Theory of Evolution and Belief in God

[robertb]

Your comments imply a metaphysical position: That only 'empirically verified results' count as knowledge; or perhaps, less strongly that 'verified empirical results' are a better source of knowledge than other methods.

Since you haven't been able to produce a set of empirically verified results to support this position it fails by it's own criteria, and thus can be rejected.

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. The scientific method rests on a number of metaphysical commitments that can only be supported by 'rational arguments'.

What would you propose to be the "all-round best method for determining the truth about everything", or alternatively, what method/s would you propose to determine the truth about anything?

[Tassman]

Your comments imply a metaphysical position: That only 'empirically verified results' count as knowledge; or perhaps, less strongly that 'verified empirical results' are a better source of knowledge than other methods.

The latter! 'Verified empirical results' are demonstrably a better source of knowledge than other methods. One has only to compare the immense advances in knowledge and technology brought about by scientific methodology vis-à-vis metaphysical techniques to understand this.

Since you haven't been able to produce a set of empirically verified results to support this position it fails by it's own criteria, and thus can be rejected.

Not quite. Once again, one only has to compare what scientific methodology has produced compared with metaphysical arguments to understand which the more effective method is.

There are vast numbers of empirically verified results supporting the basic tenets of every established scientific theory from Evolution to Quantum Mechanics. Conversely, there is no verified evidence supporting the philosophical notions under discussion.

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. The scientific method rests on a number of metaphysical commitments that can only be supported by 'rational arguments'.

So you keep insisting, but this is not so! Methodological Naturalism is an epistemology with a procedural protocol capable of producing empirically tested results. Conversely, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and is not capable of producing empirically tested results and subject to being overturned if empirically verified results reveal the “rational arguments” supporting the metaphysical commitments to be wrong. Witness the Aristotelian metaphysics being overturned by Galileo re the Heliocentric Universe vis-à-vis the Geocentric Universe of Aristotle.

[little_monkey]

The scientific method rests on a number of metaphysical commitments that can only be supported by 'rational arguments'.

Excellent.

I would rather have a method based on "rational" arguments than one based on "irrational" arguments. ;-)

OTOH, those rational arguments are also tempered by empirical means, which you omitted and needs to be emphasized.

[Whag]

Your comments imply a metaphysical position: That only 'empirically verified results' count as knowledge; or perhaps, less strongly that 'verified empirical results' are a better source of knowledge than other methods.

Since you haven't been able to produce a set of empirically verified results to support this position it fails by it's own criteria, and thus can be rejected.

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. The scientific method rests on a number of metaphysical commitments that can only be supported by 'rational arguments'.

What truths have the Holy Roman Catholic church or islam revealed that eclipse what science has revealed? I can't think of one truth religious institutions have revealed besides their metaphysical religious claims.

[Whag]

I think you're confusing the way I'm using "religious-like." I'm not using it to define evolution itself, which is why I use the term along with other words such as "defense," "apologetic," etc. Substitute the word with "passionate" like you did before if it helps clarify it.

I think you don't really know what your point is. The way some atheists treat Jorge simply bugs you, and that's okay. It just doesn't shed light on your claim that most atheists accept evolution after deconversion.

[magellan004]

The latter! 'Verified empirical results' are demonstrably a better source of knowledge than other methods. One has only to compare the immense advances in knowledge and technology brought about by scientific methodology vis-à-vis metaphysical techniques to understand this.

Assuming by 'better' you mean morally- you only have this knowledge of 'science' because of the source of moral knowledge . So the source of moral knowledge gives you knowledge about other knowledge systems . (About all systems really). So that moral system is superior to all others.

Magellan

[Whag]

Assuming by 'better' you mean morally- you only have this knowledge of 'science' because of the source of moral knowledge . So the source of moral knowledge gives you knowledge about other knowledge systems . (About all systems really). So that moral system is superior to all others.

Magellan

No, that moral system began with child sacrifice and stonings and gradually evolved to be the nice church we see today. That's largely due to the enlightenment. Islam had its enlightenment and swapped it for something else entirely.

[magellan004]

You are highly selective in what you regard as evidence. The dependence of modern biology on Evolution has been outlined many times in these forums, including by me.

Re the bolded: Your breezy dismissal and dishonest trivialization smacks of the sort of 'denial' common among certain theists around here. The game seems to be to ignore what has been previously presented and persist with the same old ‘amused’ assertions with an air of “I know better”.

In fact you do not. You cannot defend your objections to Evolutionary theory, merely smear it.

"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella..." "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." - Theodosius Dobzhansky

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

"The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case. Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community....."

".....Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir."

The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories. Until scientific creationists formulate a scientific theory, and submit it for testing, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas. Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not....."

"...Science is based on an open and honest look at the data. Much of creationism is built on dishonest debating techniques and special pleading for a case the data does not support. Science belongs in science classes. Evolution is science. Creationism is not".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

Post 93: Statement 1:

but if you are asking how Evolution advances human knowledge well for one, modern biology is dependent upon evolutionary theory.

Post 111: Statement 2:

Whenever I have asked for more information about the dependency between biology and evolution it turns out that biology depends on understanding that parents have children. That seems to pass as Evolution.

Post 115:

Your breezy dismissal and dishonest trivialization smacks of the sort of 'denial' common among certain theists around here. The game seems to be to ignore what has been previously presented and persist with the same old ‘amused’ assertions with an air of “I know better”.

In fact you do not. You cannot defend your objections to Evolutionary theory, merely smear it.

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

You are out gunned and out maneuvered.

Magellan

[seanD]

I think you don't really know what your point is. The way some atheists treat Jorge simply bugs you, and that's okay. It just doesn't shed light on your claim that most atheists accept evolution after deconversion.

It doesn’t bother me at all because it weakens the argument. It does bother me that Jorge himself resorts to it in return. But Jorge doing it certainly doesn’t bother me nearly as much as when Christians do it to skeptics in defense of Christianity -- I regret myself when I resort to it -- and it becomes even more embarrassing when it’s done in packs than when it’s just one-on-one. I think I made my point pretty clear; I think it’s just you don’t agree with my point or you’re overly offended by the fact I used “religious-like” instead of passionate… or perhaps you’re just pretty dense. And more than me making a claim, I’m sort of riding the current of the OP and choosing one of the two options he made available; but I realize it’s in a general sense. I think the other option is much less likely, particularly in face of the rise of TE. There are many nuances and variables to why we do what we do and every person is different, but the OP options didn’t provide that type of detail.

[shunyadragon]

What truths have the Holy Roman Catholic church or islam revealed that eclipse what science has revealed? I can't think of one truth religious institutions have revealed besides their metaphysical religious claims.

There are Baha'i principles relating to science that are modern and enlightening concerning the relationship between religion and science and descriptive of the rapid advancement of science since 1844. The Baha'i principle of the Harmony of Science and Religion recognizes that the ever advancing knowledge of science takes priority concerning the interpretation of scripture concerning the scripture of all religions, including the Baha'i writings, concerning the knowledge of the nature of our physical existence. The role of religion is to provide guidance to the application of scientific knowledge for the advancement of humanity.

Baha'i scripture is also the first to acknowledge that humanity itself is capable of destroying our environment or saving it.


There are several quotes from the mid eighteen hundreds that can qualify as eclipsing what science has revealed by foreknowledge. The best example is cited as follows . . .

Split the atom’s heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.

Seven Valleys and Four Valleys by Baha'u'llah

[lao tzu]

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.

Name a better one.

[Tassman]

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

You are out gunned and out maneuvered.

Magellan

Your ridicule backfires because nothing can alter the fact that Evolution is an established and productive scientific theory and regarded as such by the AAAS:

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/...on/qanda.shtml

“The consensus among scientists in many fields, and especially those who study the subject, is that contemporary evolutionary theory provides a robust, well-tested explanation for the history of life on earth and for the similarity within the diversity of existing organisms. Very few scientists doubt that evolution happened…..”

“Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory…”

“Intelligent design necessarily presupposes that there is an "intelligent designer" outside of nature who, from the beginning or from time to time, inserts design into the world around us. But whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious faith rather than a scientifically testable question”.

PLUS, there are scores of major national and international scientific associations that consider ID to be religiously based and not in any way scientific – as per link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lligent_design

Yes there are some mavericks such as you’ve dredged up like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort. But not even Christians take them seriously anymore - Plus some desparate and partisan Creationist websites such as: TrueNews org But they are cranks and none of them have come up with alternative scientific theories to Evolution and nor do they practice true science.

[MaxVel]

Name a better one.

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

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

[robertb]

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

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

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.

[shunyadragon]

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

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

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 will ask the question again.

Can you demonstrate a better one.