Primordial Groove

Gunner,
Why are you moderating in a forum that defends the position of evolution being true if you dont believe evolution is proven? This makes no sense. I personally, will stick to my words. Evolution is proven and that is the truth.

What is your alternate theory? Godidit?

Jack the Bodiless

I know where you're coming from, GunnerJ, but consider the target audience. PG's correspondent just won't pick up on a detailed explanation of why scientists dislike the term "proof".

I think it's OK to state that evolution is fact, just as the historical existence of the Roman Empire is fact. And, as mutations and natural selections undoubtedly occur (unless all claims to that effect are faked, we're all just brains in jars created last Thurday with fake memories, etc etc etc), then "evolution is proved" is sufficient for this guy to understand.

I'd say his biggest fallacy is assuming that there IS a genuine scientific controversy on this issue, and his assumption that the truth lies "somewhere in the middle". Try asking him where he stands on the round-Earth/flat-Earth controversy. Does he think the Earth is flattish but somewhat dome-shaped?

NialScorva

Well, "we don't know" is always an answer worth considering.

Primordial Groove

If we dont know, why defend evolution? If we dont know, then ID has a case of being taught in public schools. With the position of 'we dont know' any ole theory will do just fine.
Although I am not a scientist, this is unacceptable as one of my kids start school next year.
The fact is we do know. It has been proven for over 100 years now. As nonhomogenized pointed out, the details may change but that doesnt take away from evolution being true.

Jack made some valid points. I'm wondering if we are dealing with semantics or is there something more to this?

With Gunners stated position, a debate would look like this to the average person:

ID debater: ...So your position is that evolution is true?
Gunner: Evolution is not true.
ID debater: Thank your for your time sir. Please drive thru.

GunnerJ

I have no time for this idiocy and these insults. If you are unable to understand the distinction I am trying to make, then my comments were unfortunately of no use to you, and I apologise, but I cannot waste my time and patience trying to further clarify it for you.

Mageth

With Gunners stated position, a debate would look like this to the average person:

ID debater: ...So your position is that evolution is true?
Gunner: Evolution is not true.
ID debater: Thank your for your time sir. Please drive thru.

I think you're totally misinterpreting GunnerJ's comments. Note that he has not said, nor implied, that "Evolution is not true."

Oolon Colluphid

Oh come on, PG! Go read his post again!

I would have rather not pointed out the semantics, but it seems necessary...

Yes, evolution is true: as true as any other vastly attested thing in science.

No, it is not 'proven'. Nothing in science is ever proven. Proof, in the mathematical sense of 'absolute certainty', is not available to science. Maths gets its certainty because it defines the universe it's operating in at the outset. (As they say, 2 + 2 = 4 only for certain values of 2 ). But with science, what the universe is like is precisely what we're trying to find out. (Specifying it in advance is what theists do .)

So nothing in science is ever proven; things like evolution are 'merely' overwhelmingly evinced. Some genuinely contrary evidence could turn up at any moment. All scientific answers are provisional. But with all the evidence so far, just don't bet on it. Provisional does not mean uncertain: on these matters we're as certain as it's possible to be.

And no, Gunner's answer, like mine, is Goddidn'tdoit.

Cheers, Oolon

GunnerJ

Thanks for your understanding. I sumbit that the target audience would be put off by the alomost religious tone implied by Primordials' "It is proven... it is true" rantings. It's like he's coming down the mountain with the Tablets of Darwinism in hand. It's not only a subtle misrepresentation of science, it's going to cause trouble for someone with mainly religious objections to evolution. No detailed explanation is necessary, IMO; all that's needed is more accurate word choise.

I agree that saying that evolution is factual in a historical sense is the right way to go, but I maintain that the term "proof," and its derivitives, with respect to evolution as a theory could be replaced with "best explanation available" and other more-accurate terms that mean the same.

Primordial Groove

Gunner, dont start being a prick. I just want some clarification. If my pov is wrong, then goddammit, show me! Dont start calling me an idiot.

Evolution is the 'best explanation available' sounds like you arent really quite sure about it but it's the best we have. The evidence we have to this seemingly shows we evolved but hey, we could be wrong so don't live your life according to evolutionary theory.

Now, perhaps my religious upbringing makes me think in absolutes or perhaps I am just an idiot, but, maybe science should make a more definative stand than 'best explantion available.' It's in that statement that many anti-evolutionists can find solace and seed their pov with the public. After all, in their own eyes, 'the best explanation available' is design by intelligence.

EDIT: Ive sent a reply email to the guy already but I'll send another retracting the statement about evolution being true.

Rhaedas

While this may be true in their opinion, when you lay out the evidence for both, ID has nothing. So really, evolution is the "best explanation" given the evidence we do have. Of course it doesn't help that the majority of the public is scientifically inept... that's what ID proponents count on.

ID is not science, it is merely a PR tool to attack evolution, nothing more. It uses the public's lack of knowledge and unfortunate religious tendencies to fuel doubt. There is no theory of design to present or to teach.

(If there is, someone kindly point me to it, for I have yet to see it offered.)