86

The slogan different scientists can reach very different conclusions, depending on their starting assumptions. is misleading in the context of the "debate" between evolution and creationism. Scientists aim to explain how the world works. If two scientists disagree about some issue, then at least one of them is wrong. That is, at least one of them has ...


41

The big picture of current evolutionary theory draws from many different fields, like biology, paleontology, geology, physics (radiometric dating) and chemistry. There is a strong consensus between scientists that the results of their respective fields support the big picture, e.g. evolutionary synthesis is a consensus among biologists. So, while different ...


23

I think the honest answer is best viewed through the teachings of Karl Popper, notably the Falsifiability Criterion, according to which anything scientific has to supply a self refuting empirical criteria. That is, in the absence of an empirical way to test the hypothesis -- upon failure of which the theory is refuted -- the theory in question is hereby not ...


18

“different scientists can reach very different conclusions, depending on their starting assumptions.” This is true so far as it goes, but it stops before the critical step that distinguishes natural science from creationism: scientists then check their conclusions against reality, and reject or change their assumptions if reality and conclusion don't match. ...


18

First of all, I'm removing the references to evolution as this has been removed from the OP. The rest of this answer should directly address the relationship between the evolution of the brain, social development and the emergence of morals... Morals don't evolve (biologically at least); they are more of an emergent property of social development. If humans ...


13

No. Any concrete proof of a higher intelligence would have long ago been presented to the world at large, tested, experimented, and confirmed. At that point you would no longer have rational non-believers, as you do now, especially in this age of universal information. But I see that you have a particular instance of evidence in mind- your statement that we ...


12

A theory is a model that has predictive power. When scientists talk about evolutionary theory they make statements to the effect of "If this is true we'd expect to see such and such". They then go and see if they can find "such and such". If they cannot then the model is revised. The model is always as consistent as possible with the entire body of ...


10

I do not remember any passage where Plato refers to the Jewish religion or to Jewish mythology. Sometimes Plato refers to myths he pretends to have heard from Egyptians and possibly he invented some myths by himself. E.g., he refers to the myth of Atlantis and he himself traveled to Italy and had contact with he school of Pythagoras and their myths of ...


7

One of the clearest answers in modern times was given by Stephen Jay Gould, in one of his books. Gould was a professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard, died about 13 or 14 years ago, but his books are still available and popular. He came up with the theory of evolution called punctuated equilibrium. He dealt with this subject in his book Hen's Teeth and ...


7

Full disclosure: I am no expert in Scientific Methodology, and make no claim to be. From my basic understanding of proper Scientific Method, I can point out the most misleading bit about that sign is the end: “different scientists can reach very different conclusions, depending on their starting assumptions.” more specifically, the starting assumptions ...


6

“different scientists can reach very different conclusions, depending on their starting assumptions.” The sentence is correct, but it does not prove the point the creation museum wants to imply. What exactly is science and a scientific approach ? While there are many, many explanations, I think the most succinct explanation is that science tries to get ...


5

I cannot speak for every system of belief in God, but here is one way I've been taught to resolve the problem you observe. God being perfect cannot experience change, and so cannot experience a change in his will that would have created the universe "at an impulse." It is better instead, to say, while God is eternal, he is also a single Devine Act (...


5

First, one has to make clear which of the many gods is meant. Because theistic people in different religions speak about many different gods: The Olympic gods from the time of Homer, the Egyptian gods, the Vedic gods, the Hinduistic gods, the monotheistic Jewish and Christian god named Jahwe, and many more. Secondly, in Christian theology the attempt to ...


5

I see two common themes in the previous answers: Unquestionability leading to weird and incorrect interpretations of evidence. Lack of motivation because of the availability of a cop out, "Dunno. God did it. End of discussion." I'll start with the second one: Lack of motivation From an evolutionist perspective, I can see how you would come up with that,...


5

No, proofs do not exist for the hypothesis that we have been created by an other being – besides our human parents :-) Philosophy of religion has used the so called watchmaker argument: If one finds a watch, then one assumes that a watchmaker has crafted that watch. Watches do not exist by change. Also they do not grow just by natural forces. The ...


5

Philosophers, theologians and atheists have come up with countless arguments they claim prove or disprove the existence of God(s). For many, it's a black-and-white issues - YES there is a God, or NO, there is no God. But philosophers have explored many angles (e.g. How does one define "God"?). I just recently listened to a talk by Alan Watts, who commented ...


4

At least one well-respected, contemporary scholar of the Hebrew Scriptures, Margaret Barker, argues that Plato knew of them, though she acknowledges her view as in the minority: The early apologists, both Jewish and Christian, maintained that Plato learned from Moses, that he was Moses speaking Attic Greek. The most notable of these was Eusebius of ...


4

Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism. For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states: Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its ...


3

Creationism uses science's rules, but derives from an unscientific set of assumptions. The creationist arguments that have been given to me all stem from one key scientific argument: a scientific theory which does not match the data is inferior to a theory which does. They argue that evolution does not match the data sufficiently, thus creationism is a ...


3

You can see : Arthur Urbano, The Philosophical Life : Biography and Crafting of Intellectual Identity in Late Antiquity (2013) : Ch.2 Moses and Pythagoras, page 80-on, on Justin's "project" of grounding (part of) ancient Greek philosophical heritage on the books of Moses. See also this review. Her are some extracts : for the Hellenistic Jewish ...


3

Rachel does not assert the 'uncaused cause' as "asserted" by the answer marked as correct. You need to be ignorant of the existence of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways to reach that conclusion. To summarize the Five ways in a paragraph, they are 1) The First Way: Argument from Motion 2) The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes 3) The Third Way: Argument ...


3

I think the slogan is true, but I don't think it forwards the creationist worldview in any way. Ultimately we form our beliefs taking into account previous assumptions about the world. If those assumptions are different, conclusions of our findings might be different. If the sign is meant to argue that scientists only reach their conclusions due to their ...


3

There are a number of strategies that scientists and philosophers of science have used to avoid (or at least decrease) tensions between religion and scientific naturalism. You can read more about several of these in the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on religion and science. As a preliminary point, it's important to recognize that the conflict thesis — the ...


3

Good question; I'm extremely interested in understanding the origin of things like morality, politics and war, whether they have an evolutionary origin or not. First, note that the term evolution can be a little confusing. There's organic or genetic evolution, the process by which organisms change between generations and evolve into new species. But we can ...


3

This is more of a biology, psychology, or anthropology question, rather than a philosophy question. However, I suppose philosophy can be used to integrate concepts from any field. More importantly, you have already biased the question to a disbelief in evolution. Is evolution true? I really do not know. However, it is the most robust body of theory we have ...


3

There is no conclusive evidence as morals, for most of human history, were a matter of social habits (lat. mores = habit) that were passed through social learning and forms of direct communication (may it be language or others). In other words: There is nothing to base conclusive evidence on to be found by archaeologists. A possible answer to the title ...


3

The argument of a higher being that created humanity is by its own nature flawed. As Jo Wehler pointed out, the concept that humanity is too complex to have sprung up without guidance is the watchmaker argument. The problem with this argument is that the watchmaker, in this case the entity that created humanity, would have to be more complex than that which ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible