Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Twilight Hue]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

Evolution is already established by fact.

Creationism is not.

 

[Jabar]

Evolution is already established by fact.

Creationism is not.

Evolution is not a established fact. It is a established theory.

 

[Sapiens]

Many would argue Science is an ideology and this position is typically used by oppoents of mainstream science. Nowdays that's mainly religious groups who describe Science as an ideology "atheistic-materialism" . you also get that from other areas such as Nazis (who make the accusation of "Jewish Science") or the Soviets (who would accuse it of being "Bourgeois Science"). These are closely linked to debates regarding the neutrality of science and its relationship with politics and religion.

Those who would argue that, rarely (or perhaps never) understand science, and usually have some other ax to grind.

Peter Schuller, long-time head of the APA's Society for the Philosophical Study of Marxism backs you saying that: "Stipulated methodology can be ideological, as when, for example, it is stipulated that only empiricistically (sic) achieved responses count as valid answers or even as evidence."

I would ask you to note two things, Schuller's careful use of the conditional "can be" as opposed to the actual "is" and the fact that all he is really saying is that presuppositional thinking (in this case communist ideology) leads down the primrose path (as surely as does most theism). If you look to a dictionary definition of "ideology" (e.g., a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture; a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture the; integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program) you find it almost exclusively applied to liberal arts and social science and not to the "hard" sciences.

"Hard" science, on the other hand is better described as a method (a procedure or process for attaining an object: a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art; a systematic plan followed in presenting material for instruction; a way, technique, or process of or for doing something ; a body of skills or techniques; a discipline that deals with the principles and techniques of scientific inquiry; orderly arrangement, development, or classification; the habitual practice of orderliness and regularity).

So why the confusion? I think it is rather simple. When you play the child's game of "why, why, ... why?", it all to often dead-ends into "because I said so!" Similarly, any "method" can easily be turned into a bad case of OCD (at best) or an ideology (at worst) by a slavish and unquestioning idolatry of the practitioners of the "method" itself. Sure, it is important to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out (credited usually to Carl Sagan, but more likely the product of Walter M. Kotschnig) That can be a difficult balance.

The fact that such a view comes from opponents of mainstream science should not discredit it as a legitimate discussion within the scientific community itself. The accusation of "scientism" is the most common defence against these views which does treat science as an ideology and implicitly treating ideology as "false". This makes an error in treating objectivity and subjectivity as mutually exclusive, where "objective" is true and "subjective" is false. In practice, it's not that simple.

Yes, it is not that simple, science as "ideology" comes both from members of the scientific community, the rank and file of whom are often rather unsophisticated philosophicaly, and also from the opponents of science. Being forced to guard against "ideology" becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy is a reasonable topic of discussion within the scientific community. The problem is that the very accusation of "scientism," rightly or (more often ) wrongly, is a common gambit of those who reject science and who, in their very act of rejection are attempting (and often succeeding) in painting advocates into a corner merely by treating science as though it were an ideology with the foregone presupposition (as you observe) of treating the concept of ideology as inherently "false".

In more respectable academic circles, ...

Where might I find the less respectable academic circles?

... the history of science demonstrates dramatic changes as scientific revolutions or "paradigm shifts" in scientific thought (e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity versus newtonian mechanics) such as the view presented by the philosopher Thomas Kuhn. Philosophically, it is a legitimate debate in the philosophy of science over realism and anti-realism but is very damaging in that it has allowed a host of "reactionary" ideas to come forward and challange science based on assuming that all ideas are "equal" because people are "equal".

Here you hit on a core of the issue. I often quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts."

However, the fact that science is understood by its methods as used in the laboratory rather than its history means that typically we over-estimate the degree of scientific objectivity.

I do not agree. That may have been true at one time, but (as you suggest) the paradigm has shifted. The greatest rewards go to the scientists who are able to challenge the most widely held views.

It's only when we take a long view that we can start to see major shifts in scientific reasoning. It should be taken implicitly that I'm using "ideology" to mean ideas in general rather than specifically false ideas. I'm of the view that Science is an ideology because it is inescapably a product of philosophical reasoning about the properties of nature and knowledge, but has better methods for demonstrating its views than the alternatives. I'm still on the side of evolution, but recognise that it's the historical product of alot of philosophical controversies as well as scientific ones.

I would argue that science has reached escape velocity and (in most part) left it roots behind. The availability of various data logging and number crunching devices has shifted the focus of modern science to big data, exploratory data analysis, and comfort rather than confusion in stochastic processes. This has resulted in a major change in grade, the evolution (if you will) of a new form of science since the 1960s.

Science is a methodology, not an ideology or belief system.
Creationism is based on faith, evolution on evidence.

So true, so true.

I agree that many people do blindly follow either scientists or religious leaders without examining the facts for themselves. Belief in evolution is an act of faith, IMO, and often an act of blind faith. On the other hand, many believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago in six 24-hour days, simply because their religious leaders tell them to. Both beliefs are accepted without convincing evidence, IMO.

Does that mean that both views should be viewed as having equal standing? We've already addressed (and dismissed) that concept. If is a logical fallacy know as a "false equivalence". Similarly, it does not matter what the motivation is, blindly following or eyes wide open ... the motivation measured against the evidence is a reflection on the abilities of the "followers" not on the "truth" of the issue. An argument from authority is only a logical fallacy when the authority cited is outside of their area of expertise.

Correct rusra02, Belief in evolution is an act of faith. The evolution is a theory that I can claim most evolutionists have very limited knowledge of but yet they accept it not as a theory but as a fact. I consider that an act of faith

No. evolution is a demonstrated theory (in science that's above a "law"). There is no belief required. It may be that "most evolutionists have very limited knowledge" but that has no effect on evolution's observable evidence. You're just playing with a rather rotten red herring,

sapiens, it appears that you are limiting the subject to your case? I said people. Don't you know or agree that most people are not scientists (like you). I am not a scientist my self but as a scientist don't you need enough knowledge about a subject to be able to make a sound judgment. Do you have theology knowledge? I simply say that most people ( including my self) neither have complete science nor theology knowledge and equally follow the evolution or creationism as an act of faith.

I guess, but then most of the people I know are (or were) scientists. The most important thing is not "enough knowledge" but rather, it is sound judgment, something that is independent of the amount of knowledge or the data. To a degree, you can trade judgment and knowledge off against each other. Do I have theology "knowledge"? Yes, enough to have decided that theology is and more an accidental "jimmying" of the lock than a key to a body of knowledge. I think that religion is the predictable result of an Evolutionary Stable Solution, nothing more (and nothing less). This is the so-called "God Gene Hypothesis."

It is necessary to explain why religions exist at every stage of the development of human societies, all over the world. It is important to recognize that these religions are often in contradiction to one another. Religion appears to be an evolved behavior. It exists, not because there is a god, but because of natural selection. It exists, as described above because it evolved prior to Homo sapiens ssp. moving out of Africa, providing early humans and their offspring with, "increased access to the gene pool of succeeding generations." I would never suggest that religion was, in its day, useless ... just that it is time, in human development to recognize childhood's end.

 

[Sapiens]

Nicholas Wade (writing in the New York Time' Week in Review) observes that: "... it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.

But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods. For believers, if one accepts that evolution has shaped the human body, why not the mind too? What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned."

Here I part company with Wade. If there were, in fact, a supernatural guiding hand behind this religious predisposition, then why the many, many, many different belief systems?

The drive to "have a religion" is now genetically programmed, but overcomeable, like so may inherited behaviors. It served mankind well in the days of the hunter-gatherers when urban cultures developed the power elites turned humans' genetic programming against the population, solidifying their power over the masses as priests or living gods.

 

[NoorNoor]

"Creationism vs Evolution" is typically misunderstood as "Creationism vs Science" which is false. Creationism does not reject science but rejects the specific claim (or belief) that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific fact that successfully explains the origins of live. The evolution theory encompasses a large body of theories/knowledge. Some of it would have scientific merits but as a whole it's a theory that has serious scientific challenges and can not be scientifically considered as a fact. I am not a scientist. Don't take my word for it. Search it. I am only explaining Creationism perspective with respect to evolution and science

 

[Valjean]

"Creationism vs Evolution" is typically misunderstood as "Creationism vs Science" which is false. Creationism does not reject science but rejects the specific claim (or belief) that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific fact that successfully explains the origins of live. The evolution theory encompasses a large body of theories/knowledge. Some of it would have scientific merits but as a whole it's a theory that has serious scientific challenges and can not be scientifically considered as a fact. I am not a scientist. Don't take my word for it. Search it. I am only explaining Creationism perspective with respect to evolution and science

When did the ToE ever claim to explain the origins of life?
What are some of these "serious scientific challenges?"

 

[NoorNoor]

I assume you are an evolutionist! I am sure you know about evolution more than me and you can search the subject but the following are some examples for your review


http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/



http://www.discovery.org/a/2230



http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php



http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t001981.html



http://ncse.com/cej/16/review-michael-behes-darwins-black-box



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html



http://www.futures.hawaii.edu/publications/half-fried-ideas/J1/huston.pdf

 

[Parsimony]

WOW - just WOW!

The statement was addressed specifically to the part where he says that people who accept evolution do so as an act of faith. I will admit that the way I quoted it could have been done better.

 

[Sapiens]

"Creationism vs Evolution" is typically misunderstood as "Creationism vs Science" which is false.

What makes you think that's false? Last time I checked all of science is arrayed in support of evolution and against creationism .

Creationism does not reject science but rejects the specific claim (or belief) that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific fact that successfully explains the origins of live.

Double speak horse pucky, creationism rejects science in many ways, including many of the evidences presented is support of evolution such as radiometric dating. BTW: the origin of life (abiogenesis) has no connection to the TOE. What makes you think that it does?

The evolution theory encompasses a large body of theories/knowledge.

No. The TOE is a small body of theory: that there is a change in gene frequency over time as a result of natural selection. That's it.

Some of it would have scientific merits but as a whole it's a theory that has serious scientific challenges

There are no serious challenges to the TOE from the scientific community, just as there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism.

and can not be scientifically considered as a fact.

there are no "facts" only probabilities. The TOE is the most probable.

I am not a scientist.
[

Really?

Don't take my word for it.

Why, you admit to knowing nothing about the field.

Search it.

I have.

I am only explaining Creationism perspective with respect to evolution and science

Your explanations are clear, but your case is without merit.

 

[Sapiens]

I assume you are an evolutionist! I am sure you know about evolution more than me and you can search the subject but the following are some examples for your review

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ - a chemist with no background in biology or training in evolution. Despite that he says, "he remained open-minded about evolution. He was quoted as saying "I respect that work" and being open to the possibility that future research will complete the explanations."

http://www.discovery.org/a/2230 - Discovery Institute rag.

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php - a report from the Discovery Institute on it's "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" that fails to note that it was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields so it should be more properly said that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution.


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t001981.html - yet more bumph from the Discovery Institute that fails to note other discrepancies such as lying about academic affiliations of signatories.


http://ncse.com/cej/16/review-michael-behes-darwins-black-box - a review of Michael Behe's book that reads (in part): "Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us" that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor.""

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html - a debunking of the Discovery Institue case.

http://www.futures.hawaii.edu/publications/half-fried-ideas/J1/huston.pdf - unpublished and IMHO unpublishable rantings of a political science teacher who doesn't know jack about evolution.

Reviewed in detail and reject as propagandistic horse puckey (except for the talk origins piece and book review that I suspect you did not read).

 

[Laika]

Thanks for your well thought out response.

Those who would argue that, rarely (or perhaps never) understand science, and usually have some other ax to grind.

Peter Schuller, long-time head of the APA's Society for the Philosophical Study of Marxism backs you saying that: "Stipulated methodology can be ideological, as when, for example, it is stipulated that only empiricistically (sic) achieved responses count as valid answers or even as evidence."

I would ask you to note two things, Schuller's careful use of the conditional "can be" as opposed to the actual "is" and the fact that all he is really saying is that presuppositional thinking (in this case communist ideology) leads down the primrose path (as surely as does most theism). If you look to a dictionary definition of "ideology" (e.g., a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture; a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture the; integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program) you find it almost exclusively applied to liberal arts and social science and not to the "hard" sciences.

"Hard" science, on the other hand is better described as a method (a procedure or process for attaining an object: a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art; a systematic plan followed in presenting material for instruction; a way, technique, or process of or for doing something ; a body of skills or techniques; a discipline that deals with the principles and techniques of scientific inquiry; orderly arrangement, development, or classification; the habitual practice of orderliness and regularity).

So why the confusion? I think it is rather simple. When you play the child's game of "why, why, ... why?", it all to often dead-ends into "because I said so!" Similarly, any "method" can easily be turned into a bad case of OCD (at best) or an ideology (at worst) by a slavish and unquestioning idolatry of the practitioners of the "method" itself. Sure, it is important to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out (credited usually to Carl Sagan, but more likely the product of Walter M. Kotschnig) That can be a difficult balance.

In Marxist ideology there is a split between the Western Marxists who treat Science as non-ideological, and (Soviet) Marxist-Leninists of the Eastern Bloc who would treat it as ideological. its part of much deeper differences in ideology.

I'm undecided on it because treating the "Hard" Sciences as ideological was open to abuse (as with Lysenko and the surpression of Genetics) but also because of the dogmatic nature of materialism as a basis for a philosophy of science. On the subject of Lysenko, whilst it was clearly an abuse of science, it represented an attempted resolution of the older debate about whether traits can be inherited or not going back to the conflict between Mandellian and Lemarckian theories of inheritence. Philosophically, it's "intresting" even when its wrong.

However, the Soviets had a legitimate point to be made that a theory of knowledge presumes the existence of the mind and very little else. attributing materialism as dogma requires a belief in free thought, and a belief in free will that we can "chose" our ideas. rejecting the possibility of scientific enquiry in areas such as the social sciences assumes philosophical agnosticism of the impossibility of knowledge of the mind, of free will and therefore of people and society. the argument of scientism is a premise, not a conclusion. Karl poppers efforts to demarcate science based on the criteria of "falsifiability" are very much politically motivated attacks on totalitarian ideologies and their intrusions into the social sciences (and the "hard"/natural sciences). His arguments are accepted on grounds of political convinence and of an appeal to "commonsense" treatment of statements as either "true" or "false" but are not a reflection of the scientific method whether the truth of a theory is measured more by degrees of correspondance to the evidence rather than in absolute terms.

The most interesting part of the philosophical struggles in Soviet science was over physics and cosmology. They were averse to accepting the concepto of the "Big Bang" or of a finite universe with finite time and space, because this opened the door to "creationism" because it left the origins of the universe unexplained. More over, they criticised the indeterminism of quantum mechanics as projecting "free will" onto atomic particles (much the same way Einstein criticised Bohr with the phrase "god doesn't play dice" but minus the god part). They also had a deep scepticism of using mathamatics because the believed truth was not a product of abstract reasoning alone but had to be developed by demonstrating the correspondance of our ideas with objective reality. Cosmology legitimately throughs up many of these questions because of the degree of abstraction involved and the scales of time and space that are being studied. What works for everyday purposes doesn't work for the extreme ends of the spectrum- both the (possibly) "infinite" Cosmological questions as well as at the Qauntum Level- bringing into question the relationship between philosophy and the scientific method.

I more than readily admit to not being a scientist, but I find these arguments compelling (admittedly with an ideological axe to grind) and also fits in with the history of science (even if I am not informed enough to state that it reflects the content of the scientific areas it is describing- which is a fatal weakness).

Yes, it is not that simple, science as "ideology" comes both from members of the scientific community, the rank and file of whom are often rather unsophisticated philosophicaly, and also from the opponents of science. Being forced to guard against "ideology" becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy is a reasonable topic of discussion within the scientific community. The problem is that the very accusation of "scientism," rightly or (more often ) wrongly, is a common gambit of those who reject science and who, in their very act of rejection are attempting (and often succeeding) in painting advocates into a corner merely by treating science as though it were an ideology with the foregone presupposition (as you observe) of treating the concept of ideology as inherently "false".

(Soviet) Marxist discussions of ideology did not treat ideology as being identical with falsehoods. There were questions that ideology could contain a set of illusions but these were ultimately still derived from a "material" source and were projections of humanity's relationships with nature and within society. The easiest to grasp is the way in which a monotheistic religion can reflect a feudal heirarchy.

With regards Scientism specifically, Science is a long-term product of many philosophical discussions that go back to when science and religion where still in step with one another (Natural Theology) and only began to be seperated in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment (into Natural Philosophy). It was only at the begining of the 20th century that Science lost it's philosophical aspects and became "Natural Science". Marxists argued that this was not a reflection of the end of philosophical enquiry in science but a reflection of the professionalisation and institutionalisation of science which made it neccessary to have a "settled" method of investigation. many of the same philosophical problems continue to affect science (as I tried to show above) but the anti-philosophical nature of an institutional environment and the "ideology" that is the product of it means its hard to ask these sorts of questions because science and philosophy are treated as seperate disciplines and bodies of knowledge.

Where might I find the less respectable academic circles?

pick any university under the influence of Nazi or Soviet ideology. North Korea's universities would be a contemporary example.

Here you hit on a core of the issue. I often quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts."
I do not agree. That may have been true at one time, but (as you suggest) the paradigm has shifted. The greatest rewards go to the scientists who are able to challenge the most widely held views.

...

I would argue that science has reached escape velocity and (in most part) left it roots behind. The availability of various data logging and number crunching devices has shifted the focus of modern science to big data, exploratory data analysis, and comfort rather than confusion in stochastic processes. This has resulted in a major change in grade, the evolution (if you will) of a new form of science since the 1960s.

This is where we differ. The question is ultimately is whether paradigm shifts are a necessary outcome of over-coming "false" ideas or whether they are an intrinsic qualitity in human intellectual (and therefore scientific) development. Now it is certainly true that Science has evolved considerably since the 19th century and that there is alot of new information avaliable to scientists, but if anything the breakdown of the certainties in Newtonian Physics undermined virtually all forms of scientific enquiry by challaging the laws of causality and moving from a deterministic universe governed by objective laws to an indeterministic universe governed by probabilities of certian outcomes. (logically) that does not simply affect physics but affects our understanding of all natural phenomona. this affects how we percieve the limits of scientific knowledge because it pushes the scope of science back from the views of the enlightenment that all things can be understood scientifically as part of nature and allows pseudoscientific views (such as my own) the space to thrive.

(If you may forgive such a blanket statement coming from a non-scientist) the shift towards Big Data is the surest gaurentee of a stagnation of scientific thought as the emphasis shifts away from observation and more towards abstractions which may or may not correspond to an actually existing process. Computers enhance our ability to compute data but that is not the same as demonstrating a difference between conicidence and causality which can only be achieved by observation. The strength of mathamatics goes back to Issac Newton who took observations and invented calculus to explain them- it doesn't work the other way round of taking mathamatical forumulas and inferring hypothetical properties such as "dark energy" or "dark matter" without having the observations to prove it.

In the social sciences the phrase "You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts" could be understood differently because there is nothing to say that opinions and facts as aspects of the mind are mutually exclusive. In that sense, both are ideological. it is however the case that "facts" can be demonstrated to correspond to phenemonea in practice by repeated demonstration of the existence of natural laws, both in the laboratory and in the technological and economic application of these natural laws. opinions cannot cliam that distinction.

 

[NoorNoor]

NoorNoor said: ↑
"Creationism vs Evolution" is typically misunderstood as "Creationism vs Science" which is false.
What makes you think that's false? Last time I checked all of science is arrayed in support of evolution and against creationism.

Do you know that Science is not limited only to the theory of evolution? Creationism acknowledges science but rejects only the false claim of the revolution as a scientific fact.

NoorNoor said: ↑
Creationism does not reject science but rejects the specific claim (or belief) that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific fact that successfully explains the origins of live.
Double speak horse pucky, creationism rejects science in many ways, including many of the evidences presented is support of evolution such as radiometric dating. BTW: the origin of life (abiogenesis) has no connection to the TOE. What makes you think that it does?

see above. I think your understanding of creationism is different than mine. I am referring to creationism specifically with respect to "intelligent design" vs evolution.
the evolution claim that all life on earth shares a common ancestor that all life is descended from. I consider that the origin of life or origin of species

NoorNoor said: ↑
The evolution theory encompasses a large body of theories/knowledge.
No. The TOE is a small body of theory: that there is a change in gene frequency over time as a result of natural selection. That's it.

I understand The modern evolutionary synthesis integrated genetics and other knowledge from several fields of biology with Darwin's original theory

NoorNoor said: ↑
Some of it would have scientific merits but as a whole it's a theory that has serious scientific challenges
There are no serious challenges to the TOE from the scientific community, just as there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism.

could be your scientific community not the scientific community as a whole. the challenges do exist. there are scientific evidence for intelligent design. search it.

NoorNoor said: ↑
and can not be scientifically considered as a fact.
there are no "facts" only probabilities. The TOE is the most probable.

I agree that the evolution is a theory not a fact but that doesn't mean all scientific facts are probabilities!!

NoorNoor said: ↑
I am not a scientist.
[
Really?

no I am not and starting to think that you are not either.

NoorNoor said: ↑
Don't take my word for it.
Why, you admit to knowing nothing about the field.

I know enough, similar to your knowledge about theology. but its not realty about the details but about the overall concept.

NoorNoor said: ↑
Search it.
I have.

good, you would have seen the challenges to the theory.

NoorNoor said: ↑
I am only explaining Creationism perspective with respect to evolution and science
Your explanations are clear, but your case is without merit.

your opinion. I don't agree with it but nonetheless respect it.

 

[Skwim]

Of course evolution and creationism are the same. How else can you explain the fact that both have

An "e" in them, evolution - creationism
An "i" .in them, evolution - creationism
An "o" in them, evolution - creationism
And whereas "evolution" has a "u," "creationism" doesn't, BUT whereas "creationism" has an "a," "evolution" does not ! ! ! !
​

These similarities are... just... too... coincidental to not conclude that

.​

​

 

[Sapiens]

Thanks for your well thought out response.



In Marxist ideology there is a split between the Western Marxists who treat Science as non-ideological, and (Soviet) Marxist-Leninists of the Eastern Bloc who would treat it as ideological. its part of much deeper differences in ideology.

Who cares? Russian science failed.

I'm undecided on it because treating the "Hard" Sciences as ideological was open to abuse (as with Lysenko and the surpression of Genetics) but also because of the dogmatic nature of materialism as a basis for a philosophy of science. On the subject of Lysenko, whilst it was clearly an abuse of science, it represented an attempted resolution of the older debate about whether traits can be inherited or not going back to the conflict between Mandellian and Lemarckian theories of inheritence. Philosophically, it's "intresting" even when its wrong.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Materialism is not dogmatic, per se, the Russian hierarchy was, it is a basic trait of the Russian psyche. Lysenko was a greedy egotistical poltician who pulled the wool over Stalin (another of the same). You're overanalyzing and giving him way too much credit.

However, the Soviets had a legitimate point to be made that a theory of knowledge presumes the existence of the mind and very little else. attributing materialism as dogma requires a belief in free thought, and a belief in free will that we can "chose" our ideas. rejecting the possibility of scientific enquiry in areas such as the social sciences assumes philosophical agnosticism of the impossibility of knowledge of the mind, of free will and therefore of people and society. the argument of scientism is a premise, not a conclusion. Karl poppers efforts to demarcate science based on the criteria of "falsifiability" are very much politically motivated attacks on totalitarian ideologies and their intrusions into the social sciences (and the "hard"/natural sciences). His arguments are accepted on grounds of political convinence and of an appeal to "commonsense" treatment of statements as either "true" or "false" but are not a reflection of the scientific method whether the truth of a theory is measured more by degrees of correspondance to the evidence rather than in absolute terms.

"Philosophers of Science" overthink and by and large waste everyone's time and try most scientists patience. Such discussions are fine in the late evening with a bottle of single malt, but carrying them much further ... no way. Basic science is easy, you watch and think, you get a hunch, you take some relatively careless data and do a quick ANOVA to identify the important variable, now you carefully design an experiment to test those variables. Perform the experiment, Take the data. Analyze. Write, Publish.

I more than readily admit to not being a scientist, but I find these arguments compelling (admittedly with an ideological axe to grind) and also fits in with the history of science (even if I am not informed enough to state that it reflects the content of the scientific areas it is describing- which is a fatal weakness).

I am a scientist and I find that boring as hell.

(Soviet) Marxist discussions of ideology did not treat ideology as being identical with falsehoods. There were questions that ideology could contain a set of illusions but these were ultimately still derived from a "material" source and were projections of humanity's relationships with nature and within society. The easiest to grasp is the way in which a monotheistic religion can reflect a feudal heirarchy.

A friend of mine had risen higher than he should have without a Ph.D. Because he was supplying funds that supported a Soviet research vessel and initial sample sorting he was able to get a Ph.D. from Moscow State with nothing more than a thesis (expanded from previous publications he had). They even waived the normally required Defense of Marxism. That's typical of how soviet science was conducted. They paid lip service to the sort of ideological discussions you're attempting. They did not (do not) care, but rather repeated the party line by rote.

With regards Scientism specifically, Science is a long-term product of many philosophical discussions that go back to when science and religion where still in step with one another (Natural Theology) and only began to be seperated in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment (into Natural Philosophy). It was only at the begining of the 20th century that Science lost it's philosophical aspects and became "Natural Science".

Actually, I'd date that to Darwin.

Marxists argued that this was not a reflection of the end of philosophical enquiry in science but a reflection of the professionalisation and institutionalisation of science which made it neccessary to have a "settled" method of investigation. many of the same philosophical problems continue to affect science (as I tried to show above) but the anti-philosophical nature of an institutional environment and the "ideology" that is the product of it means its hard to ask these sorts of questions because science and philosophy are treated as seperate disciplines and bodies of knowledge. pick any university under the influence of Nazi or Soviet ideology. North Korea's universities would be a contemporary example.

So what? The soviets failed. Western science was quite different. I had enough undergrad credits for a degree in philosophy as well as zoology, I enjoyed both sides of the coin. My scientific colleagues and teachers were far more willing to engage me on philosophical grounds than the folks in the philosophy department were to put up with my scientism .

This is where we differ. The question is ultimately is whether paradigm shifts are a necessary outcome of over-coming "false" ideas or whether they are an intrinsic qualitity in human intellectual (and therefore scientific) development.

My view is the former, paradigm shifts are a necessary outcome of overcoming "false" ideas, though I put it more in terms of learning from successes and failures.

Now it is certainly true that Science has evolved considerably since the 19th century and that there is alot of new information avaliable to scientists, but if anything the breakdown of the certainties in Newtonian Physics undermined virtually all forms of scientific enquiry by challaging the laws of causality and moving from a deterministic universe governed by objective laws to an indeterministic universe governed by probabilities of certian outcomes. (logically) that does not simply affect physics but affects our understanding of all natural phenomona. this affects how we percieve the limits of scientific knowledge because it pushes the scope of science back from the views of the enlightenment that all things can be understood scientifically as part of nature and allows pseudoscientific views (such as my own) the space to thrive.

Again, you assume facts no in evidence. I suspect that in the end there will be an insight that will alloy determinism to quantum theory. My Major Professor (and I , by descent) was a pioneer in the application of stochastic models to formally wholly deterministic ones. We made that transition neatly I suspect the next transition will be larger, but not particularly messy. I suspect that it will be more like the Einsteinian corrections we make to Newtonian physics than a massive overturning of the very foundations of how we see the universe.

(If you may forgive such a blanket statement coming from a non-scientist) the shift towards Big Data is the surest gaurentee of a stagnation of scientific thought as the emphasis shifts away from observation and more towards abstractions which may or may not correspond to an actually existing process. Computers enhance our ability to compute data but that is not the same as demonstrating a difference between conicidence and causality which can only be achieved by observation. The strength of mathamatics goes back to Issac Newton who took observations and invented calculus to explain them- it doesn't work the other way round of taking mathamatical forumulas and inferring hypothetical properties such as "dark energy" or "dark matter" without having the observations to prove it.

I can forgive your ignorance of the subject but not your willingness to bloviate despite your admission of such ignorance. My honors theses was based on perhaps a hundred observations of the feeding behavior of Brants Cormorant. My Master's thesis was based on about 1,000 observations of the behavior of Antillean fish traps (made possible by automation in data collection and hand analysis. My doctoral thesis featured over a million data points, collected by automatic devices and analyzed by computer. The tools changed the tasks and the expectation. Don't go out to fell a tree with a stone ax when you've got a chainsaw ... just remember you need to undercut in exactly the same to drop it in the perfect spot.

In the social sciences the phrase "You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts" could be understood differently because there is nothing to say that opinions and facts as aspects of the mind are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps that's why many social scientists are held in, shall we say, mild contempt by "real" scientists? There is a social psychologist that I think the world of. Why? Because she's a world-class statistician and expert on Markoff processes. She brings to that benighted field a breath of fresh air and a ray of sunshine (and I could never have analyzed my doctoral data without her advice).

In that sense, both are ideological. it is however the case that "facts" can be demonstrated to correspond to phenemonea in practice by repeated demonstration of the existence of natural laws, both in the laboratory and in the technological and economic application of these natural laws. opinions cannot cliam that distinction.

That is why you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts

 

[Sapiens]

"Creationism vs Evolution" is typically misunderstood as "Creationism vs Science" which is false.
What makes you think that's false? Last time I checked all of science is arrayed in support of evolution and against creationism.

Do you know that Science is not limited only to the theory of evolution? Creationism acknowledges science but rejects only the false claim of the revolution as a scientific fact.

I know that there is lots more to science than the TOE, but none of biological science makes sense without the TOE.

It is not a Chinese restaurant where you get one from column A and two from column B.

NoorNoor said: ↑
Creationism does not reject science but rejects the specific claim (or belief) that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific fact that successfully explains the origins of live.
Double speak horse pucky, creationism rejects science in many ways, including many of the evidences presented is support of evolution such as radiometric dating. BTW: the origin of life (abiogenesis) has no connection to the TOE. What makes you think that it does?
see above. I think your understanding of creationism is different than mine. I am referring to creationism specifically with respect to "intelligent design" vs evolution.
the evolution claim that all life on earth shares a common ancestor that all life is descended from. I consider that the origin of life or origin of species

See above. I have a complete understanding of creationism in all its flavors, took an hour or so to master. Common ancestry is easily seen by anyone with a background in genome analysis.

NoorNoor said: ↑
The evolution theory encompasses a large body of theories/knowledge.
No. The TOE is a small body of theory: that there is a change in gene frequency over time as a result of natural selection. That's it.

I understand The modern evolutionary synthesis integrated genetics and other knowledge from several fields of biology with Darwin's original theory

That is supporting evidence, but not the TOE. Darwin's orginal "Descent with modification" needs no further embellishment.

NoorNoor said: ↑
Some of it would have scientific merits but as a whole it's a theory that has serious scientific challenges
There are no serious challenges to the TOE from the scientific community, just as there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism.

could be your scientific community not the scientific community as a whole. the challenges do exist. there are scientific evidence for intelligent design. search it.

Actually, that's false. It has some laughable "challenges."

NoorNoor said: ↑
and can not be scientifically considered as a fact.
there are no "facts" only probabilities. The TOE is the most probable.
I agree that the evolution is a theory not a fact but that doesn't mean all scientific facts are probabilities!!

There is no such thing as a scientific "fact" only "most probable." But if there were, theh TOE would high onn the list of things so likely to be true that they are elvated to the status of fact.

NoorNoor said: ↑
I am not a scientist.

Really?
no I am not and starting to think that you are not either.

Really? Perhaps that's just a reflection on your ability to interpret science.

NoorNoor said: ↑
Don't take my word for it.
Why, you admit to knowing nothing about the field.
I know enough, similar to your knowledge about theology. but its not realty about the details but about the overall concept.

I'd say that your own admission and your performance both impeach your knowledge, as pointed out above. My knowledge of theology speaks for itself, but since no support is ever offered for creationism that requires my exercising it, that is an irrelvancy here and should be considered an ad hominum.

NoorNoor said: ↑
Search it.
I have.

good, you would have seen the challenges to the theory.

No, I've yet to see an effective challenge to the TOE.

NoorNoor said: ↑
I am only explaining Creationism perspective with respect to evolution and science
Your explanations are clear, but your case is without merit.

your opinion. I don't agree with it but nonetheless respect it.

That'a nice, but your case remains with any more merit that it had before I began this post.[/QUOTE]

P.S. Please learn to use the "quote" feature, your posts are a pain to deal with.

 

[Laika]

Who cares? Russian science failed.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Materialism is not dogmatic, per se, the Russian hierarchy was, it is a basic trait of the Russian psyche. Lysenko was a greedy egotistical poltician who pulled the wool over Stalin (another of the same). You're overanalyzing and giving him way too much credit.

"Philosophers of Science" overthink and by and large waste everyone's time and try most scientists patience. Such discussions are fine in the late evening with a bottle of single malt, but carrying them much further ... no way. Basic science is easy, you watch and think, you get a hunch, you take some relatively careless data and do a quick ANOVA to identify the important variable, now you carefully design an experiment to test those variables. Perform the experiment, Take the data. Analyze. Write, Publish.
I am a scientist and I find that boring as hell.
A friend of mine had risen higher than he should have without a Ph.D. Because he was supplying funds that supported a Soviet research vessel and initial sample sorting he was able to get a Ph.D. from Moscow State with nothing more than a thesis (expanded from previous publications he had). They even waived the normally required Defense of Marxism. That's typical of how soviet science was conducted. They paid lip service to the sort of ideological discussions you're attempting. They did not (do not) care, but rather repeated the party line by rote.

Actually, I'd date that to Darwin.
So what? The soviets failed. Western science was quite different. I had enough undergrad credits for a degree in philosophy as well as zoology, I enjoyed both sides of the coin. My scientific colleagues and teachers were far more willing to engage me on philosophical grounds than the folks in the philosophy department were to put up with my scientism .

My view is the former, paradigm shifts are a necessary outcome of overcoming "false" ideas, though I put it more in terms of learning from successes and failures.

Again, you assume facts no in evidence. I suspect that in the end there will be an insight that will alloy determinism to quantum theory. My Major Professor (and I , by descent) was a pioneer in the application of stochastic models to formally wholly deterministic ones. We made that transition neatly I suspect the next transition will be larger, but not particularly messy. I suspect that it will be more like the Einsteinian corrections we make to Newtonian physics than a massive overturning of the very foundations of how we see the universe.

I can forgive your ignorance of the subject but not your willingness to bloviate despite your admission of such ignorance. My honors theses was based on perhaps a hundred observations of the feeding behavior of Brants Cormorant. My Master's thesis was based on about 1,000 observations of the behavior of Antillean fish traps (made possible by automation in data collection and hand analysis. My doctoral thesis featured over a million data points, collected by automatic devices and analyzed by computer. The tools changed the tasks and the expectation. Don't go out to fell a tree with a stone ax when you've got a chainsaw ... just remember you need to undercut in exactly the same to drop it in the perfect spot.
Perhaps that's why many social scientists are held in, shall we say, mild contempt by "real" scientists? There is a social psychologist that I think the world of. Why? Because she's a world-class statistician and expert on Markoff processes. She brings to that benighted field a breath of fresh air and a ray of sunshine (and I could never have analyzed my doctoral data without her advice).

That is why you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts

Well, I think to be honest your making a fairly sweeping statement by saying "Soviet Science failed". This doesn't take into account the numerous scientific contriubtions made by Soviet scientists that continue to have an effect on the west.

Whilst he didn't gain acceptence in the Soviet establishment Alexander Freidmann made an important contributions to Cosmology through the Freidmann equations (and became part of the Freidmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Metric because these individuals worked simultaneously on solutions to Einstein's field equations).

Nor can the West cliam that the contriubtions made on a theoretical level by Alexander Oprain to the concept of primordial soup as part of the process abiogensis to explain the origins of life from inorganic matter, can merely be dismissed because it was confirmed in the west in the Miller-Urey experiment. Whilst Friedmann's arguments aren't in line with most Soviet science, Oparin's is.

Generally, speaking Soviet Science was very successful (but not enough). An argument can be made that was "inspite" of political interference but that is a nauanced view still subject to debate. It is evident that the Scientists could still achieve great strides in their early achievements in the Space Race with the First Satillite (Sputnik), Man in Orbit, Women in Orbit etc. Now, sure- they didn't win the "Space Race" and achieve the both the scientific and symbolic victory of putting a man on the moon (they still got the a lunar rover there though) but that is hardly a "failure" when you look at the evidence.

 

[Valjean]

"Creationism vs Evolution" is typically misunderstood as "Creationism vs Science" which is false. Creationism does not reject science but rejects the specific claim (or belief) that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific fact that successfully explains the origins of live. The evolution theory encompasses a large body of theories/knowledge. Some of it would have scientific merits but as a whole it's a theory that has serious scientific challenges and can not be scientifically considered as a fact. I am not a scientist. Don't take my word for it. Search it. I am only explaining Creationism perspective with respect to evolution and science

The origin of life is outside the scope of evolution theory, NoorNoor. The origins are not covered by the ToE. That's a separate discipline.
You say the ToE has serious scientific challenges. What are these challenges? Your links in post #27 are propaganda, unsupported, or distortions by religious ideologues.
Most "scientists" challenging the ToE are religious nutters, sellouts to corporate interests, or trained in unrelated disciplines.

Sapiens said: ↑
there are no "facts" only probabilities. The TOE is the most probable.

How are you defining "fact," Sapiens?
Outside mathematics, aren't facts just well supported probabilities? Is germ theory a fact, or Copernicanism? Aren't these scientific facts also theories?

NoorNoor said: ↑
I agree that the evolution is a theory not a fact but that doesn't mean all scientific facts are probabilities!!

Evolution is a theory and a fact -- the two aren't incompatible.

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution is not a established fact. It is a established theory.

Which for all practical purposes is much the same thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Creationism vs Evolution" is typically misunderstood as "Creationism vs Science" which is false.

It is not the same thing, but only because science includes evolution as opposed to being exactly the same.

Creationism does not reject science but rejects the specific claim (or belief) that the theory of evolution is a solid scientific fact that successfully explains the origins of live.

That is doubly inaccurate. The ToE does not (yet) go beyond attempting to explain the origin of life. Nor is it really possible to reject what it actually is without disregarding science. Not for decades now. The facts are what they are.

In that sense, the whole reason for being of Creationism (as it is usually defined) is indeed to attempt to deny science.

The evolution theory encompasses a large body of theories/knowledge. Some of it would have scientific merits but as a whole it's a theory that has serious scientific challenges

Actually, no, that is not even remotely true.

There is plenty of propaganda claiming that evolutionism is "facing serious challenges". it is all, at best, misinformed.

Unless we are talking about public acceptance in the USA and the Muslim world as opposed the the scientific merits and the facts proper, that is.

and can not be scientifically considered as a fact.

To the extent that there is such a thing as a scientific fact, it actually can, is and must.

I am not a scientist. Don't take my word for it. Search it. I am only explaining Creationism perspective with respect to evolution and science

Sorry, but that is the thing, Noor. There is in fact nothing for Creationism beyond the dire need of many to attempt to deny the well-proven theory of evolution.

It is a crying shame really.

 

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

I know that there is lots more to science than the TOE, but none of biological science makes sense without the TOE.

It is not a Chinese restaurant where you get one from column A and two from column B.

See above. I have a complete understanding of creationism in all its flavors, took an hour or so to master. Common ancestry is easily seen by anyone with a background in genome analysis.

That is supporting evidence, but not the TOE. Darwin's orginal "Descent with modification" needs no further embellishment.

Actually, that's false. It has some laughable "challenges."

There is no such thing as a scientific "fact" only "most probable." But if there were, theh TOE would high onn the list of things so likely to be true that they are elvated to the status of fact.

Really? Perhaps that's just a reflection on your ability to interpret science.

I'd say that your own admission and your performance both impeach your knowledge, as pointed out above. My knowledge of theology speaks for itself, but since no support is ever offered for creationism that requires my exercising it, that is an irrelvancy here and should be considered an ad hominum.

No, I've yet to see an effective challenge to the TOE.

That'a nice, but your case remains with any more merit that it had before I began this post.

P.S. Please learn to use the "quote" feature, your posts are a pain to deal with.[/QUOTE]



Sapiens,

Briefly taking a side street relative to Creationism, and you being a scientist, have fossils or any type of remains of the following biblical anomalies shown below ever been found to support Creationism? Especially since these creatures were only created 6000 years ago relative to the chronological order of Jesus back to Adam being approximately 4000 years (Luke 3: 23-38), and hence approximately 2016 years to today?

SATYRS: “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and Satyrs shall dance there.” (Isaiah 13:21) For the pseudo-christian ignorant, a Satyr is an animal that is half goat, and half man!

FOUR-FOOTED INSECTS: "'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you.” (Leviticus 11:20)

A COCKATRICE: “Rejoice not thou, whole Palestinians because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” (Isaiah 14:29) (A Cockatrice is a serpent that is hatched from a cock)

UNICORNS: “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.” ( Isaiah 34:7)

Has any Christian Paleontologist found any of these factual bible insects, animals, and birds listed herein to really support their bible Creation story? Anyone?