Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is the Theory of Evolution a religion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    Yes, as I said. He regards faith in evolution as a part of a list of religious positions different from his own. Pretty clearly, he casts the theory of evolution in religious and not scientific terms.
    As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past, there are TWO 'evolutions' - one is scientific and the other is metaphysics/religion. "Allele frequencies in populations change" is SCIENCE - it is testable, observable and verifiable. On the other hand, "life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science - are beliefs based mostly on a religious ideology (Materialism). There is a huge amount of (true) science that does not support these beliefs.

    PLEASE try to grab a clue ... God knows that I've tossed many clues your way.

    Jorge
    Last edited by Jorge; 02-02-2014, 05:55 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past, there are TWO 'evolutions' - one is scientific and the other is metaphysics/religion. "Allele frequencies in populations change" is SCIENCE - it is testable, observable and verifiable. On the other hand, "life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science - are beliefs based mostly on a religious ideology (Materialism). There is a huge amount of (true) science that does not support these beliefs.

      PLEASE try to grab a clue ... God knows that I've tossed many clues your way.

      Jorge
      I'd have thought that a change in allele frequencies in populations is as much "materialism" as is the idea that tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish. The latter is all about change in allele frequencies too.

      Have you ever watched the allele frequency of a population change Jorge, such that you know that God can be removed from the explanation? And did you know that we can indeed test the idea that tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish? We can repeatedly test the idea. The idea is as observable as is the idea that the earth has a semi-molten core. I don't see you running around accusing geophysicists of being religious because they claim to have evidence for the semi molten state of the earth's core.

      And are you sure that God actually agrees with your "clues", or do you merely think that he does?


      In short.

      Your arguments against ToE need to be logical and consistent. I feel certain that God would feel very poorly about your ability to argue your case, should he exist.
      Last edited by rwatts; 02-02-2014, 06:09 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        I like what you've done with your name, watts ... er, rwatts ... it's very slimming.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past, there are TWO 'evolutions' - one is scientific and the other is metaphysics/religion.
          You seem to be the only person on the web who offers up this 'two evolutions' idea. Certainly no one with even a rudimentary understanding of science agrees with you (and posts about it). That doesn't bode well for your pet idea spreading very far.

          "Allele frequencies in populations change" is SCIENCE - it is testable, observable and verifiable. On the other hand, "life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science - are beliefs based mostly on a religious ideology (Materialism).
          How would you do science without relying 100% on materialism? Can you offer any examples? Praying for your grant proposal to be funded doesn't count of course.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
            You seem to be the only person on the web who offers up this 'two evolutions' idea. Certainly no one with even a rudimentary understanding of science agrees with you (and posts about it). That doesn't bode well for your pet idea spreading very far.



            -snip*
            Actually, G.A. Kerkut has divided evolution into two categories. He does so in the book "Implications of Evolution". Here's the quote.

            “There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

            So, do you consider him to be someone with a "rudimentary understanding of science"?

            *Yes, I snipped out the part about prayer, it didn't really have any relevance to my response.

            ETA: Oops, here's a link to his full work. It's available free here. http://archive.org/stream/implicatio...0kerk_djvu.txt

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Actually, G.A. Kerkut has divided evolution into two categories. He does so in the book "Implications of Evolution". Here's the quote.

              “There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

              So, do you consider him to be someone with a "rudimentary understanding of science"?

              *Yes, I snipped out the part about prayer, it didn't really have any relevance to my response.

              ETA: Oops, here's a link to his full work. It's available free here. http://archive.org/stream/implicatio...0kerk_djvu.txt
              I can see several glaring errors in Kerkut's understanding easily. One is he lumps common descent with OOL and calls them both evolutionary theory. That is flat out wrong. Another is the claim that we don't understand how lots of microevolution can add up to macroevolution. A third is the false claim that ToE is thought correct because nothing else can take its place.

              Given those three big misunderstandings of the basics I'd have to conclude he doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of science, at least not the science that supports evolutionary theory.

              As to the second part of Jorge's claim: can you give us a way to do science without relying 100% on materialism?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                As I've stated umpteen times on TWeb in the past..."life emerged naturally" and "every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is NOT science...There is a huge amount of (true) science that does not support these beliefs...
                Actually, both claims seem very testable, and look like good empirical hypotheses. "Life emerged naturally" certainly points toward a research program that gives enouh handholds for science, and there is a lot of research on exactly this subject. "Every living thing today proceeds from a single unicellular ancestor" is actually quite well corroborated, although I think the proposition is too simplistic concerning the earliest life.

                Neither of these claims imply any theological or metaphysical viewpoint. They do not refute creation; any natural event can be wholly ascribed to God. If you're looking for an evolution-derived worldview on metaphysics, I think you're barking up the wrong tree, and would do better to read Ruse's articles on evolution as a 'secular religion', which are about another matter entirely.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  I can see several glaring errors in Kerkut's understanding easily. One is he lumps common descent with OOL and calls them both evolutionary theory. That is flat out wrong. Another is the claim that we don't understand how lots of microevolution can add up to macroevolution. A third is the false claim that ToE is thought correct because nothing else can take its place.

                  Given those three big misunderstandings of the basics I'd have to conclude he doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of science, at least not the science that supports evolutionary theory.
                  Well, that work was written in 1960, and he died in 2004. He had a doctorate in zoology, and was the editor of at least two scientific journals. Did you at least look at the introduction in his book?

                  As for the first "error", for a long time abiogenesis was touted as "chemical evolution", and was(and often is) tied to evolutionary theory. To say otherwise is to deny history.

                  As for the second "error", was that information available in 1960?

                  As for the third "error", a quote from Lewontin would show that Kerkut is not the only one to think that way.

                  "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

                  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

                  The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."


                  As to the second part of Jorge's claim: can you give us a way to do science without relying 100% on materialism?
                  I snipped it for a reason, but I think that Lewontin actually answers it. Science doesn't demand reliance on materialism, only the a priori commitment of certain scientists demands it.

                  Oh, here's a few quotations from PZ Meyers, Jerry Coyne, and Sean Carrol about being able to detect the "supernatural" if the evidence was sufficient. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...ism-after-all/

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Well, that work was written in 1960, and he died in 2004. He had a doctorate in zoology, and was the editor of at least two scientific journals.
                    Doesn't change in the least the fact that he was wrong about the things in that paragraph you posted.
                    As for the first "error", for a long time abiogenesis was touted as "chemical evolution", and was(and often is) tied to evolutionary theory. To say otherwise is to deny history.
                    Only to Biblical Creationists, not to anyone in the real scientific community.

                    As for the second "error", was that information available in 1960?
                    We're not in 1960 anymore Toto.

                    As for the third "error", a quote from Lewontin would show that Kerkut is not the only one to think that way.
                    Aah, the famous cite of Lewontin. Creations love that one. It still has nothing to do with Kerkut's third big error, claiming ToE is called correct only because there are no other possible explanations.


                    I snipped it for a reason, but I think that Lewontin actually answers it. Science doesn't demand reliance on materialism, only the a priori commitment of certain scientists demands it.
                    Then tell me how we do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                      Doesn't change in the least the fact that he was wrong about the things in that paragraph you posted.
                      Since he's not talking about Special Theory of Evolution in that paragraph, and he gave definitions for both it and General Theory of Evolution in his work, those were not "errors". He gives reasons for talking about the two separately.

                      Only to Biblical Creationists, not to anyone in the real scientific community.
                      False. Most often it was by the scientists promoting it. Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, and Nick Matzke are all supporting abiogenesis as part of evolution. Here's a link to an article by Matzke on the subject.

                      http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008...ritics-of.html

                      Here's a bit from the article on why taking OOL out of evolutionary theory is well, according to him "lazy"*.

                      "The second statement, splitting the OOL from evolutionary theory, is only technically correct in a sort of legalistic, hairsplitting way. Sure, it’s true that technically, “evolution” only happens once you have life, or at least replicators, but getting from replicators to the last common ancestor is most of what most people think about when they’re thinking about the origin of life, i.e., “where did the evolutionary ancestor of all life today come from?” and all of that is evolution all the way. Furthermore, even the origin of the first classical “replicator” was itself very likely an evolutionary process, in that it occurred in stepwise fashion and not all-at-once, and that the first replicator was likely preceded by various sorts of pseudoreplication, statistical inheritance and kinetic biases. If you remove evolution from your thinking about the origin of the first replicator then it is very likely you will never understand how it happened, or what the current research on the question is about. Finally, even apart from these detailed considerations, “evolution” reasonably has a broader meaning – the evolution of the universe, the solar system, the planet, and the planet’s geochemistry, and the origin of life and the origin of the first replicator must be understood as part of that larger evolutionary history.

                      One other telling point is that the statement “but the OOL is outside of evolutionary theory” response also has the problem of simply dodging the hard work of describing the discoveries and work of modern science, a problem I have already described. In conclusion, if it were up to me, I would completely scrap this statement from the rhetorical toolkit of evolution defenders."

                      We're not in 1960 anymore Toto.
                      I point that out since that's when the book "Implications of Evolution" was written. So your "error" just might be due to Kerkut's book being outdated.

                      Aah, the famous cite of Lewontin. Creations love that one. It still has nothing to do with Kerkut's third big error, claiming ToE is called correct only because there are no other possible explanations.
                      It actually does, since there are people who believe the same way. Also, it was specifically speaking of GTE, not STE. If you had at least looked at the differences between the two, and Kerkut's reason for the categories, you would realize that.

                      Then tell me how we do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism.
                      Like I said, I snipped it for a reason.
                      With this I think I am out of this thread. I probably shouldn't have interacted as much as I did. Things haven't been so great with my Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, and the local weather has made the situation worse.

                      *He doesn't call it lazy in the quoted area. He does so earlier in the article.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        Things haven't been so great with my Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, and the local weather has made the situation worse.
                        So sorry to hear that. Best wishes and hoping that your discomfort is just temporary so you will be able to continue to contribute to the forum.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          So sorry to hear that. Best wishes and hoping that your discomfort is just temporary so you will be able to continue to contribute to the forum.
                          Thanks. I am a moderator here, so I will be on fairly regularly. Right now though, I need a break from anything serious. I'm sure you understand.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Science does not, strictly, rely on materialism (or naturalism/physicalism/reductionism, whatever); it is possible to be strongly anti-materialist and do good science. Isaac Newton being one example.

                            Science relies on methodological materialism (usually: methodological naturalism). When Lewontin talks about the aim "to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations," he clearly refers to the methods of science, not a prescribed metaphysical idea that all scientists must believe in.
                            Last edited by Jonathandavid; 02-02-2014, 12:34 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                              I like what you've done with your name, watts ... er, rwatts ... it's very slimming.
                              Ahhh yes, lao tzu.


                              When I first joined TWeb all those years ago, I tried to use "rwatts", but the system would not let me. I attempted to use "wattsr", but again failed. So I ended up at "wattsr1". IIRC, I also attempted "rjw" without success.

                              This time, given the need for everyone to re-register, I attempted the "rwatts" and so here I am.

                              It's amazing how many folk get my name correct when they ask "What's your name?". I will sometimes reply "yes", only to be shown a very puzzled look. Only one requestor has ever gotten the joke, and that was last year.
                              Last edited by rwatts; 02-02-2014, 01:16 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                                You seem to be the only person on the web who offers up this 'two evolutions' idea.
                                Maybe that's because I'm the only person on the web who has thought about it (I don't believe that but it's possible). In any event, my idea is as clear as it is demonstrable. However, nothing may be clear or demonstrable to a person that has 'tuned-out'. Are you one of those?

                                Certainly no one with even a rudimentary understanding of science agrees with you (and posts about it). That doesn't bode well for your pet idea spreading very far.
                                If you say so.


                                How would you do science without relying 100% on materialism? Can you offer any examples? Praying for your grant proposal to be funded doesn't count of course.
                                Your questions indicate a naive, rudimentary and prejudiced understanding of the subject. First you have to qualify the "science" that you speak of. Operational science is exactly the same for every person, be that person Atheist-Humanist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian (of any type) or any other metaphysical position or worldview.

                                Examples: gravity operates the same for everyone; F=ma applies the same for everyone; E = mc2 is the same; sodium and chlorine combine in the same manner to form table salt (NaCl) and so on and so on. Are you getting any of this? I hope so. Finally, it is an observable, testable, demonstrable fact that allele frequencies change over time in all populations. THAT 'evolution' is science. I refer to that as "Evolution 1" and it is factual and the same for everyone.

                                Now let's look at "Evolution 2". Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that all extant species today emerged from a single unicellular ancestor that lived billions of years ago? No, of course not. Is it observable, testable and demonstrable that life of any type may emerge from inert matter? No, it is not!

                                Despite all efforts from countless scientists over centuries, life has never been observed to emerge from anything other than preexisting life. Before you get your panties bundled into a wad, abiogenesis is indeed a part of Evolution 2 (the Materialistic version of Evolution) since where else could life have come from? Thus, Evolution 2 is NOT science, despite the fanatical claims of its proponents. You wouldn't be one of those, would you? Evolution 2 is part of a belief system, not of proper science.

                                No charge for the lesson ... not this time.

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X