Você estava lá? (Talk.Origins)
Alegação CA221:
- (Em resposta a qualquer alegação sobre a história da vida) Você estava lá?
Fonte: Ham, Ken. 1989. Were you there? Back To Genesis 10a (Oct.),
Resposta da CreationWiki:
Ao lidar com a evolução na sala de aula e em outras áreas da vida, uma resposta que os criacionistas podem dar é "Você estava lá?". A Talk Origins tenta conter esta ideia com uma série de argumentos.
(citações do Talk.Origins em azul)
Sim, porque "lá" é aqui. Eventos no passado deixam vestígios que perduram no presente, e nós podemos e olhamos para essa evidência hoje.
Quando uma pessoa faz essa pergunta "você estava lá?", ela está perguntando "Você estava naquele lugar naquela ocasião para observar o que realmente aconteceu?" Quando as pessoas normalmente falam umas com as outras sobre eventos passados em geral e perguntam "você estava lá?", Por exemplo, quando um jogo esportivo foi ganho ou perdido, ou quando algo monumental aconteceu onde você tinha que estar lá para vivenciá-lo, seria seria sensato responder "sim, porque 'lá' é aqui" se você não estivesse lá naquela época?
A questão "Você estava lá?" é colocada pelos criacionistas para destacar que o estudo das origens é uma ciência histórica. Em contraste, os campos da física e química são ciência operacional. Na ciência histórica, as deduções são feitas sobre um evento histórico examinando os vestígios que são deixados por ele. No entanto, é impossível verificar se essas conclusões estão corretas porque ninguém testemunhou o evento original e não há como 'retroceder' e assistir novamente. As ciências operacionais, por outro lado, baseiam-se em experimentos repetíveis. Se um indivíduo propõe que uma das leis da física está incorreta, ele está livre para conduzir um experimento para demonstrar sua teoria. Se a discordância persistir, novos experimentos podem ser conduzidos.
É verdade que eventos no passado podem deixar rastros. Mas, novamente, eles podem não deixar. Também pode haver vários eventos possíveis diferentes que podem ter levado aos traços observados. Além disso, eventos subsequentes podem obscurecer ou até mesmo apagar vestígios. Além disso, esses traços podem ser tão pequenos a ponto de desaparecer, ou grandes demais para serem percebidos pelo homem. Por exemplo, hoje dei um passo para fora em algum concreto seco. Vá lá 100 anos depois e me mostre os rastros. Other people may have left footprints, so I dare you to pick me out from them. Even if I was the only one and it was on slightly wet concrete to leave an impression, what can you tell me about me from that trace I left? You see, there are so many possibilities and external factors that to even try to make a certain interpretation be considered undoubtedly true is ridiculous. Now it is true that with maybe more evidence you could make some more interpretations and raise some possibilities, but since you were not there when I made that impression, and you cannot ask me anything about it, then all you can do is come up with some possibilities based on assumptions, but no way of objectively verifying your findings. All you have is "possibilities".
To summarize:
- there is no way to be certain about a historical event
- study of a historical event is limited by the evidences that remain
- events may or may not leave traces.
- there may be different possible events that could have left the observed traces
- if they do leave traces, without documented historical records, in real life there are many external factors, including time itself, that can limit the absolute certainty of reconstructions of past events.
So even with events leaving traces, it is still not enough to say "Yes, because "there" is here". To be awfully blunt, "there" is not here.
If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.
With respect to the scientific study of origins, creationism and evolutionism are both limited by the limitations of historical science. However, the question "Were you there?" is not normally posed as a proof of creation. Rather it is used in rebuttal to those who claim that evolution is (an observed) fact.
Although nobody alive today has witnessed all the events in the Bible from the very beginning, the claim is that, unlike evolution, the vast majority of events were witnessed by someone alive who could record what actually happened. Thus this challenge of "were you there?", when rationally applied, would be a valid challenge to evolution, which has a vast amount of history that is beyond intelligent and relatively unambiguous witness and record, and outside human experience altogether. So in simpler words, should the evolutionist retort, saying that the creationist wasn't there either, the creationist can respond, saying that they know someone who was.
There are many significant events in scripture that were witnessed by a vast number of people, and recorded via a nationally widespread traditional knowledge (i.e., knowledge that is handed down from father to son) which could be counter checked by other accounts, and written accounts such as the scriptures. These, in turn, are even more validated by archaeological discoveries and concur with the historical writings.
The author's answer is based on his own belief that there is no Deity or Creator that has revealed himself to man. Based on that belief, he is bound to come up with his faith-based conclusion. But if the Creator described in Genesis does exist, and he does, then he would have been there to witness what happened since he did it, and, being eternal, he would be alive today. He has communication abilities so he would have communicated his works to his creation. Again in simpler words, should the evolutionist retort, saying that the creationist wasn't there either, the creationist can respond, saying that they know Someone who was. That's a simple reasonable refutation, simply based on a different set of assumptions.
A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim baseless (tentatively, as someone else may be able to answer). If the answer is subjective -- for example, if it rests on the person's religious convictions -- you know that the claim does not necessarily apply to anyone but that person. If you can not understand the answer, you probably have some studying to do. If you get a good answer, you know to take the claim seriously.
His answer again betrays his subjectivism and relativism, i.e., what is true for you may be true for you, but doesn't necessarily have to be true for me. If truth is subjective and it rests on a person's beliefs, then, sure, the author has a point.
But if there is objective truth, a truth that is the same for everyone, and it is built into a person's 'religious' beliefs, then their explanation can still be classed as true for everyone.
Also, even if you can get a logically "good" answer, even a "scientific" answer, it still has to be taken tentatively since the assumptions the logic is based on can render the answer or conclusion wrong if it is faulty. And science, especially when dealing with the unobserved, unrepeatable, untestable past (outside human experience), can only give provisional or highly probable answers. If something is just probably true, then there is still a possibility that it is not. That's why such answers that to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Also the grand theory of evolution is based on a person's religious belief in naturalism, or the powers of Nature. If the author's logic holds true, then if a person gives you an answer based on that belief, then, in his own words, "you know that claim does not apply to everyone [or objective reality] but [just] to that person". Example of this: the very author of the Talk Origins pages.
| |||||||||||||||||
