Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[InfiniteNow]

lol... :eek2:

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus, i respect your mind, but here you have made statements against my position without backing them up. if you have proof there was no ID, i would like to hear it. if your evidence weighs heavier than mine, i will change my mind. my mind is open to facts.

 

I've posted my responses earlier in this very thread, and supported them! I'm not trying to present proof that there was no ID. I'm suggesting that you have NOT presented any evidence in favor of ID. All of your arguments are flawed, for the reasons I suggested earlier.

-Will

[ughaibu]

Questor: You'll find an introduction to logic here: http://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.html or http://tellerprimer.ucdavis.edu/

[ughaibu]

Questor: My above post could have been worded more diplomatically, it wasn't my intention to be offensive and I hope you didn't take it so.

My reason for posting the links was that, in this thread, you seem to be employing an idiosyncratic definition of "logical". As the word is central to the thread's title and direction, it is necessary to have a common understanding of it's definition in order for the thread to function and it's contributors communicate.

[Eclogite]

Questor,

first Erasmus, then ughaibu (with some supporting observations from CraigD) have demonstrated with great clarity and patience that your arguments for Creation are at best wholly inconclusive and more likely illogical.

 

Despite this you persist in asking that those who feel this should offer some proof of an alternative to creationism. Why? It has been made clear, at least to me, that the debate here is centred, quite rightly, on the observations you made in the opening post. You made a series of statements that puported to demonstrate the creationism was logical. It has been shown that, based on your arguments alone, it is not. That should be the end of the matter, yet you keep coming back and asking for proof of the contrary. I ask again, why?

[questor]

Eclogite, if you are satisfied that the posts you referred to answer the question i posed..fine. i keep coming back to this subject because i don't see anyone posting observances which would lead one to believe ID did not occur.

the only comments i see are ones that accuse me of being illogical or using faulty logic. if you have some observances that would disprove ID, feel free to post them. does that seem logical? the best we can say is we aren't sure either way. i can understand someone being an atheist and not believing in man's conception of God. i cannot understand a person weighing the evidence of ID against random creation and supporting the latter. it seems most posters believe there was no ID because it can't be proved scientifically, and yet they are willing to believe creation just happened although that can't be proved either. is that logical?

[Eclogite]

questor, I do understand that it is your thread. I further understand that deviation from the thread topic to some degree is commonplace and, indeed, acceptable.

 

That said, your stated intent was to discuss if creationism was logical or illogical. That is why nobody is posting observances which would lead one to believe ID did not occurbecause it is not the topic. No one, apparently, wishes to discuss that. As Tormod pointed out early on, that particular topic has been discussed, dissected and reassembled several times.

 

You noted that you wished to approach it from a different direction, as expressed in the title of the thread and as laid out in your opening post. What several people have said is that your arguments were illogical, thus the question posed at the outset has been addressed, unless you can come up with alternative arguments.

 

What you seem to be saying now, is that you would like to turn this into yet another thread that explores the relative merits of ID led creationism, versus some undefined event. That's fine. You may get some takers, but it isn't what you seemed to set out to do.

[InfiniteNow]

It came up here, too:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/687-evolution-action-6.html?#post82762

[questor]

Eclogite, it may be that you think i have changed the thrust of the thread. perhaps so, but i'll wager very few threads on this site stick strictly to the subject. even if i have changed the husk, the kernel remains the same, and it IS the same subject that i have broached before, but get no answers.

i think there are several possible answers to the problem of discussion:

1. people cannot give more than i or 2 reasons against ID

2. people automatically think i am trying to prove the existence of God,

a concept they have already rejected.

3. people cannot think there can be a creator without it being called God

4. people do not understand what i am saying or asking.

i do not have a closed mind. i do not have an impractical mind, all i'm asking a person to do is present evidence for their views. truth is truth, theory is theory.

[Eclogite]

Eclogite, it may be that you think i have changed the thrust of the thread. perhaps so, but i'll wager very few threads on this site stick strictly to the subject. even if i have changed the husk, the kernel remains the same, and it IS the same subject that i have broached before, but get no answers.

I have to tell you, that whatever your intent, to the casual bystander it appears that you have changed to a related, but quite different topic.

1. people cannot give more than i or 2 reasons against ID

There is no obligation to give any reasons against ID, since ID runs counter to accepted scientific views. The onus thus rests upon proponents of ID to offer evidence for it, not for the establishment to offer evidence against.

 

2. people automatically think i am trying to prove the existence of God, a concept they have already rejected.

I haven't rejected the concept. Nor have all others.

3. people cannot think there can be a creator without it being called God

Now I think you are playing word games. Creator of the Universe = God.

4. people do not understand what i am saying or asking.

.

Apparently so.

I do not have a closed mind. i do not have an impractical mind, all i'm asking a person to do is present evidence for their views. truth is truth, theory is theory.

The evidence for the 'standard' view is voluminous and may be found in any library of quality. Theory is as solid as it gets in science. Truth is an amorphous unreality.

[Erasmus00]

all i'm asking a person to do is present evidence for their views. truth is truth, theory is theory.

 

Why do others need to present evidence for their views when you cannot provide anything concrete for your own?

-Will

[ughaibu]

The basic argument being used both by Questor on this thread and by intelligent design supporters generally, seems to me to be: if science cant explain/prove it, intelligent design is indicated. This relies on the assumption that creation by intelligent design is a proven or self evident, default solution. Objectively speaking, this assumption is incorrect. If intelligent design were proven there would be no serious debate, clearly this is not the case, intelligent design is proposed as a solution for situations that science cannot fully deal with, in short, the success of the proposition itself relies on the assumption. As there is neither proof nor independently supported evidence for design, there is no logical reason to assume it to be the default solution, any one of an infinite number of other default solutions could equally be proposed. Without evidence or a logical argument in favour of a particular choice, we cant say that the choice of any particular default solution is the logical choice. If there exists an argument that will demonstrate that belief in design is logical such an argument would state that belief in the assumption is logical. As any belief can be derived from the assumption of that belief, this effectively puts the belief before the logic. The logic becomes dependent on the belief, not vice versa, and as such we can say the belief in any default system, including creation by intelligent design, is not logical.

As Questor has suggested, there is nothing logical about believing something that is unproven, a suggestion that applies as much to all creation myths as much as it applies to the hypothesising of scientists. These events took place (if at all) billions of years ago, even if we were able to go back in time, we would be unable to witness the creation of the universe as in order to do so we would ourselves need to be outside that universe, as we are components of the universe this would clearly be impossible. So the realities of any creation, religious or scientifc, are unknowable and to believe any creation myth, even those popular with scientists, is illogical.

An interesting point about design is that it attempts to sciencify the myth via the process. If design genuinely attempts to establish the truth, belief ceases to be an issue, what is is, regardless of belief. Imagine a demonstrated scientific "fact", one accepted by creationists but only demonstrated last year. Two years ago, the default position of design would have claimed this then unresolved problem as evidence for design, the implication is that design, as a belief system, considers at any given moment science is complete and that no further work will alter the creation myths of science. This is interesting as the idea of immutability typifies conventional creation myths and is at variance with the scientific pretensions of design. It could be objected that design isn't immutable, as it reacts to new developments in science, this is also interesting. Design itself makes no scientific progress as it doesn't directly attempt to demonstrate itself, it reacts to new positions of science by seeking flaws by which to exploit it's assumed default status. In this sense it could be conceived of as a parasitic philosophical entity, I dont know if such a class of objects has been described, in any case, for me, this is the most interesting idea to have come from this discussion and my thanks to Questor for persevering until it emerged.

[Pyrotex]

The basic argument being used both by Questor on this thread and by intelligent design supporters generally, seems to me to be: if science cant explain/prove it, intelligent design is indicated. This relies on the assumption that creation by intelligent design is a proven or self evident, default solution. Objectively speaking, this assumption is incorrect....

Design itself makes no scientific progress as it doesn't directly attempt to demonstrate itself, it reacts to new positions of science by seeking flaws by which to exploit it's assumed default status. In this sense it could be conceived of as a parasitic philosophical entity, I dont know if such a class of objects has been described...

I have been following this thread with great interest, but not contributing for two reasons: I lack as much patient, tolerant perseverance that some of you obviously have in great quantity, and there is an additional "cause" for not responding that wasn't in questor's list (#60).

 

However, THIS post is so brilliant that I have to acknowledge that. Ughaibu has discovered the "Parasitic Philosophical Argument" or PPA. I tried to find it or anything like it in my favorite book on fallacies and rhetorical strategies, but couldn't find anything like it. Ughaibu is dead on. Perfect, socked-on-the-nose, Robin Hood split arrow, David's stone between Goliath's eyes dead on. I venture that ughaibu will one day become famous as the discoverer of the PPA. And who knows, questor may become famous as the discoveree!

 

Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! :eek2:

[ughaibu]

Pyrotex: Thanks. Nice to know it wasn't only circuitous gobbledegook.

[questor]

Ugh, congratulations on receiving the Pyrotex PPA award. he seems very excited for your astute and concise statement, and i also enjoy reading your posts. perhaps as discoveree, i can continue to bring forth greatness from others on this or other subjects

the only problem for me is your statement:

''The basic argument being used both by Questor on this thread and by intelligent design supporters generally, seems to me to be: if science cant explain/prove it, intelligent design is indicated. This relies on the assumption that creation by intelligent design is a proven or self evident, default solution''

this quote in no way states my position, or is a true rendering of any thing i have said. i do not know or care what any organized group of IDers say or think or what their arguments are. i only speak to my own observances. i have never said or implied any of your statements, so it seems to me you have assumed in error.

perhaps to precipitate a dialogue on this subject for those interested, i

will ask a simple question:

 

what are the reasons that you believe the universe was born without a

plan, design, or intelligence?

 

Pyro.... Q is followed by U.......thanks

[Pyrotex]

Ugh, congratulations on receiving the Pyrotex PPA award. ...what are the reasons that you believe the universe was born without a plan, design, or intelligence? Q is followed by U...

Sorry about the misspelling, questor. Damn those phonetics! :evil:

 

Your question is equivalent to (yes, it IS) 'what is the evidence for the non-existence of a creator'?

 

Point: One cannot provide "evidence" for non-existence.

What is the evidence that there is NOT a 40 foot dinosaur living in Loch Ness?

What is the evidence that there is NOT a 40 foot parrot living in Central Park?

Such questions are fatally flawed in their very structure.

Even the lack of evidence for the existence -- is NOT evidence for non-existence, which questor knows full well. It is, in fact, a "trick" question, a rhetorical goose chase.

[ughaibu]

Questor: My post begins by mentioning two groups, 1) you 2) supporters of intelligent design. There is no suggestion that these groups are connected in any way other than by the basic mechanism underlying their argument.

None of the things that that you have posited as evidence, independently point to design, they are interpreted in favour of design, by you, because of your predisposition to that interpretation, ie a default solution. Specifically, in post 17 you confirm this attitude by writing "a person usually believes in something according to how that something fits his mental perceptions and

life's experiences and knowledge". You interpret in favour of design, by virtue of your beliefs, not by unbiased assessment of the evidence. Your belief precedes the interpretation upon which you present that belief as being based.

Why do you think that I "believe the universe was born without a

plan, design, or intelligence"? I haven't said so.