Keith Devens .com

Gee, the "Answers in Genesis" website sounds like the perfect place to get an objective view of this issue.

When supporters of evolution fail to present suitable evidence, creationists attribute this as victory of their own theory. Shouldn't no theory be correct until conclusive scientific evidence is presented?

I'd be curious to review the scientific bed of evidence for Creationism. Hopefully it isn't from a website like "Answers in Genesis" or "Scientists Compelled by Faith" or whatever, because you need to shoulder the same burden of proof as the evolutionists.

Honestly, Keith, your technology info is usually great, but in your Christian & political postings, you come off like a young man who has a hard time letting the data form its own picture.

Gee, the "Answers in Genesis" website sounds like the perfect place to get an objective view of this issue.

Dismissing it so quickly... that was fast. Did you read the article and consider what they had to say before you came to that judgement? (And, as if Scientific American is itself an objective source on this issue!)

When supporters of evolution fail to present suitable evidence, creationists attribute this as victory of their own theory.

I don't know that that's the case. In any case, I've certainly never done that, because I know it's a fallacy to believe that the "absence of evidence proves the evidence of absence", to use a catchphrase, as well as that an argument doesn't end with proving the other side wrong.

However, you make an error that I've frequently argued against. You assume that creation vs. evolution is simply a scientific debate that can be resolved just like a hypothesis of chemistry or physics. Both evolution and creation are not scientific theories, but are rather theories of origins. Both involve interpretations of existing data, where the interpretations depend on the underlying worldview of the interpreter. Evolutionists hold fast to a naturalistic explanation of our origins, while creationists reject a naturalistic explanation and hold to a supernatural understanding of our origins.

As for "conclusive scientific evidence"... do you believe in evolution?

but in your Christian & political postings, you come off like a young man who has a hard time letting the data form its own picture.

I just take that to mean that you disagree with me. As if the "raw data" of politics and religious beliefs doesn't necessarily require interpretation!

Thanks for your reply, which was stated fairly.

I had difficulty getting through Dr. Sarfati's article due to a lot of spin and prima-facie arguments. Prager's articles displayed the same pattern.

Btw, I have no problem with putting Scientific American under close scrutiny. It's a media magazine, part substance, part product.

I agree that the debate isn't scientific; both groups corral factions of people, a large % of which are biased. Despite the challenges, I believe that the only way to arrive at an objective truth is through scientific methods. Both groups appear to be force-fitting their puzzle pieces, but I at least see some recognizable sections on the evolutionist side.

Do I believe in evolution? I accept significant parts of the evolution argument, such as evolution of species and that life on earth is a product of adaptability to the environment. I have not seen evidence evolution as the origin of life.

As if the "raw data" of politics and religious beliefs doesn't necessarily require interpretation!

Only interpret to articulate what is well expressed in the data. If the data isn't solid, don't bother projecting it though your filters-- it'll only come out as spin. If you rely on decent data, write well & objectively, you'll find that you don't need to explain things as much.

I realize this just a weblog. But you have an opportunity to help people understand some interesting issues. It's about the data. If they want to understand more of Keith's value-add interpretation, a better venue is the local pub!

You've probably seen this before, but I'll post anyway:

Rules of Engagement

A worthy set of rules to consider before posting comments on Keith's blog!

Regards

I had difficulty getting through Dr. Sarfati's article due to a lot of spin and prima-facie arguments. Prager's articles displayed the same pattern.

Would you be willing to provide an example? I'd be interested to see what you're referring to.

I realize this just a weblog. But you have an opportunity to help people understand some interesting issues. It's about the data. If they want to understand more of Keith's value-add interpretation, a better venue is the local pub!

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Would you please elaborate/rephrase?

Do I believe in evolution? I accept significant parts of the evolution argument, such as evolution of species and that life on earth is a product of adaptability to the environment. I have not seen evidence evolution as the origin of life.

I accept things like natural selection also. In fact, the creationist position allows for lots of genetic variation and "evolution" (for instance, I don't believe that all the breeds of dogs we have today were originally created as distinct). However, I don't believe that people evolved from "ape-like creatures", or fish, or whatever. You do? Where's the "conclusive scientific evidence" for that position?

A worthy set of rules to consider before posting comments on Keith's blog!

Hmm... are you saying that these arguments are pointless and we should try to avoid these types of discussions (first half of his essay), or that we should try to follow his rules for dispassionate argumentation (second part)?

Oh, by the way. Here's a post I came across from a while ago talking about The Creationist Orchard which is relevant to what I said in the last comment.