• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

Heyo

Veteran Member
This is planned to be a series of posts that is trying to explain the Theory of Evolution (ToE) in a way that it is understandable by creationists, old earth (OEC) and young earth (YEC) alike.

It is inspired by multiple exchanges with @Deeje. I will focus on her understanding but I didn't want to make this a one-on-one debate. Questions from all creationists are welcome (though I may not answer them if I don't think them to be necessary for understanding, already answered or off topic). Corrections by more science savvy people than me are especially encouraged as I don't want this to rest on fallacies.

In my time as a tutor for maths I've recognized that the apparent failure to understand a specific concept often is not with the topic itself but a past misunderstanding of a more basic concept. The same goes for creationists who think that Evolution doesn't make sense. Most of the time they don't have a problem understanding evolution but they have problems with taxonomy or science in general or sometimes even rational thinking. (And then there are those who's paycheck depends on them not understanding, but I'll leave them out for brevity.)

The didactic of this approach is meant for adults who are familiar with structured reasoning. That's why I start with the basics of science and built up to the ToE. A plan for future parts include the scientific method, taxonomy (Linné), The Origin of Species (Darwin), Palaeontology (maybe with an excursion into geology), Genetics and up to the modern synthesis and extended evolutionary synthesis.

Long intro, short lecture:

What is Science?

1. Science is the systematic enterprise to gain knowledge about the natural world (universe). 2. This is done by creating models with explanatory and predictive power which can be and are tested by their predictions.

To do what science is out to do, it has to make some assumptions that can't be derived (though they can be falsified through testing or logic). The three axioms of science are:
3. The universe is real.
4. The universe is orderly.
5. The universe is knowable.

There are different formulations of these axioms which are equivalent.
It is here where the first disputes can arise. Many religious creationists can't agree on these axioms. For some Hindu and Buddhist the world is but an illusion so they disagree with the first axiom. For some Christian and Muslim traditions knowledge must be revealed and can't be gained by science. They don't agree with the third axiom.
The most controversial of all is the second. It can be reformulated as "There is no magic."

When you don't agree with these axioms or don't understand their implications, you have a problem with science, not a problem with the ToE.

@Deeje: Do we agree on this definition of science?
Do you have questions?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Exciting OP, @Heyo! Thanks for the thread!

I too often take an axiomic view of the sciences. I like the three you offer us, and I am fine with how you have formulated them -- although I am certain that some of us RFers would nitpick one or more of the three. I would only like to emphasize your point that there are many alternative formulations of the axioms of science.

Something that I think cannot be over-emphasized is another one of your points -- the key importance to the sciences of being able to test predictions derived from its models and hypotheses. When that is not properly understood and appreciated, one can end up with all sorts of things labeled "science" that it is highly dubious to label as such.

Good work!
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
This is planned to be a series of posts that is trying to explain the Theory of Evolution (ToE) in a way that it is understandable by creationists, old earth (OEC) and young earth (YEC) alike.
Are you insinuating that all OECs don't believe in/accept ToE? *pulls out machine gun* Men, ATTAAAACCCKKKK!!!! :D:D:D
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Are you insinuating that all OECs don't believe in/accept ToE? *pulls out machine gun* Men, ATTAAAACCCKKKK!!!! :D:D:D
I guess some do already accept the ToE and some may even understand it but they most likely are more Deist than what I'd call creationists.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess some do already accept the ToE and some may even understand it but they most likely are more Deist than what I'd call creationists.
*raises eyebrow* Well, I'll have to wait and read the rest of your posts to see why you think religious believers in ToE are Deists.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
This is planned to be a series of posts that is trying to explain the Theory of Evolution (ToE) in a way that it is understandable by creationists, old earth (OEC) and young earth (YEC) alike.

It is inspired by multiple exchanges with @Deeje. I will focus on her understanding but I didn't want to make this a one-on-one debate. Questions from all creationists are welcome (though I may not answer them if I don't think them to be necessary for understanding, already answered or off topic). Corrections by more science savvy people than me are especially encouraged as I don't want this to rest on fallacies.

In my time as a tutor for maths I've recognized that the apparent failure to understand a specific concept often is not with the topic itself but a past misunderstanding of a more basic concept. The same goes for creationists who think that Evolution doesn't make sense. Most of the time they don't have a problem understanding evolution but they have problems with taxonomy or science in general or sometimes even rational thinking. (And then there are those who's paycheck depends on them not understanding, but I'll leave them out for brevity.)

The didactic of this approach is meant for adults who are familiar with structured reasoning. That's why I start with the basics of science and built up to the ToE. A plan for future parts include the scientific method, taxonomy (Linné), The Origin of Species (Darwin), Palaeontology (maybe with an excursion into geology), Genetics and up to the modern synthesis and extended evolutionary synthesis.

Long intro, short lecture:

What is Science?

1. Science is the systematic enterprise to gain knowledge about the natural world (universe). 2. This is done by creating models with explanatory and predictive power which can be and are tested by their predictions.

To do what science is out to do, it has to make some assumptions that can't be derived (though they can be falsified through testing or logic). The three axioms of science are:
3. The universe is real.
4. The universe is orderly.
5. The universe is knowable.

There are different formulations of these axioms which are equivalent.
It is here where the first disputes can arise. Many religious creationists can't agree on these axioms. For some Hindu and Buddhist the world is but an illusion so they disagree with the first axiom. For some Christian and Muslim traditions knowledge must be revealed and can't be gained by science. They don't agree with the third axiom.
The most controversial of all is the second. It can be reformulated as "There is no magic."

When you don't agree with these axioms or don't understand their implications, you have a problem with science, not a problem with the ToE.

@Deeje: Do we agree on this definition of science?
Do you have questions?
Now i know why i selsom agree with science.....
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
In before someone inevitably demands that @Heyo define what he means by 'real' in his first axiom of science...

One can restate his first axiom as "The universe exists independent of our minds."
Correct, but not only that. It exists independent of any mind. I.e. the Simulation Hypothesis (where the universe exists "in the mind" of a computer) is also not scientific.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What is Science?

1. Science is the systematic enterprise to gain knowledge about the natural world (universe). 2. This is done by creating models with explanatory and predictive power which can be and are tested by their predictions.

To do what science is out to do, it has to make some assumptions that can't be derived (though they can be falsified through testing or logic). The three axioms of science are:
3. The universe is real.
4. The universe is orderly.
5. The universe is knowable.

As a Christian I agree with this definition.

For some Christian and Muslim traditions knowledge must be revealed and can't be gained by science.

I have never heard of that position for Christians. Either a false assumption or in need of a better explanation (not being combative)

The most controversial of all is the second. It can be reformulated as "There is no magic."

Don't understand how "orderly" jumped to magic. Unless you are talking about that which science doesn't address... the spiritual which, iMV, is also orderly, real and knowable. (below)

1. Science is the systematic enterprise to gain knowledge about the natural world (universe).

Thus science doesn't deal with the spiritual world but simply doesn't address it
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
*puts on the idiot skeptic hat* Prove it! :p

Prove an axiom? Do I look like God, these days? Wait... It's that new designer shirt I got from Milamode's, isn't it? I got to hand it to you, yes, it does make me look divine! Thank you for the compliment, bro. :D
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Prove an axiom? Do I look like God, these days? Wait... It's that new designer shirt I got from Milamode's, isn't it? I got to hand it to you, yes, it does make me look divine! Thank you for the compliment, bro. :D
Wait...are you saying that RF admins aren't part of the collective divine consciousness?
 
Top