Amen-Moses

"If the the theory of evolution is a scientific one, then why isn't the strongest evidence for it based on experimental evidence?"

I'd just like to expand on my earlier answer to this question (which was "It is.").

In my mind the strongest evidence for evolution is the DNA evidence showing relationships between organisms that match those relationships predicted by evolutionary theories. This evidence is "experimental" in the sense that an experiment was devised and executed, can be re-executed at will, and will give the same results.

Another example of experimental evidence is the computer modelling of evolution which again shows that predictions made by the theories are correct in principle.

My last two examples are linked, scientific breeding programmes, i.e the enhancement of certain traits by selective breeding and experiments on aquired traits such as immunity to drugs.

These, to me at least, are the strongest evidences available and even though I myself was convinced purely on the strength of the geological evidence I usually use the experimental evidence in my arguments with cretinists.

Amen-Moses

Stephen T-B

Vanderzyden’s thinks an ancient Creation myth provides a more reliable account for why Life is how we find it than does observation.

Let me offer an analogy:
There are two approaches that can be taken to how Christmas presents arrive in a child’s stocking. The Realistic approach suggests a natural, explicable, scientifically-validated explanation.
The Unrealistic (or Creationist) approach requires the existence of Santa Claus, flying reindeer, a sleigh, little magical helpers and the ability of a very fat man to get down a very narrow chimney without being blackened or knocking down any soot.
The Realists are hampered by the fact that they can never stay awake long enough to see the entire operation of parent opening the door, crossing the room, putting parcels in the stocking and leaving again. But they do have a camera, and are able to capture brief moments in this sequence so they have photos of the empty stocking, of the door being shut, then slightly ajar, of a figure half way across the room, and finally of a hand holding a parcel.
The Unrealists (Creationists) then spend all their time pointing out that since the account presented by the Realists is incomplete it must be wrong and that their Santa Claus myth is therefore the proper explanation.

Vanderzyden MUST discredit the naturalistic account for why Life is as we find it or else see the foundation of his belief dissolve into nothing.
Desperate times, Vanderzyden. desperate times.

Lizard

Primemover wrote:

Me:
Well, what's your theory as to how wings came to be?

Vanderzyden

Desperate indeed, Stephen T-B. We all are desperate...

Clearly, the naturalist is too proud to admit the precarious situation in which she finds herself. Her primary pre-scientific belief is that the creator, if he exists, takes no special interest in his creation. Claiming to be wise, the Darwinian ignores the strong clues to an Intelligent Cause and invents theories to exclude this cause from consideration.

It's easy to see why. Such vehement denial provides an escape from any accountability to a supposed creator, thus permitting a man to live without restraints and with impunity. The Big Lie has had its effect.

If you are unaware, there are many theistic realists--they begin with far stronger presuppositions than the naturalist. I wonder, have you taken time to examine their claims, or do you simply assign stereotypical labels for fear of engaging in a serious discussion?

Make no mistake, Stephen, Darwinians have their own religion. Leaps of faith abound everywhere in their thinking. The methodological naturalist clings desperately to the edge of an immense chasm. And yet, rescue is at hand.

However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as it dead dogma, not a living truth.

...He knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. A rational decision for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the [majority of] the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess.

-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

beausoleil

In the interests of balance, I'll note that I've met quite a few 'evolutionists' who were ignoramuses. In fact, I think that would be a useful redefinition of the weird word 'evolutionist': someone who has greater personal commitment to a scientific idea (especially evolution) than their knowledge of said idea warrants.

Present company excepted, of course.

'There is some sort of religious explanation for the size of the genitals' - Herodotus.

MOJO-JOJO

Excellent point! When it comes to the discussion of origins, one typically leans towards the arguments and evidence proposed by the 'Scientists', or one leans towards the arguments and philosophy of the 'Religionists'. Or one may try to please EVERYbody....like the Pope!

TooBad

Vanderzyden, you might do more service to your credibility if you attempted to address some of the substantive points made in earlier posts, rather than sidestepping them and dropping straight into "lecture" mode.

If you're only here to preach, I respectfully suggest you're in the wrong forum.

hezekiah jones

Do you mean "metaphysical/ontological naturalist" or "methodological naturalist"? Most creationists either don't know the difference or deliberately conflate the two, so your confusion is not suprising. Remarkable in this instance however, since you prefaced your decidedly unclear assertion with the word, "Clearly."

Now you're talking about sort of an agnostic/deist or what? What's up with all this religious gibberish anyway? Don't we address science here?

Actually Darwin was occupied to a considerable extent by Paley's natural theology although there certainly is no evidence that he "invented" his theory for the sole purpose of invalidating Paley's argument.

What horseshit. The old "Darwinists = atheists by definition with no morals" in slightly more articulate garb.

So what?

Yes, and no. But please do start another thread to discuss the astonishing discoveries of the "intelligent design" crowd.

Oh so it's "methodological naturalism" after all. Including the "methodological naturalism" practiced by theistic scientists presumably? Hey - what was that? The sound of a collapsing "argument"?

<snip J.S. Mill quotation>

And this has what, exactly, to do with the subject under consideration? Freedom of speech alone won't get your supernatural pontifications onto the pages of a journal of biology. Just ask Michael Behe.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

You mean to tell me there's no Santa Clause??? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Skeptical

Actually that is not correct. Someone who follows "naturalism" believes that the only tools we have are those that can determine naturalistic causes. Since we have no reliable non-naturalistic tools, even if there are non-natural causes, whatever that might mean, we could not determine what those causes were.

In other words, if one posits a non-naturalistic cause such as god, we have no reason for positing one non-naturalistic cause over another non-naturalistic cause since we have no detection tools. If one posits "goddidit", one could just as easily posit "fairiesdidit" or "hobgoblinsdidit". No reliable detection tools means we cannot in principle rule anything out. It has nothing to do with a "creator", that's just an a priori assumption on your part.

First, your are confusing many issues into a simple "black and white" scenario. You begin talking about naturalism, and then you start talking about "Darwinian". These terms are clearly not the same. Are you arguing about science in general as a way of viewing the world or are you talking about evolutionary theories in particular? You need to be clear what it is that your are talking about.

Second, your use of the term "Darwinian" is a little anachronistic. Evolutionary theory covers a very wide field and many theories, some of which did not exist in Darwins day. Many areas which did exist have evolved based on new evidence and new ideas since the time of Darwin.

Third, please present your evidence of the " strong clues to an Intelligent Cause". So far all you have presented is assertions.

Fourth, Scientists don't "invent" theories in the sense that they just pull ideas out of they're arse. They examine the evidence, posit a potential cause, then, and here's the key, they _test_ the world to see if the theory holds weight. If it doesn't, they abandon it. If it appears correct, they continue to perform experiments.

This idea has been refuted many times. Suffice it to say that if you think non-theists are not moral and do not have systems of ethics, your completely wrong. This is nothing more than an ad hominem, the last refuge of the clueless. Try presenting arguments and evidence.

And which lie would that be? Is it bigger than the lies that YEC's like to post? Please, do tell.

What presuppostions would those be? That everything can be explained by an appeal to magic? And those are "stronger" than naturalism in what way? Again, please, do tell.

Do you actually have any real arguments and evidence to present? I can't recall who said it, but there is good quote that the difference between a metaphysician and a scientist is that the metaphysician has no laboratory. The point that you seem woefully ignorant of is that the reason that every scientist in the world believes in and follows methodological naturalims is that it is the only, I repeat _only_, toolset we have that produces reliable results. It's just that simple. If you have an argument to make that there is a non-natural toolset or if you have a legitimate reason why the toolset we have is flawed, make that argument.

You see, it makes no difference what my plumber my "feel" about my sink, the wrenches he uses will still work. Likewise, it makes no difference what assumptions you think scientists or "naturalists" make, the toolset works. If you don't think so, why are using a computer and electicity since those things wouldn't be possible without "naturalism"?