Replies

A well tempered, clear and honest outline of the debate. Thenk you.

But it's also dishonest. He claims that those who accept evolution deliberately interpret the evidence to fit their beliefs. That's not how science works. Evolution is a conclusion, not a presumption. Scientists look at the evidence and as a result of it conclude evolution, they do not simply seek out evidence to reinforce acceptance of evolution while rejecting any information that may contradict it. DaveLoneRanger apparently cannot comprehend that scientists do not operate in the same fashion as creationists.

He claims that those who accept evolution deliberately interpret the evidence to fit their beliefs.

Not quite what I said (do we ping here?), but the essence of the charge is true, and that whether you are a fiery fundmentalist or a god-hating atheist, or somewhere in between. Claiming "objectivity" in an issue like this is a fool's claim. If you sincerely believe that if I "accept" the concept of an eternal judge then I am not motivated to find a way to build a world where "science" gets me out from the idea of that type of world then all I can say is that you are incredibly naive and have not much experience with people. People are irrational, unobjective, emotional, and prone to the grossest distortions and misrepresentations of data that can be imagined. That doesn't change just because you have a bunch of analytical instruments in your place of work, compared to those who labor on spreadsheets, or with a pick and shovel. "Peer review" is no more of a safeguard against this than some group of clerics are immune from silly declarations about Ptolmy or the date of the original creation.

The point is that no one is objective, not that one group or the other is deliberately dishonest. The dishonesty comes in the proclamation that one is "objective." That is a load of crap. Objectivity is by definition impossible, but doubly so on an issue like this.

well now, there is much there to think on.

suffice to say that some atheists doubt evolutionary theory. Aurthur Koestler being one. He also in the Case of the Midwife Toad showed just how closely belief (in this case political) and science are tied together. Like it or not you work under certain assumptions, cultural, political, theistic or atheistic.

Or go to Popper who would disagree with you in that he would assert science can only propose a hypothesis which disproves other theories. So scientific conclusions are always tentative and open to being disproved in turn.

The myth of dispassionate science is just that a myth.

when I die I will go to Heaven and meet with my God. You may say I have a problem with evolution. Maybe. Your problem is considerably greater.

but kind regards indeed.