Re: You're assuming that things were the same back then!
- From: richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:34:43 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 17, 9:53 pm, killerlimpet <killerlim...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My campus is visited every few weeks by one or another traveling
evangelists aiming to turn us from our wicked, beer guzzling, pot
smoking, fornicating, gay sexing ways. Oh, and evolution accepting;
they typically take one or two swipes at why we think "Nothing
exploded, and made a monkey that gave birth to a human." I usually
argue science with them when I have the chance.
The other day, I got a new one that made me stop and think about the
mental processes involved: On countering the "carbon dating assumes
the same amount of C-14 as present day," I offered calibration
methods- ice cores, tree rings, and lake varves, things whose
interpretation as time keepers should be obvious, and I got the above
response: I am assuming that trees produced rings in the past as they
do in the present, etc.
Well, yes, actually, I am, and with damn good reason; for someone to
argue so for the scientific invalidity of evolution is asinine. But it
has a subtle brilliance: how on earth do you argue with that? Any
evidence you can present (other radiometric dating techniques,
analysis of sediment layers in varves, etc) gets attacked by the same
argument. It's unfalsifiable, but not in the explicit way that the
ophalos argument: it's not a claim that an agent adjusted the reality
to look a certain way, but that our preconceptions condition how we
interpret it. (This preacher in particular loves using
presuppositional apologetics, and uses every chance he gets to lead
into Bahnsen's transcendental proof.)
I usually point out when people make these claims about the
assumptions of scientific endeavor that dismissing evolution on the
basis of them with equal validity dismisses the underlying principles
of many technologies they take for granted- the quantum mechanics
behind their solid state video cameras, for example. In this case, the
only examples I could come up with- astronomy and archaeology- didn't
have the day to day force behind them. I instead argued that, as words
and meanings are much more malleable than the behavior of trees, he
was making the same assumption, with less validity, about the meanings
of the holy texts he was quoting, but this just tanked the
conversation into biblical apologetics.
Does anyone else have thoughts on what they would say to this sort of
"reasoning"? Is it even possible to argue against it, or is it an
insurmountable wall defending their worldview?
charlie
In simple terms (and I only understand simple terms), without the
assumption that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent
manner we can't do science. If the rate of decay of C14 was different
in the past it means that we have to reject most of the knowledge we
have gained over the past few centuries in most areas of most
sciences. Science is an interconnecting web of theory and evidence,
and you can't just remove one strand and leave the rest intact.
Of course, there is no way in which science can disprove the assertion
that the world was created 6,000 years ago with all the appearance of
great age, but for that matter it can't disprove the assertion that
the world was created 6 minutes ago with all the appearance of great
age. Once we reject the assumption that the universe is consistent, we
have nothing to inform enquiry.
The fact that science is hugely successful shows that the assumptions
on which it is based are sound.
RF
.
- References:
- You're assuming that things were the same back then!
- From: killerlimpet
- You're assuming that things were the same back then!
- Prev by Date: Re: Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant
- Next by Date: Re: Re: The Reasonable Minority
- Previous by thread: Re: You're assuming that things were the same back then!
- Next by thread: Re: You're assuming that things were the same back then!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
