Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 255 (293103)
03-07-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
03-07-2006 6:24 PM


At the risk of boring people by continuing to plug Douglas Theobald's essay, I will point out that he presents some good evidence for the theory of evolution and explains why it counts as evidence.
The idea is that the theory of evolution (and the assumptions made in conventional geologic sciences) imply certain consequences. One can take these assumptions and make predictions as to what phenomena we observe. When we actually observe these phenomena, which do not have to exist, then the theory is considered verified to a slightly higher degree than before. If the phenomena is not observed, or if the phenomena that are specifically precluded by the theory are observed, then the theory must be examined more carefully to see if the discrepency can be resolved; if it cannot, and continual failed observations require the continual addition of ad hoc explanations, then it will perhaps become necessary to abandon the theory.
Since the scientific method was not completely formalized until just a few centuries ago (or even more recently), perhaps this procedure isn't completely intuitive and obvious; however, it certainly seems to me to be obvious once it has been pointed out. If this procedure doesn't make sense to someone, then I truly don't know what more can be done except to try to explain this concept better.
The case of the fossils that are being argued, the relevant point is the patterns we see in the fossil record. The theory of evolution makes some predictions as to the sequence of fossils species, makes some predictions of what sorts of fossils we are likely to find, and makes predictions of what sorts of fossils we definitely will not find. Once the principles of radioactive decay were discovered, the theory of evolution (or at least conventional geology) makes predictions about the correlation of fossil types with narrow ranges of radiometric ages. These predicted phenomena are observed to occur; there is no reason, without the assumptions of evolution and conventional geology, to expect these phenomena to occur. To a creationist, these phenomena must remain unexpected surprises and amazing coincidences; under current biological and geologic theories, not only are these phenomena explained, but they can actually be predicted a priori.
As I said, once the scientific method is pointed out, this makes so much sense that I do not understand how it cannot make sense to anyone else.
But, without knowing Faith's particular objections in detail, I will note that most creationists do not argue against the scientific method; what most creationists do is to deny facts that are true or to present made up "facts" that are false.
The problem is to explain to people what the evidence actually is (that is, to explain what phenomena have actually been observed) and then to point out how evolution (or geology or cosmology) predicts a priori that these phenomena must be observed, and that if these phenomena were not observed then that would have presented a problem for the theories.
It is also a problem that a few people are simply stubborn; they are so committed to their beliefs that they cannot and will not see any contrary evidence. There is simply nothing that one can do for people like that; they will have to become tired of expending the energy to maintain their beliefs against the constant barrage of facts (like happened to me when I was still in high school). But I am confident that most people are not this far gone; most people can be pursuaded if the facts are explained carefully (and, perhaps, care should be taken not to seem like one is attacking another's beliefs).

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 6:24 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2006 9:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 255 (293180)
03-08-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
03-07-2006 9:44 PM


Re: denial is critical
quote:
...but one piece of evidence can dis-prove a theory (or invalidate it).
Well, this is a bit of an overstatement, I think. I cannot think, for example, a single piece of evidence that would disprove the theory of evolution. Now I can think of a series of independent, repeated observations that would disprove it; maybe that is what you meant.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2006 9:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2006 9:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 255 (293181)
03-08-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 4:56 AM


quote:
People on here have said it's as certain as the earth revolving around the sun. I do not get that impression myself.
Me neither; for me, it's more certain than the earth revolves around the sun.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 4:56 AM robinrohan has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 255 (293302)
03-08-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by DBlevins
03-08-2006 12:56 PM


Re: do we have to teach science, too?
quote:
The problem I think I have seen with many explanations that are given by the scientists on this board is that they neglect to address the basic misunderstandings that creationists have. It might be time consuming to go over Lyell's Principles, or explain Malthus, but it may have to be done to help bridge the gap in knowledge between the scientist and the creationist.
I don't know. There have been occassions when members like Sylas would post rather long and detailed explanations of the principles involved, and it rarely seemed to help. In fact, one thing that I notice about myself is that my posts are far shorter than they were in the past; including a lot of detail and explanation tended to be a lot of wasted effort since it would either be ignored or demolished by a simple "Nuh-uh!" (And not even a POTM nomination, neither!)
I don't know if this is what you meant exactly, but on four or more occasions (several on this very message board) I have posted a more-that-usually detailed synopsis of what the theory of evolution actually is, trying to provoke some sort of discussion as to what exactly in the theory of evolution that they object to, the intention to not only show the theory in its entire context, but also to decide where more detail is required to explain things.
To date, on the several instances that I have posted this same exact message on several message boards, the only response I have ever gotten is by iano (responding with his New Age epistomological problems with "knowing" something that cannot be directly observed. And contradicts a literal reading of the Christian Bible, as interpreted by fundamentalist Protestants.).
It's not that I disagree with your point; if one is going to make an argument, then one is required to do as much as possible to explain the reasoning behind the argument, including giving detailed explanations of the scientific principles involved, and reasons why we accept those principles as valid. But it is a practical observation that when these explanations have been made in the past they are ignored or simply dismissed with a wave of the hand.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by DBlevins, posted 03-08-2006 12:56 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by DBlevins, posted 03-08-2006 2:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 255 (293316)
03-08-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ringo
03-08-2006 1:28 PM


Credit where credit is due.
Good point, but NosyNed has made essentially the same point.
(Not that the point isn't good enough to be repeated; I just hate seeing someone not get credit for saying something.)

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 1:28 PM ringo 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