Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

[Job 33:6]

You have not tested and observed inside other people's minds with physical science.

The claim is that quartzite is dense. Quartzite exists externally to our minds. If we all experience the same thing through tests and observation of the quartzite, then it is what it is. Individual interpretations cannot change conclusions of physical reality.

For example: even if someone thought that quartzite were as soft as a pillow, test results are what they are which would refute that person's imagined idea.

 

[RC Tent]

The claim is that quartzite is dense. Quartzite exists externally to our minds. If we all experience the same thing through tests and observation of the quartzite, then it is what it is. Individual interpretations cannot change conclusions of physical reality.

Creationists are not making individual interpretations.

You are making claims about people lying, I have made it quite clear that is where you have no scientific support.

 

[Job 33:6]

Creationists are not making individual interpretations.

You are making claims about people lying, I have made it quite clear that is where you have no scientific support.

Yes, they are making individual interpretations in the sense that they are not corroborated with physical reality.

Beyond that, their internal, imagined ideas run contrary to what is corroborated in physical reality.

 

[RC Tent]

Yes, they are making individual interpretations in the sense that they are not corroborated with physical reality.

That is a very odd definition of "individual" you are using there.

 

[Queller]

I agree with you, it is very important that people know that modern science is not objective about the existence of the supernatural, it excludes it in order to serve it's purpose.

No, science excludes the supernatural because there is no objective way to measure it.

That is exactly why there is no logic at all in treating science as though it is the only way to test what is real.

OK, posit a way to test the supernatural.

 

[RC Tent]

No, science excludes the supernatural because there is no objective way to measure it.

No, it is excluded by the definition, with science defined as the study of the physical/natural - supernatural possibilities are excluded by definition. It cannot serve it's purpose to research the physical and natural worlds unless it excludes all else, that does not mean that there is no objective way to test the supernatural.

OK, posit a way to test the supernatural.

That is exactly what all established spiritual/religious systems are in my opinion. That is what they are intended for - they are applied philosophies. I do not buy the myth that they are failed prehistoric attempts at science - They the result of thought, experience and inspired ideas.

The supernatural is tested all the time - by experience and applied principle. Say the Lord's Prayer (and mean it) - notice a difference, confess to sin, notice a difference, that is testing the supernatural - it is unscientific because it is not about the physical - just because it is not physical that does not mean it is totally dependent on personal feelings.

There is a God regardless of how we feel about that as individuals - this can be tested - but it is not a study of an aspect of the physical realm, hence it is by definition not science.

Maths is not subjective, it also is not physical - it is theoretical - but 5 + 5 = 10 even if it feels like it should be 24 to someone.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it is excluded by the definition, with science defined as the study of the physical/natural - supernatural possibilities are excluded by definition.

No. Science is methodologically naturalistic. That means that science can only use observations from nature to understand things. The method came long before anyone used that definition. Magic, prayer, and revelation are beyond science, which has no way to evaluate any of that. The most science can do, is to say whether or not there is a natural explanation for things.

It cannot serve it's purpose to research the physical and natural worlds unless it excludes all else, that does not mean that there is no objective way to test the supernatural.

For a Christian, God is responsible for supernatural things, just as He is responsible for nature. It's blasphemous to test God.

That is exactly what all established spiritual/religious systems are in my opinion. That is what they are intended for - they are applied philosophies. I do not buy the myth that they are failed prehistoric attempts at science

I've heard that from creationists, but it's wrong. There was belief and superstition, and magical thinking long before anyone figured out science.

There is a God regardless of how we feel about that as individuals -

But since there is no consensus by believers on even very basic things about God, it would seem that religion is not a very reliable way. Hence, the Bible and general revelation. But even that is not enough to produce a consensus. And I think I know why. God seems to find it very important that each of us come to Him willingly. And if He made Himself demonstrably true, who would have the freedom to decide?

Maths is not subjective, it also is not physical - it is theoretical

So is plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, atoms, etc.

but 5 + 5 = 10 even if it feels like it should be 24 to someone.

But 1+1= 10 sometimes, even if it feels like it should be 2 to someone.

 

[RC Tent]

No. Science is methodologically naturalistic. That means that science can only use observations from nature to understand things. The method came long before anyone used that definition.

Science is a subject - it is not a method. It has a method - that is the method by which it researches it's subject. All subjects do have a system. The subject is not the system by which it is explored.

The modern identified method used by science now did not exist before science did as the study of the physical or natural, the method was established as the best way to study the subject - over time.

Science is a noun, it is not a verb.

But since there is no consensus by believers

Consensus would not indicate objectivity in religion anyway - this point is just outright bizarre. It might turn out yet that "consensus" is not even the best way to maintain objectivity in science, but even if that standard does last it does not make consensus the best way to ensure objectivity in any other subject. The appropriate method of exploring a subject depends on the subject and it's goal. Scientific method is the best known way to study science - not the best known way to find out anything at all.

Objectivity in any subject except science may come down to some other thing.

 

[RC Tent]

So is plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, atoms, etc.

So you think every subject that you are listing here is "theoretical"?

Incidentally, my point was to provide an example of non-physical objectivity - maths.

But 1+1= 10 sometimes.

There are times when 1 + 1 = 10?

I can see that if each 1 is 5, otherwise....when?

 

[The Barbarian]

So you think every subject that you are listing here is "theoretical"?

Yep. Every one of those is a theory.

Incidentally, my point was to provide an example of non-physical objectivity - maths.

There are times when 1 + 1 = 10?

Yep.

I can see that if each 1 is 5, otherwise....when?

The answer is before you, if you'll only see it.

Hint: why do we have 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour and 360 degrees in a complete circle?

 

[The Barbarian]

Science is a subject - it is not a method.

It's a method. It was first used by the Ionian Greeks to learn about the world. It was polished and codified in North Africa and Syria in the Middle Ages, and introduced to Europe by Roger Bacon.

Roger Bacon OFM (/ˈbeɪkən/;[6] Latin: Rogerus or Rogerius Baconus, Baconis, also Frater Rogerus; c. 1219/20 – c. 1292), also known by the scholastic accolade Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on the study of nature through empiricism. In the early modern era, he was regarded as a wizard and particularly famed for the story of his mechanical or necromantic brazen head. He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and by the Arab scientist Alhazen.
Roger Bacon - Wikipedia

The only error there is in attributing the origin of science to Aristotle. His friend and fellow thinker, Democritus, was much more influential in establishing the method of science.

The modern identified method used by science now did not exist before science did as the study of the physical or natural, the method was established as the best way to study the subject - over time.

See above. It's not what you supposed it was.

Science is a noun, it is not a verb.

So is auto mechanics. It is also a method, like science.

Consensus would not indicate objectivity in religion anyway

A myriad of opinions merely indicates a lack of objectivity.

It might turn out yet that "consensus" is not even the best way to maintain objectivity in science

That's been tested. Doen't work any other way. There is no "decider" in science. The method only produces inferences based on evidence. When enough people in the field think it's sufficiently well-verified, a hypothesis becomes a theory, and is accepted as the correct answer.

but even if that standard does last it does not make consensus the best way to ensure objectivity in any other subject.

If there is an objective truth concerning God, and there is wide disagreement about what that truth is, there is a lack of objectivity or the truth is not knowable.

Scientific method is the best known way to study science

It's the best way known to study the physical universe.

 

[RC Tent]

There is no "decider" in science. The method only produces inferences based on evidence. When enough people in the field think it's sufficiently well-verified, a hypothesis becomes a theory, and is accepted as the correct answer.

There is a "decider" in science - as you have pointed out - the whole of the rest of your post shows that people decide what is best in science - people conceived of it, people developed it, people established it's method, and people maintain or change it as they decide they should. There is your "decider" - which you deny exists.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a "decider" in science

No. There is no person or group who does that, no time when a hypothesis becomes established as verified theory. In fact, no one could ever show exactly when it happens. Because it's a gradual process that doesn't have a decider.

You might as well claim there's a person who decides what the price of a stock will be.

 

[Job 33:6]

consensus would not indicate objectivity in religion anyway ~RC Tent

A myriad of opinions merely indicates a lack of objectivity. ~Barbarian

Exactly.

Which is why in America, we have freedom of religion and separation of church and state (to prevent conflict between colonies due to disagreement).

We don't find a myriad of scientific views on alchemy. Or even the age of the earth or evolution. Rather there are just some rogue fundamentalists who put their imaginations before physical reality.

 

[RC Tent]

If there is an objective truth concerning God, and there is wide disagreement about what that truth is, there is a lack of objectivity or the truth is not knowable.

No, sorry, this would be a valid point if the issue was scientific - but we are on the subject of God here - and theology does not work the same way as science does. It is not the same subject -it is not an attempt to be science that fails to be objective, it is a different subject entirely.

Widespread disagreement does not indicate a "lack of objectivity", objective does not mean "unanimously agreed" - it means "irrespective of personal feelings and preference".

The different theological concepts that exist are not caused by personal preference (subjectivity), they are caused by vastness of subject, the relevance of history, the nature of philosophy and in many cases by irrelevance - since some theological differences matter less than others. A lot of variety is possible in theology - whereas in science variation is a sign of unresolved issues, not necessarily so in theology.

The truth about God can be knowable without unanimous agreement - indeed the inadequacy of words to express everything pertaining to God and our incapacity to understand God completely mean there is a lot of room for variety there without it being a problem.

 

[RC Tent]

No. There is no person or group who does that, no time when a hypothesis becomes established as verified theory. In fact, no one could ever show exactly when it happens. Because it's a gradual process that doesn't have a decider.

Erm, there is a group that does that - they are called scientists. Their work does the deciding, that is what scientists do, as you described in your post.

And yes it can be a slow process, that does not mean it is not scientists - as I said - people - who decide, just because it is not done "ping" in an instant, does not mean that it is not people that do it.

Of course there is a time when a hypothesis becomes a theory - it is whenever there is enough verification established to make it a theory. It is done by progress, not by appointment - but there certainly is some time when this occurs - it may not be written down and specified exactly to the day, but it still does happen at some time, because hypotheses do become theories over time.

There is no science without scientists - it is all dependent on people and what they have decided it should be and do. It was created by people, it was established by people, developed by people, and it will be changed by people. That is the decider.

This point is not at all hard to get - scientists are people.

 

[The Barbarian]

The truth about God can be knowable without unanimous agreement - indeed the inadequacy of words to express everything pertaining to God and our incapacity to understand God completely mean there is a lot of room for variety there without it being a problem.

In other words, it means that the different opinions of God depend on each individual person.

sub·jec·tive
Dictionary result for subjective
/səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: subjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic;

 

[The Barbarian]

Erm, there is a group that does that - they are called scientists.

It's anarchistic. And it's also fluid; things can change as new evidence arrives.

Their work does the deciding

It merely finds evidence. Deciding is less formal. That is why you see a lot of provisional language in the literature.

 

[Queller]

No, it is excluded by the definition, with science defined as the study of the physical/natural - supernatural possibilities are excluded by definition.

Yes, because they cannot be reliably tested.

It cannot serve it's purpose to research the physical and natural worlds unless it excludes all else, that does not mean that there is no objective way to test the supernatural.

Great. Name an objective way to test the supernatural.

That is exactly what all established spiritual/religious systems are in my opinion.

Since when is any religion objective?

That is what they are intended for - they are applied philosophies. I do not buy the myth that they are failed prehistoric attempts at science - They the result of thought, experience and inspired ideas.

The supernatural is tested all the time - by experience and applied principle. Say the Lord's Prayer (and mean it) - notice a difference, confess to sin, notice a difference, that is testing the supernatural

Those might be ways to test the supernatural but they most certainly are not objective ways.

- it is unscientific because it is not about the physical - just because it is not physical that does not mean it is totally dependent on personal feelings.

There is a God regardless of how we feel about that as individuals - this can be tested

Describe how - objectively.

- but it is not a study of an aspect of the physical realm, hence it is by definition not science.

Maths is not subjective, it also is not physical - it is theoretical - but 5 + 5 = 10 even if it feels like it should be 24 to someone.

Math can be objectively demonstrated in the physical however. God cannot.

 

[RC Tent]

And it's also fluid; things can change as new evidence arrives.

And yet whenever this is pointed out by someone who holds beliefs that defy current scientific consensus their credibility is questioned because they know this.