Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?

@Briancrc,

Dika?

@cicerone imposter,

Ha! Zika. Dika is a person I know. She wouldn't appreciate me naming the virus after her.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"It can be very helpful to go back and recount those past thoughts to make sense of those events that followed."

The problem with post hoc analysis is that one can cherry-pick the data to fit one's narrative. That just seems like an invitation to delude oneself. Many of the questions about these topics has to do with things that are factual. The structure and function of biological organisms either do or do not change across time. The practices of cultures either do or do not change across time. The things that one says or does either do or do not change across time.

How do we determine the state of these facts? Belief? Faith? Mosquito's in Brazil either do or do not transmit Dika. How does one determine this fact?

Anytime you are examining data it is subject to 'cherry-picking'. That's true in literally every field. And of course post-hoc is the only way we can examine past data. Does that mean we should not do it because of that possibility? Rhetorical question of course.

But post-hoc analysis is subject to the same error checking and verification for consistency and repeatability in all fields. You might make the argument that 'thoughts' are not subject to that kind of scrutiny because some may intentionally or unintentionally 'mis-remember' things. Writing thoughts down can be helpful there. But Fraud happens in every field of research.

Many can and do lie to themselves, give up or avoid doing it at all when looking for the connection between thoughts and events but I'm convinced that Socrates was right - 'The unexamined life is not worth living'.
The validity of results depends on the integrity of the examiner.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I think your assertion "about post-hoc" is untrue when it comes to subjects like evolution. We have many species who are derived from mother species and, due to biogeography, niche changes, or the mere fact that the mother species still live along with their various daughters. (Like hyraces , syrenians, and elephants)
We have the masses of paleo and genetic data that vary in specific areas on the phenotype, and the genome, yet retain all commonalities among the mother and the daughter species.

Think about it,
separated in time (from fossil records that show first species), yet the living retain the commonalities and the evolutionary hierarchical structures

separated in distance -living species with changes to fixed genes (resulting in derived species) as they waft away on islands or caves or desert barriers.

Not all species have disappeared as others arise from their stock.

In science,If someone is accused of cherry picking, thats an invitation to keep working and dont try to publish yet.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The validity of results depends on the integrity of the examiner

In science there are sets of agreed upon practices (e.g., strategies and tactics to improve internal and external validity, procedural fidelity measures, inter-observer checks, calibration of instruments, etc) used to help guard against personal bias and other threats to the results of research. Do you think that quality of the assessment is the same, as what one gets in science, just by thinking about past events?

1 Reply

Added to all of what Brian and FM point out, there's the cut-throat world of academic competition. If you fudge the data or the results, or use a flawed methodology, there are any number of people out there who will be delighted to knock you off of your perch.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Think about it,
separated in time (from fossil records that show first species), yet the living retain the commonalities and the evolutionary hierarchical structures...

Yes, just as my new Surface Book retains all of the hierarchical structures of the home brew 8080 computer I built back in 1974 or Eniac before that or Babbage's conception long before that.

A brilliant illustration of what I would expect of intelligent design farmer.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

so the "slow creator" was he adjusting the environment and then the species or did he do it all in one swoop.

You certainly see the world as a "nail"

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"The validity of results depends on the integrity of the examiner"

In science there are sets of agreed upon practices (e.g., strategies and tactics to improve internal and external validity, procedural fidelity measures, inter-observer checks, calibration of instruments, etc) used to help guard against personal bias and other threats to the results of research. Do you think that quality of the assessment is the same, as what one gets in science, just by thinking about past events?

Well, yes. Because the same tools used in the Scientific Method can be applied to any examination of data.

The only difference is that the data (your memory) is sometimes (but not always) only available to you and so - "The validity of results depends on the integrity of the examiner". But there have been times when it was helpful to verify my memory about events with 'peer review' when it was available.

If one wants to argue that this totally invalidates self examination, it reflects very badly on one's estimation of their own integrity.

One tool of the SM that is available is 'repeatability'. If others find the same linkages between thoughts and events, it lends credibility.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You certainly see the world as a "nail"

And a well designed one at that.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

there's the cut-throat world of academic competition. If you fudge the data or the results, or use a flawed methodology, there are any number of people out there who will be delighted to knock you off of your perch.

True, but usually only after the tide of knowledge and understanding has turned. Before that happens, there is too much Grant Money at stake to go against the tide.
For example, until VERY recently, any researcher trying to get funded for pro-cannabis studies would be rejected, ignored or laughed at. But there was plenty of money for anti-cannabis study.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

If one wants to argue that this totally invalidates self examination, it reflects very badly on one's estimation of their own integrity.

No, I wouldn't argue that it invalidates it. The question, for me, however, is do you elevate the results through self examination as being on par with those of scientific investigation?

I think if you do, then you are probably are more willing to subscribe to a belief system than one who views scientific study as the liklier of the two methods for discovering the truth of a matter.

We know that we are susceptible to mistaking correlation for causation. Performing a rain dance close in time to when it rained likely kept that practice going. Whether you step on cracks, walk under ladders, allow black cats to cross your path, etc., likely all ties back to misfortunes that occurred close in time to those events. The people that experienced the misfortune passed along their recommendations so that others could avoid "the same fate". Do you believe that these warnings are based on things that are true? Did you ever break your mother's back from stepping on a crack? Do you really think that one's belief brings you as close to the truth as an investigation of the matter using refined and peer-reviewed practices? I'm interested in your opinion just on this point.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Do you think that quality of the assessment is the same, as what one gets in science, just by thinking about past events?

Quote:
Well, yes. Because the same tools used in the Scientific Method can be applied to any examination of data.

Sorry...I rushed through this earlier. This is a real problem. Experiments have very often failed to confirm prediction. What do you imagine is the reason people go through the exercise of experimentation if all could be figured out through retrospective analysis or introspection?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

The question, for me, however, is do you elevate the results through self examination as being on par with those of scientific investigation?

Didn't I answer that in the same post you quoted? Here it is again:

Quote:

Well, yes. Because the same tools used in the Scientific Method can be applied to any examination of data.

If I use the same methods in self examination as other scientific inquiries, why shouldn't I elevate the results to the same level?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Sorry...I rushed through this earlier. This is a real problem. Experiments have very often failed to confirm prediction. What do you imagine is the reason people go through the exercise of experimentation if all could be figured out through retrospective analysis or introspection?

Replied to the rushed question already but on to this one.

I already mentioned 'repeatability' as an important element of the Scientific Method. So yes, if it's not repeatable, then you'd have to question the results. I wouldn't buy a one-time anomaly or coincidence either.

So yes, I run the experiment more than once. Some may question the practice of experimenting on ones' self but in this case, - that's the whole point.

2 Replies

This fracked up topic could be wrecked if people spend some thought on Time being of first order reality or not...
...I am pretty sure nor the coinage "creation" nor "Darwinism" alone would quite nail the point.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

your assertions concerning your adherance to the "Scientific Method" is, at best, naive. You actually avoid the SM entirely while practicing your worldview. Heres a diagram from Ted Garland at UC Riverside. Lets examine it

You may start at an "observation" but I submit that you abandon ny association with the SCientific Method qwhen you rach your conclusion early in the process (ie formulation of hypotheses). Agree?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

your assertions concerning your adherance to the "Scientific Method" is, at best, naive. You actually avoid the SM entirely while practicing your worldview.

You may start at an "observation" but I submit that you abandon ny association with the SCientific Method qwhen you rach your conclusion early in the process (ie formulation of hypotheses). Agree?

Hardly.

You are making grand assumptions about my 'practice of worldview' about which you know precious little. And about the current thing under discussion (thoughts affecting experiences) you know nothing about that because I've said nothing about my conclusions, only the methodology used to arrive at them. I have told you when I started (~ age 7) and only recently (61 years later) reached some conclusions. That's 'early in the process'??.

But I'll grant that I've said volumes about my worldview compared to you.

I've asked before but heard nothing back. What's the story behind your rejecting creation, figuring out why you did, how it affected you, etc. Most of your crew explain it in this way but you can do better than 'Well I Just opened a college text one day and it revealed to me that my beliefs are a load of bollix'.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

To all of your and Lamonts assertions Ive responded in detailed fashion. You have admitted that you are "Uninterested" in learning about what Ive spoken about (Evo, chem, geo, Paleo genetics) Ive been more than generous with you two . Now Im kinda pissed at your lying statement about my saying little. IF YOU CANT UNDERSTAND then just admit it .
Your misstatements about the amount of evidence out there associated with the way the earth developed is stunning when you try to assmble your silly childlike arguments bout an ID"free of aDesigner".

If you wish to embrace being a moron, be my guest. Just do not assert your crap AS anything close to being "Scientific"

Ive presented you often with a natural observation (a few months ago I gave you a fairly complete discussion about the use of Falsifiability in the discovery of a very important devonian fossil that was a transitional fossil from fish to amphibians. You merely changed the subject or said things that were patently untrue.

Your mind is apparently tightly closed, perhaps you should follow up similarly with your mouth.

As far as my own path in life, Ive been raised a Catholic with all the BS that involved. Ive had questions from very early and no decent answers except, like your own assertions.
"We can see the hand of a Creator in the complexity of the world" (Whatever the **** thats supposed to mean).
Ive always been more interested in seeing whats behind the green curtain that was held by the religious leaders. (Turns out its nothing more than "believe what we tell you-- I ts the truth because a God said it"

Im sorry, but I find that comically circular.

Youve weaseled out of every discussion re: facts and evidence because youre unable to assemble an argument that relies upon facts and evidence.
You usually default to some Rev Paley argument (look him up if you arent familiar by now)And you delve into these Paleyisms without ever touching an issue of substance. Pretty sad man.

PS, earlier you said you were born in 1947 , today , you say you were born 8 years later. So were you lying then or ARE you lying now?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It's easy to reject creationism when one understands science. Science doesn't rely on hokus pokus. It relies on geological science.

1 Reply

Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know