Has science falsified macroevolution?

[dixieagle]

The problem is you dont seem to be able to see the difference betweem claim A.

• there is a god (deist). Which evolution says nothing about.

and claim B

• there is a god, he made a man from dirt and women from a mans rib. He came to earth and god a woman pregnant with out intercourse. He give us all a “soul”, athough there is not ONE bit of evidence to support it. We are made in his image, which contradicts evolution.

I could go on and on…

To those of us with the gift of faith, none of that is of any consequence. We don’t need evidence to “prove” God. As my evolutionary biologist SIL says: “Evolution is God’s modus operandi.” I don’t need any further details.

 

[bonaventura]

Wowsers. I don’t think that the “Creation-science” minded guy understands what Scientists mean when they say “Falsified”.

I think he thinks it means “perjury”, whereas the scientist means “possibly to formulate a contradictory hypotheses”. Something which is “not falsifiable” to a scientist, means “something which is such a tautology that it cannot be tested by the scientific method”.

Scientists are not “falsifying” in the sense that they perjure themselves. They are subjecting their pet theory, to material evidence, to see if it holds up. Since only material evidence counts, only matter (materialism) can be studied by science.

But there you go. It’s all biology if you’re dawkins. Or all physics if your hawkings.

And if you’re a young earth creationist from Kansas, it ain’t true if it ain’t in my KJV.

They’re all pretty similar, come to think on it.



Warren

 

[kalt]

Evolution says nothing about the existence of a god. But it does disporve certain ideas about specific gods.

For example it totally exposes the story of genesis as that of utter nonsense.

It gets rid of the idea we are made in any sort of physical image.

It eliminates the need for the evidentially challenged “soul”.

We sort of agree here. As I said before, the CC doesn’t teach a literal interpretatio of Gensis, so your complain that Genesis is not scientific is irrelevant. It would be relevant on a Fundamentalist board, which is where you should be posting your complaints about a literal interpretation of Genesis. Or at least direct your complaints to the members of this forum who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

To say that evolution theory proves that Catholics are wrong about their interpretation of Genesis is a false claim.

You’ve studied evolution a little bit. Why don’t you spend equal time studying the Bible and the CC before you make claims about how the Bible is interpreted by the CC? You might not realize it, but you are the flip side of those who make false claims about what evolution means (the usual fundamentalist line on evolution being the cause of immorality, social decay etc.) . Those comments are made from ignorance of evolution theory. You claims about how the CC interprets Genesis and what it teaches about evolution are made from ignorance.

I know that you value education.-that’s obvious in your posts. But I also see that you are impatient with those who refuse to really study evolution and yet make proclamations as if they are arguing from knowledge. So you can understand our frustration with your refusal to study the Bible and the CC before you make similarly unfounded proclamations about both.

 

[j1akey]

Evolution is God’s modus operandi." I don’t need any further details

Tranlated from latin ‘modus operandi’ means ‘method of operating’ and I think this entire statement pretty much sums up the problem for many atheists and/or non-believers.

Saying that something is how God operates and then leaving it at that without needing or wanting to know how or why is harmful to society as a whole. This is the kind of thinking that left us in the dark ages for some 800 years or whatever it was. There was almost no learning, no technological advancement, just stagnant population leaving their lives in the fate of God and without trying to figure out why things were the way they were.

Regardless of what you believe in or don’t believe in education is the cornerstone of any society. Without education and learning we would be stagnant again and when people aren’t motivated to learn because things are atributed to God without asking questions then people will once again become ignorant and uneducated and much of the population already is.

Believe what you want to believe but refusing to ask questions or refusing to try and understand something is just like shooting yourself in the foot in my opinion.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The problem is you dont seem to be able to see the difference betweem claim A.

• there is a god (deist). Which evolution says nothing about.

and claim B

• there is a god, he made a man from dirt and women from a mans rib. He came to earth and god a woman pregnant with out intercourse. He give us all a “soul”, athough there is not ONE bit of evidence to support it. We are made in his image, which contradicts evolution.

I could go on and on…

Still beating this dead straw man I see.

Utter nonsense

Actually it isn’t. “Brain in a Vat” demonstrates that there are implicit materialistic assumptions in science (as I’ve been trying to explain to Charlie in the “Gaps in Evolution” thread). This isn’t to say that it’s bad that science has such assumptions. Science would be worthless if it didn’t act under them, but it does show you that science is bound by those assumptions and is incapable of answering particular questions about reality.

Seriously, try it. Use the scientific method to falsify the hypothesis that what we experience is all an illusion due to our actual existence being one of a brain in a vat.

It’s by science’s very definition impossible to do.

 

[j1akey]

Actually it isn’t. “Brain in a Vat” demonstrates that there are implicit materialistic assumptions in science (as I’ve been trying to explain to Charlie in the “Gaps in Evolution” thread). This isn’t to say that it’s bad that science has such assumptions. Science would be worthless if it didn’t act under them, but it does show you that science is bound by those assumptions and is incapable of answering particular questions about reality.

Seriously, try it. Use the scientific method to falsify the hypothesis that what we experience is all an illusion due to our actual existence being one of a brain in a vat.

What you’re talking about here is something called false conciousness and it really has nothing to do with science but more in the realm of philosophy. You’re asking science to disprove a philosophy since the “Brain in a Vat” isn’t based on anything scientific so how can it be a hypothosis?

The definition of hypothosis in science is “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”. Nothing about the “brain in a vat” is logical in any way shape or form and can be tested in any way.

The “brain in a vat” does not demonstrate materialistic assumptions in science because it’s not actual science. It’s pseudo-science dressed up to be made to look like science but it’s not.

When it comes to materialistic assumptions in science I think you’re forgetting that there are also things in science that are measured and tested that have nothing to do with materialism in any way. Things like gravity, electro-magnetic fields, etc. Are these things considered material? No, they’re not but they’re still scientific theories that can be tested and measured.

I invite anyone to read this document:
webware.princeton.edu/vanfraas/mss/SciencMat.htm

It’s a long read but also a good one.

 

[Matariel]

Bleak maybe, purpose or answers to existence no there is none but what we make. Morals your wrong about though, morals are a natural human development that have been adopted by religion but would certainly exists without religion.

But there would be many sets of morals though, all mutually contradictory. I think the whole “no God” thing though is simply too fantastic. I don’t really have enough faith to be an atheist, even apart from the lack of defined morals.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

What you’re talking about here is something called false conciousness and it really has nothing to do with science but more in the realm of philosophy. You’re asking science to disprove a philosophy since the “Brain in a Vat” isn’t based on anything scientific so how can it be a hypothosis?

That’s exactly my point!

The definition of hypothosis in science is “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”. Nothing about the “brain in a vat” is logical in any way shape or form and can be tested in any way.

The “brain in a vat” does not demonstrate materialistic assumptions in science because it’s not actual science. It’s pseudo-science dressed up to be made to look like science but it’s not.

It’s not even dressed up to be science. It is inherently philosophical. My point was that science cannot determine which philosophical view of reality is correct since science is bound by physicalism (as it should be). Science can determine the effects of reality, but not whence that reality came.

When it comes to materialistic assumptions in science I think you’re forgetting that there are also things in science that are measured and tested that have nothing to do with materialism in any way. Things like gravity, electro-magnetic fields, etc. Are these things considered material? No, they’re not but they’re still scientific theories that can be tested and measured.

I concede that I’m using philosophical materialism too broadly here. I should have said “physicalism” (of which materialism is a subset).

 

[dixieagle]

Tranlated from latin ‘modus operandi’ means ‘method of operating’ and I think this entire statement pretty much sums up the problem for many atheists and/or non-believers.

Saying that something is how God operates and then leaving it at that without needing or wanting to know how or why is harmful to society as a whole. This is the kind of thinking that left us in the dark ages for some 800 years or whatever it was. There was almost no learning, no technological advancement, just stagnant population leaving their lives in the fate of God and without trying to figure out why things were the way they were.

Regardless of what you believe in or don’t believe in education is the cornerstone of any society. Without education and learning we would be stagnant again and when people aren’t motivated to learn because things are atributed to God without asking questions then people will once again become ignorant and uneducated and much of the population already is.

Believe what you want to believe but refusing to ask questions or refusing to try and understand something is just like shooting yourself in the foot in my opinion.

I am well familiar with the meaning of “modus operandi”, having studied Latin for years; at one point, I was even able to speak it pretty well (not much call for that these days!) I am also pretty well educated - excellent Jesuit university, where they question everything and teach you to think

I am, because of my SIL, quite interested in fossil discoveries and anything that helps to explain the “tree of life”. However, I don’t have the inclination to delve into every nook and cranny of the theory; my interests lie, mainly, elsewhere - history, literature, the arts. We can’t all study every subject thoroughly!

I believe that evolution is the method that God chose to get us to where we are (though that appalls many fundamentalist Christians). I could wrack my brain forever and not understand His methods…and that’s fine with me. All I need to know is that Truth cannot contradict Truth.

This is very much an example of “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, none will suffice”.

God bless!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Here is a challenge for you - Was Hitler right? If you think he was wrong present an argument as to why without invoking religion.

Hitler was wrong becuase he caused suffering to millions of people. Suffering is wrong because of empathy.

Hows that for you?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

When it comes to materialistic assumptions in science I think you’re forgetting that there are also things in science that are measured and tested that have nothing to do with materialism in any way. Things like gravity, electro-magnetic fields, etc. Are these things considered material? No, they’re not but they’re still scientific theories that can be tested and measured.

I invite anyone to read this document:
webware.princeton.edu/vanfraas/mss/SciencMat.htm

It’s a long read but also a good one.

Exactly.

Gravity is not material. However we can observe the effects of it. If there was a god and it created the universe then we would be able to observe the effects of such a being. Especially if he was kicking about earth performing miracles and answering prayers etc.

In actual fact studies show that praying has NO effect on anything. We have no oberservations that support the idea of “god”, we have no evidence for miracles, and we have zero evidence to suggest there is such an entity.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

And how is God “immoral” ?

Are you kidding? Is the bible an accurate representation of his character? If so the dude is a screw ball. Or this an other area where the bible is wrong. The book isn’t very good considering its inspired by “god”, i mean according to a lot of the poeple on here most of the book is nonsense.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

 

[kalt]

The problem is you dont seem to be able to see the difference betweem claim A.

• there is a god (deist). Which evolution says nothing about.

and claim B

• there is a god, he made a man from dirt and women from a mans rib. He came to earth and god a woman pregnant with out intercourse. He give us all a “soul”, athough there is not ONE bit of evidence to support it. We are made in his image, which contradicts evolution.

I could go on and on…

Again, you’re stuck on a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not what the CC teaches. So again I ask why you’ve picked a Catholic site.

 

[kalt]

Tranlated from latin ‘modus operandi’ means ‘method of operating’ and I think this entire statement pretty much sums up the problem for many atheists and/or non-believers.

Saying that something is how God operates and then leaving it at that without needing or wanting to know how or why is harmful to society as a whole. This is the kind of thinking that left us in the dark ages for some 800 years or whatever it was. There was almost no learning, no technological advancement, just stagnant population leaving their lives in the fate of God and without trying to figure out why things were the way they were.

Regardless of what you believe in or don’t believe in education is the cornerstone of any society. Without education and learning we would be stagnant again and when people aren’t motivated to learn because things are atributed to God without asking questions then people will once again become ignorant and uneducated and much of the population already is.

Believe what you want to believe but refusing to ask questions or refusing to try and understand something is just like shooting yourself in the foot in my opinion.

But science doesn’t answer, Why? Science tells us that species evolve. It doesn’t tell us why.

 

[kalt]

Hitler was wrong becuase he caused suffering to millions of people. Suffering is wrong because of empathy.

Hows that for you?

Do you believe that some actions are wrong, even if they don’t cause suffering? And who says that making others suffer is wrong, anyway? And how do you decide if your actions cause suffering? If you are rich and people in Africa are starving, is their suffering due, in part, to your greed? And how do you decide where to draw the line on need and greed. How much is enough, and how much are you allowed to keep for yourself while another has too little? Is a two-room house too much when another has none?

Can you state the moral principle that guides you in circumstances like these?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Again, you’re stuck on a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not what the CC teaches. So again I ask why you’ve picked a Catholic site.

Oh so you dont believe in a soul? Or that mary was a virgin?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Do you believe that some actions are wrong, even if they don’t cause suffering? And who says that making others suffer is wrong, anyway? And how do you decide if your actions cause suffering? If you are rich and people in Africa are starving, is their suffering due, in part, to your greed? And how do you decide where to draw the line on need and greed. How much is enough, and how much are you allowed to keep for yourself while another has too little? Is a two-room house too much when another has none?

Can you state the moral principle that guides you in circumstances like these?

Yes… empathy.

Why on earth would i need a god to answer any of those questions? One decides based on their world view. I believe in a cooperative society and empathy for my fellow man. I can answer all of those questions with no need for a god.

In actual fact you are the one that need to do some explaining if you claim to get your morals from “god”. Do you stone your kinds if they are unruly? I bet you dont, i bet you pick and choose which parts of the bible are moral and follow only those parts. The question is what system did you use to pick and choose? Well you use your morals, which are based on modern society. You believe that slavery is moral?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But science doesn’t answer, Why? Science tells us that species evolve. It doesn’t tell us why.

Why? Because of reproduction with variation and natural selection.

 

[kalt]

Yes… empathy.

Why on earth would i need a god to answer any of those questions? One decides based on their world view. I believe in a cooperative society and empathy for my fellow man. I can answer all of those questions with no need for a god.

In actual fact you are the one that need to do some explaining if you claim to get your morals from “god”. Do you stone your kinds if they are unruly? I bet you dont, i bet you pick and choose which parts of the bible are moral and follow only those parts. The question is what system did you use to pick and choose? Well you use your morals, which are based on modern society. You believe that slavery is moral?

So morals are subjective, and your suffering may not matter to me. Good!
Hang on a sec–my stone pile is just out of reach.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

So morals are subjective, and your suffering may not matter to me. Good!
Hang on a sec–my stone pile is just out of reach.

It may not, that is when the cooperative society comes in. That is why we have laws everyone must obey.

I notice you didnt answer any of my questions