Theory of Evolution and Belief in God

[MaxVel]

I am not sure that your statement makes sense. Truth is not a thing in and of itself. Truth is descriptive. Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

Hmmm... perhaps this is a better phrasing:

Show me how science can give us knowledge about everything first. How can science tell us that science is the best method for arriving at all knowledge?

For example the proposition that 'Science is the best method for arriving at all knowledge'... how does science show us that that proposition is true? What science experiment can you construct to show that?


Yeah, that's better. Thanks RobertB

[MaxVel]

This is an over statement of what lao tze said. The evidence indicates that fallible humans are not likely capable of anything approaching all truth. Science, by the evidence and the results is the best foundation for knowledge of our physical existence.

I think if you'd carefully read what I wrote you'd see that I didn't deny that the scientific method is very useful in it's field.

I will ask the question again.

Can you demonstrate a better one.

No need, since that is not what I'm talking about.

Does science give us knowledge about everything that can be known? Is science the best way of getting knowledge in all cases?

Does science assume certain metaphysical positions to operate? If so, is it not foolish to place science over philosophy in every respect? Would it not be better to recognize that each has it's role in informing us about reality?

[robertb]

Hmmm... perhaps this is a better phrasing:

Show me how science can give us knowledge about everything first. How can science tell us that science is the best method for arriving at all knowledge?

For example the proposition that 'Science is the best method for arriving at all knowledge'... how does science show us that that proposition is true? What science experiment can you construct to show that?


Yeah, that's better. Thanks RobertB

I suppose you could create a giant list of everything and sytematically begin determining which method works best when trying to understand each specific item on your giant list and then do some statistical analysis of the results...

Or

You could posit a methodology that you believe works better than the scientific method for the understanding of any particular thing, thereby falsifying the claim that science is the best tool to use for the understanding of all things.

Something like that.

[MaxVel]

I suppose you could create a giant list of everything and sytematically begin determining which method works best when trying to understand each specific item on your giant list and then do some statistical analysis of the results...

Or

You could posit a methodology that you believe works better than the scientific method for the understanding of any particular thing, thereby falsifying the claim that science is the best tool to use for the understanding of all things.

Something like that.

I think the burden is on those who say that science is the best method for understanding everything to show that it is.

I think that that position is a philosophical stance rather than a scientific one, and rests on philosophical bases, and therefore fails by it's own standard. For example, if one was to say:

'Science is the only way we can know anything', that proposition is itself not something that we can know through science - and therefore we can ignore it.

[robertb]

I think the burden is on those who say that science is the best method for understanding everything to show that it is.

I think that that position is a philosophical stance rather than a scientific one, and rests on philosophical bases, and therefore fails by it's own standard. For example, if one was to say:

'Science is the only way we can know anything', that proposition is itself not something that we can know through science - and therefore we can ignore it.

This seems odd. Why would the burden of proof for your question be placed upon science? Aren't you the one positing some other method by which to better understand something?

[MaxVel]

This seems odd. Why would the burden of proof for your question be placed upon science? Aren't you the one positing some other method by which to better understand something?

Read my post #120, and the quote I was responding to in that post.

"I think the burden is on those who say that science is the best method for understanding everything to show that it is. "

If someone is saying that then they have a burden of proof to show that science is the best method for understanding everything. I've asked if someone can show that proposition to be true using the method that it proposes is the method for getting knowledge. I think that's a reasonable request.


Another way of looking at it is: 'How do we arrive at a justified true belief?' Is it only via the scientific method? I think clearly it's not only via science, so therefore, there are other means of getting justified true beliefs. Which means that science is not 'the best method for getting knowledge about everything' or 'the only means for getting knowledge'.



I propose rational reasoning, logic and considered thought as a foundational approach to getting knowledge.

Of course this would include the scientific method and 'science', but would also include philosophy (done 'right' ) and perhaps intuition (in the philosophical sense - our direct knowledge of certain things, our thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations and so on).


Right - I've put forward my position, and shouldered my burden. Those who think that science is the only means of getting knowledge, or the best way for understanding everything can now assume their burden of proof.

[robertb]

I think I understand where you are coming from. The only way I know of to come to a justified true belief, or at least as close as one could get to such a thing, is through the scientific method.

Logic and intuition will only get you so far in that regard.

[lao tzu]

Show me how science can tell us the truth about everything first ...

Like hell I will. You said it wasn't the best, so give us a better one. Quit your dodging.

Or you could do the honorable thing, and admit you were wrong, that there isn't anything better.

[rogue06]

Post 93: Statement 1:


Post 111: Statement 2:


Post 115:


Statement 1 and statement 2 are unsubstantiated assertions. If Statement 2 is a breezy dismissal then Statement 1 is overblown. If Statement 2 is a dishonest trivialisation then Statement 1 blatantly misleading. If Statement 2 smacks of denial then Statement 1 is a tedious repetition of claims rammed down our throats by ‘media scientists’ – that clog our newspapers and televisions with their paper-mache dinosaur tales.

So far the Union and Confederates are neck and neck. So out comes the artillery:

You then give four quotes from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html to bolster your onslaught.

But the freedom-fighters rush out of the trenches and fire a deadly salvo:

“All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.” (Mary Leakey, Associated Press, December 10, 1996).

Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research: “Evolution is a fairy tail for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is still missing.” (G.K.Chesterton).

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK).

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission said, “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great conmen and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”
From http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-quotes.htm

Just off the top of my head I can tell you that Bounoure never uttered the quote attributed to him. As for Chesterton, IIRC, he was staunchly against materialistic evolution but seems to somewhat favor theistic evolution.

You are out gunned and out maneuvered.

Next time be sure not to point those guns at yourself

[rogue06]

Name a better one.

I'll turn to either philosophy or religion to try to answer questions dealing with "why" before I would science

[MaxVel]

Like hell I will. You said it wasn't the best, so give us a better one. Quit your dodging.

Or you could do the honorable thing, and admit you were wrong, that there isn't anything better.

You could do me the courtesy of not snipping what I wrote, and thus creating a strawman.

What I actually wrote was:

Sure, science is great, very useful in it's area of relevance, but it's not the all-round best method for determining the truth about everything.

Read it in the context of the statements I was responding to. I am denying the position: 'Science is the all-round best method for determining the truth about everything.'

All the words I've emphasized above are important to my meaning. Nowhere have I said that science is bad, or not useful.


If you think the above position is correct, feel free to support it, using science.



If you actually want to understand what I'm getting at, then read my post in full context, and read my discussion with Robertb above. If you really need things spelling out, IMHO there is no one 'all-round best method' for everything, there are different 'best methods' for different things.

[robertb]

I'll turn to either philosophy or religion to try to answer questions dealing with "why" before I would science

Like which, for example?

[Kane]

For atheists:

Is it your acceptance of the Theory of Evolution that leads to your disbelief in God (Intelligent DisignER), or is it your disbelief in God that leads to your acceptance of the Theory of Evolution?

When I was a Christian I was convinced of evolution. I continued to be Christian. My deconversion had nothing to do with the origins of material and life. Now I'm an atheist and I'm still convinced of evolution.

[shunyadragon]

I think if you'd carefully read what I wrote you'd see that I didn't deny that the scientific method is very useful in it's field.

There were some confusing qualifiers in some of your previous posts that made this unclear.

No need, since that is not what I'm talking about.


Does science give us knowledge about everything that can be known? Is science the best way of getting knowledge in all cases?

The problem I had with this is that in your response to lao tzu, who did not claim science answered all questions, did not reflect his post. As a matter of fact not many people, even hard core physicalists and atheists claim that science is ' the best way of getting knowledge [U]in all cases.' The haedest line is science answers the important questions that need to be answered.

Does science assume certain metaphysical positions to operate? If so, is it not foolish to place science over philosophy in every respect? Would it not be better to recognize that each has it's role in informing us about reality?

The highlighted is a loaded question. Actually, in the philosophy of science assumptions of science do address some 'metaphysical positions.' First it has the assumption that science cannot address the 'metaphysical why? questions, and questions concerning theistic intentionality. Second, science assumes a neutral position concerning the assumption of 'scientific naturalism.' Because of the close parallel to 'philosophical naturalism'; and 'physicalism,' many traditional theists question the distinction.

The question of intentionality, and the theistic belief in the necessity of 'theistic intentionality does create an underlying rift between science and traditional beliefs. When it comes to physicalists and naturalists they will naturally reject 'theistic intentionality,' which follows 'scientific naturalism' extending the neutral position to physicalist belief that there is no such thing as [theistic] intentionality.

There is an alternative from the philosophical naturalist perspective, which I will address in the next post called 'Natural Intentionality.'

[Whag]

I'll turn to either philosophy or religion to try to answer questions dealing with "why" before I would science

What "Why" questions has it answered for you? I think the overall point is that science has a much larger data set to work with, therefore it has produced far more answers that philosophy and religion, which are very personal and esoteric fields of study.