Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

One important factor scientists use in evaluating competing hypotheses is differing observational consequences. In other words, what different things would we expect to see under the two different hypotheses?Please describe what different observational consequences would you expect to see that would help us decide which of the two hypotheses better describes the real world.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Well, he calls science out for concluding that selection is natural as opposed to directed by the Roman Catholic God.

quote:

---

How can sceintists accept a belief in natural selection as superior to my belief in the supernatural's continuous creation as the cause of evolution. Where is the proof?

---

If he feels that his belief is superior, it's fair to ask how the world would be different under each of the two hypotheses. If there is an observational difference, this will give us reason to accept one over the other. If there isn't, then there really isn't any difference between the two, and he's making much ado about nothing. Either way, his answer to the question will be instructive and help us move the discussion forward.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Here's an interesting fact. Lawyers talk about evidence, not proof. I know this because I am one.As far as your apparent conclusion that there must have been a cause for the origin of the universe, we don't know that.We know that most things in our universe have a cause because that's what we observe. We have not observed the origin of the universe, and the evidence that is left behind that we can see is not sufficient for us to conclude that there must have been a cause. And, if there were a cause, we have no evidence that we can examine that would tell us anything about that cause. Thus, if part of your argument is that there must have been a god because there must have been a cause for the origin of the universe, this is an unevidenced supposition with no real reason to accept it as accurate. And I ask again, what observational consequences should we look for to determine whether your belief more accurately describes the real world than the Theory of Evolution?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Belief itself isn't. It's when someone tries to enact policy based on beliefs which have absolutely no evidential support that scientists get upset, as should all people who want policy based on reality rather than whatever fantasy happens to hold a majority view at a particular moment.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I'd actually be willing to accept your use of evangelical to include anyone trying to convert someone else to their belief system. Can you quote anything that they have actually said to support the belief that they are evangelical?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Yes, in court it's called burden of proof. In Illinois, the standard is actually called "preponderance of the evidence." It's met by presenting what?Evidence.I'll ask a third time. Are there any observational consequences that distinguish your belief from the Theory of Evolution so we can evaluate them versus one another? If you ignore this question a third time, I'll have no choice but assume that you have no answer.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

After doing a brief survey of different online resources, the most common definition of evangelism is spreading or teaching the gospel. But, some sites do offer a more general secondary definition of trying to persuade others to share enthusiasm for specific beliefs and ideals.Obviously, under the predominant definition, evangelical anything other than Christian is oxymoranic. However, under the more generic, it seems that shadow's use is not inapt.Of course, your point is also well-taken, in that atheists tend to be more passive and simply put their positions out for people to take or leave as they see fit, while the highest profile evangelists are more in your face, preaching in public and bothering people in their homes and so forth. Whether shadow intended to imply that Dawkins, etc, are as virulent and obnoxious as Christian evangelicals can be is not obvious.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I don't want to nitpick, either, and this will probably be my last post on the subject in this thread, but it's easy to trot in and say you're an attorney. I would think that anyone trained in the law would know that preponderance of the evidence meant more probably true than not true. I know that everyone I went to law school with did. But whatever.In any event, this whole subthread really has nothing to do with science. Science only and always talks about evidence, it never talks about proof. And I don't think this is simply a difference in semantics. While there are some parallels between scientific and legal evidence, the differences are significant enough that if you don't get a good handle on the differences, reliance on how you use the terms in law is likely to lead you astray.Let me put it this way. Science never talks about proving anything. All conclusions in science are tentative, pending new evidence or new theories that better explain the evidence. In other words, no side ever rests its case in science. Anytime you hear a scientist say anything, you can automatically append the phrase "As far as we can tell right now" to the front of it.Here's a distinction to help you understand. Scientists have concluded that life evolves on this planet. Scientists have observed evolution occurring before their eyes, both in labs and in nature. There is literally zero dispute on this fact by any scientist. All of legitimate science currently accepts the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation that we have about how that happens. But no scientist accepts the Theory of Evolution as an indisputable fact. It is subject to change upon the discovery of enough evidence contradicting it, or a better theory explaining the observed facts.Now, to finally get to the topic of this thread, you have proposed what you consider to be a superior theory. All you have to do is explain to us how your theory better explains what we see, either by encompassing more facts (very difficult since to my knowledge there are no significant observed facts that the ToE doesn't account for), or providing a better explanation for the facts we do see.One way to do this is to show that the predictions of your theory correspond with what we see in reality corresponds better than the ToE does. However, since you have so far refused to describe any differences in observational consequences between your theory and the ToE, I'm hard pressed to see how you can make this showing. So, less than 60 posts into the thread and already you seem to be dead in the water.It appears that your entire position is, "I believe in the Christian God, but you sciency guys don't put gods into your theory. I can't show you why your theory is deficient because of the lack of my God, but I want him in there because I believe he did it all." As you might imagine, this isn't a particularly compelling position from a scientific point of view.You keep saying that science is wrong for not including gods. You need to give us evidence that shows how or why the ToE would be able to explain more than it does now if gods were included. Unless and until you can do that, you really aren't saying anything of significance to science.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Well, since shadow has yet to even attempt to describe any observational consequences for such a concept that would distinguish it from natural selection, perhaps you'd like to give it a go. Then we can see which one better corresponds with reality.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

We?Fellow attorney, are you? I didn't know. Actually, I'm in recovery now, and I'm feeling much better.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I would say that the first, and most important, ground rule is that scientists question everything and assume the accuracy of nothing. This, of course, rules ID out right from the start since it begins with the assumption that the bible is inerrant.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Here's what Michael Behe said about intelligent design.

quote:

---

Defendants' lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

---

Judge Jones's opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover, about half way down the page.You got anything else?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I'll recap so you can catch up.I said ID is disqualified from science because science requires questioning everything. You said Behe is not a creationist and suggested that creationists and cdesign proponentists should not be lumped together. I showed that Behe acknowledged that the plausibility of ID depends on the belief in a god. Thus, any distinction between creationists and the cdesign proponentist you named is irrelevant for purposes of the point that I was making.No, I didn't quote Judge Jones as the last word on science, but to show what Behe believes, thinking perhaps you were unaware of it.Now, anything else?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

There's a very simple reason for that. Biology studies life. Biology doesn't study how life began or how the universe began. That's chemistry. Look at it this way. Ballistics studies bodies in motion, including bullets. Someone studying how a bullet travels through the air, or what gun it came from, doesn't need to know what factory made it, or where the metal in it was mined. It's the same with biology. Life began. How it began is irrelevant to how it changed once it began. They are two different disciplines. Again, there is a very simple reason for this. Science studies what we can observe. By definition, nonnaturalistic or nonmaterial causes are those we cannot observe. Science doesn't say those things do not exist. Science simply says it doesn't study those things. Yes, that is one of the things that ID claims. No, ID misuses probabilities to try to support a conclusion that cdesign proponentists came to before considering any evidence from the natural world.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

But the question is why the bias? Behe et al. are biased because they think that's what the bible requires. Scientists are biased because that's what the evidence says.Now, I suspect your response is going to be that Carroll, Coyne et al. are biased because of their atheistic beliefs. However, how do you explain the thousands of Christian scientists and scientists of other religious beliefs who conclude evolution because that's what the evidence says?I'd venture to guess that you can't find a single non-religious scientist who puts any stock I.D. But the vast majority religious scientists conclude that the ToE is the best explanation for the history of life on this planet. Interestingly, thousands of clergy agree with science. See the Clergy Letter Project. Obviously, it's the science that convinced them, not any bias.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist