Primordial Groove

I have sent the retraction with the 'best explanation available' as the 'truth' of evolution.

What I find humorous is that this fits perfectly into his 'God is a game master' reality. After all, if we arent sure, then it is plausible that god could just be fuckin with us or testing our knowledge by planting the evidence for evolution to make us think this is the best explanation available.' Since science cant disprove god, I have nothing to stand on but my own beliefs.

How ironic.

Writer@Large

Utterly uncalled for, PG. Everyone else seems able to get GunnerJ's point; instead of just knee-jerk reacting, why not try to grasp the finer distinction he's making?

--W@L

Writer@Large

And by insisting that "Evolution is Truth," you're playing right into his: that EITHER God is TRUE, or Evolution is TRUE, and if he can prove that ANY PART of Evolution is wrong, then it is not TRUTH and God wins. The point is that by dogmatically saying "Evolution is Truth," we're just as bad as the goddidit types. We need to have more realistic expectations; and if a legitimate and scientifically valid alternative to evolution cropped up tomorrow, we need to be ready to embrace it.

--W@L

Primordial Groove

Yeah W@L I was sitting on the couch thinking about this thread and I came to realize that I owe Gunner an apology for my heated posts.

GunnerJ, I apologize.

I think a form of cognitive dissonance has set in knowing that I can not defend my world view with absolute certainty. The best I can do is 'best available evidence.' Which leaves alot of room for bargaining.

Again, my apologies to you all. I respect your input and knowledge.

Jimmy Davies

What do I think? Just tell him "alot" is two words, okay?

GunnerJ

Primordial:

I realize that you've capitulated to my suggestion and apologised (which I thnak you for), but it seems that the only reason you made the change was out of some sense of pressure. Upon further thinking, I believe I will make one last effort to explain what I was getting at, just so you understand why i took issue with your statement that evolution is "true" or "proven." It's a rambling attempt, so bear with me.

Well, I'm not sure about your religious upbringing, but to say that you might think in absolutes is candidate for the understatement of the year. Your whole thinking seems littered with them, there's barely a point I can make against you that wouldn't require me to first argue against an absolutist position.

Some examples:

That's almost exactly it: we aren't absolutely certain, and it is the best we've got. But you seem to be demeaning this sentiment, based on the fact that, no, we aren't completely sure.

As if that were a point agaisnt evolution as a sound theory! But more on that in a second...

What occurs in their own eyes is between them and their peyote distributor. The critical idea missed here is that whether or not something is a good explanation is not just subjective opinion. A good explanation should:

-make predictions about what type of evidence we will find if it's true, which are confrimed
-make predictions about what evidence we would find if it's false, which won't be confirmed
-if multiple explanations manage to do this, the best of the lot will be the most parsimonious.

ID can make predictions about what we should expect to see, but because the concept of a designer is so nebulous (or worse, all-powerful), they can't make any predictions about what we would expect to see if it were false: any such criticisms can be waved away by giving the designer new properties (or just saying "goddidit"). And in the end, preposing a designer as an explanation for life is unbelievably unparsimonious, because now we have to explain the designer!

But these are known issues. What concerns me is your insistence on the idea that if something isn't "proven" to be absolutely certain, it has no value, and that one uncertain explanation is as good as any other. Like when you say:

As if, because we are "only" 95% certain that an idea is true, it's just as good as an idea we're 5% certain of. The curve of the function y = (x^2) + .001 comes very close to matching, but doesn't exactly match, the curve of the function y = x^2. So, by your logic, this means that y = (x^2) + .001 and y = x are equally good approximations of y = x^2. Hmmm.

There's a few deeper problems here, though:

How, pray tell, does one "live [one's] life according to evolutionary theory"? It's not an ethical system. It's an explanation for the fact of common decent.

Combined with the above statement, it seems like you've just replaced one religion, the one you grew up with, with some sort of worship of science. No, science does not disprove god. So what? God is a mythical being that lacks any evidence, it doesn't need to be disproved.

Yes, evolution is compatible with theism. Did you think that is was supposed to be a disproof of god(s)? As I said befgore, evolution is an explanation for the history and structure of life. It's not a religion. It's not even a critique of religion.

Evolution is science, and contrary to your speculation, science is not in the business of finding things to be absolutely certain; the scientific view is comfortable with degrees of certainty. If a theory does a good job of explaining things, it can be counted on, despite a few (hypothetical or real) inaccuracies, if it's the best we've got. If something comes along that does a better job of explaining things, then that's what we should go with, but just because we aren't completely sure about what we have now doesn't mean it's as good as any old crap.

Albion

Well, he seems awfully hung up on the accuracy of radiometric dating and is demanding that you check it. You could tell him that you've checked it by reading Roger Wiens's article here and stuff by Glenn Morton here and ask him why he thinks the articles by these Christian writers are wrong. Chances are, he won't have a clue about the basic science behind radiometric dating or the way it's applied in the real world, and he can't fall back on the Great Atheist Conspiracy after being presented with articles by good Christian writers.

Jack the Bodiless

I think it's worth stressing that no evidence which contradicts evolution has ever been found (his statement that "evolution has been proven wrong in every asset many of times" is pure nonsense, not true, a creationist lie, etc).

...Whereas Biblical creation is undoubtedly false. Science DOES deal with falsification: if a theory is contradicted by the evidence, it is false, and must be modified or rejected.

I don't see any problem in claiming that Biblical creationism, unlike evolution, has been DISproved.

Jimmy Davies

Note that Primordial stated that evolution is "ture" and "proven." Maybe it's just me, but these words imply absolute certainty. In order for such "witty" demonstrations to have any value against my contention, you would have to show that I was arguing that if something is not absolutely certain, then it is not worth considering as a good scientific explanation.[/QUOTE]

Problem always is, Gunner, folks can get as bent and unyielding as the creationists, but in the name of science. I first became aware of fundamentalist atheism when I was posting on the BBC Freethought board and was actually being gracious to Christians. A number of posters, incapable of postiing in anything except regimented certainties, braced me over it.

What good is atheism if it doesn't make us any more tolerant and accepting than the Creationists? How does it differ from niihilism? Atheism is NOT self justifying, we cannot as atheists champion intolerance.

Doubting Didymus

The thing is, we're not united by ANY common grounds except that we don't have religion. You might as well group together a bunch of people on the grounds that they don't own cars and expect them to share common ethical outlooks.