bluefugue

a) Is there something wrong with trying to figure out the truth about the universe, irrespective of its practical use?

b) It is said that Queen Victoria asked James Clark Maxwell what use his studies in electromagnetism were. It is said that Maxwell replied: "Madame, of what use is a newborn child?"

theyeti

Huh?! Does quantum mechanics withstand "non-scientific inquiry"? Just what the hell does that mean, and why should anyone care? If your "non-scientific inquiry" denies evolution a priori, what does that matter to anyone who thinks science is a useful tool for learning about the world? I happen to think your non-scientific inquiry is stupid, for non-scientific reasons.

theyeti

Babylon Sister

GeoTheo

Good advice. I hope he is listening.

Albion

I think you're being charitable by using "confused." The attempt to redefine methodological naturalism to be equivalent to metaphysical naturalism is entirely deliberate on the part of creationists (particularly of the ID persuasion). it doesn't result from confusion; they know very well what the terms mean, and they know their objections don't work well if the naturalism they're attacking is just a function of the scientific method rather than an overarching worldview that the wicked atheists are seeking to impose on the unsuspecting populace. It's the usual tactic when you're at war - demonise the enemy by redefining it in terms that make it easy, if not even virtuous, to attack it.

Baloo

Statement: Yes, it has - in fact, it is benefitting you, personally, as you read this message.

Proof: Inquiry into evolutionary theory has led to attempts to model it on computers. These efforts have led to the development of genetic algorithms.

Therefore, genetic algorithms would not exist today without an understanding of evolutionary theory.

Genetic algorithms have been used to make your computer go faster.

QED.

editted for clarity
[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]

editted for grammar

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Quit trolling, Vanderzyden, and answer the Challenge posed to you in the other thread.

Autonemesis

Ring of Truth? What is that? Does it sound like a bell or a gong?

Don't bother justfying your tautology. I know what you said. Here, let me rephrase it:

"If evolutionary theories could withstand non-scientific inquiry, then they would also withstand non-scientific inquiry."

Doubting Didymus

Haha, look at this:

posted by Vanderzyden

and then:

posted by Vanderzyden

Does anyone get the joke?

Vanderzygen does't really care about this thread. He admits right here that the crux of the matter is where the truth lies. So: lets discuss the truth of evolution, and talk about the actual evidence. Oh, wait, there were all those other threads that were asking him to do that, weren't there? So what is our freind Van doing here, when we could be discussing the truth? It wouldn't be to DISTRACT us, would it?

Automaton

Stop, before go read this, V., go answer my post on the other thread. Now! Now! NOW! And then you can come back and respond to this one, kay?

BTW, this thread is fun. You basically are claiming, "No matter if someone gave me such direct evidence for evolution as taking me back in a time machine and showing me the macroevolutionary changes that occured over the millenia, I would still refuse to believe in it, based on purely emotional grounds." Now, how on earth can you make this statement, then simultaneously claim we are "blinded", or whatever by our "dogma" (unless you consider methodological naturalism and the process of proper science to be a dogma, then what dogma?) Why? Don't you value truth over lies? Aren't you at all curious to see what the evidence points to with regards to where you came from? This is like the simpleton asking the philosopher, "What is the point of asking 'WHY?' all the time?"
The same benefit mankind has from philosophy, and actually, quite a bit more.
What does this have to do with the overwhelming evidence for evolution?
In essence, neither does string theory, or other forms of quantum mechanics (so far...), archaeology, paleontology, history, etc., etc. Science is about finding out the truth, but knowing the truth is not an ideal to be reached for in the human lifetime, somehow, according to you.
So the **** what? It actually subtracts ANY flawed notion of "superiority" at all. Nothing is more "special" than anything else. But if you want to maintain some kind of crazy ego trithat flys in the face of facts that you are some kind of supreme, ultimite being, then go ahead, believe that not only the Earth, but that actually YOU are the direct centre of the entire universe and everything simply revolves around you. How's that for "adding to the human experience"?
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but you are being a hypocrite again. Just what did the Spaniards do to millions of Native Americans when they invaded, then the name of Christianity (ie., if they didn't convert, them and their family would be tortured to death.)?
This is so ridiculous I can barely even put it into words. Where in the scientific theory of evolution does it state "Thou shalt kill many others"? IT DOES NOT. Darwinian evolution is merely an explanative theory. It says nothing at all about killing anybody. There is no deontic or moralistic command that "one should outcompete", it's just that animals with more adaptative traits DO tend to outcompete!
Science is merely an appraisal of the natural evidence given to us. It says nothing at all about God, except when believers start attributing God to various pieces of evidence, when later turn out to be false. If you think methodological naturalism is a tragedy because it ruins certain fairy tales that people have emotional fixations upon, throw out your computer, your car, and every other piece of technology in your house, and then go live in a cave somewhere or something.
But it is instrinsically useless, because it is, in terms of science, the same as stating that "xysbsydw did it." Science, by definition, can and will only deal with the natural.
We are on a site called Internet Infidels, which is predominately non-theist! What do you expect? It's no use going to an atheist board to discuss evolution, then with dismay claim that the majority of evolutionists are driven by atheism, or whatever. That is a sampling error, plain and simple.
And the claims of ID-ology are a Gigantic, Tangled, Mess of Lies. Especially when ID-ologists claim that ID is a purely scientific endevour, then turn around and whine about evolution taking God out of things.
You have conveniently labeled something a "lie", because you see its truth as having the consequence of hurting your feelings. I'm sorry, but either you are unaware of the definition of lie, or you are being deliberately dishonest.
I'm sorry, but science is the study of the natural world. Yes, that's right, the study of the natural world. By very definition, it automatically excludes supernatural "explanations" and automatically must take the stance of methodological naturalism.
I'm sorry to be making an ad hominem, or to be insulting, but one would have to be stupid to think this. The theory of evolution is an explanative and predictive hypothesis with a mountain of evidence supporting it. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it. It makes no claims about the nature of the universe, the human condition, epistemic laws, or whatever else you want to equivocate with it.
Easily, genetic algorithms, which are used to generate the millions of bytes of information needed for the raw programming power of the neural-network based "intelligent" computers, and also for the production of intricate circuitry, other complex programs, and even artwork! Our knowledge of past forms and the way life adaptates has lead us to breakthroughs in medical technology as well, otherwise medicaiton reistant bacteria would be a total mystery. Since we know how things evolve, we can predict things like rates of evolution, and likely biochemical systems to emerge in response to medications, thus future medications can be planned.
Resistence to antibiotics has created whole new species, which is the definition of macroevolution. So yes, it does count.

Starboy

Vanderzyden,

The very existence of your post demonstrates the most useful benefit of all. It gets people thinking that perhaps there are other explanations for the complexity and variety of life that we see around us and in the fossil record. For those who shop for their “truths” like breakfast cereal, perhaps evolution is not to their liking, but finally after 2,000 years of Christian dogma you now have a choice.

If the primary benefit you obtain from Christianity is comfort and a sense of security, then I urge you to hang onto it with a death grip. I also suggest that you shield yourself from all scientific knowledge. If you think evolution is scary science, try astronomy. After studying the night sky, it doesn’t take you long to figure out that the universe is very old, very big and within it we are nothing. Lie on your back on a new moon night in a dark place far from city lights and gaze into the depths of space. And then instead of thinking you are looking up imagine you are looking down and below you is 14 billion light years of almost nothing. Oh yes, it also is technologically useless, but then come to think of it so is Christianity.

Starboy

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>