Quote :

"Quit pussy footing around. By saying you're not a Christian, you are saying Christianity is wrong. If you didn't think it was wrong, that would mean you thought it was right, and that would make you a Christian. "

there's enough nuanced grey area in the middle to render this statement incorrect, or at least a gross oversimplification.

6/5/2008 1:16:15 AM

i feel uncomfortable around really religious people

6/5/2008 1:19:00 AM

^^^ Does anyone other than you use [sic] on the internets?

As for evolution, it's fairly straightforward. We've got plenty of evidence for the theory. We've seen natural selection at work. Microevolution is scientifically indisputable. Macroevolution is merely the same process acting over a greater timespan. Less certain, I guess, but the best current theory.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 1:20 AM. Reason : ^^]

6/5/2008 1:20:26 AM

(i use it every now and then if i want to be an asshole to a real dunce. i don't use it for typos and stuff.)

6/5/2008 1:36:53 AM

^^ Wow. You totally missed both points.

Let me break it down for you:

1. If one is going to imply that someone is not "well equipped" with "background knowledge" or any other kind of knowledge, for that matter, one should probably do so in a grammatically correct way.

2. The implication concerning mathman in the post at issue is easily turned about--and turnabout is fair play.

Concerning my use of [sic], did you ever consider that all those not using it could be wrong? Argumentum ad numerum much?

You really shouldn't present me with such target-rich posts, GoldenViper. If you do, your positions will continue to be easily swatted to the ground.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 1:41 AM. Reason : .]

6/5/2008 1:41:07 AM

The grammatical error in agentlion's post was a simple repeated word. A typo. It in no way suggests ignorance. Why point it out, especially in such a pretentious fashion? Yes, typos exists in the tubes. I think we're all aware of that. Are you pushing for better proofreading on the internets?

Using [sic] in a copy-and-paste environment makes little sense. Traditionally, the point's to show the reader you didn't make a transcription error. Computers don't make transcription errors.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 2:08 AM. Reason : sick]

6/5/2008 2:02:22 AM

Quote :

"^ Are you "well equipped the the [sic] background knowledge" to effectively argue for evolution?"

no, i'm not. Nor am I properly equipped to completely defend the theory of relativity, germ theory, climatology, plate tectonics, carbon dating, or any of the other 100s of fields of science that I don't have a PhD level background in, but that doesn't mean I don't generally trust the consensus opinion of the experts who do have the proper background. If you only trusted science in which you had an expert level knowledge in, you would already either be dead or cut off from the world - you wouldn't take vaccines or medicines because you're not a chemical engineer and medical doctor and can't describe in detail the drugs interaction with your body, you wouldn't drive a car because you're not a mechanical engineer and can't discuss at length internal combustion and thermodynamics, you wouldn't use a computer because you have no idea how the Si chips work. The point of a modern society, though, is that there are experts in every field so that the rest of us don't have to be. We can concentrate on our own fields of work or study, and leave it to the other experts to make sure they have their science right.

Mathman's problem with evolution appears to simply be an argument from personal incredulity - the theory "just doesn't make sense to me, therefore, I don't believe it"

Quantum Mechanics is even harder to comprehend than Evolution, and only a few people in the whole world have enough knowledge to understand and defend quantum theories (Richard Feynman said: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics") but that doesn't make it not true or applicable. I don't see campaigns to prevent the teaching of QM in schools, even though it's utterly incomprehensible to most people.

The same can be said of the Theory of Relativity. It's unbelievably incomprehensible to most people because it flies directly in the face of common sense. But Relativity (and QM, and evolution) have been tested time and time again in the lab and through observation, and from 100-150 years of testing, all three theories have only grown stronger. In each case it would only take one negative result to crumble each theory, but that just hasn't happened.

So my point is - the argument from personal incredulity is simply not a sufficient reason to disavow a whole branch of science. Of course, we all know the real reason evolution is so bitterly fought is that it contradicts the literal Bible. With evolution, there is no Adam and Eve, no Original Sin, no Fall from Eden, and therefore eventually no need for Jesus to come back to earth. So if you believe all that, I can see how evolution must be daunting, but once again, that doesn't make it not true. If the writer's of the Bible had thrown their 2 cents in about how planets and subatomic particles interact with each other, then I suspect the Discovery Institute would be fighting against Relativity and Quantum Mechanics too.

6/5/2008 8:32:12 AM

^ There's some truth in that, but I'm not willing to completely yield to expert opinion. Note that he practical applications of science have more than experts supporting them. You can learn the effects of vaccines and such from normal folks with personal experience. You don't have to truth academics.

With most theories, you can understand the basics without a degrees. For example, it doesn't take much to refute the common arguments against evolution.

6/5/2008 11:04:12 AM

Quote :

"With most theories, you can understand the basics without a degrees. For example, it doesn't take much to refute the common arguments against evolution."

And it doesn't take much to refute the common refutations of argruments against evolution. Theists can play that game just as easily as scientific naturalists. I'm sick and tired of the supposed scientific monopoly on knowledge.

6/5/2008 11:13:33 AM

Science doesn't know a "monopoly on knowledge". There are plenty of fields of knowledge that science doesn't directly touch. It is, however, the best method we have to explain the natural world and universe. What other methods would you suggest to explain natural phenomena?
Theists cannot "play at that game" because "god did it" is not an acceptable answer to anyone who requires a shred of evidence. Of course "evidence" is just one of those crazy "scientific ideas" that perpetuates the monopoly on knowledge, right?

Quote :

"^ There's some truth in that, but I'm not willing to completely yield to expert opinion. Note that he practical applications of science have more than experts supporting them. You can learn the effects of vaccines and such from normal folks with personal experience. You don't have to truth academics."

i concur, and agree that you needn't put your trust blindly in academics. Even with limited scientific knowledge, most people should still be able to perform a "bullshit test". But for things like evolution, you don't have to trust them blindly. Contrary to what creationists would have you believe, the evidence is all around us and more is coming in by the day. You don't have let scientists discuss it among themselves in a vacuum in journal articles - you can go to any Natural History museum and see 1st hand the process and effects, then go outside yourself and start observing nature.

6/5/2008 12:54:18 PM

Quote :

"Theists cannot "play at that game" because "god did it" is not an acceptable answer to anyone who requires a shred of evidence. Of course "evidence" is just one of those crazy "scientific ideas" that perpetuates the monopoly on knowledge, right? "

Are you saying that belief in God prohibits one from using scientific methods to dispute purely naturalistic explanations for our existence? If you believe that, you proved my point that Scientific Naturalists think they have a monopoly on knowledge. Your condescending tone and rolleyes only help to support my earlier statement.

I never said that you should throw science out the window and explain everything as "God did it." If your view of theists is that narrow, you should really get out more. I was making a point that many of the COMMON scientific responses to critiques of evolution are extremely weak. Usually, the person making one of these arguments has the same cocky attitude you just displayed because, in their narrow-minded opinion, science is far superior to ALL other sources of knowledge.


Here, let me give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about. I posted this in another thread a while back, only to be ignored. I'm not looking for a response to this quote, I just want to use it as an example of my earlier point.

Quote :

"Lets take the big bang, for instance. Quantum physics gives strong support to the assertion that quantum fluctuations occur (matter and antimatter spontaneously come into existance from nothing). This is a phenomenon allowed by the physical laws of our universe. But did the laws of science predate the universe they govern? Also, cause and effect are always separated by time. Did the flow of time also exist before the big bang? I didn't come up with these points, so I'm sure there are good rebuttals for them. I just haven't ever heard any."

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : Christians can use science too. ]

6/5/2008 1:08:02 PM

you have yet to articulate what exactly these other sources of knowledge of our world are supposed to be. So, when examining and trying to explain the natural world, what additional source(s) of knowledge do you suggest we should supplement science with?

6/5/2008 1:12:54 PM

Quote :

"you have yet to..."

Give me some time, man. I made one simple post in this thread and you respond like I should have written an 8 page essay.

Quote :

"So, when examining and trying to explain the natural world, what additional source(s) of knowledge do you suggest we should supplement science with?"

I'm at work and shouldn't be screwing around. When I get some time later this afternoon, I'll respond to this. I do like the question, btw.

^Also, see my edit above. I added it after you posted.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2008 1:21:04 PM

I am not a Christian but I give little credence to the argument that 75 million Americans believe something essentially because there are stupid.

My guess is that there are more evangelicals in the traditional Academy but that they are afriad to come out because of social pressure. Still more probably avoid the Academy because of this fear. This is unfortunate.

I am not sure what can be done about it but at least there should be awareness. The Academy is hyper-sensitive to offending many groups but is markedly less sensitive to offending Christianity and that should change.

6/5/2008 1:38:46 PM

Quote :

"And it doesn't take much to refute the common refutations of argruments against evolution."

Don't tell me, show me. The common arguments against evolution involve characterizing natural selection as purely random and misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics.

6/5/2008 1:55:54 PM

^^ So what Academy are you referring to? Do they teach there/their there?

6/5/2008 3:04:48 PM

Quote :

"I am not a Christian but I give little credence to the argument that 75 million Americans believe something essentially because there are stupid."

I wouldn't say even completely rejecting science means someone's stupid. Perhaps in the conversational sense, but the different world view wouldn't prevent displays of intelligence in other fields, such as writing, speaking, and music.

6/5/2008 4:40:41 PM

quotes from agentlion below,

Quote :

"Mathman's problem with evolution appears to simply be an argument from personal incredulity - the theory "just doesn't make sense to me, therefore, I don't believe it" "

While I do think that rejecting a theory because it is nonsense is a valid mode of argument ( I mean I'd be crazy if I held to theories I do not think make sense ) I was actually making an argument from authority. My point was that I know of many people who reject evolution because they do not find it a convincing method of explanation for life as we observe it on earth. Moreover, not all of these people are religious zealots like myself

For example, there are many people who like to see a return to some form of Lamarkian evolution. Roughly their thinking is that random mutation guided by natural selection is an insufficient cause for the rapidity that evolution must have occurred. I read a whole book, which I sadly cannot locate at the moment. If you press me on it I'll dig it out.

Quote :

"Quantum Mechanics is even harder to comprehend than Evolution, and only a few people in the whole world have enough knowledge to understand and defend quantum theories (Richard Feynman said: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics") but that doesn't make it not true or applicable. I don't see campaigns to prevent the teaching of QM in schools, even though it's utterly incomprehensible to most people. The same can be said of the Theory of Relativity. It's unbelievably incomprehensible to most people because it flies directly in the face of common sense. But Relativity (and QM, and evolution) have been tested time and time again in the lab and through observation, and from 100-150 years of testing, all three theories have only grown stronger. In each case it would only take one negative result to crumble each theory, but that just hasn't happened. "

Yes exactly, but these are truly scientific theories. They are always held up as a standard whenever a bait and switch is about to be made. Logical equivalence between experimentally verifiable modern physics and macroevolution is quite a stretch. But it seems this stretch is inevitable in such conversations. Macroevolution remains comfortably outside the reach of experimental contradiction. Lack of transitional forms? No problem, we'll just say that evolution is sped up by isolation of the gene pool in certain geographic environments. Genius, no evidence can be found because the evolutionary period was too short to produce fossils.

If one proposed history is disrupted by evidence is evolution falsified? No. You guys simply change the story, the timeline, add feathers to dinosaurs whatever... And you know what, thats fine by me. But don't hold up evolution like its physics. It is a fluid family of explanations which are not falsifiable by the nature of their construction. I'd wager that the recent history of the evolution of man is being vastly contorted in the face of actual evidence from genetics.

I don't reject microevolution. I don't reject those parts of biology which are observable. I just don't buy the extrapolation into the unrepeatable past. Given that it should be evident that my view is by no means unscientific. Rather, I reject a segment of your accepted history.

I think that much of the same data can be explained by creation, the flood and other items gleaned from Genesis. Of course this is not much less speculative than macroevolution gleaned from rocks and the imaginations of so many biologists. Certain features are certainly reasonable, for example the similarity of most biological life is not surprising given that God created them all. Moreover, the complexity and structure of biological life is also well understood in view of its source. Now, I can no more predict the structure that God built from base principles then you can predict the next move evolution will make. So, as we study the natural world the difference in the viewpoints are not really as distinct as science and nonscience. The distinction is where the credit goes for the source of the structure that is observed in biological life. I know of no serious creationist who rejects the observations of biology, they reject the theory that explains why there is DNA. Both camps can study the interworkings just the same.

Quote :

"So my point is - the argument from personal incredulity is simply not a sufficient reason to disavow a whole branch of science. Of course, we all know the real reason evolution is so bitterly fought is that it contradicts the literal Bible. With evolution, there is no Adam and Eve, no Original Sin, no Fall from Eden, and therefore eventually no need for Jesus to come back to earth. So if you believe all that, I can see how evolution must be daunting, but once again, that doesn't make it not true. If the writer's of the Bible had thrown their 2 cents in about how planets and subatomic particles interact with each other, then I suspect the Discovery Institute would be fighting against Relativity and Quantum Mechanics too."

Scripture is truth, if science truly contradicts Scripture it will be modified in time. I don't disagree that this is a large part of why I find evolution reprehensible.

As a physicist though, I do think there is something to the 2nd law argument. Of course not in its most naive form. The earth is not a closed system. But just throwing energy at something is not enough to create structure. It needs guidance. I suppose you are satisfied with natural selection as that method of guidance. Me, not so much.

sadly I will be away from the TWW for a few days, I'll let stantheman
pick up the pieces.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM. Reason : still think / is \ arg.]

6/5/2008 5:57:50 PM

^ Some of those problems may be legitimate, but what's the alternative to evolution? Pure uncertainty? Positing a creator doesn't seem suitably naturalistic, unless he's some super-intelligent alien.

6/5/2008 6:20:59 PM

the thing that makes me most uncomfortable about being near really religious people is trying to eat a meal

second most is that i say "god" a lot...like "god dammit" or "god dangit"...or "god go in"(if i were trying to plug in a socket to the receptical etc)...or "swear to god etc etc etc"....

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2008 6:24:03 PM

Quote :

"you have yet to articulate what exactly these other sources of knowledge of our world are supposed to be. So, when examining and trying to explain the natural world, what additional source(s) of knowledge do you suggest we should supplement science with?"

Here's a quote I found from a blog that sums up my opinion on that subject.

Quote :

"His conclusion of inherent circularity in holy books apply equally as well to his position. "I am a naturalist because I look for natural causes." His conclusion of naturalism is therefore found in his premise, he is a naturalist because he believes only natural causes can exist. It is question begging in his own favor of the highest order. We see no reasoned argument for why naturalism is deemed to be true, but even if we do, we may dismiss it with equal disdain by saying that he should not ask us to read his argument, it assumes naturalism in the premises. Of course, he will make no mention of the things he holds to by faith (uniformity of nature, omnipotent chance and reliability of the senses), nor will he show the natural causes of the scientific method. Not only is he circular, but the axioms within his circle are firmly suspended in mid-air. For an argument to be valid, the premise have to be undeniable. Clearly, the naturalist premises are not."

http://christianskepticism.blogspot.com/2007/07/circular-reasoning.html

I think the problem with scientific naturalism is that you assume that science is valid and any other system of information gathering must be verified using the scientific method. But what establishes the validity of the scientific method? I can not answer your question by giving you a list of empirically verifiable knowledge sources. Your question itself is constructed within a naturalist framework. It presupposes the superiority of science above all other methods of obtaining knowledge.

Quote :

"Don't tell me, show me. The common arguments against evolution involve characterizing natural selection as purely random and misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics."

Ha, you just reminded me of an episode from the Evolution 101 podcast. The guy bashed on creationism by refuting arguments in a Chick tract about evolution. Not only did he take the Chick tract seriously enough to waste his time arguing against it, he seemed to think it was typical of what the average creationist believes. This particular tract used the term "evolution" for all scientific explanations of our origins, beginning with the formation of the universe. It was like an NBA player beating a high schooler in a game of one-on-one, then claiming that the game was proof that no one from that school had any business playing basketball. I laughed when I heard it.

But getting back on topic, I used the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument a few times, back before I understood it better. The comebacks were absolutely horrible. The typical response went something like this: "That law is in the realm of physics, so it doesn't apply to organisms or ecosystems." I would point out what I learned in ecology (at State) about the application of this law to natural systems. For some reason this just fell on deaf ears and the discussion tended to end there.

I know that the pro-evolution camp has better counter-arguments than that. The thing is, its just as easy for creationists to read 2 or 3 books and know more than the average Joe. It just goes to show you how poorly informed most people are.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : forgot to cite my sourc]

6/6/2008 12:31:16 PM

Quote :

"Some of those problems may be legitimate, but what's the alternative to evolution? Pure uncertainty? Positing a creator doesn't seem suitably naturalistic, unless he's some super-intelligent alien."

Do you mean that the only valid theories of origin are naturalistic (no supernatural explanation will be entertained) or that we need naturalistic evidence of our origin (we need hard evidence that God did it) ?

6/6/2008 12:37:55 PM

Quote :

"We see no reasoned argument for why naturalism is deemed to be true"

We deem naturalism to be true because it is the only thing that is observable and measurable. There is no legitimate or reasoned argument to think otherwise. Why would you look at a situation, attempt to explain it by means of observation and measurement, then in the end come to the conclusion that an unseen and unfelt force is the "true cause"? That doesn't make any sense.

6/6/2008 1:37:24 PM

^ I still think you missed my point. You've confined yourself to the scientific box, like so many in academia.

6/7/2008 11:23:32 PM

yes, i'm "stuck" in the scientific mindset, because again, i see no alternative.

think of it this way. Imagine you start with (somehow) a blank slate. No knowledge of the world - you're just dropped down here as an intelligent being, but you have no idea what you're looking at. Essentially you're starting with zero assumptions. When you begin to describe what you see around you, describing what you observe and what you measure does not require any assumptions. You makes your observations, you take your measurements, and you attempt to make conclusions on what you see. (arronburro would argue that "seeing is believing" is an assumption, but then again, he's an idiot). At no point have you made an assumption beyond "what i see is real. i can describe what I see"

If something cannot be explained, that's OK. It's just an area of knowledge that has yet to be filled. Christians or religious folk would call that a "gap", and try to insert God into it, creating a God of the Gaps. That is when the assumptions start piling on. Up until now, we've been fine with describing the physical world by means of observations, and leaving for future explorations areas that we cannot describe. But then as soon as anyone says "God must have made ____ happen" simply because we can't describe it 100% right now, that's why you're really breaking with reality.

6/8/2008 9:26:21 AM

^Yes, our world has order. I see no need for a God of the Gaps. God much bigger than that. I believe He gives the world order. Yes, science can evaluate so much of the world around us, but why does this world have order in the first place?

Quote :

"But then as soon as anyone says "God must have made ____ happen" simply because we can't describe it 100% right now, that's why you're really breaking with reality."

I don't know anyone who uses that sort of reasoning. I believe God makes all sorts of things happen because He is sovereign over the entire universe. There's no reason for Him to micromanage it, He lets the natural laws play out for the most part.

My reason for belief is based upon my own experiences. You, or anyone else, can make arguments all day against my faith, but I KNOW the impact God has had on me personally. This is the same method of knowing that allows you to accept the scientific method as true (based on your example above). Now, we could argue whether or not I made a "rational" assumption based upon my experiences, but lets not beat this horse to death.

I wish I had time to write a little more. I'll try to get back on here this afternoon. I can't exactly put into words what I was trying to say earlier about the philosophical underpinnings of science. If I'm not too lazy, I'll try to elaborate/ clarify what I meant. But I must say that I agree with your last post.

6/9/2008 8:47:15 AM

Quote :

"I don't know anyone who uses that sort of reasoning."

See: intelligent design

6/9/2008 10:21:20 AM

Quote :

"See: intelligent design"

More like, see the prevalent opinion of intelligent design as it is presented in the news media. How about contributing something useful to the discussion?

6/9/2008 10:33:29 AM

Quote :

"How about contributing something useful to the discussion?"

I just did.

Their case was made in court, and the judge came to the same conclusion I did.

How about telling me why my view is wrong, instead of getting all snotty?

6/9/2008 10:38:32 AM

I've been meaning to read this thread in it's entirety.

i'll post here now, so i remember to do it.

6/9/2008 2:41:49 PM

Quote :

"I just did. Their case was made in court, and the judge came to the same conclusion I did. How about telling me why my view is wrong, instead of getting all snotty?"

I came back at you with an attitude because you entered on the tail end of the discussion and inserted a one-liner as if it deserved a well thought out response. I've heard a little about that court case and I have an opinion on it, but I don't know enough about it to start arguing over it. Maybe if you post something more substantial (more than 3 words) I'll be more motivated to discuss it. Otherwise, I'll continue to interpret your remark as a lame attempt at trolling.

I really don't know how you expected me to make the leap from "see: i.d." to a specific court case. I can't read your mind, you know.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 3:05:57 PM

Quote :

"I mean I'd be crazy if I held to theories I do not think make sense "

I don't think this is correct. The key element of a theory is that it predicts the data, not that it makes sense. For example I accept that the W particle has mass but no volume, because physicists whom I trust tell me that this assumption leads to accurate predictions even though it makes no sense to me.

There is no particular reason to assume that the laws of the universe must make sense to us.

6/10/2008 12:40:30 PM