I would tend to agree, though, I doubt people on the other side of the argument would.


I don't think I see the similarity.

Their argument (in an oversimplified form that they probably wouldn't accept) is like this:

X is true (this is their belief in their religion).
Y implies X is false (this is the contradiction between their faith and evolution)
Therefore, Y cannot be true.

This is a valid, logical argument.  It depends upon X being true, which is its weakness, but it is a valid argument.  However, since most people seem to feel you can't actually debate whether a religious belief is true or not ("it's just a matter of faith!" they tend to say), the argument tends not to focus on the true point of disagreement (is X true?), but rather on details that really don't change anyone's mind, and aren't actually a valid argument against the theory ("If you don't know how the very first life came to be, evolution can't be true!").

In my case, The bible says Poof and Life was. (really simplified. Old Testament, in both accounts was alot better at it)

Evolution shows, the major driving point is natrual selection with enough time there we are.

This conflicts with poof, there this is wrong.

My similarities to air conditioner.

My belief that it is hot side. And will remain so.

Air condition cools air.

This contradicts A, there must be false.

The first bit, was there only to show relevance to my analogy.

The fact is an air conditioner can operate on just cooling a room then it can for the whole world. It only conflicts, as it being forced to conflict.

I would disagree with this being valid argument, as it suffers from False Dilemma and Affirming a Disjunct.




Although I think it should expanded along the lines as follows:

A says B is true. (Bible to origins of Life)

A claims to not Lie.

Therefore B is True.

B implies C is False.

Therefore C is False.

If we flip it,

C is presumed True.

B implies C is false, therefore B is false.

A states that B is True.

A presumed not to Lie.

Therefore A has lied.

Therefore A is false.

There is no connection between A and C. There is no reason to see A and C as not compatible. Even if B is false, this does mean A is false.

Ah, okay.  I see the connection now, though I think it's a bit of a stretch.  If you had said "I believe it's hot everywhere, and must always be so" it might have been a bit closer of an anology.


I don't see where the affirming a disjunct comes in, actually.  And it's not really a false dilemma.  It is a valid argument, it just rests on a false assumption (in my opinion).  IF their assumptions are correct, then their conclusion follows.  I don't think the assumption is correct, however (and you don't seem to either).




(I assume by your wording you mean does not mean A is false?)
Depends on just what you mean by A.  If you take A to be "a literal interpretation of genesis" then B being false does indeed imply that A is false.

I can agree that some people accept both evolution and the bible (and I think they're more reasonable than those who are biblical literalists), however, they don't believe that "A implies B is false," so they don't fit your argument above.  If what they believe is that the bible is both literal, and infailible, then if B is false, then A is false too.  Again, it comes down to a disagreement over the truth of the assumption (ie, is the bible literal and without error?), not over the logic of the argument.

Put another way, there is indeed a connection between A and C, and it is B.  If A implies B, and B implies not C, then logically A implies not C.  In this case A would be "the bible is literally true, and without error," B would be "the story of genesis is literally true," and C would be "the earth is 4.5 billion or so years old, life arose naturally, and evolved by natural selection to its current state."

Sorry for not making that not clear, Yea I meant that just because B could be false, did not mean that A is false.

I saw affirming a disjunct by having Either Evolution or Bible is True.

I'm an amateur at Logic, with no forum training. Although I suppose if the False Dilemma is thrown out, then this can be thrown out as well.

The flaw with your logic is that neither evolution nor any particular religion have been clearly 'proven' to be correct.  It is still quite possible that in the near future we'll make a discovery which suggests a completely new method of development of species.  You can argue there is an abundance of evidence supporting evolution, but as is the case with most scientific theories, that doesn't mean it's beyond reproof.

So we have B and C contradict each other, but neither one can absolutely prove itself.  Instead, people have to weigh the evidence.  Some people will weigh it and find C seems more reasonable, some will find B more reasonable.  But you can't claim people are clearly deluding themselves to find B more reasonable.  I daresay you haven't spent much time really exploring their evidence :)

There direct relation with A being true towards B. A can still be True, even if B is false. A can still be true if C is true.

No, but you can 'weigh' it in the same manner. Evolution, is as true as anything else in Science. It is as likely for evolution to be thrown out, as the four laws of thermodynamics, or the theory of gravity to be replaced.

There no object manner to 'weigh' religion, as it refuse to be 'weigh' in the same manner. And if you 'weigh' evolution in the same manner as religion. Well, that just gets you chasing you own tail. And dizzy.

But I believe I have, looked at the creationist arguments there about thousand or so arguments against evolution. Its nicely detailed in a few spots.

Not sure if this was directed at me or Mr. Wiggles, but I responde anyway. ;)

I would agree that neither B nor C can absolutely prove themselves, and that some will look at the evidence available and conclude B is more likely and some will conclude that C is more likely.  But I am proposing that the way they will reach that conclusion depends almost entirely on what they think about the truth of A.

This was sort of my original point.  All the arguments about evolution are about details that never change anyone's mind (or almost never), because they're really not the reason people believe what they do.  The vast, vast majority of people who don't believe in evolution feel it contradicts their religion.  That's the absolute best way to predict what someone will think about evolution--ask them about their religious beliefs.  Because they want to convince others who don't share their religious belief, they frame their disagreements with theory in terms of the evidence.  But those don't tend to be the things that actually led to their views on evolution.  They say "well, we've never seen a fly evolve into a spider!" but if tomorrow we turn around and show them just that, it won't change their mind.  They just say "well, we've never seen a fly evolve into a horse!"  They want to argue there because it makes it appear as if the disagreement is over the evidence, but really the core disagreement is the religious one.  The thing that would change their mind about evolution would not be some science experiment, but rather some event that changed their theology.

To clarify, I'm not saying people are deluding themselves to believe that B is more reasonable.  Like I said, their argument is logical and valid, if you accept their assumptions.  Because of that, I think it is the assumption that causes the disagreement, not the amount of evidence available.  Any amount of evidence that didn't constitute an absolute proof (and science doesn't provide such) would fail to overcome the argument.  Any finite chance that evolution isn't true, no matter how small, would leave their argument valid, and lead them to believe it's not true.

As an example (though not a perfect one), Heath didn't used to believe in human evolution.  We argued a bit, looked at evidence, etc., and it didn't change his mind.  What did eventually change his mind was a book by a christian geneticist, who talked not only about the evidence in favor of human evolution, but also the argument that human evolution was compatable with christian theology.  I admit I'm putting words in Heath's mouth somewhat here, but the book that changed his mind on human evolution was as much a book about theology (or at least about religious beliefs) as it was about science.  And I think those kinds of arguments, which dwell less on the evidence backing up evolution and more on how its possible to believe in evolution and not give up your religion, tend to change more peoples minds than pure evidence does.

As for the very last point, I'd wager I've spent more time going over pro-creationism and anti-evolution arguments than most people who are creationsist or IDers.

That's not technically true (and for the record, many laws of gravity currently are being replaced as we speak.  Again, high hopes for that particle accelerator.  As a note, I do admit we're mixing the word 'theory' with all of the actual hypothesis and understandings that support that theory.)  Some theories have a lot more weight than others because they describe what is directly observable.  The theory of gravity, that there is gravity, is proven much more easily and can be clearly seen to be true.  The theory of evolution, not so much, since no objective observor has observed evolution over the time scales we generally are talking about.



That's where the field of philosophy comes in.  I can argue why some religions are natural or sensical and others are not by using rational arguments.



You're missing the part about why one should believe the bible is right.  If you don't believe the bible is right, it's easy to ignore creationism.

But would they change the minds of those who believe in those religions? ;)

Well...  That's a different question.  It does convince some people.  Some people have other reasons for believing a false dogma, and perhaps may in fact benefit more from claiming a belief they don't hold than from being honest.

This was in the news today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html
It's about the debate in Texas over the education curiculum, and whether schools should be required to teach "the strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory.  Those in favor say they want students to get a full picture, while those opposed say it it just another attempt to get creationism into the classroom.

One part of the article in particular stood out to me:


To me, this highlights what I said a couple posts back very well.  This is clearly a religious issue, being framed as a scientific issue.  This person is a creationist.  That's a religious position.  It's based on a literal interpretation of the bible.  The proponent of this "strengths and weakness" wording says that he considers there to be two options:  creationism, and naturalism.  And then he says he belives the creationist side.  That's a religious position which automatically requires the rejection of evolution, by his own reasoning.  He goes on to claim that his views on evolution aren't based on his religion, but if he honestly believes this, he must not have examined his own words very closely.  If you accept biblical literalism, that determines your views on evolution.  You cannot make an informed, objective decision on the merits of evolutionary theory while at the same time already accepting a belief that implies that evolutionary theory is false.  You have to be willing to consider the possibility that Genesis 1 is not true in a literal sense in order to consider evolution possible.  Again, it's not an issue of the evidence, it's an issue of the assumptions held before looking at the evidence.

Saw this in the news today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html
Possibly a step closer to understanding abiogensis?  A group of scientists discover a feasible chemical pathway to nucleotides, when less then 10 years ago people considered such things occurring spontaneously on a young earth a "near miracle."  Sounds like it could really change the field.

Interesting.  Keep us updated.  It's far from being a proven point yet but is definitely interesting.

Saw this today and got a bit of a chuckle:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytime...eationism-evolution/
Apparently the creation museum offers a pretty clear-cut example of evolution as their explanation of how all the animals fit on the ark:  dogs and foxes are decedents of the same original ark-dog!  So dogs and foxes had a common ancestor just 4000 years ago, indicating evolution at a pace even faster than evolutionists suggest!  Seems to dispel the idea that "macro-evolution" is impossible, at very least.

Creation Museum? Well, at least Japan seems to be doing a better job than Kent, watching the Flintstones like it was a documentary and putting saddles on dinosaurs.

Oh dang, I read that wrong I think; is this the same Creation Museum that was run by that one guy who was arrested for not paying his taxes, or another one?

Well, yes.

They don't hold, though, that all mammals evolved from a single proto-mammal, or that birds came from dinosaurs. Birds have always been birds, fish have always been fish, etcetera.

Still not evolution, in my mind.

It seems that "evolution in your mind" is different from what scientists consider evolution to be, then, no?  I think the reason most people who don't accept evolution don't do so is because they think evolution means something other than it does.  What they reject is something different from what scientists accept.

I dunno, because we're rejecting the idea of a common genetic ancestor, one of the core tenets of the Evolution theory?

I'd call it more of a conclusion than a tenet.  I think it'd be possible to accept the idea of evolution by natural selection without accepting a single ancestor for all life on earth (in fact, some evolutionists are actively searching for other forms of life on earth which aren't descendants from the same thing as the rest of us).  Everything we see looks like it has a common ancestor with us, but that's not how it needs to be in order for evolution to be true.

But I'd say the more important thing is that creationists tend to say not just the evolution didn't happen, but that it couldn't happen.  They (or at least most of them) think it's not only not true, but actually is impossible to boot.  But this example seems to directly contradict this idea, in that it's an example of one species changing to another (what creationists usually refer to as "macro" evolution), and in far shorter time period than evolutionists posit it happening over.

You can say "well, a dog turning into a fox isn't evolution to me!" but then whatever you're saying evolution is is something different from what scientists say it is.  Rejecting common descent at that point is sort of a side concern, I'd say.  Especially so if the reason that they reject common descent is because they think evolution is impossible based on their flawed understanding of what evolution is.

A religious analogy might be a person saying "I don't believe in christianity because none of the christians I've met can walk on water.  Oh, and I don't buy that whole transubstantiation thing either."  The reason for rejecting it involves such a fundamental misunderstanding of the religion that second disagreement over transubstantiation is sort of a non-issue.  If you think christians claim they can walk on water, and reject christianity based on the fact that they can't, then your views on the rest of the religion are sort of besides the point, right?

Agreed. But if you were to place everyone on this issue into creationists or evolutionists, this museum would still distinctly fall into the former.

Oh, no question there.  It just seems odd that they would have something in the museum that seems to fairly directly contradict one of their main ideas (that evolution from one species to another isn't possible).

Put another way, if a person can accept a dog and a fox sharing a common ancestor a few thousand years ago, they shouldn't have a problem with humans a chimps sharing a common ancestor a few million years ago.  The rate of evolution required for the former is greater than that required for the latter.

I'm someone who started off believing in a literal 7 day creation from a creator, then travelled along to a more Old Universe Creation setup, and now I am leaning more towards a more evolutionary creation line of thinking but with some questions.

That's just for background but does not have too much to do with my question.

I'm curious, for those who believe in evolution, what are the current theories on why things like an enjoyment of beauty evolved as a part of human life?  This would apply more to an evolutionary theory devoid of any creator I think.

It's one of the questions that I have never quite had an answer for and I am very curious as to what some of you hold strictly to that belief currently believe on that.

Thanks in advance.

Well, beauty is a subjective quality; a placement of value by the mind that is considerably higher than most others, and we also have to remember that we're using our brains in ways they weren't evolved to be used for; Evolution isn't planned out ahead of time, and there's nothing specifically that makes us find a piece of music beautiful, or makes us anthropomorphize animals; the causes of these behaviors are usually found in the basis of experience and abstract thought interfering with the basic programmed instincts...

I believe there was a test run whereby they took thousands of male pictures and thousands of female pictures, and had female and male test subjects respectively rate them from 1-10.

Also included were pictures that amalgamated one or more pictures into one to create a new face.  It was determined by the study that the amalgamated pictures received on average a higher score than the non-amalgamated ones. I believe they also included pictures which were amalgamated with pictures of the test subjects as well, and those scored even higher on average.

It is an advantage to be able to blend into your surroundings in order to avoid sticking out, appearing weak, or falling prey to predators.  As such, you are more likely to find somebody similar to you or others as more attractive than somebody different from the rest, since not only will you then appear more like everyone else, but so will your children if you have them.

Abstracting this, usually we find Art, Music, etc. to be more to our liking when we can either personally identify with it, or if all our friends like it.

I'll have to think on that some more as it doesn't quite make sense to me. The 'faces' test makes a lot of sense but trying to shuffle that idea over to something, such as finding being in the mountains, a beautiful experience is where I just don't understand except that perhaps it's all down to experience rather then any inherent evolutionary reasons.

Anyways, my journey towards possibly believing in evolution is an interesting one to me, and I'm still not convinced completely because of factors like this, but I am interested in the answers people give.  Thanks!