Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 161 (176375)
01-12-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
01-12-2005 8:14 PM


do we really need this tired old worn-out ignorant argument ... again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-12-2005 8:14 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 161 (176480)
01-13-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by commike37
01-12-2005 11:00 PM


two theory or not too theory
commike37 in msg #1 writes:
...perceived problems with evolution, but to establish that evolution is still a theory, not a law...
commike37 in msg #7 writes:
Not all agree that evolution is the best theory. Some people would subscribe to intelligent design as the best theory.
Scientific Theory:
from
Theory - Wikipedia
In sciences, a theory is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems.
For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any (other) established theory.
The theories in the field of evolution fit those descriptions. The concepts of ID do not. The concepts of creationism do not.
further down in the same source there is Further explanation of a scientific theory:
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.
And again, the theories in the field of evolution fit those descriptions while the concepts of ID and creationism do not. It is that simple, why one is science and the others are not.
And the Wikipedia article goes on to discuss all the relevant errors in the phrase "it is just a theory" ... see Characteristics ... as I said this argument is so {old\bad\wrong} that it shouldn't even need response other than to point the person to a source of enlightenment. Wikipedia is one of these. I suggest you read the whole page on Theory before making more {erroneous\ignorant} statements.
Note also from
Theory Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
theory n. pl. theories
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
There is a world of difference between definitions #1&2 (as used in science) and definitions #5&6 (as used by common talk and creationists, especially IDists).
There is a world of difference between science and pseudoscience.
Enjoy.
ps -- Kansas teaches evolution. Not that the decisions of school board members is any judgment on scientific validity ... for they are rarely scientists or even knowledgeable in the specific fields. This is one reason I think High School should be the responsibility (funding and curriculum) of the state rather than localities.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 01-12-2005 11:00 PM commike37 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 161 (176752)
01-13-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by commike37
01-13-2005 7:54 PM


premature post - should have been previewed
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-13-2005 22:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by commike37, posted 01-13-2005 7:54 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by commike37, posted 01-13-2005 9:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 161 (176763)
01-13-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by commike37
01-13-2005 7:54 PM


scientific process
LOL
commike37 writes:
There's two main problems I see here with the current argumentation here.
...
2. Redirecting this topic to an ID-bashing session.
But you were the one who introduce ID into the argument:
commike37 msg #7 writes:
Not all agree that evolution is the best theory. Some people would subscribe to intelligent design as the best theory.
Before that there was no mention of it. You also raise it again in msg #18. An honest reading of your messages would cause one to ask do you want to discuss ID or not? Now, if you do, there are a couple of threads already going that you could respond to -- such as Is ID properly pursued?, Who designed the ID designer(s)?, ID as Religion and ID and contradictions to other faiths -- and one of them should be suitable, thus taking the load off this thread.
Now, your comment in msg #18:
Intelligent design as a scientific theory is in a primitive stage (the concept has been around a lot, but the science is rather new). However, if we reject ID on the grounds that it is more primitive and does not have as much science behind it as evolution, can it even be possible for evolution to be challenged? Wouldn't all new theories have to be rejected on this ground?
Still shows a failure to understand the scientific process. As I noted in an earlier post (msg #12, click here for the post), and which it doesn't look like you have read.
The question of how a new theory moves from concept into the mainstream of science is discussed in that Wikipedia article that I suggested you read. Let me quote from it again:
Scientific Theory Characteristics (from Wikipedia entry on "Theory"):
In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it
1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.
And as I said in my earlier post, evolution fits this criteria, and ID and creationism don't. Specifically in regard to your comment about ID being "a scientific theory ... in a primitive stage" let us evaluate it by the above criteria, not to show that ID is wrong but that the concept that it is science is wrong:
(1) consistent with pre-existing theory: ID does not explain anything that evolution doesn't explain, nor has it shown any errors in the evolution theory. In fact ID does a worse job of explaining than evolution. (we can go into that on the ID threads if you wish -- pick one).
(2) supported by many strands of evidence: ID is currently not supported by a single piece of evidence, while evolution has mountains, but just a single observed instance is sufficient ... how about the observed evolution of an IC system? This also falsifies the IC concept btw.
(3) survived crtitical real world tests: nope. None so far for any ID concept. It is questionable if some of them are even testable, but that is another issue related to the pseudo science of ID that can be addressed on those other threads.
(4) makes predictions: not one yet that I am aware of from the ID crowd.
(5) is the best explanation: not by a long shot as already noted. So far it isn't even a credible explanation.
This is not ID bashing (you can substitute "creationism" if you like in the above discussion), it is {lack-of-science} bashing, and ID is just the example used. The mechanism is there for any new theory to come along, that is the scientific process, but it has to measure up. Punctuated Equilibrium ("PunkEek") did this, as an example of a new theory in evolution that has moved into the mainstread.
Now if you think evolution is such a poor preformer, then put up a scientific theory that qualifies on the above basis and does a better job. We are interested.
It is not a matter of faith in evolution as it is faith in the process of science to develop the best answer with the most consistent results.
Note that this "best explanation" bit is the final criteria, note the biggest. Thus you have two theories about the universe, the inflation theory and the brane theory. As yet the jury is out on the evidence, but the current accepted model is the inflation one because of #5.
Enjoy.
{edited typos}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-13-2005 21:59 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by commike37, posted 01-13-2005 7:54 PM commike37 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 161 (176768)
01-13-2005 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by commike37
01-13-2005 9:51 PM


Ah, if you could not look deeper into my argument, I said that the specific means of rejecting ID would implicate a sort of immortality in evolution and thus a blind faith.
No, it would just be the scientific process of invalidating bad theories, an ongoing process that has molded the theories that make up the field of evolution for some time. The field is composed of lots of data and many theories, not just ***one*** theory of evolution.
I'm saying that ID, as well as any other theory that is developed, can in no way start on the same ground as evolution in the scientific procees. Therefore, this creates a monopoly of sorts for evolution
False as pointed out in the more complete version of the post.
EvC Forum: Does it take faith to accept evolution as truth?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-13-2005 22:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by commike37, posted 01-13-2005 9:51 PM commike37 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 161 (176777)
01-13-2005 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by commike37
01-13-2005 10:01 PM


Re: But where should the comparison take place?
If there were two forms of government, dictatorships and anarchies, which one would be the best? Regardless of which one you choose, they're both horrible.
anarchy is obviously much better than any dictatorship. but that is an issue for another topic eh? unless you want to carry the analogy further by saying that anarchy allows the evolution of cooperation systems between people, while dictatorship is like a theocratic declaration of what is right.
some people think that anarchy is better than democracy (but it requires an educated population).
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by commike37, posted 01-13-2005 10:01 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 10:27 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 161 (176794)
01-13-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 10:27 PM


anarchy not that bad
I know what his point was, and I take issue with the example: anarchy isn't necessarily horrible ... it takes educated people with a clear understanding of the moral imperatives. most of the day to day events that people are involved in are really anarchy in action and not the result of any governmental form or other.
you could say that democracy enables anarchy to be more effective.
a better example would be a choice between a secular dictatorship and a theistic monopoly.
heh.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 10:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AdminNosy, posted 01-13-2005 11:11 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 161 (176821)
01-13-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by commike37
01-13-2005 10:31 PM


Re: The Great Question
OK, my take on the big question
commike writes:
Do we accept evolution by comparing it to objective truth, or by comparing it to other theories? The answer is important in determining the role of faith in evolution.
I accept evolution as the current best answer to the observed (objective) evidence (truth), especially in comparison to other theories on their ability to explain the evidence.
Or in other words, I accept that change will occur in the theories involved, but that the current ones are the best ones available at this time.
One could also argue that it is a lack of valid competing theories that makes the acceptance seem stronger.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by commike37, posted 01-13-2005 10:31 PM commike37 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 161 (177143)
01-14-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by commike37
01-14-2005 7:52 PM


Re: How much erroneous information?
commike37 writes:
I'm not trying to focus on evidence as much, which is why I'm not going to go for high quality stuff. I said those five bits were the most troublesome, meaning they may not necessarily disprove evolution, but they generate most of the problems for evolution.
You keep repeating infromation that you have been shown to be false or inaccurate. This "list" is typical, as it has already been pointed out that it is wrong.
(1) Evolution HAS been observed - many times.
(2) Evolution DOESN'T violate the 2nd law of thermodynamicss because the system is not closed with the earth, there is energy from the sun added every day.
(3) There are MANY transitional fossils - therapsids are one set that show the transitions from reptile to mammal. ring species exhibit this kind of step by step transition in real life as well.
(4)
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance" ... so? Why is that a "problem" for evolution? Note that evolution does not include abiogenesis, but deals only with change in species over time. There are several mechanisms that cause random changes that are well known and documented. The teory of weather also says that weather is caused by random chance, but you don't see people making a big deal out of that. The only people for whom "random chance" happening is a problem are people who do not understand evolution or science in general.
(5)
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved." This chestnut has already been addressed several times here. As I have noted (msg 12?) before the article in Wikipedia addresses this specific issue and shows the erroneous thinking that is involved. Obviously you still have not read the article OR learned anything from this discussion if you keep going back to such bad information.
And what is really ludicrous about claiming that your list of 5 things that "generate the most problems for evolution" are not problems at all in reality, so you are really proving how robust evolution is. And if that is the highest "quality" stuff you have, then perhaps it is time to fold your tent.
enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-14-2005 21:04 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by commike37, posted 01-14-2005 7:52 PM commike37 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 137 of 161 (178397)
01-18-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by commike37
01-18-2005 10:55 PM


Re: How much faith?
heh
commike writes:
Likewise, one day some catastrophic anomaly in evolution may one day kill the theory. The history of mankind shows that nothing is set in stone.
Likewise, one day some catastrophic anomaly in astronomy may one day kill life on this planet. The geological history of the world shows that nothing is set in stone ... or is that stones?
It certainly ended the debate between creationist and evolutionist dinosaurs ....

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by commike37, posted 01-18-2005 10:55 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by commike37, posted 01-19-2005 5:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 145 of 161 (178733)
01-19-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by commike37
01-19-2005 5:46 PM


dating problems? go to this forum to discuss
commike37 writes:
Don't get me started with the problems of dating methods.
Not here, where it would be off-topic, but I will be happy to discuss this at
{{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}}.
It will be interesting to see if you can do what no other YEC has done yet: explain the correlations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by commike37, posted 01-19-2005 5:46 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by commike37, posted 01-19-2005 11:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 161 (178789)
01-19-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by commike37
01-19-2005 11:06 PM


Re: dating problems? go to this forum to discuss
go ahead and try at the link given if you think you have an argument. I'm sure Ned will monitor it (he has so far) and he is pretty easy on letting you introduce concepts, as long as you keep to the point of showing how the correlations can all come out the same ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by commike37, posted 01-19-2005 11:06 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024