Rejecting evolution with science...

[S.Harris]

On the other hand you have a small group of people that abuse science to try and argue that creation is false, or that God does not exist, or that the soul does not exist, or that purpose does not exist etc.

I think you are wrong here, for my part, I say that evolutions shows that no gods are required for the process to work as predicted. Which make this a direct killing blow at the heart of Christianity and the other monotheisms. It destroys the idea that there was original sin because there would have had to have been one female non soul'ed human who gave birth to a female soul'ed human for the soul to then be corrupted by whatever means. And not having this corrupted soul, means that the Jesus murder was pointless, thereby destroying the reasons for Christianity.

To say that mild Christianity accepts evolution is nonsense, they do not, they can not and still hold their belief system. They ignore the parts that cause them trouble, those parts mentioned above. When you push a theist into answering these questions, you rarely get an honest straight answer, and when you do, you find that they in fact reject evolution and reality.

 

[S.Harris]

ok swa

Sometimes it makes you want to do what the Sheriff of Nottingham wanted to do to Robin with a spoon, and for the same reason.

 

[Techne]

At the end of the day it boils down to a stone cold truth that is why dishonesty is treated with severe penalties in scientific community

And the stone cold truth is that evidence and proof are not the same and should be used in the correct manner, no matter which field you work in . In other words, don't equivocate.

 

[Techne]

I think you are wrong here, for my part, I say that evolutions shows that no gods are required for the process to work as predicted. Which make this a direct killing blow at the heart of Christianity and the other monotheisms. It destroys the idea that there was original sin because there would have had to have been one female non soul'ed human who gave birth to a female soul'ed human for the soul to then be corrupted by whatever means. And not having this corrupted soul, means that the Jesus murder was pointless, thereby destroying the reasons for Christianity.

To say that mild Christianity accepts evolution is nonsense, they do not, they can not and still hold their belief system. They ignore the parts that cause them trouble, those parts mentioned above. When you push a theist into answering these questions, you rarely get an honest straight answer, and when you do, you find that they in fact reject evolution and reality.

I don't really understand why you would think that evolution somehow shows that God does not exist, or that original sin is false or that it poses a problem for the existence of souls etc. I suppose you must have some sort of definition for God, original sin and the soul and I suspect that the major difference is our understanding of these concepts. For me there appears to be no problem. Send me a PM .

Anyway, I also think this is good example of how some people abuse evolutionary science and stretch it claims beyond its realm to try and support a particular view. In this case the abusing evolutionary science to try and demonstrate God does not exist and original sin is false.

 

[Swa]

I think you are wrong here, for my part, I say that evolutions shows that no gods are required for the process to work as predicted. Which make this a direct killing blow at the heart of Christianity and the other monotheisms. It destroys the idea that there was original sin because there would have had to have been one female non soul'ed human who gave birth to a female soul'ed human for the soul to then be corrupted by whatever means. And not having this corrupted soul, means that the Jesus murder was pointless, thereby destroying the reasons for Christianity.

To say that mild Christianity accepts evolution is nonsense, they do not, they can not and still hold their belief system. They ignore the parts that cause them trouble, those parts mentioned above. When you push a theist into answering these questions, you rarely get an honest straight answer, and when you do, you find that they in fact reject evolution and reality.

No evolutionists can't know any such thing because it's impossible to test if an unguided process can lead to increasing complexity. It's a question of faith either way.

They really are different concepts. Evidence is used in evidential premises of proofs using deductive or inductive reasoning. Evidence on its own is not proof. We can use your example.

Proof:
Premise 1: In order to show that a particular compound works for the treatment of a particular disease, I must show that it works better than a placebo.
Premise 2: Compound X works better than a placebo for the treatment of disease Y. (the evidential premise)
Conclusion: Therefore, compound X can be used for the treatment of disease Y.

Language matters.


Isn't it PZ Myers that said science is not about truth but about what works?

Actually I kinda agree with him here. Proof is evidence that's interpreted to support a conclusion. Science then does use proof even if the word isn't used. This is not proof as in alcohol or maths where the word has another meaning.

The problem sometimes comes in when someone then asks for something to be proven. An overly critical person will think that what's being asked for is the irrefutable truth of something. That is actually not the common meaning of proof. What the person should do is ask what is wanted. In most cases it is only a reasonable conclusion of the accuracy of something. Most people recognise that nothing can be proven in an absolute sense. The legal system only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where the saying comes from that there's no justice because either guilty people have to go free or innocent people have to be found guilty.

There are however some unscrupulous people that know very well what is asked for and are twisting science for their own benefit. Those people are actually doing science harm by making it seem that science is too weak to prove anything. That is actually far from the truth as science is very strong. Of course there are limits to its strength as there are limits to what we can investigate and it isn't a shameful thing to admit those limits. Secondly they are playing semantic games referring to science as dealing only with evidence thereby making it seem that evidence interprets itself or doesn't need an interpreter. It always does and that interpretation is the difference between varying degrees of weak and strong evidence. They also want to make it seem like it's only about collecting evidence in support of something. In truth evidence for anything has to be considered together with the evidence against it.

 

[Techne]

Results from an empirical experiment are correctly reported as "the evidence suggest this or that" not "the evidence prove this or that". This does not make science any less "strong" whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

From Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution "In addition to the people named above, other scientists at universities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom helped with various parts of the manuscript, but prefer to remain anonymous. In several cases, they chose anonymity because their careen might suffer at the hands of people who strongly disagree with the conclusions of this book. For those scientists, public acknowledgment will have to wait."
Sure sounds like a dictatorship to me. Really Ekstasis if we behaved like they do I would be ashamed to associate myself with any of it.

You should be ashamed of using the AIDS-denialist as a reference. Icons of Evolution is a masterwork in dishonesty and poor science. I guess the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy is also to blame for his blatant misrepresentation of other scientists' work.

Just because evolutionists make bold claims that aren't backed up doesn't mean ID should go a similar route. If something can't be scientifically investigated it's better to admit it.

And yet it does exactly that. Inferring lots of things but never backing any of it up, and when they're called on it their persecution complex flares up instead of just substantiating their claims.

 

[HapticSimian]

You should be ashamed of using the AIDS-denialist as a reference.

HIV doesn't cause AIDS, God does.

 

[Unhappy1]

I don't really understand why you would think that evolution somehow shows that God does not exist, or that original sin is false or that it poses a problem for the existence of souls etc. I suppose you must have some sort of definition for God, original sin and the soul and I suspect that the major difference is our understanding of these concepts. For me there appears to be no problem. Send me a PM .

Anyway, I also think this is good example of how some people abuse evolutionary science and stretch it claims beyond its realm to try and support a particular view. In this case the abusing evolutionary science to try and demonstrate God does not exist and original sin is false.

Well to be fair to him he didn't actually say God , he said Christianity. I agree with you though evolution doesn't invalidate the existence of god one little bit, it does however pose questions to many religious creation stories like Adam and Eve for example.

 

[RiaX]

HIV doesn't cause AIDS, God does.

LOL

 

[Techne]

Well to be fair to him he didn't actually say God , he said Christianity. I agree with you though evolution doesn't invalidate the existence of god one little bit, it does however pose questions to many religious creation stories like Adam and Eve for example.

Sure, a complete literal interpretation is the problem, which poses a problem for those who accept Sola Scriptura (e.g. Protestants). Not necessarily for the majority of Christians though.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

HIV doesn't cause AIDS, God does.

Teehee.

 

[Swa]

Results from an empirical experiment are correctly reported as "the evidence suggest this or that" not "the evidence prove this or that". This does not make science any less "strong" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Results are reported in technical terms. Discussions around results are in non-technical ones. The rest is out of context.

You should be ashamed of using the AIDS-denialist as a reference. Icons of Evolution is a masterwork in dishonesty and poor science. I guess the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy is also to blame for his blatant misrepresentation of other scientists' work.

Not that ad hominem slander again Then explain why people would fear having their name mentioned.

And yet it does exactly that. Inferring lots of things but never backing any of it up, and when they're called on it their persecution complex flares up instead of just substantiating their claims.

The claims it makes are backed up. That you can't see it is your problem. You are the one that asked it to make stuff up so I'll say it again, just because your theory does so doesn't mean it should.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Not that ad hominem slander again Then explain why people would fear having their name mentioned.

Oh, boohoo. Not my fault you keep referencing morons. The dishonest buffoon lies and misrepresents other scientists routinely, but your faith in him won't dwindle. He's a fellow IDer, so why would you question him? His blatant dishonesty and clearly stated religious agenda makes me suspicious of anything he says. Especially regarding something as loony as a global scientist conspiracy.

The claims it makes are backed up. That you can't see it is your problem. You are the one that asked it to make stuff up so I'll say it again, just because your theory does so doesn't mean it should.

Pretty much every book published in support of ID is almost universally panned, because of it's vacuity, its lack of scientific rigor, its dishonesty, its misrepresentation of the work of others and its clear inability to stand on its own merit. All they constantly do is attack evolution, as if that somehow lends credence to their own crackpot failed hypothesis.

As Wells himself said: "...convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". Clearly he's being very objective.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Guys, please just ignore Swa. I am 99% certain he is just a professional troll.

 

[Jehosefat]

You miss the point. Perhaps its because you dont understand the science of pharmacology and assume that sciences are some generalised standard, which is incorrect. You dont have to prove anything to work 100% for it to be fact in pharmacology. Even 10% sufficient, the idea of a placebo is to show that the ligand is working not to determine how powerful it is or how it works. For example look up a drug called pyrazinamide, no one really understands how it works however IT DOES work hence its factual that its an antibiotic.

I have done the statistical analysis for a number of MSc's in the Health Sciences field so I feel that I understand enough to comment here. I'm not saying that the hypothesis tests are not incredibly useful decision tools. All I am saying is that they don't PROVE that the drug works, they show that the given outcome is sufficiently unlikely based on the assumption that the drug does not work that it makes sense to assume that it does. The fact that this outcome can change if the study is repeated with a different sample means that to my mind, this is not a proof.

That said, I will concede that by my definition of proof, nothing can be proven experimentally.

 

[DJ...]

I don't really understand why you would think that evolution somehow shows that God does not exist

It doesn't, as evolution doesn't speak to or about a god whatsoever. In the same way that evolution cannot speak to or about the existence of fairies, the sandman, and the fountain of youth. At the end of the day the question is moot...

 

[Techne]

I think you are wrong here, for my part, I say that evolutions shows that no gods are required for the process to work as predicted.

It doesn't, as evolution doesn't speak to or about a god whatsoever. In the same way that evolution cannot speak to or about the existence of fairies, the sandman, and the fountain of youth. At the end of the day is question is moot...

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

It doesn't, as evolution doesn't speak to or about a god whatsoever. In the same way that evolution cannot speak to or about the existence of fairies, the sandman, and the fountain of youth. At the end of the day is question is moot...

I've often said that I'm a theistic evolutionary. One cannot allow religion or science to make authoritative claims about each other and people should stop worrying that they do.

There is just as much proof to convince me of my faith as what there is to convince me of evolution.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I've often said that I'm a theistic evolutionary. One cannot allow religion or science to make authoritative claims about each other and people should stop worrying that they do.

There is just as much proof to convince me of my faith as what there is to convince me of evolution.

You mean subjective 'evidence' that convinces every religious person of their particular faith vs. the objective evidence for evolution that is the same for everyone?