Os evolucionistas interpretam as evidências com base em suas preconcepções (Talk.Origins)
Alegação CA230.1:
- As conclusões dos cientistas são baseadas em suas preconcepções. Eles provam apenas o que assumem.
Fonte: Are polar ice sheets only 4500 years old? Oard, Michael J. 2003. Impact 361 (Julho), p. iv.
Resposta da CreationWiki:
Antes de entrar no ponto principal, vale ressaltar que o Talk.Origins generalizou demais a afirmação, criando, assim, um espantalho a partir do caso.
A declaração real de Michael Oard foi:
- "Em outras palavras, os cientistas uniformitaristas datam as camadas de gelo em centenas de milhares de anos porque acreditam que as camadas de gelo são antigas para começo de conversa. Eles "provaram" apenas o que assumiram!"
No entanto, no índice de afirmações do Talk.Origins [1] eles generalizam isso para "Os evolucionistas interpretam as evidências com base em suas preconcepções." (grifo nosso).
Então, o próprio artigo se generaliza ainda mais com o título: "As conclusões dos cientistas são baseadas em suas preconcepções". (enfase adicionada).
Você verá que a afirmação de Michael Oard não foi generalizada para todos os cientistas, mas apenas para aqueles que aceitam a filosofia uniformitariana quando se trata da datação de núcleos de gelo. No contexto desta declaração, ele também fornece exemplos e raciocínio lógico sobre o motivo disso. Esse uniformitarismo também é evidente na datação radiométrica e em algumas vertentes da geologia, estabelecendo datas diferentes para diferentes camadas no solo.
Portanto, a declaração de Michael Oard foi limitada a certos cientistas. O Talk.Origins generaliza demais a declaração inteira. Mas vamos lidar com a questão do "cientista".
O problema é que nós humanos não temos todas as evidências, não sabemos tudo. Por isso, precisamos de preconcepções e suposições para nos ajudarem a entender o mundo. Portanto, ter preconcepções é parte do ser humano. Procurar um ser humano sem preconcepções é como procurar uma pessoa totalmente imparcial e objetiva. Mas para ser totalmente objetivo e imparcial, você precisa ter uma estrutura perfeita de preconcepções com base na verdade e, humanamente falando, não é possível saber isso de forma absoluta, ou você teria que ser uma Divindade, o Ser Não Causado Supremo. Agora, uma vez que nenhuma dessas coisas é possível, e todos nós estamos apenas fazendo o melhor que podemos, não podemos descartar preconcepções mesmo em grupos, mesmo em grupos grandes. Por quê? Porque tudo o que pode acontecer é que aqueles que têm preconcepções que concordam em geral e não vão mudar, se agrupem. Para simplificar, quando você tem muitas pessoas com preconcepções, isso realmente eliminaria as preconcepções? Não! O maior grupo que chega ao topo primeiro se torna o ditador sobre o resto dos grupos. Agora, as preconcepções não foram eliminados, mas o consenso foi alcançado. Quando se trata de ciência, o grupo mais poderoso ensinará e doutrinará outros, como os jovens e aqueles influenciados pela mídia, nas visões desse grupo, a fim de aumentar a chance de sua sobrevivência. Pode convencer outras pessoas de sua "verdade" e alguns de seus membros podem sair. Isso não quer dizer que esse grupo esteja certo ou errado, mas não se pode escapar de suas preconcepções.
Isso acontece com a evolução e outras teorias da ciência que não são ensinadas provisoriamente, mas como fatos. Para todas as suas frases como "cientistas acreditam nisso" e "nós teorizamos naquilo", há um ar de autoridade que acompanha a palavra "cientista", que não é ajudado por as declarações absolutas feitas por cientistas e leigos. Dessa forma, preconcepções e suposições tornam-se dogmatizadas como a única forma racional de pensar. Isso foi feito com o naturalismo filosófico.
Além disso, as conclusões tiradas das experiências são limitadas pela agenda e pelas preconcepções dominantes do programa de investigação ou visão de mundo "científica" dominante. Se a agenda científica dominante for governada pelo naturalismo filosófico, como parece ser, tudo e qualquer outra coisa será descartada a priori. É semelhante a um caso de homicídio onde é encontrada uma arma com as minhas impressões digitais e ainda existe a necessidade da equipe forense e do departamento de polícia de “provar” a minha culpa. Eles podem perguntar em que ângulo eu segurei a arma ao usá-la para assassinar alguém. Eles podem descobrir onde preciso estar para assassinar a pessoa com aquela arma. Eles podem descobrir que no dia anterior comprei aquela arma para assassinar a pessoa. Eles podem até descobrir que eu já fui acusado de um crime antes, mas a acusação foi arquivada. Mas você notará que em cada parte da lógica e em cada área de investigação, eles já têm uma coisa em mente: Eu já sou culpado. Mesmo que mais tarde se descubra que outra pessoa havia chegado até a vítima pouco antes do crime, podem surgir dúvidas se paguei um assassino ou algo parecido. consideração primordial na mente de alguns membros da equipe forense e do departamento de polícia seria a de que deve haver uma maneira de eu ter feito isso.
Da mesma forma, uma vez que uma teoria é tida em alta conta na ciência, ela é protegida com zelo, e esta tem sido uma prática entre humanos muitas vezes na história. Não é pelo fato de que a teoria seja factual ou comprovada, mas a princípio ela se torna preferida, e então as outras ideias começam a ser ridicularizadas. Uma vez que a ideia da Terra girando em torno do Sol se tornou popular, graças a Copérnico, Kepler e às lendas de Galileu, todas as interpretações de observações posteriores tiveram que estar de acordo com essa crença. Não era porque era um fato absoluto. O movimento aparente das estrelas era apenas isso: "aparente", não real. O fato de o movimento da Terra não poder ser medido não importava, pois uma explicação poderia ser dada. Note que não foi tanto que a geocentricidade foi totalmente refutada, já que a matemática de Kepler foi derivada das descobertas de Tycho Brahe, um geocentrista com um modelo decente, mas ligeiramente imperfeito, e com melhorias que também poderia incorporar todas as observações, mas que a ideia da Terra circulando o Sol se tornou preferida, e então pronunciada como "fato", "verdade". A Teoria do Big Bang agora é tão reverenciada que outras teorias são deixadas de lado. Interpretações da observação do desvio para o vermelho da luz das estrelas e da radiação cósmica agora precisam ser explicadas nessa estrutura.
The second part of the statement says "they only prove what they assume". Michael Oard's article didn't even say this. He did give an example showing how an evolutionary philosophy can blind any human to other possibilities and that the assumption drives the conclusion. This is not a universal statement condemning all scientists and scientific endeavours, but limited to those evolutionists who hold strongly to uniformitarian and naturalistic philosophies and preconceptions. In this way they prove only what they assume by ruling out the other possibilities. Think of this religiously. When a miracle occurs, something unexplainable by natural forces, will an rabid atheist normally concede that something supernatural occurred? No, he will find a natural explanation. And if he cannot find one, he will then hope that later one a natural explanation will be found. His mind will not seriously entertain the supernatural because of his preconceptions. The same is with scientists, especially evolutionists. Because we are human, we come into this world, into a profession, with biases and preconceptions that will affect what our minds will seriously entertain, and will limit the possibilities we think are logical. Some of these preconceptions are more rational, or more necessary than others.
So it seems like a joke when Talk.Origins, in this same rebuttal, tries to preach "the gospel according to Steven J. Gould" as though he preaches against preconceptions (of course they will add that he is an anti-creationist to slam creation science) having no preconceptions of his own. I must admitthat, even writing this, I have my preconceptions. They affect how I act and view the world, and what I type, but it is our job as humans to do our best to find the right preconceptions. The fact that Steven Jay Gould slams creationism while not slamming evolutionism shows his own bias and preconceptions, since the theory of evolution and the research agenda it pushes forward is evidence of the philosophical naturalism inherent within it and its adherents, who unjustifiably stretch a simple methodology in the present, to an over-arching absolute worldview where everything in the present and in the distant past must have a natural explanation. Compare that with the thoughts of an atheist, and you'll see the similar religious and philosophical undertones.
Now this is not to slam all of science, but we must realise who and what we are: incomplete in knowledge and fallible. This doesn't mean that all our scientific findings have no basis in fact, since objectively we all experience the same world. We discover the world's resources and use them to our advantage. Science is knowledge and is based on both experience and observations that anyone can repeat. On the basis of findings and investigations within our human experience we have achieved a great deal. The observations are shared for all to see. The way we can utilise such things and the techniques used are visible to all. But the interpretations, especially the far-reaching ones have to be taken with a pinch of salt (especially in science, where theories, I stress again, must be held tentatively), because the further we extend our theories, the more we are dealing with incomplete knowledge, so that our bias can set us up to be deluded. Such is the case with the naturalistic theories of universal evolutionary development, dealing with the universe and the very essence of life, where they deal with so many unknown and unknowable factors that they leave themselves open to inadequate axioms like uniformitarianism and the belief that an incredibly long age is needed for the universe and the earth to come into existence.
So preconceptions do play an important role in observations and interpretations in science and other affairs in life, as I hope you will see as we go further into Talk Origin's responses.
(citações do Talk.Origins em azul)
The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence, and the evidence remains for all to see. Scientists know that their ideas must stand the scrutiny of other scientists, who may not share their preconceptions. The best way to do this is to make the case strong enough on the basis of the evidence so that preconceptions do not matter. And scientists themselves condemn preconceptions when they see them. (Stephen J. Gould, the most vocal recent crusader against preconceptions in science, was vehemently anticreationism.)
I just want you to look at that first clause: "The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence". Is this really true? Is this always true? If this is true, why is it that sometimes two people can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions? When it comes to the naturalistic theories of evolution, encompassing the whole history of the universe, the evidence that is used is what is called "indirect" or "circumstantial" evidence. This means evidence that can be used to make inferences, tentative conclusions based on logic and previous conclusions (including presuppositions) in the absence of direct observation. Previous conclusions are very important in determining what conclusion you are going to come up with in the end, since they normally limit your scope of possibilities or add bias. As Sherlock Holmes said:
- “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully; “it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different” . . . “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” [1]
So scientists may have evidence, but that doesn't mean their conclusion is true, even in scientific terms. Sometimes it can depend on from what perspective they are viewing the evidence, i.e. their preconceptions.
And it is not so much the case that a scientist has to make a case strong enough that preconceptions don't matter, but that preconceptions can be changed if they are different to the conclusion of the person making the case. It always depends what science we are talking about. In true science that deals with the present, it is a lot easier to show evidence that supports one's view, and the studies that must be repeated to make sure results are correct and the logic can be analysed. But in "science" that deals with an unobserved past, where a lot more assumptions and preconceptions are needed and used to make logical conclusions, things are not so easy to settle or verify.
The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, ice ages, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads.
It is true that scientists can find out things that contradict a belief or a theory they previously had. Every human has the ability to change his or her mind after viewing some evidence or hearing a convincing argument. It must be noted that a number of the examples given above are not factual, but only theoretical, e.g., multiple ice ages, or meteors as causes for mass extinctions. They may have some evidence, but again, it is circumstantial and can be interpreted in a different way.
The last statement makes gods out of humans. Why? Because Talk.Origins confuses the potential to go the right way, with the actuality of going the right way. I'll show what I mean.
Each of us, as humans, have the potential to live a moral life. But we don't all do it, do we? A criminal who gets released after rehabilitation has the potential to live a crime-free life. But in some countries there is still have a high re-offending statistic, i.e., that same person goes back to a life of crime. Scientists have the potential to deal with evidence and interpretations fairly, but that doesn't mean they will actually ultimately go where the evidence leads. And it is also true that scientists can change their minds about a thing or two, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be right on everything. This is just a statement of belief from Talk.Origins, not the facts of life we all experience.
And just remember that quote I gave from Sherlock Holmes. Circumstantial evidence, even a lot of it, may lead you one way from one perspective, and then lead you another way from another.
Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions; they do a good job, on the whole, of reducing bias. They do such a good job, in fact, that what creationists really object to is the fact that scientists do not interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions.
I agree with the statement that there are attempts to remove subjective influences. But in areas such as evolution, subjectivity cannot be removed because of the philosophy inherent in the theory. Talk.Origins tries to paint creationists as villains working against unbiased scientists, when this is not the reason for the strife on the issue of creation and evolution. The problem, as has been stated numerous times, is that religion is already within science, and it is being indoctrinated to everyone. One view is being put forward and criticisms of that view are not being openly taught as much as that one view. These religious preconceptions of naturalism and humanism are the only ones allowed on a playing field that is meant to be fair for all, but the freedom of many is being taken away by the "education" system's insistence on one way of thinking, by evolutionists' insistence on promoting that one religion's way of thinking. You take away the freedom of theistic parents who have to let their children go to a philosophically anti-theistic, humanistic school system. You take away the future freedom of children who are indoctrinated into one way of thinking, rather than teaching them the basic principles and how to think more critically both philosophically and scientifically.
So creationists don't want to force everyone to believe as they do. They just want a fair process within education and science, where people who do research don't get ridiculed or cut off from funds because the work they wish to do doesn't go with the predominant agenda in a world that's supposed to be more democratic and free for all, where views can be presented fairly from both sides of the issue.
The hypocrisy of this charge cannot be overstressed. Creationists state outright that they accept only what they already assume. Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" (AIG n.d.). The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith (ICR 2000). Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions.
Read these quotes:
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Dr Scott C. Todd, Immunologist at Kansas State University: Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin Professor. 'The New York Review', January 9, 1997, p. 31 (Emphasis in original.)
These quotes are not just the views of individuals. Look at the way evolutionists do their work and the explanations they are allowed to put forward about the unknowable past. The way they work with evidence is that, just as these two men say, evolutionists will only allow the natural, the material cause, no matter its observed inadequacy. This, in itself, is not the problem, because people can do as they choose. But note that creationists are more open about their preconceptions, even the ones that seem very stringent (I'll explain the Answers in Genesis statement further on). But on the other side we see evolutionists, left and right, telling us uncritically their doctrine, with no open admission about their assumptions and preconceptions, as though inhumanly they have none and are purely unbiased. They act as if they have the unbiased facts and creationists have nothing but blind faith and force and distort the evolutionist's unbiased facts into a narrow biased blind system. This is misleading. This is the hypocrisy that creationists fight with, not only with evolutionists, but also with those of the public who have swallowed this deception. We don't say "Believe us in everything", but simply look at yourself for who you are, look at the evidence and take both points of view into account, knowing the biases involved, in this democratic world we live in.
As for Answers in Genesis, read the quote in full.
| “ | No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. About AiG: Statement of Faith | ” |
Note the emphasized words: interpretation of. Talk.Origins deliberately leaves that out. Without those key words, the sentence, as Talk.Origins has quoted it, makes Answers in Genesis look like obscurantists (people who deliberately obscure evidence in support of an ideology or, as in this case, a theology). That is a misquote of the AiG Statement of Faith, and a mistake that Talk.Origins ought not to make, if they seriously pretend to be scholars of science.
We know that we, as humans, are fallible and incomplete in knowledge, so this is our presupposition, our assumption, the foundation from which we work. This doesn't tell you how they deal with difficult data, but it is most likely that they deal with it in a similar way to how the atheist, naturalist, or evolutionist will deal with it: "we don't have an explanation now, but with further research, we believe we'll find it. And even if we don't, we don't claim to have all the answers anyway. It is simply a gap in our knowledge." To some that might be a sign of weakness to claim we don't know it all. I believe, rather, that it is a sign of self-knowledge. Knowing our incompleteness, we will study and search further, but we rely on the knowledge of Someone who knows better, Who knows it all: the Creator.
Compare this with the unspoken evolutionary statement of faith:
| “ | No apparent, perceived or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts philosophical naturalism. | ” |
Some may argue that evolutionists know that science is to be tentative, but if their view is the only one that is allowed in the media, the only one given the amounts of air time on TV, radio, in schools, in newspapers, then such a thing, which is held out as "science", excluding all other interpretations of the evidence, is not being taught tentatively but in a religious manner in the same way that only exegesis of the bible and principles agreeing with its morality is allowed in churches or synagogues, or the Qur'an in mosques.
We all have our faults, but this injustice and hypocrisy in evolutionists' actions must be dealt with in a fair manner.
References
- A Critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" - Part 5 by Douglas Theobald
- An Old Age For Earth is the Heart of Evolution by Jonathan F. Henry, Ph.D.
Ver também
- Abiogênese
- Mudança adaptativa
- Origem comum
- Evolução na cultura popular
- Mitos da evolução
- Métodos de datação evolucionários
- Evolucionismo
- Evolucionistas
- Gradualismo
- História da evolução
- Microevolução
- Macroevolução
- Mutação
- Seleção natural
- Naturalismo
- Equilíbrio pontuado
- Especiação
- Teoria da evolução
- Formas de transição
- Uniformitarismo
| |||||||||||||||||
