What is the main reason for you to Oppose evolutionary theory?

[Late_Cretaceous]

Lets find out if there is a leading cause for people to oppose evolutionary thoery/

 

[Gwenyfur]

you can add me to 2 and 3 as well
It's a poll, you asked, I answered...no debate

 

[PaladinValer]

Fallacy of Slippery Slope.
Fallacy of Non-Support.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

You missed an imoportant option. It leads to irrational conclusions.

I reject it on philosophical grounds.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Would you care to point out some of these so called illogical conclusions?

How exactly does one reject a scientific theory based on philosophical reasons. Scientific theories are rejected or accepted based on examination of the evidence. The same kind of logic used to convict or aquit an accused in a criminal trial is used to judge scientific thoeries. Philosophy plays no role whatsoever. Would you reject atomic thoery based on philosophy? How about the theory of Raleigh Scattering (used to explain why the sky is blue) - can that be rejected or accepted based on the writings of Kant, Descartes or Hume?

This response really has me scratching my head in an attempt to draw a logical conclustion.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Would you care to point out some of these so called illogical conclusions?

Not really, not here. Innapropriate thread. Or, more precisely, I've run out of time at the moment to get into details. I did post just recently in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2865387-which-human-race-is-the-most-evolved.html

How exactly does one reject a scientific theory based on philosophical reasons.

One looks at the claims of truth in the theory that are not scientific themselves.

Science deals with the testable and repeatable. The general theory of evolution contains extrapolations beyond what the scientific data presents. It is these extrapolations, which make up Darwin's theory of evoluion and the origin of species, which have philosophical problems.

Scientific theories are rejected or accepted based on examination of the evidence. The same kind of logic used to convict or aquit an accused in a criminal trial is used to judge scientific thoeries.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think this is true. In a criminal trial you deal with evidences which are not repeatable. Eg, "He was seen on the night of the murder by a witness carrying a bloodied knife" is not a scientific truth. "The blood on the knife we found in the bin matches the DNA of the victim, and some on the knife matches the DNA of the accused" is a scientific claim.
Saying, "Given the evidences above, it is reasonable to conclude that the murderer was the accused" is not a scientific claim of truth.

Logic is the sole domain of philosophy. Science employs logic, but it is not what science is. Science is an empirical method of testing and repeating. So drawing conclusions in a court case can hardly be called a scientific process - but it does sometimes include scientific claims of truth (eg, the DNA of blood matching certain people).

In fact, court cases are probably closer to the kinds of methods used by historians to learn the truth about the past. This doesn't use the scientific method (though science may also be applied at some points, such as dating finds).

Philosophy plays no role whatsoever. Would you reject atomic thoery based on philosophy? How about the theory of Raleigh Scattering (used to explain why the sky is blue) - can that be rejected or accepted based on the writings of Kant, Descartes or Hume?

If Kant, Descartes or Hume did not write about Raleigh Scattering then of course not.

I don't know anything about atomic theory or Raleigh Scattering, so I wouldn't presume to write what I can or can't know through philosophy about them.

Philosophy deals with logic, what we can know, how we know it, and similar issues. If Raleigh Scattering or Atomic Theory contradicted some other knowledge that we had, then one or both of those theories would need to be rejected. If Raleigh Scattering or Atomic Theory resulted in conclusions that are absurd and obviously not true, then again, we could reject them.

Science is not the only way of obtaining truth. If life originating from a single celled organism to what we have today results in absurdities or conclusions that we don't see today, then yes, we can reject it on philosophical grounds.

I accept the scientific facts about evolution: changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, adaptation through selection of creatures to a particular environment, etc. That is empirically testable and repeatable. Gregor Mendel, for example, when he tested inheritence of traits.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

One looks at the claims of truth in the theory that are not scientific themselves.

For instance?

Science deals with the testable and repeatable.

You missed out observable, and it has been tested. For example, here is one case where evolution has proved to make testable predictions that have been verified. Here are some more. See I provide refences for my statements.

The general theory of evolution contains extrapolations beyond what the scientific data presents.

Like what. You seem fond of making claims, but I dont see anything to back them up.

It is these extrapolations, which make up Darwin's theory of evoluion and the origin of species, which have philosophical problems.

Charles Darwin was not a philosopher. The science of evolution has come a long long way in a century and a half. Philosophy has nothing to do with evolution. So far the only thing you have accomplished it to flaunt your ingorance of what exactly the theory of evolution is.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think this is true. In a criminal trial you deal with evidences which are not repeatable.

Thats right you really don't know.
You seem to think that only experimental data is valid. Not true. Many phenomenon in nature are studied in a scientific way through observation. Ever try to study a supernova in a lab? Even so, evolution is not strictly an observational science, it is done in the lab. Microbiologists . Evolutionary algorithms also are being employed to develop new technology

"Given the evidences above, it is reasonable to conclude that the murderer was the accused" is not a scientific claim of truth.

Science does not make claims on truth. It provides explanations (which can always be falsified), that best match the data available.

I don't know anything about atomic theory or Raleigh Scattering, so I wouldn't presume to write what I can or can't know through philosophy about them.

It appears you could apply the same logic to evolution.

Science is not the only way of obtaining truth.

See what I said above. Truth is not a scientific concept. Science seeks explanations for observable phenomenon.

If Raleigh Scattering or Atomic Theory resulted in conclusions that are absurd and obviously not true, then again, we could reject them.

Well theories of quantum mechanics result in conclusions that would appear to be absurd (like virtual particles, particles being in two places at once, non-locality). The phemonenon observed by studying QM defy conventional logic and human intuition. But the limitations of the human mind and imaginatiion are not reason enough to reject them. If it stands up to scrutiny then it passes the test. Scientists do not reject anyting just because it is not obvious or it seems absurd, they reject it because the data says so. Remember, it seemed obvious that no bacteria could live in the acids of the stomach and therefore absurd that bacteria could be the main cause of ulsers - but what was obviously absurd turned out to be incorrect. Bacteria, it turned out, do live in the stomach and do cause ulcers, absurd as it sounded.

If life originating from a single celled organism to what we have today results in absurdities or conclusions that we don't see today, then yes, we can reject it on philosophical grounds.

We would reject it on scientific grounds, not philisophical ones. THe conclusions from the concept of common decent match the data, it doens't matter if we "like" it or not.

I accept the scientific facts about evolution: changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, adaptation through selection of creatures to a particular environment, etc. That is empirically testable and repeatable. Gregor Mendel, for example, when he tested inheritence of traits.

Well, science has advanced alot since then. Nowadays scientits actually use naturally occuring random mutations that occur in organsims. Speciation has been observed in nature. The fossil record documents exquisite examples of evolution in diatoms, ammonites and other organisms.

Where do you draw the line on what you accept or reject? It appears that you do so based on what personally affronts your preconceived ideas. Remember, bias is the worst enemy to anybody trying to reach a scientific conclusion.

 

[shernren]

The only scientific theories I know of that have "philosophical implications" are quantum mechanics, dealing heavily with the building blocks of reality at the finest level. Even there the philosophical implications (e.g. non-locality of causal effects etc.) do not easily extend to macroscopic experience.

More often what happens is that someone inherits a philosophical position in his/her understanding of a theory i.e. evolution in this case, accepts both unthinkingly, finds them cohabitating in his mental framework of the world, and concludes that the scientific theory is the cause of the philosophical belief since no thinking person would hold to it. For example, many atheistic evolutionists hold to scientism as a way of viewing the world. A Christian is told by YECism that all evolutionists are either filthy atheists or useless compromising half-Christians who have believed in scientism. The Christian learns about scientism and evolutionism at the same time, and the connection that is formed is that evolutionism promotes scientism. This is patently false.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Saying "philisophical reasons" is really the same as saying "I am strongly biased". What you are really saying is that "I will not accept any evidence nor conclusions that conflict with my worldview"

When the first real geologists, like Lyell and Smith, began studying rocks they set out to find proof of the Great Deluge. According to their world view there should be evidence. The evidence, however, affronted this worldview and demonstrated that there was no global flood and that the world was much older. To them this must have seemed absurd and obviously wrong, but they were thoughtful men who drew conclusions patiently rather them jumping to them. Rather then reject the evidence based on "philosophical grounds" these men changed thier worldview according to the evidence. In otherwords, they let go of thier biases and let the weight of the evidence speak for itself. Had they clung to thier philosophies it is likely history would have forgotten them, and science would not have advanced as it did.

 

[vossler]

I selected other. I'm surprised no one has commented yet on what I consider the number #1 reason. Plain and simple it is not supported by the Bible.

 

[Willtor]

I selected other. I'm surprised no one has commented yet on what I consider the number #1 reason. Plain and simple it is not supported by the Bible.

That's a good reason to disbelieve both evolution and a heliocentric solar system. But I know you think the Earth orbits the Sun, in spite of the Biblical evidence. Why?

 

[vossler]

That's a good reason to disbelieve both evolution and a heliocentric solar system. But I know you think the Earth orbits the Sun, in spite of the Biblical evidence. Why?

The biblical evidence of which you speak isn't really evidence. The words could lead someone to believe the Sun orbits the Earth, yet that's the point when the Bible does speak on this topic. That happens throughout the Bible, one can take a verse a use it to push an idea that the text wasn't intended to say.

 

[KingZzub]

Saying "philisophical reasons" is really the same as saying "I am strongly biased". What you are really saying is that "I will not accept any evidence nor conclusions that conflict with my worldview"

I teach Philosophy, and that is not a fair representation of my subject at all.

To oppose something on philosophical reasons means that either you reject the premises that it is founded upon and/ or you reject the logic that is used to move from the premises to the conclusion.

It is more than fair to state you disagree with evolutionary theory on philosophical grounds. Many have, including the famous Anthony Flew. This is world's apart from saying "this is my personal and biased opinion."

Thankyou,

|ZZ|

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

You could apply the rejection or acceptance of certain ideas based on philisophical considerations (i.e. political stances, socialism vs capitalism, etc) but not scientific thoeries. Applying philosophical beliefs to scientific theories is introducing a huge bias. An unbiased scientist, when analyzing the supporting data for a thoery, should not be influenced by this religion or politics. Of course, that is the ideal situation and all humans are biased. Ideally, a muslim or buddhist or christian or communist would reach the same conclusion based on the same data if the thoery is sound.

I hope you realize this is not a denegration of the field of philosophy.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I selected other. I'm surprised no one has commented yet on what I consider the number #1 reason. Plain and simple it is not supported by the Bible.

Are any modern scientific theories supported by the bible?
Quantum mechanics?
Atomic theory?
Special Relativity?
General Relativity?

 

[KingZzub]

It is not a rejection of philosophy, I agree, but it seems to be an exaltation of science.

All people are biased. Humanism is a philosophy. Evolution, in a macro-sense, is not a science as it cannot be observed and repeated (have you read the works of Popper and his critique of Freud - it applies to Darwin as well, IMO). It is a philosophy of thought.

Cheers,
|ZZ|

 

[shernren]

It is not a rejection of philosophy, I agree, but it seems to be an exaltation of science.

Biological evolution or atheistic evolutionism?

 

[Crusadar]

Late_Cretaceous said: Lets find out if there is a leading cause for people to oppose evolutionary thoery

Or it could be that there is such a category as "absolute truth" in which the ToE is no where to be found that I subscribe to - the Word of God (aka the Bible).

 

[KingZzub]

Biological evolution or atheistic evolutionism?

The latter.

If by the former you mean observed evolution in the terms of animals changing within their kinds, then that is not only scientific but witnesses with the Biblical record.

 

[Willtor]

The biblical evidence of which you speak isn't really evidence. The words could lead someone to believe the Sun orbits the Earth, yet that's the point when the Bible does speak on this topic. That happens throughout the Bible, one can take a verse a use it to push an idea that the text wasn't intended to say.

Do you see, then, the view of the TE's, here?