Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[Ender]

The Theory of Evolution is supported by the confluence of a vast quantity of objective evidence from a wide range of disciplines.

I think in the main this is quite true. Of evolution in general … not necessarily of the Darwinian mechanism. It is certainly true that evidence for evolution is not necessarily evidence for Darwinsim for while Darwinism depends utterly on evolution being true there is no evolutionary necessity that Darwinism be true.

On the other hand, where anyone has a rational learned criticism of any aspect of evolutionary biology based on evidence, particularly if they propose a sensible hypothesis that fits the evidence, then they tend to get a different and politer reaction.

I’ve not actually noticed much difference in the reactions to a reasonable objection and completely wacky ones. People who question any aspect of evolutionary theory are pretty much all thrown into the same flat-earth bucket unless their bona fides are established beforehand.

I would add that there is no necessity to propose an alternative hypothesis before being allowed to criticize the theory on the table. I don’t have to know what the right answer is in order to comment on what answers appear wrong.

Ender

 

[reggieM]

That shows you know very, very little about evolutionary biology. Very little.

That’s good to hear. I thought you were going to say very, very, very, very little. So I’m one very better than I thought.

There isn’t the remotest prospect of any respectable alternative explanation

That’s a common defense of evolution – that is, a very weak one. The challenge is given (as you posted to Ed West) … “what is a better alternative?”

I don’t know, what’s a better alternative to a mathematical formula like 2+2=4? Well, only evolutionists defend their theory by asking for a better alternative. It’s “the best we’ve got” is what its most ardent evolutionary defenders end up saying (you’re far from the only one who has said this).

you are either deliberately pretending that that evidence doesn’t exist to make a point or you are simply too ignorant

So, I’m either a liar or an idiot. That doesn’t give me much to work with. I guess I’ll have to add that extra very after all.

Because amongst all the well established scientific theories, the fact and theory of evolution is uniquely subject to attack and criticism by the mendacious, the ill-informed, and the religiously motivated. No other branch of science has to bear this absurd burden of religious disapproval.

No other branch of science has to bear the burden of so much scientific disapproval also.

Here we have a list of scientists who publicly oppose evolution.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Here is a list (20 pages long) of doctors and surgeons who oppose evolution.

pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

So, yes I’d say that evolution is very unique in that regard. Apparently, evolutionists have not even sufficiently convinced their fellow scientists well enough. Perhaps they’re all liars and idiots also.

No other science is subject to the sort of legal and educational interference that besets evolutionary biology.

I think embryonic experiments and human cloning (which are applications of science and not really branches) face more pressure.

People who have actually taken the trouble to study the subject in depth (and that definitely excludes you, Reggie), and who are free from an a priori religious view,

Atheists bring their own a priori philosophical views to the study of this subject.

This religiously motivated creationism and IDism is frustrating to scientists, and it is an attack on science both as a profession and an efficacious way to learn about the world, and so we shouldn’t be surprised that scientists react as you have observed.

Well, I am surprised when I see this community which claims to be objective and open to various ideas react in that way. Many scientists are educators. Apparently, they’ve done a very bad job trying to educate the public since there is the opposition that you mention and there is a significant voice in some communities that wants to prevent the teaching of evolution (18% of public school science teachers bring creationist ideas into their teaching).

But instead of trying to do a better job in teaching people, they resort to attacks. Perhaps they would do better by trying to convince more people that they’re correct. “Science as a profession” is like anything else – it requires an audience or a base of consumers who want to pay for it. A large part of the public is not interested in paying for evolutionary science, but the fact that evolutionists very often respond with venmous attacks merely shows me that they think they’re a privileged class which should be kept immune from public criticism. Why attack your audience or your “customers” if they complain about the product you’re providing?
Scientists will say that they’re “pursuing the truth” – like the Prophets of old, and they’re not selling something to rank consumers. Ok, that’s fine with me. But if the interest is in finding the truth, one can and must do that whether there is a high paying profession attached to it or not.

When people say things like “it’s only a theory” or “there aren’t any transitionals” or “if we descended from apes, why are there apes today?” or other such idiocies, is it any wonder that people who actually know what they are talking about react as they do?

Well, I think it only makes things much worse to see, supposedly civilized, well-educated scientists having temper tantrums which are embarrassing and repulsive. But these emotional responses do gain some support from fellow Darwinists so it feeds on itself.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you really think that, then you know very little about the man, about his life, his interests, his fears and his doubts. I know that it suits your case to say what you have said, but anyone who has read a biography of Darwin, or his correspondence, or even the Origin will know differently.

Apparently, you believe that Darwin was some kind of saint who could not have been motivated by a less-than-noble agenda. I find that interesting, but not unusual. The people who defend Darwin tend to do so in an extreme manner - much in the way I just described. It’s an over-reaction and often laced with an emotional attachment that is a contradiction to the image of the objective and thoughtful scientists that we’re supposed to respect.

The hostility in your own posts is fairly good evidence of all of this as I see it.

Even someone who you claim is “much closer” to your views than I am had to put you on ignore, and he recommended that I do the same.

Perhaps next time you will remind me that I’m ignorant, I know nothing, and I’m very stupid also. Oh yes, and that I’m lying about my views.

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps because a profession that a) demands evidence in order to support one’s convictions, and b) that leads to a deep understanding that the world appears just as it would in the absence of any tampering by intelligent supernatural agents leads people away from magical thinking and from believing in said magical supernatural agents.

Well, I would be very sad to learn that the study of science actually leads to atheistic thought. But I can accept your point as valid in many cases. It indicates to me that scientists who think this way are very shallow thinkers. They use science, which is the study of externals of nature, to conclude that only externals exist. This is the death of simple philosophical thought. But I do find that among the evolutionists I’ve encountered. There can’t be much self-reflection or even reflection on the meaning of science because everything is reduced to its most superficial aspect – e.g. the things that can be measured and analyzed scientifically.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think in the main this is quite true. Of evolution in general … not necessarily of the Darwinian mechanism. It is certainly true that evidence for evolution is not necessarily evidence for Darwinsim for while Darwinism depends utterly on evolution being true there is no evolutionary necessity that Darwinism be true.

Comes down to evidence. And scientists overwhelmingly accept Darwinian theory, because it has been verified by evidence.

On the other hand, where anyone has a rational learned criticism of any aspect of evolutionary biology based on evidence, particularly if they propose a sensible hypothesis that fits the evidence, then they tend to get a different and politer reaction.
I’ve not actually noticed much difference in the reactions to a reasonable objection and completely wacky ones. People who question any aspect of evolutionary theory are pretty much all thrown into the same flat-earth bucket unless their bona fides are established beforehand.

I’ve noticed that people who tell physicists about perpetual motion machines get the same sort of treatment. For the same reasons.

I would add that there is no necessity to propose an alternative hypothesis before being allowed to criticize the theory on the table. I don’t have to know what the right answer is in order to comment on what answers appear wrong.

You do, however, have to know what the theory is about, and what the evidence is.

 

[Ender]

People who question any aspect of evolutionary theory are pretty much all thrown into the same flat-earth bucket unless their bona fides are established beforehand.

I’ve noticed that people who tell physicists about perpetual motion machines get the same sort of treatment. For the same reasons.

Apparently even raising the possibility that there may be something to question about evolution elicits the same snarling reaction. The defense rests.

You do, however, have to know what the theory is about, and what the evidence is.

It is certainly useful to understand the theory and the evidence but it isn’t actually required. A statement is either true or false and that fact isn’t affected by the extent of ones understanding. Nor does knowledge necessarily mean ones statement is true, as you just demonstrated.

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

People who question any aspect of evolutionary theory are pretty much all thrown into the same flat-earth bucket unless their bona fides are established beforehand.

Barbarian chuckles:
I’ve noticed that people who tell physicists about perpetual motion machines get the same sort of treatment. For the same reasons.

Apparently even raising the possibility that there may be something to question about evolution elicits the same snarling reaction.

Sounds like projection, Ender. You’re entitled to any opinion you like, but you aren’t entitled to demand that foolish ideas are taken seriously. Getting angry and calling names won’t help you.

Barbarian observes:
You do, however, have to know what the theory is about, and what the evidence is.

It is certainly useful to understand the theory and the evidence but it isn’t actually required.

In fact, for an ID/creationist, it’s positively discouraged. But if you want to be taken seriously, you do have to know what you’re talking about.

A statement is either true or false and that fact isn’t affected by the extent of ones understanding.

You have to know what you’re talking about to even know if it’s true or false.

Nor does knowledge necessarily mean ones statement is true, as you just demonstrated.

Protest as you will; you would do better if you actually knew something about the issue.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, I would be very sad to learn that the study of science actually leads to atheistic thought.

Me too. But it’s really not the study of science. It’s the people who have convinced so many that faith and science are incompatible.

**But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. **
home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

The real evil of ID/creationism is that it is a highly effective atheist-maker.

 

[reggieM]

Apparently even raising the possibility that there may be something to question about evolution elicits the same snarling reaction. The defense rests.

I agree. I’ve seen that happen far too many times. One can even point out where scientists question evolutionary theory and this is rejected by claiming that those are “scientists who lack credibility”. Of course, the only way to gain credibility among the evolutionary-majority is to have unquestioning acceptance of Darwinian theory, so it’s a circular argument.

 

[hecd2]

Well, I would be very sad to learn that the study of science actually leads to atheistic thought. But I can accept your point as valid in many cases. It indicates to me that scientists who think this way are very shallow thinkers. They use science, which is the study of externals of nature, to conclude that only externals exist. This is the death of simple philosophical thought. But I do find that among the evolutionists I’ve encountered. There can’t be much self-reflection or even reflection on the meaning of science because everything is reduced to its most superficial aspect – e.g. the things that can be measured and analyzed scientifically.

Your fallacy here is equating profundity with faith (ie belief in the absence of evidence). It is wrong to claim, as most religions are wont to do, that it is more profound, or even, more virtuous, to believe something through faith than through evidence. That is simply a perversion of reason. How, in the name of all that’s sensible, can there be more virtue in believing something in the absence of or contrary to evidence? I would say that the shallowness of thinking belongs to those people who are willing to allow their credulity to be hijacked by all manner of grotesque beliefs just because their parents, or their pastor, or their teacher or their confessor tells them it is so - or they tell themselves it is so because they accept the fallacy that to believe in something on faith is a virtuous, profound act.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

There isn’t the remotest prospect of any respectable alternative explanation

That’s a common defense of evolution – that is, a very weak one. The challenge is given (as you posted to Ed West) … “what is a better alternative?”

I don’t know, what’s a better alternative to a mathematical formula like 2+2=4? Well, only evolutionists defend their theory by asking for a better alternative.

Shows you know as little about philosophy of science as you know about the content of science. ALL scientific hypotheses are defended in this way. In other words, scientific hypotheses only survive as long as there are no better explanation., The working hypothesis is the one which best fits the facts. Common descent fits the huge quantity of evidence very well indeed - do you see a respectable alternative?

As for 2+2=4, how about 2+2=11 or 2+2=10? All depends on your axioms - how far into Principia Mathematica was Russell before he got to the proof of 1+1=2? Mathematics is not science.

So, I’m either a liar or an idiot. That doesn’t give me much to work with. I guess I’ll have to add that extra very after all.

Being ignorant doesn’t make you a idiot. Being ignorant means you don’t know the science, having not taken the trouble to learn it. I should say that is the case with you, since the evidence is there, but you deny its existence.

Here we have a list of scientists who publicly oppose evolution.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Here is a list (20 pages long) of doctors and surgeons who oppose evolution.

pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

And here we have a list of 980 Steves who think different (just Steves by the way). You are always going to lose the argument if you insist on truth by numbers:
ncseweb.org/taking-action/list-steves

Well, I am surprised when I see this community which claims to be objective and open to various ideas react in that way. Many scientists are educators. Apparently, they’ve done a very bad job trying to educate the public since there is the opposition that you mention and there is a significant voice in some communities that wants to prevent the teaching of evolution (18% of public school science teachers bring creationist ideas into their teaching).

The opposition (including that of the doctors that you mention) is not scientific, or they would have won the scientific argument - it is based purely on a priori religious beliefs. Of all the so-called scientific opponents of common descent, do you think you could find me six who are not religious?

Apparently, you believe that Darwin was some kind of saint who could not have been motivated by a less-than-noble agenda. I find that interesting, but not unusual. The people who defend Darwin tend to do so in an extreme manner - much in the way I just described. It’s an over-reaction and often laced with an emotional attachment that is a contradiction to the image of the objective and thoughtful scientists that we’re supposed to respect.

The extreme position and the over-reaction is all on your side. Let me remind you of what you wrote: " Personally, I think that Darwin was pushing his own philosophical agenda and was not interested in the truth.". And this without the slightest justification or documentary support. Now that’s extreme. I have no illusions about Darwin, and I am well aware of his failings - the difference between you and me, in this as in many other matters is that my understanding of Darwin and his strengths and weaknesses is based on evidence, in this case the evidence of the man’s biographies which include a huge quantity of documentary evidence, his wife’s biography, his auto-biography and his correspondence and notebooks, which I have taken the trouble to study, whereas you have just invented a slanderous opinion that has absolutely no historical justification, apparently because it suits your case.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

To Alec -

This all boils down to a conversation I had with an atheist 30 years ago. He said, “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” His wife, with an angry look on her face, told me, “Your religion tells me my son can’t masturbate.” I was totally unaware that my permission, or my religion’s permission, was required for someone who does not believe as I do to do something or not.

And let’s finish the list:

Religion is evil.

Dark Ages caused by religion.

Causes fascism.

Repeat endlessly.

The worship of the mind of man and technology has become the new religion. Man is the measure of all things. Man invents himself. Science will answer the questions! Science will lead us!

Face it. From the atheist viewpoint, it’s simply, Your religion is standing in the way of making me feel good about doing anything I want. I hate that! I don’t want to feel evil or wicked or sinful or guilty ever again!

And atheists are looking at one billion Catholics and thinking, we’d like to take control.

So Alec, the Atheist Technocracy will be run by the same or similar people that caused the Wall Street collapse, Enron, Global Crossing, the list goes on.

Evidence is manipulated all the time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

So Alec, the Atheist Technocracy will be run by the same or similar people that caused the Wall Street collapse, Enron, Global Crossing, the list goes on.

Ed, have you ever heard of the logical fallacy that is called “Poisoning the Well”? Here you have given us a prime example.

By the way, I am not, generally, discussing consequences of beliefs, but truth of beliefs. Do you understand the difference? It seems to me that your chief reason for believing in God is because you fear the consequences of not doing so. It also seems to me that we are better off subscribing to the truth and dealing honestly with whatever consequences follow.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

You are being evasive now. I am no more poisoning the well than anyone who brings up evidence of the nature of man. The nature of man is toward the bad, the objectively wrong. You appear to be overanalyzing simple things. It is true that many people have been cheated and robbed by men who had no need to do so. They were not starving or desperate.

I am trying to show you that the Atheist Technocracy will be made up of such men, content in their own minds that they are right and further emboldened by the idea that no god judges them.

Would you fear such circumstances? Wall Street has caused a global economic disaster and the men in charge are strict rationalists and daily observers of the financial evidence - experts in their field.

The Church teaches that by the light of natural reason, anyone can detect God. If you reject that, that’s up to you.

The truth? How much of what you know has been persnally verified by you? Truth can be manipulated.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ender]

It is wrong to claim, as most religions are wont to do, that it is more profound, or even, more virtuous, to believe something through faith than through evidence. That is simply a perversion of reason.

I was unaware that any religion made such a claim. Could you cite an example? Quite clearly Catholicism has made no such statement.

How, in the name of all that’s sensible, can there be more virtue in believing something in the absence of or contrary to evidence?

Do you believe God exists or that there is no God?

Ender

 

[GailMac]

One and one is two, two and two is four, four and four is eight, eight and eight is sixteen, and that’s a pound in America if it’s in ounces silly goose.

Peace,

Gail

 

[hecd2]

I was unaware that any religion made such a claim. Could you cite an example? Quite clearly Catholicism has made no such statement. [Re the virtue of faith]

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

Your wife says that you can trust her. It is more virtuous to accept that or to use surveillance cameras and hire a detective so she can continually prove it?

 

[Mersenne]

I was unaware that any religion made such a claim. Could you cite an example? Quite clearly Catholicism has made no such statement.

Ha ha, apparently you haven’t read the bible or know anything about Catholicism. Either that or you’re doing the same thing all religious people do, you use faith until it’s pointed out how ridiculous it is, and then all of a sudden “that’s not what I believe” until the next time you need a cop-out argument.

 

[Mersenne]

Your wife says that you can trust her. It is more virtuous to accept that or to use surveillance cameras and hire a detective so she can continually prove it?

Hopefully you’ve had enough evidence over the years to trust your wife, but that’s trust, that’s not the same as faith. Faith is believe contrary to available evidence, a virtue in most religions, and the primary cause of terrorism. Faith would be more like a wife staying with her husband and believing that he’s a good person even though he beats her and her children half to death and keeps getting fired and ends up in jail.

 

[ricmat]

“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Evidence often consists of things that other people tell you that you haven’t actually seen for yourself. Your above quote refers to Thomas, who refused to believe the word of the other apostles who had previously seen the risen Christ.

For us, we can only see the risen Christ through the word of others.

I never met Abraham Lincoln, or Ghengis Khan personally, but I know they existed because of the word of others. Wouldn’t it be silly to say that you don’t believe they exist because you have no personally verified evidence?