Evolution has been Disproven

"Tentativity" is the word you guys are looking for, and you'll find it embraced by the entire scientific community.The problem is induction, as I think Amadeus suspects. Repeated successful trials only "prove" a general principle if induction itself is valid; the only evidence that induction is valid is that so far, it always has been. In other words induction can only be proven by induction, and therefore, is circular.So we don't really know if induction can prove anything. Thus, anything we prove through induction, that is, empiricism, must be tentative.

"Chaos" is not synonymous with "randomness." Randomness can apply to anything. Whether it applies to humans or inanimate objects, no two things have the EXACT same patterns. That's what I mean.And I hate picking sides.

quote:

---

"Tentativity" is the word you guys are looking for, and you'll find it embraced by the entire scientific community.
The problem is induction, as I think Amadeus suspects. Repeated successful trials only "prove" a general principle if induction itself is valid; the only evidence that induction is valid is that so far, it always has been. In other words induction can only be proven by induction, and therefore, is circular.

​

So we don't really know if induction can prove anything. Thus, anything we prove through induction, that is, empiricism, must be tentative.

---

..so what you're saying is that the scientific community is basing its core laws and rules on a system that is based on faith? Sounds a lot like religion to me. (I'm not trying to be uppity, just stating a comparison)

quote:

---

"Chaos" is not synonymous with "randomness." Randomness can apply to anything. Whether it applies to humans or inanimate objects, no two things have the EXACT same patterns. That's what I mean.
And I hate picking sides.

---

Randomness, in and of itself, is unpredictable. You can constrain it, like by generating a random number between 1 and 10, but you can never give it order.Oh and by the way - chaos is just a whole large amount of randomness, so IMHO 'chaos' is synonymous with 'mass randomness'....and elements will always have the exact same patterns. What you mean is that our level of technology is not sufficient to create something large exactly like another one, down to the atom and electrical signals. It's true, but someday won't be.

I'm sorry, where did I say "faith"? Where did I even imply it?Faith is certainty in the absence of evidence. Onn the other hand, the scientific method reaches tentative conclusions as a result of evidence. I don't see where faith has a part in that. If the conclusions of science were absolute and not tentative, then I think you might have an argument for faith. But that's absolutely not the case. Tentative conclusions that represent the best of our knowledge at the moment? In what way does that sound like religion?

Randomness is unpredictable. And of course, unpredictability is randomness. So there you have it.By "exact," I imply something that happens at the same time, same place, and has the same pattern. Even two atoms can't achieve that level of harmony.Do you think humans will be able to achieve that level of harmony? Even technology has its limits, for humans are not all-powerful. However, we have logical superiority over the rest of nature in the sense that we are endowed with creativity.Everything this world has to offer is limited. Even the human brain.And Mr. Amadameus, I am on your side.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, where did I say "faith"? Where did I even imply it?

​

Faith is certainty in the absence of evidence.

---

Okay, I'll go over this piece by piece.ONE-
As has already been established, there are no true 'facts' when you allow for the inherent randomness of the universe. This means that if the scientific method were followed in its true form, you would never be able to prove anything.Yet scientists all the time have 'proven' new facts or properties. They can not PROVE it, their own scientific limitations prevent it. Instead they eliminate all other scenarios until the chances of them being wrong are very small.HOWEVER - just because the chances are very small does not mean they do not exist. (This has been a mainstay of evolutionary theory for quite a while. Cells, people, stars, all formed by chance. Supposedly.)Therefore, nothing in science can be truly proved. Ever.
Yet people still think atoms, stars, gravity and the like exist. Why? They BELIEVE it exists. They are putting their faith every day into the fact that science is right.Compare this to religion:Religous people put their faith every day into their beliefs.
Scientific people put their faith every day into their beliefs.The only difference is that scientific people modify their beliefs according to experimentation (That, as has been shown already, will not always be accurate) and religious people usually don't modify their beliefs much at all.

quote:

---

Tentative conclusions that represent the best of our knowledge at the moment? In what way does that sound like religion?

---

If your conclusions are so tentative, please explain why you defend evolution so furiously. I mean, it could be wrong, right? So why make such a big deal over some Creationists? After all, the chances of you theory being wrong is about the same as ours.And besides, even if it turns out to be false, what is so abhorrent about believing in something other than pseudo-proven 'scientific' concepts?This message has been edited by Amadameus, 05-06-2005 10:10 AM

---

...it was like that when I got here.

I think you missed the point that crash was talking about.When you accept something by faith you do so in the absence of evidence. I believe in God without any evidence. In fact, the Bible specifically states that you are more blessed if you have faith in God without any evidence. It is expressly telling you it is better to believe without proof. John 20:29The things that science accepts it does so based on evidence. The alarm clock has not blown up the past 1,000,000 times I have hit the snooze button therefore I can use this as evidence that it will most likely not blow up the 1,000,001 time. The first time I might not be so sure so I better do it from behind a blast screen with a remote snooze button presser. Then after I do it a bunch of times I can be mostly certain that it wont blow up if I take it home.That is all science is in the business of, being mostly certain about something with what we know as fact so far. The fact in the alarm clock case is the history of trials where the clock did not blow up. Evolution is defended because it is being attacked not by its merits but rather by its perceived impact on the moral fabric of society. Not one legitimate problem with evolution has even been brought up by YECs yet they have at many times attempted to destroy it based on these supposed problems.It is exactly the equivalent of being framed for a crime you did not commit. You have a group of people prosecuting a case against you that is completely made up or a horrid bastardization of the truth. If something like this was happening to you I would hope that same people who are advocating for evolution here would also advocate for your fair treatment in the legal system. With the same amount of probability that you alarm clock will explode when you hit the snooze button. Yes it could be wrong. We make a big deal over YECism because it is an insult to honesty, intelligence, education, democracy, freedom, American values, Christianity, and nearly every other religion in the world.We make a big deal over YECism because the actions of those who define what YECism is have been shown to be deceptive, malicious, greedy, and self-serving.We make a big deal over YECism because they are trying to sidestep the system in a deceptive manner in order to further a religious agenda that does not even conform to the faith of the majority of the people they claim to represent.We make a big deal over YECism because it is observably false. Yet more and more is become a powerful political force in America influencing our beloved country in a way that would turn it into a theocracy.AND in NO WAY is the chance of evolution being wrong the same as the chance that YECism is wrong. YECism is demonstrably wrong by anyone who has take high school geology while evolution has adapted and withstood the challenges put forth of some of the greatest minds over more than a century. It is almost insulting to compare the two.YECism is like a toothpick. It takes only minimal education to be able to dispel it like you would break a toothpick between your fingers. A child could do it. Nothing is wrong with other people believing in myth like YECism. The problem is when they expect and try to force other people to believe in such a myth. This site and all this controversy would not exist whatsoever if there was not an active YEC force trying to drive the education of our children into the ground and make this country into a theocracy.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 05-06-2005 09:27 AM

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

Before you can begin following a chain of logic to reach conclusions, you have to get your facts straight. Whatever strange ideas you have about randomness and facts and the "true form" of the scientific method, they have nothing to do with the actual scientific method used by science. The scientific method involves gathering facts to verify hypotheses. And there are also positive validations. Crash has already explained tentativity, so it is clear he already understands science doesn't prove things. Probably nearly all the science people here understand tentativity. I consider myself a religious person, not at all unusual for us science types. My religious beliefs are based upon faith, while my scientific beliefs are based upon evidence. This last could not possibly be true, because Creationism is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is contradicted by the evidence.The defense of evolution is actually a defense of science education. There would be no debate if it weren't for the efforts of fundamentalist Christians to include unscientific religious beliefs in science classrooms. Science class is for teaching the views of science, not the religious views of fundamentalist Christians.--Percy

Right. Our conclusions are always tentative. I've been telling you this, now, for three posts. Certainly. Yet, they think so tenatively. So where's the faith? Right. Scientific conclusions are tentative; religious revalation never is. So how does science sound like religion? Um, no. Tentativity only extends to proof; it doesn't extend to disproof. We can know what has been disproven so far, even though we can't know what will be disproven eventually.The reason I defend evolution and oppose creationism is that, while evolution has yet to be disproven, creationism certainly has. It's outright wrong, and its absolutely incorrect to say that there's an equal chance of creationism and evolution being wrong. That's simply incorrect. Creationism is contradicted by the evidence. There is no evidence that contradicts evolution.Your argument is essentially the argument from ignorance - because we don't know everything, we know nothing. I find that attitude immature and foolish, and certainly not compelling. Nothing. Believe in creationism all you like. But don't teach it to my kids, ok? Don't offer lies as truth to people who don't know any better.

Did you read the posts above these? We just spent a whole lot of keystrokes explaining how the inherent randomness of the universe (Refer to any of the 'Alarm Clock' posts) prevents Scientific Method from working.If the chances of an experiment being compromised is one in thirty, you should probably do the experiment again. If the chance is one in a hundred, it's good enough for me to believe.(Compare it to walking on rotten boards. If the chances of it being rotted through is 1/30, I'd hit it with a stick. If the chances were 1/100, I'd be reasonably confident. This is the same with a scientific experiment - the difference is that for it to be SCIENTIFIC, you are supposed to be 100% sure.)Now, if I am right in the above paragraph, that means that every scientific experiment ever done can be chalked up to one huge coincidence. The chances of that is so infinitesimal it's almost nothing, but the chance of it happening is still there.For general, real-world experience, like walking on rotten boards, you would be able to settle for 1/100. However, in a scientific environment, *you*need*to*be*sure*. You can't say that there is a 98% chance your findings are correct - then they're not findings, just experience....and saying, "Because this happened last time, it will happen this time too" is a fallacy. Even if __ happened every time for three hundred times, that just is a strong indicator that the chances are good it will happen again.

quote:

---

The defense of evolution is actually a defense of science education.

---

Well, you should be commended! Someone who defends an unpopular belief constantly for the sake of children must be pure-hearted indeed!Don't tell me you don't have other motives - it's already a known fact that evolutionary psychology can be used to rationalize almost any kind of actions. (I should know, it's tempting to do that myself.)

This it totally wrong. Please read my previous post Message 218.If anyone here claiming to be science minded has ever main the claim that science requires 100% certainty then they are also wrong. Science is in the business of being very sure of things not absolutly sure. By definition of the method, the conclusions must have a degree of uncertaintity. This is called tentativity. You have been reminded of this plenty of times so far.What part of the fact that science holds its conclusions tentativly by definition do you not understand?{ABE}Because YECism cannot be held tentativly is one of the reasons is will never be considered science.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 05-06-2005 11:11 AM

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

Lol! Don't be silly, the scientific methods works fine. How you could convince yourself it doesn't work while typing on an extremely complicated result of the scientific method is beyond me. Your conclusions don't follow from your premise, and your conclusions don't make any sense. Have you never taken a science course that had a laboratory requirement where you performed simple experiments?I think you may be confusing the fact that mistakes can be made while carrying out experiments with evidence for inconstancy of physical laws and natural processes. Anyone would readily grant that human beings make mistakes, but there is virtually no evidence for the inconstancy in the laws governing nature. I'm sorry, Amadameus, but you're wrong. As I just explained once already today in another thread and many times before, I created this site to explore Creationism's claim of scientific status because of the threat it poses to science education. If it were not for the efforts of fundamentalist Christians promoting the teaching of Creationism in science classrooms, this debate wouldn't exist.--Percy

Uh, I'm sitting in a scientific laboratory, right this very minute, surrounded by research experiments in entomology, and nobody here seems to be all that concerned with being absolutely 100% certain. In fact let me ask around. One sec.Yeah, about what I thought. Most people's experiments here have a confidence interval of about 95-99%, accounting for their chi values and the design of their experiments.Where did you get this idea that you "need to be sure"? Especially after I've been telling you that the conclusions of science are tentative, now, for four posts in a row? Um, yeah. In fact that's exactly what I told you two posts ago. That's why the conclusions of science are tenative. Not really. No more than the physics that describe the bullet leaving the gun are any sort of rationalization or justification of murder.

0
Stanley L. Miller, "From the Primitive Atmosphere to the Prebiotic Soup to the Pre-RNA World"(Washington, D.C. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1996)

I just couldn't let this one go.I couldn't believe the depth and insight of such a well articulated
response. I don't think we have ever had such a succinct and well thought out argument ever presented here at EvC. We should get Bill Birkland to take a look at this. The hours of painstaking explanation and reference hunting he has contributed must pale in comparison to the awesomeness of this one discrete fact.I truly enjoyed your post and I wait in eager anticipation of your participation in other threads or even in this one.Maybe you could humble me with your powers of explanation by responding to my less than well received Message 218. No one else seemed to like it enough to respond but I can only hope that someone would at least put in the same amount of courageous effort you have displayed here.Thanks!

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show