Why I Don't Believe In Evolution

[seanpont]

Intelligent elvolution is Intelligent Design which is Creationism.

All three have 2 basic logical flaws at their core. The first is based on, "the god of the gaps", argument. Wherever there is a gap in scientific knowledge, especially in geology and biology, all three invoke the "god hypothesis"; if science fills the gap, all three search for a new gap. Hence the "god hypothesis" is non-falsifiable. The second flaw is the either-or fallacy; the assumption that there are only 2 possible solutions for a given problem. All three argue that there are only 2 solutions to the origins of humans, evolution (through natural selection) or divine creation. All three claim there are problems with natural selection, therefore divine creation is the only plausible explanation. All three show lack of imagination in postulating possibilities and show their sheer ignorance of the subject matter.

[apothanein kerdos]

I always love the "many scientists" argument; the reality is they are a minority.

Creationism, ID, and IE are not sciences. They are not scientific theories. They are simply arguments against evolution. They offer no new proof, facts, or evidence. The only thing they offer are questions, not answers.

Hmmm...someone hasn't studied IE. Aside from being critical to naturalistic theory, they have also put forth hypothesis as well as discoveries that support design.

Oh, and ironically enough, Newtonian physics is based on the belief there is a Designer. So it's not science?

For someone who is always saying, "that's a strawman arguement", you seem quite fond of building them yourself.

How is that a strawman?

All three have 2 basic logical flaws at their core. The first is based on, "the god of the gaps", argument

The only thing that separates you from 6 day literalism is that instead of letting Ken Ham brainwash you, you let Dawkins do it. His entire "god in the gaps" theory IS a strawman and an acknowledged misrepresentation of ID. It is not that we look at gaps and go, "God did it." It's that we look at what is established science and realize that your philosophy of materialism cannot account for what we have. Not a matter of opinion, or that it is difficult, but that it is simply impossible. At the point materialism and naturalism become impossible scientifically, one must adopt a form of theism.

The second flaw is the either-or fallacy; the assumption that there are only 2 possible solutions for a given problem. All three argue that there are only 2 solutions to the origins of humans, evolution (through natural selection) or divine creation.

Wrong once again. We are merely arguing that naturalism simply cannot account for what we have, thus, the most plausible theory is theism, or divine creation. This does not rule out other theories, but these theories are not as plausible as theism in the absence of naturalism.

Furthermore, I have recently shown how ID is falsifiable on this board. Look it up.

[hatsoff]

The only thing that separates you from 6 day literalism is that instead of letting Ken Ham brainwash you, you let Dawkins do it. His entire "god in the gaps" theory IS a strawman and an acknowledged misrepresentation of ID. It is not that we look at gaps and go, "God did it." It's that we look at what is established science and realize that your philosophy of materialism cannot account for what we have. Not a matter of opinion, or that it is difficult, but that it is simply impossible. At the point materialism and naturalism become impossible scientifically, one must adopt a form of theism.

First of all, from what I have read of Dawkins (and that is very little) I disagree with much of what he writes about religion and Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes frequent misstatements about the creation-evolution controversy, either.

However, God of the Gaps is a loose term used to describe a family of arguments, many of which ID employs. To say that ID amounts to GotG, therefore, may be overly simple and perhaps a bit misleading, but since the latter has no strict definition, the ascription isn't necessarily erroneous.

In other words, I wouldn't call ID GotG, myself, but I wouldn't object to such terminology, either.

[tdrehfal]

Why anyone would waste their time doing anything like this is beyond me. What does it prove? That lots of people in the scientific community don't believe

in creation? Why would you be out to "prove" that if indeed its true its useless information other than to bash creationists by saying they're idiots for being

creationists. So thanks for admitting there are people that want to bash creationists just for being creationists.

There's not much to do except poke fun. Creation science doesn't deserve what little serious attention it gets. Project Steve meets Creationists on their own level. It is in fact a direct refutation to a common Creationist claim. Seanpont repeated that claim above, so I pointed him in the direction of the Project.

Maybe you should chastise him for bringing up the issue instead of myself for responding to it.

I will chastise noone; except people doing things simply for 'poking fun' which has nothing to do with science.

[hatsoff]

I will chastise noone; except people doing things simply for 'poking fun' which has nothing to do with science.

That's why I suggested you take a look at the creationist who brought up the issue of listing scientists as if that itself constituted scientific evidence.

Edited February 14, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

The only thing that separates you from 6 day literalism is that instead of letting Ken Ham brainwash you, you let Dawkins do it. His entire "god in the gaps" theory IS a strawman and an acknowledged misrepresentation of ID. It is not that we look at gaps and go, "God did it." It's that we look at what is established science and realize that your philosophy of materialism cannot account for what we have. Not a matter of opinion, or that it is difficult, but that it is simply impossible. At the point materialism and naturalism become impossible scientifically, one must adopt a form of theism.

First of all, from what I have read of Dawkins (and that is very little) I disagree with much of what he writes about religion and Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes frequent misstatements about the creation-evolution controversy, either.

However, God of the Gaps is a loose term used to describe a family of arguments, many of which ID employs. To say that ID amounts to GotG, therefore, may be overly simple and perhaps a bit misleading, but since the latter has no strict definition, the ascription isn't necessarily erroneous.

In other words, I wouldn't call ID GotG, myself, but I wouldn't object to such terminology, either.

Materialistic evolution falls under the same trap though, a "naturalism in the gaps" if you will. For instance, irreducible complexity has been "explained away" as, "Well, it just had to evolve that way, the previous parts of this complex system worked in a different way at a different time." There is literally no evidence for this, but instead it rests as a flimsy, untestable, unfalsifiable "hypothesis." Often, when we are accused of a "God of the gaps" theory, the same can be said of materialistic evolution.

Furthermore, it is generally the 6 day creationists, or those not really well versed in ID, that use the God-did-it arguments. Otherwise, most ID proponents will not make a claim for design unless it is blatantly obvious that it is the most plausible theory or even testable (see Jonathan Wells centrioles hypothesis).

I will say, it's nice to run into an atheist that doesn't buy into Dawkins' bulldog tactics.

[hatsoff]

Naturalism in the gaps doesn't hold the same connotation, because the "gaps" are *in* naturalistic explanations.

Now, I don't want to get sucked into a creation-evolution debate, but suffice it to say that, like myself, the scientific community considers it closed.

By the way, I'm agnostic, not atheist. But I definitely dislike Dr. Dawkins. He's too much flash and not enough substance.

Edited February 14, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

Naturalism in the gaps doesn't hold the same connotation, because the "gaps" are *in* naturalistic explanations.

Now, I don't want to get sucked into a creation-evolution debate, but suffice it to say that, like myself, the scientific community considers it closed.

By the way, I'm agnostic, not atheist. But I definitely dislike Dr. Dawkins. He's too much flash and not enough substance.

Not that easy.

The gaps are there because of naturalistic explanations, with these explanations we get gaps within what is already considered "closed." Thus, they use naturalism to close these gaps...in other words, they use the item to validate itself, which cannot be done if you assume a naturalistic mindset. It's self-defeating.

[hatsoff]

The gaps are there not "because of" the naturalistic explanations, but because there's simply not enough information to draw a conclusion. To say that we don't know how species A might have evolved is not the same as conceding it could not have or did not evolve. We weigh the lack of evidence against the evidence we do have, and decide which tips the balance. Assigning any explanation (IE, ID) where the evidence is lacking is irresponsible from a scientific standpoint.

[tdrehfal]

The gaps are there not "because of" the naturalistic explanations, but because there's simply not enough information to draw a conclusion. To say that we don't know how species A might have evolved is not the same as conceding it could not have or did not evolve. We weigh the lack of evidence against the evidence we do have, and decide which tips the balance. Assigning any explanation (IE, ID) where the evidence is lacking is irresponsible from a scientific standpoint.

God, by very definition would not be considered nauturalistic and therefore the ONLY explanation is that there is some as-yet-to-be-discovered naturalistic explanation

because defining the "scientific method" or the "system of science" as that which can only deal with the natural, you "close the system" to any other explanation, so

naturalism of the gaps would kind of have to occur in a closed system which doesn't allow for any other explanation by the way the word "science" is defined.