Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Atheos canadensis]

"They" has been used as gender-neutral singular pronoun since Middle English. Its use was deprecated by 19th century grammarians, but it is returning to formal usage. It's accepted by many British style guides but generally rejected by American ones.

I cannot fully express how much I love it when this happens, when some pedant tries to correct somebody's grammar and fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's basically an admission that, regardless of the strength and weaknesses of Evolution theory, it will still be enshrined as unquestionable dogma on philosophical grounds.

This automatically makes the theory suspect because there is so much clearly ideological investment in it.

You can expect about as honest a presentation for evolution theory by its proponents as you would a presentation of an automobile by a used-car salesman.

No, it is a mere quote mine at best. Without a link to the original statement it is worthless.

 

[The Cadet]

What about this text, which I have seen quoted many times, "
...Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” [my emphasis]

In the very next sentence, Lewontin explains why he holds that position. However, I feel the need to point out that he does not speak for me or for most scientists; I think if you ask around you'll find that most scientists disagree with him on this matter. While many are certainly materialists, their materialism came as a result of their adherence to science, not the other way around.

 

[Colter]

In the very next sentence, Lewontin explains why he holds that position. However, I feel the need to point out that he does not speak for me or for most scientists; I think if you ask around you'll find that most scientists disagree with him on this matter. While many are certainly materialists, their materialism came as a result of their adherence to science, not the other way around.

But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I cannot fully express how much I love it when this happens, when some pedant tries to correct somebody's grammar and fails.

So instead of saying "they", someone should instead say "you", or me, in whatever subject the person supports? So when I say "they" as in evolutionists, you would prefer I blame "you" personally for "their" mistakes???? It's not your fault you were misled.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.

It's called a View Master effect. It's prevalent in most of science. Some people just want to put them down already, some people insist we keep looking through them. This applies to any dogmatic view when other ideas are presented and actually fit the facts. Be it cosmology or evolution. Which is basically one and the same and both contain about 95% ad-hoc assumptions because they ignore what we see.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's called a View Master effect. It's prevalent in most of science. Some people just want to put them down already, some people insist we keep looking through them. This applies to any dogmatic view when other ideas are presented and actually fit the facts. Be it cosmology or evolution. Which is basically one and the same and both contain about 95% ad-hoc assumptions because they ignore what we see.

What facts are we ignoring when it comes to evolution?

 

[sfs]

In the very next sentence, Lewontin explains why he holds that position. However, I feel the need to point out that he does not speak for me or for most scientists; I think if you ask around you'll find that most scientists disagree with him on this matter.

Yup.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe I should have said "scientist" for the anal retentive. Some scientist can be too dogmatic.

The spiritual realities are the ones that religionist experience in their inner life.

Some golfers can be too dogmatic. Some airplane instructors can be too dogmatic. Some stamp collectors can be too dogmatic. That doesn't make golfing, airplane instruction, or stamp collecting dogmatic.

Also, science deals with empirical evidence. Subjective experiences that can not be verified by others are not empirical. If you can demonstrate the spiritual with empirical evidence, then science can investigate it. Until then, there is no reason to expect science to include the unevidenced in its explanations of how nature works. For science, there is nothing to ignore or disprove when it comes to claims of the spiritual realm.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sure this problem could be obviated by simply having me inject myself.

Offering you a monetary incentive would still be very, very unethical. I even hesitate to describe how easy it would be for you to become infected with HIV for free if you so wished, with nothing more than standard medical procedures of course.

In addition the correct pronoun for "a healthy person" is not "them" but rather "he or she."

That's not what they are saying nowadays.

 

[Loudmouth]

What about this text, which I have seen quoted many times, "
...Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” [my emphasis]

Then show us how to run scientific experiments which include deities, and show us how those experiments can be used to test evolution.

 

[The Cadet]

But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.

Um... No? That's not what happens in science at all.

 

[lifepsyop]

I think if you ask around you'll find that most scientists disagree with him on this matter. While many are certainly materialists, their materialism came as a result of their adherence to science, not the other way around.

Of course they will disagree. They are selling the myth that scientists are overwhelmingly bastions of disinterested objectivity... the myth that there are no ideological influences playing a significant role in academic institutions... the myth of the virtuous peer-review process that filters out all biases, etc. It's a big illusion they have to keep selling the public to keep themselves in business, and is almost laughable in its naivete.

Every now and then you get an honest scientist like Lewontin who has the guts to admit his biases upfront. Very rare.

 

[The Cadet]

Of course they will disagree. They are selling the myth that scientists are overwhelmingly bastions of disinterested objectivity... the myth that there are no ideological influences playing a significant role in academic institutions... the myth of the virtuous peer-review process that filters out all biases, etc. It's a big illusion they have to keep selling the public to keep themselves in business, and is almost laughable in its naivete.

Every now and then you get an honest scientist like Lewontin who has the guts to admit his biases upfront. Very rare.

Please, feel free to explain to me what ideological influence could have caused evolution to spring to the forefront of biological understanding and stay there for some 150 years.

Also, I love how scientists are somehow this huge hivemind with no dissenting ideas about materialism and naturalism. It's awesome to never have to think about these things! Thanks for clearing that up, man. Any idea where I can jack my brain in? Lewontin doesn't speak for me or god knows how many other scientists.

 

[Colter]

Um... No? That's not what happens in science at all.

We are having a communication problem here. In true science with a true scientist no, that's not what happens. But there are scientist who do approach science in that way.

 

[The Cadet]

We are having a communication problem here. In true science with a true scientist no, that's not what happens. But there are scientist who do approach science in that way.

I'm sure there are. Just like there are scientists who approach science with the goal of confirming their belief in scripture. What's the point here?

 

[Colter]

I'm sure there are. Just like there are scientists who approach science with the goal of confirming their belief in scripture. What's the point here?

Yea, I had to remember what the point was......oh, a bunch of unneeded post's ago I was conceding that "Religion and science are both altogether too dogmatic." I thought that was a given. As a religious person it is an acknowledgment that religion is in need of reform when it comes to the YEC narratives.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yea, I had to remember what the point was......oh, a bunch of unneeded post's ago I was conceding that "Religion and science are both altogether too dogmatic." I thought that was a given. As a religious person it is an acknowledgment that religion is in need of reform when it comes to the YEC narratives.

Just to make sure we are on the same page . . .

Are you agreeing that science is not dogmatic?

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course they will disagree. They are selling the myth that scientists are overwhelmingly bastions of disinterested objectivity... the myth that there are no ideological influences playing a significant role in academic institutions... the myth of the virtuous peer-review process that filters out all biases, etc. It's a big illusion they have to keep selling the public to keep themselves in business, and is almost laughable in its naivete.

Every now and then you get an honest scientist like Lewontin who has the guts to admit his biases upfront. Very rare.

You are projecting again.

 

[Loudmouth]

But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.

By truth, do you mean your dogmatic religious beliefs?

If you mean evidence, I would ask what evidence leads to different conclusions.