Darwin Among the Believers (theory of evolution crucial for many fields)

Tech Central Station ^ | 07/22/2005 | Frederick Turner

[jec41]

Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.

No, I stated my reasoning. The above would be another discusion.

However I will give that creationests attempt to use science to disprove science.

If you have a flawed theory of how to build an airplane, and you insist on the theory, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground."

I would ask how many airplanes were built on faith?

[b_sharp]

"Eggzactly, although I think that you might be chickening out here..."

Nope, just trying to get to the other side of the road.

[Gumlegs]

and

and

and

and

I'm still looking for an mpeg of the movie of the guy with the tail strapped to his back attempting to "flap" wooden wings and get off the ground. (He didn't make it).

[grey_whiskers]

If you have a flawed theory of how to build an airplane, and you insist on the theory, the airplane will correct it by crashing to the ground."

Too shallow...perhaps it'd be better to say as "necessarily both necessary and sufficient" for proof.

No, I stated my reasoning. The above would be another discusion.

Leave it for now; I interpreted your remarks as saying that *most* or *all* religious people of a certain bent reject experimental evidence; in my experience it is not that they always reject experiment on principle, but that they do not consider experimental evidence to be *absolutely* and *always* the last word...they reserve the right of skepticism towards scientific findings.

Sometimes it is due to the suspicion a given experiment was flawed, or was executed poorly, or they have philosophical reservations.

You can find similar attitudes towards mainstream *medicine* by those who advocate non-traditional, or holistic, or nutritional treatment of diseases. It is not exclusively religious in origin.

I would ask how many airplanes were built on faith?

That wasn't my point--my point is that I was able to quote a well known anti-evolutionary author who nonetheless endorsed empiricism and logical thought. It was a counterexample to the claim you had made in an earlier post.

If you wish to say "many such people" reject empiricism, or even "most anti-evo people on the crevo threads" I'd agree.

Cheers!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The left or right? Or are you a middle-of-the roader?

[narby]

Also I note that for a wolf to become a poodle would require an increase in information.

This information attack againt evolution is pretty silly. You need to read up on Caltech's Digital Life Lab where they demonstrate that the process of evolution can indeed collect new information.

The theory of evolution, like the theory of capitalisim, applies in many different environments. Including Caltech's Avida environment where information is generated by controlling the survival of digital life exactly the way that natural selection controls the evolution natural life.

I'm sure you will dispute me because the icons of ID have said otherwise. But you'd be wrong.

[bobdsmith]

missed my invisible sarcasm tags huh? :D

[narby]

I gotta get a program. Can't tell the players without a program.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You claim (as you have in the past) that my reasoning is faulty. Please explain.

Also explain, if you are using ID toolsets, how you go about removing the ID bias inherent in such toolsets? From what I've seen, it appears that Darwinists prefer to ignore, rather than confront such issues.

Nothing you've stated in the past has been able to show why Darwinists (concerning ID) use arguments such as the following:

since A = B and B = C, it is obvious that C <> D.

Don't believe me? Try this on for size as I make an attempt to show Darwinist arguments in a nutshell (disclaimer - the following is simplified for informational purposes only. I realize that the actual arguments are far more sophisiticated. However, this is done more to illustrate my point from a logical perspective, so please forgive any errors in the statements themselves):

"The fossil record shows a change in flora and fauna over time." (A)
"Changes in life forms over great periods of time is indicative of natural selection in response to environmental pressures." (B)
"Natural selection is a basic tenet of evolution." (C)
"Therefore, ID has no place in evolution." (D)

As we see, from the above series of statements,
A (changes in the fossil record) = B (changes in life forms)
B (changes show natural selection) = C (natural selection basic tenet)
C (evolution) <> D (ID)

From this little exercise, it logically follows that A can relate to B and B relate to C. However, how one can determine that C <> D beats me.

[chariotdriver]

I said that that the bigbang evolution theories and models are atheistic. Not that science is atheistic. The methodology of science can be used whether the initial hypotheses is theistic or atheistic. I do not agree that all science is atheistic.
There is no clear demarcation between the natural and the supernatural phenomenon, things that were supernatural are now natural.

My message was that the only thing more absurd than the divine biblical intelligence models and theories are the atheistic models and theories for creation and evolution.

[jec41]

If you wish to say "many such people" reject empiricism, or even "most anti-evo people on the crevo threads" I'd agree.

I agree with your observation and conclusion. Sometimes I can be a bit hasty when considering the position of todays creationists. What is particular annoying and in my opinion a disservice to both empirical science and philosophy is the lack of observance to the origin of both. I speak of Plato who is accepted as the western worlds father of philosophy and his student Aristotle. In particular Aristotle who some arguable proclaim the worlds greatest philosopher could also be argued as the father of science. I refer to the fact that he invented, developed, and named the basic fields of science that were required to test his philosophy. It would seem to be inherent in Aristotle's beliefs that one's philosophy grows in strength with empirical inquiry and that the error or fact in one would test the error or fact in the other.

[jec41]

grey whiskers, would that infer that you are a product of a educational system prior to the 60's-70's?

[Dimensio]

I said that that the bigbang evolution theories and models are atheistic.

And they are, but only in as much as all science is "atheistic" by not invoking deities.

Now, some people argue that evolution and the Big Bang theories are "atheistic" in that they deny the existence of deities. The theories make no such denial, however, so that charge is without merit.

So either you were trivially correct or you were flat-out wrong. Which is it?

Not that science is atheistic.

Which doesn't change the fact that it is true.

The methodology of science can be used whether the initial hypotheses is theistic or atheistic.

Nope. If your initial assumptions involve the supernatural, then you cannot apply the scientific method and expect meaningful results.

My message was that the only thing more absurd than the divine biblical intelligence models and theories are the atheistic models and theories for creation and evolution.

And you failed to demonstrate any such "absurdity". However, assuming that your claim is correct (even though you've not bothered to do anything to support its validity), I take it that you reject both the theory of evolution and Biblical creationism in favour of some other, less "absurd" explanation? Say the Hindu creation story, perhaps?

[Asphalt]

because of the ID/Evolution debate.

[Dimensio]

Also explain, if you are using ID toolsets, how you go about removing the ID bias inherent in such toolsets?

What "ID bias"? What are you going on about? It might help if you clarified your terms.

Nothing you've stated in the past has been able to show why Darwinists (concerning ID) use arguments such as the following:

since A = B and B = C, it is obvious that C <> D.

Example of such an argument being used? Or are you, once again, going to assert that it is being used without bothering to provide any evidence to support your claims?

"The fossil record shows a change in flora and fauna over time." (A)
"Changes in life forms over great periods of time is indicative of natural selection in response to environmental pressures." (B)
"Natural selection is a basic tenet of evolution." (C)
"Therefore, ID has no place in evolution." (D)

Nice example. Now if you can show someone actually claiming that premises A, B and C lead to conclusion D you might have an argument. Until then you're doing nothing but ranting about a strawman. I have never heard anyone state that ID has no place in science because of observations about the world. The only rationale I have heard for ID not being science is the fact that it fails to meet criteria required for scientific theory; specifically, it is not testable, makes no useful predictions and has no hypothetical falsification criteria.

Again, I have seen you assert that those who say that ID is not science have used the arguments as you claim, but when I see you make that assertion I make sure to ask you for an example of exactly that happening. Thus far you've done nothing but claim that it happens without showing a shred of evidence that it is the case.

If you have an example of someone arguing that ID is not science because of the premises that you labelled A, B and C then by all means give me a reference. Do not, however, ask me to justify a case of faulty reasoning that you have yet to demonstrate has ever actually occured. It is incredibly dishonest of you to make that argument.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

ID bias. Your tools are all ID based. How do you ensure that this fact doesn't taint your results?

No shred of evidence? Anytime that someone starts with a basic premise that ID should automatically be discounted, then the result very much reflects the conclusions.

When I show the logical paradox of Darwinism and ID, Darwinist who understands it at all pretty much attacks it as faulty logic without addressing the paradox itself. Commonly, the charge is that such a paradox disproves all science, when, in actuality it merely challenges the original premise of the Darwinist.

I've tend to argue about ID and Darwinism from *only* a logical perspective. This is because of the problems that you discuss with falsifiability and testability. With logical reasoning, OTOH, falsifiability and testability don't necessarily apply. Deductive and inductive reasoning do.

I don't know why it is so hard for many Darwinists to understand this. I've made no secret of it. In fact, I stress it again and again. I realize that logical reasoning, alone, is not the be all and end all of scientific method. But it is a part of it and a rather significant part at that.

So once again, I will riddle you the conundrum. Please answer from only the logical point of view. Either show where my logical reasoning is faulty or admit that you can't.

Since the general meme of Darwinists seems to be that Darwinism stands on its own and needs no ID, in fact rejects ID, then Darwinists have to make their logical point totally outside of the ID domain. Darwinism has to stand totally in a separate domain from that if ID. More especially since Darwinists tend to assume that Darwinism is empirical and ID is not.

[grey_whiskers]

Nope. If your initial assumptions involve the supernatural, then you cannot apply the scientific method and expect meaningful results.

A bit of an overstatement. It depends on how much you *expect* supernatural forces to interact with your system, or the experiment, vs. how much they actually DO interfere in practice.

And finding out how much they DO interfere is just the problem!

One of the essential difficulties is some of the philisophical underpinnings of secular theory--
the ever-popular "uniformity of causes in a closed system" assumption.

God and/or the supernatural introduce two problems into the framework:

1) With the supernatural, there is no longer a closed system
2) With God, there is no "uniformity of causes" and so the tests which work so well via Occam's razor to simplify models doesn't work.

But since Occam's razor in general works so well within the material world, it is tempting to throw out all accounts of God and/or the miraculous as though they are merely manifestations of regular, material phenomena...and all attempts by religious devotees to correct this impression come off as mere "special pleading". Hence accounts of God actually acting in a discernible way within the universe are dismissed in two ways:

1) explained away (regular phenomena are due to "laws of nature"--so God is a superfluous construct best pared away)

OR

2) denied by ECREE (irregular phenomena, a.k.a. "miracles", don't happen, due to the "laws of nature") --they are fallacious, rumors, myths, or chicanery

In other words, materialism insists on explaining/judging EVERYTHING by naturalistic means alone. When God comes up, materialism tries to measure or account for God by materialistic means alone; and, not surprisingly, fails. It then uses the failure as proof that God doesn't exist, never suspecting that the failure in this case is due to an incongruence between its means and its object. And the problem is that materialism alone does such a good job within the material world, or those parts of it God usually leaves alone, that it is easy to assume God is not out there at all.

Much as any other approximation, e.g. reduction of relativistic mechanics to Newtonian at the speeds of ordinary automobiles, the accuracy of your model depends upon how pronounced the effect is that you are neglecting at the moment...

Even though drivers claim "their life flashed before there eyes" this is not necessarily the same thing as time slowing down as velocity --> c. :-)

[johnnyb_61820]

Actually, Universal Common Ancestry is predicated on certain ideas about abiogenesis. There is no fossil link between Cambrian and pre-Cambrian species. To say that they all share a common ancestor is not based on physical evidence, but instead upon the assumptions that abiogenesis happened at one point in time to make a certain kind of organism.

If you didn't have a certain assumption of abiogenesis, there would be no reason to assume the common ancestry of the Cambrian phyla (or many other phyla for that matter).

So yes, the theory of evolution is heavily tied into abiogenesis, even if it tries to deny it.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Evolutionists *have* "checked the accuracy of their belief" in a mind-boggling number of independent methods, countless times over the past 100+ years. It has passed these tests with flying colors, and has survived all potential tests of falsification."

This is untrue. However, when it doesn't pass, it is simply classified as "an unsolved problem in theoretical biology" or similar language.

[PatrickHenry]