Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 104 (287635)
02-17-2006 11:30 AM


In another topic about information Garrett made the claim that:
if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith
So I thought I'd start a topic on how conclusions can be verified, and I'm going to use murder as my analogy.
If we find a man in the room with a knife in the back, we generally infer that a murder has taken place. However, we need to verify it. How? We verify something by finding other evidence, independent of the first, that agrees with that conclusion.
So take the evolutionary time scale. One of the biggest criticisms that faces evolutionary time scales is that we cannot verify it. For example, the fossil record shows that the marsupial mammals and placental mammals diverged about 143-178 million years ago1.
How? From radiodating of the fossils. How do we verify this?
One way to do it is to attempt to calibrate a molecular clock based on a radiodating time. If this molecular clock gives us times similar to the radiodating times (for times other than the calibration time obviously) then this is considered verification of radiodating. It would be a tremendous coincidence if the two just happened to line up. It has been done 1 on several occasions.
There are many independent lines of enquiry that agree with the inferred conclusion that is evolution. Each one serves as a verification method. The (in)famous 29+ evidences (which is now the second result on google if you search for 29+) demonstrate many of these lines of enquiry.
I appreciate the topic appears to be wide, so I'll clarify:
off topic
1. Discussions about whether or not the 29+ evidences are right or not. A little discussion on them would probably be on topic, but we are going in the wrong direction if it becomes the central topic
2. Radiodating is wrong! Essentially the topic is about verification methods, and what they are. The dates and dating forum is the place for such rants.
on topic
1. Falsification, the opposite of verification, but I think its discussion is on topic here.
2. Using the above topics as examples. Eg, If radiodating is right, here is a method for verifying it. If radiodating is wrong, here is how to falsify it. Just be careful because that kind of thing can lead too far off the topic's path.
3. Philosophy/logic. Its popular here at the moment, and I think it would be interesting.

Kicking off the discussion

Garrett writes:
You can easily [verify] that your computer is on your desk by reaching out and touching it. However, it's not possible to [verify] that changes ABOVE the level of species can occur. Evolutionists would be the first to admit this since they take such great time to occur.
Garrett was talking about verification not proof, so I changed his words (as noted by square brackets). Of course we can not prove my desk is here (it could a complicated sequence of tactile, aural and visual hallucinations. I've neither smelled nor tasted it yet). Nor can we prove evolution at higher levels of taxa.
However, we can demonstrate many lines of evidence that infer evolution that agree with one another. Turning back to murder, if we had
1. DNA evidence,
2. fingerprint evidence,
3. a CCTV camera
4. a witness
5. a confession
6. no alibi
7. a bloody (victim's blood) weapon found at the suspect's house
8. a diary that details what the suspect was going to do, which matches up with what happened.
9. footprints that match the shoe size and type of the suspect
10. tyre tracks that match the suspect's vehicle,
11. which was caught on a speeding camera 200 metres from the location of the crime
12. The forensics pinpoint the time to within 20 minutes of the speed trap
13. etc
that suggested it was Greg Matthews then it would require FAITH that it wasn't him since it is unreasonable doubt, not reasonable doubt, to think such a thing.
As such when we have well over a dozen evidences that all point to the same conclusion of evolution it requires faith to not accept that conclusion, not vice versa.

1A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution Sudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges

Is it Science? Seems to make sense.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 1:16 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 02-18-2006 12:12 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 14 by Garrett, posted 02-20-2006 10:04 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 104 (288721)
02-20-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Garrett
02-20-2006 10:04 AM


If you define "faith" as a belief that cannot be rationally proven, then macroevolution does indeed require faith
Indeed, if we define faith in this way everything requires faith. It makes the word meaningless. No scientific thing has ever been proven. I defined faith as a belief that lacks independent verification (which is the definition you used here)
I've seen you've clarified this by suggesting that macroevolution won't be demonstrated to the same level as other theories.
Macroevolution is an historical event which is inferred from physical evidence, not a theory. The Theory of Evolution is used to explain how macroevolution occurred. Think back to my murder analogy. We cannot prove the murder happened, but we can use various theories to explain why we can conclude a murder happened, and even infer who was responsible.
'Macro'evolution, or universal common descent, has independent lines of verification like our murder.
I have a thread open about this confusion Message 1
In other words, our argument actually seems to be over what "faith" means, not if it's required to accept macroevolution.
Technically its both. First we need to define faith, then we need to see if macroevolution requires it. The definition of faith should be specific and useful, otherwise we could show that everything requires some element of faith. Which is great and Cartesian and all that, but not useful for everyday discussion; it would also be disengenious to specify macroevolution when it requires as much faith as anything else.
For the purposes of this debate, I chose your definition of faith, outlined in the OP:
if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith
And then demonstrated to you several ways in which the conclusion of macroevolution could be verified, which means faith isn't required to accept it.
You seem to think that verification in a scientific sense is the same as truth. Verification in a scientific sense is not proof, so changing my quote to read verification rather than proof is disingeneous. From wikipedia:
No need, I changed it BECAUSE they are different, not because they were the same, I wasn't being disengenous because I explained that I had both done it, and why.
The most you could ever assert about macroevolution, therefore, is that it is the superior scientfic model available at this time. It's not, however, proven.
Agreed! I accept this entirely. You can never prove any scientific theory. All you can do is lend it support or falsify it.
Further, by arguing that your computer may not be on your desk because you could be hallucinating or imagining it, undermines your whole argument. Either there is objective reality or there is not (not to mention, hallucination could be falsified by having other people view the computer).
Indeed, either there is objective reality or there isn't. We can't prove it. The hallucination hypothesis wouldn't be falsified, just weakened...the person that verifies the the table could also be hallucinating OR I could be hallucinating that they have verified the table.
However, it is another independent verification of the table hypothesis. The more we have, the more compelling the conclusion. After a number of verifications it become unreasonable to doubt the table, but we cannot prove its there. At this point there is no reasonable doubt. Which we can tie into macroevolution neatly. There are so many independant tests the results of which verify that macroevolution has taken place it becomes unreasonable to doubt that it is a reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Garrett, posted 02-20-2006 10:04 AM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 104 (289232)
02-21-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Garrett
02-21-2006 2:42 PM


Re: Misconceptions
Until you've witnessed a whale becoming a cow, it's just an assumption that it occured.
The point of this thread is to demonstrate that observing an event isn't necessary when we can infer from the evidence and verify that conclusion.
We can't witness a murder, but we can convict when the evidence infers the criminal's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 2:42 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 104 (289246)
02-21-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Garrett
02-21-2006 3:43 PM


The OP contains the answers!
I still don't see any evidence to suggest that macroevolution doesn't require faith even when faith is defined as a belief that lacks independent verification.
I provided some in the OP, in fact I provided a link to a massive list of evidences. Each one of these evidences is an independent line of enquiry inferring the same conclusion. I count this as verification, do you?
You don't seem to have the ability to seperate micro from macro.
Let me clear your mind of such thoughts. Macroevolution is a change in a population of organisms that takes place over such a long time scale as to be unobservable.
. It isn't valid to simply suggest that because speciation occurs and animals mutate and change, that they must change on the level of dino's to birds...the evidence just isn't there
I have never said any such thing. I suggest you re-read the OP where I set forth my actual argument. The conclusion is as follows:
quote:
As such when we have well over a dozen evidences that all point to the same conclusion of evolution it requires faith to not accept that conclusion, not vice versa.
Sure, birds exist..but what if there were created as birds in the beginning.
Then an alternative, and better, explanation for all the evidence that strongly infers they are related to crocodiles has to be put forward. If they were specially created, why all the evidence that says the opposite?
If you're convinced that macroevolution is an historical fact (nice use of an before 'H' btw), then it's apparant to me that you'll never objectively entertain the notion of other possibilities
I have entertained other possibilities on many occasions, I've even vehemently argued Special Creation when the mood has taken me. My central point was that there is a phenomena: natural history, and a theory: ToE which is used to explained the phenomena.
The word fact does not mean 100% guaranteed, it means 'there is so much evidence for it it would be perverse to think otherwise'. As I hinted at in the OP.
This is the sort of paradigm paralysis that leads to the omission of new discoveries.
I'm happy to entertain other explanations. The only explanation I have ever heard for the DNA evidence for example is that it is evidence of a similar designer, which does not explain the evidence in anyway whatsoever.
If you can put forward a decent explanation of the evidence then by all means do so in an appropriate thread, its off topic here (see OP).
I don't agree that there is a preponderance of evidence for macroevolution as to remove any reasonable doubt, however. You mention the plethera of indepent tests that verify that macroevolution has occured without listing any. Let's discuss these independent verifications.
I discussed one in detail in the OP:
quote:
So take the evolutionary time scale. One of the biggest criticisms that faces evolutionary time scales is that we cannot verify it. For example, the fossil record shows that the marsupial mammals and placental mammals diverged about 143-178 million years ago1.
How? From radiodating of the fossils. How do we verify this?
One way to do it is to attempt to calibrate a molecular clock based on a radiodating time. If this molecular clock gives us times similar to the radiodating times (for times other than the calibration time obviously) then this is considered verification of radiodating. It would be a tremendous coincidence if the two just happened to line up. It has been done on several occasions.
And I linked to others in the OP:
quote:
The (in)famous 29+ evidences (which is now the second result on google if you search for 29+) demonstrate many of these lines of enquiry.
Might I resepectfully suggest you re-read my OP because it seems you missed a lot of what I was saying. Hopefully I've cleared any issues up now
Take care!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:43 PM Garrett has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 31 of 104 (289251)
02-21-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Garrett
02-21-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Misconceptions
. The problem is you can only infer the verification you seek when you start out with a given set of assumptions.
There are always assumptions. The less the better, and the more verified the validity of your assumptions the better. I contend that macroevolutionary assumptions have been tested and verified as often as is possible, and their validity is fairly certain.
This is in contradiction to YEC assumptions which are in big trouble.
It's a problem of seperating the evidence from the theory.
No, its a problem of developing an explanatory framework (theory) that best explains the evidence.
Reasonable doubt is the key phrase. I've seen no evidence to remove it as of yet
The point is that there is no reasonable doubt about macroevolution, it has so much evidence...every test that has been thrown at it confirms that it happened. It requires FAITH that it didn't, not that it did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:50 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 104 (289270)
02-21-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:20 PM


YEC assumptions and the point of this topic
I won't ask you to give me evidence of YEC assumptions that are in big trouble, but I'm certain your YEC assumptions aren't what mine would be to begin with
How about: The genesis account is a literal history.
hard to ridicule what someone believes when you don't know what that even is
Yes it is, I'm not ridiculing anything here. I'm talking about what Faith is, and whether or not macroevolution requires it. My position is that faith is required when there is no way to verify a conclusion and that macroevolution has many independent ways to verify it therefore it doesn't require faith.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-February-2006 09:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 48 of 104 (289280)
02-21-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:33 PM


assumptions
A scientists interpretation doesn't create fact...some "faith" or "assumption" or whathaveyou is required.
You are conflating faith with assumptions? You realize we can test assumptions but cannot test faith? The most base of assumptions cannot be tested (axioms), but have been used with success so often that it is fair to accept them and faith doesn't enter into it.
May I point to your original words again?
if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith
Macroevolutionary conclusions are verifiable. The OP deals with this. How do you reply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:33 PM Garrett has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 56 of 104 (289296)
02-21-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:45 PM


Re: YEC assumptions and the point of this topic
I still hold to the position that microevolution is the only portion of evolution that can be held to verification.
Do you believe that we can verify that a murder has taken place and who has committed it without actually observing it?
, but I suspect it's only direct evidence for microevolution and indirect evidence for macro
If you think human-chimpanzee divergence and yeast sharing a common ancestor with humans is microevolution, then you'd be right.
It honestly seems to me as though evolutionists can't seperate the 2 or at least can't admit that 1 doesn't prove the other.
I've succesfully seperated the two. There is a thread in which the evolutionists go to great pains to explain the differences between the two. I assure you that the 29+ evidences (and the evidence I referenced in the OP) are for macroevolution and not microevolution.
I'm not sure if discussing the evidence you reference is off topic
Its something that shouldn't be the focus of the thread, but it can be talked about to a small extent.

I draw your attention to an important question:
Do you believe that we can verify that a murder has taken place and who has committed it without actually observing it?
This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-February-2006 10:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:45 PM Garrett has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 75 of 104 (290070)
02-24-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by robinrohan
02-24-2006 11:22 AM


Faith and reasonable doubt
But what does this tell us? I think the idea is, if evolution is true, then the above scenario must be the case. The above scenario is in fact the case. It does not follow from this that evolution is necessarily true. What this DNA evidence does is eliminate a possible falsification.
Well, naturally. An ominpotent creator God could have specially created us 6,000 years ago and did so in a way that would be consistent with evolution.
Also, Greg Matthews (from the OP) isn't guilty. God specially created an identical twin with the same DNA/fingerprints etc, had him steal Greg's car, commit the murder, speed back to Greg's house dump the weapon and then God made the evil twin mysteriously vanish. Or perhaps God took the simple option and specially created all the evidence to implicate Greg.
Either way, the point of this thread is that believing Greg is the killer requires less faith than the converse. Likewise, a lot more faith is required to deny evolution than to accept it.
As best as is possible we can verify the conclusion of evolution, so under the definition set out in the OP, it does not require faith, whereas omnipotent beings do require faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 11:22 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 02-24-2006 12:01 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 77 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 12:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 104 (290079)
02-24-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by robinrohan
02-24-2006 12:08 PM


Re: Faith and reasonable doubt
This sounds like your saying that it's not so much that the evidence for evolution is definitive, but rather that the alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
If you read the OP you'll see exactly what I am saying. Given the definition of faith in the OP, either evolution doesn't require it, or everything requires it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 12:08 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 12:19 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 104 (290090)
02-24-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by robinrohan
02-24-2006 12:19 PM


Re: Faith and reasonable doubt
The question is whether the evidence for evolution is comparable to the above.
Not strictly speaking, but if you want to present your case, why not go ahead and do so.
The central theme is about verification, namely from independent lines of enquiry. Perhaps you should reply to the OP (Where the full argument is laid out) with your thoughts and feelings?
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 24-February-2006 05:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 12:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 12:30 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 104 (290091)
02-24-2006 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by arachnophilia
02-24-2006 12:01 PM


Re: Faith and reasonable doubt
I'm afraid its obvious to some, but not to others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 02-24-2006 12:01 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 100 of 104 (397874)
04-28-2007 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:22 PM


science and religion
Answer this...where is it that modern science began to flourish. The answer is of course, mainly in Europe which was largely christian.
The interesting thing is that 'modern science' owes heavily from ancient and medieval science. Even more amusingly the Christian scientists ended up learning things that the Greeks, Chinese and Muslims had long ago already learned and codified.
Many historians even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation.
Undoubtedly. Many things have a foundation in religion. However, this is also undoubtedly because of the power that religion had when all these things were founded. Punk rock, for instance has its foundation in relgion - since its foundations were from 1950s rock - a style of music that borrowed from the religious gospel music.
Correlation does not imply causation. Dogmatic beliefs have often hampered scientific inquiry. Would we have learned as much about the world without religion? Who knows. However, we do know there was a period in Christian Europe called the Dark Ages. The enlightenment marked a decline in religious control, and an explosion in scientific discovery. The one, no doubt feeding the other.
Science seems to flourish wherever it is allowed to be, without dogmatic philosphies intruding. The less dogmatic control - the more the discovery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:22 PM Garrett 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