MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:20 |
 
|
| Brad wrote: | | In no other field of science are theories postulated and accepted due to lack of alternate hypothesis. |
Is that so? I'm no scientist, but my impression has been rather the opposite. For example, the functions of different parts of the brains seems to be more or less educated guesses so far. Historical cause and effect seems like a tricky things to prove. The reasons behind global warming, development of a mountain or the fall of Rome can't be easily compared to a math problem.
And if I suggest Rome was razed by a spaghetti monster, people expect me to give a reason for that belief, beyond mere faith. |
|
|
IRSWalker
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:23 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | | Um...... no...... That's exactly what I said. No disproof exists, therefore it is not a theory. |
Sorry, Macavity, I know you're getting tired with this. But I did have to haul you back on this one.
All scientific theories and laws are unproven. Similarly, all current ones have yet to be disproven. A theory for which no disproof exists is exactly a theory. A theory for which one does exist is a pile of useless paper.
Karl Popper drew a distinction between theories that are falsifiable, which are genuine science, and those that are not, which can be termed ideologies.
So, I can have a theory that Macavity loves pie. Since there is nothing that he can do to disprove this, even denying himself pie for the rest of his life under strict observation, then I can just argue that he is a very strong-willed pie lover. Since it is not falsifiable, by Popper's standards, this is not a theory, and is an ideology or belief. I can form the United Western Church Of Macavity Piephliic Evangelists. But I can't lay claim to the Law of Macavity Pie-Loving.
Conversely, I could instead have a theory that Macavity, in fact, hates cheesecake. All Macavity has to do is munch a big slice of cheesecake, under scientific observation, and my theory is in tatters. Over time, if he refuses to undergo this test, the observational weight behind my theory grows. Eventually, it is considered by the majority of the scientific community that the Theory of Macavity Cheesecakephobia is a valid tool to study the observable universe.
What happens if someone else decides that Macavity hates blueberry, raspberry, gooseberry and chocolate cheesecake? Again, this is falsifiable, and so it is a theory. Why would a scientist prefer my theory to this one? Well, if he never eats any cheesecake, then we use Occam's Razor to cut away the irrelevant part of the theory - in this case the flavour of cheesecake is irrelevant.
Now, at some point in the future, someone else discovers that Macavity will in fact eat cheesecake, but only if it is served as a 0.001 degree slice of a 400km diameter cake. What this new discovery has shown is that I made the false assumption that the size of the cake slice did not matter. Almost all scientific discoveries come about through challenging the assumptions of another theory. This is the way that science grows, and I would not be discarded as a failure, but seen as a pinoeer of Macavitocheesecakology who paved the way for this future discovery. A similar example is that of Newtonian gravity, which is now known to be only a simplification of Einsteinian general relativity, for the trivial cases of travelling less than 99% of the speed of light at a reasonable distance from a supermassive object, or in other words "nearly all the time". Newtonian gravity will still get you to the Moon, Mars, or Jupiter, and to attempt the equations in relativity would probably have your brain dribbling out of your ears.
So here we have poor old evolutionary theory, which has quite properly been revised and updated as scientists over the years have challenged the odd assumption here or there. It is falsifiable, simply find a creature on Earth that can be shown categorically not to have evolved from the same algae that everything else apparently did.
Up against it we have the theory of Intelligent Design. Quite simply, it's not falsifiable, and so is not science. This was the criterion that Judge William Overton used, so I'm not alone on that one. It is an ideology, a belief. |
|
|
Brad
Joined: May 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:26 |
|
| torsoboy wrote: | | It is the pretense of creationists to infringe on a field which biologists have worked really hard on, and the claim for equal status for a flawed theory time and again after it has been shown it's not worthy of further scientific enquiry, and the willful ignorance of creationists to scientific research, that is insulting to scientists; not just biologists but others, including me. |
"...Pretense of creationists to infirnge..."
- I find this comment quite commical. Biology would infringe on the fields of Theology and Sociology by declaring any "Creator" attatched to Creation impotent, and not worth the Title. Biology is not only trying to infringe, but destroy entire fields of study, and belief.
"...which biologists have worked really hard on,..."
- I'm not denying their hard work. And in many areas I appreciate the work they are doing. But I also appreciate the works Newton and Einstein did - giving good frameworks that we still work with today, but still needing refinements as new fields of study emerge.
"...claim for equal status for a flawed theory time and again after it has been shown it's not worthy of further scientific enquiry..."
- 'Proven' by evolutionary scientists. This charge is levelled repeatedly by people on both sides, with neither acknowedging the work done by the other. Unfortunately even science, and scientists, start with preconceptions - it is neccessary to begin with what is 'known', to evaluate what is not. As long as evolutionists hold "There is no God - therefore no creator - therefore no creationism - therefore no creation - therefore no God" they will never acknowledge the work done by creationists. Creationists can at least acknowledge some of the work done by evolutionists, where it is not dependanty upon the preconception of God's non existance.
"...and the willful ignorance of creationists to scientific research, that is insulting to scientists..."
- Please don't assume creationists are simply ignorant. If we were as misinformed as you seem to imply, would evolutionists still be debating this point? What is the point of arguing with the ignorant - as one fumbbl coach states "Never argue with an idiot - they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" - No some evolutionists, some scientists, still believe that creationists have something to contribute, even if it is only as a sounding board for them to refine their own views from. Whatever creationists are - especially those who can hold their own in this debate - is not ignorant. |
_________________
He who dies with the most toys.... Is still dead |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:30 |
|
| Brad wrote: | | The theory of evolution stands apart from this, in that it cannot be mathematically quantified (and any attempts fall far short), and there are massive holes in the theory - that "we don't know all the answers yet" (Sounds very familiar to the charge leveled against Christians / Creationists). Yet the Theory of evolution still stands as Science's champion - not because of its infallability - as its not, nor its concrete proof - for there is none - but because of lack of acceptable alternative. For in accepting the alternative, creationism, one must accept a creator. |
To me, Dawkins made quite a convincing attempt on quantifying a specific part of evolution theory in chapter 7 of his book 'The Extended Phenotype', in which he argued that genes are the main benefactor (not the organism itself) of the wasp's behavior strategy, using statistics. Now, I suppose some will argue, 'yes, but that isn't what evolution is about, or that isn't a quantification of evolution theory'. The definition of theory as I've learnt it is: A statement about the natural world, from which useful hypotheses can be derived and tested. Which is exactly what Dawkins has done.
Now, your last sentence in that part that I quoted is also most interesting to me, because it looks like it must be so that IF evolution is wrong, THEN creationism has to be correct. Which is utterly false. One does not say, IF Newton was wrong, THEN Einstein has to be correct. A hypothesis does not gain credit by the rejection of another hypothesis. Rather, it is tested and found to be true or false. As I've read a tiny bit of Dawkin's work, I can see there are many hypotheses are tested, and many are found to be incorrect.
It is the danger of postulating creastionism as an equally valid counterpart that leads to opinions such as yourself. I cannot stress it enough: evolution theory CAN be falsified, and falsification of certain parts of the evolution theory does not mean that another theory HAS to be correct. An acceptable alternative theory does not exist yet, because it would soon become THE theory to which the scientific community would adhere, if it's more useful than the theory of evolution. There is no alternative theory to be found in creationism, because creationism isn't science.
There is concrete proof of evolution by means of natural selection. You are just flat out ignoring it. What are the massive holes in the evolution theory? There are a whole bunch of "we don't know all the answers yet" in any scientific field. Does that invalidate all of science? If so, there's no more discussion to be have. If not, then why does it invalidate evolution theory, but not other fields? |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:42 |
|
Brad,
you accuse evolution to be untested: you should have red the previous post of CircularLogic who told us about the field of artificial evolution.
So, it is being tested. And just because it can't be modeled mathmatically...
You probably do know that it has been PROVEN that some things can't be proven by maths (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). So, your postulate that maths is needed for a scientific theory is rather weak, and not a great way to "attack" evolution.
You also said:
| Quote: | ... Yet the Theory of evolution still stands as Science's champion -... For in accepting the alternative, creationism, one must accept a creator.
|
Don't be more Catholic than the Pope, mate.
from
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
| His Holiness John Paul II wrote: | | Today... new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. |
You continue to keep on this "fight" that only seem to be important in areas that were colonized by the British (or stem from colonies of the British). I wonder why that was never brought into the discussion - i have yet to see a defender of creationism who was not from Canada, the USA or Australia.
I postulate: It is not about science, but is a problem deeply seated in the protestant sects/churches of christianity that have their roots in England. Probably some kind of inferiortiy complex against the larger christian churches. So, leave us Orthodox, Catholics and Lutherans alone with it (and of course all non-christians as well), and discuss it with some Anglicans.
Edit:
IRSWalker, thanks, that was a very good post. I hope you don't mind if i steal/cite parts of it  |
Last edited by f_alk on %b %07, %2006 - %14:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wizard
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:44 |
|
Is it just me.
Or has religion been the cause
of nearly all wars
A nation made of hatred
is taken by force
Any place they can afford
in the name of the lord
And had a backpacker
hijack a concorde
Theres a fued going on
and if you choose to fight in it
Expect your going to lose
all sight of your enlightenment
God and his will wouldn't have you hurt your enemies
because every kill takes you further from serenity
The penalty is never ever having tranquility
Every man and woman is born
with the ability to fill in the gaps for themselves
for happiness dwells
in the untapped wells of the heart
of every human being
and its been there from the start
no matter how stupid
no matter how smart
no matter what colour
or nationality
GOD LIVES WITHIN
or Is it just me? |
_________________
"As long as one person lives in darkness then it seems to be a responsibility to tell other people." |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 14:56 |
|
| Brad wrote: |
"...Pretense of creationists to infirnge..."
- I find this comment quite commical. Biology would infringe on the fields of Theology and Sociology by declaring any "Creator" attatched to Creation impotent, and not worth the Title. Biology is not only trying to infringe, but destroy entire fields of study, and belief. |
Biologists use the scientific method to make statements about the natural world, in which a creator happens to have no involvement. Creationists do not use the scientific method, and make also statements of the natural world. These statements (by creationists) cannot be backed up by any research. Rather, they are driven by a religious agenda.
Do biologists have an atheist agenda of the same kind? I would think not. There is no presupposition that there is no god, therefor we have to make evolution theory work. It's the other way round. Evolution theory has been found to be mostly correct, therefore it is very unlikely that a creator had any deal of this life thing.
| Brad wrote: | "...claim for equal status for a flawed theory time and again after it has been shown it's not worthy of further scientific enquiry..."
- 'Proven' by evolutionary scientists. This charge is levelled repeatedly by people on both sides, with neither acknowedging the work done by the other. Unfortunately even science, and scientists, start with preconceptions - it is neccessary to begin with what is 'known', to evaluate what is not. As long as evolutionists hold "There is no God - therefore no creator - therefore no creationism - therefore no creation - therefore no God" they will never acknowledge the work done by creationists. Creationists can at least acknowledge some of the work done by evolutionists, where it is not dependanty upon the preconception of God's non existance. |
Refer to what I've just written above. It's not just evolutionists, either. I would say Epicurus could not have been an evolutionist, yet he was the one to point out the god vs evil paradox. Your point that everybody does have to have a foundation to start from, I agree with. It just happens to be so that evolutionists start from a better foundation that creationists. Not all preconceptions are equal. A claim that gravity really works would make a much stronger case than the claim that god exists, for example.
| Brad wrote: | "...and the willful ignorance of creationists to scientific research, that is insulting to scientists..."
- Please don't assume creationists are simply ignorant. If we were as misinformed as you seem to imply, would evolutionists still be debating this point? What is the point of arguing with the ignorant - as one fumbbl coach states "Never argue with an idiot - they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" - No some evolutionists, some scientists, still believe that creationists have something to contribute, even if it is only as a sounding board for them to refine their own views from. Whatever creationists are - especially those who can hold their own in this debate - is not ignorant. |
This is exactly the reason that Dawkins refuses to debate creationists. If he does, he is lending them credibility. If he doesn't, they will call him "scared", or dogmatic, or whatever. I am debating this, because it is a fun passtime for me (yes, I do enjoy this). |
|
|
DrDiscoStu
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 15:07 |
|
I am currently studying philosophy at university and have done a small amount of work on this subject. I came in here expecting idiocy but actually find debate. Due to the fact that torsoboy seems to know more about this than me (and be correct) so I cannot be bothered making an actual argument.
Other than to reiterate the fact that you can debate the scientific values of evolution all you like, but creationism has nothing to do with science. Scientific theories take evidence to form a conclusion. Creationists take a conclusion and look for evidence to support it, and you'd be surprised what you can make look passable when you take this approach. But this approach is not science. |
_________________
Check out my fishing and camping blog.
The Black Pearl Bounty-Board.
GUARD CONQUERS ALL! |
|
DrDiscoStu
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 15:08 |
|
I am currently studying philosophy at university and have done a small amount of work on this subject. I came in here expecting idiocy but actually find debate. Due to the fact that torsoboy seems to know more about this than me (and be correct) so I cannot be bothered making an actual argument.
Other than to reiterate the fact that you can debate the scientific values of evolution all you like, but creationism has nothing to do with science. Scientific theories take evidence to form a conclusion. Creationists take a conclusion and look for evidence to support it, and you'd be surprised what you can make look passable when you take this approach. But this approach is not science. |
_________________
Check out my fishing and camping blog.
The Black Pearl Bounty-Board.
GUARD CONQUERS ALL! |
|
IRSWalker
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 15:11 |
|
| f_alk wrote: |
IRSWalker, thanks, that was a very good post. I hope you don't mind if i steal/cite parts of it |
No problem! If every science degree was required to contain a module or two of philosophy, then we wouldn't even be having this debate. I took one because I thought there might be prettier girls than in the Physics department (not true), but it made me a much better scientist because it improved the clarity of my mental vision. |
|
|
Brad
Joined: May 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 15:17 |
|
| torsoboy wrote: | A hypothesis does not gain credit by the rejection of another hypothesis. Rather, it is tested and found to be true or false. As I've read a tiny bit of Dawkin's work, I can see there are many hypotheses are tested, and many are found to be incorrect.
It is the danger of postulating creastionism as an equally valid counterpart that leads to opinions such as yourself. I cannot stress it enough: evolution theory CAN be falsified, and falsification of certain parts of the evolution theory does not mean that another theory HAS to be correct. An acceptable alternative theory does not exist yet, because it would soon become THE theory to which the scientific community would adhere, if it's more useful than the theory of evolution. There is no alternative theory to be found in creationism, because creationism isn't science.
There is concrete proof of evolution by means of natural selection. You are just flat out ignoring it. What are the massive holes in the evolution theory? There are a whole bunch of "we don't know all the answers yet" in any scientific field. Does that invalidate all of science? If so, there's no more discussion to be have. If not, then why does it invalidate evolution theory, but not other fields? |
The entire debate over weather evolution or creation can be falsified pivots on evolutionists claiming that some piece of evidence <i>could</i> come forward (Typically some animal proven not to have evolved from the same goop). But their ideology says that such a proof has not come forward. The claim is made that nothing has come forward to disprove, but could theoretically do so - thus it is falsifiable, and thus they can justifiably call it a theory.
This leads me onto your second request - of what are these flaws.
Lets start with the controversial concept of irraducable complexity. IE - an ear needs hammer and drum, an auditory nerve to function, yet neither is useful without the other - thus all 3 must have evolved simultaneously - a massive challenge to Darwin's slow evolution theory. This is but one of hundreds of examples. Although Behe has identified many possible flaws in a sense that it merely complicates, but does not disprove evolution, it has forced a rethink of the already tenuous evolutionary pathways needed for evolution.
Secondly Flood Geology causes problems for long earth periods neccessary for evolution. Objects crossing multiple strata challenge the view of multiple ELE in earth's history, impacting upon much of pre-historic time
Thirdly, DNA mutation, as observed, has never resulted in addition to the number of chromosomes, resulting in breedable offspring, only ever reduction. The generation of 1 chromosome would be against scientific observation - to generate 23 paired new chromosomes would be 46 events that are against what we have observed of science. Science is relying upon a pattern of events they have not observed even one of.
There is the the clockmaker argument, cosmological arguments about the chance formation of oxygen/hydrogen rich atmospheres which would even allow biology to form. Cosmological arguments even about where this matter would have come from.
You may disagree with the theories, but one cannot say that creationists are the only ones who are ignoring evidence. (What specific evidence are evolutionists bringing to the table and claiming to be concrete by the way?) |
_________________
He who dies with the most toys.... Is still dead |
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 15:22 |
|
It's so not fair to play against scientists. I think it should not be part of the game! We, the masses, have no chance against your superior super powers of deduction and debating!
Graah! |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 15:26 |
|
All you present is a "god in the gaps" approach. Especially the things that has been misnomed "irreducable complexity": It has been shown that the the bacteria flagellum (another of the "irereducibles") indeed can be reduced, and without the tail serves as a great ion pump. Just because we don't know how earlier or part-only versions were useful doesn't mean that these versions were unuseful. Also, biology is past that concept anyway: there is ONE gene that creates eyes. Theis gene is a gene that controls the readout of other sequences. If you change these other sequences, then the eyes look different. The fact that there are control genes and "subordinate" genes hasn't made it to the creationists yet.
All other "arguments" that you bring also have been refuted time and time and time and time and time and time again by science, scientists, philosophy and philosphers. |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 15:49 |
|
Man, I leave for a few hours and we go right back to the crap from the beginning.... Having problems with the Science of Evolution does not lump one in with ANYTHING automatically. I know hard-core athiests who do. So, I respond to IRS on the basis that he's debating something worhtwhile.
@ IRS, I'm impressed! That's the closest anyone has come to a falsifying statement..... Seriously has taken asking a lot of people. My biology isn't perfect (which seems to be being used as an argument to ignore me) so explain further what that would look like. How in the world would you know where something came from, evolutionarily speaking? Categorically, one cannot prove something did not evolve wihtout a complete fossil record of all life. I'm still not convinced on this one, sorry m8. I WOULD like to keep discussing it, since it's been bugging me for 13 years or so. Can you flesh out the picture?
@Everyone and their dog. Creationism is not synonymous with 6-day creationism, or a 6000 year old earth. Give people a break.
@ f_alk "All other "arguments" that you bring also have been refuted time and time and time and time and time and time again by science, scientists, philosophy and philosphers." Is there a particular reason that this is still considered a debate in the philosophy courses I was taking 2 years ago? Refuted is a BIG claim to us philosophy types. If you are going to criticize my understanding of the history of science (which I'm enjoying), don't make claims about philosophy you have no back up for. If you do have back up, please direct me to the papers written refuting all arguments against evolution philosophically. Your talk of not needing to explain the in-between works fine for science (and needs to). It's not good philosophy.
Anyhoo, I'm breaking my own rule by posting at home. I'll get back to you tomorrow. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
xcver
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 16:03 |
|
actually there are some in germany. but that doesn't lend them more credibilty...
One question though: If everything was made by one creator than why has this been discovered so late. Monotheist religions are not that old (judaism and zorothaism) so why wouldn't a conscious being as a human not recognise the one creator and why wouldn't he show himself earlier than to abraham? Or why would the creator choose such an utterly stupid and long term process of ehhh "evolution" to create the species sapiens?
| f_alk wrote: | Brad,
you accuse evolution to be untested: you should have red the previous post of CircularLogic who told us about the field of artificial evolution.
So, it is being tested. And just because it can't be modeled mathmatically...
You probably do know that it has been PROVEN that some things can't be proven by maths (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). So, your postulate that maths is needed for a scientific theory is rather weak, and not a great way to "attack" evolution.
You also said:
| Quote: | ... Yet the Theory of evolution still stands as Science's champion -... For in accepting the alternative, creationism, one must accept a creator.
|
Don't be more Catholic than the Pope, mate.
from
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
| His Holiness John Paul II wrote: | | Today... new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. |
You continue to keep on this "fight" that only seem to be important in areas that were colonized by the British (or stem from colonies of the British). I wonder why that was never brought into the discussion - i have yet to see a defender of creationism who was not from Canada, the USA or Australia.
I postulate: It is not about science, but is a problem deeply seated in the protestant sects/churches of christianity that have their roots in England. Probably some kind of inferiortiy complex against the larger christian churches. So, leave us Orthodox, Catholics and Lutherans alone with it (and of course all non-christians as well), and discuss it with some Anglicans.
Edit:
IRSWalker, thanks, that was a very good post. I hope you don't mind if i steal/cite parts of it |
|
_________________
"Power without perception is virtually useless and therefore of no true value!" - Ryouken - Master of the Hokuto no Ken Martial Arts |
|
|
|
| |
Exempt teams
Search
