|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1695 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cases Troublesome for Scientists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
OK, could you please tell us what you're trying to get at? So far, all this thread seems to be getting at is that you are trying to find some way to doubt that natural selection is responsible for evolution, but that does not preclude the fact that species have indeed evolved. So then, are you seeking to disprove only certain mechanisms for evolution, or are you seeking to disprove that evolution has even happened?
Describing the obvious to you, there are two very different questions involved here:1. Did and do species evolve? (AKA "the fact of evolution") 2. By what mechanisms did they evolve? (AKA "the theory of evolution") Which question are you concerned with? Are you by any chance aware that not knowing how something happens has absolutely no effect on whether that something actually happens? The fact of something happening is independent of attempts to explain how it happens. Is there some part of that that you do not understand? Because it very much looks like that is the case, that you indeed do not understand very basic concepts. Know the enemy and know yourself. What part of that do you not understand? You are still keeping your eyes tightly shut and firing blindly in all directions hoping to inflict some kind of damage on evolution, but all you ever succeed in hitting is your own foot. Each and every time you attempt something like this. Instead of repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot, shouldn't you instead try to learn something about evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Ah, yes! The Great Leap Forward approach: you have no clue what you're doing, so you throw lots and lots of bodies at it. The Great Leap Forward ended in disaster and resulted in 30 million deaths. Yet again, we know that ignorance does not work, because we've tried it already.
You shoot around blindly and you only succeed in shooting yourself in the foot. You poke around blindly and you only succeed in poking yourself in the eyes and other tender spots. And even if you were to stumble upon an actual weak spot in evolution, you wouldn't know enough to be able to recognize it. Yet again, we know that ignorance does not work, because we've tried it already. There's an old vaudeville routine where a guy is intently searching the ground under a street lamp. When asked what he's doing, he says he's looking for his wallet, which he had dropped about a block over that way. So why is he looking for it here? Because the light's better. Will he ever find his wallet that way? No, he won't. Your stated objection to evolution is the idea that we are a species of ape. So to attack that idea, you try to attack natural selection because you understand it better. You're searching under the street lamp for something that is known to be elsewhere. You think that by attacking natural selection, part of an explanation for how evolution works (AKA, the theory of evolution) you will be able to disprove the fact that evolution has happened and does happen. Your ignorance of basic scientific concepts has led you away from your stated goal and into a wasted effort. Yet again, we know that ignorance does not work, because we've tried it already. Besides which, the fossil and genetic evidence for man's evolution do not depend directly on natural selection, making your attempts to attack natural selection even more of a wasted effort. Why don't you instead study that fossil evidence and pursue that course of investigation? That way, you will be directly addressing the very thing that concerns you, that motivates you. But I must insist that you study the actual evidence and that you learn all that you can from the scientists who work with that evidence, rather than from creationists. Of course, you could start with a creationist claim about a particular fossil, but then you must go to the scientific sources to learn the truth about that particular fossil. The reason you cannot trust what the creationists tell you about those fossils is because they are lying to you and to themselves. I know this for a fact, because I have seen it done. Indeed, it was the first time I had witnessed creationists in action. Back in 1981, I was starting to study "creation science", wondering what their evidence was. On Pat Roberton's CBN one night, there was a televised debate between a creationist and an "evolutionist"; as I wrote to a friend a decade later:
quote: You need to learn from the scientists who work with the evidence, instead of from the creationists who have a vested interest in ignoring the evidence and in lying about it.
Obviously I cannot realistically hope to find a fault with natural selection myself; I am not educated well enough nor even that bright. But I can poke around. If enough average people poked around some one might turn something up one day. A large number of people who don't know anything but are strongly motivated to disprove evolution, or, as was put by Paul Ellwanger, the author of the model bill that the Arkansas and Lousiana laws were based on, in 1981: "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already." They don't know what they're doing nor anything about what they're attacking nor anything about the science involved, so they create arguments and claims based on their ignorance. The more zealous ones will even fabricate outright lies. There's a name for this version of the Great Leap Forward: "creation science". It is a disaster that has destroyed the faith of countless victims and which has kept countless more from ever being able to seriously consider Christianity. It is an abomination. Yet again, we know that ignorance does not work, because we've tried it already. Now, I'm not trying to discourage you from posting questions here. I'm just saying that you should learn everything you can about evolution and so you should be posting questions based on what you're having problems understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Obviously I cannot realistically hope to find a fault with natural selection myself; I am not educated well enough nor even that bright. But I can poke around. If enough average people poked around some one might turn something up one day. An army of creationists have already tried that. Professionals and academics who are far better educated that either of us are and far brighter. They've been at it since long before 1970 (a seminal point in time, since it saw the creation of "creation science" in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) which brought about the end of the 4-decade reign of the "monkey laws"). And they have found nothing. If an army of well-educated creationists working full-time for decades to kill evolution have come up empty-handed, how do you expect you and "enough average people" to fare any better by poking about blindly in your spare time? A footnote I wrote for my webpage (not currently up, having lost my webhost):
quote: A PDF of that entire issue is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1163. If that link does not work, then you can access it from Issue 33 (Winter 1993) | National Center for Science Education. Also, since having written that I learned that Awbrey retired in 1997 and died of cancer in 1998. The obituary article, The Legacy of Frank T Awbrey, is reprinted at The Legacy of Frank T Awbrey | National Center for Science Education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
AZPaul3; Msg 23 writes: Your bible is not in conflict with evolution, unless you insanely insist the bible is a literal biology textbook. As a spiritual guide it stands on its own with or without evolution. A conflict only exists in those whose delusions force them to go out of their way to make one. I thought that it might help to examine the logic behind AZPaul3's statement. Let's say that I was to make a clear and definite statement or prediction about the physical world and examination of the physical world then shows my statement/prediction to be completely contrary to reality. Which is incorrect? My statement/prediction? Or reality? Obviously, it is my statement/prediction that is incorrect. What explains that discrepancy? Any number of reasons; eg, I had made an error, the references I used were incorrect, I misunderstood what the references said, I didn't understand the natural phenomenon involved, etc. But the main point is that it was I who was mistaken, not the physical world. And, obviously, the correct course of action for me to take would be to try to correct my mistakes. Similarly, if one were to make predictions about the physical world based on their interpretation of the Bible and those predictions are found to be contrary-to-fact, when which is wrong? Reality? Or that person's interpretation and/or application of that interpretation to the real world? Obviously, it was either that person's interpretaton or his application of that interpretation, or even both. And the corrective action would be for him to find where he had made his mistake and correct it. Unfortunately, what we constantly see creationists doing instead is one of two things:
Actually, that second thing is what they will insist is the only conclusion that they could possibly draw should their contrary-to-fact claims prove wrong, whereas it's the first that they actual do. So why can't they consider that they are perhaps mistaken in their interpretation? Frankly, that is a mystery that has the rest of us very deeply puzzled. Edited by dwise1, : last line Edited by dwise1, : left out one word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If you learn from it, then it is not a waste. And the more you learn, the better your questions should become.
It's interesting that scientists tried to use creationists to stir up some challenges. In light of this I guess that I won't bother asking the question I had planned to, in a new thread, about which creationist points trouble scientists the most. It may seem paradoxical, but even though scientists seek answers to their questions, they also seek more questions -- ie, they love the answers that raise even more questions. Because those questions show them what they still don't know and there give them a direction in which to take their research. It's part of the process. As for which creationist points trouble scientists, I would have to say none whatsoever. For one thing, most scientists don't pay any attention to creationists. It doesn't affect their research in any way. I would have to assume that if they do become aware of creationists, then they would regard them the same as they would flat-earthers. Other than that, the only scientists who would in any way care about what creationists are doing would be educators and those who had personal reasons. Obviously, since creationists spread a lot of false claims and work to undermine science education, the educators would be the most involved. But what troubles them the most are the outright falsehoods and the political maneuvering; there are no creationists claims that cause any problems when taken purely on merit. Just the creationist attempts to sabotage science education. Other scientists could get involved for personal reasons. For example, they may have been victimized by the creationist debate hucksters who would recruit a local "evolutionist" who would come in thinking that they'd be discussing science and instead would be bombarded with ridiculously false claims that they had never heard before. As one write described the situation: "Of course it's ridiculous! But you can't just tell the audience that; you have to explain why it's ridiculous." And in the carefully formulated creationist debate format, such a task was impossible, especially when those claims were encountered for the very first time. That experience led many of those victims, many of them educators, to research "creation science" and learn the truth about their claims, and then to start communicating with each other and sharing what they had learned. This led to the state-level Committees of Correspondence and to a national clearinghouse, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). And around 1980, they started turning the tide and defeating the creationists in their own debates (though in their own publications the creationists continued to claim victory -- they never have been much for truthfulness and honesty, have they?). There are also those scientists who are Christians and who are appalled at what the creationists are doing. One example would be biologist Dr. Ken Miller, a practicing Catholic and self-described creationist, though he is also an educator. Another is physicist Dr. Allan H. Harvey, an evangelical (albeit probably not radical enough for some) who has written a number of presentations for his church and which he has posted on-line at No webpage found at provided URL: http://steamdoc.s5.com/writings.htm. Very worthwhile. Eg, from his Science and Christian Apologetics:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024