Evolution is Fact

[goku]

evolution is fact.

 

a scientific fact?

[REASON]

a scientific fact?

 

Are there any other kind?

[InfiniteNow]

Goku,

 

I'd like for you to first tell me how you define "scientific." Once you do, I will address your question.

 

 

If you seriously believe that evolution is false, then I'm afraid no information, no data, no evidence will ever be good enough to convince you otherwise, as evolution is truly the most robust and well supported scientific theory ever put forth in the history of human kind. You also should recall that a scientific theory is quite different than how the word "theory" is used in common parlance. The following page does a fair job of covering this pertinent distinction:

 

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Again, once you tell me how you are definining "scientific" when you use it as a descriptor of the word "fact," I will gladly address your question.

 

Thanks for your participation. :confused:

[C1ay]

hmm, how could it be a scientific fact today and scientifically proven wrong tomorrow? :confused:

 

I think that post would make a nice illustration for the Wiki article on Straw Man. Any Wiki editors around?

[CraigD]

hmm, how could it be a scientific fact today and scientifically proven wrong tomorrow?

I think that post would make a nice illustration for the Wiki article on Straw Man. Any Wiki editors around?

I don’t think this goku’s post is a good example of a straw man fallacy, because the position it exaggerates is so far from what most people understand a scientific position to be that it’s not recognizable. The caricature of science it suggests, while recognizable to some communities, such as anti-technological conspiracy theorists and some kinds of religious fundamentalists, is obscure to most readers of hypography and wikipedia.

 

Instead, I think it reveals a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. It’s reasoning appears to be something like this:

• “Scientific facts” are absolute certainties;
  
• However, science frequently rejects previous “scientific facts”;
  
• Therefore, science is contradictory and absurd.
  

The flaw in this argument is, I’m confident most hypography readers recognize, that “scientific facts” are not absolute certainties. Rather, they are statements that can be supported by some well-defined and widely accepted standard of evaluation. Such standards change, so what is a “scientific fact” at one time may not be at an early or later time. Even on the same day, what is a fact in one scientific context may not be in another – for example, conservation of mass, momentum, and energy are “facts” in systems well described by simple Newtonian mechanics, such as bridges and construction cranes, but not in systems not well described by them, such as particle accelerators and radioactive substances.

 

As I’ve stated a few times around these forums, I don’t personally see a distinct division between ancient religious dogma and modern scientific theories. At some time, based on some well-defined and widely accepted standard of evaluation, ideas such as the many creation stories (Genesis etc.) of the many religions were, I think, effectively credible scientific theories, based on the then best available understanding of reality. However, as our understanding of reality improved, these accounts were rejected. For many religious people, they were redefined as not literally true, but as useful moral allegory. Others explained the literal failure of the old stories as due to the limited understanding of the original story tellers, and sought to reword them in scientifically correct terms. Still others rejected the new understanding, in many cases, explaining that the new understanding was due to corrupting deception by a god-like enemy, ie: “Satan the devil”. A fourth line of religious thought – commonly termed ‘orthodoxy” – hold that the literal truth or moral utility of the story is secondary to its ability to unite a religion, society, or nation – that religion is primarily a political tool.

 

One sees these and other basic modes of reluctances to acquire and apply new and different scientific understandings across generations and disciplines of scientists, and even as internal struggles within communities of and individual scientists.

 

I think the greatest distinction between a scientific and a religious mindset has to do the absolute acceptance of authority. In general and with some exceptions, scientific mindsets lack it, while religious ones have it.

[C1ay]

I don’t think this goku’s post is a good example of a straw man fallacy, because the position it exaggerates is so far from what most people understand a scientific position to be that it’s not recognizable.

 

I would agree with that. It is kind of like a straw man on steroids....

[Pyrotex]

Someone famous once said that superstition is so damned pernicious because, to the superstitious, superstition isn't superstition, it's just what's so.

 

Likewise with "strawman arguments". Most folks not steeped in the scientific tradition, and especially if they have been exposed to anti-science suspicion, consider their strawman arguments simply to be a true and valid expression of what they THINK science says.

 

"Doesn't science say that yadda yadda yadda?"

"Isn't a theory just a yadda yadda yadda?"

"Doesn't the law of thermodynamics prove that yadda yadda yadda?"

 

And we, who ARE steeped in scientific thinking and rigorous analysis, can't say YES or NO. The questions are flawed. The questions are based on multiple layers of false assumptions, misrepresentations, word-twisting, misunderstanding and confusion.

 

Science ain't for sissies. :shrug:

[TheBigDog]

I think the greatest distinction between a scientific and a religious mindset has to do the absolute acceptance of authority. In general and with some exceptions, scientific mindsets lack it, while religious ones have it.

I don't think I agree with you on this point Craig. But the point that you are making is right on the root of the conflict between science and religion.

 

Science rejects the authority of religion to define the nature of reality. They instead choose to follow logic and what can be demonstrated through math and repeatable experimentation. There are many gaps still to be understood and theoretical scientists draw logical conclusions by extending what we know to explain what we do not know.

 

Religion rejects the authority of science to define the nature of reality. They choose to follow traditional teachings and choose to have faith in the beliefs that have existed for a long time. The religious often point to the changes in what science states as being factual as evidence of the inability to rely upon what it says.

 

The fact is that both sides reject the authority of the other. Too often this agenda of disproving the legitimacy of the so-called opposition becomes the focal point rather than the study of science and the study of theology. Zealots on both sides put out bait and take the bait of the opposition and the debate becomes the focus instead of the advancement of the human condition - something that is also a core agenda of both sides.

 

What always strikes me is how pointless the whole debate is. In the story of Moses it is said that the burning bush told Moses "I am that I am; tell them that I am sent you." Well, The Universe is that it is. God or no God, science or no science; we have the realities of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, politics, greed, famine, plenty, scarcity, love, lust, hate, desire, loneliness, over-crowding, birth, death, joy, sorrow, curiosity, success, failure, luck, mistakes, pain, pleasure, fact, fantasy, fiction, and every other foolishness that the human enterprise is capable of. An individual's beliefs do not sway the universe, but they can make existing in the universe more suited to an individual - even if that existence spurns what others would call fact, denies what others would call reality, or rejects what others would call proven truth.

 

Hypography is for all intents and purposes a Church of the Mind. It is a sacred ground for the logical and those who are looking for repeatable explanation of cause and effect in all things that can be comprehended. And a function of that is the examination of Religion and its place in the universe. But that examination in on the terms of the logical, not on the terms of faith in the divine. And I state it as faith in the divine because EVERYONE works on having a level of faith - even the most astute scientist - it is just a matter of the logical basis of that faith that differs. I read about quantum mechanics, and I have some understanding of it based upon what I read; but I am never going to perform first hand experimentation or perform any complex mathematics to prove or disprove what I read; I am putting my faith in the expertise of those who choose to study such things in depth and I use my own capacity to think and to question and to understand to try and sort out what I should accept as truth and what I should reject. Everyone does this because nobody can understand everything, nobody can research everything firsthand for themselves, and much of what constitutes research is studying the published finding of our predecessors and drawing our own conclusions.

 

So that gets us back to the question of this thread. "Evolution is fact." The debate comes down to the definition of evolution and without consensus on that point the debate will never end. Natural Selection is fact - we can observe that and have for thousands of years. Even before the Theory of Evolution the concept of Survival of the Fittest was well known. Intelligent Selection is also fact - humans have been using their gift of intelligence to domesticate plants and animals and transform them into useful tools for thousands of years. The horizon of documented history is unfortunately too short to clearly connect every dot in the process of "microbe to man" evolution. Those who accept this are still using some level of faith that the gaps will be filled in a predictable fashion and many see those gaps as so clearly explained that they need no further explanation; yet reserve the right to accept a better explanation than they have today should one be found. Those who reject the "microbe to man" evolution do so on faith in God or religion or tradition, and often use logic and reason to poke holes in the gaps of the current theory, or to point out the hypocrisy of recycling what one considers to be truth - their own explanations/beliefs remain consistent no matter what new discoveries are made.

 

The fact is believing it or not does not change the ultimate truth. And the ultimate truth is something that we can get closer and closer to and yet all we ever really learn is that we do not know everything. So we take what we know, we weight it, we consider it, and we use it how we can to benefit our existence. We all make those considerations in the most personal of manners and we will never agree no matter how far science advances on what the right decisions really are. And we will never agree no matter how far religion advances on what the right decisions really are. In the end every individual will come to their own conclusions and live their life in the manner to which that leads.

 

Bill

[C1ay]

Science rejects the authority of religion to define the nature of reality. They instead choose to follow logic and what can be demonstrated through math and repeatable experimentation. There are many gaps still to be understood and theoretical scientists draw logical conclusions by extending what we know to explain what we do not know.

 

Religion rejects the authority of science to define the nature of reality. They choose to follow traditional teachings and choose to have faith in the beliefs that have existed for a long time. The religious often point to the changes in what science states as being factual as evidence of the inability to rely upon what it says.

 

I think there is also another key difference between scientists and the religious in keeping open the option that there are unexplored, undiscovered, unimagined explanations for as yet unexplained phenomena.

 

Scientists form hypotheses and theories about reality, test them and hunt for the truth. Tests are done with the expectation that they will support or refute their ideals. There are open to the possibility that their theory could be wrong.

 

The religious are usually fixated that they are right and the possibility that they might be wrong, however remote, is not a possibility at all. They seem unable to understand or accept that there could be alternate explanations of reality than that they have learned.

 

In short, science seems more open minded while religion seems generally more close minded.

[goku]

• “Scientific facts” are absolute certainties;
  
• However, science frequently rejects previous “scientific facts”;
  
• Therefore, science is contradictory and absurd.
  

 

i thought scientific fact meant the truth, huh you know, fact

[TheBigDog]

i thought scientific fact meant the truth, huh you know, fact

 

The religious often point to the changes in what science states as being factual as evidence of the inability to rely upon what it says.

...or to point out the hypocrisy of recycling what one considers to be truth - their own explanations/beliefs remain consistent no matter what new discoveries are made.

Goku, your adherence to the play-book makes discussion with you very boring and tedious - but that is why Tormod pays me the big bucks. Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you simply anti-science?

 

Bill

[C1ay]

• “Scientific facts” are absolute certainties;
  
• However, science frequently rejects previous “scientific facts”;
  
• Therefore, science is contradictory and absurd.
  

 

i thought scientific fact meant the truth, huh you know, fact

 

Quoting Craig's illustration of your apparent position as his own is yet another deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Instead of attacking opposing arguments to your position why don't you try to actually support your position with some factual evidence because disproving an opponent's position would not prove your own anyway. Can you come up with even a shred of evidence to support your position?

[Moontanman]

i thought scientific fact meant the truth, huh you know, fact

 

Well goku, you are wrong, scientific facts are the best attempt to explain reality with what can currently tell is true through testing available evidence. Lots of scientific theories have become absolute facts, the Earth is a sphere, the Earth rotates around the sun (as opposed to the church sponsored idea of the Sun orbiting the Earth), Mice to not spontaneously form from rotting grain, gravity holds us to the Earth, airplanes can indeed fly, lightning is static electricity, the list is far too large to even list a tiny percentage of it. Yes some theories are proved to be wrong, that is why science is the best way to explain reality. Science can admit when it's wrong, evolution is the best way to explain the available facts of how life came to be in all it's exquisite complexity, only the fine details are really in any debate. but of course religion has no debate, it's true no matter how it's ridiculous claims fly in the face of reality.

 

Religion on the other hand has predicted quite a few things that are totally wrong and yet are still hawked as the truth because religion cannot admit to any possibility of being wrong. I'm sure you'd like to see a list but I'm sure you already know them by heart.....

[InfiniteNow]

Religion on the other hand has predicted quite a few things that are totally wrong and yet are still hawked as the truth because religion cannot admit to any possibility of being wrong. I'm sure you'd like to see a list but I'm sure you already know them by heart.....

 

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment of the situation, Moontanman. I originally thought the same thing, but when I commented on it earlier in this thread, goku responded thusly:

 

from who? i git all my information from here.

 

 

I'm inclined to take him at his word. While it's possible that in his past there were people in his life sharing skewed realities and half-truths, the fact of the matter is that he is here at Hypography regularly now... in the present. I take that to mean that he's learning from our contributions and challenges to his position.

 

Don't get me wrong, I get frustrated often as well since many of goku's comments are so curt, inaccurate, and misrepresentative. However, I believe that many of his posts which seem abrasive could, in fact, be the result of a genuine misunderstanding. Let's all try and stay focussed on the data and support of our claims, since that's the only thing that really matters in all of this, and it's also the only way that misunderstandings will ever be ameliorated.

 

 

Now, goku. Don't make me regret sticking up for you. I only did because I've seen such tremendous improvements in your knowledge set since you originally joined this community, and I sincerely want to see you continue to improve yourself and learn more. Be well. :)

[Moontanman]

I don't see it InfiniteNow but I'll bow to your experience on this.

[InfiniteNow]

I always concede the possibility that I could be wrong, and this is no exception. However, I don't think there's any harm in trying. :)

[univac]

There is a differance between matter over mind and mind over matter.

All intentions are created through Reasoning which originates from the meaning.Then is reconciled and then the reconciliation of the meaning becomes the creation ready for the teaching.

 

Mind over matter creates energy internaly as matter over mind is creating enery externaly.

 

God is the reason of intention and all creation are reconciled to him through the reconciliation Christ Jesus, Yes we are all energy cells (electrons a negative electric charge) God is the (nucleus) as christ is (proton neutron).the Alpha and the Omega

the beginning and the end.

 

As it is written by God through Christ all creation came, and by the foundation of the nucleus through the neutron proton all electrons came.

 

Thats why it is written nobody goes to the father but through the son.

What would happen if the electrons inforced through the proton neutron into the nucleus?

 

We can;t see atoms but we know it exist. Energy transmits knowlege as through reasoning create intentions inreturn creates energy masses within our space of mind aswell as external reactions which becomes actions.

 

God is all energy , he is the reasoning (vibration) through the vacuum (intention) of space (black holes) God is creater of all componds elements through the density space black matter which God does according to he will.

 

God is the perpetual being, and space is God mind which is everlasting.

We are a cell within a cell within a cell in other words we are all connected to the atom

(God) if we like it or not.