Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
reggieM said:
A theory gains more support and certainty as it closes gaps. If the findings in the data create more unexplained phenomena, then the theory loses credibility.
.
Click to expand...
Right, but I didn’t ask about closing gaps, I asked about the existence of gaps.
 
buffalo said:
Then you are in agreement that DNA could be a case of ID?
Click to expand...
The miraculous is always possible. But it is not the job of scientists to assume that. The job of acientists is to assume that a natural explanation is possible, and to try and find it.

If something really is miraculous, then it necessarily follows that all attempts at a natural explanation will fail. But you cannot put a stopwatch on it and say, “Right, if this hasn’t been explained in N number of years, it must be miraculous.” You can’t say it because, in the (N+1)th year, a natural explanation might after all be found.
 
mathematician said:
The miraculous is always possible. But it is not the job of scientists to assume that. The job of acientists is to assume that a natural explanation is possible, and to try and find it.

If something really is miraculous, then it necessarily follows that all attempts at a natural explanation will fail. But you cannot put a stopwatch on it and say, “Right, if this hasn’t been explained in N number of years, it must be miraculous.” You can’t say it because, in the (N+1)th year, a natural explanation might after all be found.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of this. The a priori position that every observation is natural can be quite a problem. This is where the worldview kicks in. If we believe only a natural explanation is possible it contaminates the process.

The remaining question is whether the explanation meets empirical tests. If not then the explanation moves into the realm of philosophy.
 
buffalo said:
I agree with most of this. The a priori position that every observation is natural can be quite a problem. This is where the worldview kicks in. If we believe only a natural explanation is possible it contaminates the process.
Click to expand...
To do science with either a theist or atheistic agenda would contaminate the process. For that reason scientists embrace what is called methodological naturalism, whereby they leave, or ought to leave, their theistic/atheistic beliefs at home, and concentrate their attention on the natural world.
The remaining question is whether the explanation meets empirical tests. If not then the explanation moves into the realm of philosophy.
Click to expand...
The key test of a scientific theory is that it ought, in principle, to be falsifiable. If there are no conceivable circumstances under which it could be falsified, then it is not a scientific theory. Of course you don’t adfopt any old theory in the hopes that it won’t be falsified. You adopt a theory which is consonant with the evidence.
 
mathematician said:
The key test of a scientific theory is that it ought, in principle, to be falsifiable. If there are no conceivable circumstances under which it could be falsified, then it is not a scientific theory.
Click to expand...
That is one of my problems with ID. Darwin described something which could not have evolved, and which would falsify his theory if such a thing had been found. Haldane did the same with his Devonian rabbit.

To date I have seen nothing from the ID side describing something which could not have been designed and which would falsify ID if found.

As you say, if a theory can explain all possible data then it is not a scientific theory. So far as I can see “the designer did it that way” comes perilously close to explaining all possible data and hence being unfalsifiable.

rossum
 
reggieM said:
A few weeks ago, news items explained that the evolutionary story of the origin of man is being “rewritten” by the finding of a human skull in Eastern Europe. So, the decades-old claim that humans evolved first in Africa could be refuted.
Click to expand...
Reggie, that’s how science works. New evidence is discovered, which prompts a reevaluation of older theories. If sufficient evidence accumulates, the theory is revised.

YEC and ID remind me of “flat-earthism”: in the latter case, no matter how much evidence was accumulated that suggested the earth is not flat, flat-earthers grimly adhere to their theory, even when the rest of the world has progressed well beyond that and regards them as a quaint anachronism. ID and YEC are regarded by the scientific community as quaint anachronisms – sometimes amusing, sometimes annoying, but ultimately irrelevant because ID and YEC are unwilling to revise the theory and move on.

StAnastasia
 
The question’s i would ask to those that believe god is controlling evolution…
  1. What about free will, if god controls evolution then he must control reproduction, in which case there is no free will.
  2. Why has god made everything look EXACTLY the way it would look if there was no god involved.
 
mathematician said:
Evolution is not philosophy. Evolution is a scientifically established fact. Philosophy only comes in when you want to put a theistic or atheistic interpretation on it.
Click to expand...
Evolution is a theory, like plate tectonics or gravity. It is a very strong theory, explaining the facts of species variation and development by means of descent with modification, natural selection, symbiosis, and other hypotheses like punctuated equilibrium.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Maybe because She / He wants it to look that way? He / She wants us to use our brains to figure out the world around us?
Click to expand...
Well if he/she wants it to look like there is no god then how can he/she take issue with someone when they withhold belief.
 
mathematician said:
Have you been reading from the creationist’s song book?
Click to expand...
Do you understand how science works? Do you understand the difference between facts and theories? Do you know that theories lie epistemologically on a more abstract level than facts?
 
StAnastasia said:
Reggie, that’s how science works. New evidence is discovered, which prompts a reevaluation of older theories. If sufficient evidence accumulates, the theory is revised.

YEC and ID remind me of “flat-earthism”: in the latter case, no matter how much evidence was accumulated that suggested the earth is not flat, flat-earthers grimly adhere to their theory, even when the rest of the world has progressed well beyond that and regards them as a quaint anachronism. ID and YEC are regarded by the scientific community as quaint anachronisms – sometimes amusing, sometimes annoying, but ultimately irrelevant because ID and YEC are unwilling to revise the theory and move on.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
You are only offering labels, not explanations.

First, the Church tells us there is actual design. Second, the cell, which was considerd just a blob of protoplasm in Darwin’s day, contains nanomachinery.

Second, the SETI project is precisely a search for an unearthly intelligence in outer space. Scientists have criteria for filtering out the noise and have defined what would constitute signs of intelligence, BUT they do not know there is anyone out there, and they do not know if a nonhuman intelligence would actually be detectable using the equipment they have.

So, your comments deny Church teaching and actual scientific work that has no basis outside of knowing that intelligence can be defined and detected even though it is not human.

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
JamesPaul, I like the Cardinal Schoenborn’s spirit, but this in not a particularly good book. He dismisses evolution as without foundation. He has since come out with a retraction of that, I believe.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
He has not retracted that as far as I know.

Peace,
Ed
 
theistgal said:
Funny, in all my childhood Catechism classes, I was told that it was perfectly OK for a Catholic to accept the theory of evolution.

If the Pope thinks it’s compatible with Catholic teaching, then what’s the problem? Or is the Pope not a True Catholic ™ ?
Click to expand...
“the Pope thinks it’s compatible with Catholic teaching”? How do you understand it to be compatible? Who were Adam and Eve? Do you think they were evolved hominids, or pre-humans? What is the basis for your belief?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
First, the Church tells us there is actual design. Second, the cell, which was considerd just a blob of protoplasm in Darwin’s day, contains nanomachinery.
Click to expand...
It’s not machinery, it’s chemistry. There are not little gears and wires. It’s all chemical reactions. Ever seen a soap bubble? Surely something so thin must be designed.
edwest2 said:
Second, the SETI project is precisely a search for an unearthly intelligence in outer space. Scientists have criteria for filtering out the noise and have defined what would constitute signs of intelligence, BUT they do not know there is anyone out there, and they do not know if a nonhuman intelligence would actually be detectable using the equipment they have.
Click to expand...
Am I missing something there? What’s your point?
 
theistgal said:
There is no such thing as “macro-evolution” or “micro-evolution”. Variation within, and adaptation of, species is evolution.

And Pope John Paul II is on record as saying that evolution is “more than a theory”. Sounds like an endorsement to me. 😉

But even if he didn’t, why should that matter? If something is true, it’s true even if no one on the planet believes in it.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II said “more than a hypothesis.” In that same address, he also referred to theories of evolution, not just one. He also specified that certain fixed points needed to be observed. These are the things the Church knows to be true through divine revelation.

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
Do you understand how science works? Do you understand the difference between facts and theories? Do you know that theories lie epistemologically on a more abstract level than facts?
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard Francis Collins responding to a creationist when he gets told that evolution is “just a theory”? Still, being an eminent scientist, I suppose he can be more free with his language than somebody who wants to show how up he is on the philosophy of science.
 
StAnastasia said:
We don’t have any reason to believe it didn’t assemble itself.
Click to expand...
Yes. The Law of Averages brings its assembly to virtually zero. It brings its ability to become more complex to zero. Information in biological systems does not come from nowhere. Yours is a statement based on faith.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top