As am aside, Hulu now has 13 segments of Carl Sagan...
Posted on 04/01/2009 6:24:14 AM PDT by seanindenver
Some time ago, a highly charged argument was set in motion. It pitted evolution against creationism. One side of this debate relies on scientific inquiry and the other relies on ancient mythological texts.
That's my view. That's what I intend to teach my children.
Yet, I have no interest in foisting this curriculum on your kids. Nor am I particularly distressed that a creationist theory may one day collide with the tiny eardrums of my precocious offspring.
Which brings me to the Texas Board of Education's recent landmark compromise between evolutionary science and related religious concerns in public school textbooks.
The board cautiously crafted an arrangement that requires teachers to allow students to scrutinize "all sides" of the issue. This decision is widely seen as a win for pro-creationists — or are they called "anti-evolutionists"?
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
This is known as the 'burden of proof' fallacy
I can find two definitions for this fallacy: one, that it is setting the criterion for proof too high; and two, that it is shifting the burden of proof to the wrong party. I haven't done either of those things. You've made a claim that evolution relies on affirming the consequent. Asking you to support that claim is neither unreasonable nor misplaced.
Genesis explains that quite well.
1) Earth was without form and void.
2) God made the seas and dry land.
3) God created fish.
4) God dreated animals on dry land.
5) God created man & woman - who did not know good and evil.
6) They ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and became truly human.
Nowhere does it say HOW God created the fish, or the animals, or man.
There is no inconsistency between Genesis and evolution. Why couldn't that have been God's method ?
I left out some odds and ends, but they are not inconsistent with science, either.
Who's mocking creation ?
I've seen a little sarcasm directed to Bishop Usher's hypothesis, but most of those commenting here are believing Christians.
The Declaration says "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." - meaning we were MADE that way, that it's the natural state of man.
It doesn't say "in the image of God". It doesn't say "on the sixth day".
You've forgotten, I guess, that Jefferson was a Deist, and that Deists found the best evidence for God's existence in the beauty and wonder of the world around them - in God's creation - not in scripture.
My unalienable rights derive from how I was made - human nature. My liberty derives from being willing to fight for it.
The only one 'dancing around points' is you.
"You have not demonstrated that "the antecedent is unobserved yet is claimed to be true because the consequent is observed" is any more true of scientists studying evolution than it is of scientists studying anything else."
First, that's the burden of proof fallacy again. Second, if I simply assume that your claim is correct and the rest of science uses the fallacy of affirming the consequent as much as evolution does; that doesn't help you in the least. You have simply claimed that it is appropriate for science to be based on fallacy.
"People discussing events casually might fall into the error often--as in my example of gravity being proven because something fell, a proposition I expect most people would see nothing wrong with--but if you're going to single out "evolutionists" for criticism, you need to show they deserve being singled out. You haven't."
Again, saying that 'everybody' in 'science' uses the fallacy of affirming the consequent doesn't help your position. No special criticism need be demonstrated for "evolutionists". If they use the fallacy of affirming the consequent (and clearly they do), then evolution is based on fallacy.
"I can find two definitions for this fallacy: one, that it is setting the criterion for proof too high; and two, that it is shifting the burden of proof to the wrong party. I haven't done either of those things."
Of course you did. You claim that I must show that "evolutionists" use fallacy more than other 'scientists'. That's attempting to shift the burden of proof over to me rather than for you to demonstrate that evolution is not based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It matters not whether other 'scientific' theories commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent more than or equal to evolution. If evolution invokes that fallacy, it is based on fallacy.
"You've made a claim that evolution relies on affirming the consequent. Asking you to support that claim is neither unreasonable nor misplaced."
Evolution does rely on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. P (macro-evolution) implies Q (adaptation). Since Q (adaptation) is observed, P (macro-evolution) is assumed. P (macro-evolution) is not observed, it is inferred from Q. That's the fallacy.
As am aside, Hulu now has 13 segments of Carl Sagan...
And what I'm saying is that the scientific method is based on: P implies Q; not-Q is not observed; therefore P is strengthened (not "assumed," not "proven"). P is inferred from the absence of not-Q--from the accumulation of lots of observations of not-Q.
This is how the study of evolution proceeds. Macroevolution implies certain molecular relationships between species; instances violating those predicted relationships are not observed; the theory of macroevolution is strengthened. Macroevolution implies a certain order of succession of fossils; clear violations of that succession (e.g., the Precambrian rabbit) are not observed; the theory is strengthened. If you want to claim otherwise--that evolutionary science only looks for Q, never for not-Q--then yes, the burden of proof is on you.
Also, as I've pointed out before in other threads, once a theory is strengthened enough, it does become an assumption in the sense that scientists don't feel the need to demonstrate it all over again when they find new evidence. It's not an assumption in the sense of something taken to be true without evidence. Your blurring of the distinctions in the meanings of the word "assumption" is, in fact, a great example of the fallacy of equivocation.
And what I'm saying is that if the scientific method is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent as you claim, that doesn't help you. Your 'science' and your belief in evolution is based on fallacy.
"This is how the study of evolution proceeds. Macroevolution implies certain molecular relationships between species; instances violating those predicted relationships are not observed; the theory of macroevolution is strengthened. Macroevolution implies a certain order of succession of fossils; clear violations of that succession (e.g., the Precambrian rabbit) are not observed; the theory is strengthened. If you want to claim otherwise--that evolutionary science only looks for Q, never for not-Q--then yes, the burden of proof is on you."
You have simply combined the fallacy of affirming the consequent with the fallacy of burden of proof. You now have 2 fallacies 'supporting' your position. The more logical fallacies you invoke, the weaker your position becomes.
"Also, as I've pointed out before in other threads, once a theory is strengthened enough, it does become an assumption in the sense that scientists don't feel the need to demonstrate it all over again when they find new evidence. It's not an assumption in the sense of something taken to be true without evidence. Your blurring of the distinctions in the meanings of the word "assumption" is, in fact, a great example of the fallacy of equivocation."
I never claimed that the fallacy of assuming P from Q was without evidence. That's your misrepresentation of what was presented. Clearly, Q is the evidence but that does not mean that P is not assumed through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is.
Evolution is clearly based on fallacy and you claim that much of 'science' is also. That doesn't strengthen your position, it merely demonstrates that you believe that fallacy is appropriate as support for 'science'.
BTW, if you claim to be a Christian, do you disagree with God's own written pronouncement (written by his own hand on tablets of stone) that he created the heavens and the earth and all that is within them in 6 days?
Does evolution really claim that birds were created along with the sea creatures and before land creatures as Genesis does?
In Exodus Chapter 20 God explained exactly HOW LONG it took Him to do it.
If God said He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in SIX DAYS, would you believe him?
Excellent essay, brother Marlowe. Any discussion of rights truly is illusory if their is no Divine Creator.
One must imagine an ideal right, in my opinion, to posit a right in the earthly realm. I see no way to get to an “ideal” in a mechanistic universe except if a person chooses to elevate “random chaos” to the ultimate level.
For example, what does love mean filtered through the lens of “random chaos.” Does it mean commitment? Affection? Permanence?
I don’t see how it can end up meaning anything that demands a lasting quality to it. Therefore, love becomes transitory, impermanent....lustful. It becomes “eat, drink, and lust today, for tomorrow you die, and it doesn’t really matter in the long run anyway.”
So far as Jefferson’s deism. Even Jefferson could not escape Jesus. He was a Christian Deist, and, yes, it makes a difference.
I must conclude that while you’ve learned the names of these logical fallacies, you really don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about. I did not claim that science is based on affirming the consequent. Conclusions are not drawn from observations of Q, they are drawn from nonobservations of not-Q. And it is only considered evidence strengthening P; it does not turn P into an assumption. There is no fallacy.
You seem to be insisting that it would be fallacious to draw any conclusions from predicted evidence. You admit that Q is evidence for P, and yet you deny that confidence in P can be strengthened by the accumulation of Qs (not to mention the nonexistence of not-Qs). “If this man is the killer, we should find his DNA at the scene and blood on his clothes. We found his DNA at the scene and blood on his clothes! But it would be a logical fallacy to draw any conclusions from that.”
From my post that you replied to, parenthetical remarks added...
Creationism is not simply belief that God was responsible for creation, it is a belief in a literal account of Genesis with the separate and “special” creation of living things, usually presumed to have happened not very long ago (and usually created during exactly six days).
If God said the foundations of the Earth are solid and cannot be moved forever, would you conclude that the Earth does not move?
I must conclude that, while you've learned the names of these two logical fallacies, you really don't have any idea of what you're talking about.
"I did not claim that science is based on affirming the consequent. Conclusions are not drawn from observations of Q, they are drawn from nonobservations of not-Q. And it is only considered evidence strengthening P; it does not turn P into an assumption. There is no fallacy."
Sorry, but if there is any observation, not-Q is no different than Q. As long as P is not observed, assuming P from either Q or not-Q is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply define not-Q as the consequent, rather than Q. If you claim that not-Q is not observable, you have simply moved to the fallacy of argument from ignorance where no observation supports an unobserved assumption. A different fallacy, but still a fallacy.
"You seem to be insisting that it would be fallacious to draw any conclusions from predicted evidence. You admit that Q is evidence for P, and yet you deny that confidence in P can be strengthened by the accumulation of Qs (not to mention the nonexistence of not-Qs). “If this man is the killer, we should find his DNA at the scene and blood on his clothes. We found his DNA at the scene and blood on his clothes! But it would be a logical fallacy to draw any conclusions from that.”"
You seem to be insisting that it is not fallacious to draw any conclusion about unobserved P from an observed (or unobserved) consequent. You admit that P is not observed, yet you deny that confidence in unobserved P is not the result of fallacy. The problem w/ your example is that P is observed and therefore not a fallacy while in the fallacy of affirming the consequent, P is not observed and the fallacy is in assuming unobserved P because Q (or not-Q) is observed, unless Q is unobserved in which case your fallacy in believing in unobserved P based on unobserved Q is simply argument from ignorance.
No. I would have to conclude that the "foundations of the Earth" do not move.
The Bible says that the earth hangs upon nothing, which would appear to be true. The foundation of the earth appears to be ethereal space, and it is held together by the power of God's word. In that sense the foundations of the Earth are both solid, unmoveable and in good hands.
Now can you answer my question?
God says HE teaches using parable. The Bible says that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day. The parable of creation is that God didn't just snap fingers and “zot” the world into creation; neither was it the work of a lifetime. God rolled up sleeves, worked the equivalent of a man working six days, then rested for a “yom”.
What does “morning” and “evening” mean on a day without a Sun anyway? Why would a “yom” without a Sun be 24 hours? What is a “day” when there is no Sun?
Great post, P-Marlowe!
Many Christian and Jewish theists believe that evolution is a divinely guided, inherently progressive, purposeful process that culminates in man. Darwinists, on the other hand, believe that evolution is "the blind exploration of biological possibilities." Man is the accidental outcome of this "exploration."
Which view of man is more politically manipulable?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.