Evolution As Science? Really...?

[Grengor]

Lying for Jesus, don't cha' know that's acceptable? He's replaced God with the Bible.

 

[FSHWILDFIRE]

I am new to these forums. And I have been interested in th evolution creation debate for quite sometime. I am a undergraduate evolutionary biology student with a minor in Geology at the University of Toronto. I'm hoping to get in to Paleobiology/Paleontology eventually. But we shall see! It ain't easy.
In regards to evolution being as science:
I do think that at heart it is a scientific pursuit, and relies on many scientific claims, and evidence. However there are many aspects of it that are not science but what I like to call as evidence based on speculation. As well there is no doubt that many "proofs" of evolution have ben refuted and rightly so. I.E. some fossil interpretations or evo devo proofs. But, overall evolution is science. However we must ask is it good science?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I am new to these forums. And I have been interested in th evolution creation debate for quite sometime. I am a undergraduate evolutionary biology student with a minor in Geology at the University of Toronto. I'm hoping to get in to Paleobiology/Paleontology eventually. But we shall see! It ain't easy.
In regards to evolution being as science:
I do think that at heart it is a scientific pursuit, and relies on many scientific claims, and evidence. However there are many aspects of it that are not science but what I like to call as evidence based on speculation. As well there is no doubt that many "proofs" of evolution have ben refuted and rightly so. I.E. some fossil interpretations or evo devo proofs. But, overall evolution is science. However we must ask is it good science?

You are a sceince undergrad and you talk of proof not evidence? Thats interesting.

Ghost

 

[FSHWILDFIRE]

Proof is any factual evidence that can help establish an absolute or truth of something

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Proof is any factual evidence that can help establish an absolute or truth of something

My point is that science deals in evidence not proof, as any scientist should know. Proof is for maths and alcohol!.

We do not deal in terms of absolute truth in science, we provisionally accept those theories which are heavily evidenced, explain all the observations and have resisted falsification. Haven’t they taught you basic scientific method and Poperism yet?

Ghost

 

[FSHWILDFIRE]

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I was just using proof in the conext of biology not mathematical logic. My bad . Haha and yes they have taught us the basic scientific method. We are required to take several philosophy of science courses.

 

[Edmond]

Yeah, that's what life science disciplines encompassing hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of practitioners do - lie. All of them liars who wish to bury the truth of special creation and a 6000-year-old Earth for... for... some nefarious purpose.

Do you ever worry about the sins you potentially commit yourself when you accuse the entire world of deception?

The absurd assumption that humankind evoluted from an ape is the deception. That is the lie. I can assure you that far less then 'the entire world' is included in accepting that lie. In America alone 2/3 of the people don't believe that lie. Evolution is a minority belief even after 150 years of beong dogmatically pounded into people's heads through public education. That's always the problem with a lie. It takes 10 times the effort to try to make anyone believe it and after all that....most people are smart either not to believe it. That the fun of a good story anytime. The true ALWAYS prevailing in the end. So sayanara....

-----------------------

 

[Valkhorn]

The absurd assumption that humankind evoluted from an ape is the deception. That is the lie. I can assure you that far less then 'the entire world' is included in accepting that lie. In America alone 2/3 of the people don't believe that lie. Evolution is a minority belief even after 150 years of beong dogmatically pounded into people's heads through public education. That's always the problem with a lie. It takes 10 times the effort to try to make anyone believe it and after all that....most people are smart either not to believe it. That the fun of a good story anytime. The true ALWAYS prevailing in the end. So sayanara....

Translation:

• Mankind from apes is a lie!
• That is a lie!
• I can assure you that not everyone believes this lie.
• 2/3 of Americans don't believe the lie
• The lie is dogmatically pounded into people's heads (even though 2/3 of americans don't know what it is? how does this add up?)
• That's the problem with the lie - no one believes it.
• It takes too much effort for those to believe said lie.
• The truth prevails and is not the lie.

Edmond. Look at your translation. You dance around the obvious question which you NEVER answered:

How is common descent from apes a lie?

Answer, or forever hold your peace.

 

[ebia]

The lie is dogmatically pounded into people's heads (even though 2/3 of americans don't know what it is? how does this add up?)

They are either very smart or very stupid. I know where I'm putting my money.

 

[Arik Soong]

The absurd assumption that humankind evoluted from an ape is the deception. That is the lie. I can assure you that far less then 'the entire world' is included in accepting that lie. In America alone 2/3 of the people don't believe that lie. Evolution is a minority belief even after 150 years of beong dogmatically pounded into people's heads through public education. That's always the problem with a lie. It takes 10 times the effort to try to make anyone believe it and after all that....most people are smart either not to believe it. That the fun of a good story anytime. The true ALWAYS prevailing in the end. So sayanara....

-----------------------

Argumentum ad populum...

 

[Mocca]

Science is the endeavor to find "truth." In science, just as there is no "proof," there is no absolute truth. By truth, I refer to the falsifiable proposition (theory) with the most supporting evidence. The Theory of Evolution and Common Decent is falsifiable: many people claim that it is a falsification. However, Creationism, or its mask Intelligent Design, cannot be falsified in any way, which is why it cannot be considered science. The Theory of Evolution is the only plausible theory I know of that can explain the change in allele frequencies over time. If you do know of one, by all means, spout away!

P.S. I'd also like to add, although slightly off-topic, that a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is completely compatible with the Theory of Evolution and Common Descent.

P.P.S. The common descent of humans FROM apes is a lie, indeed. Humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor, so a better, more detailed question must be asked of Edmond.

 

[Edmond]

Science is the endeavor to find "truth." In science, just as there is no "proof," there is no absolute truth.

That's true. That is exactly why man cannot look to science to provide truth. Man must look elsewhere. But where the creation account presents that truth, then man say, that's not truth. You must look to science to find out what the truth is about the past. So you see, the conclusion found in the reasoning of evolution as to where truth is to be found is mutually exclusive. According to their forked-tongue, if your are stating that truth is found outside of science they say that is a lie. If you look for truth inside science they say it has no absolute truth. In reality Evo is saying there is no absolute truth. That then sets the stage for promoting the lie they promote. They have just manipulated the presence of any ablsoute truth out of THEIR equation. Handy deception for the promotion of their central agenda of deception...the lie of evolution.

By truth, I refer to the falsifiable proposition (theory) with the most supporting evidence. The Theory of Evolution and Common Decent is falsifiable:

True, and it has been falsified. Read Stephen Jay Gould, Essay, Opus 200. It is his 'peer review' of Darwin's debunked hypothesis.

many people claim that it is a falsification. However, Creationism, or its mask Intelligent Design, cannot be falsified in any way, which is why it cannot be considered science. The Theory of Evolution is the only plausible theory I know of that can explain the change in allele frequencies over time. If you do know of one, by all means, spout away!

The subject of this thread is not the defense of ID.

P.S. I'd also like to add, although slightly off-topic, that a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is completely compatible with the Theory of Evolution and Common Descent.

That can be made to sounds like a very nice intellectual solution on the surface. But in the reakity of true authenticity it doesn't work if you consult the best known authority on the O.T. Unfortuanately Jesus, in several ways and statements, did not present the writing of Genesis as metaphorical. He presented them as literal events. (Examples: Creation of humankind as male and female form the beginning...Matt.19:4; the flood of Noah...Luke 17:26,27) Most scholars in an field consider Him to be the best authority on the O.T. that ever lived. If 'metaphor' is a word that tweaks your ability to twist the truth to fit the already twisted conclusions of Evo go to it. That is typical of most lies. You'll then got to twist everything else to match what the lie is saying.

P.P.S. The common descent of humans FROM apes is a lie, indeed. Humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor, so a better, more detailed question must be asked of Edmond.

Really...And who is that common ancestor according to evolution? ...

-----------------------------------

 

[USincognito]

The absurd assumption that humankind evoluted from an ape is the deception. That is the lie. I can assure you that far less then 'the entire world' is included in accepting that lie. In America alone 2/3 of the people don't believe that lie. Evolution is a minority belief even after 150 years of beong dogmatically pounded into people's heads through public education. That's always the problem with a lie. It takes 10 times the effort to try to make anyone believe it and after all that....most people are smart either not to believe it. That the fun of a good story anytime. The true ALWAYS prevailing in the end. So sayanara....

-----------------------

In my "tone and content" thread, I compared some of the rhetoric between the Islamist students in "Reading Lolita" in Tehran and that of YECs (and others). In a chapter where the authors English lit class puts F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" on trial for being immoral, the "prosecution" offered by a Mr. Nyazi sums up his case.

As he continued, he became increasingly animated, yet he refused throughout to budge from his chair. "Gatsby is dishonest," he cried out, his voice now shrill. "He earns money by illegal means and tries to buy the love of a married woman. This book is supposed to be about the American dream, but what sort of dream is that? Does the author mean to suggest that we should all be adulterers and bandits? Americans are decadent and in decline because this is their dream. They are going down! This is the last hiccup of a dead culture he concluded triumphantly, proving that {the defense, a girl named} Zarrin was not the only one to have watched Perry Mason

I find the similarities of rheteric between the Islamic revolutionaries if Iran and the anti-evolution crowd here in the states to be meter bustingly ironic.

 

[Dannager]

I find the similarities of rheteric between the Islamic revolutionaries if Iran and the anti-evolution crowd here in the states to be meter bustingly ironic.

Also amusing: people have been saying that America is dying due to moral decline for as long as people have been saying the theory of evolution is doomed. America may be losing ground at the moment on an international scale, but it sure as hell isn't because of moral decline of debauchery and rampant aldultery.

 

[Mocca]

That's true. That is exactly why man cannot look to science to provide truth. Man must look elsewhere. But where the creation account presents that truth, then man say, that's not truth. You must look to science to find out what the truth is about the past. So you see, the conclusion found in the reasoning of evolution as to where truth is to be found is mutually exclusive. According to their forked-tongue, if your are stating that truth is found outside of science they say that is a lie. If you look for truth inside science they say it has no absolute truth. In reality Evo is saying there is no absolute truth. That then sets the stage for promoting the lie they promote. They have just manipulated the presence of any ablsoute truth out of THEIR equation. Handy deception for the promotion of their central agenda of deception...the lie of evolution.

That's true.

Translation:

• That's true, [in science there is no absolute truth].

Excuse me, my mistake, I should have clarified when I posted. When I said that science had no absolute truth, I meant that there was no absolute truth at all except for in logic. In the real world, the real solid world, there is no absoute truth. It is possible that the sky is a projection onto a barrier around the earth, and that what we see in telescopes are fake, and that the trips to the moon were really all created. It IS possible that the Loch Ness monster is still alive. I could say the same for almost everything - except for a purely logical statement. However, possible it may be, the most likely explanation for the stars found, the videos of the moon, etc. etc. etc. is that there IS a space and the sky is not a projection of light onto a solid barrier. So yes, I am saying that there is no absolute truth, outside of logic. I state that there is entirely no absolute truth, including religion, science, etc. etc. etc., in everything there is no absolute truth EXCEPT FOR IN LOGIC! *phew* I hope I got that point across.

However, this does not mean I claim that everything is false, either, that would be rather depressing. I claim that certain ("real-world") propositions are extremely likely to be true, and I act as if they were true, basing my actions and thoughts upon these considered truths.

That is exactly why man cannot look to science to provide truth. Man must look elsewhere.

• Science contains no absolute truth. This is why I can't look to science for truth. Because it doesn't provide absolute truth, I must look elsewhere.

In this instance you are demanding truth. You state that in science there is no absolute truth, which you seek, and you look elsewhere to find your absolute truth. Your elsewhere? Creationism, a belief that can neither be proven nor disproven.

But where the creation account presents that truth, then man say, that's not truth. You must look to science to find out what the truth is about the past.

• When the creation account presents its story, which I believe to be a truth, evolutionists claim that it is not a truth.
• The evolutionists then state that science is a truth.

I stated that the Theory of Evolution was the most likely explanation explaining the change in allele frequencies in organisms over time, I never stated that it was absolute truth. Also, you believe Creationism to be true, yet it can neither be proven nor disproven. Therefore, Creationism is not an absolute truth either. So, if evolutionists claim that the creation account is not true, they are right, it isn't. At the same time, evolutionists clam that science is not a truth. Yes, I explained above, there is no absolute truth, only many many things that are likely to be true, and that we act as if was true. So no contradiction there.

So you see, the conclusion found in the reasoning of evolution as to where truth is to be found is mutually exclusive. According to their forked-tongue, if your are stating that truth is found outside of science they say that is a lie. If you look for truth inside science they say it has no absolute truth. In reality Evo is saying there is no absolute truth.

• Evolutionists say that truth is mutually exclusive.
• Evolutionists state that anything not science is not a truth. (I assume you refer to religion, as many things not science are truths.)
• Evolutionists also state that in science there is no absolute truth.
• Evolutionists state that there is no absolute truth.

Yes, there is no absolute truth. How can you be ABSOLUTELY sure that the creation account is true? You can't, as it can neither be proven true or false, so YOU yourself settle with probable (what you consider probable) truth. You cannot claim that the fact that they settle with probable truth is a special feature of evolutionists' beliefs.

That then sets the stage for promoting the lie they promote. They have just manipulated the presence of any ablsoute truth out of THEIR equation. Handy deception for the promotion of their central agenda of deception...the lie of evolution.

• Evolutionists claim that there is no absolute truth, and they use this to promote evolution.
• The fact that they claim there is no absolute truth is a handy deception used to promote evolution.

As I said before, you yourself settle with probable truths. There is nothing "deceptive" about this.

True, and it has been falsified. Read Stephen Jay Gould, Essay, Opus 200. It is his 'peer review' of Darwin's debunked hypothesis.

The truth of the Theory of Evolution is being debated, right in this very thread, for your information. I claim that it is true. However, the point I was trying to make there was that the Theory of Evolution was falsifiable, and therefore a theory of science, not whether it was true or not. And, in addition, Gould SUPPORTED evolution. Gould states, IN OPUS 200

[font=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]Creationists, with their usual skill in the art of phony rhetoric, cynically distorted punctuated equilibrium for their own ends, claiming that we had virtually thrown in the towel and admitted that the fossil record contains no intermediate forms. (Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, is a different theory of intermediacy for evolutionary trends—pushing a ball up an inclined plane for gradualism, climbing a staircase for punctuated equilibrium.)[/font] - Stephen Jay Gould, Opus 200

In Opus 200, he states that evolution did not continue at a constant rate, implied by Darwin. Punctuated Equilibrium IS evolution! In the essay that you were so kind to point out to me, Opus 200, he specifically states that he and other evolutionists have NOT "thrown in the towel and admitted..."

The subject of this thread is not the defense of ID.

But, that was part of my explanation that the Theory of Evolution was the most plausible explanation. Ah well... I suppose I wasn't very clear.

That can be made to sounds like a very nice intellectual solution on the surface. But in the reakity of true authenticity it doesn't work if you consult the best known authority on the O.T. Unfortuanately Jesus, in several ways and statements, did not present the writing of Genesis as metaphorical. He presented them as literal events. (Examples: Creation of humankind as male and female form the beginning...Matt.19:4; the flood of Noah...Luke 17:26,27) Most scholars in an field consider Him to be the best authority on the O.T. that ever lived. If 'metaphor' is a word that tweaks your ability to twist the truth to fit the already twisted conclusions of Evo go to it. That is typical of most lies. You'll then got to twist everything else to match what the lie is saying.

You are saying in this passage that since Jesus acts as if everything that happened in the Bible really happened, then the Bible is literal. Similarly, a character in a non-fiction book would believe that what previously happened in the book really happened.

Also, the word metaphor is not a tool of deception. Look at Aesop's fables. I highly doubt that animals can talk, and most people generally consider his fables to be non-fiction. However, these all apply metaphorically to humans, and all have moral lessons in them. The Bible has many moral lessons to people, but only when you see the metaphor. I might add that many many many people across the world believe in a metaphoric Bible, therefore it is not a "deception" created by evolutionists. In fact, look at the statistics listed... somewhere above. Many PREISTS even believe in a metaphorical view of the Bible. This is, of course, across the world. Meh, I can't be bothed to look for the link, but someone posted a link to the statistics somewhere.

Edmond]Really...And who is that common ancestor according to evolution? ...

Sorry, I'm not a paleoanthropologist, and I wouldn't know the name of the species that branched off to humans and chimpanzees, nor can I verify whether or not a skeleton has been found. I can however, deduct that the species would have traits similar to both, yet more primitive and less specialized. If anyone knows the name of this species...


Phew, long post.

Sorry for the color inconsitencies. I'm rather new to this forum, and this forum's method of quoting. I have resigned myself to copy and pasting Edmond's text and surrounding it in "[ QUOTE ]" tags. >.<

 

[Loudmouth]

That's true. That is exactly why man cannot look to science to provide truth. Man must look elsewhere. But where the creation account presents that truth, then man say, that's not truth.

No, man says that a literal interpretation of Genesis is falsified by empirical evidence and is therefore scientifically inaccurate. It is completely possible, in a metaphysical sense, that an omnipotent deity created the Universe 6,000 years ago with the appearance of a history. It is equally likely that an omnipotent deity created the Universe three seconds ago, complete with intelligent organisms that have false memories of a history that never happened. Science tries to find solutions that are verifiable through referencing naturally occuring phenomena and mechanisms. Science does not claim that other solutions are wrong, only that they are based on faith and non-scientific.

Each person has a choice. Agnostics and atheists prefer to believe in things that are verifiable through objective criteria. Deists and theists prefer to believe in things through faith and subjective experiences. These are preferences, and it is obvious from your posts that you prefer to accept things on faith and subjective experiences. What I don't understand is why science must reflect your non-scientific beliefs. If you don't accept the findings of science then don't accept them. However, don't expect science to accept your assertions based on faith alone.

That can be made to sounds like a very nice intellectual solution on the surface. But in the reakity of true authenticity it doesn't work if you consult the best known authority on the O.T. Unfortuanately Jesus, in several ways and statements, did not present the writing of Genesis as metaphorical. He presented them as literal events.

Actually, the Gospels claim that Jesus made those statements, and it is the Gospel authors that gave those statements context. It is entirely possible that the authors and/or oral traditions that the Gospels were based on did not accurately report the teachings of Jesus. We don't have a Gospel written by Jesus himself, nor any documents written by him or authorized by him.

Secondly, those verses can still be viewed as metaphorical. For example, if Jesus and his followers were knew of Aesop's Fables, Jesus may have said, "Just as the tortoise beat the hare, I tell you that a strong and steady faith will win you the race." It doesn't matter if the tortoise and the hare ever had a race, it is the moral or ethos that is important.

 

[Valkhorn]

That is exactly why man cannot look to science to provide truth. Man must look elsewhere.

Not being able to quantify, measure, test, or predict anything doesn't really help you very much. So why look elsewhere?

You can quantify, measure, test, and predict science. That's why we have had so much progress with it. You cannot quantify, measure, test, or predict anything supernatural. Maybe that's why religion hasn't brought much scientific or technological progress?

What you do with what you believe is your own agenda. But don't try to claim that science hasn't done anything. When compared to religion, it's actually done a lot more than you think.

 

[Mocca]

People have already commented on the unreliability of quotes. However, quotes from evolutionists that "disprove" the Theory of Evolution are also irrelevant.

The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it.

- Talkorigins dot org, Creationist Claim CA114
Unreliable and irrelevant. As stated already many times, don't use quotes. Use citations, and possibly include non-misleading quotes to point out the part you want to emphasize.

Give us evidence claiming the falseness of the Theory of Evolution. See if you can give us more evidence than there is claiming the truth of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Edmond]

People have already commented on the unreliability of quotes. However, quotes from evolutionists that "disprove" the Theory of Evolution are also irrelevant. - Talkorigins dot org, Creationist Claim CA114
Unreliable and irrelevant. As stated already many times, don't use quotes. Use citations, and possibly include non-misleading quotes to point out the part you want to emphasize.

Give us evidence claiming the falseness of the Theory of Evolution. See if you can give us more evidence than there is claiming the truth of the Theory of Evolution.

It is a well known fact that empirical sciecne has worked overtime for the past 150 to take every drop of information possible and fit it or try to squeeze it if necesary into the evolutionary presuppositional mold. Science has NEVER, to my present knowledge, set out to faslify the theory that was brought to them by the initial modern evolutionists. Give me some quotes if you can find them ANYWHERE to affirm that they have done this. Of course there will be more evidence 'claiming' the ToE to be true. That is ALL thay have been doing. ...

-----------------------------------

 

[LogicChristian]

It is a well known fact that empirical sciecne has worked overtime for the past 150 to take every drop of information possible and fit it or try to squeeze it if necesary into the evolutionary presuppositional mold. Science has NEVER, to my present knowledge, set out to faslify the theory that was brought to them by the initial modern evolutionists. Give me some quotes if you can find them ANYWHERE to affirm that they have done this. Of course there will be more evidence 'claiming' the ToE to be true. That is ALL thay have been doing. ...

-----------------------------------

That's bull, for instance, Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin's work was done completely seperately. Darwin and Wallace came to the same conclusions based on different research as well.