Recently I've been having a conversation with Brian Tweed on Facebook, but we have both been hindered by the limitations of this format for our type of discussion. As such I have moved his last post here so to allow for a greater ease of use and response. Enjoy...
Hi
SP, as there seems to be little continuity to our discussion on here,
as you do not reply to many of my posts, I will have to start another
new post, in an attempt to focus our discussion.
(Scientia Perceptum writes) Our discussions have had nothing to due with theology (I thought I explained that to begin with),
I am afraid you this was not my understanding, as your initial response
to me stated
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding Brian. When I started our conversation I thought that I pointed out that my interests were only in the purely scientific reasons that creationists claim they have a better explanation than that given by modern Evolutionary Biology. This meant that our conversations would be limited to changes in life over time and not dealing with the origins of the Universe, solar system, or life.
(Scientia Perceptum writes) “My aim is to understand the
basis for and purpose of the belief that creationists hold”
Since
you stated that this was your aim, it is obvious that those that you
refer to as ‘creationists’ are going to have a worldview which has
theology as its “basis”.
You also betray your own “theology” which
you acknowledge as atheism, by promoting both your atheism and anti
Christian opinions in your last few tweets.
It is interesting that
you claim to want to have a meaningful discussion, but when you are
given the opportunity to do so with a Christian that accepts the young
Earth position, you claim that you are very busy, whilst at the same
time you continue to post your atheistic worldview tweets that attack
both Christianity and ‘creationists’.
I sense that you are not as
sincere as you are trying to make out. This is very disappointing, as I
saw this as an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion with someone
holding an opposing viewpoint, that was capable of presenting their
views in a rational and reasonable manner, you have not showed yourself
willing to engage in this up to this point.
Of course the basis of creationism is theology (thank you for admitting that as some creationists will not), but that does not mean that every question can be answered with "God did it" and be considered an alternative to the scientific theories of Evolutionary Biology that explain the facts observed.
As science cannot say anything about the existence or non-existence of any deities it is neither atheistic or theistic in nature. The fact that I am an atheist also has nothing to due with a scientific discussion between you and I whether creationism can be considered a scientific alternative to Evolutionary Biology and I will never use it as such.
As for your claim that I attack creationism in my tweets, it is true, yet I do so ONLY on a scientific nature and their religion or religious beliefs do not enter into it (unless they are making a claim about history of life that is completely unscientific and it is only their attacks on science that I address). To your claim that I've attacked Christianity, I looked back at the last month of tweets and cannot find one time that I've said anything of that nature, so I await evidence of this statement.
Lastly, as I've stated a few times now, the reason I've moved our discussion here is to give me more time to allow for our conversation to occur. Facebook is blocked at my school and moving here will allow me much more time and access to our discussions. As for tweets, those require almost no time and, if you have been following them closely over the last month, are almost purely devoted to current news event relating to Evolution including people & a thread with one particular creationist requesting that he back up his claims with facts.
(Scientia Perceptum writes)… but instead I've hoped would be based purely in science.
I can see that you have a high regard for the discipline of science and
the scientific method, as do I, but we must be aware that ‘science’
does not tell us anything, and it is how we ‘interpret’ the information
that we discover that makes the difference.
You seem to be oblivious
to the fact that our worldviews effect HOW we interpret the information
we are presented with. Whilst ‘science’ may not have a bias, it is
people that ‘interpret’ the results, and they most certainly do have a
bias.
My point is that whilst you may wish to exclude ‘theology’
from the discussion, this is not something that is possible in
actuality. The position that we hold as regard to God and a Creator
greatly affects the conclusions we arrive at.
You also seem
oblivious to the fact that Christianity is the only worldview that makes
total sense of the world around us. You think that you can use science,
reason and logic to reach your opinion, but ignore the fact that if
atheism is true, there is no reason to trust science, reason or logic!
Atheism cannot account for the fact that there are laws of logic, or
laws of nature, and instead you must rely on the Christian God to
account for their presence in the first place.
Before addressing the nature of science, I will again reiterate that any theological stance is not allowed and if one is letting their "...position...(that they) hold as regard to God and a creator..." affect their conclusions, than right away we know they have left the realm of science and are discussing only theology. I will not address the claims about laws in logic or nature, as again by limiting them to being only explainable by the deity of Christianity your claims are purely theological in context and not a discussion I'm interested in having.
To the point about the nature of science, as the final part of the process is that of peer review, the point about "bias" can be disregarded as the only bias is that supporting the methodology of science itself. Science is systematic method builds theories to explain facts about the world & that works to eliminate biased interpretations of those facts. For a more detailed explanation of the nature of science (which matches and expounds upon my statements above) see the official position by the NSTA.
(Scientia Perceptum writes)…I've tried to take time to read, reread, clarify, and find citations for my comments
I have seen very little actual content from you, as you have not answered my questions, even though I have answered yours.
Which, again, is why I moved out conversations here off Facebook, the FB format was not working.
(Scientia Perceptum writes)…(at this point I will request that we,
again, address evolution {with geological evidence} as the focus of our
discussions)
I have told you that I am happy to answer any
questions that you address to me, and you have stated that you wanted to
take one topic at a time. I understood that when I answered your
questions that I was free to ask you any question I wished as ‘My aim is
to understand the basis for and purpose of the belief that atheist
evolutionary biologists hold’.
Again you are confusing theology with science. There are many Evolutionary Biologists who are religious, including Christian, and they understand that their theology cannot and should not influence the science they study and report on.
I can understand why you want
to avoid this, as I am sure you are aware that atheists have very few
reasonable answers to the questions that interest most people, such as
the origin of matter, physics and chemistry, which are essential
prerequisites for the origin of life. It appears that you want to ignore
discussing how the lego bricks were manufactured or how they came to
exist in the first place, and jump straight to the assembled models
themselves.
My field of study is not the origins of matter, my understanding of physics is limited to conceptual, but I have taken some higher level chemistry courses (including organic chemistry in college), but again how life originated (there are many working hypotheses in Abiogenesis) has NOTHING to do with the study of Evolution. Life on Earth could have originated in various ways, but the fact of increasing morphology throughout geological history, convergent phylogenetic trees from paleontology and genetics (to name a few) and other observed facts are not explained by any other scientific theory EXCEPT the one I studied for my Bachelors in Science; Evolutionary Biology. The claim you've made is a common straw man fallacy that should be dropped.
I did though attempt to focus our discussion in an
earlier post, one which you have yet to reply to, in which I suggested
that we focus on one of the main claims of common ancestry, and we
examine the Primary axiom, which is the ‘supposed’ mechanism, by which
evolutionary biologists seem to place their ‘faith’ in.
I have
suggested that we take genetics as our first topic, and examine the
‘evidence for evolution’ which you seem to feel is conclusive. Have you
given any consideration to my post? As I have yet to learn if you are
willing to discuss this topic, which was on your list of ‘evidences’ for
evolution.
Please re-post the question here and I will get to it shortly. The "timeline" aspect of Facebook does not allow easy or uninterrupted access that I need to keep this conversation on the track we are both requiring.
(Scientia Perceptum writes)…but again request that we make sure that science be to only topic in our conversations.
I am happy to discuss science, but to restrict our conversation to
‘only’ science seems to be very narrow minded, as my worldview can
explain why science can even work in the first place, whilst yours has
no reason to accept science as a reliable basis for knowledge, and
instead you rely on the Christian worldview to explain the basis of
science, and then reject the conclusions that it leads us to.
I see that as another theological statement that has nothing to do with how the current Nature of Science. If you would like to start another conversation on history of the philosophy of science, I would be interested, but it must be a different thread so as to not distract from our discussion of the scientific validity of creationism or Evolutionary Biology.
Scientia Perceptum writes)…Given your statement above, are you claiming
that "Creationism" is not scientific, but instead is a religion?
Perhaps you could be more specific, as I am not sure which statement
you are referring to. As for your terminology, I do not use the term
“Creationism” that is your term, and one which is usually used in a
derogatory manner. I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth,
and that science can help us to learn about His creation, but as for
your ‘beliefs’, I think that there is little support for them in real
science, and it is necessary to ignore a lot of the things that real
science has revealed to support your evolutionary beliefs.
That sounds like a great beginning to a conversation on whether Creationism (I believe you have claimed to be a Young Earth Creationist) or Evolution is scientifically valid explanation of the observable facts.
Scientia Perceptum writes)…My reason for asking is that my concerns over
the "creationism vs evolution controversy" is that both are claimed to
be purely based in science by creationists and that is my only focus.
I would be interested in a citation, as I do not know of any biblical
creationists that claim this. We acknowledge that both creation and
evolutionism ;-) rely on information that is ‘beyond’ the reach of the
scientific method. You cannot use the scientific method to support your
beliefs, and must at some point admit that science is unable to answer
every question.
I defer to my prior statement seen directly above the answer to this one.
Scientia Perceptum writes)… So, in your view,
is creationism (the one you claim to follow) based purely in science and
if so, how so????
I have explained to you before, that my beliefs
are based on information that I have gathered from various different
disciples, including physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology
and biology. They are not though limited to these, as I also include
logic and reason, as well as historical records in coming to my point of
view.
My belief in God as the Creator of the universe takes all of
these things into consideration, but as I have also stated before, I
have more than all of these, as I have the testimony of an Eyewitness
Himself who was actually there and has given us a reliable account of
what happened in the book of Genesis.
In opposition to this,
your view requires you to ignore reason and logic and historical
information, and to deny several scientific principles to reach your
conclusion that all life ‘evolved’ by natural processes from a common
ancestor.
So no my views are not based ‘purely’ in science, but then neither are yours.
I will defer this to my prior statement and during our discussions on whether our evidence, your accepted form of Creationism or my acceptance of modern Evolutionary Biology, will prove to be a more scientific explanation as to the diversity of life on Earth.
Scientia Perceptum writes)… I am (I glean from your comments and page
you are retired) heavily involved in work, professional life (today I
ran a naturalist walk through a local conversation land informing my
audience on the natural history of the area), and personal life and
think should realize that my replies are based on my own sense of
conveying the known facts in science and cannot delve into metaphysical
conjecture.
I found it extremely amusing that your
‘interpretation’ of the information was so faulty in working out my age,
and yet I am sure that this will not dent your confidence too much in
believing that you are right about the age of the Earth, even though you
must make so many assumptions to reach your conclusion, which may be
equally as bad as the false assumptions you made about me ;-)
As we go into the facts which are explained by scientific theories , we will see which of our claims are backed up as to the age of the Earth.
Scientia Perceptum writes)… I suggest that we start our conversation
anew based purely on the common descent of all life as inferences about
the origin and nature of the universe are not my field of
education/inquiry nor do they concern the fact that geological,
morphological, embryological, fossil, and genetic information {all
fields taking evidence from different facts} give matching phylogenetic
tree, as the origin of the Earth/Universe does not (in my opinion)
affect events that occur after the start of life on Earth itself.
As I have said before, I do not think that all of this information
produces the unified picture that you imagine, and I have said that I
would be willing to discuss any and all of them one topic at a time. I
have suggested that we start with genetics, I will leave you to decide
if you want to start with this one of the other fields you mention, but
as you believe that all life has ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor, it
would seem sensible to discuss the feasibility of the ‘supposed’
mechanism for this process.
Brian
Ok, so the start of our conversation will be whether genetics supports your Creationist view (again from previous conversations I am assuming you are a Young Earth Creationism advocate as you've indicated you believe the Earth to be around 10,000 years old) or if my mainstream scientific view best explains the evidence and proves common ancestry of all life on Earth.
Thank you again, Brian, for your time and please make all responses here (again I cannot access Facebook at school, where I do most of my work) and when needed I will start a new thread on new lines of conversation that we start.
Yours,
Scientia Perceptum
