religious reasons?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Helen, Jun 3, 2003.

  1. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Galatian wrote: Only a tiny minority of scientists reject evolution, few of them biologists, and all of them for religious reasons.

    I would like to ask for a reference on that. Specifically the part about 'all of them for religious reasons.'

    That is a universal statement and one I know is not true. However, I would sincerely like Galatian to back up this statement with some kind of statistical references.
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    More properly, no one has ever been able to show me a creationist did not have a religious agenda.

    Jonathan Wells, for example, once claimed to have been influenced only by the evidence he found during his PhD training, but later, it was discovered that he had admitted to a prior "mission to destroy evolution".

    One prominent creationist argued that Mt. St. Helens had converted him from an evolutionist to a creationist. But it was later found that he had been writing creationist tracts long before that, under a psuedonym.

    Kurt Wise honestly admits that no evidence could convince him his understanding of Scripture was wrong, and Harold Coffin has testified that if he went by the evidence, he would not be a YE creationist.

    Most aren't quite that honest. How many creationists do you know who aren't religious creationists?
     
  3. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Don't change the subject, Galatian. You stated something about those who reject evolution. Are you under the misconception that all those who reject evolution are creationists?

    And, specifically, we are talking about scientists, I believe...
     
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm unaware of any scientist who rejects evolution who doesn't do so for religious reasons.

    Name me one who isn't of a religious persuasion that rejects evolution.
     
  5. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Galatian, in other words, you are your only reference? Your experience, limited as it is, is what you used to make a universal positive statement?

    If that is the only reference you have, you will excuse me for not taking you seriously with your statement, which I know to be false. This pattern runs along the lines of a number of your other statements, too, and I want people here to be aware of that.

    In response to your question: Del Ratszch.
     
  6. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't think of one, either? Neither can I, and I've read a lot of the literature. I think you must mean "Del Ratzsch", but he's a philosopher. He's not a scientist.

    If you can't find one, is it possible that it's because there isn't one?
     
  7. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Shoot! He's a friend and I still misspelled his name!

    At any rate, his field is philosophy of science, which is a field of science.

    But that doesn't matter, really, when all you are using is your own limited experience and then tried to make a universal statement out of it.

    Nice try in avoiding that part of the post, though.
     
  8. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know him, but I know how to spell his name.

    Nope it's a field of philosophy. Do you know of any scientists who object to evolution, but don't have a religious agenda?

    It matters a lot. I said there weren't any scientists who objected to evolution who didn't have a religious agenda, and you want me to accept a philosopher as a substitute. If that's the best you can do, you've already proven my point.

    So far, it stands. Would you like to take another shot at finding a scientist like that?

    If you do think of one, let me know.
     
  9. mdkluge

    mdkluge
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Well, saying that no scientist rejects evolution for reasons other than religious might be too strong. One should, perhaps, say only that no scientific rejects evolution for other than nonscientific reasons.

    That this is so is obvious: Any scientist who found scientific reason to reject a part of science so important and fundamental as evolution would be duty bound (as well as absolutely eager!) to publish his findings for other scientists to read, including within regular scientific channels of communication. And if there were such a publication it would create a sensation and every scientist (I write only slightly hyperbolically here) would get up and read it. But there is no such paper, so there ain't no such scientist. . (Of course there are claims to the contrary, but nothing ever pans out. Really, Helen, bravado aside, something like a scientist rejecting evolution for scientific reasons is about as likely to be kept secret as your typical military sectret. It would leak out.

    Well, maybe it would have to take a few weeks to go through the grape vine. So let me weaken my statement again; no scientists prior to (say) a year ago has rejected evolution of other than non-scientific reasons.
     
  10. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, you two have made some pretty sweeping statements with no referencing and no data whatsoever.

    Which is in line with evolution, so at least you are consistent.... [​IMG]
     
  11. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd still be open to an example of such a scientist.

    I gather you can't think of one.

    Neither, apparently, can anyone else. That's a pretty good bit of evidence in itself.
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry Galatian -- you made a statement and I asked for a reference. You have none. Trying to throw the onus of proof back onto me is simply avoidance on your part. You are quite skilled at that, but I'm asking for a reference for this sweeping statement you have made which I disagree with.
     
  13. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, we'll just say that as far as anyone knows, there is no such scientist.

    There's a good reason for that. Of course, it's been observed that you can find someone who believes almost anything somewhere.

    But in this case, it's so bizarre that I doubt if you'll find even one.
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Again, no references.

    Only your statements. You are a mind reader that you know all this, right? You know why men do what they do?

    I thought only God could do that! Yet you make sweeping statements with the impression of god-like authority on the matter and then try to squeeze out of it.

    I just wanted people to see what you are doing.
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you were doing better when you tried to deal with the topic.

    Granted your example of Ratzsch didn't work, but that is the kind of thing that would help.

    If your position is "I don't know of any scientists like that, but I'm very sure that they must exist somewhere.", I guess I couldn't refute that.

    But I'm pretty sure that you will never find them.
     
  16. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    What helps is when you quit trying to avoid the point. It's not my responsibility to back up what you say, or even to disprove it. It is your responsibility to show that what you say is true when you have been challenged.

    You cannot do it. There have been many times when you could not do it. This one was too good to pass up. Sorry.
     
  17. InHim2002

    InHim2002
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure where the burden of proof logically lies in this case - Galation made a statement so normally the burden of proof would rest with him - however, Mark makes a good point - Galations statement is not contentious - it is self evident (rather like saying the sky is blue).

    Unless Helen can provide some examples to disprove it?
     
  18. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have one for you Helen:

    Kurt Wise, who wrote:

    Which is in the book: "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation" by Wise.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    The assertion is like "there are no such things as leprechauns".

    I can't prove there aren't, but I doubt if someone will find an example to contradict me.

    Actually leprechauns are probably more likely than Helen's hypothetical scientists.
     
  20. InHim2002

    InHim2002
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes you are right - it is not valid to expect someone to prove a negative, the burden of proof should fall on Helen to disprove your statement.
     

Share This Page

Loading...