Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[InChrist]

Not just an opinion. It would be easy to demonstrate that I am wrong. He may be sincere, but that clearly does not mean that he is honest. I know enough of evolution to know that he is dishonest. But as I said it would be simple to show that I am wrong. Find a peer reviewed paper of his on the topic in a well respected professional journal.

We were not finished discussing the scientific method. I asked you a question about it, why did you not answer?

EDIT: Here it is with another question:

"Did you notice that one cannot assume that something is true ahead of time? In other words if I assumed that evolution was right no matter what the evidence shows I would not be following the scientific method."

Let me reinforce the last sentence with a question. Would I be using the scientific method if I insisted that no matter what the evidence says that life was the product of evolution?

I didn't answer your question because I was busy tonight. Anyway, The answer is no, you would not be following the scientific method if you assumed evolution to be true no matter what or ahead of time.

Now, I am out of time for tonight. I'll be back tomorrow, Lord willing. Good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a long article. I'll read it tomorrow.
I have listened to several talks by James Tour, though.
I really don't think when he says he doesn't understand evolution he is saying he doesn't get what evolutionists are saying happened, but that what is presented as evolution is not realistically understandable, feasible, or logical.

I am sorry, he may not understand it, that does not mean that it is not understandable. The fact is that all scientific evidence only supports the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. As a scientist one is supposed to follow the evidence, not say "I don't understand, therefore God".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't answer your question because I was busy tonight. Anyway, The answer is no, you would not be following the scientific method if you assumed evolution to be true no matter what or ahead of time.

Now, I am out of time for tonight. I'll be back tomorrow, Lord willing. Good night.

That is fine. No need to be here twentyfour/seven. And yes you are correct, that would not be using the scientific method. But that is exactly what is required to work at sites like Answers in Genesis. They have to swear that no matter what the evidence says creationism is right. They do not use the scientific method. There articles are never "science".

 

[ecco]

With a M.S. in life science with a minor in geology and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology.

What's your point?

Do you expect me to say "Oh Golly - Look, an educated man disbelieves in evolution - he must be right?

If I did that I would have to disregard the findings of tens of thousands of scientists who have equal or better credentials. Why would I do that? Why would I give credence to the beliefs of one man and disregard the findings of all the others?

Why would you?

 

[ecco]

Oh, I assumed you could read his name on the video...James M. Tour, Rice University.

To do that I would have had to watch the video.

James M. Tour

is an American synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. Tour is the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas, United States.
James Tour - Wikipedia

Let's see what the good Doctor has to say:

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” ​

I've posted on many occasions that people believe in science up to the point where it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Dr. Tour is an excellent example of this.

So he does what anyone in his position must do, he rationalizes his scientific knowledge and convinces himself that the science must be wrong. Please note, I am not saying he is lying. He truly and honestly
believes what he finds to be wrong with ToE.

If find it interesting that he can proclaim that his "resistance" to macroevolution is based on his chemically based scientific knowledge whereas his reticence to believe in a literal six day creation is more of a "gee, I just don't know for sure". I guess he believes more in geology than in his chosen field of chemistry.

I have read, and it's probably true, that religious fundamentalists usually go into Engineering rather than Biology and related fields. Dr. Tour is an exception to this. By going into biology, Dr. Tour has put himself into a position of life-long internal conflict. Perhaps it is a wound that is intentionally self inflicted.

 

[Audie]

To do that I would have had to watch the video.




Let's see what the good Doctor has to say:

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” ​

I've posted on many occasions that people believe in science up to the point where it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Dr. Tour is an excellent example of this.

So he does what anyone in his position must do, he rationalizes his scientific knowledge and convinces himself that the science must be wrong. Please note, I am not saying he is lying. He truly and honestly
believes what he finds to be wrong with ToE.

If find it interesting that he can proclaim that his "resistance" to macroevolution is based on his chemically based scientific knowledge whereas his reticence to believe in a literal six day creation is more of a "gee, I just don't know for sure". I guess he believes more in geology than in his chosen field of chemistry.

I have read, and it's probably true, that religious fundamentalists usually go into Engineering rather than Biology and related fields. Dr. Tour is an exception to this. By going into biology, Dr. Tour has put himself into a position of life-long internal conflict. Perhaps it is a wound that is intentionally self inflicted.

Exactly the same gross intellectual dishonesty that
I quoted from Dr. K. Wise, for whom all the evidence
means nothing, compared to what he thinks the
bible seems to say.

Could our creos please trot out someone who is not
some sort of fraud?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly the same gross intellectual dishonesty that
I quoted from Dr. K. Wise, for whom all the evidence
means nothing, compared to what he thinks the
bible seems to say.

Could our creos please trot out someone who is not
some sort of fraud?

Nope, can't be done.

 

[InChrist]

That is fine. No need to be here twentyfour/seven. And yes you are correct, that would not be using the scientific method. But that is exactly what is required to work at sites like Answers in Genesis. They have to swear that no matter what the evidence says creationism is right. They do not use the scientific method. There articles are never "science".

You will have to give me some link or something to verify that people who work for AIG or other creation or ID places do not use the scientific method or must swear not to. I've never seen any indication of this. It is true that those who believe in God as Creator or some Intelligence will filter evidence through this foundational belief, but don't you think the same thing occurs with those whose foundational view is naturalism/materialism? Is evidence or are conclusions that do not have a naturalistic explanation even considered or outright rejected?

For example, wouldn't the existence of a replicating living organism be required just to even get the process of evolution and natural selection started? How is it that evolutionists will say origin of life and evolution are separate or origin is another subject irrelevant to evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will have to give me some link or something to verify that people who work for AIG or other creation or ID places do not use the scientific method or must swear not to. I've never seen any indication of this. It is true that those who believe in God as Creator or some Intelligence will filter evidence through this foundational belief, but don't you think the same thing occurs with those whose foundational view is naturalism/materialism? Is evidence or are conclusions that do not have a naturalistic explanation even considered or outright rejected?

For example, wouldn't the existence of a replicating living organism be required just to even get the process of evolution and natural selection started? How is it that evolutionists will say origin of life and evolution are separate or origin is another subject irrelevant to evolution?

No problem. But before I do, you can see that saying that something is true no matter what the evidence says is not doing science. If you can't be honest enough to admit that there is no point in going on.

And there is no such filter in science. One neither assumes the existence of or the nonexistence of a god. The proper attitude is that of neutrality. Now when one makes specific claims those can be tested to see if they are right or wrong. For example if someone says that there was a massive flood roughly 4,500 years ago that covered the entire Earth that claim can be tested. And of course it was refuted over 200 years ago. That still does not disprove the existence of God, it only demonstrates that the Noah's Ark story is a myth. Far too often creationists think that just because their personal version of God has been refuted that science is out to disprove the existence of God. That is not the case.

So we can't make an assumption of the answers ahead of time, regardless of what the evidence says and call our works science., right?

 

[ecco]

Exactly the same gross intellectual dishonesty that
I quoted from Dr. K. Wise, for whom all the evidence
means nothing, compared to what he thinks the
bible seems to say.

I read some of Tour's writings. I don't agree that he is being intellectually dishonest. His basic argument is that abiogenesis is just too complex to have occurred naturally. He supports that argument by showing that his fellow scientists have been unable to make any real progress in replicating what nature has supposedly done.

This is essentially the same argument that Behe made about the human eye.

If anyone is guilty of intellectual honesty it is the people who post links without having any understanding of what the scientists' views are based on. As long as they seem to be Creos, that's a good enough.

 

[ecco]

One neither assumes the existence of or the nonexistence of a god. The proper attitude is that of neutrality.

One must presume the non-existence of a god at least when it comes to the subject of the origins of the earth. If one does not make that presumption, then the following are equally viable subjects for research:

• The earth originated billions of years ago when the solar system formed out of gasses.
• The earth originated Last Thursday when a god created everything.

I don't know of any scientists researching the latter.

 

[InChrist]

No problem. But before I do, you can see that saying that something is true no matter what the evidence says is not doing science. If you can't be honest enough to admit that there is no point in going on.

And there is no such filter in science. One neither assumes the existence of or the nonexistence of a god. The proper attitude is that of neutrality. Now when one makes specific claims those can be tested to see if they are right or wrong. For example if someone says that there was a massive flood roughly 4,500 years ago that covered the entire Earth that claim can be tested. And of course it was refuted over 200 years ago. That still does not disprove the existence of God, it only demonstrates that the Noah's Ark story is a myth. Far too often creationists think that just because their personal version of God has been refuted that science is out to disprove the existence of God. That is not the case.

So we can't make an assumption of the answers ahead of time, regardless of what the evidence says and call our works science., right?

So are you going to tell me that Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin or other atheistic evolutionists do not have an assumption concerning the existence of God? Do you really think they are completely neutral? Don't they already have a priori adherence to material causes, which filters their science and cannot allow for anything other than naturalistic conclusions?

 

[Audie]

I read some of Tour's writings. I don't agree that he is being intellectually dishonest. His basic argument is that abiogenesis is just too complex to have occurred naturally. He supports that argument by showing that his fellow scientists have been unable to make any real progress in replicating what nature has supposedly done.

This is essentially the same argument that Behe made about the human eye.

If anyone is guilty of intellectual honesty it is the people who post links without having any understanding of what the scientists' views are based on. As long as they seem to be Creos, that's a good enough.

I am ready to dtand corrected, but the lines you put in bold
look like it to me, for all that he is kinda wishy washy
about it.

 

[ecco]

The Creationists are taking over Google. I searched "scientific method testable" and this came up at the top of the list...allaboutscience.org/scientific-method.htm

Scientific Method​

You can follow tabs to "Journey" and "Creation" and find this... (my emphasis)

Age Of Earth
Age of Earth: Why Does It Matter?
"Age of Earth" is a query typed into many Internet search engines these days. Why? Because the issue is very crucial, and the entire world is divided by it. Your response to this three-word query will reflect your entire worldview.

Age of Earth: Two Worldviews
A look at the "Age of Earth" query reveals that there are really only two possible solutions as to how everything came into existence -- Creation or Evolution. Creation is the concept that Someone apart from the universe created the universe. Evolution is essentially the atheistic explanation of origins. It must be stressed that neither theory has been proven by the evidence. Both theories should be treated as "religious" beliefs, since they are both held by faith, separate and distinct from testable, repeatable data.
It is agreed that Evolution is not possible without excessive amounts of time (it is argued that even given excessive lengths of time, Evolution is not possible for various reasons). If the Earth is young, we are left with only one option -- Special Creation. If the Earth is excessively old, Evolution is theoretically possible. Obviously, it is in the best interests of Evolutionists to prove an Old Earth. And so we have the Question: "What is the Age of the Earth?"


​

I repeated the inquiry and it came up with different linked sites!

 

[Audie]

For example, wouldn't the existence of a replicating living organism be required just to even get the process of evolution and natural selection started? How is it that evolutionists will say origin of life and evolution are separate or origin is another subject irrelevant to evolution?

That does sound like a killer gotcha, but is it?
Nobody can say where / what is the bright line
distinction between "life" and "non life" or if
there even is such a line.

A very fuzzy distinctiion is all you can get.

Is a virus alive? A prion? How about a self-
replicating molecule?

All manner of complex organic molecules
self assemble under a very great variety of
conditions.

A few hundred million cubic miles of water,
a billion years, fantasticatillions of molecules
forming and breaking apart at high speed...

There are self replicating molecules.

Life beginning spontaneously is not
such a stretch.

Are you fully qualified to say the creator
of the universe is not up to the job of
making a universe that rings forth life-
and infallibly qualified to know the bible
agrees with your ideas?

Of course not. So,why not at least
toy with the idea that fallible you might
just be wrong this time?


-

 

[InChrist]

That does sound like a killer gotcha, but is it?

-

I'm not trying to have a "killer gotcha" conversation, whatever that is. If you want to discuss things with me just talk or write in a normal way. I'm just another person with thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and questions. I''m not you're opponent or enemy and I really don't care about winning a debate with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One must presume the non-existence of a god at least when it comes to the subject of the origins of the earth. If one does not make that presumption, then the following are equally viable subjects for research:

• The earth originated billions of years ago when the solar system formed out of gasses.
• The earth originated Last Thursday when a god created everything.

I don't know of any scientists researching the latter.

No, one must only presume the lack of a dishonest god. The god of LastThursdayism is one that planted false evidence, therefore a dishonest god. If any gods that exist are merely clockwork gods, as one example, then there is no way to detect them from a total lack of gods.

 

[ecco]

I'm not trying to have a "killer gotcha" conversation, whatever that is. If you want to discuss things with me just talk or write in a normal way. I'm just another person with thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and questions. I''m not you're opponent or enemy and I really don't care about winning a debate with you.

OK In plain English just respond to this one small portion of Audie's post...

where / what is the bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you going to tell me that Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin or other atheistic evolutionists do not have an assumption concerning the existence of God? Do you really think they are completely neutral? Don't they already have a priori adherence to material causes, which filters their science and cannot allow for anything other than naturalistic conclusions?

You are making the error of conflating conclusions with assumptions. They made no assumptions, they have concluded by the evidence that there is no god.

And you do not seem to understand materialism. It is not an assumption that gods cannot have an effect. There is simply the observation that there is no evidence for any gods.

Why did you dodge the last question? Do you realize now that AiG does require their workers to swear not to use the scientific method? Now you are forming a Tu Quoque fallacy to excuse the bad behavior of AiG.

 

[ecco]

No, one must only presume the lack of a dishonest god. The god of LastThursdayism is one that planted false evidence, therefore a dishonest god. If any gods that exist are merely clockwork gods, as one example, then there is no way to detect them from a total lack of gods.

A non-omniscient god may be researching the best way to establish an "everything". He tests various scenarios.

• In one test scenario, he creates an "everything" Last Thursday where "everything" looks like it was created billions of years ago (ours).
• In another test scenario he creates an "everything" where "everything" looks like it was created 6000 years ago complete with extensive evidence of a global Flood, etc.

He is not being dishonest, He is just being thorough and careful.

No scientist allows for the existence of any kind of god for any kind of reason to intrude into their research methodologies.