Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ratio1:

“The other general issue I’ve noticed about evolutionists is that they seem to think all the answers must lie in science. They just can’t accept that there may be areas in life where science just cannot know the answer. This belief in science …is as dogmatic as a religion.” I think this is untrue, and several comments on this thread have concurred. The point is not that evolutionists think the answers must lie in science, but that, as science is God’s way of running the universe, that they do lie in science. Of course there may be “areas in life where science just cannot know the answer”, but without trying to discover one, we’ll never know.

Is the creationist corollary true? (I notice they have tended to shy away from this). If I said: “Creationists just can’t accept that God could have used, and still be using, evolution as his way of maintaining life”, would that be true, do you think?

“Science is based on observable facts. What is not observed therefore is not science.” This is not true either. It’s like saying: “Buildings is based on foundations. What are not foundations therefore are not buildings.” Science is based on observations, true, but it is a coherent explanation of those observations.

“To suggest like @Hugh_Farey that God likes to work through “rational” means is limiting God to the observable sphere. I’d like to contend that observable data is infinitely smaller than unobservable data.” It’s not obvious what you mean here. If God chooses to work rationally then it is not I who set limits to him, but himself. Do think God cannot work rationally? If so, then it is you who limit him, not I. And I’m not sure what you mean by “unobservable data”. There are several possibilities and I don’t want to misunderstand you. Could you give an example of some, to give me a better idea? The analogy with numbers does not clarify it for me.

“What I find astounding is that this is accepted as fact and anyone who bets otherwise is ridiculed.” These words could have been said either by a Creationist or by an Evolutionist. Ridiculed. Mocked. On the evidence of this thread, the only people who have been ridiculed are Evolutionist. Buffalo and Quark in particular have majored in it. Motes and beams come to mind.

Your examples about the Dead Sea scrolls and Trickle Down economics don’t help me, I’m afraid. Whatever views people have about them are invariably founded on their observations, not upon an individual personal interpretation of an ancient book. The comparison between either of these and the Creation/Evolution debate seems rather tenuous to me.

“The evidence for evolution does not definitely prove it.” Of course not. Does anyone say it does?

"You cannot disprove intelligent design scientifically."Of course not. Does anyone say you can?

“One has to believe evolution to be a scientific fact, otherwise you are branded as some pre-historic low life.” Not at all. Reread this thread. One the evidence of this thread the exact opposite is true.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
“One has to believe evolution to be a scientific fact, otherwise you are branded as some pre-historic low life.” Not at all. Reread this thread. One the evidence of this thread the exact opposite is true.
Click to expand...
Oh I’m not talking about this thread. I challenge any teacher to teach that evolution can be challenged and is not a scientific fact. See what happens.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
“Science is based on observable facts. What is not observed therefore is not science.” This is not true either. It’s like saying: “Buildings is based on foundations. What are not foundations therefore are not buildings.” Science is based on observations, true, but it is a coherent explanation of those observations.
Click to expand...
From my amateur study of logic
If p then q. Therefore if not q then not p.

Your statement should read
Buildings are based on foundations.
Any structure that does not base itself on foundations is not a building.
Which is correct.

So perhaps I should be more pedantic with mine too.
Science is based on observations.
Any study that is based on unobservable facts alone is not science.
Which I think must be correct logically.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
The theology of evolution revolves around the rationality of God, and whether he interferes with it.
Click to expand...
And I also remembered you said you tend to think God would act rationally. Maybe I’m wrong. Anyway.

The first quote assumes that rationality is the default. And anything else then God must have “interfered”.
What I’m saying with the numbers analogy is to think bigger.
The rationality you are describing is simply human rationality. Why would God be limited to human rationality? Sure God can act rationally but he can also act “irrationally” - whatever that means. We just cannot fathom all these other ways of acting. Hence my analogy of numbers. We think there is the infinity of rational numbers and everything can be explained by these numbers (it’s already infinite after all) so on face value you would think they would occupy the number line. But the set of irrational numbers is a bigger infinity than the infinity of rational numbers. It’s hard to imagine what that means. It means there are way way way more irrational numbers than there are rational numbers. Hence they are thnot ones that occupy the number line mostly. Hence in describing the number line evolutionist is like someone saying well the number line can be described as consisting of all these rational numbers. When in fact these numbers consist only the most minute amount on the number line. Hence yes they may resemble the truth in a very very small way. We simply cannot contemplate the ultimate truth with human rationality.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Is the creationist corollary true? (I notice they have tended to shy away from this). If I said: “Creationists just can’t accept that God could have used, and still be using, evolution as his way of maintaining life”, would that be true, do you think?
Click to expand...
You know my position. I’m happy to believe in the evolution theory if it has strong scientific evidence. But It just doesn’t.
And my big point remains that evolutionists are not allowing us to treat it as a theory and would like to impose it as a scientific fact like gravity as another poster pointed out.
No one questions the science of gravity. I only asked that evolution theory should be questioned. And the onus is on the theory proponent to prove it. So I don’t think it’s fair to ask creationists to prove otherwise. (As per my analogy of bloodletting in my previous posts) so I don’t see why there is a problem for a scientific theory to prove itself scientifically and I don’t see why you have to ask a non scientific theory to prove by scientific means.
 
I have recently retired from teaching in a Catholic School for over 40 years. In explaining the theory of evolution, I invariably discussed the religious disagreements with it. However, I do think that the UK is less hung up about the argument than the US.

“Science is based on observations.
Any study that is based on unobservable facts alone is not science.
Which I think must be correct logically.”
Absolutely. I totally agree, except that I still don’t follow what an unobservable fact is. It does not apply to the study of evolution, which is based exclusively on observations.

Me: “The theology of evolution revolves around the rationality of God, and whether he interferes with it.”
You: “[This] assumes that rationality is the default. And anything else then God must have “interfered”.”
Fair comment. It would have been better for me to say:
“The theology of evolution revolves around the omnipotence of God, and how he exercises it.”

I do not think there is such a thing a human rationality, which is opposed to, or a subset of, absolute rationality. The concept is meaningless. If you mean that humans have not yet discovered a theory of everything, then you’re right, but I don’t think says anything about rationality in general.

Irrational numbers are not, of course, at all irrational (!). Their entire existence is a product of rational exploration.

“And my big point remains that evolutionists are not allowing us to treat it as a theory and would like to impose it as a scientific fact like gravity as another poster pointed out.” I think this is unfair. From Darwin’s Origin of Species to Dawkins’s The Ancestor’s Tale, the factual basis behind the theory is either explained or referenced in enormous detail. If you can quote a single evolutionist publication which does not allow you to treat it as a theory, I should like to know what it is. I think your big point is almost entirely a creationist invention.

[continued]
 
[continued]

“No one questions the science of gravity. I only asked that evolution theory should be questioned. And the onus is on the theory proponent to prove it. So I don’t think it’s fair to ask creationists to prove otherwise.”
You must be joking. The science of gravity is open to challenge as much as any other science, and is currently being seriously challenged by mainstream gravitational scientists. As the challenge mostly concerns gravity on a cosmological scale, it may be a while before evidence can be found which enables us to confirm, modify or reject current models.

The science of evolution is also continuously being seriously challenged by mainstream evolutionary scientists. Many of Darwin’s ideas have been modified, and other aspects of the theory are still under discussion. Nothing has come close to disproving evolution as a coherent explanation for the history and diversity of life as we observe it.

You still say you want evolution ‘proved’, and that it’s not fair to ask creationists to ‘disprove’ it. You really have to get better to grips with this ‘proof’ thing. Science is not proved. Proof is a mathematical, not a scientific concept. Science is a consensus of acceptance of coherent explanations of observations. Consensus is achieved by demonstration, experiment, inference and logic, not ‘proof’.

However, although science cannot be proved, it can, and sometimes is, disproved. It can be disproved by the provision of a better explanation for observations, or by better observations. The overthrow of the geocentric ‘solar’ system was a classic case in point, and the overthrow of six-day creationism was another.

“I don’t see why there is a problem for a scientific theory to prove itself scientifically”. As I’ve told you, science doesn’t do ‘proof’.

" I don’t see why you have to ask a non scientific theory to prove by scientific means." I don’t. I never have. Creationism can’t be demonstrated, concluded or inferred from observation, let alone proved.
 
Immerse yourself in Intelligent Design. You will see how well it fits the observations.
 
Yes it does. Dating is full of base assumptions. The foundation is built on sand.
 
Start with daughter-to-parent ratios. Since we do not have data because we were not there measuring we have to extrapolate off graphs and such.

Many dates are thrown out because they do not match unifirmatarianism exprectations.
 
I’d like to, seriously, but I find it very difficult to get past the first page.

Let me explain why. I begin by typing IDvolution (as instructed earlier), and finding its website. The Home Page begins with a feeble attempt to show that evolutionists don’t really believe in evolution by misrepresenting a discussion between evolutionists about evolution at the Royal Society. Nothing at all to do with ID!

Never mind. I move on to “What is IDvolution?” After five lines I get: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator …” Is this meant to be a logical argument? Because of this… therefore this… Because we see that all organisms are based on the same DNA, therefore they must all have been simultaneously thought of by God? It, literally, doesn’t make sense.

Oh well, on to page three; Supporting Resources, divided into ‘Faith’ and ‘Reason’. What is the very first ‘Faith’ resource? “Evidence for God from Physics and Philosophy” (Physics?), by Robert Spitzer, who has degrees in Philosophy, Divinity and Theology (not Physics). Chapter One: Can Science Indicate Creation?
The first paragraph tells us that Science cannot do this and cannot do that… yawn. When do I get to ID?
 
IDvolution is philosophy and is supported by ID, the science.

Detail your claimed misrepresentation.

Have the same conserved core components that are the building blocks of all organisms and features. In other words, from these basic first prototypes all life can be built.

Spitzer is correct. Science does not have the competence to indicate creation. It can find the signatures of intelligence and that is what it focuses on. Who the intelligence is is left for philosophy - hence the IDvolution site, the areas of intersection between faith and reason. Surely you believe there are areas of intersection where faith and reason have to be true?
 
Spitzer - Physical and Metaphysical Method: Can Science Indicate Creation?

“We should begin by clarifying what science can really tell us about a beginning of the universe and supernatural causation. First, unlike philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove a creation or God. Natural science deals with the physical universe and with the regularities which we call “laws of nature” that are obeyed by the phenomena within that universe. But God is not an object or phenomenon or regularity within the physical universe; so science cannot not say anything about God.”

Loading…

idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
List ALL the experiments that confirm evolution.
Click to expand...
That’s a somewhat bossy command, if I may say so. Still, let’s type “experimental evolution” into Google Scholar. Oops, there’s four million results. Let’s cut out patents and citations, and choose “since 2018” (whatever that means). Oh good, down to two hundred. Here we go, there’s E. coli (of course), and Globodera pallida (a snail), Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode), Taraxacum officinale (dandelion), Lactobacillus plantarum (another bacterium) and on and on and on…

[Puts foot down. Folds arms. Pouts]

No I shan’t. So there.
 
Ecoli and citrate. This has been demonstrated by Hall before and experiments recently to happen in a few weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top