Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[justlookinla]

No one is providing evidence for a philosophy.

Why do you have such a problem with uncertainty in science? The only way to remove all uncertainty (in science and most other aspects of life) is to be God.

Science becomes a philosophy, a worldview, for some. I'm only pointing out that one cannot always trust science for the truth.

 

[justlookinla]

So science does not (and should not) declare truths. You knock down another straw-man.

What would you offer as an alternative explanation? Your opinion of miracles?

Right, one cannot trust science for truth. The road of science is littered with error.

 

[Davian]

Right, one cannot trust science for truth.

Or religion, but it is religion is making the truth claims.

The road of science is littered with error.

A methodology of testing that makes no claim of getting everything right the makes errors? Another straw-man constructed and burned down.

 

[justlookinla]

Or religion, but it is religion is making the truth claims.

Science makes untruth claims?

A methodology of testing that makes no claim of getting everything right the makes errors? Another straw-man constructed and burned down.

Bottom line, science cannot be fully trusted.

 

[Davian]

Science makes untruth claims?

Where did I say that?

Bottom line, science cannot be fully trusted.

Science is a self-correcting methodology. Pointing to the errors, rather than the corrections, is to build and burn yet another straw-man. Would you offer me religion?

 

[justlookinla]

Where did I say that?

I didn't say you said that. I simply asked, science makes untrue claims?

Science is a self-correcting methodology. Pointing to the errors, rather than the corrections, is to build and burn yet another straw-man. Would you offer me religion?

Would you embrace the errors of science offered today?

 

[Star Adept]

OP starts a fire, everyone else adds fuel, OP never responds, nothing is accomplished but flame and destruction.

Raise of hands for anyone who accepted anything anybody else said in difference to their considerations after 13 pages.

 

[Davian]

I didn't say you said that. I simply asked, science makes untrue claims?

Your question is improperly formed. Is a description that is less than 100% accurate "untrue"? No.

Would you embrace the errors of science offered today?

Is that a no on the religion?

 

[Queller]

Science becomes a philosophy, a worldview, for some.

We're not talking about philosophical worldviews though. We are talking about actual hard science.

I'm only pointing out that one cannot always trust science for the truth.

Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty. Here's a good explanation;

What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty

Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth. They propose and test theories, knowing that future evidence may cause refinement, revision, or even rejection of today's theories. Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that . . ." or "Our current understanding is . . .". You're not hearing waffling or indecision. You're hearing a reasoned recognition that we can't know many things with absolute certainty - we only know the observable evidence. However, we can reach the best possible conclusion based on the most complete and modern evidence available.

That contrasts strongly with the knowledge claimed by many other people. Many people claim that they, or a book or books they endorse, hold all relevant knowledge and that such knowledge is absolutely and unquestionably true. The Bible, for example, is often held up as containing all knowledge, and as being literal and infallible Truth. No science book has ever been endorsed that way, nor should it ever be.

As an example, consider the question "How did the world begin?". A scientist's answer will begin with the evidence that we've gleaned from decades if not centuries of astronomical study, which includes several lines of evidence about the motions of galaxies. It will conclude with a theory that fits the accumulated evidence. There won't be, or at least oughtn't be, any statement about absolute truth.

In contrast, some other people will answer that the world was created by a certain deity a certain number of years ago. If asked about their level of certainty, these people generally respond that they have absolutely no uncertainty. No scientist thinking about what he or she is saying will answer with that degree of certainty, regardless of the evidence available to them, nor will they lay that kind of claim to Truth. They may have a high level of confidence if there's abundant evidence, but they won't claim absolute Truth or absolute certainty.

It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty. Shouting loudest does not generate truth.

 

[justlookinla]

We're not talking about philosophical worldviews though. We are talking about actual hard science.

Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty. Here's a good explanation;

What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty

Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth. They propose and test theories, knowing that future evidence may cause refinement, revision, or even rejection of today's theories. Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that . . ." or "Our current understanding is . . .". You're not hearing waffling or indecision. You're hearing a reasoned recognition that we can't know many things with absolute certainty - we only know the observable evidence. However, we can reach the best possible conclusion based on the most complete and modern evidence available.

That contrasts strongly with the knowledge claimed by many other people. Many people claim that they, or a book or books they endorse, hold all relevant knowledge and that such knowledge is absolutely and unquestionably true. The Bible, for example, is often held up as containing all knowledge, and as being literal and infallible Truth. No science book has ever been endorsed that way, nor should it ever be.

As an example, consider the question "How did the world begin?". A scientist's answer will begin with the evidence that we've gleaned from decades if not centuries of astronomical study, which includes several lines of evidence about the motions of galaxies. It will conclude with a theory that fits the accumulated evidence. There won't be, or at least oughtn't be, any statement about absolute truth.

In contrast, some other people will answer that the world was created by a certain deity a certain number of years ago. If asked about their level of certainty, these people generally respond that they have absolutely no uncertainty. No scientist thinking about what he or she is saying will answer with that degree of certainty, regardless of the evidence available to them, nor will they lay that kind of claim to Truth. They may have a high level of confidence if there's abundant evidence, but they won't claim absolute Truth or absolute certainty.

It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty. Shouting loudest does not generate truth.

Look at these two statements...

"We are talking about actual hard science."

"Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty"​

Actual hard science doesn't deal in truth or certainty? Of course it doesn't, 'hard science' cannot be relied upon for on the road of 'hard science' you'll find it littered with error after error after error.

What error of science do you embrace today at the cost of truth?

 

[justlookinla]

Your question is improperly formed. Is a description that is less than 100% accurate "untrue"? No.

Typical verbal gymnastics used in the exercise of evasion.

Is that a no on the religion?

Is that a 'I don't have a clue if the science I embrace today is true or false'?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Darwinism isn't used every day to develop vaccines and other medicines. Darwinism is a philosophical worldview, whereas vaccine development occurs apart from the view that humanity is the result of random/chance mutations producing new life forms.

Sorry, what's Darwinism?

I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution. (See Thread title).

The Theory of Evolution is used every day to develop vaccines and medicines.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Typical verbal gymnastics used in the exercise of evasion.



Is that a 'I don't have a clue if the science I embrace today is true or false'?

Well well.

If you don't believe in the effectiveness of science then you are being a hypocrite if you use the things developed by science.

So...if you are sincere, you won't use medicine, any powered transportation, any form of distance communication, any appliance in your home, your plumbing (including your toilet), etc. etc. etc.

So, how sincere are you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So if you believe in evolution tell us why.

It fits the facts as we know them.

 

[Davian]

Typical verbal gymnastics used in the exercise of evasion.

Typical incongruous response to my statements.

Is that a 'I don't have a clue if the science I embrace today is true or false'?

Not at all.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We're not talking about philosophical worldviews though. We are talking about actual hard science.

Science doesn't deal in truth or certainty. Here's a good explanation;

What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty

Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth. They propose and test theories, knowing that future evidence may cause refinement, revision, or even rejection of today's theories. Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that . . ." or "Our current understanding is . . .". You're not hearing waffling or indecision. You're hearing a reasoned recognition that we can't know many things with absolute certainty - we only know the observable evidence. However, we can reach the best possible conclusion based on the most complete and modern evidence available.

That contrasts strongly with the knowledge claimed by many other people. Many people claim that they, or a book or books they endorse, hold all relevant knowledge and that such knowledge is absolutely and unquestionably true. The Bible, for example, is often held up as containing all knowledge, and as being literal and infallible Truth. No science book has ever been endorsed that way, nor should it ever be.

As an example, consider the question "How did the world begin?". A scientist's answer will begin with the evidence that we've gleaned from decades if not centuries of astronomical study, which includes several lines of evidence about the motions of galaxies. It will conclude with a theory that fits the accumulated evidence. There won't be, or at least oughtn't be, any statement about absolute truth.

In contrast, some other people will answer that the world was created by a certain deity a certain number of years ago. If asked about their level of certainty, these people generally respond that they have absolutely no uncertainty. No scientist thinking about what he or she is saying will answer with that degree of certainty, regardless of the evidence available to them, nor will they lay that kind of claim to Truth. They may have a high level of confidence if there's abundant evidence, but they won't claim absolute Truth or absolute certainty.

It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty. Shouting loudest does not generate truth.

Pretty good post, only it seems to downplay the fact that some things are known very very well in science. Stuff like water is a molecule composed of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. Stuff like e=mc^2.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Pretty good post, only it seems to downplay the fact that some things are known very very well in science. Stuff like water is a molecule composed of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. Stuff like e=mc^2.

... and stuff like the Theory of Evolution.

But the article is correct, Science never says anything is 100% true. It says those are the best models we have, and like the Theory of Evolution, they are supported by mountains of evidence. Personally, I love that about science, because it effectively says there is always more to discover.

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry, what's Darwinism?

I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution. (See Thread title).

The Theory of Evolution is used every day to develop vaccines and medicines.

Darwinism....

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.​

What's the difference between Darwinism and the theory of evolution?

 

[justlookinla]

Well well.

If you don't believe in the effectiveness of science then you are being a hypocrite if you use the things developed by science.

So...if you are sincere, you won't use medicine, any powered transportation, any form of distance communication, any appliance in your home, your plumbing (including your toilet), etc. etc. etc.

So, how sincere are you?

I'm sincere enough to not place complete blind faith in the claims of science, especially in the medical field.

 

[justlookinla]

Not at all.

Is the science you embrace today true or false?