Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use

I think "there's no proof in science" is an argument that evolutionists should NOT use. There are many areas where the word "proven" means "tested":

• 80 proof liquor is tested to contain 40% alcohol
• photographic proofs are used to test composition, exposure, etc.
• written text is "proof"read to test for errors

In court, a preponderance of evidence is considered proof.Insisting on only the logical/mathematical meaning of "proof" instead of the more usual uses of the word just confuses the issue.I think we should be comfortable saying "evolution is proven" - i.e. it has passed all the tests.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

"Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the way most people - including creos - think of "proof". Why talk about "complete" proofs to people who don't even know what they are?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sure you can. Court rulings are overturned all the time - and that's the way most people think of "proof". He was proven guilty by the best evidence we had available. Now he's been proven innocent by even better evidence.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You have to educate people starting from where they are. You can't use a whole different set of definitions without confusing them. You have to work into it.When they ask for "proof" and you say, "There's no such thing as proof", they just shut down. You automatically lose.Instead, why not show them the evidence you do have? If you don't feel comfortable saying, "This proves that," you don't have to use the word "prove". But you don't have to tell them you don't have any proof either. They will take the word "proof" the way they understand it, not the way you understand it. And that's very similar to the tentative "proof" that science gives.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's not a very good attitude for an "educator". Until they understand what the evidence is and what the nature of evidence is, how can they understand illusions about the nature of evidence? We still need to start from the foot they are on. About as often as we've seen them say, "A-ha! So you admit you don't have any proof!" Arrogance seems to be ingrained in certain people. I've seldom seen it unlearned. "Admitting" you have no proof only feeds the arrogance. If you have no proof, their own "proof" - no matter how silly - becomes more valuable.I don't want to make a big issue of it. I just don't think it's a good idea to lead with "we have no proof" when proof is exactly what they're looking for.Drown them in evidence. Shoot down their objections. Shoot down their "evidence". When they have zero on their side, you can mention that your case will never be 100%.Admit failure at the get-go and you'll never get a shot off. Dontcha recognize me from my movies?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Again, not a good attitude if you're trying to educate them. You have to start with what they know and what they think they know.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi, kbertsche. Welcome to EvC. I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of people who don't know anything about science and that's exactly the way they use the word "proof". They don't mean logical/mathematical proof at all. They mean a preponderance of evidence. No, I want to use the word the way that they (the layman) use it. Or rather, I don't want to use the word at all because the scientific definition and the lay definition are so different.I repeat, if you say "proof" to a layman, he will understand it the way he understands it, not the way you understand it. You are the one who is taking on the big job of redefining it in his mind.A large part of science's PR failure is the refusal to see things from the lay point of view.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It's not a question of misunderstanding or disagreeing with the scientific method. It's a question of how the scientific method is presented to lay people. The topic is about arguments used by evolutionists, presumably to educate creationists.I'm not saying that the no-proof argument is a "bad" argument, per se or that it's "wrong". I'm saying it's an ineffective, even counter-productive argument when used on people who don't understand the scientific method. Maybe I should have called it a bad strategy instead of a bad argument.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC