FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-13-2003, 05:11 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
Default Ken Ham on the nature of evidence

Searching for the "magic bullet"

Apparently a multitude of creationists complained to Ken Ham about the Arguments creationists should NOT use, saying it depletes the quantity of "evidence" available to refute evolution. So Ken Ham reassures them that it's not a battle between evolution evidence and creation evidence, but a battle between the same evidence interpreted differently. I consider this paragraph illuminating:

Quote:
The bottom line is that it's not a matter of who has the better (or the most) 'facts on their side.' We need to understand that there are no such things as brute facts - all facts are interpreted. Thus, the next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently. Then, using the real science of the present that an evolutionist also uses, see if that science, when properly understood, confirms (by being consistent with) the interpretation based on the Bible. You will find over and over again that the Bible is confirmed by real science.

(emphases original)
Well, that looks like the basic underpinning of creationism: a presuppositional war on the scientific method.

Any more insights?
Heathen Dawn is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 05:22 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 944
Default

Ken Ham's article has now hurt my brain...I can no longer add properly...

In any event, I find it bad (I can't think of a term to cover my disgust) that Ham assigns positive science findings to "creationists" and negative ones to evolutionists, as seen here:

Quote:
In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems.
+

Quote:
But the authors of the article concluded that this argument should no longer be used, because new measurements showed that the influx of meteoric dust was much less than evolutionists had previously thought.
Meatros is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 05:25 AM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Default Re: Ken Ham on the nature of evidence

Quote:
Thus, the next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. [/B]
Thatís why I am so fond (as some of you may have gathered ) of using stupid designs from nature. Because to do so takes the creationist claim at face value. The presupposition involved is creationistsí own one, that there was a highly intelligent designer behind the marvels of nature. Assume an intelligent designer... then show them that if there was a designer at all, it was a stupid, incompetent and sadistic one.

They tend not to like that.

Cheers, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 03:54 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Coast. Australia.
Posts: 5,455
Default Re: Re: Ken Ham on the nature of evidence

Quote:
Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
They tend not to like that.
And then they tend to ingore it, or pretend it's not there.

What can you do, eh?
Doubting Didymus is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 03:59 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
Default

I think its interesting how Ken Ham tries to hide the plain facts of AiG's statement of faith.

Quote:
D-6: 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.
It's not the matter of interpreting evidence differently, it's a matter of declaring all evidence that contradicts creationism as being invalid. That's not interpretation; that's denial.
RufusAtticus is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 04:24 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Default

Creationists discover that they love post-modern cultural relativism. Who said that irony was dead? They were so wrong.
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 04:41 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
Default

When Chase Nelson recently brought up the "different interpretations" excuse in email, I asked him how the creationist interpretation explained shared unary pseudogenes. Since he is on vacation, I'm still waiting for his response.
RufusAtticus is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 04:42 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
Default

Quote:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Henry Morris and Philip Johnson echoed similar statements.

By Henry Morris:

Quote:
No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inference of Scripture.
By Philip Johnson:

Quote:
If God exists, what reason is there to believe in blind, naturalistic evolution in the first place?
Heathen Dawn is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 04:57 AM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Oolon: "Why?"

Ham: "Because Scripture is God's Word."

Oolon: "But how do you know that?"

Ham: "Because Scripture says so."

or possibly

"Because God has revealed himself to me and said it is."

Oolon: "But what makes you so sure?"

Ham: "It is because it is because it is."

In other words, 'because I say so'.



It makes you wonder why they are so concerned to argue with scientific evidence, if no evidence matters...

Cheers, Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 01:12 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
It makes you wonder why they are so concerned to argue with scientific evidence, if no evidence matters...
Pride and money.
RufusAtticus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:56 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.