Why Would An Agnostic Doubt the Theory of Evolution

[Zosimus]

Zosimus: Sorry to pester you but would you mind answering my question - if Darwinian evolution and creationism are both wrong, then how do you personally think life began and developed?

I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."

 

[Zosimus]

Parsimony and probability is the way you function every single day. It's how you consciously make decisions and how your brain makes interpretations about the world. I agree that probability does not provide a "theory of confirmation". But it does give us a shot at getting the real answer. It's also strange, as has been pointed out before, that you cite scientific studies while simultaneously denying their efficacy. I'm not claiming that probabilistic reasoning produces certainty or even that it is completely reliable (our brains often get fooled when making probabilistic judgments). But it is certainly sufficient to delineate between creationist and evolution arguments. You have posted sources that indicate that such reasoning should not be considered infallible or absolute in its conclusions; I have claimed neither of these things.

Your personal doubt as to whether I truly apply probabilistic reasoning is irrelevant.

You are wrong. I apply decision theory to my every day life. When I get to an intersection late at night and the light is red, I do not say "Well, I've never seen cross traffic here this late at night so I might as well just run the red light." Rather I wait for the green light even when I can't see cross traffic or a police officer waiting for me. The gain if I'm right is outweighed by the potential loss if I'm wrong.

P.S. Even if it could be proved that I engaged in parsimony or something else, that means nothing. The question is not whether people do so but whether such an action or belief is the correct action to take. Arguing that people commit logical fallacies every day is like arguing that drinking and driving is acceptable because there are people who do so.

 

[justlookinla]

I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."

You're right, neither can proven. They are both faith based belief systems.

 

[Sofaman]

One is supported by masses of evidence and 150 years of failed attempts to disprove it.
The other is purported in a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago.
One can be accepted on balance based on evidence. The other can only be accepted on faith

 

[justlookinla]

One is supported by masses of evidence and 150 years of failed attempts to disprove it.
The other is purported in a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago.
One can be accepted on balance based on evidence. The other can only be accepted on faith

I've had more than one person to point out that the Darwinian model of evolution isn't to be used anymore, there's a new and improved version. This suggests that in 150 years, which is the blink of an eye in the millennia of time, that there have been changes, adjustments, additions and subtractions to Darwin's suppositions and guesses.

Of course now, at the present time, the neo-Darwinists really have it right, right? Or is there still room for doubt, for corrections, for adjustments, for subtractions?

There is much in neo-Darwinism which is based, as was with Darwin's original errors, on faith in the unseen. Faith that all of complex life, in it's tremendous variety, is described solely and completely in neo-Darwinistic theory, again based on a plethora of suppositions and guesses. That's Darwinist fundamentalism at it's best.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One is supported by masses of evidence and 150 years of failed attempts to disprove it.
The other is purported in a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago.
One can be accepted on balance based on evidence. The other can only be accepted on faith

What is the masses of evidence supporting?

You know that there are a little over 1/3 of the world that label themselves Christian? Large numbers of that 1/3 of the world many claim evidence of God in their lives. So while the Bible is very important to Christian faith, it is the evidence in our lives that is so compelling.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."

How can one know anything?

You have a very strong form of agnosticism. It is skepticism taken to the point of ridiculousness.

I mean, why would you trust a burning bush that is speaking to you and not the vast amounts of scientific data for evolutionary theory and common descent? If a burning bush started speaking to me, I would immediately think I was hallucinating or delusional.

Why? Because of inductive reasoning. No bush has ever spoken to me before, so it is reasonable to be skeptical of talking bushes.


Your epistemological framework is baffling...

You would more quickly believe a talking bush than well-defined and well-documented scientific evidence...???

 

[justlookinla]

I mean, why would you trust a burning bush that is speaking to you and not the vast amounts of scientific data for evolutionary theory and common descent? If a burning bush started speaking to me, I would immediately think I was hallucinating or delusional.

Why? Because of inductive reasoning. No bush has ever spoken to me before, so it is reasonable to be skeptical of talking bushes.

How about if not only the bush talked to you, but you talked back to the bush...carried on a conversation?

Thing is, true or not, it wasn't the bush that was talking in the biblical story.

 

[Sofaman]

What is the masses of evidence supporting?

You know that there are a little over 1/3 of the world that label themselves Christian? Large numbers of that 1/3 of the world many claim evidence of God in their lives. So while the Bible is very important to Christian faith, it is the evidence in our lives that is so compelling.

How many of those 2 billion people simply use the term Christian as a label only and don't practise it as a belief.

But more to the point, how many of those deny the efforts of science and favour creationism, seeing as that's the matter in hand. Even the head the catholic church accepts evolution as the more overwhelmingly probable.

And simply asserting that lots of people believe it is quite frankly ridiculous. It doesn't make it true.

Finally, what is this evidence of god in their lives?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I mean, why would you trust a burning bush that is speaking to you and not the vast amounts of scientific data for evolutionary theory and common descent? If a burning bush started speaking to me, I would immediately think I was hallucinating or delusional.

Why? Because of inductive reasoning. No bush has ever spoken to me before, so it is reasonable to be skeptical of talking bushes.

That's not really how delusions work though...

 

[justlookinla]

That's not really how delusions work though...

Isn't it also delusional to view objects and believe they have all the attributes of design but aren't designed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How many of those 2 billion people simply use the term Christian as a label only and don't practise it as a belief.

I would assume that they practice it in some regard or they wouldn't label themselves as such.

But more to the point, how many of those deny the efforts of science and favour creationism, seeing as that's the matter in hand. Even the head the catholic church accepts evolution as the more overwhelmingly probable.

That is not what you were saying. You were claiming that evolution has masses of evidence to support it and all the Christian had was a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago. I take that to mean next to zero which was misrepresenting the Christian's view.

And simply asserting that lots of people believe it is quite frankly ridiculous. It doesn't make it true.

When there is almost a 1/3 of the world in the Christian faith, there might just be something to it.

Finally, what is this evidence of god in their lives?

Many things. You do have to experience to understand however.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Isn't it also delusional to view objects and believe they have all the attributes of design but aren't designed?

What evidence do you have that they are not designed?

 

[justlookinla]

What evidence do you have that they are not designed?

I'm on your side.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm on your side.

:o Sorry.

 

[Sofaman]

I would assume that they practice it in some regard or they wouldn't label themselves as such.


That is not what you were saying. You were claiming that evolution has masses of evidence to support it and all the Christian had was a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago. I take that to mean next to zero which was misrepresenting the Christian's view.


When there is almost a 1/3 of the world in the Christian faith, there might just be something to it.



Many things. You do have to experience to understand however.

I was comparing the evidence between creationism and evolution. What evidence is there for creationism other than "the good book says it"

Why must there be something to Christianity just because so many people believe it. The entire population believed the earth was flat at one point and we know how that turned out.

So what evidence, what do I have to experience in order to understand.

 

[Loudmouth]

Zosimus demonstrates once again that in order to throw out the theory of evolution, we have to throw out the scientific method itself. Zosimus is under the impression that unless we have 100% absolute, positive knowledge then we have zero knowledge. Sorry, but I am not going to join in his brand of knowledge nullifying skepticism.

 

[Sofaman]

Isn't it also delusional to view objects and believe they have all the attributes of design but aren't designed?

Yes.

But is is not delusional to view objects and believe that they appear to have all the attributes of design but accept that they aren't designed.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Sofaman: You originally wrote:

One is supported by masses of evidence and 150 years of failed attempts to disprove it.
The other is purported in a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago.
One can be accepted on balance based on evidence. The other can only be accepted on faith

Zosimus however is an agnostic (like the thread title says... ), so I'm guessing he's not actually a creationist. So if you want to debate the validity of creationism, I think you're in the wrong thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was comparing the evidence between creationism and evolution. What evidence is there for creationism other than "the good book says it"

Why must there be something to Christianity just because so many people believe it. The entire population believed the earth was flat at one point and we know how that turned out.

So what evidence, what do I have to experience in order to understand.

Creationism is a vast ideological and philosophical label given to the process of God's creation. Evolution is not an opposing view. Evolution is contained within this complete process of creation.

There are interactions that occur between God and mankind. The experiences are as varied as there are Christians. The bottom line is when you have experience after experience that confirms God's interaction. Each experience and each confirmation of God's claims adds to the evidence of God in a person's life.