Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Guy Threepwood]

What I don't get is the unstated need to hold beliefs in either Evolution, or one religion (or another)?

It seems tightly held beliefs are the actual source of any hostilities .. and not what the respective topics present?

That was my point- to acknowledge our beliefs as such, whatever they are- rather than declaring one to be 'undeniable truth' and hence labelling any skeptics 'deniers of truth'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That may have been mentioned, but it is not true. I'm not sure what 'fundamentalist' Darwinism is, but if it is anything, it is a strict adherence to the science, which does not instruct people on what to do or how to act.

No, it is being taught as factually-based science, as there are no available scientific alternatives to the theory.

I believe that may be a direct quote from Fred Hoyle talking about steady state, or a proponent of Newtonian physics- This is why Max Planck said 'science progresses one funeral at a time'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The key therefore, is the ability to distinguish believed 'truths' from objective reality.
If one is armed with such a mental skill, then beliefs become optional and a matter of free choice, rather than forced impositions (by self, or by external so-called 'authorities').

It's a skill often claimed by those not adhering to the scientific method, which is usually not quite so quick to arrive at a final conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

That was my point- to acknowledge our beliefs as such, whatever they are- rather than declaring one to be 'undeniable truth' and hence labelling any skeptics 'deniers of truth'

.. and 'truth' is whatever we choose that as meaning (its only an (English language) word, after all). The real issue there is how we arrive at what the 'truth' actually means. There are two ways: either by way of beliefs or, via the scientific method.
Science is sketchy on a testable definition of 'truth' but the closest it ever gets is no better than the results from its last best tested theory. What is meant when citing some scientific 'truth' is also subject to revisions of its context, and any notions held about it, are therefore subject to change.

 

[SelfSim]

It's a skill often claimed by those not adhering to the scientific method, which is usually not quite so quick to arrive at a final conclusion.

I'd say the person claiming such a skill, or more specifically, the person using such a distinction, should be called on presenting that distinction in an objective manner. This would then demonstrate that the person is at least capable of of using a recognisable objective method. I think I'd always respect such an attempt of such a display. Hostilities and racism then don't even enter into that discussion, eh?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd say the person claiming such a skill, or more specifically, the person using such a distinction, should be called on presenting that distinction in an objective manner. This would then demonstrate that the person is at least capable of of using a recognisable objective method. I think I'd always respect such an attempt of such a display. Hostilities and racism then don't even enter into that discussion, eh?

I think we agree entirely

 

[Guy Threepwood]

.. and 'truth' is whatever we choose that as meaning (its only an (English language) word, after all). The real issue there is how we arrive at what the 'truth' actually means. There are two ways: either by way of beliefs or, via the scientific method.
Science is sketchy on a testable definition of 'truth' but the closest it ever gets is no better than the results from its last best tested theory. What is meant when citing some scientific 'truth' is also subject to revisions of its context, and any notions held about it, are therefore subject to change.

"are therefore subject to change" I think is the key issue here- as opposed to 'no alternative' as some claim

"
“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.. [] Evolution is the only game in town
": Dawkins

'no alternative' is what doctors told George Washington who was skeptical of having pints of his blood drawn to cure a sore throat.. before he died from the treatment.

i.e. 'no known alternative' does not require that we claim somebody's best guess as fact and run with it, especially when the implications of being wrong are as high as in a medical treatment or the nature of reality itself.

We can teach natural history in all it's glory, examine all the empirical evidence, without jumping to conclusions about the nature of it's origins as 'fact'

 

[Bradskii]

Have you come to any conclusions yet as to which of your assumptions are going to stick?

You've alread stated that drowning everyone on the planet is acceptable as long as it's God who has committed the act. So the option of suggesting that God couldn't cause (or command) something to happen because it's so monstrously evil is no longer an option. There is nothing less monstrously evil (we might skip eternal punishment for the sake of this post).

So if you truly believed that God has commanded you to do something, then you would do it. However horrific it might be. Unless you want to judge the act and tell God that you think it shouldn't be done.

 

[Bradskii]

Declaring evolution to be 'undeniable fact', means that skeptics are by definition 'deniers of fact'...

Let's not forget that evolution is an explanation. Facts are collected and a theory is proposed to explain the evidence. People can deny that the evidence is correct or they can accept the evidence and deny the explanation.

In regard to the former, that's quite difficult. Because we use the scientific method to verify the evidence, and the scientific method is self refuting. Notwithstanding that there are very many ways to justify accepting any given evidence and as they correlate one would need to reject each method used.

In regard go the latter, if you reject one explanation then you need to propose an alternative. An alternative that explains all the available evidence.

'God made it all in six days' or any similar explanation doesn't make the cut. One can't substitute a scientific theory with a theological one.

 

[SelfSim]

"are therefore subject to change" I think is the key issue here- as opposed to 'no alternative' as some claim

"
“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.. [] Evolution is the only game in town
": Dawkins

'no alternative' is what doctors told George Washington who was skeptical of having pints of his blood drawn to cure a sore throat.. before he died from the treatment.

i.e. 'no known alternative' does not require that we claim somebody's best guess as fact and run with it, especially when the implications of being wrong are as high as in a medical treatment or the nature of reality itself.

We can teach natural history in all it's glory, examine all the empirical evidence, without jumping to conclusions about the nature of it's origins as 'fact'

So you're looking for gold. A large number of nuggets were found in a nearby tributary stream today, which is fed from a stream source which starts from your claim lease property. Where are you going to look for gold tomorrow? Science has shown to be the most consistently reliable basis for deciding where to look for that gold.

Knowing how to distill beliefs from the science, (which George Washington probably didn't), represents objective wisdom .. which is what education aims at passing on.

 

[Bradskii]

What I don't get is the unstated need to hold beliefs in either Evolution, or one religion (or another)?

It seems tightly held beliefs are the actual source of any hostilities .. and not what the respective topics present?

Let's not forget that there's an unstated clause that should be assumed to exist within every comment along the lines of 'Evolution is how we came to be'. The full version, which nobody uses but which must be recognised as part of the statement is: 'Evolution is the best explanation of how we came to be'. That is, there isn't one that does it better. 'This is the one we'll use until such time as there's a better one.' And you won't find any scientist who would argue with that (including Dawkins...).

But any given Christian fundamentalists would state, quite uniquivocably, that their version is the only version that will ever be considered.

Science cannot be dogmatic. It simply wouldn't work. But religion often cannot be anything other than dogmatic.

 

[SelfSim]

... Facts are collected and a theory is proposed to explain the evidence. People can deny that the evidence is correct or they can accept the evidence and deny the explanation.

In regard to the former, that's quite difficult. Because we use the scientific method to verify the evidence, and the scientific method is self refuting.

There's something about limiting oneself to concluding that some evidence 'is consistent with' some given hypothesis or theory .. Which is fundmentally different from (the practice of) 'verifying' evidence you mention there(?)

 

[Bradskii]

There's something about limiting oneself to concluding that some evidence 'is consistent with' some given hypothesis or theory .. Which is fundmentally different from (the practice of) 'verifying' evidence you mention there(?)

Yes, they are two entirely different aspects of science. Verifying the evidence is a matter of using the scientific method to confirm that what you are looking at is actually human dna, or is x number of light years away or is fossilised in rock that's x millions of years old. And then checking to see if the evidence is consistent with a relevant theory. Or if there is more than one theory, which one it supports the best.

If the evidence has been accurately verified and doesn't fit any given theory, then change one of the theories or propose a new one.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You've alread stated that drowning everyone on the planet is acceptable as long as it's God who has committed the act. So the option of suggesting that God couldn't cause (or command) something to happen because it's so monstrously evil is no longer an option. There is nothing less monstrously evil (we might skip eternal punishment for the sake of this post).z

... it might be that you and I don't share the same definitions of moral evil or when to know we've actually received a genuine command of God. But I get it, disagreement over these things seems to be a typical human malady, and we all know who has the right answers for humanity about each and every moral situation, don't we? ATHEISTS, of course!!!! Why fuss with acquiring Hermeneutical, Epistemological, Metaphysical or Axiologicical acumen when we can just find the nearest atheist. He can tell us all about the real nature of evil and of absolute goodness like no one else can.

So if you truly believed that God has commanded you to do something, then you would do it. However horrific it might be. Unless you want to judge the act and tell God that you think it shouldn't be done.

Fortunately for me, and being that I couldn't possibly have a moral bone in my body nor an ounce of sympathetic or intelligent brain matter, I'm lucky to have you available since you seem to know what God would command and when. Do you have the schedule of dispensation on all of this by chance? I'm going to need it apparently.

And you're wondering: would I do what Jesus tells me to do if He ever comes out from behind the Problem of Divine Hiddenness that I keep bumping into everyday in the Reality in which I live?

I suppose I'd be tempted to obey under a direct order, so I could be GUILTY as charged. Kierkegaard would likewise be guilty, too, I suppose Pascal would as well. ( I know, I know. I keep lousy company, don't I?)

I also know one other thing: the next time I read the book of Acts, I'll keep a running tab for a body count. You know how those 1st century Christians could be when a two-edged sword was placed in their smarmy hands---they just chopped everything in sight!

 

[SelfSim]

Let's not forget that there's an unstated clause that should be assumed to exist within every comment along the lines of 'Evolution is how we came to be'. The full version, which nobody uses but which must be recognised as part of the statement is: 'Evolution is the best explanation of how we came to be'. That is, there isn't one that does it better. 'This is the one we'll use until such time as there's a better one.' And you won't find any scientist who would argue with that (including Dawkins...).

Right .. so the unstated assumption is clearly only acceptable to those who understand the depth of objective thinking and the process used, leading to it. Ie: its intended for scientifically thinking audiences.

But any given Christian fundamentalists would state, quite uniquivocably, that their version is the only version that will ever be considered.

Agreed .. but I reckon Dawkins, (say), also often projects the same image.

Science cannot be dogmatic. It simply wouldn't work. But religion often cannot be anything other than dogmatic.

Again .. Dawkins is a pretty good example of projecting the appearance of dogmatism to those who don't share his depth of knowledge on the evidence consistent with Evolution.
That doesn't change the evidence consistent with Evolution, mind you.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's not forget that there's an unstated clause that should be assumed to exist within every comment along the lines of 'Evolution is how we came to be'. The full version, which nobody uses but which must be recognised as part of the statement is: 'Evolution is the best explanation of how we came to be'. That is, there isn't one that does it better. 'This is the one we'll use until such time as there's a better one.' And you won't find any scientist who would argue with that (including Dawkins...).

I might mention that as well as the word 'theory' having different (and sometimes subtle) meanings, especially when it comes to science, likewise the word 'fact' can be interpreted differently deoending on context. So, from wiki:

'Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.'

The latter is the meaning that Dawkins was using it in the quote in the post upstream.

 

[Bradskii]

... it might be that you and I don't share the same definitions of moral evil or when to know we've actually received a genuine command of God.

It might help if you addressed what I posted.

Killing every man, woman and child on the planet has been described as a necessary evil. I personally can't think of a more horrendous act than literally drowning everyone. But you can describe it as you wish. If you truly thought that God had commanded you to commit an equally monstrous act (and this is obviously a hypothetical - although many people have been convinced He has spoken and do commit horrendous acts) then the point I am making is that you would have no reason not to carry it out.

I'll write that again, because it is the central point...you would have no reason not to carry it out. That is, there is nothing that you wouldn't feel justified in doing.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, they are two entirely different aspects of science. Verifying the evidence is a matter of using the scientific method to confirm that what you are looking at is actually human dna, or is x number of light years away or is fossilised in rock that's x millions of years old. And then checking to see if the evidence is consistent with a relevant theory. Or if there is more than one theory, which one it supports the best.

Fair enough. I think what's going on in the first part of that is verfying that some specimen is consistent with the criteria established for bounding the definition of say 'what dna is', (etc), within the measurement uncertainties. Proper science only ever tests against its operationally (ie: already tested) definitions.
So I don't see that being 'an entirely different aspect' at all, though.

If the evidence has been accurately verified and doesn't fit any given theory, then change one of the theories or propose a new one.

Rinse and repeat.

Agreed .. (from a scientifically thinking viewpoint).

 

[SelfSim]

I might mention that as well as the word 'theory' having different (and sometimes subtle) meanings, especially when it comes to science, likewise the word 'fact' can be interpreted differently deoending on context. So, from wiki:

'Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.'

The latter is the meaning that Dawkins was using it in the quote in the post upstream.

I think Dawkins is really poor at continually reinforcing that though, (whilst he simultaneously nonetheless, often aggressively pursues his opponents).

 

[Bradskii]

Again .. Dawkins is a pretty good example of projecting the appearance of dogmatism to those who don't share his depth of knowledge on the evidence consistent with Evolution.

I won't disagree with you on that. It's a feature of his personality.

But demand from a fundamental YEC if he or she would change her mind if the evidence justified it and they would emphatically say no. There are even examples of people who have stated quite baldly that even if the evidence for an old world was undeniable, they would still deny it).

Demand the same from Dawkins and his answer would be an emphatic yes. And you'd tet the same answer from any scientist (assuming that they're not also a YEC).