Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 46 of 145 (468040)
05-26-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Stile
05-26-2008 2:52 PM


Re: Scientists study known reality
I'm not a great thinker or a great mind. I think that you should offer up those items for consideration to everyone alive and not consider it to be solely my responsibility. I did some work. I hope you can use what I can provide, but I can make a suggestion for thinking over.
Yesterday in our study group (We are studying THE ESOTERIC TRADITION by G. de Purucker, 1935) we read pages 462-470 in Volume I, "Behind the Veils of Science", sections v & vi. We held discussions regarding what was written there, (just 5 people) It was amazing to me that scientists points of view were examined and included: Prout, Thomson, Aston, and Dampier-Whetham and that the conclusions drawn by these great "thinkers" varied where Prout put forth Hydrogen with an atomic weight of 1 as the primordial substance which was later refuted by Thomson's and Aston's work which showed the other elements were not exact multiples of hydrogen, due partly to the Soddy isotopes and then having Dampier-Whetham return to Prout's views and supporting that the other elements are all multiples.
The two bodies - one electron and one proton - at that time could not be traced back further however since that time subatomic particles have proved further building blocks. So in a sense we are in a world where hydrogen is 1 and yet there are still more infinitesimal breakdowns of what we consider to be the "1" of the material world.
Purucker takes the reader away from looking for roots and forward into looking at the physical conception of a "single" human being and at how those senses were developed and he (and others) claim that the senses were developed in turn by a racial progression (see the theosophical conception of seven races) with the 1st human race developing hearing, second touch, third seeing, fourth tast, and fifth smell. Two senses have yet been developed but will come forth during the next two races.
Due to this presentation and his comments (and ours) that sight should be so lame in comparison to the need for hearing and touch, we considered what the author said about each of the senses being capable of reacting to a range of radiation from lengthy to short wave-lengths. He uses a reference by James Jeans in THROUGH SPACE AND TIME where the claim is made that the ears can hear 11 octaves and eyes are limited to only one octave.
Through our discussions, we began to place the significance of sight alongside that of the hydrogen atom as a number 1 for manifested life. While the vibrations recede into deeper states of sense both by subparticles and by sound octaves, it is the 1 which appears to be the most manifest of the range of states and by comparison, it would be the 3rd race as the first material "split" of the human from the androgynous human-animal (2nd race state). When the human splits and stands alone in a form of its own, it has materialized and this is what we tend to use as our standard for basic knowledge.
We all admit that the subtler states of matter exist and likewise that subtler senses could be active and without recognizable features (Can we really tell what someone is hearing in their head in any way?), but we prefer to have a neatly ordered world with easily recognizable means of order and for that purpose sight is preferred to sound or touch for purposes of proving something.
It shows a "curve" of manifestation where early individualization is often disregarded as worthy of being considered the primordial substance or initial stage of existence.
Because of analogies like these, it can be seen how the girasas, when "heard" by writers who participate in writing down their words, are not validated as existence. So if you would portend to know this kingdom, then let's put the word girasas into use and in a dictionary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 05-26-2008 2:52 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Stile, posted 05-27-2008 9:08 AM brendatucker has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 47 of 145 (468047)
05-26-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Granny Magda
05-24-2008 9:46 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
I am sorry that I have not replied to this post earlier. Sometimes I get a lot of posts and it is difficult to reply to all of them. I really do not even know how to keep up with the ones that need replies. I do appreciate your earnest and sincere manner. It gets kind of old when some people feel they must constantly make flippant and unnecesary remarks. So, it is refreshing to read your posts.
Granny writes:
I don't doubt it. Indeed, I almost mentioned that likelihood in my last post, but it slipped my mind. I was also going to point out however, that the percentage was very likely to be lower in Europe.
Actually, I have looked at the statistics and the percentage of atheists and agnostics is much higher in Europe than in the U.S.
Did God create misleading evidence? If so, how can that gel with the concept of a benevolent and loving God? You seem to be saying that God did not create misleading evidence, we are merely misinterpreting it, due to Satanic interference.
God did not create misleading evidence. Although, it appears to me that it is possible that wrong conclusions are being reached. This could be due to many factors. Misinterpretation of the evidence is one of those factors. I believe that it is possible that Satan could have an influence on how a person interprets the evidence.
Is this true? Is our ability to observe the physical world and make judgements about it really that bad? To what extent is Satan altering our perceptions or conclusions, and how? How would we tell?
It is not our ability that is the problem. Satan has different tools that he can use to affect our judgment. All of these tools are directed toward our desires. Pride is a very important problem. The desire to be seen as acceptable by your peers in the scientific community could affect how someone interprets evidence. We have even seen scientists alter evidence. This could have been due to pride. What other ways could Satan cause a person to make the wrong conclusion? Could it be lust? I want this woman to look at me in a different way. Could it be money? If I interpret the evidence in this way then I will get a government grant. Satan does not have to change the evidence. Mankind’s own desires of pride, lust of the eye, and lust of the flesh can allow Satan to affect the objectivity of that person.
The great biologist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what might constitute evidence against evolution, grumpily relied "Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." He was being somewhat flippant, but this oft-quoted point remains a good one. We never find rabbits in pre-Cambrian deposits. We never find them in the Cambrian period either. There are no fossils of rabbits in the same strata as dinosaurs. Not one. From this, I conclude that the total lack of such anachronistic fossils represents a strong piece of evidence for evolution.
How am I misinterpreting this? How has Satan led me astray in coming to this conclusion? You have already said that he did not plant the evidence himself, so I can only assume that you don't believe that Satan has gone around hiding pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils either!
I don’t believe Satan has hidden any fossils.
I have not learned enough about the Geological Column, the presence or lack of fossil evidence, and the Theory of Evolution to answer this question. If someone is reaching an incorrect conclusion, and Satan has played a part in this deception, then I believe it would be due to one of the reasons listed above.
If a person could be totally objective, and this may not be possible, then they may ask some questions of them self. An example of some of these questions may be as follows:
If God did exist, and He had played a part in this process, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect upon my prestige as a scientist, or my acceptance by my peers, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect on my ability to obtain a job, or to obtain a government grant, or to obtain any financial benefit, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect upon my personal relationships, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
I think you can see where this is going. There are many ways that a person’s judgment can be compromised without outright forgery of the evidence.
Has the evil one warped my mind in some way, in order to lead me to this conclusion?
He has not warped your mind. He may have introduced temptation into your life that could affect your judgment.
If so, how, and what other possible conclusion could I reach?
We all have the ability to resist temptation. It is easy in life to make bad judgments due to pride, or money, or lust, or many other desires that we have. However, when we look back at those events in our lives, we can usually see why our judgment was flawed, and what caused the bad judgment.
In your model, God made the Earth. If this is so, then he seems to have deliberately arranged the fossils in such a way that trilobites are never found alongside sharks and rabbits are never found alongside dinosaurs. To suggest that we are mistaken in this simple observation of what we find in rocks is surely to doubt our senses to such an extent that we can't trust anything we see or touch. This way, madness lies.
The fossils are real. They are not Satanic illusions and we are not imagining them. If God made these fossils, and they genuinely do not include anachronistic fossils such as pre-Cambrian rabbits, how do we explain this contradiction between the account in Genesis and the testimony of the rocks themselves?
Once again, I must plead ignorance. I do not know enough about the theories and the evidence at this time to answer this question. Hopefully, I will be able to answer the question in the future.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 05-24-2008 9:46 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Perdition, posted 05-26-2008 7:15 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 05-26-2008 7:33 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 54 by Granny Magda, posted 05-26-2008 8:39 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 48 of 145 (468056)
05-26-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by brendatucker
05-26-2008 11:38 AM


Re: Issues in creation vs issues in religion
brenda writes:
Perhaps I could get an answer to my posts as I have answered the questions that appeared in the first message.
I really do not know what my problem is Brenda, but I am having a difficult time following whatever you are trying to say. My goal in this thread was to get an idea of how scientists who believe in evolution reconcile that to their belief in God. I really cannot figure out what you believe about either evolution or God. I am sure it is my lack of intellect that is the problem. Therefore, please excuse me if I am not able to answer your posts.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by brendatucker, posted 05-26-2008 11:38 AM brendatucker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by brendatucker, posted 05-27-2008 2:59 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 49 of 145 (468058)
05-26-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 5:51 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
If a person could be totally objective, and this may not be possible, then they may ask some questions of them self. An example of some of these questions may be as follows:
If God did exist, and He had played a part in this process, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect upon my prestige as a scientist, or my acceptance by my peers, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect on my ability to obtain a job, or to obtain a government grant, or to obtain any financial benefit, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect upon my personal relationships, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
I think you can see where this is going. There are many ways that a person’s judgment can be compromised without outright forgery of the evidence.
I agree, it may be difficult, if not impossible to be completely objective when looking at evidence. But I'm pretty sure that most good scientists do a very good job of it. The ones who can overturn an established theory and account for all the evidence we have, plus make predictions about any new evidence would be automatically catapulted to the upper echelons of science, we would know their name as a household word, and they would win a Nobel Prize.
Newton is a name we all recognize because he was able to formulate his theory of gravitation, one that was so different from the established idea that he was ridiculed at first. Einstein came along and revolutionized even that theory, I'm sure you've heard of him. The scientists who first noticed the increasing complexity of the fossils in the geologic column and began to notice morphological similarities were almost all Christian. They came at the evidence with a definite Christian bent, and the science at the time was dominated by Christians, where it would have been safer and easier to ascribe their evidence to god, but it was obvious to them that what they had read and learned from the Bible could not be literally true based on the evidence. They weren't willing to accept a god who would trick and deceive them, and I guess that would be their biggest bias, so they had to follow where the evidence took them. They were not trying to overthrow religion or make god unnecessary, they were just seeing the evidence and realizing what it was saying, rather than what they wanted it to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 5:51 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 50 of 145 (468062)
05-26-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 5:51 PM


Prediction
The hallmark of any valid scientific theory is prediction.
"If a theory is true then X, Y and Z will also be true. Therefore I will examine X, Y and Z and determine whether or not the theory is true"
Validation by prediction eliminates the need for interpretation. Thus prediction is the basis of scientific validity and reliability. Prediction and verification is (in admittedly summarised and simplified form) the scientific method.
The theory of evolution has made predictions. Predictions regarding evidence that was at the time unknown. Evidence that we now have, because the predictions of evolution have been validated and the predicted evidence found.
Do not be fooled into thinking that science is the interpretation of existing evidence and that any feasible explanation is thus valid. A theory that is not verified by prediction is subject to interpretation and philosophical bias in a way that falsifiable truly scientific theories are not.
Ask a creationist to make a physical prediction that will falsify their theory and see the bemused look on their faces.
Ask a scientist the same question and witness the history, basis and potential future of the subject at hand unfold before your ears.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 5:51 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 8:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 51 of 145 (468067)
05-26-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Straggler
05-26-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Prediction
Straggler writes:
The theory of evolution has made predictions. Predictions regarding evidence that was at the time unknown. Evidence that we now have, because the predictions of evolution have been validated and the predicted evidence found.
I would be interested in where I would need to look to find out what these predictions were, when they were made, and why they were expected. I would also like to see the fulfillment of these predictions. Maybe there is a table or something that lists all of the predictions and their fulfillments. This may go a long ways towards helping me understand why so many of you believe so strongly in this theory.
I would also like to know about any predictions that were made that were not fulfilled. Hopefully this would be included with an explanation of why this did not falsify the theory.
Ask a creationist to make a physical prediction that will falsify their theory and see the bemused look on their faces.
Ask a scientist the same question and witness the history, basis and potential future of the subject at hand unfold before your ears.
What are the physical predictions that have been made that would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Is there a list of these predictions?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 05-26-2008 7:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Perdition, posted 05-26-2008 8:14 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 05-27-2008 9:12 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 52 of 145 (468069)
05-26-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 8:04 PM


Re: Prediction
What are the physical predictions that have been made that would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Is there a list of these predictions?
There are quite a few things that could completely rewrite the theory of evolution. There are less things that would make us toss it out completely.
Finding a Mastodon skeleton in Precambrian rock would be a good find that would at the very least completely revolutionize the study of evolution.
If they found a fossil that is half human and half fish (a mermaid or merman) would completely revolutionize the study as well.
A fully formed complex creature that doesn't use DNA without any precursor fossils using that same molecular engine would be another blow to the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 8:04 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 8:39 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 53 of 145 (468075)
05-26-2008 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Perdition
05-26-2008 8:14 PM


Re: Prediction
Perdition writes:
There are quite a few things that could completely rewrite the theory of evolution. There are less things that would make us toss it out completely.
Is there a list of predictions that the theory has made that must be fulfilled for the theory to be true?
Are there predictions where the theory could be completely falsified?
I mean short of God coming down here to earth and saying He has had about enough of this nonsense.
I guess I am having difficulty understanding exactly what Straggler was saying.
I have done a quick search, and this seems to be a highly controversial subject. Some would contend that evolution is not truly a science since it does not make predictions. If you look at the talk origins website, this seems to be an area where they are treading water. They seem to be making excuses about why evolution is not a type of science where predictions can be easily made.
CA210: Evolution predictions

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Perdition, posted 05-26-2008 8:14 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2008 12:02 AM Wumpini has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 54 of 145 (468076)
05-26-2008 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 5:51 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
I am sorry that I have not replied to this post earlier. Sometimes I get a lot of posts and it is difficult to reply to all of them. I really do not even know how to keep up with the ones that need replies. I do appreciate your earnest and sincere manner. It gets kind of old when some people feel they must constantly make flippant and unecesary remarks. So, it is refreshing to read your posts.
Aw, schucks! The feeling is mutual. Your attitude is considerably more reasonable than many creationist posters, who swagger in, full of hubris, convinced that they have the argument that is going to destroy evolution, only for it to turn out to be yet another tired old PRATT. I understand that you have a lot of replies to get through, so I shan't hector you about it. Reply as and when you can.
Actually, I have looked at the statistics and the percentage of atheists and agnostics is much higher in Europe than in the U.S.
We are in agreement. Here is an interesting survey on the topic of scientists and belief in God. It too is based on American scientists, but it paints a rather different picture to the one you cited. It was carried out by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham and the results were published in Nature.
quote:
Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever ” almost total.
Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].
In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever ” a mere 7% of respondents.
The 1998 survey saw, amongst the "greater" scientists (chosen in this case from the National Academy of Sciences), only 7% express belief in God, with 72.2% expressing disbelief and the remaining 20.8% expressing doubt or agnosticism.
Food for thought.
God did not create misleading evidence. Although, it appears to me that it is possible that wrong conclusions are being reached. This could be due to many factors. Misinterpretation of the evidence is one of those factors. I believe that it is possible that Satan could have an influence on how a person interprets the evidence.
It is not our ability that is the problem. Satan has different tools that he can use to affect our judgment. All of these tools are directed toward our desires. Pride is a very important problem. The desire to be seen as acceptable by your peers in the scientific community could affect how someone interprets evidence. We have even seen scientists alter evidence.
I quite agree with you that factors such as pride and personal ambition could cloud a scientist's judgement. Scientists acknowledge this. That is the reason why the scientific method seeks to drive out bias. Proper science is repeatable. It is peer reviewed and vigorously tested. Findings are not just accepted at face value, but ruthlessly tested and retested. That is why good science is always published in peer-reviewed journals, so that other experts can check if it's correct. Errors are found this way.
If a overly prideful scientist were to misinterpret his results, due to a desire to be hailed as a genius, or whatever, he would eventually have his mistake revealed by the peer review system.
You also list a number of questions that scientist might ask themselves.
If God did exist, and He had played a part in this process, then would I interpret this evidence differently?
Since God is supernatural and not independently verifiable, scientists have no way of including God in their assessments. I think that if you asked this question of any scientist, they would reply that their conclusions would be the same even with this consideration in mind. Much the same can be said of your other questions about respect of peers, getting a job, etc. Science, when done properly, excludes such biases and even if a particular finding is biased, this will be rooted out in the peer-review process. It is also worth mentioning that the scientists who really command the respects of their peers are the ones who break the mould and move beyond the prevailing paradigm, such as Darwin or Einstein. Science values truth way above orthodoxy.
To suggest that some scientists might misinterpret their results is reasonable. To suggest that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community are deluded due to their petty biases and furthermore, that they are all labouring under the same delusion, stretches credulity to breaking point.
I don’t believe Satan has hidden any fossils.
OK, good. We are agreed then, that Satan has not hidden fossils and that God has not deliberately planted misleading evidence in the fossil record.
That leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that the fossil record paints an accurate picture of what actually happened, does it not? All that is left to decide is what the record is actually telling us.
I have not learned enough about the Geological Column, the presence or lack of fossil evidence, and the Theory of Evolution to answer this question.
In which case, you are very poorly placed to make judgement upon thousands of hard-working biologists.
Let's look at a simple example. Trilobites were an very successful group of invertebrates that lived from the mid-Cambrian, through to the end of the Permian, about 250 million years ago.
Dolphins on the other hand, only appear in the fossil record about 50 million years ago.
Let's leave aside the exact dates, and how they are decided upon, for now. Let's just look at one simple fact; we never see dolphins and trilobites in the same strata. There are no fossils showing trilobites and dolphins next to each other, despite the fact that they share a common habitat.
What interpretation could there be, other then to conclude that trilobites and dolphins never lived at the same time? This contradicts the account in Genesis of course, where all the marine animals are created at the same time, in a single day. But what other explanation can there be for the distinct separation of trilobite and dolphin fossils, that leaves the Bible's account intact? You say that God isn't tricking us, you say that Satan hasn't messed with the fossils, so how exactly are scientists misinterpreting this simple fact?
It is no use to say "You guys are misinterpreting things, but I don't have any idea how, I can only speculate as to why and I have absolutely no idea what the real interpretation might be, except that it has to agree with Genesis."
Scientist believe in evolution because it is a good match with the evidence and because there is no other explanation of that evidence that makes any sense. If you want to challenge evolution, you are going to have to come up with some alternative explanation for the lack of dolphin+trilobite bearing strata, as well as for the lack of any and all other anachronistic combinations, human/ape chromosome analysis, genetic comparisons and all the many other reasons why scientists find the theory of evolution so convincing.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 5:51 PM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by brendatucker, posted 05-27-2008 3:29 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 145 (468095)
05-27-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 8:39 PM


Re: Prediction
Is there a list of predictions that the theory has made that must be fulfilled for the theory to be true?
A list? No. Partly because the theory makes zillions of predictions, and partly because there's no need: the predictions are simply the logical consequences of the theory, hence anyone who understands the theory can figure out the predictions that apply to any particular case.
Are there predictions where the theory could be completely falsified?
Yes. Indeed, there are plenty of conceivable conditions under which no-one would ever have thought of evolution, or taken it seriously for a moment if they had.
Imagine, for example, if flora and fauna were distributed according to environment, rather than geography. Or if the same species were found throughout the fossil record. Or if the morphology of vertebrates was on the "pick and mix" plan.
I have done a quick search, and this seems to be a highly controversial subject. Some would contend that evolution is not truly a science since it does not make predictions.
And the name for these people is "creationists".
If you look at the talk origins website, this seems to be an area where they are treading water. They seem to be making excuses about why evolution is not a type of science where predictions can be easily made.
CA210: Evolution predictions
I don't see how you got that out of that webpage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 8:39 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Wumpini, posted 05-27-2008 8:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 56 of 145 (468103)
05-27-2008 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Prediction
Wumpini writes:
If you look at the talk origins website, this seems to be an area where they are treading water. They seem to be making excuses about why evolution is not a type of science where predictions can be easily made.
CA210: Evolution predictions
DA writes:
I don't see how you got that out of that webpage.
Maybe it was only my impression or misimpression. However, I got the impression that they were saying that the theory of evolution lacked predictive powers from statements such as these:
quote:
The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind.
This made me feel that they were saying evolution was different than other sciences.
quote:
The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future.
This gives me the impression that the theory of evolution does not allow for future predictions.
quote:
If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.
This implies that the theory of evoloution has a low power to make future predicitons.
As I said, maybe I am misunderstanding what is being said. However, this is the reason that I made the statement that the talk origins web site gave me the impression that "evolution is not a science where predictions can be easily made."

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2008 12:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2008 9:13 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 60 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2008 9:37 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 57 of 145 (468106)
05-27-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by brendatucker
05-26-2008 5:09 PM


Girasas must be off-topic here
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.
I don't think you answered the questions I asked at all.
I do know that we're definitely going off-topic for this thread, and that's a bad thing. But it's okay, we can focus on your topic if you simply go to the [forum=-25] forum and start a thread specifically for your ideas.
You seem to talk a lot about what girasas is like and how things work between the 7 races included within. What I'm asking is for you to show me that this is more than an idea in your mind. I look at the world and I do not see any girasas. I don't see anything implying there are 7 races. So what is it that shows your idea to be a part of actual reality?
Please don't respond here (our off-topic chatting will interrupt the current discussion here). But if you would like to explain your ideas, click on the link above and propose a new thread topic. That way we can talk specifically about your ideas and not worry about any other thread (like this one) going off-topic.
If you are going to propose a new topic, I would recommend trying to answer some of the following questions:
-how do you know that girasas is real and not just an idea in your mind? Is there any way we can see girasas? hear girasas? go to girasas? feel girasas?
-how can we distinguish girasas from other possible explanations? That is, when you talk about girasas, how can we know that you're not mistaken?
Just try to explain what you know about girasas and how you know such things. Then we can discuss your ideas and see how they are a part of reality or if we can even judge that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by brendatucker, posted 05-26-2008 5:09 PM brendatucker has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 58 of 145 (468107)
05-27-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 8:04 PM


Re: Prediction
There are a huge number of predictions.
Start at the beginning.
The most fundamental logical consequence of natural selection and common descent as described by Darwin is a mechanism for inheritance that allows beneficial traits to be passed on but which also allows new traits to arise.
The mechanism of inheritance was unknown to Darwin but without such a mechanism evolutionary theory would be in real trouble. If the mechanism for inheritance did not have the characteristsics that allow natural selection to occur the theory would have been falsified.
We now know that the mechanism for inheritance is absolutely in line with Darwin's theory of evolution. I.e. genetic inheritance with random mutation.
Not only does genetic inheritance with random mutation fit the bill perfectly it also allows us to examine the history of common ancestry through DNA.
When you combine the findings of genetics (common ancestry via DNA) with the predictions made by the theory of evolution the picture revealed is enequivocal. Throw in the corroborating fossil evidence and frankly the picture, for most people is all but complete.
Note: Whilst creationists will tell you how each piece of evidence that comes to light can be explained by whatever theory it is they are proposing only a scientific theory will require that something be true before it is known in order for the theory in question to be validated.
More specific predictions relate to exactly which transitional forms should be found in which geological eras. Based on these predictions digs have been undertaken and fossils matching the predicted forms have been unearthed exactly in the locations predicted.
The following (very detailed and very long) article details various evidences for evolution, the predictions made and the evidence that could potentially falsify each case.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html.
There is a lot there so maybe skim a few of the evidences that interest you most and pay particular attention to the prediction and potential falsification sections of each evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 8:04 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 145 (468108)
05-27-2008 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Wumpini
05-27-2008 8:39 AM


Re: Prediction
quote:
The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind.
This made me feel that they were saying evolution was different than other sciences.
When they are in fact saying the exact opposite.
This implies that the theory of evoloution has a low power to make future predicitons.
Like every scientific theory, we test it by its ability to predict the present. If some evolutionary biologist did come up with a prediction of what would happen a million years from now, how would we test the prediction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Wumpini, posted 05-27-2008 8:39 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 60 of 145 (468113)
05-27-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Wumpini
05-27-2008 8:39 AM


Re: Prediction
This implies that the theory of evoloution has a low power to make future predicitons.
This is true as far as it goes.
If you compare the predictive ability of Newtonian mechanics for the behaviour of bodies in motion, i.e. projectile flight, to the ability of an evolutionary biologist to predict any particular mutation or the evolution of any particular trait then the predictive ability of evolution, in terms of predicting the future course of evolution, is virtually non-existent.
This isn't a failing of the theory though but a consequence of the nature of evolution. It doesn't mean that evolutionary biology isn't predictive, but it isn't predictive to the same extent that Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics or organic chemistry are.
Those fields can be exquisitely predictive, not being as high powered as these does not mean evolution is not predictive.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Wumpini, posted 05-27-2008 8:39 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 05-27-2008 12:38 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 05-27-2008 1:27 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024