Doubting Didymus

We were too vitriolic.

However, Vander does appear to be on the verge of discussing some of the evidence for evolution.

Albion

What philosophy? What is this philosophy that all evolutionary biologists are driven by that doesn't apply to any other branch of science?

Stephen T-B

Scigirl, may I ask you three questions?
1. Did you know there's a difference between geneticists and "evolutionary biologists"?

2. Do you know what an "evolutionary biologist" is and how he/she differs from an ordinary biologist?

3. I haven't yet understand what a Darwinist philosophy is. As I understand it, Darwin originally got interested in beetles, and went on from there. Was it a "philosophy" which made him think that the account in Genesis didn't provide the answers he was looking for, or was he driven by sheer curiosity, having found the pieces of a puzzle which he wanted to fit together?
If I were a child and was told that god had made the computer I played on, and one day I took off the back and tried to figure out how the thing worked, would that make me a philosopher in that I was apparently rejecting am explanation already provided?

Jack the Bodiless

And that is a lie. Pure creationist propaganda. You have swallowed it hook, line, sinker, rod and fisherman.

Do you seriously believe that TalkOrigins contains all the evidence there is for evolution? It is a SUMMARY, intended primarily for creationists (i.e. ignorant laymen).

There are thousands of transitional forms throughout the fossil record. There are many millions of fossils discovered in a sequence that demonstrates common descent. Not a single modern creature that could reasonably be expected to leave fossils (i.e. excluding viruses and such) lacks ancestors in the fossil record.

And then there is genetics, which confirms all this.

Common descent is undeniable fact. Ongoing evolution is also undeniable fact. The theory that evolution is solely responsible for common descent is inherently unverifiable, but no contrary evidence has ever been discovered.

"Special" creation (i.e. individual creation of separate species) is NOT the issue here, because we all know that it's baloney. If you want to talk about "intelligent design", then let's discuss that. But if you being up "special creation" again, or state that there is "insufficient evidence for Darwinism", then comparisons with Flat-Earthism are inevitable and deserved.

Philosoft

[quote]Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>

[QB]This should never happen in practice, however, because one can simply create a non-natural explanation that fits the data exactly. The hypothesis that Uri Geller is using magic to support the universe fits the data exactly if it is presumed that supernatural explanations can be somehow confirmed by a lack of evidence for natural explanations.

<strong> Aside from my complete conceptual ignorance of the term "non-natural thing," I fail to see how it is possible to confirm that a particular supernatural explanation is responsible for something. How is it possible to collect data on a phenomenon that is fundamentally unobservable?

<strong> Why would you not have to progress through all supernatural explanations as well? Why is "Uri Geller's magic powers support the universe" a better empirical explanation than "Elvis Presley's ghost's magic, ethereal guitar strings support the universe"?

Starboy

DD, why is the sky blue?

non-natural explaination:

Because god made it that way.

natural explaination:

Very complicated requiring knowledge of atoms, electromagnetic radiaion, optics, astronomical and geophysical knowledge.

How would you accept one explaination over the other?

Starboy

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

I have neither the time nor patience right now, that other posters here have, to continually argue "yes it is" "no it isn't" back and forth for 8 pages.

I like how your argument against the talk origins site is, "that's the same boring old stuff." Yep it is. Boring old fossils and genetic evidence. What do you want, a message written in the sand, "Evolution is truu?"

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

You still, in Starboy's eloquent words need to "put up or shut up." Show me how I can use your religion in my lab. Or go away.

----------------------------------------------
Now for the rest of you, here's some thoughts I had this morning.

Vanderzyden's entire argument here (I hesitate to call it an "argument" since he has not clearly stated what he is arguing about, but anyway) is the following:

Science can't explain everything.

Ok that's nice. I agree. Now what?

Let's look at a specific example: Love.

Why do we love specific people, and then why do we fall out of love with specific people?

There are 3 possibilities that I see in answering this question (if I'm missing any, let me know):

1. Science can currnently answer this question.

2. Science cannot currently answer this question, but will in the future.

3. Science will never answer this question.

(Note I mean here naturalistic testable science)

Now I believe that Vanderzyden is arguing for number 3, in terms of only a few things: human (or maybe all life) creation, and the human mind. Everything else can have, or will have, a scientific explanation.

Ok as a scientist, I am open to #3 being a possibility. Maybe science can't explain everything. However, I don't think we should stop trying! If you read statements from people in the 1500's or 1600's, their list of "unexplainable by science" events are now in our science books! So. .. we'll never know until we try right?

However, let's just say that love does fall into category 3. What are the possible explantions for something being outside the realm of scientific study: There are two possibilities that I immediately think of:

A. Too many unknown variables - random motion of molecules, or random nerve firings, prevents us from completely understanding or predicting any one particular thought.

An example of this would be predicting what dice you will roll in Vegas. We know a lot about dice, and dice rolls. We know a lot about probabilities over the long run (math lesson = don't gamble - the house always wins!)

However, we simply just don't know enough about mechanics and quantum physics and all that stuff to predict that I will roll a 6 and a 4 right now! However, is this evidence of a spiritual being? I doubt it!

How many "unexplainable" events simply fall into this category? Let's return to the love example: We do know some general stuff about love and marriage, and we can make some overall general predictions about what kinds of people fall in love with other kinds of people. However, we can't yet predict that Joe will fall in love with Sally tomorrow. Maybe there's just too many variables, and that's the only reason! To me, this is a scientific reason why we can't know everything, not a spiritual reason.

Or Vanderzyden's "we can't know what each other is thinking." Maybe this has nothing to do with gods or goddesses,but is related to the sheer amount of permutations of neuron firing patterns!

Let's return to another example that I think Vander mentioned earlier - people's intuition. Is intuition an unexplainable event? Or is it related to someone's experience and training? Intuition seems like a way to overcome problem A above. How about a doctor trying to make a prediction that someone will get cancer? There are so many variables that determine cancer that this is a difficult task indeed. However, as scientists dissect out each variable in the lab, and as we start putting these variables together, all of a sudden, predicting these alleged "stochastic" events becomes much easier. In this case, an event that we thought was in category #3 above, now can slowly be placed into category 2 and then 1. So many events of nature have traveled from our "we will never know why" to "We almost know why" to "we DO know why," that yes it is hard for me to believe that even human creation falls into #3.

B. Some unknown force is interfering with love.

Ok that is also possible, and for the moment is indistinguishable from A, right? This seems to be Vander's position, although he won't come out and say it.

Ok so what? If this force is so mysterious and unknowable, than what difference does it make if we believe in it, or name it, or define it or not? It could be Zeus, it could be God, it could be Hitler's soul raised from Hell.

So what? Where do we go from here?

It seems that people who are anti-naturalism automatically accept possibility B without realizing that possibility A is a valid answer to "why don't we know everything?" In addition, they insert the name of their God into the possibility B, with no real objective or rational reason for doing so.

Incidentally, I have no problem with people who use their religious beliefs as a comfort to the unknown. A person who uses the belief in an afterlife as a comfort after the death of a family member, or a couple who believes they were fated to fall in love because of Allah.

What I have a problem with is the false dichotomy set up by people like Vanderzyden: If a thing is currently unexplainable by science, than it must be the (JudeoChristian version of) God!

I also have a problem with people who blatantly ignore rational explanations for events in favor of supernatural ones. For instance, on the 700 club, they are always telling a story similar to this one:

"Jimmy was 5, and he had tripped and started drowning in the pool. We rushed him to University Hospital, and low and behold the Lord saved him! Thank you, Jesus!"

I don't have a problem with the thanking of God. However, notice there is no mention or thanks of the medical professionals who spent their lives learning how to save lives. God could have saved Jimmy's ass in the pool if he so desired. However, he did not, and therefore trained medical professionals did his work for him (and some of them might even be atheists how ironic is that).

Ok that's all for now...

scigirl

Starboy

Scigirl, well put.

Science started off knowing next to nothing. If knowing nothing was an excuse for not doing science, then we would not be having this discussion. The mission of science is clear: Explain as much as can be explained in natural terms, period. This is not proof of anything, this is not the "truth" of anything, this is just what science does. Who knows what we will be able to explain with it in the future? It is an attempt to understand our surroundings, not why we exist but how we exist. And I might add it is THE MOST SUCCESSFULL HUMAN ENDEVOUR FOR UNDERSTANDING OUR SURROUNDINGS IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND . Religion can cover the why if it wishes, but it is doing a crappy job of it. At what science attempts to do, it kicks ass!

I would also like to point out to the religious that if they would like to make religion kick ass they should figure out a way to make it work. A way to have it really effect the way people live, how they treat each other and their families with love and kindness and how they peacefully relate to others that do not share their beliefs. I fail to understand how going on about creation and ID has anything to do with that mission. But it is obvious that religion has abandoned that mission at at time when it is needed the most.

Just one more reason to think that the time for religion in the world has come and gone. This is the age of reason and of science. The principles that the country was really founded on, not religion.

Sorry, I got going and couldn't stop the rant. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Starboy

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

How can you say that you "don't have a problem" with thanking God? The next few sentences directly contradict this assertion. Furthermore, you declare yourself to be an atheist. Very puzzling.

As implied here and in other posts, I think, in your case, we are witnessing the beginning of proud physician syndrome. All too many doctors believe they are demigods because they save lives. They believe themselves somehow superior to other humans because they claim to have power over life and death. This causes them to develop a horrible disposition towards nurses, staff, interns, and even patients. I know this from experience. In the extreme cases, they are envious when God is given top credit for being the Creator and Sustainer of Everything.

You tell me where I'm wrong in drawing this conclusion from your posts. Many of your recent posts display a substantial amount of frustration, condemnation, and outrageous remarks. Given your responsibility to Infidels, your temperament in these forums should be one of moderation, eh? Certainly more humility is in order.

If that's what you'd like, fine, I will honor your request. I will disengage with you until you indicate otherwise.

Vanderzyden

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Exclusion is unnecessary. BOTH-AND is an acceptable answer.

God made it in a way that "is very complicated requiring knowledge of atoms, electromagnetic radiaion, optics, astronomical and geophysical knowledge".

Do you accept this answer? Please explain.

Vanderzyden