ACLU Vs Creationism

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

Well, teaching any random idea that someone comes up with as an equally valid “scientific” theory alongside evolution is just scientific relativism, and it is just as wrong as moral relativism. In science, there are scientific absolutes, right and wrong answers.

Since evolution theory cannot reproduce events or make predictions it is not really science. It is metaphysics and a new subject could be taught called metaphysics along side of science.

It has been argued here and on other threads that ID, creation science and others are pseudoscience. Evolution is right there along with them and should not be taught as scientific fact.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Did he publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed publication? I can’t find any info about that. I can only find references to his book, which is not a peer-reviewed document.

---

Behe doesn’t actually present any evidence that evolution is wrong. His argument seems to be that it is too complicated to have occurred, ignoring all of the evidence that refutes his position.

Once again, where are the peer-reviewed articles?

Peace

Tim

He has not been able to get peer review as their is a great amount invested in evolution.

 

[buffalo]

theTaxCollector:

I am definitely not well versed in science, but I have a couple questions that maybe someone can answer for me…

1. Regarding evolution, has there been actual observable proof thereby allowing scientists to conclude it is “fact”? For example, has someone actually witnessed an organism evolving into a higher being or genetically adapting to ‘better’ handle its surroundings?
2. Is circumstantial evidence allowed in the determination of “fact”?
3. Isn’t all of science based on the assumption that we can find Truth? Doesn’t religion have the same basis?

Peace.

Yes, it’s called inductive reasoning.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

Here is another question: How much science do we throw out because of perceived conflicts with people’s private interpretations of Genesis?

Should someone in a paternity suit be allowed to dismiss all DNA evidence against him on the reasoning that since DNA analysis shows that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor, it isn’t a reliable means of determining descent? After all, any similarity between his DNA and the baby’s can be explained by the fact that they both were intelligently designed by the same creator. Is this a kind of defense that the Thomas More Law Society should take up?

For Catholics any that don’t jive as Revelation trumps science. Science is not self-sufficient. Metaphysics and Revelation do have something to say about our origins.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Actually, because the evidence is so massive for evolution, anyone presenting a hypothesis that evolution is wrong must prove their position. There is plenty of evidence for evolution and none that I know of against it. I could be wrong on that because I am not a biologist, but I have looked for evidence against evolution and haven’t found any that is credible.

Peace

Tim

As Catholics science has the burden of proof not metaphysics or Revelation.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

I read your link. Did you read mine? The author of this paper is a Christian.

Tim

Ok. I’ve read enough of it to have a bunch of questions. I don’t know if we want to get into all these. I’m not really opposed to these dating techniques because of religion as the Catholic faith can accept and old earth or a young earth.

Not much of this contradicts the fact that God created us in His image and likeness. It’s when we take the leap that evolution of everything is guided by a purposeless chemical-based process that has no divine intelligence behind it, that I have a problem.

Because many teachers and secularlists (and you may not call them “real” scientists - I’m not sure) seem to have any easy time concluding that God cannot exist under this framework and/or humans are not above animals in the grand scheme of things, I question the motivations of some involved in the process. When motivation is questionable, process becomes questionable. Remember, Darwin himself was looking for a way out of the “God” paradigm and he is the grandaddy of evolution.

Just wanted to level set as I’m not sure any of use has the time right now to be convinced either way regarding the accuracy of radiometric dating methods.

---

I’ll throw out a few of my most pressing questions in the event you are interested:

1. I don’t know how you can tell for sure the original chemical composition of the rock. What is the baseline for a given rock? How many parent atoms did it start with?
2. How does this process get translated (more importantly) to the date of a fossilized object (this isn’t a skeptic question as much as an understanding question). What is more important to me is not how old a rock appears to be, but how old a particular fossil is that says man and beast has been around X number of years.
3. The claim is made that decay rate does not change under differing conditions as this has been tested under various condition changes. But this “testing” could only be over a very small period of time (say 10 years) - how can this compare to a rock under “adverse” conditions for 4000 years?
4. It admits there are special cases for varying decay rates
5. This is most significant to me so far: for a rock to be dated, it must have been sealed against the loss/addition of radiocactive daughter or parent atoms. Now, the claim was just made that no types of environment changes would have any impact on dating and now we are saying that “un-sealed” rocks cannot be used.

We then go on to throw out rocks that have too few daughter atoms. How do we know there are too few daughter atoms? How do we know what caused this? Why do we only throw out rocks that have too few daughter atoms as this gives a younger age but we do not throw out rocks that have too many parent atoms, which would give an older age?

1. How do you know without doubt which process created the rock (lava, asteroid, earth crust etc.)
2. How do you know with certainty the half-lives? We’ve been doing this for just over 50 years and the claim is made that there is no evidence of half-lives ever changing. How do we know that half lives wouldn’t change over thousands of years without direct observation? How about millions of years?

I also looked at this site, which attempts to refute young earth objectors:

my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/rad_dat.html

It says:

"The assumptions that are used in radiometric dating techniques are perfectly justified given current physics."

Ok, what happens when “current” physics changes?

"Woodmorappe listed 350-odd aberrant dates, and claimed that there are many, many more. What he did not say is that those 350 were winnowed out of tens of thousands of radiometric dates which do give more reasonable results"

The author goes on to make the ridiculous assertion that because the creation scientist only listed 350 odd aberrant dates, it is nothing next to, say, 10,000 dates, it is a tiny error percentage. This doen’t refute Woodmorappe’s claims. He simply listed 350 verified examples - that doesn’t mean that there are not more and it is also a convenient defense in that there are only so many rocks where we are going to know the ages before the tests. I think if this has been done 350 times, it requires a better defense as to why each of these failed the test - in some cases dramatically.

 

[Trelow]

Why must we assume that the development of life even falls into science and not theology?

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

They “presuppose” the evolution of man because of the evidence, not because of faith.

You cannot presuppose anything based on evidence. You can only presuppose based on philosophy, logic, religion, what other people have told you etc. That’s what makes it a presupposition – if you had hard, clear evidence that you understood, you would not be presupposing – you would be asserting.

Orogeny:

Then let me make myself a little clearer. If a scientist has a scientific objection to radiometric dating, he or she should make those objections in the way scientists argue - in a peer-reviewed publication.

Would the peer review journal publish it or would it claim that it is bad science based on presuppositions?

Orogeny:

That’s because that is what you want it to sound like.

You indicated the scientist is not a scientist otherwise, not me.

Orogeny:

Me personally, no. Those scientists who are experts in the field of radiometric dating can and have. That is explained in the link I gave you.

Interesting. I can’t either. Are you presupposing the dating methods are correct or are you convinced based on evidence you have explored – you are indicating you are unconvinced except by what others have told you.

Orogeny:

Peace

Peace to you too! Especially at this time of year!

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Asking you a question is arrogance? Puleeze!!!

Ok. I apologize. Arrogance was too strong a word and I’m sure not your intention. However, beware of academic blindness.

Orogeny:

I asked the question because you continue to misrepresent the way science is done, even though you have been corrected. You keep implying that there is some unwritten code that all scientists must adhere to or they will be castigated and will lose all
credibility. That is not so.

I still maintain that most employed scientists in fields that cover human biological origins must adhere to evolutionary theory as fact or else face religious ignorance accusations – that has been demonstrated on this thread

Orogeny:

Only to you and only because those “scientists” that you have been relying on have been demonstrated to have signed a “statement of faith” that requires them to IGNORE any evidence that is contrary to their pre-supposed conclusion. This way you can say that all scientists do the same thing that your “scientists” do.

I think the statement of faith is agreed upon collectively based on their investigation of the facts – of course we can both go round and round saying the other group is presupposing rather than looking at the facts and we probably won’t get far. I would just say that you cannot exclude the arguments refuting dating methods simply because they believe in the Bible in a certain way. You need to refute their arguments using science – I haven’t seen effective arguments against the odd aberrant dates. Why won’t the science showing odd aberrant dates be allowed in public education?

Orogeny:

Elementary school? The scientific method should be one of the first things that anyone should learn when being taught science.

By undergraduate, I meant college, just not at the masters level. Still don’t know why arguments opposing dating methods cannot be classified as science using the scientific method.

Orogeny:

They do know how science works and that is why they teach evolution as a fact.

They didn’t teach me the scientific method.

Orogeny:

As long as it is not in science class unless it is a scientific arguement, unlike ID.

How about scientific arguments against evolution or old earth dating?

Orogeny:

No he isn’t and no I don’t. I don’t argue for the ACLU for anything. They are one of the most detestible organizations I know of.

Alleluia – you and I have a BIG agreement here – see, Christ always brings Christians together if we allow it.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

I wouldn’t oppose it any more that I would oppose the theory of relativity being taught in a non-science class, but it is science so it should be taught in science class.

If you would allow human biological origins to be taught in a science class but exclude ID from discussion, you are engaging in viewpoint discrimination based on religous association. I don’t believe there is any solid scientific evidence that explains how the evolutionary process that lead to humans got kicked off nor how certain organs of the human person evolved to such a complex level.

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

Ok. I apologize. Arrogance was too strong a word and I’m sure not your intention. However, beware of academic blindness.

I still maintain that most employed scientists in fields that cover human biological origins must adhere to evolutionary theory as fact or else face religious ignorance accusations – that has been demonstrated on this thread

I think the statement of faith is agreed upon collectively based on their investigation of the facts – of course we can both go round and round saying the other group is presupposing rather than looking at the facts and we probably won’t get far. I would just say that you cannot exclude the arguments refuting dating methods simply because they believe in the Bible in a certain way. You need to refute their arguments using science – I haven’t seen effective arguments against the odd aberrant dates. Why won’t the science showing odd aberrant dates be allowed in public education?

By undergraduate, I meant college, just not at the masters level. Still don’t know why arguments opposing dating methods cannot be classified as science using the scientific method.

They didn’t teach me the scientific method.

How about scientific arguments against evolution or old earth dating?

Alleluia – you and I have a BIG agreement here – see, Christ always brings Christians together if we allow it.

The head of the ACLU was on Bill Moyers last night. He said the ACLU exists to protect secular values.

 

[Brad]

More opposition to evolution for anyone’s reading pleasure (not saying they are right or not - just that there is a bunch of opposition):

evolution-facts.org/

 

[Brad]

buffalo:

The head of the ACLU was on Bill Moyers last night. He said the ACLU exists to protect secular values.

At least he’s honest. Secular values - also known as anti-Christian values OR values that the devil would enjoy.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Did he publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed publication? I can’t find any info about that. I can only find references to his book, which is not a peer-reviewed document.

---

Behe doesn’t actually present any evidence that evolution is wrong. His argument seems to be that it is too complicated to have occurred, ignoring all of the evidence that refutes his position.

Once again, where are the peer-reviewed articles?

Peace

Tim

The lack of peer review articles (not saying there are none - I’m just not on any such mailing lists) is consistent with my theory that “opposing” viewpoints are not allowed in the scientifc community - or, at least, that which controls the money flow to the scientific community. However, remember, this is only a theory - not scientific fact.

My theory has greater weight when you notice the tremendous volume of academic criticism interspersed with personal attacks on Denton for daring to question the theory.

Let’s refute the naysayers claims - that would go a long way to making evolution more believable than just labeling naysayers as Christians or ideologues of one kind or another. Denton was not a Christian - what was his incentive to oppose the theory except he didn’t see it as believeable?

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Actually, because the evidence is so massive for evolution, anyone presenting a hypothesis that evolution is wrong must prove their position. There is plenty of evidence for evolution and none that I know of against it. I could be wrong on that because I am not a biologist, but I have looked for evidence against evolution and haven’t found any that is credible.

Peace

Tim

There’s arguments against radiometric dating methods that include the method not always working for rocks of known ages. This is proof of a position that doesn’t seem to have been refuted effectively by the scientific community.

If radiometric dating methods are not valid then evolutionary theory has not been proven.

If 2+2=4 85% of the time but =7 15% of the time, you better come up with a new math method.

If 1 part Hydrogen and 2 parts Oxygen make don’t make water 90% of the time - they make water 100% of the time.

Evolutionary theory is not factual to this degree - it is theoretical - and until it is factual to this degree, any refutation is valid for discussion - it is not up to dissenters of evolution to prove all of the theory is wrong - it is up to those that want to teach evolution as fact to prove all dissenters wrong. This should be pretty easy to do if you have enought real evidence.

For example, you don’t hear any Jewish people around the year 40 AD claiming that Jesus did not really perform supernatural miracles. They simply claimed they were of an evil source. They could not claim they didn’t happen - there was too much evidence that they did happen. They could be refuted too easily by Christians to make such a claim - they would look silly.

I don’t see the naysayers of evolution looking very silly from evidence. Their theory looks just as plausible (if not moreso) than evolution.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

I’m not seeing this. At most, it seems like there are a handful of Ph.D. biologists/biochemists/bioinformaticists that have a problem with evolution as a scientific fact. Can you provide any support for this widespread scientific dissent?

Here is an excerpt from the American Institute of Biological Sciences’ press release “Scientific Community Unites Against Kansas Board of Education Evolution Decision”:

It is not widespread scientific dissent. I’m talking about specifically human biological origins. There are many holes and questions in the theory that scientists have yet to adequately explain.

Again, you give me members of the scientific community that think it would be terrible to not teach science. Of course they would feel this way. It is interesting they used the examples of math and chemical elements. These are the same examples I used in a post above. Addition can be proven and work 100% of the time. Chemical composition of water etc. can be proven and work 100% of the time. We have no such assurances with human biologogical originis. We aren’t observing any current animals evolving into human beings. We can’t observe this once, let alone do it over and over again to verify it as we can verify addition (2 blocks and 2 more blocks is always 4 blocks no matter what).

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Here is another question: How much science do we throw out because of perceived conflicts with people’s private interpretations of Genesis?

Should someone in a paternity suit be allowed to dismiss all DNA evidence against him on the reasoning that since DNA analysis shows that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor, it isn’t a reliable means of determining descent? After all, any similarity between his DNA and the baby’s can be explained by the fact that they both were intelligently designed by the same creator. Is this a kind of defense that the Thomas More Law Society should take up?

DNA analysis for paternity has been shown to work time and time again with observable analysis. Monkeys and humans coming from the same creature has never been observed. You believe what you can observe time and time again to be true. You are skeptical about that which you can never observe and which goes against other reasonable conclusions. This isn’t being irrational.

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

There’s arguments against radiometric dating methods that include the method not always working for rocks of known ages. This is proof of a position that doesn’t seem to have been refuted effectively by the scientific community.

If radiometric dating methods are not valid then evolutionary theory has not been proven.

If 2+2=4 85% of the time but =7 15% of the time, you better come up with a new math method.

If 1 part Hydrogen and 2 parts Oxygen make don’t make water 90% of the time - they make water 100% of the time.

Evolutionary theory is not factual to this degree - it is theoretical - and until it is factual to this degree, any refutation is valid for discussion - it is not up to dissenters of evolution to prove all of the theory is wrong - it is up to those that want to teach evolution as fact to prove all dissenters wrong. This should be pretty easy to do if you have enought real evidence.

For example, you don’t hear any Jewish people around the year 40 AD claiming that Jesus did not really perform supernatural miracles. They simply claimed they were of an evil source. They could not claim they didn’t happen - there was too much evidence that they did happen. They could be refuted too easily by Christians to make such a claim - they would look silly.

I don’t see the naysayers of evolution looking very silly from evidence. Their theory looks just as plausible (if not moreso) than evolution.

Evolutionists - make a prediction based on your “scientific” understanding of evolution of what the human species will evolve into.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Intelligent design (ID) seems to be nothing more than the statement that random mutation coupled with “survival of the fittest” isn’t the correct mechanism of evolution. Even if you allow the jump from “non-random” to “intelligent”, is everyone here okay with humans and monkeys having a common ancestor, as long as the mutations were guided by an intelligence?

It’s not necessarily a problem with the Christian faith but it very well could be. You are faced with very difficult questions such as:

When did a specific creature (human) get designated “made in the image and likeness of God”? When was the male human enough? When was the female human enough?

My argument is more against this theory based on reason. For example, how come humans can reason but monkeys cannot? If we both came from the same ancestor, what the heck happened to monkeys? They’ve been evolving for the same amount of time. If we have monkeys and humans today, why don’t we have anythign remotely closs to “in-between monkey and human”.
Don’t start to tell me that monkeys can reason if given the opportunity. They can learn - but they cannot reason.

And - if something is not reasonable - if you cannot reason it - it will ultimately lead you to arguments against God because in the world of God, faith and reason are complementary, not in opposition.

 

[buffalo]

You will find consistent Catholic teachings:

1. the creation of the entire universe in the beginning of time by God
2. the special creation of the fiirst man
3. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God
4. the unity of the human race
5. the initial happiness of our first parents in the state of original justice.

The very first part of our creed states the same

Evolution is radically flawed as an attempt to answer questions primarily theological.

The Church in ancient times (as well as today) never denied that natural knowledge could contribute to the understanding of this world and its origins.** But in the case of conflict , the truths of Revelation could not be reinterpreted to fit the new theory. She stated that the theory has to be readjusted to fit the facts of Revelation certified by the Church. **

Theistic evolution is syncretism.