Finds test human origins theory

BBC News ^ | James Urquhart

[LiteKeeper]

Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing something other than science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles,

There is not a single scientist that has ever approached their field without "preconceived beliefs." That is not an argument for or against any approach to science.

From an online biology textbook, re: origin of life - "Supernatural: Since science is an attempt to measure and study the natural world, this theory is outside science (at least our current understanding of science). Science classes deal with science, and this idea is in the category of not-science." - Preconceived belief: there is no place for anything "non-natural" in the realm of science. That is not unbiased science - that limits the research only to the realm that the scientist wants to explore.

You may say, there is no room for the "non-natural" in science. Says who? Where is it written that the "non-natural" is not a real realm? That position comes only from "preconceived beliefs."

[Just mythoughts]

Two hominid fossils discovered in Kenya are challenging a long-held view of human evolution. The broken upper jaw-bone and intact skull from humanlike creatures, or hominids, are described in Nature.

Do you have pictures of this broken upper jawbone that is being used to advance this theory? I went to the link and did not recognize any of the pictures as being a broken jaw bone.

[Coyoteman]

Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing something other than science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles,

There is not a single scientist that has ever approached their field without "preconceived beliefs." That is not an argument for or against any approach to science.

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I posted.

Its not whether one has preconceived beliefs--its what those preconceived beliefs are!

One can do science with a preconceived belief in the scientific method. Nothing unusual about that.

But when one's preconceived beliefs override the scientific method, and include non-science, how can one pretend to be doing science? When one accepts scripture as the highest source of knowledge, how can one even pretend to be doing science?

From an online biology textbook, re: origin of life - "Supernatural: Since science is an attempt to measure and study the natural world, this theory is outside science (at least our current understanding of science). Science classes deal with science, and this idea is in the category of not-science." - Preconceived belief: there is no place for anything "non-natural" in the realm of science. That is not unbiased science - that limits the research only to the realm that the scientist wants to explore.

You may say, there is no room for the "non-natural" in science. Says who? Where is it written that the "non-natural" is not a real realm? That position comes only from "preconceived beliefs."

Science, by definition, deals with the natural world. You may not like that, but that's the way it is.

But I think your concern is really that you want science to validate your religious beliefs. Since science has no way of investigating the "non-natural" it would just have to take somebody's word for their beliefs, revelations, etc. That blows the scientific method right there.

But that seems to be what you really want. You want science to forget the scientific method, which requires evidence for a claim, and just accept your claims and beliefs without evidence. And I bet you would love for science to ignore the claims of the other 4,000+ extant world religions--they're probably all heretics, pagans, infidels and worse anyway.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Science investigates the natural world by definition.

If you don't like that, feel free to investigate the non-natural world any way you like. But remember, if you do not follow the scientific method, and rely instead on belief, scripture, and other non-natural methods, your results are of no use to science and will be ignored by scientists.

[Coyoteman]

Do you have pictures of this broken upper jawbone that is being used to advance this theory? I went to the link and did not recognize any of the pictures as being a broken jaw bone.

No, sorry. I am following the threads just like everyone else here.

I have found pictures of the calvarium (braincase), but not the upper jaw (maxilla).

[Just mythoughts]

Thanks, I went to the Leakey site and there is nothing posted there about the broken upper jaw bone. I guess somebody is behind in posting rare finds updates because this article is not there.

[LiteKeeper]

It's not whether one has preconceived beliefs--its what those preconceived beliefs are!

My point exactly! You can't pick and choose your preconceived beliefs.

Richard Lewontin wrote,

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

[LiteKeeper]

Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’

[Coyoteman]

It's not whether one has preconceived beliefs--its what those preconceived beliefs are!

My point exactly! You can't pick and choose your preconceived beliefs.

Let me put this into baby talk:

If you do the scientific method you do science.

If you don't do the scientific method you don't do science.

You seem to think that if someone has honest religious beliefs that absolutely contradict the scientific method, well, that's OK, they can do science anyway! Hey, science is easy! Anyone can to it. No study required. Even a cave man can do it!

Sorry, that is absolutely wrong.

Once more: To do science you have to follow the scientific method.

[LiteKeeper]

And what makes you think these creationist PhD scientists do not employ the scientific method. You quoted the Statement of Faith of one organization, and presume that dictates their methodolgy. That is absurd, and incorrect...in fact, that is absurdly incorrect!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Yeah, the Inquisition was nothing.
when we get honest about Christianity’s history...the good and the bad, maybe people will want to become Christians.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Agreed...I was thinking the same.

I guess shouting louder and getting more angry is one way of ‘winning” a rational discussion. ha.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I will take your common sense approach too.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

You have a LOT more patience than I do!

[Coyoteman]

And what makes you think these creationist PhD scientists do not employ the scientific method. You quoted the Statement of Faith of one organization, and presume that dictates their methodolgy. That is absurd, and incorrect...in fact, that is absurdly incorrect!

Here is another example. My point is that when one subscribes to this type of a statement of belief, one cannot follow the scientific method (and I have more examples).

Please point out the science in the following:

Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith

For a slightly more detailed copy of the Statement of Faith, please make your request in writing.

(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

(B) BASICS

1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
4. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

(C) THEOLOGY

1. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
2. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
3. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
4. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
5. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
6. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
7. All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.
8. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
9. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
10. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
11. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
12. The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage.

(D) GENERAL

1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious,’ is rejected.
6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

[Coyoteman]

You have a LOT more patience than I do!

I'm an archaeologist, and have also done some teaching. Both build patience.

[csense]

You seem to think that if someone has honest religious beliefs that absolutely contradict the scientific method, well, that's OK, they can do science anyway!

And you seem to think that peer review can deduce such a contradiction from the data/experiments that are presented for publication. I don't see how you can possibly demonstrate such a thing.

[Coyoteman]

And you seem to think that peer review can deduce such a contradiction from the data/experiments that are presented for publication. I don't see how you can possibly demonstrate such a thing.

You are correct. If a submission can survive the rigors of a thorough scientific peer review, it deserves to be considered science. But then, that submission would almost certainly have followed the scientific method.

And that has been my point all along: you do science by following the scientific method!

But if one acts upon a religious belief and introduces a global flood about 4,350 years ago into a geology paper submitted to a scientific journal, then one can be expected to produce scientific evidence for that flood.

Similarly, I have seen several creationist articles on radiocarbon dating which introduce a global flood about 5,000 years ago to calibrate their radiocarbon curve and show that there are no radiocarbon dates over about 6,000-10,000 years in age. Again, they need to produce scientific, not religious, evidence for these claims.

[LiteKeeper]

My point is that when one subscribes to this type of a statement of belief, one cannot follow the scientific method (and I have more examples).

You are just flat wrong! They are using the scientific method...they are doing good science. You are just bound by your own bias.

Most of the founders of modern science were theists...and many would have subscribed to those statements of faith.

I guess all that remains is to agree to disagree. Since it appears you have never read any of the technical work that these scientists have written, you are speaking from bias, and not direct knowledge. You have quoted the Statements of Faith over and over again, and none of their actual research. I guess you are not interested in their actual work, just what you assume they have not done.

[LiteKeeper]

Incidently, many of the statements are made based on research. They are not made in a vacuum.

[Coyoteman]

Since it appears you have never read any of the technical work that these scientists have written, you are speaking from bias, and not direct knowledge.

You would be surprised how much of the creationist literature I have read. I have a very comprehensive library (wish I had enough bookshelves for all of it--its approaching something like 800 linear feet).

I guess all that remains is to agree to disagree.

I agree. Thanks for the civil discussion