DSM,

I certainly have a belief system based on my life experience which motivates my actions. However, I try very hard to make decisions in which my preferences take a back seat, and as I result I have found several times in my life that my "preferences" have had to be revised.

Reasoning dictates that one assembles as much information as possible, and uses rational to draw conclusions.

Bias means rejecting information that contradicts the bias and often coming to conclusions that differ significantly from reality.

In my line of work I often see the result of "preferences" (by highly intelligent people) having been applied unquestioningly having serious consequences.

This is why in scientific circles peer review is so important, as scientists themselves are not immune to bias. This process helps weed out unwarranted or non repeatable results.

The problem with the "scientists" that discredit evolution is that non of their papers stand up to general peer review.

Secondly, I didn't say your comment undermined your argument, I said the fact that you could not provide reasoning and had to resort to sarcasm showed that you had no argument.

shadow's quoted opinions..<<Reasoning dictates that one assembles as much information as possible,and uses rational to draw conclusions.>>i would think science MUST use science[]yet uses peer revieuw[in lue of any real science

<<Bias means rejecting information that contradicts the bias and often coming to conclusions that differ significantly from reality.>>the current science reality is the case in point[reveal the science of evolution[the theory held religiously by scientists[blindly]

<<In my line of work I often see the result of "preferences"by highly intelligent people)..having been applied unquestioningly having serious consequences.>>egsactly my point the case isnt that rebuttal be validated but that science be proved science[please present the science[not the theory]

<<This is why in scientific circles peer review is so important, as scientists themselves are not immune to bias.>>indesputable[but evolution claims chance[random/selection..natural selection[hardlty science[survival of the fittest[how scxientific is this..[prove it]

<<This process helps weed out unwarranted or non repeatable results.>>..wow how absurd to claim repeatability of chance..

[mutation isnt an egsact science..lol..[evolution is a theory not a scienc]

<<The problem with the "scientists" that discredit evolution>>is that scientists havnt ever done the same validation[the issue is it has never been validated[reveal the science faulsifiables if science it be

<<is that non of their papers stand up to general peer review.>>reveal the science papers..[repeatable science methodology]..that proves evolution..you got a few fossils

[then silence,ie not science..name the scientists that revieuwed the validation of the..'theory'..into science...[faulsifyable science..[repeat the scientific method..lo.,..[its a THEORY dude]

<<I said the fact that you could not provide reasoning and had to resort to sarcasm showed that you had no argument.>>..dont avoid the fact science claims repeat-ability..

[repicate evolution..replicate that first life..it hasnt been done..nor never will..because science cant do it..[it has a theory,...because it dont have the science..sure it has its believers[in a theory]..but it dont have THE science

Fractelle, Thanks for clarifying.
I’ll happily subscribe to that definition of fundamentalist, if it’s based on the miracles as recounted in the Bible being true and real.

Bushbasher,
You claim the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that there’s no substantive challenge to evolution. I know that evolution is the current orthodoxy, but there are a number of scientists who simply disagree with your claim.

I’m not sure how many scientists must stand up and risk reputation and declare they prefer creation over evolution before we can say there’s a substantive challenge. I’m also not sure how many scientists must say they prefer creation before I’m allowed to say that they’re many in number without you accusing me of dishonesty for saying so.

And remember, being small in number doesn’t kill and idea. Science is not a vote or a democracy.

Like fractelle above, one issue with this type of discussion is the problem of word definitions. Some define evolution as adaptation and natural selection. If this was all that was meant then there would be no controversy, as evidence for this is overwhelming, accepted by everybody. However, others take evolution to mean that we are all descendants of one or a small number of original life forms. It’s this version that is objected to, as it is philosophically rather than empirically driven.

Shadow,
I deny I was being sarcastic, perhaps hyperbolic. You can’t accuse me of having no argument if you’ve already reasonably responded to it. In responding, you seem to have understood the argument contained therein despite any sarcasm or other rhetoric on my part.

You speak of peer review and bias.

Since evolution is the governing orthodoxy, any paper outside of that ruling paradigm will usually be rejected in principle, regardless of its content, no matter how many other quality papers that scientists has already published on less controversial topics. ‘Mainstream’ journals want to be seen as mainstream, especially on such a hot topic as this.

Though it’s a nice little catch-22. Bias restricts creationists publishing, and then is used as an argument against them.

you said of evolution: "The problem is that the evidence just isn’t there."

this is dishonest. or hugely, willfully ignorant. which amounts to dishonesty. whether or not there is a substantive challenge *against* evolution, there are (literally) mountains of evidence *for* it.

you talk about "scientists", as if this group term has some significance. you have backed down from "many scientists" to "a number of scientists" to "it doesn't matter". make up your mind. then look up Project Steve.

you talk of scientists "preferring" creationism. you may as well talk of hairdressers preferring creationism. it's not a question of what they prefer: it's a question of what they have evidence and argument for.

you object to [what i take to be] macroevolution as "philosophically driven". what is your evidence for this? do you deny that your objections are religiously driven?

you seem ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution. my link was exactly for evidence of macroevolution.

you talk of "orthodoxy", as if reasonable, pro-creation scientific papers are being rejected. i don't believe you. prove it.

[I certainly have a belief system based on my life experience which motivates my actions.

Reasoning dictates that one assembles as much information as possible, and uses rational to draw conclusions.

]

How does anyone account for reasoning such as this, under a naturalistic framework of understanding life?

I'm very suspect of the claim that use of rational inference could lead us to a belief in naturalism (ie: the natural world is all that exists), because naturalism itself would mean that all causes are nonrational. Therefore, that'd be a self refuting belief.

"How does anyone account for reasoning such as this, under a naturalistic framework of understanding life?"

trav, it's not my job to account for reasoning. i'm not pretending to. i agree, the question of consciousness is fascinating. [this seems more to the point: there are clear examples of non-human animals engaging in reasoning]. i have no idea whether evolutionary biologists have some guesses to its origins. i doubt that the theories are currently very solid.

the point is that proposing a god simply doesn't help. it's not explaining anything: it's simply using god to plug a gap in our knowledge.