" in SCIENTIFIC discussions.

No, education should not be about reinforcing ignorance. However, so much effort is wasted on discussions of "Prehistoric Origins", and so little of any practical use coming from it, that students should not ALL be REQUIRED to sit through it. There are college students in this country who literally don't know what asteroids are, and these are college students who were taught evolution in elementary and high school. These people are blissfully unaware of the dangers posed by asteroids that come close to striking Earth, so they won't write their Congressmen to ask for more funding for space projects. Students need to know more about "The Universe Today and How to Do Things In It".

Peter: Have you ever thought about joining the Cavalry? I ask because fairly often you come to the rescue. Thanks again!

Guess Who: Good joke!

Mike, it is a fallacious leap in logic to conclude that something must have been created by God, simply because we cannot be certain how it was done.

e.g.

We cannot conceive of how the cell could have undergone evolution.
Therefore, God created the cell.

That's an invalid argument.

Also, there's no way to calculate the probability of "one single simple cell EVER evolving, due to random chance, during the entire existence of
the universe." It has nothing to do with the science of statistics.

Why should not BOTH evolution and astronomy be part of a mandatory curriculum?

Josh G.: You must be online right now!

Astronomy tells us, "You are here." (With an arrow pointing to a certain part of a galaxy.) Astronomy is fundamentally important because it's important to know about what kind of place you're in and what's going on there, in addition to helping with navigation. Evolution has no practical use that I know of; HOWEVER, I have no major objection to someone covering it in class - PROVIDED that they clearly identify it as a THEORY, not a fact. (By the way, I heard somewhere that "fact" is a LEGAL term, NOT a SCIENTIFIC term.)

In science, a "law" is often called a "theory" not because there is any dispute about the basic facts, but because the mathematics used to describe it is just a close approximation. Although relativity has superceeded Newtonian mechanics, we still use Newtonian equations for a lot of things because the equations are simpler and, within certain ranges, they give answers as close to observed results (within our possible degree of precision) as relativity does.

I explained another reason, one more apropos of the Evolution/Creation debate, why scientific "laws" are called theories on the
Evolution thread of RM.

The point being that the use of the word theory does not indicate that the "law" in question is a wild guess, but rather that There is always room for growth in science.

*The post I referenced is rather low in the thread, and my Netscape browser quit before scrolling all the way down. If you use Netscape, you may need to use the "Search on this page" feature to look for the phrase "white crow" Scrolling through the next few posts with "white crow" in them might also be helpful.

Evolution has no practical use that I know of;

If you want to study biology, palentology or genetics.

HOWEVER, I have no major objection to someone covering it in class - PROVIDED that they clearly identify it as a THEORY, not a fact. (By the way, I heard somewhere that "fact" is a LEGAL term, NOT a SCIENTIFIC term.)

It's a theory in the same way as the theory of relitivity?

Scientific Creationism DOES NOT begin and end with "religious grounds", it's based on people saying, "What about such-and-such?" in SCIENTIFIC discussions.

If it ends up with the conclusion that a supernatural entity created the universe, then yes, it does at leats end on religious grounds. If you have faith, you do not *need* any sort of science or pseudo-science or Important Capitalized Words to prove that you're right.

Ahem. I've had this discussion way too many times.

As discussed elsewhere regarding the "but what abouts"...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not that I want to get involved in the evolution vs. creation debate (hey you want me to go off on a tangent about funding for public schools should be done at a local level?)

I always thought that evolution was a "theory" because it can not be tested. I.E. if Kirk or whomever is kind enough to get us a planet that is currently lifeless but can support life we can try some experiments and test that theory.

By the way, I've never read a convincing rebutall of the Omphalos argument.

Brian,

I'm posting without factual back up. I yield to any and all who insist I've got it wrong.
Relativity has a similar problem. It explains things, however, like a slight excentricy in Mercury's orbit (Newtonian physics explained it by positing a planet named "Vulcan" inside of Mercury's orbit. I remember something about measuring star positions during an eclipse and the sun's gravity did move their expected position (their light) in accordance with Einstein. I could be wrong, but I think the theory of Relativity is a law now but it was called a theory for so long the name stuck.

By the way, I've never read a convincing rebutall of the Omphalos argument.

Relativity has been tested and proven many times...

The classic test of General Relativity by the star positions.
Time dilation has been proven by high energy particle accelerators. It has also been proven by the fact that short lived particles make it to earth. Incidentally, that proves both time and length dilation/contraction.

However, the Theory of relativity is incomplete, as is Quantum Mechanics. Relativity only applies to the very large (speed, mass...), while QM currently applies only to the very small. This dichotomy explains why there is currently no quantum theory of gravity.

By the way, I've never read a convincing rebutall of the Omphalos argument.
By the way, I've never read a convincing rebutall of the Omphalos argument.

Okay, okay, but please explain what it is.

I always thought that evolution was a "theory" because it can not be tested. I.E. if Kirk or whomever is kind enough to get us a planet that is currently lifeless but can support life we can try some experiments and test that theory.

Actually, biologists have tried experiments to simulate what life was like on Earth all those years ago, with the right concentration of gases in a vacuum and so on. Over time, life did develop and grow and evolve.

Peter.

And Matthew, to be honest you sound like you are saying that too.

Yep, I sure am. If you have a religious belief in something, then to my way of thinking there's no reason for you to spend all your time using science or whatever to "prove" that you're correct. The reason you have faith in things is because those things *cannot* be proven. Trying to prove the unprovable just wastes your time and makes you look silly.

In other words, if you believe in insta-poof creation, that ought to be sufficient for you, and you really don't need an excuse to go looking for evidence to back you up.

The Omphalos argument says that God could have created everything in 4004 BCE but have given it the "scars" of a fuller, richer history. It get it's name ("navel") from the premise that even though Adam was created whole, as an adult, he may have had a belly-button, which is generally a scar from losing the umbilical cord.

William is right, there is no effective scientific counter-argument to that statement. It is because the statement is irrelevant to science. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

There is no reason why this argument cannot equally apply to a theory of the universe having been created last week. In which case, all those flame wars that "everyone" accuses you of having started never happened. All of their claims are false and you are totally blameless. It's God's fault for giving all of us false memories. God set you up!

Notice that there is no way to prove that the last paragraph is false. God has the ability to do that. We don't believe it is in His character, however.

So the Omphalos argument fails, not because it is disproved, but because there is no reason for Science to accept it (Occam's Razor), and every reason for "Faith" to reject it ("God is not a God of lies.")

The reason you have faith in things is because those things *cannot* be proven. Trying to prove the unprovable just wastes your time and makes you look silly.

You haven't explained why you think it is unprovable. Why should it be?

In other words, if you believe in insta-poof creation, that ought to be sufficient for you, and you really don't need an excuse to go looking for evidence to back you up.

Okay, I'll bite. You are saying that faith trumps what actually happened?!

And I agree with what Tom said about the Omphalos argument. If you deny knowledge and logic then you can argue against anything, because you don't have to listen to the premises that contradict you and the logical conclusions from those premises that refute you. It hardly makes you right.

Peter.

You haven't explained why you think it is unprovable. Why should it be?

Because an all-powerful God can manipulate the results of any test in the universe in any way he pleases. You can't definitively test for God because God can always hide.

Okay, I'll bite. You are saying that faith trumps what actually happened?!

No, certainly believing in something doesn't make the something happen. What I'm saying is, someone who believes in young-Earth Creation shouldn't *need* any scientific proof for their belief and shouldn't be wasting their time seeking it. Their *religious belief* shouldn't be based on what they think *scientific investigation* shows them, whether the evidence they get confirms or refutes what they already believed.

Because an all-powerful God can manipulate the results of any test in the universe in any way he pleases. You can't definitively test for God because God can always hide.

Well that assumes that he wants to remain hidden. What about if God revealed himself to everyone on TV or something? That would be pretty good proof.

No, certainly believing in something doesn't make the something happen. What I'm saying is, someone who believes in young-Earth Creation shouldn't *need* any scientific proof for their belief and shouldn't be wasting their time seeking it. Their *religious belief* shouldn't be based on what they think *scientific investigation* shows them, whether the evidence they get confirms or refutes what they already believed.

If the facts don't appear to fit what you believe, you either look for new facts or you change your mind. Creationists look for new facts. I changed my mind. You seem to be saying facts don't matter. For example, don't you see from a Creationist perspective that if they are right, then ending the teaching of evolution, which they believe to be a blasphemous lie, is very important?

Peter.

Matthew is not saying that facts don't matter, in general. He is saying that if you already have decided that X is true, and the evidence doesn't seem to support it, your determination that the evidence is flawed is not based on the intrinsic nature of that evidence, but on your pre-determination. He then questions why, in that situation, you even bother to worry about that evidence.

Yes their attempts to refute Evolution are important to their agenda, but if all the physical evidence is on Evolution's side and all the "spiritual" evidence is on theirs why are they mired in physical arguments?

Well that assumes that he wants to remain hidden. What about if God revealed himself to everyone on TV or something? That would be pretty good proof.

Yes, it would, but the current discussion has nothing to do with God pre-empting The West Wing to issue some new commandments. The issue was whether the presence or absence of God can be scientifically tested, and the answer is obviously no.

And Oh by the way, William--

Your idea that Evolution is a theory because it has not been tested, but relativity is a law because it has, and is still called a theory only out of habit does not match the way most scientists use the words.

A natural law is Nature behaving predictably. A scientific theory is man's understanding of that law. There is always room for refinement of that understanding.


"What goes up (within a gravity well) must come down," is a law. Newtonian mechanics (F=ma) (and its successor, relativity) is a theory to descibe the law and its consequences, and has been tested and refined. "Survival of the fittest," is a law. Evolutionary theory attempts to descibe that law and its consequences. There have been tests and refinements. The fact that these tests were (of necessity) not closed-system, controlled experiments is the excuse some people use to attempt to discredit it as a true scientific theory.

Mike Brill: I have no major objection to someone covering it in class - PROVIDED that they clearly identify it as a THEORY, not a fact.
Luigi Novi: Theories that can have proven sufficiently and gained enough mainstream acceptance can be given tentative status as "facts," as Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer puts it. Scientific theories exist on a spectrum of factual validity, with things that have been proven time and again to the point where they are called "facts" on one end, like evolution, heliocentrism, gravity and relativity. Theories that are relatively new, with little or moderate empirical supportive evidence exist along various points in the middle, like inflationary cosmology and superstring theory. Theories with little, unclear or contradictory empirical data exist towards the end, like cryonics, acupuncture, omega point theory, etc. If one wishes to extend that spectrum to non-scientific theories, you could say that theories that do not even play by the rules of science, and not not even science at all, like UFOlogy, creationism, Astrology, Freudian psychoanalytic theory or Holocaust revision, are at the very end.

Mike Brill: By the way, I heard somewhere that "fact" is a LEGAL term, NOT a SCIENTIFIC term.
Luigi Novi: Really? So why is it in general-knowledge dictionaries, rather than just legal books or on Lexus/Nexus?

Matt Patterson: The reason you have faith in things is because those things *cannot* be proven. Trying to prove the unprovable just wastes your time and makes you look silly.

Peter: You haven't explained why you think it is unprovable.
Luigi Novi: Creationism, and all Biblical miracles CANNOT be proven or disproven because they are not empirical matters. They are matters of faith.

Once more, I refer all of you to my posting on this topic of Feb. 1, at 2:34 pm, specifically to the paragraph originally directed at Josh G.: There DO exist, REAL SCIENTISTS who do NOT believe
in evolution. I'm sure that Otto Berg and Sir Frederick Hoyle know what science is.

"Fact" is considered a legal term and not a scientific term, BECAUSE one can prove, in a court of law, that So-And-So was the one who killed •••• Robin. (Or perpetrated whatever misdeed.) In science, on the other hand, something will be considered true for generations, and THEN someone will prove that it really ISN'T true.

Now, on another note: Find a school district where
all elementary OR high school students are REQUIRED to cover evolution. Do a survey of their graduates. Find out how many of them know Ohm's Law or Kirchhoff's Law. Probably none. Which is more important? Hint: At this very minute, you are using an application of Ohm's Law and Kirchhoff's Law; you have probably never used evolution for anything (except to prove on a test that you understood the theory). How many of these students think that Avogadro's Number has something to do with the Lottery? How many of them can tell a piece of feldspar from a piece of coal? How many can read a meniscus? Or tell a meniscus from a hibiscus? How many of them believe the New Age Sewage that says that "crystals" have "power"? (Especially when those crystals do NOT set off a Geiger counter!) A few years ago, there was a well-known political activist who opposed any and all nuclear power; this person, who sought to dictate nuclear policy to the entire world, used to proudly proclaim that the only Physics he ever took was Ex-Lax! There is no doubt in my mind that his "education" included Evolution. Getting back to the school district: Luigi mentioned Astrology; how many of those high school graduates, who were taught evolution, believe in horoscopes because they know nothing about telescopes? How many of them call Miss Cleo for their free "psychic" Tarot reading? How many of them think that Newton's Laws have something to do with figs or have any comprehension of Kepler's Laws?

Brian F. pointed out that evolution is required for biology, paleontology and genetics majors. A paleontologist tries to find out things about extinct animals, such as whether it was an herbivore, carnivore or omnivore; whether it went about on all fours or stood on rear legs and a tail; whether it was a mammal or reptile, and other information. A paleontologist may believe that the animal evolved into this or that. But how has evolution taught anyone anything about mitochondria or DNA? How has evolution taught anyone anything about chromosomes, ribosomes, mitosis or halitosis? Ask a virologist or bacteriologist how often he ACTUALLY USES evolution in his work. And why should all the kids, who have no idea what they want to do with their lives, have to deal with something that's not that important?

Ask a virologist or bacteriologist how often he ACTUALLY USES evolution in his work

Quite often, actually. How the heck do you think that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria come about?

The weak ones get killed off immediately. Those that (through some mutation or another) have some minor resistance survive and reproduce. If you don't take your whole dose of antibiotic, you wind up with a colony that has resistance.

Natural selection aka evolution at work.

And though I don't know why we're discussing it here instead of over on RM:CvsE (actually I do, those boards are closed -- HINT HINT MARK)...

Evidence for Macro-evolution found.

Mike,

I'm not sure I follow your arguement. Is it, 'because american science students are so possibly have happened'?

Let's consider, for the sake of argument that the Creation story as told in Genesis in teh King James Verison happened exactly as told. Okay, so everyone in teh world is descended from Adam and Eve. Why then, are there so many different body types? Why are the Inuit (Eskimos) of Alaska shortish and roundish, which helps them weather the cold? Why are we so different genetically?

What process explains this without using any theory of evolution?

Merry

It's nice to see that there is finally a good, "well researched" genetic explanation for the "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" version of Evolutionary theory. As the article mentions, the redundancy of two copies of a chromosone/gene for every function in sexually based reproduction gave the Creationists an easy attack on this point, especially since so many mutations tend to be recessive to earlier versions of a gene.

BTW...

What's the difference between a Yankee zoo and a Redneck zoo?

On the cage in a Yankee zoo, it will have the name of the animal and the scientific name in Latin. A Southern zoo will have the name of the animal and a recipe

Merry,
I was trying to point out that many people are taught evolution, WITHOUT really learning ANY science. Also, most "science-other-than-evolution" is actually more useful, yet gets LESS coverage in schools. As for your question, adaptation to local conditions does not prove that any human had non-human ancestors. If evolution is true, are the Inuit more highly evolved than Hawaiians, or less highly evolved? Where do New Yorkers or West Virginians fit into the evolutionary chain? The more people teach evolution, the greater the chance that people will want to believe that Group A is more highly evolved than anyone else, and should get privileged status, and that Group J is less highly evolved than anyone else, and must be exterminated. Now, who would believe such a thing? A certain European head of state (and his followers), who ran the place from sometime in 1933 to sometime in 1945, and who incidentally said that Christianity was an illegitimate offshoot of Judaism.

ScottN: OK, germs can adapt to something - but how can anyone be sure that the ancestors of the smallpox germ (for example) were ever anything but another smallpox germ?

By the way - I don't know if it's true or not, but several months ago (before 9-11), I heard some guy on the radio claim that he observed someone sawing the chins off of Neanderthal jawbones - in order to make them look more apelike.

"Fact" is considered a legal term and not a scientific term, BECAUSE one can prove, in a court of law, that So-And-So was the one who killed •••• Robin. (Or perpetrated whatever misdeed.) In science, on the other hand, something will be considered true for generations, and THEN someone will prove that it really ISN'T true.

As opposed to court where it never happens that you prove someone commited a crime, than years later DNA evidence proves that he didn't do it.

By the way - I don't know if it's true or not, but several months ago (before 9-11), I heard some guy on the radio claim that he observed someone sawing the chins off of Neanderthal jawbones - in order to make them look more apelike.

I once heard on talk radio that the reason people were getting sick recently was because the government was testing biological weapons on US citizens by spraying it on population centers by jets , BTW this was during cold and flu season.

Now, on another note: Find a school district where
all elementary OR high school students are REQUIRED to cover evolution. Do a survey of their graduates. Find out how many of them know Ohm's Law or Kirchhoff's Law. Probably none. Which is more important? Hint: At this very minute, you are using an application of Ohm's Law and Kirchhoff's Law; you have probably never used evolution for anything (except to prove on a test that you understood the theory).

While you're at it go find out how many people used Shakespear, history or high order mathmatics after leaving school.

By what process do organisms adapt to their environment? Please explain this to me. I can't see how one can explain adaptation without referencing evolution.

As for the scientists you cite that are creationists: I cannot find any information on an Otto Berg, except at a university where an Otto Berg teaches molecular evolution. I found Dr. D. James Kennedy's site. He is not a scientist. He is a religous leader. Most of his arguements against evolution seem to be "we can't belive evolution because it would negate the Christian religion," which is not a scientific argument. I could find no reference for Sir Fredrick Doyle either.

Could you please provide me with links to modern scientists who are also Creationists or to a list of scientific arguements against evolutions?

Merry

Merry, that's Hoyle.

Merry-

Most people, even staunch Creationists, accept the existance of what is sometimes called micro-evolution: change and adaptation within a species. Without it, they cannot answer your question. Or explain horticultural and animal husbandry breeding programs that have steadily improved our produce and livestock.

They are quick to point out, however, that most of the examples of ongoing evolution (such as the population shift from light to dark in England's Peppered Moth during the Industrial Revolution) are micro-evolutionary in nature. They then claim that there is no reliable evidence of "macro-evolution," of changes so radical that the offspring are something different from the parents.

Until now, there was no explainable and testable mechanism other than gradualism and a lot of time. Punctuated Equilibrium has presented a better mechanism, but it ran into the problem of how the "hopeful monsters" could breed true often enough to establish a new population and a new species. That's why the HOX gene research that Scott linked to is so exciting. It holds out a promise of finding a solution to this delemma.

Mike--

Yes people are taught evolution and don't learn other sciences. So what. They are taught those other sciences, but unless they use them, they forget most of what they were taught, so they haven't learned it. Likewise, they forget most of what they are taught about evolution (but the do remember more than they do of other sciences).

So what's the difference?

I see two differences. First, the controversy surrounding evolution comes up in the news periodically. That helps to keep the material fresh in their minds almost as effectively as using other sciences keeps them fresh in the small percentage of the population whose careers are based in them. Second, it is not the details (the equivalents of Ohm's law and Kirchoff's law), but the simplified desciptive and the anecdotal (the equivalents of Newton and the apple) that are remembered.

Mike Brill: Once more, I refer all of you to my posting on this topic of Feb. 1, at 2:34 pm, specifically to the paragraph originally directed at Josh G.: There DO exist, REAL SCIENTISTS who do NOT believe in evolution. I'm sure that Otto Berg and Sir Frederick Hoyle know what science is.
Luigi Novi: I’d like to know what their arguments are, what their data is, and whether they are arguing from a religious bias. Obviously, the scientific consensus incorporates evolution as a scientific fact, Mike, a fact that is corroborated by modern cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and early human history. If Otto Berg and Sir Frederick Hoyle are proponents of a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the prevailing scientific consensus of such a basic principle as evolution, and the data from all of these fields, then their arguments and/or evidence must not only account for all the conditions that evolutionary biologists discover when investigation our biological past, but must do so better than the current prevailing one.

Given that the late Mr. Hoyle claimed that sunspots caused flu epidemics, that the AIDS virus fell from outer space (as well as Legionnaire’s disease), that mutating life forms from space caused evolution, and that he refused to accept the discovery of tell-tale ripples in the fabric of the cosmos because he admitted, "I have an aesthetic bias against the Big Bang," I wouldn’t hold my breath, Mike. You can read more about this guy at: http://gwillick.tripod.com/obit/hoyleo.html

Mike Brill: "Fact" is considered a legal term and not a scientific term, BECAUSE one can prove, in a court of law, that So-And-So was the one who killed oooo Robin. (Or perpetrated whatever misdeed.) In science, on the other hand, something will be considered true for generations, and THEN someone will prove that it really ISN'T true.
Luigi Novi: That does not make the word a legal term, Mike, nor does it make it inapplicable to science. First of all, the self-reevaluating nature of science is a given, and it does not mean any of the principles therein that have gained sufficient support are "not facts."
----Second, words that are esoteric or specific to certain occupations or fields of study will usually either have that subject in parenthesis, or the phrase "In (fill in the subject)…" right before the beginning of the definition. The word "fact" has no such disclaimer, in either my American Heritage Dictionary, or my Merriem Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition for any of its definitions.
----Lastly, you admonished us to review your Feb. 1 2:34pm post. I did, and guess what I found? I found this:

And no, it's not a "belief", but a FACT, that some PC people claim that anyone who disagrees with them is against "Choice".

You now say that "Fact" is considered a legal term and not a scientific term, BECAUSE one can prove, in a court of law…" So you’re saying that you proved this notion about some PC people in a court of law?

Mike Brill: How many of these students think that Avogadro's Number has something to do with the Lottery? How many of them can tell a piece of feldspar from a piece of coal? How many can read a meniscus? Or tell a meniscus from a hibiscus? How many of them believe the New Age Sewage that says that "crystals" have "power"?
Luigi Novi: The fact that schools do not teach students the strong distinction between science and pseudoscience is valid issue, but it is an entirely separate issue from the validity of evolution.

Mike Brill: But how has evolution taught anyone anything about mitochondria or DNA? How has evolution taught anyone anything about chromosomes, ribosomes, mitosis or halitosis?
Luigi Novi: This argument is flawed. It presumes that evolution has somehow been held up or reputed as a source of answers for these things. It isn’t, and no one ever said it was. Who ever said it had anything to do with halitosis? I’m sure I could come up with a lot more random subjects that evolution "doesn’t answer," like "How has evolution helped me in Art class?", or "How has evolution taught me how to win the lottery, change a tire or tie my shoes?" Evolution is what it is. It is not invalidated for not being something else, any more than literature is invalidated by not helping me in gym class, or history for not helping me in woodshop.

Mike Brill: And why should all the kids, who have no idea what they want to do with their lives, have to deal with something that's not that important?
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that the "importance" of a given subject in school is a matter of opinion, everyone knows that by the time we grow into adulthood, we have forgotten much of what we learned in school, and this isn’t specific to evolution. I don’t remember most of what I learned in Algebra class, and frankly, I don’t think kids should have to learn that. How much of what you learned in school do you remember, Mike?

Mike Brill: Also, most "science-other-than-evolution" is actually more useful, yet gets LESS coverage in schools.
Luigi Novi: Of course it gets less coverage. There’s less evidence for it. Should we teach the flat Earth theory and room temperature cold fusion too?

Mike Brill: As for your question, adaptation to local conditions does not prove that any human had non-human ancestors. If evolution is true, are the Inuit more highly evolved than Hawaiians, or less highly evolved?
Luigi Novi: Neither. The Inuit and the Polynesians are the same species: Human. The superficial aspects of ethnicity are a function of climate and possibly sexual selection, not evolution, and are not confirmed at the genetic level.

Mike Brill: The more people teach evolution, the greater the chance that people will want to believe that Group A is more highly evolved than anyone else, and should get privileged status, and that Group J is less highly evolved than anyone else, and must be exterminated. Now, who would believe such a thing? A certain European head of state (and his followers), who ran the place from sometime in 1933 to sometime in 1945, and who incidentally said that Christianity was an illegitimate offshoot of Judaism.
Luigi Novi: Racism and genocide occurred long before the theory of evolution, and most groups who continue to perpetrate it today (the Hutus of Rwanda, the Serbs in Kosovo) do not identify with evolution as a motive. The manner in which people use a scientific principle for ideological or political purposes is entirely separate from the validity of that principle. Evolution has been used to justify all sort of ideologies, from Marxism to fascism to capitalism. You could make the same argument against religion, since such acts have been committed in its name as well.

Scientific principles are morally neutral. The manner in which people use them is not.

Mike Brill: By the way - I don't know if it's true or not, but several months ago (before 9-11), I heard some guy on the radio claim that he observed someone sawing the chins off of Neanderthal jawbones - in order to make them look more apelike.
Luigi Novi: And I heard someone saw Elvis in a 7-11. So what? Unsubstantiated anecdotes and second-hand retellings are not credible evidence of even a single incident, let alone enough incidents to call evolution as a whole into question. Sorry, Mike, but between invoking a quack like Hoyle, confusing the quality of education in general with evolution in particular, your mention of Hitler and Nazism, and now this, your entire argument is little more than a house of cards.

They are quick to point out, however, that most of the examples of ongoing evolution (such as the population shift from light to dark in England's Peppered Moth during the Industrial Revolution) are micro-evolutionary in nature. They then claim that there is no reliable evidence of "macro-evolution," of changes so radical that the offspring are something different from the parents.

Seeing as the earth is hundreds on millions of years old and humans been around for less than .01% of it the question of why can't we see it happen on a large scale is like someone who lives in a beach house asking why they can't see continental drift or me spending a day in my backyard and asking why I can't see the trees growing.

Mike Brill: The more people teach evolution, the greater the chance that people will want to believe that Group A is more highly evolved than anyone else, and should get privileged status, and that Group J is less highly evolved than anyone else, and must be exterminated. Now, who would believe such a thing? A certain European head of state (and his followers), who ran the place from sometime in 1933 to sometime in 1945, and who incidentally said that Christianity was an illegitimate offshoot of Judaism.

First of all that argument is null and void because we are different races (based on superficial differences) not a different species. Second, I've heard guys like that use the old evolution = bigotry argument before and I have to ask: Have you ever met a racist? I grew up in the south & have met more than a few. I've NEVER met one who used evolution for the basis of their argument. I've met plenty who have used religion for the basis however. I’m not saying that religion is to blame for racism, but lets not put the blame on a scientific theory that most racists lump into the category of “liberal BS like affirmative action, race mixing, and the UN ”

Also, most "science-other-than-evolution" is actually more useful, yet gets LESS coverage in schools. Brill

Of course it gets less coverage. There’s less evidence for it. Should we teach the flat Earth theory and room temperature cold fusion too? Luigi

Luigi, I think you misunderstood Mike. He was saying "Why do we spend less time on other science (such as chemistry) than on evolution?"

This would be a valid question, if the underlying assumption were true. In high school only one semester each (if that) is spent on Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Each of these covers an extremely broad range of material, and it is not possible to go into much of it at depth in so short a time. But evolution itself is only mentioned briefly as part of the Biology class. It does not get any kind of special treatment beyond other science material unless its political controversy is introduced into the discussion, often by the students.

As for your question, adaptation to local conditions does not prove that any human had non-human ancestors. If evolution is true, are the Inuit more highly evolved than Hawaiians, or less highly evolved?

Neither. The Inuit and the Polynesians are the same species: Human. The superficial aspects of ethnicity are a function of climate and possibly sexual selection, not evolution, and are not confirmed at the genetic level.

Again you seem to have mis-read Mike. The original question was Merry's (see my comment to her, above), and Mike is making basically the same point you are, except he seems to think that that point disproves evolution. As I mentioned above most articulate Creationists concede "micro-evolution" of this type but object to "macro-evolution."

-------

A while back, on the proper board in RM, I mentioned reading a book in which a Creationist quoted the writings of a scientist from the Indian subcontinent (either a Hindu or a Buddhist) to "prove" that Creationism was not an "exclusively" Christian idea. The individual statements had been ripped from all context, and may have been poorly translated. It was clear from what the scientist was saying bore no resemblance to what the Creationist claimed that he meant.

Not having read any of the statements attributed to Berg and Hoyle, I can't claim that that is happening with their words, but it is something I would have to keep in mind when I researched them.

-------

Brian-

You have taken the second paragraph of my comment to Merry out of context. I am not championing Creationism. In the third paragraph, not only do I bring up gradualism and a lot of time as an answer to the objections to "macro-evolution" as you do, but I mention the exciting new research into mechanisms for Punctuated Equilibrium.

TomM: Luigi, I think you misunderstood Mike. He was saying "Why do we spend less time on other science (such as chemistry) than on evolution?"
Luigi Novi: Sorry if I misunderstood him, Tom. In answer to the question, we don’t spend less time on other science. I certainly didn’t. I don’t recall going over it in grammar school (I went to a Catholic parochial school, so that may have been deliberate), and in high school, kids CHOOSE their classes. You’re less likely to study evolution in chemistry class. I went to a public high school, and had bio sophomore year and chemistry junior year. I got all A’s in the former and averaged probably a C in the latter, and I don’t recall ever studying evolution in either one.

I would concur with your statement that it does not get any kind of special treatment. Mike may very well be speaking from personal experience, but even if that were the case with him, I doubt it’s the rule. I also doubt, given the shoddy reasoning and research he’s employed here, that he actually did any meaningful research to see if it’s the case anywhere else.

TomM: Again you seem to have mis-read Mike. The original question was Merry's, and Mike is making basically the same point you are, except he seems to think that that point disproves evolution.
Luigi Novi: I see. I usually review the entire thread, but Merry’s point slipped past me. My point should’ve been directed to Merry, not Mike. Sorry, Mike.

I read about the Inuits and Polynesians and I have to post. I forget whom I'm quoting, but "The greatest racial differences can be undone in fifteen minutes of passion." Any Inuit ladies interested in testing this?

Also, most "science-other-than-evolution" is actually more useful, yet gets LESS coverage in schools. Brill

Evolution only gets about a chapter or so in most schools (and gets none here in Kennesaw GA) Other ideas that go against the creationist 6000 year old Earth idea are taught as part of other scientific topics (a millions of year old earth, planet formation, continental drift, star formation) are covered when you learn about geology and astronomy.

EPILOGUE:

Mike Brill: There DO exist, REAL SCIENTISTS who do NOT believe in evolution. I'm sure that Otto Berg and Sir Frederick Hoyle know what science is.
Luigi Novi: I've already posted material about Hoyle. As for Berg, I contacted him, and told him what you said, Mike. He responded that he holds no controversial opinions on evolution, and cannot imagine how anyone interpreted anything he has ever said to mean that he does not believe in it. He authorized me to post this statement by him here.

That's odd, Luigi, because I first met Otto in 1989, in Braddock Heights, MD., at which time he was doing a presentation, about scientific flaws in the theory of evolution, at one of the local churches. Are you sure you're thinking of the same person? I'm going to have to call him one of these days and see how he's doing.

Mike, just because he spoke of scientific flaws (and are you sure he phrase it that way?) doesn't mean he doesn't believe in evolution. There is continuing debate over the mechanism of evolution, the theory of punctuated equilibrium, etc. That doesn't mean those who debate these points doubt evolution as a whole.

I'm pretty sure it was him, Mike. I did a search, found his email address at a website about him (are there two scientists named Otto Bergs involved in evolution?), and contacted him.

Well, I agree that the whole concept of evolution is a little weird, and imporbable. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. One of the many issues I have with Christians in general is that many of them seem to think that Imporbable and Impossible ar einterchangeable, when everyone else (even other Christians) know that they are two totally seperate things.

Luigi: I'm glad I phrased it the way I did. The Otto Berg that I know is Otto E. Berg, retired NASA scientist, living in Middletown, Maryland, USA ... NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Otto G. Berg, professor at Uppsala University in Sweden. I've never been to Sweden, and I didn't know about the college teacher you found with your web search. I apologize for thinking you made the whole thing up. Go to the "Switchboard.com" website, where it says, "Find a Person", and type in "Otto Berg" and "Maryland". You'll find he has 2 listings with the same street address in Middletown, Md., because he has 2 phone numbers. That's the Otto Berg that I know. I called him Sunday morning, but we couldn't talk long, because he was about to leave to go to one of the local churches, where he was going to give the first lecture in a 4-part series, titled "Astronomy and the Big Bang", about why the Big Bang could not have happened.
Brian W.: I have not noticed THAT phenomenon with any of the Christians that I have encountered, though there ARE a lot of us that will believe any lie, no matter how absurd, if it appears in a book written by someone claiming to be a minister. I, for one, know the difference between Improbable and Impossible. For example: it is Improbable that I will ever become President of the United States, since I don't have enough money to run an election campaign that would have a reasonable chance of winning; it is Impossible for Yassir Arafat to become President of the United States, since he was not born a citizen of the United States. (Not to mention the fact that too many Americans, myself included, are too sympathetic to the Israelis to support Mr. Arafat.)
Merry: Suppose 2 twins, born in Virginia, are separated at birth. One is sent to Alaska, the other to Ecuador. When these 2 twins are 20 years old, they will not both be comfortable in the exact same environment. Suppose they both get married and have children - again, the first in Alaska and the other in Ecuador. Suppose their children grow up, get married, and have kids. Will the grandchildren of the original twins have evolved? Will they have more in common with other people local to their own home than with people in the original twins' birthplace in Virginia? And for information on scientists who believe in creation and not in evolution, go to "Google.com" and do a search for "Scientific Creationism".

Mike Brill: Suppose 2 twins, born in Virginia, are separated at birth. One is sent to Alaska, the other to Ecuador. When these 2 twins are 20 years old, they will not both be comfortable in the exact same environment. Suppose they both get married and have children - again, the first in Alaska and the other in Ecuador. Suppose their children grow up, get married, and have kids. Will the grandchildren of the original twins have evolved?
Luigi Novi: Evolution does not occur among individuals, it refers to entire species.

Mike Brill: And for information on scientists who believe in creation and not in evolution, go to "Google.com" and do a search for "Scientific Creationism".
Luigi Novi: "Scientific Creationism" is not science. It is science in name only. Slapping the label "scientific" on something doesn't make it science. It is merely a euphemism for creationism, which is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

I did a search, and went to scientificcreationism.org, and what I found didn't surprise me. It states: Scientific Creationism is a web site dedicated to refuting evolution and promoting creationism, but in particular promoting the Bible as true in all it says and claims.

Any time you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window.

Here are some of the other things stated on the "Evidence that the Bible is Historically Reliable" section of the site at http://www.scientificcreationism.org/article_04.html:

1. Fulfilled prophecy: Many of the prophets described Jesus as much as 2,000 years before he came! And they were perfectly accurate! The probability of them guessing this and being right on just eight of these prophecies and them being accurate is about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000!
Luigi Novi: The problem is how one defines "accurate." Prophecies are notoriously vague, and can often be used to fit events that later occur that people can interpret as a fulfilment of the prophecy. Those who believe in Nostradamus do the same thing.

2. Eyewitnesses: There were actual eyewitnesses to the fulfillment of these prophecies and the life of Jesus. Four of Jesus' followers wrote whole books on the life of Jesus, what he did, the miracles he performed, his death, and his resurrection, and there were many other more minor witnesses.
Luigi Novi: None of which can be interviewed for the purpose of corroborating their accounts, and for which no evidence exists, which is necessary to prove such accounts "scientifically." The Bible was written before modern historiography, and was not written to be a scientific, factual, or objective record of events.

3. The authors of the Gospels had no reason to lie. Spreading Christianity didn't benefit the authors of the Gospels, Jesus, or any of his disciples or friends at all. Therefore, none of them had any incentives to spread it.
Luigi Novi: LOL! Of course they did. They were trying to convert people to their beliefs.

5. Although there were four different accounts, none of the accounts disagreed.

7. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
Luigi Novi: Ridiculous. There are numerous instances where contradictory information exists in the Bible, including in the Gospels.

6. Nothing in archaeology or science has ever contradicted the Bible.
Luigi Novi: Only if you ignore all of science, and all logic and common sense as well. The absurdity of fitting two of each of millions of species, plus their food, into a boat 450 by 75 by 45 feet, feeding them, watering them, cleaning up after them, and keeping them from preying on one another is more than enough to let one know that the Noachian flood story, for example, is not LITERALLY true, at least as the Bible describes it.

Any time you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window.

Wait a minute ... all scientists work from hypotheses. The idea that you can dismiss their conclusions on the basis of the hypothesis is ridiculous. It is on the basis of the evidence and reasoning that you judge science. After all, by that reasoning no Christian can ever be a true scientist because you have decided already that the son of God is incapable of miracles, and so belief in those things cannot be compatable with science.

None of which can be interviewed for the purpose of corroborating their accounts, and for which no evidence exists, which is necessary to prove such accounts "scientifically." The Bible was written before modern historiography, and was not written to be a scientific, factual, or objective record of events.

So as soon as a writer dies and the original copy of his book is lost, anything he writes has no basis in fact? Come on. Obviously you cannot prove that Jesus did what he did "scientifically" any more than you can prove "scientifically" that Augustus won the Battle of Actium. That doesn't stop us beleving it. The Gospels certainly were written to be scientific, factual and objective records of events. It is a historical account. What else do you think it is?

Luigi Novi: LOL! Of course they did. They were trying to convert people to their beliefs.

But as the account says, why spread a lie? What benefit would come from spreading something you know to be untrue? Why would you wish to convert someone to your beliefs unless they be true?

Peter.

No, Peter, what he's saying is that because the supernatural is, by definition, untestable, then it's not scientific, at least according to Sir Isaac Newton.

Any time you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window.

Wait a minute ... all scientists work from hypotheses. The idea that you can dismiss their conclusions on the basis of the hypothesis is ridiculous. It is on the basis of the evidence and reasoning that you judge science. After all, by that reasoning no Christian can ever be a true scientist because you have decided already that the son of God is incapable of miracles, and so belief in those things cannot be compatable with science.

Hold on a sec. Scientists work from hypotheses but everything is dependant on proof. If you make a hypotheses you gather all the data that you can and see if the data supports the hypotheses, if it does not you make a new hypotheses and gather date and see if the data refutes or supports it, and so on. These "Scientific Creationists" take something that is unproven (the Bible) as truth right off the bat. They keep all the date that supports it and throw out everything that doesn't. That is not now, and never has been, how the sciefific method works.

None of which can be interviewed for the purpose of corroborating their accounts, and for which no evidence exists, which is necessary to prove such accounts "scientifically." The Bible was written before modern historiography, and was not written to be a scientific, factual, or objective record of events.

So as soon as a writer dies and the original copy of his book is lost, anything he writes has no basis in fact? Come on. Obviously you cannot prove that Jesus did what he did "scientifically" any more than you can prove "scientifically" that Augustus won the Battle of Actium. That doesn't stop us beleving it. The Gospels certainly were written to be scientific, factual and objective records of events. It is a historical account. What else do you think it is?

By that logic wouldn't all ancent holy books be considered factual recordings of history?

Wait a minute ... all scientists work from hypotheses. The idea that you can dismiss their conclusions on the basis of the hypothesis is ridiculous. It is on the basis of the evidence and reasoning that you judge science. Peter

That's true as far as it goes, but Even when a scientist earnestly believes in his pet hypothesis, he is, or ideally should be, quite willing to abandon it if the data doesn't back it up. Yes, even the most revered elder gentlemen of science have, on occassion, failed to live up to this ideal, but when they do they are no longer acting as scientists.

After all, by that reasoning no Christian can ever be a true scientist because you have decided already that the son of God is incapable of miracles, and so belief in those things cannot be compatable with science.

No, it is not true that belief in science and belief in miracles is incompatable. It is simply true that miracles, since they transcend Nature, cannot be contained by the Laws of Nature (Science). So, by all the laws of nature the water in the jugs at the wedding feast at Cana should have remained water. But the miracle transcended those laws and turned the water to wine. After the miracle was complete, and the water replaced by the wine, the wine was subject once again to the laws of nature. There was and is no scientific test to prove the miraculous origin of the wine.

None of which can be interviewed for the purpose of corroborating their accounts, and for which no evidence exists, which is necessary to prove such accounts "scientifically." The Bible was written before modern historiography, and was not written to be a scientific, factual, or objective record of events. Luigi

On this, I have to side with Peter.

1) There are more extant copies of biblical texts than of any other comparably ancient writings, (for example Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars), and in many cases the oldest copy is much closer in time to the original, and despite this, there is much less textual variation, so by any reasonable test, the biblical text should be considered more reliable.

2) As to eyewitnesses being dead, apparently that argument was already being proposed by debunkers as early as 60 CE, since Paul had to list some of the eywitnesses who were still around. (See 1 Corinthians 15:1-9)

Why would you wish to convert someone to your beliefs unless they be true? Peter

Because you honestly believe them to be true at the time, even if you prove later to be mistaken. (This is just an answer to the question "Why?" and does not reflect my belief on the truth or falsity of the Bible.)

I see now why you were so intent on making the distinction between a mistaken statement and a false statement mistakenly, but honestly offered as truth. It is because you can't see the difference between a false statement mistakenly offerred and a deliberate lie. I see now why you thought I was calling you a liar, and why you consider so many of your opponants to be liars and hypocrites. I am sorry you were upset, and even more so that you will consider to become upset thinking that so many people are calling you a liar.

Stup¡d spell-check! That should be "continue to become" not "consider to become"

Luigi Novi: Anytime you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window.

Peter: Wait a minute ... all scientists work from hypotheses. The idea that you can dismiss their conclusions on the basis of the hypothesis is ridiculous.
Luigi Novi: I agree. Good thing I didn’t say that.

The difference between scientists working from a hypothesis is that if they work in good faith objectivity, they will look both for evidence that proves it, and evidence that DISPROVES it, and modify or abandon the hypothesis based on what the evidence indicates. So-called "scientific creationists" do not, according to their stated agenda on that website I went to. They start with a firm CONCLUSION based on a religious belief, and work BACKWARDS, embracing evidence that they feel proves their religious belief, and ignore or distort evidence that does not. Scientists will abandon a conclusion if sufficient evidence later proves it wrong. Creationists never do.

Peter: It is on the basis of the evidence and reasoning that you judge science.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. And on that basis—not the fact that the scientist is a Christian—the arguments of so-called "scientific creatonists" do not hold up.

Luigi Novi: None of which can be interviewed for the purpose of corroborating their accounts, and for which no evidence exists, which is necessary to prove such accounts "scientifically." The Bible was written before modern historiography, and was not written to be a scientific, factual, or objective record of events.

Peter: So as soon as a writer dies and the original copy of his book is lost, anything he writes has no basis in fact?
Luigi Novi: There is a difference between something being a fact, and having a basis in fact. To my knowledge, no one has seriously argued that Biblical events didn’t have a basis in fact, only that supernatural events cannot be scientifically confirmed using empirical methods.

Peter: Come on. Obviously you cannot prove that Jesus did what he did "scientifically" any more than you can prove "scientifically" that Augustus won the Battle of Actium.
Luigi Novi: The ability to prove a historical event scientifically is predicated on the historical evidence for it, which in turn is affected by how long ago it was, how much evidence for it exists, what type of evidence it is, the reliability of it, the question of what biases the holder/author of that evidence had in recording or presenting it, etc.

All knowledge is TENTATIVE, especially when dealing with ancient events for which evidence is not of the same quality as evidence of an event that occurs today, and for which new evidence may surface that contradicts the prevailing evidence.

There is evidence that Christ existed, that William Wallace was not royal-born (contradicting what the Poet Blind Harry wrote), that there was no Battle of Troy, and that an assassination attempt was made on Ronald Reagan in 1981. New evidence may refine our knowledge of Christ, or indicate that there was such a battle as Troy. It is unlikely that scientific evidence will prove that no one tried to assassinate Reagan, or that supernatural events actually occurred as they are LITERALLY described in the Bible.

To my knowledge Peter, the Battle of Actium did not include supernatural events.

Peter: That doesn't stop us believing it.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it did. The belief in some supernatural event (either literally or metaphorically) is entirely separate from whether it actually occurred, and is not invalidated by whether or not it is an empirical matter. There is nothing wrong with holding a spiritual belief based on an alleged supernatural event, especially when one understands the psychospiritual meaning behind the story of that event. There is something wrong with saying that supernatural events described in the Bible can be proven "scientifically," and that the Bible is as reliable a document of science or history as a newspaper article with photos in the 20th century.

Peter: The Gospels certainly were written to be scientific, factual and objective records of events.
Luigi Novi: No they were not. People back then didn’t even know what the scientific method was, nor was that their interest when writing it. Biblical authors wrote in the form of a theological narrative, not a historical or scientific thesis written from an objective viewpoint. Its authors were obviously converts writing about supernatural events central to their religion.

Peter: It is a historical account. What else do you think it is?
Luigi Novi: It is a theological narrative, written by authors who wanted to convert others to their beliefs, often decades or more after the events therein occurred, which cannot be scientifically corroborated (particularly its supernatural elements) by modern empirical investigation, at least not to the airtight degree that a more modern event supported by multiple lines of evidence can.

Peter: But as the account says, why spread a lie? What benefit would come from spreading something you know to be untrue? Why would you wish to convert someone to your beliefs unless they be true?
Luigi Novi: Peter, if you don’t think human beings have a motive for spreading a lie—and I’m not referring specifically to the Bible per se—then you are obviously ignoring human behavior. Everyone—from advertisers to used car salesman to political and religious leaders on down have had motives for either lying, stretching the truth, or putting a biased, lopsided spin or face on that which they wish to present as positive, or on otherwise unfavorable information.

But this has nothing to do with my point. I never said religious beliefs were "lies," or that those who hold them "know them to be untrue." I’m sure devout believers in a religion actually believe what they say they do. I’m merely making a distinction between empirical truths that can be proven scientifically, and supernatural events in Biblical narratives, which are not.

TomM: On this, I have to side with Peter. There are more extant copies of biblical texts than of any other comparably ancient writings…by any reasonable test, the biblical text should be considered more reliable. As to eyewitnesses being dead, apparently that argument was already being proposed by debunkers as early as 60 CE, since Paul had to list some of the eywitnesses who were still around.
Luigi Novi: I was referring strictly to supernatural events, and things for which evidence is in question or incomplete, as I mentioned in my fourth answer above, and as you stated yourself. The number of copies of a book isn’t the point, it is the nature of that evidence.

Luigi:

The paragraph I quoted and commented on carried a subtext that the texts themselves were inherently unreliable. That assumption of unreliability is usually based on a prior assumption of textual corruption. While I realized that you did not mention, and may not have even been thinking of, textual corruption, I felt it was a necessary point to clear up before commenting on your "eyewitnesses" statement. (If we can't rely on the "eyewitnesses" passage to have been part of Paul's original letter, then appealing to it is moot.)

Of course, if you considered the accounts unreliable simply because they contain references to supernatural occurances (miracles), that is another discussion entirely. One that would begin with the same water into wine discussion I addressed to Peter.

Tom, whether or not the Bible is reliable depends on what part of it you’re talking about.

We can conclude, for example, that Christ existed, since there are 80 first and second century writers who recorded events from his life.

But that is a basic point. There are many details that are still in question. Take the birth of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke mentions that the pregnant Mary and Joseph were exhausted from the long journey to Bethlehem, and that there was no room at the "inn," and from that we have the modern image of Joseph and Mary going door to door, rejected by everyone on whose door they knocked, complete with rain. But the Gospel of Matthew doesn't mention any such journey, and scholars think it's possible they were already living there. Scholars also point out that Luke Chapter 2 actually says that they went to Bethlehem because that was Joseph’s ancestral home, and think this may mean that he had relatives there. Modern research into first century life and how the Bible was translated also sheds an interesting light onto this story. First century Palestinian houses consisted of ground floor chambers where animals slept to provide heat for those sleeping on the upper level. Scholars note that the original Greek word for inn, cataluma, also meant "upper room." This probably means that there simply wasn’t enough room on the upper level for Jesus, which is why he was placed in a stone manger, not that Joseph and Mary were in a barn with the infant Christ in a free-standing wooden feeding trough.

And there are still questions for which there are no answers. We don’t know what the names of Jesus’ two sisters were, even though the Bible mentions the names of his four brothers. Scholars still debate the exact motives of Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot, and who holds the most responsibility for his condemnation.

One has take a lot of the Bible with a grain of salt. The Bible was written from a Judeo-Christian point of view, and obviously, that's going to influence the way it was written. It is also based largely on oral records. Much of it was written long after the events that are described therein. For these reasons, among others, much of the information about ancient events during these periods, including that in the Bible, is not confirmed as fact.

But I do not believe that the Bible is at all reliable concerning supernatural events. Because the Bible describes a six-day creation, a virgin birth, the dead rising back to life, and a man putting two of every animal into a 450 foot-long boat, etc. does not mean those things are scientific or historical facts. (Hell, both St. Augustus and Pope John Paul II themselves said this.) This is not mitigated by the fact that there are "witnesses" to these events mentioned in the Bible (there are just as many "witnesses" today to UFOs and TV psychics who claim to communicate with the dead, and any prosecutor will tell you how unreliable a witness can be), or that there are many "copies" of the book. Even many of the stories that do not necessarily contain supernatural elements, like the young Jesus discussing religion with the temple priests, may be anecdotal parables.

The obvious conclusion is that the Bible is a collection of religious myths and may in part be based on (or include) some actual events, many of which have varying amounts of evidentiary support, and many of which have none at all.

But I do not believe that the Bible is at all reliable concerning supernatural events. Luigi

That says it right there. While I respect that you believe (or in this case do not believe) according to your own knowledge and reason, your beliefs (and mine for that matter) are not evidence for or against the reliability of the scriptures.

Nor can hard science address the question. The "soft sciences" (psychology, sociology, historical exigesis, etc.) do have some bearing on the question, but not all the axioms (basic assumptions) of these sciences are agreed on, and different axioms invariably result in different conclusions. You assume (physical)miracles are impossible. I assume that they are at least theoretically possible, even though I have never experienced them. We shall have to agree to disagree on that point.

TomM: your beliefs (and mine for that matter) are not evidence for or against the reliability of the scriptures.
Luigi Novi: I never mentioned any of my own beliefs. The statements I made are statements of logic and reason, not belief, and exist independently of the person saying them. My point is that there isn't any evidence for such things one way or the other, nor does there need to be in order for the faith surrounding them to be valid.

TomM: You assume (physical) miracles are impossible.
Luigi Novi: What I said is that we have no way of confirming whether the supernatural miracles described in the Bible actually happened, and that their description in the Bible is not scientific or historical proof.

As far as whether miracles are possible, that's an entirely different question. It depends on your definition of a miracle. There are many modern events alleged as miracles that the Vatican investigates, and only when all scientific investigation has been exhausted, and all scientific explanations have been excluded will the Vatican officially deem it a miracle, a which would not be an innaccurate term to use under those circumstances.

Luigi Novi: I agree. Good thing I didn’t say that.

Read your sentence again. That is exactly what you said: that science goes out of the window as soon as someone begins with a hypothesis of proving scientifically Biblical events.

I agree with your conclusion, by the way, but your way of reaching it is off. Someone can set out to prove absolutely any sane or crazy thing in the world. But to say that their methods are unscientific based only on knowledge of their hypothesis is no more than an assumption, however likely you are to be right.

Luigi Novi: There is a difference between something being a fact, and having a basis in fact. To my knowledge, no one has seriously argued that Biblical events didn’t have a basis in fact, only that supernatural events cannot be scientifically confirmed using empirical methods.

To my knowledge Peter, the Battle of Actium did not include supernatural events.

Well your mistake here is to assume that Biblical events are supernatural. I don’t believe in the supernatural at all. But I do believe, as I can, in God. As for the difference between miracles and everyday events, that is precisely my point. When we believe in the Battle of Actium, we do so despite “scientific” evidence for it.

The belief in some supernatural event (either literally or metaphorically) is entirely separate from whether it actually occurred, and is not invalidated by whether or not it is an empirical matter.

I really don’t understand this sentence at all. Are you saying that Christians don’t care whether Jesus performed miracles or not? I cannot for the life of me work out how belief that something happened can be entirely separate from whether or not it did happen!

Biblical authors wrote in the form of a theological narrative, not a historical or scientific thesis written from an objective viewpoint. Its authors were obviously converts writing about supernatural events central to their religion.

I think you need to read the Gospels if this is what you think. You might be surprised. For a start, supernatural events are not mentioned!

Peter, if you don’t think human beings have a motive for spreading a lie—and I’m not referring specifically to the Bible per se—then you are obviously ignoring human behavior.

I didn’t say that at all. But I fail to see the benefit to anyone who didn’t believe it was true of spreading the Christian belief. The surest way to know something is a lie is to make it up yourself! Yet you seem to think people would enthusiastically make stuff up and spread it around without any reason. Why would anyone want to convert someone to a belief they did not share?

What I said is that we have no way of confirming whether the supernatural miracles described in the Bible actually happened, and that their description in the Bible is not scientific or historical proof.

Well that is so obvious it goes without saying. No one said otherwise.

Peter.

"Well your mistake here is to assume that Biblical events are supernatural. I don’t believe in the supernatural at all. But I do believe, as I can, in God."

Given that God is a supernatural being, you do believe in the supernatural.

"I think you need to read the Gospels if this is what you think. You might be surprised. For a start, supernatural events are not mentioned!"

Turning water into wine is not a supernatural event? Walking on water is not a supernatural event? Casting out demons and healing the lame and giving eyesight to the blind are not supernatural events? Feeding the multitude with two fish and a loaf of bread is not a supernatural event? Being tempted by the devil after Jesus fasted for 40 days and nights was not a supernatural event? Lazarus being ressurected from the dead was not a supernatural event? Jesus being raised from the dead was not a supernatural event? Just what is your definition of "supernatural"?

What I said is that we have no way of confirming whether the supernatural miracles described in the Bible actually happened, and that their description in the Bible is not scientific or historical proof. Luigi

No, what you said was: But I do not believe that the Bible is at all reliable concerning supernatural events.

Perhaps you don't disbelieve in any possibility of miracles, but their very appearance in the biblical texts is the main reason you reject their reliability. The other considerations (and I would be happy to discuss them in another thread.)are just thrown to bolster your position

I don't think there is anything supernatural about God or Jesus. Miraculous and divine, yes, but not supernatural. By definition, God would have created any nature that exists, so the idea that he could be above it makes no sense: his supremacy would be a part of the fabric of nature in the first place.

I realise this isn't a distinction athiests will care to make, partly because calling something supernatural subtlely brushes Jesus with images of unfavourable company like X-Files characters, UFOs, Oujia boards, Tarot Cards and so on. But it is a distinction I make and I don't believe in the supernatural.

Peter.

Peter: I don’t believe in the supernatural at all.

From Webster's New Dictionary (1994)

Supernatural [adj] - 1.Above nature 2.occult 3.miraculous 4.spiritual

Peter: Read your sentence again. That is exactly what you said
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. You reworded it.

Peter: …that science goes out of the window as soon as someone begins with a hypothesis of proving scientifically Biblical events.
Luigi Novi: I did not say that. I said, "Any time you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window."

Peter: Someone can set out to prove absolutely any sane or crazy thing in the world. But to say that their methods are unscientific based only on knowledge of their hypothesis…
Luigi Novi: They don’t have a hypothesis. They start with a belief as a conclusion, and work their way backwards, having decided at the OUTSET what they’re going to conclude, having decided that they’re not going to abandon that conclusion, no matter what the evidence that will surface, and reject evidence that disproves that belief. That isn’t science. If they truly had a sincere, unbiased hypothesis that they tried to prove AND disprove in good faith, that would be one thing. But that’s not what creationists do. It is the methodology that is employed that is or isn’t scientific, not the hypothesis itself, and I never said otherwise. You simply interpreted that way, Peter.

You’ve complained when others have misinterpreted you, why is it not impossible for you to consider that you misinterpreted me? Instead, you reword my statement and then say that your rewording is "exactly" what I have said. I guess we can add the word "exactly" to the list of words you try to redefine, and which you use for emphasis rather than accurate diction.

Peter: Well your mistake here is to assume that Biblical events are supernatural.
Luigi Novi: I have made no such assumption. If you bothered to read my post to TomM above, you’ll notice that I made a distinction between Biblical events that are supernatural, and those that aren’t.

Peter: When we believe in the Battle of Actium, we do so despite "scientific" evidence for it.
Luigi Novi: Why is that? Does the scientific evidence indicate it didn’t occur? Or is there a school of thought that dismisses it for some reason?

Luigi Novi: The belief in some supernatural event (either literally or metaphorically) is entirely separate from whether it actually occurred, and is not invalidated by whether or not it is an empirical matter.

Peter: I really don’t understand this sentence at all. Are you saying that Christians don’t care whether Jesus performed miracles or not?
Luigi Novi: One can believe in God without needing to believe that his existence is an empirical matter that can be scientifically proved. Not all matters in human discourse are empirical ones, but I think it’s important to make the distinction between those that are and those that aren’t. One can believe in Jesus’ miracles without insisting that they are a question of scientific fact.

Peter: I think you need to read the Gospels if this is what you think. You might be surprised. For a start, supernatural events are not mentioned!
Luigi Novi: Oh Really? They don’t mention the Immaculate Conception? Turning wine into water? Resurrections? Luke 20:37 doesn’t refer to the burning bush from the Old Testament?

Luigi: Peter, if you don’t think human beings have a motive for spreading a lie—and I’m not referring specifically to the Bible per se—then you are obviously ignoring human behavior.

Peter: I didn’t say that at all. But I fail to see the benefit to anyone who didn’t believe it was true of spreading the Christian belief.
Luigi Novi: As I said, I didn’t say those who wrote the Bible didn’t believe it.

Peter: Yet you seem to think people would enthusiastically make stuff up and spread it around without any reason.
Luigi Novi: Again, not referring to the Bible in particular, people do make stuff up and spread it around for a variety of reasons. Ever see a tabloid?

Peter: Why would anyone want to convert someone to a belief they did not share?
Luigi Novi: Didn’t say they would. I only said that the Bible was not written to be an objective scientific or historical record using modern historiography.

Luigi Novi: What I said is that we have no way of confirming whether the supernatural miracles described in the Bible actually happened, and that their description in the Bible is not scientific or historical proof.

TomM: No, what you said was: But I do not believe that the Bible is at all reliable concerning supernatural events.
Luigi Novi: In the context of the scientific method, that is correct.

TomM: Perhaps you don't disbelieve in any possibility of miracles, but their very appearance in the biblical texts is the main reason you reject their reliability.
Luigi Novi: No, I am simply saying that those things have not been scientifically proven, and claims that the Bible is a scientific or historical document are false.

Peter: I realise this isn't a distinction athiests will care to make, partly because calling something supernatural subtlely brushes Jesus with images of unfavourable company like X-Files characters, UFOs, Oujia boards, Tarot Cards and so on. But it is a distinction I make and I don't believe in the supernatural.
Luigi Novi: But for the purposes of discussions of this subject, that is what God and such things are. Just because you don’t like the word because it is associated with other frivolous things from pop culture doesn’t mean that God is not supernatural, at least as the word is used. God and miracles, by their description, operate outside of natural laws documented by proof and observation, therefore, they are supernatural. Splitting hairs over words because you don’t want virgin conceptions and resurrections associated with frivolous pop culture doesn’t change the point that divine events depicted in the Bible cannot be scientifically confirmed.

I said, "Any time you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window."

Which is exactly the same as saying that based on certain hypotheses you can judge the quality of a scientific investigation.

They don’t have a hypothesis. They start with a belief as a conclusion, and work their way backwards, having decided at the OUTSET what they’re going to conclude, having decided that they’re not going to abandon that conclusion, no matter what the evidence that will surface, and reject evidence that disproves that belief. That isn’t science.

Again, this is an assumption. Until you know more, you cannot judge based on the hypothesis what their methods are. As I said, their methods are not scientific. But equally, it is not scientific to dismiss their methods with no knowledge of them.

One can believe in God without needing to believe that his existence is an empirical matter that can be scientifically proved...One can believe in Jesus’ miracles without insisting that they are a question of scientific fact.

Well I don't see how someone could, reasonably, believe that. Either something happened or it didn't. If it didn't then you shouldn't believe it did. If it did, then it is a scientific fact that it did. As I have said before, reality trumps any faith or beliefs. If your belief doesn't correspond to what actually happened, then you shouldn't believe in it.

Oh Really? They don’t mention the Immaculate Conception? Turning wine into water? Resurrections? Luke 20:37 doesn’t refer to the burning bush from the Old Testament

Yes, but think about it. The only way they could be supernatural is if they were impossible outside a nature which, by definition, must include God, and which He Himself created. Now why would God create a nature that does not include himself? It is like morality. People who do not believe morality comes from God often say that the logical antithesis of their belief is that if God said murder was okay, then it would be. But that assumes that the universe itself is something outside God's wishes and needs. To a Christian, murder is wrong because God made a universe in which what is objectively moral is so because God made the universe that way. Same with nature. God cannot be above a nature he himself created any more than he can be above a morality he himself fashioned. I agree that if you first assume that there is no God, then the concept of God is supernatural. But that is merely an assumption, and science is based upon facts, not assumptions.

Didn’t say they would. I only said that the Bible was not written to be an objective scientific or historical record using modern historiography.

Such a blanket statement about the whole Bible is false. Read the Gospels. They are as scientific, historical and objective as any similar historical account. You seem to think that the Gospels were holy texts when they were first written, rather than that they came to be later on.

God and miracles, by their description, operate outside of natural laws documented by proof and observation

Just because natural laws are undocumented and unobserved does not make them non-existent.

Splitting hairs over words because you don’t want virgin conceptions and resurrections associated with frivolous pop culture doesn’t change the point that divine events depicted in the Bible cannot be scientifically confirmed.

Why is it any time I disagree about a matter of non-principle splitting hairs or semantics? I don't believe in the supernatural because I don't believe anything can exist independent of nature. If it exists, then it is a part of nature, even if it is God, because he so fashioned the universe that nature would fit in with his designs, so there cannot be a nature independent of God. It is as simple as that.

And you need to be more precise in your last phrase. Are you saying divine events in the Bible have not been confirmed? That they cannot presently be confirmed? That they can never be confirmed? That they are outside science? That they are outside known science?

It is in fact a very important point. Let's imagine we were having an argument a century ago. At that time, Newtonian physics was dominant, and any idea that time, space and perception could be relative to the observer would have been ridiculed. People like you would have said that such beliefs do not need to conform to reality, and that they cannot be proved empirically. You would have been wrong, of course. Think about it.

Peter.

I said, "Any time you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window." Luigi

Which is exactly the same as saying that based on certain hypotheses you can judge the quality of a scientific investigation. Peter

The bone of contention seems to be the word "agenda." To Luigi, the use of that word provides the qualifier: if someone starts from the Creationist viewpoint, but is willing to amend the hypothesis based on the data, he is not working on an agenda. To Peter, the use of the word by Luigi is a judgment: everyone who accepts the Creationist hypothesis is working on an agenda.

Truth be told, Luigi, along with most non-Creationists, does agree that (almost all)Creationists are working from an agenda, but would consider it a conclusion based on evidence, not an assumption based on prejudice. (I'm using the word in its earlier, slightly more neutral meaning of "pre-judgment" or judging before recieving all the evidence.)

Same with nature. God cannot be above a nature he himself created any more than he can be above a morality he himself fashioned.

If I'm reading this statement and its context correctly, then you seem to be saying that God cannot transcend the laws of Nature. This means that either there are no miracles or that there is no such thing as science, because if miracles do not transcend the laws of nature, then those laws are so infinitely complex that the human mind can't hope to grasp them. (On second thought, that second possibility -- that nature may becomplex beyond man's understanding might account for the tension between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.)

And you need to be more precise in your last phrase. Are you saying divine events in the Bible have not been confirmed? That they cannot presently be confirmed? That they can never be confirmed? That they are outside science? That they are outside known science?

Yes, by definition, miracles are outside science. Science is our attempt to understand and mathematically describe the laws of nature. Since miracles transcend the laws of nature, they violate any mathematic models of them. (Refer back to my example of the wedding at Cana.)

Let's imagine we were having an argument a century ago. At that time, Newtonian physics was dominant, and any idea that time, space and perception could be relative to the observer would have been ridiculed.

Although I think I follow your point, this was a poor example to use to try to make it. Even Newtonian physics recognizes that some quantities change relative to the reference frame of the observer. One example would be kinetic vs. potential energy. It's just that under Einstein's theories, so much changes from one frame of reference to the next that it is almost impossible to describe the properties of an object without indicating relative to which frame of reference the observations were made.

To take up Starkist's thread from All Good Things(TNG).

Evolution is scientific because it follows the scientific method. It starts with a hypothesis, and observation. If experiment or observations disagrees with that hypothesis, the hypothesis is discarded or modified.

Creationism is not scientific, because it starts from an hypothesis, and anything that disagrees with that hypothesis must be wrong, instead of the hypothesis being wrong.

One can believe in God without needing to believe that his existence is an empirical matter that can be scientifically proved...One can believe in Jesus’ miracles without insisting that they are a question of scientific fact. Luigi

Well I don't see how someone could, reasonably, believe that. Either something happened or it didn't. If it didn't then you shouldn't believe it did. If it did, then it is a scientific fact that it did. As I have said before, reality trumps any faith or beliefs. If your belief doesn't correspond to what actually happened, then you shouldn't believe in it. Peter

Forgive me for going even more totally off topic than this thread already is, but this exchange somehow reminds me of a conversation that C S Lewis and J R R Tolkien had one night. (Don't ask why it reminds me of that conversation. This exchange is completely different from that conversation.)

In any event,the conversation turned to the subject of the Power of Myth to uplift the spirit and encourage the soul. The two men were in agreement until the question of "the Christian Myth" came up. Lewis had trouble seeing the Christian story as a myth with its accompanying power. It eventually came out that a large part of the reason was that it had always been presented to him as historical fact and not as Myth. Tolkien, who was a Christian, now presented it as great High Myth that just happened to also be literally true.

The next morning Tolkien wrote an essay that is considered to be his clearest explanation of the power of Myth, and Lewis became a Christian.

The bone of contention seems to be the word "agenda."

Well in my case it wasn't, at least, because I didn't really notice that word was there until you pointed it out. Obviously, it is true that if you find evidence against what you believed before an experiment and see that as a flaw in the evidence rather than your beliefs, then you are being unscientific. So far as Creationists do this, they are being unscientific. So let's end references to what Creationists happen to do, because we all agree on that.

What I disagreed with was that you can say that starting with any particular agenda/hypothesis and looking for proof is automatically unscientific. However reasonable or not the hypothesis is, it is the method of investigation that is scientific or not. You cannot say that all science goes out of the window based solely on knowledge of a hypothesis, which is irrelevant to the method. Investigations into the most reasonable hypothesis in the world would still be unscientific if they were not done properly. Equally, investigations into the most unreasonable hypothesis could be done with the utmost respect for the scientific method.

If I'm reading this statement and its context correctly, then you seem to be saying that God cannot transcend the laws of Nature.

That's right. To me, nature cannot be separated from its creator. To me, asking whether God can transcend the laws of nature is like asking if he can make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it.

This means that either there are no miracles or that there is no such thing as science, because if miracles do not transcend the laws of nature, then those laws are so infinitely complex that the human mind can't hope to grasp them.

Well that is assuming an awful lot. Scientific discoveries advance all the time. I don't see how the miracles described must be demonstrative of something that cannot be understood.

Basically, the way I understand science is not as a rigid construct that imposes itself on reality, but as something that interpret and explains reality. So if water could be turned into wine, science would expand to deal with that, not collapse in wonder.

Tom, I found your dialogue interesting, but I do wonder ... Are you absolutely sure you got both the names the right way round each time you used them? From what I know of CS Lewis, it would make more sense if you had confused them at one point in that description.

Peter.

No, I am talking about Lewis' conversion experience, which he discusses in several of his works. In Surprised By Joy he goes into detail about that morning, and although he does not specifically mention the discussion the night before, it is clear that one of the reasons he had rejected the Evangelum before this was that he felt that there was not enough High Myth to make Christianity spiritually satisfying.

Luigi Novi: I said, "Any time you try to assume supernatural events, like the ones described in the Bible, are literally true, and proceed from an agenda like the one described above, then all science goes out the window."

Peter: Which is exactly the same as saying that based on certain hypotheses you can judge the quality of a scientific investigation.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. In the first place, your use of the word "exactly" is incorrect, particularly when you first used it here. (Guess that’s just another word you like to give a false definition too, huh?) In the second place, you didn’t say anything about judging the quality of the investigation. You interpreted my statement to mean that a conclusion can be judged based on its hypothesis. Now you’re backpedaling and talking about the quality of the investigation, which is a more substantial indicator of the science being used.

Supernatural, or divine events exist outside the laws of science or nature. When you try to use "Well, God can do anything" as an explanation for natural phenomena, the statement is not scientific, because notions of God exist outside of science. Science deals with naturally occurring phenomena that is testable and falsifiable. Supernatural events are not testable, nor is God. Moreover, when you proceed from an agenda that says, "The Bible is literally true, I’m going to deliberately look for info to confirm it, reject evidence that points away from it, and I’m not going to alter that conclusion, no matter what the evidence ultimately says," you have ceased the scientific process. Science deals with empirical data that must require us to alter, modify, expand upon, or in some cases, do away with the prevailing paradigm. Creationists don’t do this.

Luigi Novir: They don’t have a hypothesis. They start with a belief as a conclusion, and work their way backwards, having decided at the OUTSET what they’re going to conclude, having decided that they’re not going to abandon that conclusion, no matter what the evidence that will surface, and reject evidence that disproves that belief. That isn’t science.

Peter: Again, this is an assumption.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. Creationists make it plain what their intentions are, such as the webmasters of scientificcreationism.org, who state it plainly on the main page of their site.

Peter: Until you know more, you cannot judge based on the hypothesis what their methods are.
Luigi Novi: Saying, "We are dedicated to refuting evolution and promoting creationism, but in particular promoting the Bible as true in all it says and claims" is not a hypothesis, Peter. It is a statement that says the person will not allow the evidence to convince them of a conclusion that they have started out with at the outset. That is not scientific.

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested. Creationists do not consider Biblical literalist readings of the Bible to be "tentative." As far as they’re concerned, they’re going to hold Biblical literal creations as a "scientific" fact not matter what. They do not care if it accounts for a set of facts or not. (Some do try to show that the Bible is consistent with certain facts of nature and history, but not all of them do this, and even those that do only do so in a way to make the facts fit their literalist readings, and reject all the facts that do not fit it.) And divine creation is not testable.

Peter: As I said, their methods are not scientific. But equally, it is not scientific to dismiss their methods with no knowledge of them.
Luigi Novi: Why you think we have "no knowledge" of them, I don’t know. Creationists have stated their methods and arguments time and again. You want me to list the top 20 or 30 Creationist arguments, Peter? As I have described above, when you have STATED that you are not going to ALLOW evidence to convince you of the conclusion it points to, and believe a religious dogma as a scientific fact, then you HAVE already ADMITTED what your "methods" are. And this isn’t exclusive to those with a religious bias. Anyone who has a professional, aesthetic or economic bias against a given paradigm, who ADMITS that they won’t allow themselves to accept it BECAUSE of that bias, has abandoned the scientific process. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman refused for some time to give up on their room temperature cold fusion, even after all the evidence PROVED it was scientifically impossible. Why? Lots of reasons. A desire for professional respect and glory, immortality, economic benefits, etc. They convinced numerous corporations, including Toyota, to fund their work, including the construction of a multimillion-dollar research facility in the south of France.

Luigi Novi: One can believe in God without needing to believe that his existence is an empirical matter that can be scientifically proved...One can believe in Jesus’ miracles without insisting that they are a question of scientific fact.

Peter: Well I don't see how someone could, reasonably, believe that.
Luigi Novi: Religious beliefs stem ultimately from emotion, not logic.

Peter: Either something happened or it didn't. If it didn't then you shouldn't believe it did. If it did, then it is a scientific fact that it did. As I have said before, reality trumps any faith or beliefs.
Luigi Novi: Not all matters are empirical ones. As Joseph Campbell argued throughout his career, religious myths have a deeper meaning tied to human issues of re-creation, renewal, morality, evil, love, etc. They are not about truth. They are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time—birth, death, marriage, growth from childhood to adulthood to old age, etc. They meet the psychospiritual need in humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. To try to turn a myth into science or vice versa is an insult to both. St. Augustus himself stated that the six days of creation should NOT be taken literally, and Pope John Paul II, in his October 27, 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, accepted evolution as a fact of science, and that the scriptures extract the "final meaning," according to the Creator’s designs.

Peter: If your belief doesn't correspond to what actually happened, then you shouldn't believe in it.
Luigi Novi: That’s your opinion. People have the right to believe in whatever religious dogma they choose, and as stated above, this has nothing to do with whether the mytho-historical events central to the dogma happened in a scientifically testable manner.

Peter: The only way they could be supernatural is if they were impossible outside a nature which, by definition, must include God, and which He Himself created.
Luigi Novi: No. Nature, by its definition, has absolutely no information on the existence or absence of God. God exists outside of science, and no scientific evidence exists that indicates that he exists or doesn’t exist.

Peter: Now why would God create a nature that does not include himself?
Luigi Novi: That is a question of spirituality, not science.

Peter: To a Christian, murder is wrong because God made a universe in which what is objectively moral is so because God made the universe that way.
Luigi Novi: The Christian belief in the wrongness of murder has nothing to do with objectivity, unless you change the definition of the word, and has nothing to do with science or the observable laws of nature.

Peter: I agree that if you first assume that there is no God, then the concept of God is supernatural. But that is merely an assumption…
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. It is an acknowledgement that no evidence suggets either his existence or absence.

Peter: …and science is based upon facts, not assumptions.
Luigi Novi: And the facts do not shed any objective light on the existence of God one way or the other.

Peter: Read the Gospels.
Luigi Novi: I have.

Peter: They are as scientific, historical and objective as any similar historical account.
Luigi Novi: No, they are not. To call them such is to broaden the definitions of those words to point where they become meaningless. Modern science and history requires proof, usually in the form of multiple lines of strong evidence, that shed light on a given subject, and usually require those who study it to question why it was produced, who produced it, and what biases, if any they had, and to make sure their own biases do not affect the way the information is interpreted. The writers of the Gospels did not personally witness events in the life of Jesus, and it is doubtful that they interviewed lots of witnesses from different walks of life and with different biases, or that they were concerned with how their own religious biases informed their writings. That is what is required for science and history, and for that matter, objectivity.

Peter: You seem to think that the Gospels were holy texts when they were first written, rather than that they came to be later on.
Luigi Novi: The fact that the Gospels were incorporated into the Bible does not mean that they were objective, reliable scientific or historical documents when they were written. The idea that an account in the Bible of a virgin birth, resurrection and the like is as scientifically testable or accurate as something in the New England Journal of Medicine or Nature is absurd.

Luigi Novi: God and miracles, by their description, operate outside of natural laws documented by proof and observation

Peter: Just because natural laws are undocumented and unobserved does not make them non-existent.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say natural laws are undocumented or unobserved. They certainly are. I said supernatural events mentioned in the Bible are. I also didn’t say that such events were "non-existent," only that we don’t know if they literally occurred as the Bible describes them.

Peter: Why is it any time I disagree about a matter of non-principle splitting hairs or semantics?
Luigi Novi: Because you seem to be putting undue emphasis on the choice of the word "supernatural," to the exclusion of the actual point being made, and I find it difficult to believe that you don’t know what I mean when I refer to "supernatural" events.

Peter: I don't believe in the supernatural because I don't believe anything can exist independent of nature. If it exists, then it is a part of nature, even if it is God, because he so fashioned the universe that nature would fit in with his designs, so there cannot be a nature independent of God. It is as simple as that.
Luigi Novi: But any part of nature can only be recognized by science if it is testable by the scientific method. God is not, and it seems that you are mixing the different contexts in which the word "nature" is being used in the discussion here. God is a part of nature only if you assume his existence at the outset, which is a religious concept, not a scientific one. Anyone with moderate reading comprehension who has read what I’ve posted here can see I’m talking about a scientific context, since the notion of the Bible being a scientific document is the subject of discussion here, and God’s existence obviously isn’t in question in a religious one.

Luigi Novi: And you need to be more precise in your last phrase. Are you saying divine events in the Bible have not been confirmed? That they cannot presently be confirmed? That they can never be confirmed? That they are outside science? That they are outside known science?
Luigi Novi: Not as they are literally described and interpreted by Biblical literalists. The resurrections, for example, cannot be presently scientifically confirmed as actual resurrections of people who had been dead for days. Is it possible that there is a mundane scientific explanation for them? Sure. One voodoo doctor in the Caribbean who had witnesses saying he could raise someone from the dead was found to use a toxin on someone that would slow all bodily functions to point where they appeared dead, and when it wore off days later, the person was miraculously "resurrected." Similar explanations are given for alleged bleeding icons, and images of religious figures on walls or windows, etc.

Peter: Let's imagine we were having an argument a century ago. At that time, Newtonian physics was dominant, and any idea that time, space and perception could be relative to the observer would have been ridiculed. People like you would have said that such beliefs do not need to conform to reality, and that they cannot be proved empirically.
Luigi Novi: Your analogy is false.

I would also thank you not to tell me what I would or would not have said in a hypothetical situation, as I am far more qualified than you to predict what my reactions would be in such a situation, and know that the two situations are not analogous, as there is a difference between a scientific theory that has yet to be tested or proven empirically, and an unscientific religious concept that cannot be tested or proven.

Relativity was a scientific theory, not a religious dogma. Religious supernatural concepts by their very nature not scientific, and Einstein never said that relativity was a religious concept.

TomM: The bone of contention seems to be the word "agenda."

Peter: Well in my case it wasn't, at least, because I didn't really notice that word was there until you pointed it out.
Luigi Novi: An interesting admission, given that I used it myself, and you insisted on "exactly" what I had said.

Peter: What I disagreed with was that you can say that starting with any particular agenda/hypothesis and looking for proof is automatically unscientific.
Luigi Novi: Your refusal to acknowledge a distinction between "hypothesis" and "agenda" seems to be why you keep misinterpreting what I said. I never said that a person was unscientific if they started out with a hypothesis, as all scientific paradigms start out as a hypothesis. I said that people who start out with a conclusion, and who do not allow the evidence to impact that conclusion, particularly when they have some sort of bias or agenda, are not being scientific. Your mistake was in characterizing the religious belief of creationists who try to make evidence fit it, and who refuse to believe evidence which does not, as a "hypothesis," when it is clearly not. Hypotheses are tentative and subject to evidence, whereas the dogmatic conclusion of creationists is not.

Peter: Basically, the way I understand science is not as a rigid construct that imposes itself on reality, but as something that interpret and explains reality. So if water could be turned into wine, science would expand to deal with that, not collapse in wonder.
Luigi Novi: Yes, it would expand to deal with that, but only if the scientific method and known laws of nature, logic and reasoning were used to explain it. And even then, it would not necessarily end the debate, because some fundamentalists might not like the idea that the wine conjured from water in the Bible was conjured through a mundane function of science, rather than through divine power. When magnetism was discovered and pioneered, it made levitation possible, but I doubt fundamentalists would want to concede that an act of levitation described in the Bible was done using magnets.

It is clear you know I am right, at least in part, and you are feigning confusion now to avoid admitting it. I don't know why you keep going on about Creationists when absolutely no one is disputing what you said about them in your first post. I want your next post not to include the word "creationists" or the "creationism". If you keep talking about them then it will only prove you are not willing to debate this honestly.

No, it is not. In the first place, your use of the word "exactly" is incorrect, particularly when you first used it here.

Why? The wording may be different but the meanings are identical.

(Guess that’s just another word you like to give a false definition too, huh?)

No, I haven't done that. It is just that you cannot abide any different interpretation than your own, and if someone else has one they are automatically wrong. And as we both know, you have made up your own definitions of words when backed into a corner (bigot being the most obvious).

No, it is not. Creationists make it plain what their intentions are, such as the webmasters of scientificcreationism.org, who state it plainly on the main page of their site.

Yes, but that is not a part of the hypothesis is it? You said that as soon as you start with the agenda of proving scientifically that Biblical events took place, then all science goes out of the window. It is no good pointing to one specific example of people trying to prove Biblical events while throwing science out of the window and saying that applies in all circumstances.

Why you think we have "no knowledge" of them, I don’t know. Creationists ...

No one is talking about Creationists, Luigi. What you said was that you could dismiss a scientific investigation with no knowledge beyond the hypothesis. If you do that, you are not being scientific or honest.

Religious beliefs stem ultimately from emotion, not logic.

Oh? Why do you think that? How would you know?

... religious myths have ...

Again, "myths" does not apply in this case. To argue against the truth of Christianity while calling the events you refer to "myths" is a circular argument. You can't show that they are myths until you have won the argument, and so you can't include this term in your argument.

Not all matters are empirical ones. As Joseph Campbell argued throughout his career, religious myths have a deeper meaning tied to human issues of re-creation, renewal, morality, evil, love, etc. They are not about truth. They are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time—birth, death, marriage, growth from childhood to adulthood to old age, etc. They meet the psychospiritual need in humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. To try to turn a myth into science or vice versa is an insult to both. St. Augustus himself stated that the six days of creation should NOT be taken literally, and Pope John Paul II, in his October 27, 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, accepted evolution as a fact of science, and that the scriptures extract the "final meaning," according to the Creator’s designs.

If anyone thinks that the Bible is a useful fictional guidebook for life with no basis in reality, they may be very nice people, but they are certainly not Christians.

That’s your opinion.

It is merely my opinion that it is •••••• to believe something that is definitely untrue? Okay ... I hope you enjoy internet debates because you'd be laughed out of court in any real one.

Nature, by its definition, has absolutely no information on the existence or absence of God. God exists outside of science, and no scientific evidence exists that indicates that he exists or doesn’t exist.

What does that have to do with what I said? I think I see what you are saying but I'd like you to be clearer.

That is a question of spirituality, not science.

It is a logical refutation of what you claimed. I am waiting for an answer.

The Christian belief in the wrongness of murder has nothing to do with objectivity, unless you change the definition of the word, and has nothing to do with science or the observable laws of nature.

I already know that you are too closed-minded to comprehend that there may be an alternative to moral relativism, and anyway, you should know that I was using that as an example to illustrate my point about nature.

No, it is not. It is an acknowledgement that no evidence suggets either his existence or absence.

What? There is tons of evidence on either side of the debate. Anyway, that again has nothing to do with what I said, which is that the concept of God is only supernatural if he does not exist. And to assume that in a debate about God is unscientific and circular reasoning.

the facts do not shed any objective light on the existence of God one way or the other

So why do you base mosty of your argument for God's non-existence on the certainty that God does not exist (which is circular anyway, of course)?

Modern science and history requires proof, usually ...

The idea that an account in the Bible of a virgin birth, resurrection and the like is as scientifically testable or accurate as something in the New England Journal of Medicine or Nature is absurd.

Again, this is nothing like what I actually said, furthering my suspicions. Read what I said again, which was that the Gospels are as scientific, historical and objective as any similar historical account. I am not going to defend views you make up to support your argument but which I haven't expressed.

I didn’t say natural laws are undocumented or unobserved. They certainly are.

Alright. What I should have said was "just because any particular natural laws are undocumented and unobserved does not mean they do not exist". In other words, there could easily by many natural laws that exist and govern the universe without us, at this time in human history, knowing anything about them. You seem to have this strange view that the present is all there ever will be. You seem to exclude any possibility of scientific or moral progress (not that moral progress is possible for someone who doesn't believe in any objective morality, of course).

Because you seem to be putting undue emphasis on the choice of the word "supernatural," to the exclusion of the actual point being made, and I find it difficult to believe that you don’t know what I mean when I refer to "supernatural" events.

I know exactly what you mean, but that doesn't make you right. As I have shown, to view God as supernatural is irrational unless you assume he doesn't exist, in the `Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?` sort of way. And it is circular reasoning to use an assumption that God does not exist in a debate about religion.

But any part of nature can only be recognized by science if it is testable by the scientific method. God is not

1) Something that exists can be too sophisticated for modern science to recognise it
2) God is not testable by the scientific method is, so far as I can see, a baseless assumption.

God is a part of nature only if you assume his existence at the outset

In other words "the only way God and his miracles could be supernatural is if he doesn't exist"! That makes a lot of sense.

Not as ...

As I said, will you please clarify what you meant in the way I asked?

Your analogy is false.

No, it isn't. It shows something you don't seem willing to admit, which is that science can progress and that what is not empirically provable today may well be tomorrow. Don't you see that saying that an religious concept cannot be tested or proven is the same as saying that relativity cannot be tested or proven a century ago? Whether it is religious is as irrelevant in itself to its truth as whether it can be proved by modern-day science.

Yes, it would expand to deal with that, but only if the scientific method and known laws of nature, logic and reasoning were used to explain it.

So why do you keep saying that science cannot ever be used to explain religious concepts?

Peter.

Peter: It is clear you know I am right, at least in part, and you are feigning confusion now to avoid admitting it.
Luigi Novi: I wonder how clear this can be to you, given that you claim at one point to know "exactly" what I am saying, then equate one of my statements with an entirely different one I didn’t make, and later even admit that you didn’t notice my use of the word "agenda." Given this, your "you know I’m right" refrain is little more than rhetorical, as are many of your statements.

It is you who are having trouble maintaining a proper distinction between different conversational contexts, interpreting people’s words properly, and accurately using words according to their actual definitions, and whose arguments consist of equating different words and phrases that don’t mean the same thing, deliberately misinterpreting other people’s statements, even after they explain to you what they said and meant (something you accuse others of doing all the time, mind you), confusing religious and scientific contexts, making false analogies, and now telling people what they really mean, what they’d say in a hypothetical situation, and that they "know" you’re right. Your use of the word "clear" is, like many of the words you use, self-serving and arbitrary, and more about your belief in your own infallibility and inability to admit you don’t know everything.

Your condescending insistence that you know what I am thinking aside, I remain unimpressed, and unconvinced. Try again.

Peter: I don't know why you keep going on about Creationists when absolutely no one is disputing what you said about them in your first post.
Luigi Novi: The original disagreement was between Mike Brill and myself, and topic about scientific creationists was one that he brought up.

Peter: I want your next post not to include the word "creationists" or the "creationism". If you keep talking about them then it will only prove you are not willing to debate this honestly.
Luigi Novi: LOL. Interesting. First you want to misinterpret what I say, and when I point out the misinterpretation, even quoting my post, rather than admit you did so (after having made this complaint numerous times when others do this to you), you write an entirely differently worded statement and say that that is "exactly" what I said, Then you try tell me what my responses would be an hypothetical situation a century ago that uses a false analogy between a scientific theory and a religious dogma, then you tell me "you know I am right," and now you’re telling me what words I can use in my posts, and that use of said words constitutes "dishonesty."

Nice try.

Luigi Novi: No, it is not. In the first place, your use of the word "exactly" is incorrect, particularly when you first used it here.

Peter: Why? The wording may be different but the meanings are identical.
Luigi Novi: First, that the wording is different is precisely why the phrase "exactly what you said" is incorrect. The phrase "exactly" means just that. Second, the meanings are not identical. What I said was entirely different from how you interpreted it. I talked about having conclusions that one decided would not be affected by evidence, and the agendas behind this behavior. You interpreted this to mean "hypothesis," which is not what that statement describes, as I explained above.

Peter: No, I haven't done that. It is just that you cannot abide any different interpretation than your own, and if someone else has one they are automatically wrong.
Luigi Novi: Good lord, you have trouble keeping things straight, don’t you? There can’t be different interpretations for what I meant when we’re talking about a statement that I made, Peter. Amazing. You complain all the time when people misinterpret you, but when you do it, you don’t admit that you did this (it happens to everyone, after all, including myself), but insist that your misinterpretation of what I said and meant is somehow a "different interpretation." Tell me, when others misinterpret you, are the meanings they attribute to you "different interpretations" that you should "abide" by? It’s one thing to accept that different people interpret things like art, or literature, or messages and themes in movies, or the Bible. But you’re talking about what I said, and what I meant when I said it. Try getting it straight, okay, Peter?

Peter: And as we both know, you have made up your own definitions of words when backed into a corner (bigot being the most obvious).
Luigi Novi: Only if using the dictionary and usage patterns constitutes "making up my own definitions," since I frequently mention how the dictionary defines such words. It is you who time and time again have made up fictional definitions for words that are not recognized by either dictionaries or usage patterns.

Luigi Novi: No, it is not. Creationists make it plain what their intentions are, such as the webmasters of scientificcreationism.org, who state it plainly on the main page of their site.

Peter: Yes, but that is not a part of the hypothesis is it?
Luigi Novi: As I said before, they don’t have a hypothesis, and I explained to you above what the definition of the word of "hypothesis" is (from the American Heritage Dictionary, in case you’re curious), and how what they have doesn’t qualify.

Peter: You said that as soon as you start with the agenda of proving scientifically that Biblical events took place, then all science goes out of the window.
Luigi Novi: No, I did not. I said any time you try to assume SUPERNATURAL events described in the Bible are literal supernatural events, then science goes out the window. Again, I don’t know if you’re being deliberately dishonest or have some type of reading comprehension disorder, but is there some reason why it doesn’t occur to you REFER to my original statement to make sure you got it right? Is there some reason you keep changing it? Is there some reason why you dropped the word "supernatural"? And if these two statements (the one I actually made, and the one you claim I made right here) are "exactly" the same, then why reword them in the first place? I didn’t say "Biblical events." I said "supernatural events as they are literally described in the Bible."

You could explain the parting of the Red Sea by speculating that it was a change in tides, and a couple of researchers discovered a raised are in the water on which they think the Hebrew could’ve crossed, but proving that they were accomplished with divine power cannot be scientifically done.

What I mentioned was the assumption that divine events in the Bible are LITERALLY true as they are described therein.

Peter: No one is talking about Creationists, Luigi.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps you didn’t read the board, Peter.

Peter: What you said was that you could dismiss a scientific investigation with no knowledge beyond the hypothesis.
Luigi Novi: For the umpteenth time, no I did NOT. I didn’t say ANYTHING about a "hypothesis," and I clarified above that all scientific paradigms start out as hypotheses. What I said was that it is not scientific to have an agenda where you try to prove supernatural events are literally true by embracing evidence that apparently confirms it, and ignoring evidence that refutes it. You’re the one who keeps referring to this as a "hypothesis."

Peter: If you do that, you are not being scientific or honest.
Luigi Novi: What if I misinterpret someone else’s words, and instead of admitting I did so when they clarify what they meant, assert that what I think they said is somehow another interpretation that they should "abide" by? Am I still scientific or honest then?

Luigi Novi: Religious beliefs stem ultimately from emotion, not logic.

Peter: Oh? Why do you think that? How would you know?
Luigi Novi: Because I understand the distinction between those two things, and understand that a believe in God as a scientific fact is not logical.

Peter: Again, "myths" does not apply in this case. To argue against the truth of Christianity while calling the events you refer to "myths" is a circular argument. You can't show that they are myths until you have won the argument, and so you can't include this term in your argument.
Luigi Novi: The stories in the Bible are myths. Calling them "truth," and feeling uncomfortable thinking of them as myths, simply because of your own religious biases doesn’t change this.

Peter: If anyone thinks that the Bible is a useful fictional guidebook for life with no basis in reality…
Luigi Novi: In the first place, I didn’t say the Bible had "no basis" in reality, and made that clear in the third statement in my March 1, 8:19pm post. What I said when citing Joseph Campbell was that some people try confuse science and religion (I know of one person who actually said they’re the same thing), as if the supernatural events of the Bible must be empirically testable or literally true in order for the spiritual beliefs that center around them to have validation. They don’t.

Peter: …they may be very nice people, but they are certainly not Christians.
Luigi Novi: So the Pope, and everyone who agrees with what he has said, are not Christians? Wow.

Peter: If your belief doesn't correspond to what actually happened, then you shouldn't believe in it.

Luigi Novi: That’s your opinion.

Peter: It is merely my opinion that it is oooooo to believe something that is definitely untrue?
Luigi Novi: It is merely your opinion what people should and should not believe. Obviously, people believe whatever they want, and the fact that a belief in God spiritual, and not scientific, is not the same thing as it being "definitely untrue."

Peter: Okay ... I hope you enjoy internet debates because you'd be laughed out of court in any real one.
Luigi Novi: Peter, unless your hypothetical court is of the familiar marsupial variety, it is highly doubtful that a court would look upon your statements that you know what others would say in a hypothetical situation, that it is clear to you that they "know you are right," that your misinterpretations of others’ statements are simply another legitimate interpretation that they should abide by, and that people who distinguish between religious myths and scientific truths are "not Christians" in quite the same way that you seem to do.

Peter: What does that have to do with what I said? I think I see what you are saying but I'd like you to be clearer.
Luigi Novi: Want me to draw a picture?

Peter: I think you need to read the Gospels if this is what you think. You might be surprised. For a start, supernatural events are not mentioned!

Luigi Novi: Oh Really? They don’t mention the Immaculate Conception? Turning wine into water? Resurrections? Luke 20:37 doesn’t refer to the burning bush from the Old Testament

Peter: Yes, but think about it. The only way they could be supernatural is if they were impossible outside a nature which, by definition, must include God, and which He Himself created. Now why would God create a nature that does not include himself?

Luigi Novi: That is a question of spirituality, not science.

Peter: It is a logical refutation of what you claimed. I am waiting for an answer.
Luigi Novi: What I claimed is that supernatural events are indeed described in the Gospels. Nothing in your response to that refuted that. All you did was split hairs with the word "supernatural." Asking why God would create this or that is a question of spirituality or metaphysics, not science, and has nothing to do with the fact that the divine events in the Bible can be defined as supernatural for the purposes of this discussion. If you want to use the word "divine" or "magical" or "miraculous" instead of supernatural, go right ahead, as it is entirely beside the point.

Peter: I already know that you are too closed-minded to comprehend that there may be an alternative to moral relativism…
Luigi Novi: I don’t believe in relativism, there is most certainly an alternative to it, and I never mentioned relativism in the first place.

Peter: …and anyway, you should know that I was using that as an example to illustrate my point about nature.
Luigi Novi: It was a very poor one.

Luigi Novi: It is an acknowledgement that no evidence suggests either his existence or absence.

Peter: What? There is tons of evidence on either side of the debate.
Luigi Novi: Only if you arbitrarily decide to interpret this so-called information to mean what you want it to mean. The information or facts that people claim is evidence of God is not, it is simply their interpretation of it. I could make fake dinosaur tracks with a man-made implement, and if someone pointed out the edges of the "footprints" were too straight to be natural—as if someone made them with a wood or metal stamp, I could simply call this "evidence that dinosaurs had super-straight-edged feet." Given information is not evidence of something simply because that’s what you call it.

Peter: Anyway, that again has nothing to do with what I said, which is that the concept of God is only supernatural if he does not exist.
Luigi Novi: And since there is no scientific evidence that he does, anything attributed to him, or that exists outside the laws of science can accurately be called supernatural.

Peter: So why do you base mosty of your argument for God's non-existence on the certainty that God does not exist (which is circular anyway, of course)?
Luigi Novi: I haven’t made any argument for God’s non-existence. I’ve merely stated that his existence is a spiritual belief, and not something scientifically provable.

Peter: Read what I said again, which was that the Gospels are as scientific, historical and objective as any similar historical account.
Luigi Novi: And as I have already corrected you, they are not. Not unless you change the definitions of those words.

Peter: What I should have said was "just because any particular natural laws are undocumented and unobserved does not mean they do not exist". In other words, there could easily by many natural laws that exist and govern the universe without us, at this time in human history, knowing anything about them.
Luigi Novi: Of course.

Peter: You seem to have this strange view that the present is all there ever will be.
Luigi Novi: I have no such view. Science can only speculate on new scientific laws that have yet to be discovered, and even that speculation itself can only be done within the parameters of known scientific laws. Anything outside of that is pseudoscience, and the fact that there is knowledge we have yet to discover does not mean that God’s existence is a matter of science, that divine events depicted in the Bible are not supernatural, or that they have the same status as tentative scientific theories that have yet to be proven or disproven as facts.

Peter: As I have shown, to view God as supernatural is irrational unless you assume he doesn't exist…
Luigi Novi: There is nothing "irrational" about it, when you define the word "nature" contextually to mean that which is known to the observable and testable laws of science. If you’re talking about "nature" in church, then obviously it has a different context and meaning. When talking in a scientific context, it isn’t that you "assume" he doesn’t exist, it is that you are limited by the knowledge known to science, and that anything outside of that is "supernatural." The statement "unless you assume he doesn’t exist" makes it sound as if his existence is a given. In religion it is. In science, it is not. All things in science have to be proven, and God’s existence has not been scientifically proven.

Peter: And it is circular reasoning to use an assumption that God does not exist in a debate about religion.
Luigi Novi: This isn’t a debate about religion. It’s a debate about the distinction between how things are viewed differently in the contexts of science and religion.

Luigi Novi: But any part of nature can only be recognized by science if it is testable by the scientific method. God is not.

Peter: Something that exists can be too sophisticated for modern science to recognise it
Luigi Novi: That is certainly a possibility, but that doesn’t mean that any old thing whose existence someone speculates therefore, de facto, exists. You could make the same argument for phase-shifting technology that allows people to cloak themselves from view and become intangible.

Peter: God is not testable by the scientific method is, so far as I can see, a baseless assumption.
Luigi Novi: I haven’t made any assumption.

Luigi Novi: God is a part of nature only if you assume his existence at the outset

Peter: In other words "the only way God and his miracles could be supernatural is if he doesn't exist"!
Luigi Novi: No, it means what it sounds like. God is something you assume in a religious discussion, not in a discussion about the distinction between religion and science.

Peter: As I said, will you please clarify what you meant in the way I asked?
Luigi Novi: Certainly. Which statement?

Luigi Novi: Your analogy is false.

Peter: No, it isn't. It shows something you don't seem willing to admit…
Luigi Novi: The only things this statement by you shows are A. You comparing the scientific theory of relativity with the spiritual concept of God’s existence, which are not analogous, B. the arrogance you display in trying to tell me what I would or would not say in a hypothetical situation a century ago, as if you’re somehow this brilliant sage with a window into my psyche, and C. that you seem to think, from your repeated admonition that I "admit" to accepting your point of view, that your statements have somehow been proven so clearly and concretely that they have gained the acceptance of a public consensus, and that anyone disagreeing with them is disagreeing with some large majority in a schizophrenic David and Goliath fashion.

They have not been thus proven.

You have merely asserted your arguments, and I have disagreed with them. You seem to think that something has been "proven" merely by virtue of the fact that you’ve asserted it. It has not. Your statements have included misinterpretations of statements I made, in which you equated two disparate things that have nothing to do with one another ("religious dogma and agenda" with "hypothesis"), the insistence that I "abide" by your misinterpretation as simply a legitimate interpretation—something you yourself would never do when being misinterpreted yourself, the deliberate ignorance of the difference between scientific and religious concepts, the allegation that you somehow know what I’d say or do in a hypothetical situation, and the implication that you know what I’m thinking. If you think any of this constitutes some crystal clear proof that I am simply not "admitting" to, you are simply mistaken.

Peter: science can progress and that what is not empirically provable today may well be tomorrow.
Luigi Novi: I fully agree with that, and I never said otherwise.

Peter: Don't you see that saying that an religious concept cannot be tested or proven is the same as saying that relativity cannot be tested or proven a century ago?
Luigi Novi: It is not. Even scientific theories in their infancy have something in common with the most proven of scientific facts: they begin somewhere with observation. Religious concepts do not. Heliocentricity began when people observed stellar bodies revolving in a manner that was inconsistent with Terracentricity. Relativity began with observations Einstein made. Superstring theory also began with hypothesizing about known observations in physics.

The fact that superstring theory cannot be confirmed to a desired degree of certainty using our current technology means that it cannot move forward from the status of theory to fact, as relativity, heliocentricity or evolution have.

Religious concepts, on the other hand, are not theories, because they are not based on observations of natural phenomena. They are spiritual concepts based on myth-historical stories.

Peter: Whether it is religious is as irrelevant in itself to its truth as whether it can be proved by modern-day science.
Luigi Novi: Well, if you’re talking about its spiritual truth, and not it’s scientific truth, then you’re right.

Peter: So why do you keep saying that science cannot ever be used to explain religious concepts?
Luigi Novi: Science can certainly used to give more mundane explanations to events that are thought of as divine intervention. The parting of the Red Sea that be explained with tides and land bridges. Resurrection can be explained by speculating that the person wasn’t truly dead, perhaps in some drug-induced state where their bodily functions were harder to detect. If that’s what you mean, Peter, then science can certainly explain religious concepts. But science obviously can’t explain something that exists outside of its paradigms, like the nature of a non-corporeal, omnipotent omniscient being.

---

Quote:

God is not testable by the scientific method is, so far as I can see, a baseless assumption

---

I would hate to still be on dial-up reading this topic. Actually, I'd hate to be reading this topic at all, which is why I haven't. Might I suggest that everyone take this to a *religious* discussion board?

You may be missing a word here:

Religious concepts, on the other hand, are not theories, because they are not based on replicable observations of natural phenomena.

I don't often post, but I decided to put my 2 cents in today.
The first thing we need to remember is, "A person who is convinced against his will is not convinced.". Which is why I am going to limit myself to facts or tactful statements of my beliefs.

Second, I would also like to ask anyone who claims to be a Christian to remember that Christian means Christ-like. We are to be reflections of Him, and I am afraid some of what I have seen doesn’t seem very Christ-like. I am sorry if I appear rude, and I am including myself in this statement to remind me before I proceed.

Third,
spelunker said
Religious concepts, on the other hand, are not theories, because they are not based on replicable observations of natural phenomena.
That is addressed later, since by that definition (which I agree with), Evolution is a religious concept, since it can’t be (or if you prefer hasn’t been) replicated.

Fourth, I want to start with the scientific method we were taught in grade school. Which consists of three steps, observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. Using experimentation and replication of the events, hypotheses can become theories, and theories may become scientific law. (I know layman’s terms) Which by the way could be discovered to be wrong later.
Using the scientific method can either Evolution or Creation be proven? No, since we can’t either observe the original beginning of the universe or replicate either Creation, or the Big Bang. Can either theory be considered a law then, no. So if you base your beliefs on scientific LAWS, you have nothing to base your beliefs on the beginning of the Universe, since neither prevalent theory can be considered a law using the scientific method. Therefore, to some extent all beliefs on the beginning of the Universe are based on faith, the only difference is who your faith is in. (BTW: I am focusing solely on the Judeo-Christian Genesis account, and the Big Bang Theory of Evolution, because of the myriad of choices that exist on both sides.) My faith is in the Biblical account inspired by God, others’ faith is in Darwin, or other scientists. I have scientific evidences (fossil records, etc.) to back my beliefs, but Evolutionists believe they do also.
So it comes down to this: Who do you have your faith in? Or to rephrase, who would you rather trust?

No, since we can’t either observe the original beginning of the universe or replicate either Creation, or the Big Bang.

Ah, but we can test the theories behind the big bang. It's possible to do so, it's merely impractical at this time.

Also, you are mixing metaphors. Darwin has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Furthermore, we have observed the residue of the beginning of the universe. Penzias and Wilson won a Nobel Prize for discovering the 3K background radiation. This radiation was first theorized by Gamow in the late '40s, I believe.

Karen: spelunker said ""=Religious concepts, on the other hand, are not theories, because they are not based on replicable observations of natural phenomena." That is addressed later, since by that definition (which I agree with), Evolution is a religious concept, since it can’t be (or if you prefer hasn’t been) replicated.
Luigi Novi: First of all, Karen (and no, I don’t think you’ve been rude—and I’m sorry if I’ve appeared rude here myself), a concept is not religious just because it cannot be replicated. As I stated before, superstring theory is currently unconfirmed. That doesn’t make it a religious concept.

Second, one of the common arguments used by creationists is that science supposedly deals only with the here-and-now, and thus cannot answer historical questions about the origins of the universe and life, and that anything scientific must be something you can replicate in a laboratory. This a false, arbitrary redefining of what science is by people unqualified to do so, and ignores the fact that there are the experimental sciences and the historical sciences. Science does deal with past phenomena in the historical sciences. Cosmology, geology, archaeology, paleontology and paleoanthropology are among the valid historical sciences that are used to prove evolution. If the notion that something scientific requires laboratory replication is true, then it would mean that astronomy is not science, since we can’t observe the planets in a laboratory. It would also mean that all criminals convicted of crimes using criminological sciences (DNA analysis, gas chromotography, hair and fiber microscopy) should be set free, since we can’t replicate the crime in the laboratory.

Third, evolution has been replicated by scientists in laboratories.

Third, evolution has been replicated by scientists in laboratories.

Yep, the Galapagos Islands are a huge laboratory for biologists.

"Yes, but think about it. The only way they could be supernatural is if they were impossible outside a nature which, by definition, must include God, and which He Himself created. Now why would God create a nature that does not include himself?" - Peter

First of all, I have yet to encounter a form of Christianity that believes this. Most mainstream Christian sects seem to believe that God is a supernatural being. What sect are you, exactly anyway?

This also seem awfully close to paganism if you ask me. Even if it isn't, if I understand you're saying that God may operate on scientific principles we're not aware of yet. If this is true, then why would this not hold true for other forms of the supernatural that you deride? Perhaps they, too, operate on science we don't understand. (This doesn't constitute a belief in the supernatural, btw.)

Again, "myths" does not apply in this case. To argue against the truth of Christianity while calling the events you refer to "myths" is a circular argument. You can't show that they are myths until you have won the argument, and so you can't include this term in your argument. Peter

Only if you define "myth" as "lie." A myth is a presentation (a story, a painting, a ritual, etc.) which offers some support and explanation to spiritual, emotional, psychological and sociological needs. A myth can be an outright lie or hoax; but it can also be a parable: a fictitious or hypothetical situation, clearly not offerred for its historical truth, designed to focus more clearly on its spiritual value than an historical example could; and there is one other thing it could be: literally true. Calling the Christian story a myth is not the same thing as calling it a lie.

If anyone thinks that the Bible is a useful fictional guidebook for life with no basis in reality, they may be very nice people, but they are certainly not Christians.

There are people who consider themselves to be Christians who view the truth of the Evangelum differently than we do. By a definition of Christianity that reqiures traditional understanding of and believing in the Evangelum, they'd fall outside the pale, but that is irrelavant to Luigi's statement.

Many of the things chronicled in the Bible are Myth, and have power over the immagination of anyone willing to experience that power. The fact that some choose to experience the myth but reject or question its historicity they are still benfitting from the exposure, and probably more than a hypothetical someone who aknowledges the history and rejects the power of the Myth.

It is merely my opinion that it is •••••• to believe something that is definitely untrue? Okay ... I hope you enjoy internet debates because you'd be laughed out of court in any real one.

But those that don't believe in it as history do not accept it as true despite that belief; what they believe in is the truth taught by the story, which they interpret as a parable.

This a false, arbitrary redefining of what science is by people unqualified to do so, and ignores the fact that there are the experimental sciences and the historical sciences. Science does deal with past phenomena in the historical sciences. Cosmology, geology, archaeology, paleontology and paleoanthropology are among the valid historical sciences that are used to prove evolution. If the notion that something scientific requires laboratory replication is true, then it would mean that astronomy is not science, since we can’t observe the planets in a laboratory. It would also mean that all criminals convicted of crimes using criminological sciences (DNA analysis, gas chromotography, hair and fiber microscopy) should be set free, since we can’t replicate the crime in the laboratory.

All the sciences you mentioned are experimental sciences, as are most "hard" sciences. Using geology as an example, we can test the conditions under which certain results happen, and some of the variations in result that occur as conditions change (coal becoming diamond, shale becoming slate, stress fissures, earthquakes). After this, when we have a sufficient database of events for comparison, we can look at "natural" results and say something about the conditions that caused them, like a coroner conducting an autopsy. Some of the data in the database for a particular science may have been gathered in a different science (like spectral analysis in astronomy is based on gas chromotography in chemistry, as is DNA analysis in forensic biology), but there is a hard experimental basis for it.

You do have a point, Tom, and perhaps "experimental" was the wrong term to choose to distinguish the historical sciences from the "here-and-now" sciences. And yes, the historical sciences I mentioned do deal with the here-and-now, much as you mentioned how geology can study PRESENT conditions.

Brian Fitzgerald: Also how is evolution a liberal thing when every mainstream scientist and even many educated conservatives believe it?

Derrick Vargo: Evolution is not as widespread beleif as it once was Fitz...
Luigi Novi: And that makes it liberal?

Derrick Vargo: many people are coming to see that it something cannot happen from nothing.
Luigi Novi: "Something happening from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution, Derrick.

No, it doesn't make it liberal, However, in contrast, his point was that it wasn't liberal because many people accept it. A better way to phrase my statement would have been to ask the question you posed to me. Does having an accepted beleif makeit liberal? By no means. I was just debunking his reasoning, his basis for not being a liberal idea if you will.

"Something happening from nothing" is very integral to evolution. Mainly in the origins. The need for an inital motivator, or force very much flavors the rest of the conversation dealing with evolution. It is this juncture where you look at the question and try and reason things out. It is here where you try and find an explination. It is here where you ask yourself where everything came from. Be it either supernatural or natural. From here we deciede what is more plausible, was matter always here, or was God always around. Since science itself tells us that matter cannot create itself (and science has no rules on God, such as he is not matter) I find it a better explaination to say that God created matter, as opposed to putting my faith in something such as science which would then be in a paradox. Such as it is, I can now trust science and God at the same time.

Anyway, that was a tangent and completely off topic. Feel free to post this on an evolution related board (although i think we've beat that horses to death in the past) and ignore responding to it here. Just breeze up to my last post if wanna talk with me about anything relating to this board

Derrick Vargo: The need for an inital motivator, or force very much flavors the rest of the conversation dealing with evolution. It is this juncture where you look at the question and try and reason things out. It is here where you ask yourself where everything came from....Since science itself tells us that matter cannot create itself...I find it a better explaination to say that God created matter...
Luigi Novi: Again, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of matter. Merely how species adapt to their environments.

"Something happening from nothing" is very integral to evolution. Mainly in the origins. The need for an inital motivator, or force very much flavors the rest of the conversation dealing with evolution.

You have yet to establish that there is a need for an initial motivator. You ignore the possibility that matter has always existed. If, after all, God has always existed, then God requires no creator. Likewise, if matter and energy have always existed in some form or another, they require no creator. But if everything needs a "first mover," who created God?

It is this juncture where you look at the question and try and reason things out. It is here where you try and find an explination. It is here where you ask yourself where everything came from. Be it either supernatural or natural. From here we deciede what is more plausible, was matter always here, or was God always around.

I don't see how you can reason that the infinite existence of God is "more plausible" than the infinite existence of matter, which we experience every second of our lives.

Since science itself tells us that matter cannot create itself (and science has no rules on God, such as he is not matter) I find it a better explaination to say that God created matter, as opposed to putting my faith in something such as science which would then be in a paradox. Such as it is, I can now trust science and God at the same time.

Er, whatever. I'm not sure what you mean by "create" or what scientific law you're referring to. Insofar as creation implies a conscious creator, but it seems you're reasoning using loaded terms and a rather weak understanding of epistemology.

But I digress. How is evolution a liberal issue? The lack of consensus, by the way, is peculiar mostly to the US and a few other countries.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: "arguments that leave logic behind in favour of ontological arguments that have been refuted for millienia." This demonstrates bias because it does not seem to respect the viewpoint of those that do not take the same belief regarding evolution. It isn't "I disagree with the Creationists; I think scientific evidence points towards a gradual process of evolution instead of biblical Creation." It's "These stoopid people; what's the matter with them?"

This same bias pops up in other issues, both liberal and conservative on right wing and left wing camps. I would like to see people attempt to understand and respect other people's view points and not just denigrate them as "wrong."

Zarm Rkeeg: Since Evolution as an alternative to Creation still needs an explanation of how everything got there in the first place...
Luigi Novi: It does not. Evolution deals only with species adaptation. It no more needs an explanation for what happened from the Big Bang to the appearance of life than the virus theory of infection, the theory of plate tectonics, or the the theory of heliocentricity.

Zarm Rkeeg: ...the two are generally considered to be 2 parts of an overall theory.
Luigi Novi: They are not considered by anyone to be "2 parts of an overall theory," except perhaps by those who understand neither one. Darwin and Wallace didn't have to touch upon Big Bang cosmology when they explained natural selection, nor did not doing so affect the validity of the theory one way or the other.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: "arguments that leave logic behind in favour of ontological arguments that have been refuted for millienia." This demonstrates bias because it does not seem to respect the viewpoint of those that do not take the same belief regarding evolution. It isn't "I disagree with the Creationists; I think scientific evidence points towards a gradual process of evolution instead of biblical Creation." It's "These stoopid people; what's the matter with them?"

This same bias pops up in other issues, both liberal and conservative on right wing and left wing camps. I would like to see people attempt to understand and respect other people's view points and not just denigrate them as "wrong."

--MikeC

I certainly object to statements such as the last quote in the first paragraph, but that's not what was said at all. Nor is there any bias present. You seem to be implying all ideas and beliefs are equal, but they are not. Any belief that has empirical evidence supporting it is not equal to a belief that has no evidence or one that has evidence against it. "No Bias" doesn't mean you should accept everything as equal just like "keep an open mind" doesn't mean you should accept everything as equal -- what it means is you should allow the empirical evidence to guide your decision. The evidence makes beliefs unequal. I'd even go so far as to suggest one should not respect another's beliefs if said beliefs fail to have any evidence or even have evidence against them -- and why should they merit respect if empirical evidence points against them? Surely you wouldn't respect the belief that the world was flat? Is it valid of me to charge you of being biased for not accepting such a claim?

But that's what I'm saying. How many times has anybody even had a chance to explain any of that? How many times has a news station really tried to give equal time to both points of view? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if you look at it closely, the news is almost always biased towards one side of the argument. And more often than not, it's the side "on the left."

That's because your explination is a logical falicy. It is a law that they want to pass to prevent states from passing laws that would allow marrage to be defined as between 2 people of the same gender. Kind of like when the federal government a ban on marrage between more than 2 people, something that up until that was legal in Utah.

In other words, somebody already biased towards one point of view, and they can't even see why the issue would be important to creationists.

Except that you're trying to say that the media should give equal time to scientific fact as to unproven notions that contradict all understanding of the physical world. Reminds me of the debate we got into a few months back about if we really ever landed on the moon. Shouldn't a fair and blanced media give equal time and consideration to the nuts who claim that we didn't land on the moon as the people at NASA and all over the US government and industry who have proof that we did.

Comparing flat earth belief to Creationism is misleading. A poll would show that many more people believe in Creationism than a flat earth.

When did I say that the media should give equal time to Creationism?

I still think there's a bias. That may not have been what Josh explicitly said, but it is certainly implied. I don't believe that all ideas are on an equal level, but I do think that all ideas (reasonable ideas, of course--so genocide doesn't count) should be respected. And I personally think on both sides of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, there's not a lot of respect.

Getting back to political issues, another example that Goldberg mentioned in his book was the flat tax, which the media reviled. This reminds me of my high school government class, when we learned about taxation. My teacher mentioned the flat tax and said "This is a bad idea and will never work." Excuse me, but shouldn't WE be the judge of that?

This is exactly what I'm talking about: "arguments that leave logic behind in favour of ontological arguments that have been refuted for millienia." This demonstrates bias because it does not seem to respect the viewpoint of those that do not take the same belief regarding evolution.

No, that's not what it's saying at all. I merely said that Creationist arguments do not stand up to logical scrutiny. You are suggesting that I had a preconceived idea of what's true, and thus do not even give Creationist arguments a fair hearing. On the contrary, I disagree precisely on the basis that there are inevitably unpersuasive and in some sense logically flawed.

See this page on Ontological Arguments.

It isn't "I disagree with the Creationists; I think scientific evidence points towards a gradual process of evolution instead of biblical Creation." It's "These stoopid people; what's the matter with them?"

Evolution and biblical Creation are not opposites. If A is false, that does not mean that B is true. One is a scientific theory informed by empirical evidence and structured in a logically coherent. The other is a religious (read: mytho-historical) account informed not at all by empiricism or logic, but merely personal faith, which, by definition, cannot be posited as an objective fact.

This same bias pops up in other issues, both liberal and conservative on right wing and left wing camps. I would like to see people attempt to understand and respect other people's view points and not just denigrate them as "wrong."

Again, this seems to be a call for relativism. Understanding another person's perspective does not require you to ignore the logical flaws in their arguments. I have never said that I do not respect Creationists as human beings - I have merely stated that I have little respect for their arguments which are generally completely unpersuasive to anyone but the converted. On the other hand, scientific/empirical interpretations of the physical/natural world can be criticized on the basis of the evidence and principles of deductive and (more often) inductive reasoning. Such interpretations stand or fall based on their merits. They can be supported or refuted regardless of whether one believes them to be true. Such belief must be based on the evidence or it will be refuted.

Comparing flat earth belief to Creationism is misleading. A poll would show that many more people believe in Creationism than a flat earth.

And a poll would show that many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had a link to Al-Qaeda, but then that isn't true either? A lot of people believe in alien abductions too, but I'm not about to give the X-Files much credence as a documentary.

I still think there's a bias. That may not have been what Josh explicitly said, but it is certainly implied. I don't believe that all ideas are on an equal level, but I do think that all ideas (reasonable ideas, of course--so genocide doesn't count) should be respected. And I personally think on both sides of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, there's not a lot of respect.

I do not have a bias, but, yes, I have a point of view. I will not concede that I'm lacking objectivity, however, which seems to be what it comes down to.

Getting back to political issues, another example that Goldberg mentioned in his book was the flat tax, which the media reviled. This reminds me of my high school government class, when we learned about taxation. My teacher mentioned the flat tax and said "This is a bad idea and will never work." Excuse me, but shouldn't WE be the judge of that?

I don't think it's an issue of who's the "judge" of it. If your teacher actually presented an argument for that, then you can evaluate the merits of it. Otherwise, it does seem pretty flippant.

guys, move it over to evolution vs. creation please....i was just getting into the other part of this conversation

On the contrary, I think that the Evolution vs. Creation issue is an excellent example for examining what "bias" really means in politics.

Ultimately, we're dealing with fundamentally different conceptions of how the the universe works which can never be reconciled except by agreeing to disagree. What I don't like about Creationist arguments is how they are cloaked in flawed logic and poor understandings of science. The difference is that where Creationist arguments must always depend on personal faith, Empiricism functions on logic and objective criteria which can be debated and criticized by anyone.

In math, we start from basic assumptions and definitions which are axiomatic and persuasive in some way to *anyone* regardless of their personal belief. It is true that the set of rational numbers consist of all numbers which can be represented by a fraction, a/b, where a and b are integers. That is definitionally true and you can prove that some numbers are either rational or irrational. You cannot prove that God exists, however. Many have tried, but what is required is a rigorous, universally persuasive proof.

The belief in God is by definition a function of personal faith. I fail to see what's wrong with it. I'm a pretty faithful person myself, but I know that I cannot prove my spiritual beliefs to anyone. Explain them, yes, but prove them? Simply not possible. That's what faith is. I am only biased if I have failed to look at the arguments involved and the same holds true for the media.

Good post, Josh. I may have unfairly picked on you because I know you're a reasonable guy; it's just that the one thing that bugs me is people dismissing opposing viewpoints. By your post, I know that you don't think Creationists are idiots, and I'm sure that the media probably doesn't either, but the gist I get from what is being said makes me think otherwise. When you compare a belief in Creationism to a belief in flat earth, I get the feeling that Creationism is being denigrated.

Thanks, Mike. For sure, the media seldom gives sufficiently indepth analysis to these sorts of debates - hence the allegations of bias. Creationism is simply faith... not that there's anything wrong with that, and, depending on the degree of literalism involved, it can be reconciled with scientific accounts of the development of the universe and life itself. However, such a reconciliation would still depend on one's personal faith in divinity, and hence cannot be proven logically.

I think the problem comes when it comes to the teaching of evolution in schools - that some Creationists argue that Biblical Creation should be taught as a valid "alternative" to evolution, which it is most certainly not. Religion belongs in religion class. Theology is not an alternative to natural science, but rather another branch on the tree of knowledge which makes the study of faith its purpose (at least that's my reading).

Back to the question of media bias, I think the problem lies in the limited amount of time journalists have to examine any issue or story, along with the question of marketability. Generally speaking, pairing intolerant atheists with their fundamentalist counterparts can make for good TV but is useless for discourse. I think the same problem holds for the usual practice of having a Conservative and a Liberal sit on a panel and sling partisan insults and non-sequitors at each other as if that amounts to productive discourse. Generally speaking, when someone accuses a news-story of bias, it is either because they themselves are lacking in objectivity, the story was, or a combination of the two.

"Creationism is simply faith... not that there's anything wrong with that, and, depending on the degree of literalism involved, it can be reconciled with scientific accounts of the development of the universe and life itself. However, such a reconciliation would still depend on one's personal faith in divinity, and hence cannot be proven logically.

I think the problem comes when it comes to the teaching of evolution in schools - that some Creationists argue that Biblical Creation should be taught as a valid "alternative" to evolution, which it is most certainly not." -JGould


See, the thing that most people don't see in that argument is that it is desired to be taught as an alternative to Evolution BECAUSE of all of the evidence supporting it. People may claim that it's based on "a poor understanding of science and faulty logic," but I've seen the same said of Evolution. It's simply going on a pre-concieved notion to say that Creantionists want Creationism to be taken purely by faith.
Anyhow, moving on...


"When you compare a belief in Creationism to a belief in flat earth, I get the feeling that Creationism is being denigrated." -MikeC

That sums up most of the talk that's been going back and forth, and I must say I'm sorry. As usuall, whenever I attempt humor/metaphore, it comes out horribly mangled.
I was simply trying to draw a connection that, at the time, all of the 'evidence,' much of which was flawed and incorrectly reasoned, pointed to a flat Earth. From our point of view at least, Columbus is not considered a moron for believeing in something that he couldn't see, and wasn't popularly supported.
Which was all, in my roundabout way of thinking, a way of responding to a statement about not understanding how people could believe in God as opposed to commonly accepted scientific alternatives. I was saying (or at least trying to say) "It's not always crazy to believe in something you can't see (beyond it's effects) or immediately prove."

Terribly sorry for the unclear post and the following controversy. One of these days I'll wise up and stop using metaphors, analogies, and any humor without a smiley after it in these arguments.


Sorry If I'm inadvertantly branching OT again, I just wanted to clarify.

To argue these positions effectively, I must respect and understand alternative viewpoints.
--MikeC

Once again, a belief must be justified to have respect. Previously you mentioned that one should respect "reasonable" ideas. If, by "reasonable" you meant those that have empirical evidence backing them up, then I agree. Otherwise, such ideas and beliefs do not warrant respect.


See, the thing that most people don't see in that argument is that it is desired to be taught as an alternative to Evolution BECAUSE of all of the evidence supporting it. People may claim that it's based on "a poor understanding of science and faulty logic," but I've seen the same said of Evolution. It's simply going on a pre-concieved notion to say that Creantionists want Creationism to be taken purely by faith.
--Zarm Rkeeg

There is absolutely, positively NO evidence supporting even the existence of a god, let alone creationism. If you have some, not only will I be dining on crow, but it is worth one million dollars

Also, Zarm Rkeeg, your Columbus analogy is flawed for other reasons, one being that people didn't believe the world was flat when Columbus left (the Greeks had already reasoned it was round).

Zarm Rkeeg: See, the thing that most people don't see in that argument is that it is desired to be taught as an alternative to Evolution BECAUSE of all of the evidence supporting it.
Luigi Novi: There isn’t any evidence supporting it. If there were, then it should be submitted to peer-review journals. In the history of modern science no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions.

Zarm Rkeeg: People may claim that it's based on "a poor understanding of science and faulty logic," but I've seen the same said of Evolution.
Luigi Novi: I notice that you do not assert that this is true with respect to evolution, but merely that “I’ve seen it said.” What does this have to do with anything? The mere fact that people have said this makes it true? Who has said this? Ignorant and superstitious creationists who try to lobby school boards to teach creationism in public science classrooms? Of course they’re going to “say” that. So what? The real question is whether this assertion is true. In point of fact, it is not.

Zarm Rkeeg: It's simply going on a pre-concieved notion to say that Creantionists want Creationism to be taken purely by faith.
Luigi Novi: It is not a preconceived notion. It is a fact.

Creationism is a purely religious idea, without any scientific validity to it. No one has ever provided evidence for it, and indeed creationists most certainly insist upon it purely out of faith. Upon what else do they insist it if not faith? Evidence? There isn’t any. Even if there were, do you think that the typical creationist as any real command over the subject?

There is a difference between "respecting" and "agreeing with/believing." It is my belief that all ideas (that aren't obviously hurtful or negative) should be respected. People don't believe in Creationism because they're idiotic and ignorant. They should not be portrayed as such or considered as such by those who disagree with them.

As for the requirement of having empirical evidence to respect ideas, there are not many ideas that can be supported with empirical evidence. I believe we must eat a kosher diet because my religion commands it. Should we not respect this belief because I have no empirical evidence for it? We may not BELIEVE it or FOLLOW it, but we can RESPECT it.

Jews are not trying to have kosher dietary rules taught in public school science classrooms, Mike.

As for respecting something that you don't agree with, yes, it can be done, and if taken as a mythological story, I can look at Biblical stories as something fascinating and even something to respect, at least from a cultural or historical point of view. But when someone starts saying that they are empirically true, and should be taught as empirical matters of fact in public schools, that's where the fact that they are not empirically true, and lack any evidence for them, becomes a salient point.

I believe we must eat a kosher diet because my religion commands it. Should we not respect this belief because I have no empirical evidence for it?

Well it is healthy. A lot of the weight I lost this past year I lost because, even though I'm an Atheist, I started trying to keep a kosher diet. That is until my paychecks started shirnking. It's not cheap to eat like a good Jew for some reason. (That wasn't an anti-Semtitic joke, that was an anti-riduclous prices on healthy food joke).

But I don't have any empirical evidence that I will go to Heaven because of it.

Luigi, again, there is a difference between not believing something and respecting it. You can believe that Creationism is phoney baloney Crack Fairy Tale and fight strongly to keep it out of public schools. But I would argue that you cannot dismiss proponents of Creationism as ignorant or superstitious fools. They have reasons, viable reasons, for acting the way they do.

(Note: I am not saying that anyone on these boards does not respect Creationist viewpoints; I am saying there sometimes is a lack of respect for it among its opponents. The same applies for any issues--pro-life advocates frequently demonize their opponents, both camps of the affirmative action debate do it all the time)

No, I don't have to respect the viewpoint. I may respect the person holding said viewpoint, but if I believe that viewpoint to be WRONG WRONG WRONG, there is absolutely no reason for me to respect it.

Agreed. As for "dismiss[ing] proponents of Creationism as ignorant or superstitious fools," I would try to avoid pejorative language like "fools," but people who see creationism as literally true, and as scientific, are most certainly ignorant of of science in general and evolution in particular. That is their "reason" for doing what they do.

I find that condescending towards Creationists, that you know WHY they believe what they believe--it's because they're ignorant.

Maybe I'm just using the wrong word. By respect, I don't mean a "You can't say it's wrong" watered-down stuff. I mean it's asking the question "Why does this person believe what he or she believes?" and trying to seriously understand the viewpoint.

For instance, I believe that abortion is wrong. However, people who are pro-choice do not get their rocks off by terminating pregnancies. They have real concerns and reasons for doing what they do. By understanding these reasons, I think more good can come than just "They're just wrong. Goodbye."

I never said creationists were "just wrong, goodbye." And whether you find it condescending or not, anyone who denies evolution and believes creationism is scientific and empirical, and should be taught in public science classrooms is ignorant of the theory in particular, and how science works in general. Whether someone finds it condescending or not, it is simply true.

Now that you have elaborated on your sentence, I find it a bit more understandable. Yes, someone who just blanket-statements "There is no evolution" is ignorant of what that means and the theory in general. I just didn't like the comment about ignorance being the reason why Creationists believe what they believe. There are other reasons, viable reasons.

I don't see how my above "elaboration" is any different from the way I articulated it in my last Sept. 22nd post. And yes, that is the reason. What "other" reasons are there for believing to creation to be literally and empirically true?

You added the words "denys evolution" to your second post.

And, you're missing my point. There obviously are other reasons other than ignorance because people who are aware of evolutionary theory stlil persist in their belief of a literal creation (myself included).

Okay, I see what you mean. But how can one believe in a literal creation and evolution? The idea that the Earth was created in six days is incompatible with all the evidence that shows that the planet slowly formed from material before coalescing and cooling, not to mention many other Biblical stories incompatible with other areas of scientific knowledge.

Good question. There are many answers...but we are getting a twee too off topic. Would you mind if I answered that in RM?

Have a party.

MikeC, when you were using the word "respect", I gathered that the idea you are trying to get across is that, for a specific example, people should refrain from attacking the belief in Creationism because it is a belief.

To which I'd have responded:

Generalizing this, then, is that beliefs are legitimate and free from attack because they are believed. Yet no person is obligated to respect this, nor should they be, since attack of a belief is not an attack on the person. The only obligation regarding beliefs is that an individual has a right to believe anything he or she wants. If, however, this belief is used as an argument, this individual better be prepared to justify this belief.

So, if an individual engages in debate and presents a belief, they should expect this belief to be heavily scrutinized and compared to empirical fact. If it fails to withstand this scrutiny, then the individual should accept this and either modify his or her position or not attempt to further debate the issue with anyone. If said individual continues to present this belief and does not produce new evidence, then he or she should expect the belief to be dismissed outright.

Just to make it perfectly clear: the dismissal of a belief is not a personal attack, and any offence the holder of said belief has is purely his or her own problem -- of course, pejorative language should not be used by those who dismiss the belief.

Also, if the individual continues to push this belief despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary, then stating that this is irrational behavior or that he or she is being irrational is not out of the question.


Yet with this further discourse, it appears that you are suggesting that Creationism merely not be dismissed. However, the above counter is still relevant since the "Evolution vs Creationism" debate is currently at the point where Creationism has failed to withstand the scrutiny, and should therefore be dismissed.

Really? Thanks for telling me; I guess I'll have to stop believing in it.

The empirical evidence clearly demonstrates the explanation is evolution; therefore Creationism as an alternative explanation has failed to withstand the scrutiny.

I respectfully disagree; I don't think you can "disprove" Creationism because as a belief system, it requires an element of faith.

Which I suppose was your point.

Ah, but that's just it. If you adhere to it solely as a belief based on faith, it becomes unimpeachable. If, however, you insist that it is a scientific and empirical statement of fact, then yes, you can disprove it by testing it with the evidence to the contrary.

Is there any way to have Creationism without faith?

Well then it can't be a science, can it?

Yes and no.

Mike, I'm not sure if you were directing that last question to me, but if you were, I would respond by pointing out that I never said anything about creationism without faith. In fact, I flat-out said in my most recent post before this one that such a position is unimpeachable. It's when some pretend that creationism is science, and fact that it falls apart.

Yeah, I understand what you mean; thanks for clarifying. To me, creationism must have faith because if you could scientifically "prove" a divine Creation, the element of faith would not exist. I do maintain though, that science has by no means, "disproven" a divine Creation either.

It has if you believe in the Creation literally, because science has proven that the Earth and its contents was not created in six days, not to mention numerous other Biblical statements that cannot be literally true.

But by definition, since it must be taken on faith, and therefore cannot be disproved, it cannot be a scientific theory. To be a scientific theory it must be susceptible to disproof.

And that's the last I'll say about it here. I might or might not follow up on E.vs.C.

I've already addressed how I disagree with you regarding the "literally untrue" elements of the Bible over at E v. C., so I'm not going to repeat myself.

It's not like evolution doesn't exist. Come on, it is an observed fact. Things do change, and I am not denying it. Alot of "evolutionists" think we try and deny it all together, where we differ is in the beginning of the cosmos...

wait a second, now we're talking about diferent things. Many scientific people believe that evolution is how we got here but we must have been created by something and the chain of events that lead through evolution were the result of a God (or gods, depending on what religion you are) but what I'm talking about is the people who claim that their is scientific evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the universe and humans were all created in the same 6 day period.

It's not like evolution doesn't exist. Come on, it is an observed fact. Things do change, and I am not denying it. Derrick

wait a second, now we're talking about diferent things. Brian

Actually you are not. Derrick has said that he does belive in a short-time Creation. People like him admit the evidence for the existence of evolution, but claim all provable evidence only point to "micro-evolution" which is the basis for such sciences as animal husbandry and hybridization. They claim that there is no credible evidence for "macro-evolution," the emergence of new species through the forces of evolution. (At least I think that's Derrick's position based on posts he's made over on RM's CvE board, to where this discussion really should be moved.

Alot of "evolutionists" think we try and deny it all together, where we differ is in the beginning of the cosmos...

That's not evolution, that's cosmology. And ontology. Be specific, please. You can't fight all of science at once.

Then it would appear that our battles have been in vain with one another. We can debate short vs. Long evolution if you want. But i have no qualms with micro evolution, just Macro. I beleive that God created the heavens and the earth, what happened to everyone after that...much is debateable.

This is not the place for that. It simply bothers me when people conflate the origin of the universe with the origin of life on Earth. The one is a question subject to the deepest analysis of modern physics; the other resides in the domain of chemistry and biology. They seriously have nothing to do with each other.

Does it bother anyone, that the leader of the most technically advanced country on Earth is so anti-science? Wait a moment, it's not polite to criticise Bush's iron-age (religious) views of the world. Bush's assertion that "the jury is still out on evolution" would be correct...if this were 1860.

Rona, it bothers me that Americans are so scientifically illiterate (and arguable in other areas as well) in general. Science illiteracy is a recipe for disaster, and nowhere is this problem more evident than when it shows up in the most powerful man in the world, whether it's Bush, or whoever else occupies the Oval Office.

But if I may ask, are you referring to evolution/creationism in particular, and if so, has Bush indicated his position on it.