"Evolution is the origin of atheism, communism, nazism, behaviorism, economic imperialism, militarism, debauchery, anarchism and many anti-Christian beliefs and practices"
This is a quote from "The Remarkable Birth of Planet earth ",(1972) by H.M. Morris, one of the leading creationists. Let us take this serious.
It sound like a factual observation of history, so we may ascribe a truthvalue to it.
Furthermore we could suppose that this statement is a deduction from the theory of Creationism, because Morris claims that creationism is the correct scientific description of the origin of species.
So we assume that we are dealing here with a scientific observation and we should apply scientific method to it, to test it. But who tells me what is scientific method and what is not.
I assume, that what we can expect scientific method is at least able to establish the truth or falsity of a statement. But how we do that?
Well, we could agree on the demand, that to say that a statement is true means, that everybody on earth can observe the state of affairs ,which a statement refers to.
Or said in simple words: I could be in a room with a chair and I could say that the statement, that you can sit on that object is true. I can invite people from all over the world to my room and say: you can sit on that, pointing at the chair. I demonstrate and they try themsleves.
Now the quote says that evolution is the origin of a lot of things. So what we have to do is to show how evolution did all that, but maybe we can choose for another stategy.
We could say,no, it is easier to proof that anarchism, atheism or debauchery existed before evolution. I guess it won't be that difficult to find irrefutable historical evidence for this hypothesis.
This means that evolution is for instance not the origing of anachism. Example: William Godwin (3 March 1756 – 7 April 1836) was an English journalist, political philosopher and novelist. He is considered one of the first modern proponents of anarchism.
Thus the quoted statement is false. Logic says that a conclusion can only be absolutely true, if the premisses from which it is deduced are true. Then we must conclude that creationist theory contains untrue premises.
However, is this the right way of reasoning? Isnt it completely the other way around? We can proof that anarchism has existed in history. We have all kinds of evidence, from books to bombs.
But this has serious consequences for our quote, because then we can say, as the creationists say: The creationist claims that evolution does NOT exist. IF anarchism exists, then evolution exists, for evolution is the origin of anarchism, as the creationist says.
With all due respect, but here we are stuck in a contradiction: something seems to be true and false at the same time. Even common sense opposes to that possibility
and because we have proven that anarchism exists, it is justified to say that the claim that evolution does not exist is false, if we regard the quote as a true statement.
What are the ingredients of what we call our scientific method? First of all that a statement is either true or false. Second that we need empirical evidence to establish the truth of a statement.
Third, that true premises never can lead to a false conclusion and fourth, that when we find empirical evidence that is contradictory to some statement or theory, then the statement or theory are false.
To defend the rationality of scientific method it even got that far that in a court of law in 1981 in Arkansas a judge had to tell "the world" what is scientific.
The judge ruled firmly that Creation Science is not science, it is religion, and as such has no place in public classrooms. The judge ruled that the ‘essential characteristics’ of what makes something scientific are:
1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.
In the judge's opinion, Creation Science fails on all counts. When we look again at the quote we started with, it is more clear now that creationism is not a scientific theory, but a politico-religious movement.
As I showed in the former lecture, that it is at least highly questionable to base scientific theory on just a book, even if the book is called the bible, I hope I have made clear today as well that scientifically that creationism is bogus.
[13:26] herman Bergson: quod dixi,dixi
[13:26] itsme Frederix: Well a long way with a lot of non arguments Herman.
[13:26] herman Bergson: Explain plz
[13:28] itsme Frederix: evolution is something different (formaly) from evolunionism, the statement you quoted mixed these two things. It could state evolutionism is the origin of ....
[13:28] Myriam Brianna: and/or seriously messed up semantics here ^.- - you've got my full ack in the statement that creationism is no science, but your quote and the following argumentation didn't show that
[13:28] itsme Frederix: with evolutionism I mean giving body to the natural evolution
[13:29] herman Bergson: The quote uses the term evolution..not evolutionism
[13:29] itsme Frederix: end
[13:29] Myriam Brianna: sure, but that is picking on words
[13:29] itsme Frederix: oke, but words are the elements of the sens
[13:29] herman Bergson: I agree if you blame me of taking the statement serious
[13:30] itsme Frederix: OKE
[13:30] Myriam Brianna: if you take it literal the creationist said: "Evolution is real and it caused the following (undesired) things"
[13:30] itsme Frederix: YEP
[13:30] Myriam Brianna: but that of course can't be meant
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: i like laws final words.............about it .......it is bunk
[13:30] herman Bergson: What I basicly wanted to show is that such general statement lead to contradictions and doesnt stand scientific testing
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: k, that you've shown. And you've shown that one has to be cautious in speech
[13:31] itsme Frederix: The statement implicitly granted evolutionism (the way of thinking evolution is a power in nature)
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: but not if you would explicate it, - obviously the theory of evolution is meant, not the process in nature
[13:31] herman Bergson: I took the statement as a literalstatement of facts
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: Of course Mr Morris is absolutely correct in stating that all thies things came into being because of evolution for evolution is from the very beginning. He tenders no credibilty to the notion that there is a devine hand that created anythng.
[13:32] herman Bergson: I dont think it makes any differenc whether you read 'evolution' or 'theory of evolution'...all leads to the same contradiction I showed
[13:33] Phooka Fairey: I think that is because when talking about crationisme, there is also a creator and than you are back to the Bible. And there stops scientic testing:-) and starts 'believing'
[13:33] herman Bergson: I agree PHooka :-)
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: Hearsay evidence is not empircial however.
[13:33] herman Bergson: hello Boudica :-) take a seat
[13:34] Paula Dix: yes, evolution or evolutionism would be the same there...
[13:34] Myriam Brianna: nope, don't think so. When you take creationsm as a theory (which it isn't), and evolution as a theory (which it is), you've only falsified a specific claim
[13:34] Myriam Brianna: that is: Anarchism (blah) resulted out of the theory of evolution
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Myriam..that is correct....
[13:35] herman Bergson: It would take another few hours to deal with all other claims
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: right - and that makes the quote not an ideal point to start with ;)
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: Anarchism and all the rest of the enumerated ills are all for the minds of men
[13:35] herman Bergson: But by showing that at least one element in the statement is false it makes the whole statemnt false
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:35] Paula Dix: Yes the error is basically to call creationism a theory, its barely an hypothesis...
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: that is true, but it only demands a revision of the "theory" of creationism
[13:36] herman Bergson: If so even worse for creationism Paula :-)
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: or their view of evolution
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: yeah, their view of evolution. Creationism wasn't even really touched
[13:36] itsme Frederix: Herman, the statement said the (theory) of evolution was anti-christianity. Well as soon as christianity started there where anti forces - long before p.e. Darwin
[13:36] Paula Dix: What is this definition of Anarchysm?? For me it was always a form of government
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes, Myriam..and that they do frequently....revise their theory because of counterevidence
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: Anarchism = absence of government
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: teh application of empircal testing rightfully negates falsehoods
[13:37] Paula Dix: anarchism movement has very clear ideas about how government should be
[13:37] herman Bergson: let's not discuss anarchism here..
[13:37] Myriam Brianna: err, yes.
[13:37] Paula Dix: lol ok
[13:38] herman Bergson: Anyway....we had to deal with the question ..Is creationism science...
[13:38] Myriam Brianna: hmm ... shit, I've written about creationism as non-science, but only in German. Translating on the fly is rather hard ^^
[13:38] herman Bergson: I think we can conclude with a definite NO
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: either way, all those ism's did evolve
[13:38] herman Bergson: Macht nichts Myriam:-)
[13:39] itsme Frederix: another point is that creationism is evented to support christianity a.s.o. - which comes up with the rewards in after-life - so these guys do not bother about emperical testing thing in "this" life
[13:39] Phooka Fairey: No it can't be science, not ever as long as there is a 'creator' on the base
[13:39] Myriam Brianna: full ack
[13:39] herman Bergson: To me it is a politico-religious movement and the issue isnt science but power and control over education in the US
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!!!
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: my thought also
[13:39] Myriam Brianna: yup
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: amen
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: it is scary tho
[13:40] oola Neruda: is the process of logic considered scientific?
[13:40] Phooka Fairey: exactly, and I think also it is a way to escape the thorns of the Bible
[13:40] itsme Frederix: clear and it give many (in my eyes) stupid and often absurd ideas
[13:40] Phooka Fairey: yes, just like the Bible did over 2000 years:-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: let's look at oola's remark:is the process of logic considered scientific?
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: Power and control are th only reasons religion exists and if not for Gutenberg we wold still have to visti the clergy to know the turth
[13:41] Frederick Hansome: Why, then, is creationism so popular, accepted by so many?
[13:41] herman Bergson: an essential one
[13:41] Paula Dix: Agree Ari
[13:41] herman Bergson: No...logic is not science....science is the body of knowledge we humans possess....
[13:42] herman Bergson: logic is the method to acquire this ...what we call knowledge
[13:42] herman Bergson: or science
[13:42] Myriam Brianna: uhm
[13:42] itsme Frederix: Frederic because its simple, save and does not have consequences for the life you live
[13:42] Phooka Fairey: I think it is so popular because it is a new way to get the people to believe in a creator. Just a new coat
[13:42] oola Neruda: so then logic and the scientific method of inquiry are the same?
[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: people need some to look up to and give them reasons why some things are happening in the world
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well Phooka..it is only popular in the US mainly :-)
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: Logic is a trial, a method to deduce analytical truth. It cannot create new knowledge. Whatever a logical operation brings up: It was implicitely in the premises
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: creationism and religion is also like 'comfort food' it is ncie to think of folks passing on and sitiingwith other passed on relatives and friends
[13:43] itsme Frederix: and ... I admit .... there is always the idea of something (the unmoved mover, the begin and end but incapsulated)
[13:43] herman Bergson: Very true Myriam
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: and an analytical proof can of course be propositional false
[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: and..one is not responsible for things which happen in this world
[13:44] herman Bergson: But logic is the method to decuce hypotheses from a theory
[13:44] itsme Frederix: logic comes up with tautological (non synthetic) statements
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: sure, logic is in a sense a grammar
[13:44] oola Neruda: so we feel confident that we can get good answers from logic
[13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe so too, Itsme, but you logicaly deduce from premises a hypotheis...
[13:45] itsme Frederix: as soon we start testing we aknowledge empirics
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: critical thinking can hardly be applied by someone who was indoctrinated so well in their formative childhood years
[13:45] herman Bergson: From things you know you deduce a new idea to test
[13:45] Myriam Brianna: and if you don't you babble nonsense
[13:45] Paula Dix: i feel most people love the idea of universal justice in religion...
[13:45] herman Bergson: When that hypothesis shows to be wrong you know at least one of your premises is wrong
[13:45] Paula Dix: which for me isnt true of course :)
[13:46] itsme Frederix: just because we are limited we think its a new idea, but its just finding a "fact"
[13:46] herman Bergson: If you really want to get philosophical Itsme..yes
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: lol good place to do that
[13:46] Phooka Fairey: I don't think is finding a fact, I think it is hiding again
[13:46] herman Bergson: we never discover something new...it always has been there..we just didnt see it
[13:47] itsme Frederix: wow was I philosophical, thanks for teaching me that good
[13:47] Paula Dix: lol
[13:47] herman Bergson: You're welcome Itsme ^_^
[13:48] herman Bergson: I think we did our best on Creationism,,,:-)
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: what is next Herman
[13:48] itsme Frederix: Oke, but we still have creationism - a ism - in the world and it has big influence/power in education/schools
[13:48] herman Bergson: So I guess that there is no problem in dismissing class:-)
[13:48] herman Bergson: unless you really have a last statement of course
[13:49] herman Bergson: In the US Itsme...
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: the anymosity that exists between science and religion will persist until the clean slate can last until adolescence
[13:49] herman Bergson: Dont tell me that it has any meaning in the Netherlands for instance
[13:49] itsme Frederix: Well your arguments won't kill creationism for the creationists - how to deal with this?
[13:49] Myriam Brianna: but the US are part of our world and what happens there has effects in Europe, Africa, whatever
[13:49] itsme Frederix: Herman the netherlands is tiny
[13:50] herman Bergson: You never can kill the beliefs of a believer, Itsme, for that you have to kill the believer:-)
[13:50] itsme Frederix: and beneath sea level - we will drawn
[13:50] Qwark Allen: true
[13:50] Paula Dix: i guess the best is to give all good school
[13:50] Myriam Brianna: and yes, Creationism increasingly gets a hold in Europe. There are schools in Germany and GB, teaching ID
[13:50] Qwark Allen: herman
[13:50] herman Bergson: True..but I can swim
[13:50] Phooka Fairey: In the Netherlands not yet Herman, but as Myriam says I do agree 100%
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: one must not forget eh financil rewards ath religion offers to its leaders
[13:50] Paula Dix: so they can get the concept of scientific theory...
[13:50] itsme Frederix: Myrian are you serios - looks like another swine fle
[13:51] herman Bergson: With all due respect..but here is emerging a very strange situation
[13:51] herman Bergson: In all fields of science scientific method is accepted as effective....
[13:51] herman Bergson: and then there is one field where belief rules..evolution/biology..???
[13:52] Myriam Brianna: I'm serious, - in fact the British government financially aids some of these schools, in the name of multiculturalism. Oo
[13:52] Paula Dix: Ari here government is going hard after one such religious leader... its amazing how rich the guy is
[13:52] Qwark Allen: the religions business
[13:53] itsme Frederix: Herman don't forget Galilai and the churce - its just the impact of (emperical facts) ideas on "believe" "how to seee human life"
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark...we have the wrong profession:-)
[13:53] Myriam Brianna: I guess evolution is the only thing they feel able to get a wedge into (and "the Wedge Strategy Paper" is very interesting, I recommend looking it up)
[13:53] Qwark Allen: eheheh true hermman
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: as long as these comfort, power and financial incentives last religion and creationism witll be with us
[13:53] itsme Frederix: well we've seen that before as nazi-ism
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle, but not in science...inchurch only
[13:54] Myriam Brianna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wedge_stragegy/
[13:54] herman Bergson: what is that URL Myriam?
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have to go soon
[13:54] Phooka Fairey: True Herman, but if this is going father, than we have a new Bible in a few years.
[13:55] Myriam Brianna: it describes a social and political action plan of the discovery institute, with the aim to destroy science Oo. Srsly
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: if the religious group is in the majority all democracies are dangeous
[13:55] itsme Frederix: is the url complete?
[13:55] herman Bergson: Holy cow....destroy science?
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: the church moves into the stae
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: hope not!!!!!
[13:55] herman Bergson: The medical sciences will cheer that..haha..
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday all
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gemma :)
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma
[13:56] Paula Dix: here churches are very deep into politics, sadly...
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye gemma :-)
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: the url should be complete, but it would pose no problem to look it up "Wedge Strategy" as a search term, and there you have it
[13:56] Phooka Fairey: Bye Gemma, nice to have meet you:-)
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: that is because ppl think they are loosing there lives... looking for someone to give them steadiness
[13:56] herman Bergson: Yes....but look at history...
[13:56] herman Bergson: The church was deep into all culture inEurope
[13:56] Paula Dix: Oh Herman i saw many people already telling medicine isnt science!!!
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: they are unashamedly political/social, - now that this paper is out
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: will get worth if the financial crisis gets deeper
[[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, so much so that they are attempting to modify our founding history
[13:57] herman Bergson: Buti it lost control in the 16th century
[13:57] Qwark Allen: hard for me to type here ---->im at azert keyboard!!! what a mess
[13:57] Qwark Allen: @_@
[13:57] Myriam Brianna: ^.-
[13:57] herman Bergson: lol....
[13:57] Paula Dix: lol
[13:57] itsme Frederix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
[13:57] Qwark Allen: cya soon
[13:57] herman Bergson: enjoy your stay in France Qwark
[13:57] oola Neruda: the political and despotic ways of the church are not so good, but i really do feel that there are many people who have bennefited from the teachings of love... and would the law alone be able to take the place of people using their religios belief to control their conduct
[13:57] Qwark Allen: ty hermann
[13:58] Paula Dix: hey Rodney!
[13:58] Qwark Allen: it¨s one moeere week
[13:58] Qwark Allen: ^^
[13:58] Qwark Allen: at least
[13:58] Qwark Allen: ehehe
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: hi paula
[13:58] herman Bergson: Rodney is there...Class is over lol
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Qwark Dvorak seems much faster
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: yes oola, Jesu certainly had a great message, it is the elders of the church that have betrayed him
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: I sorry..
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: I'm Sorry! Herman
[13:58] oola Neruda: yes
[13:58] CONNIE Eichel: great class professor, hope i can be for next one too :)
[13:58] herman Bergson: lol..is ok of course
[13:58] Violette McMinnar: TY all, what an interesting discussion
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Well Rodney in, class over
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you , Herman
[13:58] herman Bergson: CLASS DISMISSED
[13:58] Paula Dix: thanks Berg :))
[13:58] Myriam Brianna: "love" becomes a meaningless word in the context of religion, - that is my impression. And Caritas (the biblical term for love) is very different from the love in our sense
[13:59] herman Bergson: Thank you all...great class today!!!
[13:59] Rodney Handrick: ih itsme
[13:59] Rodney Handrick: hi
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: Hello, Rodney ?
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:59] Rodney Handrick: Hi Ari
[13:59] Alarice Beaumont: next one is thursday herman?
[13:59] Phooka Fairey: hear, hear Myriam... so true
[13:59] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice..next class on Thursday.