At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time).
36 comments
Well, it is easy, if Jason thinks that the evidence at hand support creationism, he should try to publish his hypothesis in a scientific journal.
That's wonderful Jason. Except that science doesn't work that way. Yes, you can get to different spots beginning with different beginning assumptions. The problem is what makes one set of assumptions more valid than another? You can't just say 'hey, I don't like your assumptions, instead of trying to prove them false I'm just going to go way over here and start with something else that's completely unfounded!'
I would like to know exactly how you figured out that none of your professors had a clue what his/her assumptions were. I remember as part of several assignments (bio degree) being asked to at least list the assumptions of an argument, we may have critiqued them as well. I've also read several biology and chemistry journal articles that plainly marked assumptions in the narrative.
Thanks to FSTDT commenter E.A. Poe for his kind permission.
Behind the thorny brambles jackanapes masturbated. All the while the forest clearing was a-bustle with activity. The Raven held court, perched on her favourite branch, and oversaw it all. The sparrow Marlow was killing time by performing a weird succession of jerky motions and uttering most un-sparrowlike cheeps. Brother Edmund Harper the gnarly toad croaked authoritatively as he and Hugh Gilligan the newt considered an important question of amphibious honour. "Hola," cried Jack Spratt to Joseph Martins Biggleswade the marionette as he jerked into view. At that precise moment, jackanapes chose to ejaculate over the blackberries. (cont. page 94)
So fundy xtians don't start with their presuppositions on creationism? Bullshit. Your logic is flawed, actually, it's non-existent, just like your sky daddy.
"So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the biblical account of creation"
And this, of course, isn't because he is presupposing this is so, and drawing his conclusions accordingly, no, no no. He, as a "True Christian" who believes in the literal truth of the bible, is above such things!
At the university level, Jason discovered that he lacked an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions which was this: he was unable to distinguish a hypothesis from a theory. He faulted scientists for having any presuppositions (i.e. they hoped to able to use scientific evidence to prove their existing worldview). It thus made him disgruntled when he saw that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means. Rather than seeing this as the normal working method of science in finding the truth, he decided it was a perversion to have different falsible starting points. So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted as God did it, that it always supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time).
FIXED
Science's presuppositions:
That's it.
Creationism's presuppositions:
1) The Bible is 100% correct, no matter what.
Subjectivity at the onset of an experiment is not a flaw in the scientific method as long as a researcher is explicit in his/her assumptions. The hypothetico-deductive method deals very well with this subjectivity.
How is subjectivity problematic here? It doesn't matter what your set of initial explanations is, as long as your are explicit about your assumptions. If you propose something stupid and design an experiment well, you will reject that explanation.
AiG have just revised their Statement of Faith
By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information
I have put the new extra part in italics.
Translation:
University professors have little patience in debating people who shouldn't be there. It is a sad state of affairs when I shock professors by showing up at their offices asking why I received a grade, to learn from my mistakes. It seems that most people show up at their offices to argue their grade instead.
"So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence properly interpreted always supported the biblical account of creation ..."properly interpreted the mountains of evidence evidence that hundreds of researchers, scientists, scholars, and students have been looking at wrongly for the past thousand years; until you, Jason Lisle, came along and properly
Honestly, is there no end to the Cretins Orwelian tactics?
The ONLY way Creationism can get a foothold is through political plots. They arent going to pass scientific muster I can tell you that much.
Seriously if star light and time constitutes a thorny question (presumably 'cause it brutally murders the concept of a 6000 yo universe) you've got problems my friend, BIG problems. Also, why the hell are you referring to yourself in the third person? That is a sign of megalomania. You may wish to see a doctor.
At the reality level, Jason discovered that talking about himself in the third person was a significant indicator of mental health problems, and checked himself into a sanitarium at the first opportunity.
And how, pray tell, DOES one interpret the evidence to support the biblical account of creation, even with the thorny question of starlight and time? God created the light from distant stars already in-transit to the Earth so that we'd THINK they were older than they really were? I thought it was Satan that was supposed to be the lying trickster.
@ Berny #914943 2009-Jan-22 09:40 PM
How this man can claim to hold a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and still believe in a 6000 year old universe is beyond me.
===================================================
The Biblical thing was tried. That's where we got a flat Earth that had the sun going around it and a moon that made light.
Science corrected that, You got the real facts from science, yet you think you can fill all remaining disagreements with God still. You have nothing
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
