The whole truth
Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012
|
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 17 2015,07:50) | Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 16 2015,20:45) | ... I was trying to contest in the context of many faith-related insults that in my opinion evolution is not science, evolution is a belief and based on the religion of atheism ... and the reason it's so popular is that people hate the idea of God, mainly because they hate the idea of eternal consequences. So I don't see it as science vs religion ... I see it as religion vs religion and science vs science. I didn't want to get into a faith discussion there and I'm not after one now ... I want to discuss the science. This was me reacting, which I wish I hadn't ... in fact I should never have engaged with Bilbo at all. |
On the one hand you put it all down to faith versus faith, or faith versus science, and on the other you insist you "didn't want to get into a faith discussion." You really can't have it both ways.
You are entitled to your opinions, as opinions, even when they are loony [I'm not (yet) saying any particular one(s) of your beliefs is/are loony]. But if you want to argue from a position that evolution is faith, not science, that it is based on a hatred for the idea of God, you have to establish the truth and accuracy of that premise. As a presupposition, it is ludicrous and unsupportable, not least because so very many of the founders and developers of evolutionary theory were and are deeply religious. To say nothing of how totally insane it is to assert that people hate 'the idea of' God. Generally, ideas as such are neither hated nor adored. But more importantly, the idea of God is one that may or may not be true. The nature of said God is asserted to be all sorts of things, all over the map. We know nothing useful about the nature of any particular deity, and before we can make recourse to the referent of the idea of God, we need to know in some detail and with some considerable precision [can you say 'operational definition'? Do you know what it means?] what the nature and character of the referent actually is. Otherwise the term is a magic word, swung about to fulfill any current rhetorical needs, which it can do solely because it is an idea unburdened with content.
Evolution is science because it fits all the criteria of science. It is based on demonstrable facts, it makes predictions which can be falsified, it's theoretical structure is logically sound and provides a framework within which a broad variety of objective facts can be placed. It has explanatory and predictive power, it has meaningful operational definitions for its key terms and concepts. It suggests fruitful lines of inquiry and it has withstood the most concerted, and occasionally devious, attacks a host of small-minded ignoramuses, as well as highly intelligent knowledgable individuals have brought to bear. It is not faith because it is susceptible to revision based on new insights and new facts, it operates in a consistent fashion such that it makes predictions which as a general rule turn out, and is capable of revision in light of those cases where the prediction fails.
I'll get back to your lengthy, but largely pointless and obfuscatory response to portions of my earlier post later in the day or early tomorrow. I actually lack the time to do the fishing it so richly deserves.
The core challenge to you has already been raised, repeatedly: what facts on the table, specifically the known laws of chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics are alleged to be violated by evolution? Where has it been shown that the laws of chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics do not suffice to explain biological phenomena? Which phenomena, and how was it proven that they are not susceptible to natural explanations via chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics?
You find evolutionary theory distasteful, for reasons having nothing at all to do with science, so you attempt to shift out of the realm of science into faith. How is that justified? Show your work. |
"Evolution is science because it fits all the criteria of science. It is based on demonstrable facts, it makes predictions which can be falsified, it's theoretical structure is logically sound and provides a framework within which a broad variety of objective facts can be placed. It has explanatory and predictive power, it has meaningful operational definitions for its key terms and concepts. It suggests fruitful lines of inquiry and it has withstood the most concerted, and occasionally devious, attacks a host of small-minded ignoramuses, as well as highly intelligent knowledgable individuals have brought to bear. It is not faith because it is susceptible to revision based on new insights and new facts, it operates in a consistent fashion such that it makes predictions which as a general rule turn out, and is capable of revision in light of those cases where the prediction fails."
No, evolution is none of those things. Evolutionary theory is.
-------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|