Creationists, Just How Strong IS Your Belief?

[Subduction Zone]

Don't be silly; my dad spanked me for stuff I didn't do all the time...

I'll spank whoever I want, for whatever I want, whenever I want. You'll come to learn this about me.

No, you merely whiffed. You may have hit yourself with the follow through but you can't spank anyone when you have nothing.

That is true if and only if they believe that the correction was correct and that their original belief was in error, but they still state the belief as if they believed it to be true. In that case, they are lying. If, however, they still believe that the belief is true and that the correction was in error, then they are still not lying when they declare their belief to be true, even if their belief is indeed false.

They do not have to believe. When one makes a claim one puts a burden of proof upon oneself. They may believe that they are right but they are still breaking the Ninth Commandment if the evidence says that they are wrong. You are making the error of thinking that the Ninth Commandment is about lying. It is not. Once again the term is "bearing false witness". One may believe their errors, but that is not an excuse if you are making a statement against another person. Tort law can be very similar. If a person makes a faulty product, and he is warned about it, it really does not matter if he believes it to be safe in a court of law. He is still liable. In the same sense a person making a false claim is liable with the Ninth, or if you are Catholic or similar branch Eighth Commandment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come at me when you have a rational, on-topic argument, and not just a bunch of unfounded insults.

I made no unfounded insults. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[InChrist]

No problem, they do so in their Statement of Faith:

Statement of Faith

In fact they make it abundantly clear here:

"

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In the sciences one cannot call the evidence wrong. One follows the evidence using the scientific method. One does not make assumptions ahead of time. By swearing to do this they are swearing not to use the scientific method. A "scientist" cannot work there without swearing to that oath.

There is nothing in that statement of faith stating that one must swear not to use the scientific method. Creationists and ID proponents use the scientific method...

"We can know ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

• 
  
• Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)
  
• Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
  
• Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.
  
• Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI. As Stephen Meyer explains:"
• https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/more_on_how_we_/

The reality is that one's foundational assumptions influence how one interprets the evidence.

"Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality1 and induction2. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias

The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”3
Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”4
So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will likely determine what conclusions are permitted to be drawn from the data. For example, if looking at the origin of life, a materialist will tend to do everything possible to avoid the conclusion that life must have been supernaturally created."
‘It’s not science’ - creation.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is nothing in that statement of faith stating that one must swear not to use the scientific method. Creationists and ID proponents use the scientific method...

Actually there is, and I quoted the part that made it obvious. With the scientific method one cannot tell the evidence which way to go. One must follow the evidence and they promise not to do that.

"We can know ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

• 
  
• Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)
  
• Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
  
• Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.
  
• Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI. As Stephen Meyer explains:"
• https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/more_on_how_we_/

The reality is that one's foundational assumptions influence how one interprets the evidence.

"Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality1 and induction2. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias

The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”3
Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”4
So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will likely determine what conclusions are permitted to be drawn from the data. For example, if looking at the origin of life, a materialist will tend to do everything possible to avoid the conclusion that life must have been supernaturally created."
‘It’s not science’ - creation.com

More bogus sources. ID has been refuted as a hypothesis. But tell me, what reasonable test could refute ID and how? If you can't answer that question it is not even a hypothesis.

 

[Axe Elf]

They do not have to believe. When one makes a claim one puts a burden of proof upon oneself. They may believe that they are right but they are still breaking the Ninth Commandment if the evidence says that they are wrong. You are making the error of thinking that the Ninth Commandment is about lying. It is not. Once again the term is "bearing false witness". One may believe their errors, but that is not an excuse if you are making a statement against another person. Tort law can be very similar. If a person makes a faulty product, and he is warned about it, it really does not matter if he believes it to be safe in a court of law. He is still liable. In the same sense a person making a false claim is liable with the Ninth, or if you are Catholic or similar branch Eighth Commandment.

It's a better effort than your previous one, I'll give you that, but I said you'd have to come at me with a rational, on-topic argument.

This one clearly is not rational, as you continue to correct me on what I've said about the Ninth Commandment, when in fact I have not said anything about the Ninth Commandment. It is also only marginally on-topic, to the extent that it discusses the moral liability of a pastor teaching creationism, but to the extent that you're still more concerned with the straw man arguments you've created about testimony against another person and now about representing faulty products in tort law cases, it is not--and it becomes even more irrational in light of those logical fallacies.

So I'm going to have to pass.

 

[InChrist]

Actually there is, and I quoted the part that made it obvious. With the scientific method one cannot tell the evidence which way to go. One must follow the evidence and they promise not to do that.


More bogus sources. ID has been refuted as a hypothesis. But tell me, what reasonable test could refute ID and how? If you can't answer that question it is not even a hypothesis.

You may think they are bogus, that's fine, but I don't. I'm really tired tonight and like I told Skwim I don't really have the time or interest to pursue an ongoing evolution/creation debate. I've been through these long drawn out discussions before and they are endless. I know what I believe and I assume you do, too. So I am happy to leave it at that. I only posted in this thread to respond to his first OP question in regard to whether or not I would suddenly believe in evolution because some creationist teacher or pastor changed their mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may think they are bogus, that's fine, but I don't. I'm really tired tonight and like I told Skwim I don't really have the time or interest to pursue an ongoing evolution/creation debate. I've been through these long drawn out discussions before and they are endless. I know what I believe and I assume you do, too. So I am happy to leave it at that. I only posted in this thread to respond to his first OP question in regard to whether or not I would suddenly believe in evolution because some creationist teacher or pastor changed their mind.

Yes, but that is because you do not know any better. But that is to be expected if you have not studied the sciences.

By the way, you have mere belief, I have knowledge. The difference is that knowledge is demonstrable. I can show why your ideas are wrong. You have to rely on sources that openly disqualify themselves. By the way, creation.com also has a statement of faith. No scientist following the scientific method would make the error of saying that evolution was right no matter what. They always depend upon evidence. Those that you follow swear that their beliefs are right no matter what and ignore the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a better effort than your previous one, I'll give you that, but I said you'd have to come at me with a rational, on-topic argument.

This one clearly is not rational, as you continue to correct me on what I've said about the Ninth Commandment, when in fact I have not said anything about the Ninth Commandment. It is also only marginally on-topic, to the extent that it discusses the moral liability of a pastor teaching creationism, but to the extent that you're still more concerned with the straw man arguments you've created about testimony against another person and now about representing faulty products in tort law cases, it is not--and it becomes even more irrational in light of those logical fallacies.

So I'm going to have to pass.

Still not following the conversation, but better. Perhaps you can learn.

 

[Skwim]

There is nothing in that statement of faith stating that one must swear not to use the scientific method. Creationists and ID proponents use the scientific method...

Just as a reminder, "ID" is nothing more than a synonym for creationism. This was embarrassing revealed in the "Of Pandas and People" evidence that came to light in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. See HERE.

Moreover, the enterprise does not adhere to the scientific method, but follows an approach still best illustrated by the following cartoon.

​

 

[Audie]

I don't want to go too far afield from the topic, after just spanking Subduction Zone for his own hijacking efforts, so let me limit my response to willful ignorance and negligence regarding creationist beliefs (as I limited my response about lying to lying about creationist beliefs).

It's kind of tough to judge what is "willful" ignorance, because it's more than just choosing to remain ignorant, when it comes to religious beliefs; sometimes it boils down to just choosing a different set of axioms. If your belief system is based on the idea that science is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data would indeed be willfully ignorant. If your belief system is based on the idea that the Word of God is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data when it is in conflict with the Bible is a reasonable (if not rational) thing to do. The "willful" choice here is not to remain ignorant, but to choose an alternative source of knowledge, to choose a mystical explanation over a physical one.

Negligence would be just not caring enough to look into the matter one way or another--and I would hope that anyone who suffers from a lack of knowledge due to negligence would at least recognize that fact and not try to speak authoritatively on something they know they don't know anything about.

(Parenthetically, I believe that if you are destined for salvation, God will reveal Himself to you at some point--hands over your ears notwithstanding--and if you are destined for destruction, He probably won't.)

So, if your ultimate source of info were to be the bible, then you would have to conclude that the value of Pi
is 3.0 would you not?

I dont have a "belief system" that says science is the best or only way. In the event, science gives probabilities, not certainties, the great majority if not all of which are simply false. This latter I say as not all religions can simultaneously be true.

Now, if one were to be gifted with inerrant reading of
an inerrant book, well, then, all is well.

Neither of those are reasonable to assume.

If one were to assume for now that the Bible is
divinely inspired, there is next to figure out what it is saying. 38000 sects all say lo here, and, lo there.

In some few cases, at least, it is possible to go to sources outside the Bible to cross reference what is
written there.

Do a bit of measuring, and you soon see that the Pi is 3.0 reading is wrong.

Do quite a bit more, and it is plain to all but the most
willfully ignorant that there simply was no world wide flood. But the story is there. What to do?

Stick to world wide flood, and look the fool? Worse,
go about proclaiming that God has committed this incredible atrocity?

I would nope too that those who knoweth not would not
try so hard to pretend they do, but my experience with, say, flood-believers is that they do pretend, and worse, make things up to suit.

Another thing that the anti-evolution / pro-flood people do is to use the most specious sort of reasoning and
the shabbiest sources of info to support their ideas.

One unintended consequence is that they in the process make all of their beliefs look equally ill founded. Why on earth would I give any credit to the spiritual assertions of someone who says the extra water from the flood was wafted to Neptune, where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels?

The Bible may in fact have merit, and God may be real.

But-

The either bible or science thing is really quite inadequate, dont you think so??

 

[Jose Fly]

It's kind of tough to judge what is "willful" ignorance, because it's more than just choosing to remain ignorant, when it comes to religious beliefs; sometimes it boils down to just choosing a different set of axioms. If your belief system is based on the idea that science is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data would indeed be willfully ignorant. If your belief system is based on the idea that the Word of God is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data when it is in conflict with the Bible is a reasonable (if not rational) thing to do. The "willful" choice here is not to remain ignorant, but to choose an alternative source of knowledge, to choose a mystical explanation over a physical one.

Negligence would be just not caring enough to look into the matter one way or another--and I would hope that anyone who suffers from a lack of knowledge due to negligence would at least recognize that fact and not try to speak authoritatively on something they know they don't know anything about.

It would be nice if it went that way most of the time. Unfortunately, as the threads in these forums attest, creationists don't typically start off by acknowledging that they are operating from a different belief regarding what's a reliable source of knowledge. Instead, they seem to like making all sorts of rather bold assertions about science, scientists, and the data, even though they know very little about them.

Of course that's usually a result of them merely parroting what they've read at some creationist website. They figure the authors of those sites are good Christians who stand up for the faith and therefore can be trusted. And if you ever spend time reading through those sites, you'll see how they're quite confident that their material is rock-solid and irrefutable. The problems arise when those arguments and talking points are quickly and easily shot down and the creationist who's parroting them has no response. After all, the creationist website didn't prepare them for that inevitable outcome.

A good example is the common creationist talking points regarding "genetic information". You can find all sorts of creationist websites that make a lot of very confident claims about evolution not being able to add to it, generate it, or increase it. But all folks like me have to do is ask "what is genetic information and how are you measuring it" and the creationist is reduced to a sputtering mess who does everything he can to dodge the question. And usually it ends with the creationist simply walking away, waiting a bit, and then eventually showing up in another thread, repeating the exact same arguments all over again as if nothing had ever happened.

So there's a bit more to this than you describe. While I appreciate your magnanimity, I would urge you to pay closer attention to how these interactions actually go down (if you're so inclined).

 

[Jose Fly]

There are huskies, German Shepherds, terriers, labs, collies, poodles, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc., etc, etc. A lot of variation and diversity in the dog kind.

I'm curious.....by what method did you determine that "dog" is a "kind"?