Is evolution a fact?

[wildleafblower]

And those of us who deplore the strife and violence wrought by sectarian beliefs are thankful for that.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

Remember? The Prince of Peace (Jesus)? He reveals the law of grace that alone brings peace to the heart of man.

May you have peace within your heart. Take a deep breath, slowly blow out, relax your mind and open wide your heart.

 

[wildleafblower]

teleological argument. Alec [hecd2]

Thanks! The teleological arguement supports a God of the Gaps arguement which I am against. I totally agree with you and Father Coyne, SJ. who is on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee. The following is a great read though I’ve only quoted a small portion. The rest can be read on the url.

Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’
By Father George V. Coyne, SJ
2/1/2006
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The following is the text of the talk delivered by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,” at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jan. 31:

Abstract

I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry; (2) that our scientific understanding of the universe, untainted by religious considerations, provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs. Please note carefully that I distinguish, and will continue to do so in this presentation,* that science and religion are totally separate human pursuits**. Science is completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic implications which may be drawn from scientific results.[continued]*
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18540
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18540

Unfortunately, there have been pseudo-scientists in the past that have mixed their religion with science and have today lost their luster. People who still support a teleological argument do a grave disservice in the name of SCIENCE!

 

[cpayne]

It’s time that believers accepted that today those who are most familiar with the natural world overwhelmingly use the evidence they find there to reject theism,

Hmm. This is certainly a testable empirical claim. Anyone know whether or not it is true? In other words, are the majority of scientists in the best-known scientific societies non-theists or theists? I had heard that the majority were theists, but I don’t remember where I heard that. Anyone know?

Also, I myself wouldn’t connect the intelligent design movement to the teleological argument, although many do. Aquinas’s fifth proof really has nothing to do with evidence of design, but rather with evidence of teleology.

 

[Steve40]

No.

 

[TMC]

Are the vast majority of scientists atheists? Its hard to tell. Atheist groups always say they are, but would you take their word for it? So many scientists express faith in God. In particularly most doctors I have known are religious.

I think that one of the ironies is that religions push out scientists as much as scientists shun religion. With so many religious people telling scientists they are heretics and evil, while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of science (like the internet), is it any wonder some of them turn away?

 

[wildleafblower]

Hi TMC

I think scientists wish to participate here though I know that Alec (hecd2 a scientist) must tire of constantly being humiliated in a public forum. I can understand why scientists need to take a break from the battlefield. I too need to retire at times even though I’m not a scientist. Ah…trying my best to keep an attitude of goodness and be ready to laugh does help.

 

[hecd2]

Hmm. This is certainly a testable empirical claim. Anyone know whether or not it is true? In other words, are the majority of scientists in the best-known scientific societies non-theists or theists? I had heard that the majority were theists, but I don’t remember where I heard that. Anyone know?

Larson and Witham, *Leading scientists still reject God, *Nature 394,313 (1998). There may be more up to date research, but I don’t think it would be very different ten years later.

They found amongst leading American scientists (and I should think the percentage of believers will be lower outside the USA):
Believers in a pesonal God: 7.0%
Disbelievers in a personal God: 72.2%
Doubt or agnosticism: 20.8%

Also, I myself wouldn’t connect the intelligent design movement to the teleological argument, although many do. Aquinas’s fifth proof really has nothing to do with evidence of design, but rather with evidence of teleology.

As I understand it, teleology is the study of design or purpose in the universe; and the teleogical argument is the argument from design. There is no more “evidence for teleology” than there is “evidence for chemistry”. Aquinas’s fifth way is a teleological argument. And the intelligent design movement has everything to do with the teleological argument.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Are the vast majority of scientists atheists? Its hard to tell. Atheist groups always say they are, but would you take their word for it? So many scientists express faith in God. In particularly most doctors I have known are religious.

I think that one of the ironies is that religions push out scientists as much as scientists shun religion. With so many religious people telling scientists they are heretics and evil, while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of science (like the internet), is it any wonder some of them turn away?

One of my constant arguments to fundamentalists is how can you accept science for what it provides your personal life then reject it on issues that you decides conflicts with your interpretation of what the bible is supposed to mean. Cars, electricity, internet, TV, telephones, and the latest in medical research are fine, but geology and biology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, anthropology, are all demonized as perveyors of known lies. And then they can split again and say well biology is fine to treat my cancer but that part where you study how life changes over time…you’re deliberately lying to me for perverse reasons I’m unable to articulate.

I find it utterly mindboggling how one brain can run into two opposing modes. I’d be interested to see some studies on mental health between fundies and whatever everyone else is.

 

[cpayne]

As I understand it, teleology is the study of design or purpose in the universe; and the teleogical argument is the argument from design. There is no more “evidence for teleology” than there is “evidence for chemistry”. Aquinas’s fifth way is a teleological argument. And the intelligent design movement has everything to do with the teleological argument.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thanks for the information on the religious beliefs of scientists.

Teleology has to do with ends or purposes or goals. Even scientists often “hijack” teleological language, though disclaiming it as well. For example:

I study in order that I may pass the test. (Okay, no problem. A rational intelligence can have purposes or goals.)

Sea turtles swim ashore in order that they may lay their eggs. (Hmm. Okay, maybe instinct gives purposes or goals.)

Blood clots in order that the organism not bleed to death or get infection. (Either there is purpose or goal there, or else we should stop using the language; we could just say, “Blood clots and organisms don’t bleed to death, but there’s no teleological relationship there; because that would imply rational intelligence behind the mechanism, and of course that is impermissible.”)

This argument says nothing about whether or not the mechanism is well or poorly designed. It says the mechanism appears to have an end or goal, which *in itself *it cannot possess.

 

[cpayne]

Teleology has to do with ends or purposes or goals. Even scientists often “hijack” teleological language, though disclaiming it as well. For example:

I study in order that I may pass the test. (Okay, no problem. A rational intelligence can have purposes or goals.)

Sea turtles swim ashore in order that they may lay their eggs. (Hmm. Okay, maybe instinct gives purposes or goals.)

Blood clots in order that the organism not bleed to death or get infection. (Either there is purpose or goal there, or else we should stop using the language; we could just say, “Blood clots and organisms don’t bleed to death, but there’s no teleological relationship there; because that would imply rational intelligence behind the mechanism, and of course that is impermissible.”)

This argument says nothing about whether or not the mechanism is well or poorly designed. It says the mechanism appears to have an end or goal, which *in itself *it cannot possess.

This is not a smart-alecky question, but a sincere attempt to discover where people are coming from: Does this argument make me a “fundie”?

From a fellow Iowan. :tiphat:

 

[hecd2]

This is not a smart-alecky question, but a sincere attempt to discover where people are coming from: Does this argument make me a “fundie”?

From a fellow Iowan. :tiphat:

Don’t think so. Why should it?

You are distinguishing between design and purpose. I am no philosopher, but every source I consult links the teleological argument to the argument from design and thus to the Intelligent Design movement:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Not so. Science is sufficient unto itself (as is most academic study other than theology). You don’t have to believe in divine revelation, or indeed in any divinity whatsoever, to be a good or even great scientist. Science is one of those rare human endeavours that rises above personal religious belief. And those of us who deplore the strife and violence wrought by sectarian beliefs are thankful for that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Science is not sufficient unto itself and those who believe it are limiting their knowledge f the universe. This is quite contrary to the purpose of science which is to discover.

Pope Benedict

…This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

…While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

 

[Steve40]

Since you insist, I will agree that you are not playing the fool.

Frankly, your questions are reflections of your declarative statements – they indicate a bias against learning anything in this area. And, since I assume you are past the age for leaving school, I simply have no obligation to educate one who will not be educated.

In this area you don’t have the means to educate either and that isn’t a statement about your knowledge level it is about humanities knowlege level. There are far too many assumptions and theory upon theory upon theory in evolution to really answer any of the questions, even if you wanted to.

 

[Steve40]

(Part 2 of 2)

InterAcademy Panel (IAP) BROADCASTED AT 10:00 EDT ON WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2006
National science academies sign joint statement on teaching of evolution . . .
2. There are 67 signatories to the statement:" [The statement is found in Part 1 of my msg. 255.]

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. TWAS, the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World
    ICSU Executive Board has also endorsed the statement.
    interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/244/Evolution_press%20release%20June06.pdf
    http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/244/Evolution_press release June06.pdf

Wow all these smart people and they still can’t answer some simple questions about evolution nor can they prove it. It is a testament to the post fall lack of knowlegd of humanity. Long live Jesus Christ, Who Is God. May His Word even spread to the hearts of these ignorant men.

 

[cpayne]

You are distinguishing between design and purpose. I am no philosopher, but every source I consult links the teleological argument to the argument from design and thus to the Intelligent Design movement:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I agree that the teleological argument is usually linked to the argument from design. But I think such a link is a misunderstanding of the teleological argument.

(The “fundie” comment was directed elsewhere; sorry I didn’t make that clear.)

 

[Steve40]

The concept of irreducible complexity clinches that evolution is not fact and is most likely wrong, to me. Below is a quote describing irreducible complexity and a link to examples of it.

Engineers use the concept of irreducible complexity within design reviews or when designing things inherently. In my own words it is reducing design functions and processes of development/manufacturing to the least complexity. Often there are parts of a design that are independent, but work in conjunction with each other and in some cases the functions that work together counter each other. It is a balancing act of functionality.

Evolutionist can not explain a mechanism on how competing functions developed within living organisms. They marvel at it and still believe (by faith) it is evolution, but they can not explain it. It is more logical to assume that competing functionalities always existed together. This proposition is a scientific statement that does not require faith. It does not answer the question where the two functions came from, but it is very important to take one question at a time in the scientific process.

Quote from Link below:

What does the existence of irreducibly complex systems mean, and how does their existence impact neo-Darwinian theory?:

"In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:
‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’

A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

-Michael J. Behe
“Molecular Machines: Experimental
Support for the Design Inference”

arn.org/mm/mb_ic.htm

 

[buffalo]

The concept of irreducible complexity clinches that evolution is not fact and is most likely wrong, to me. Below is a quote describing irreducible complexity and a link to examples of it.

Engineers use the concept of irreducible complexity within design reviews or when designing things inherently. In my own words it is reducing design functions and processes of development/manufacturing to the least complexity. Often there are parts of a design that are independent, but work in conjunction with each other and in some cases the functions that work together counter each other. It is a balancing act of functionality.

Evolutionist can not explain a mechanism on how competing functions developed within living organisms. They marvel at it and still believe (by faith) it is evolution, but they can not explain it. It is more logical to assume that competing functionalities always existed together. This proposition is a scientific statement that does not require faith. It does not answer the question where the two functions came from, but it is very important to take one question at a time in the scientific process.

Quote from Link below:

What does the existence of irreducibly complex systems mean, and how does their existence impact neo-Darwinian theory?:

"In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:
‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’

A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

-Michael J. Behe
“Molecular Machines: Experimental
Support for the Design Inference”

arn.org/mm/mb_ic.htm

I love this cartoon:

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/Jokemouse_sm.jpg

 

[hecd2]

I agree that the teleological argument is usually linked to the argument from design. But I think such a link is a misunderstanding of the teleological argument.

(The “fundie” comment was directed elsewhere; sorry I didn’t make that clear.)

Well, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to be labouring under that misunderstanding as is every other source that I have consulted.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

Science is not sufficient unto itself and those who believe it are limiting their knowledge f the universe. This is quite contrary to the purpose of science which is to discover.

Your claim is demonstrably not true. Scientific parctitioners need no belief in the supernatural. Scientists of all religions and none work together. Many of the best scientists in the world reject the idea of a personal God. As I said, there is hardly a single academic study, other than theology, that relies on a belief in the existence of God. And dragging supernatural explanations into science completely undermines it.

Why quote Ratzinger at me? As far as I know he has no special expertise either in science or the philosophy of science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The concept of irreducible complexity clinches that evolution is not fact and is most likely wrong, to me.

You, of course can believe whatever you like, including the existence of pink unicorns, if that takes your fancy.

However the fact is that both Behe and the concept of irreducible complexity have been utterly discredited.

Alec
evolutionpages.com