Has human evolution been disproved?

[logician]

Evolution is fact as much as chemistry or physics. Only the varous theories that describe the mechanics of evolution are currently under debate by scientists, and it takes a lot of knowledge and research to even get in on those debates. I certainly am not qualified(math major), and certainly someone that espouses some religious notion or creationism isn't either.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The difference is that you recognize and admit your limitations, Logician.

Creationists can't even fathom that they (nor the people like Hovind, Ham, et al) are completely unqualified to pass judgement. To them, God is on their side, so they (naturally) share in the claims of inerrancey with the almighty.

 

[RedOne77]

I grew up in the south, in the late 50's and early 60's. I had neighbors that proudly displayed their membership certificate in the KKK right above the fireplace. In my youth, the Baptist church that I attended was strongly influenced by the local cadre of the KKK. So yea - I'd say I've interacted with the KKK. I know who they are, I know what they espouse, and I know the cowardice of their methods.

While I'm too young to have really interacted with them, my dad was in a similar position as you were growing up in the south in that same time period; so I have stories, not actual experiences of my own. He's told me of the similarities between the KKK and creationism before. What a shame that humanity can be molded in such a way, so easily poised to harbor hatred with nearly impervious conditioning to reject all that don't fall in behind lock-step.

... by trying to crush education.

Quite the opposite. I only stated that reduced education in a population increases the friendliness towards creationism. It's not so much that I'm against education, rather I'm for better education. Obviously I would like to take away the stigmata over challenging the current paradigm for starters. Yet the U.S. not only needs better science/math education, but better everything.

Nice anecdotal information. Got any evidence to support those assertions?

Well, according to the Gallup poll creationism has remained steady for decades (around 45%) as seen on their website: Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Also, in 2007 the Council of European Parliamentary Assembly acknowledged an increase in creationism among Europe to a degree that it must be addressed.

I also found this interesting, while it is an older study (published 2004 and used data as far back as the 90's), the national science board quizzed (in 2001) America and Europe and found that America is more scientifically literate than Europe, although both scores were low. While it isn't exactly creationism, it scared the dickens out of me and I hope it would for you too. Here is the study: Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding - Public Knowledge About S&T

Here is an article from the Atlantic magazine from 2007 (before the Council of European Parliamentary came out with it's resolution addressing creationism) talking about the trends of atheism versus creationism, showing an increase in atheism in the States while observing the opposite in Europe as they become more religious. Crises of Faith - Magazine - The Atlantic

 

[droog1]

Quite the opposite. I only stated that reduced education in a population increases the friendliness towards creationism. It's not so much that I'm against education, rather I'm for better education. Obviously I would like to take away the stigmata over challenging the current paradigm for starters. Yet the U.S. not only needs better science/math education, but better everything.

Red One, if you don't mind please. Could you tell me what you consider to be "better" education? An education that includes any ideas no matter how unproveable? Or education that sticks to the proveable facts of science as we know them today?

It does seem as though your recent posts seem to lead one to believe that the less someone is educated, the less they know of the real world, the more apt they are to believe in YEC/ID. It's as if creationism is only accepted by people with little knowledge therefore making it easier to fill their collective heads with nonsense.

This next statement may be a bit off topic, but I've always wondered why the ID'ers only subscribe to the belief that anything we can't explain scientifically has to be God's doing. How come the intelligence can't possibly be extraterrestrial seeding or microbes that came from a meteor in deep space? It is always God's doing, therefore leading me to believe ID is another vain attempt at shoving a certain religion down the throats of todays students.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.......

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Quite the opposite. I only stated that reduced education in a population increases the friendliness towards creationism.

The reason for that is simple:

More informed people = more informed decisions

Did it never occur to you that the reason that the more educated people are the less they are likely to consider creationism valid science is because creationism isn't valid science, and only those who are uninformed (willfully or otherwise) would claim that it is?

Education is not indoctrinating people to reject creationism any more than it is indoctrinating them to reject astrology, alchemy or geocentricism. They are merely being educated to make better decisions and be more discerning about what is and isn't science, and, sadly in your case, this means that creationism inevitably loses it's validity in their eyes. Because it isn't science.

It's not so much that I'm against education, rather I'm for better education.

And what, in your view, would count as "better" education?

Keep in mind that, as it stands, you cannot justify allowing creationism into schools without also allowing astrology, alchemy and geocentricism into science as well.

Obviously I would like to take away the stigmata over challenging the current paradigm for starters.

Care to mention any examples of the stigmata over the "challenging the current paradigm"? Or any examples or what this "paradigm" is?

As far as I'm aware, the "current paradigm" appears to be: "Teach science in science class, not theistic mythology". Is that the paradigm you're against?

 

[RedOne77]

Red One, if you don't mind please. Could you tell me what you consider to be "better" education? An education that includes any ideas no matter how unproveable? Or education that sticks to the proveable facts of science as we know them today?

I was talking about the education system in general; the U.S. needs better education in practically every area. The system as a whole doesn't prepare students to compete internationally on any level save K-4, the undergrad programs are not as good as those overseas, and now even he graduate programs are falling behind. It is something that needs to be fixed if America wants to remain as a superpower. And I think it will require an overhaul on the system already in place, and this will have to be done in small steps.

It does seem as though your recent posts seem to lead one to believe that the less someone is educated, the less they know of the real world, the more apt they are to believe in YEC/ID. It's as if creationism is only accepted by people with little knowledge therefore making it easier to fill their collective heads with nonsense.

Not all YEC/ID people are bumbling idiots. The academic world today is founded on philosophical naturalism disguised as methodological naturalism, and with this attitude in-place the more someone is an academia the more they are conditioned to just accept things like evolution as fact because that's what they are being continually told day in and day out.

This next statement may be a bit off topic, but I've always wondered why the ID'ers only subscribe to the belief that anything we can't explain scientifically has to be God's doing. How come the intelligence can't possibly be extraterrestrial seeding or microbes that came from a meteor in deep space? It is always God's doing, therefore leading me to believe ID is another vain attempt at shoving a certain religion down the throats of todays students.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.......

ID by itself doesn't say what or who the designer is, only that there is one. With Christians, that designer is God, but ID never makes that distinction. Many creationists, like myself, combine the two into a world view; and that seems to be the norm now days. ID can trace it's roots back to the 5th century BC, although it wasn't called ID, the idea everything was designed was present.

 

[fantome profane]

The academic world today is founded on philosophical naturalism disguised as methodological naturalism

If you please I would like some clarification on you thoughts here.

Are you saying that science should be based on methodological naturalism and not on philosophical naturalism? Is this what you are saying?

Do you agree that proper science must be based on methodological naturalism?


Is Creationism based on methodological naturalism?

 

[droog1]

ID by itself doesn't say what or who the designer is, only that there is one. With Christians, that designer is God, but ID never makes that distinction. Many creationists, like myself, combine the two into a world view; and that seems to be the norm now days. ID can trace it's roots back to the 5th century BC, although it wasn't called ID, the idea everything was designed was present.

ID itself may not say this, Red One, but the vast majority of it's proponents sure do. I can't remember William Dembski or Michael Behe, et. al. describing anything but a supernatural being creating us all. I've seen nothing in the Discovery Institute or it's offshoots theorizing alien intervention or anything else but a certain god figure.
Red One, if you can come up with a few quotes or sites showing where I am wrong about this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Are you really sure you want to be quoting science five centuries before Jesus? Back in the time of Greek myths about Zeus and Hera? Back when it was thought that Apollo was pulling the sun across the sky?

 

[RedOne77]

If you please I would like some clarification on you thoughts here.

Are you saying that science should be based on methodological naturalism and not on philosophical naturalism? Is this what you are saying?

In a sense. While I have no quarrel with using nature to understand some aspects of this world, I think it is a great tool to understand many things, I don't think it is the be-all end-all. I think science must transcend beyond the natural (if possible) to truly understand the universe. And if science can't do it, then I think we need a new method of understanding.

Do you agree that proper science must be based on methodological naturalism?

Proper science today, yes. But as stated above, to get the complete picture one must surpass the hidden tautology that is, methodological naturalism.

Is Creationism based on methodological naturalism?

Partially. Creationism uses methodological naturalism to an extent (ID), but at the same time it goes outside that realm into the higher mysteries if you will.

 

[RedOne77]

ID itself may not say this, Red One, but the vast majority of it's proponents sure do. I can't remember William Dembski or Michael Behe, et. al. describing anything but a supernatural being creating us all. I've seen nothing in the Discovery Institute or it's offshoots theorizing alien intervention or anything else but a certain god figure.

There isn't a lot of people proposing non-supernatural design, but there are a few people out there. Fred Hoyle, for example, is an atheist and scientist who supported ID and was very much opposed to Darwin's ToE. There's also Bradley Monton, an atheist and philosopher of science who proposes that ID is a valid scientific alternative to evolution. While few in number, I'll admit, they are out there.

Red One, if you can come up with a few quotes or sites showing where I am wrong about this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Here is a link about Fred Hoyle, Fred Hoyle – An Atheist for ID | Uncommon Descent You can also read about him on the wiki page, if I remember correctly wiki has a section about Hoyle attacking Darwinian evolution.

And here is a link talking about Bradley Monton, http://www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner~y2009m8d19-Atheist-defends-Intelligent-Design

Are you really sure you want to be quoting science five centuries before Jesus? Back in the time of Greek myths about Zeus and Hera? Back when it was thought that Apollo was pulling the sun across the sky?

I seriously doubt the intellectuals from Greece thought that their mythology was real in large chunks. Stories about monsters being the size of the Earth and walking across the Earth and hiding has a few logical implications that just aren't doable. What I was trying to say was that many people think ID is only a few years old, when in fact it is much older. Obviously as time moves on, ID has evolved as new info came about, and curious enough evolution can also trace its roots to Greece as well.

 

[droog1]

Red One,

Thanks for the heads up on those links, sir. I will peruse them and get back to you. Gracias......

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I think science must transcend beyond the natural (if possible) to truly understand the universe.

This pretty well sums up your complete lack of understanding of what science is, how it operates, and how it serves mankind.

And if science can't do it, then I think we need a new method of understanding.

No. What you mean to say is "If science can't give me the answers I want to hear, then we need to act like science is wrong, and find an excuse to believe the things that we want to be true.

Creationism uses methodological naturalism to an extent (ID), but at the same time it goes outside that realm into the higher mysteries if you will.

No. Creationism intentionally misrepresents science in a variety of ways, based on the ovewhelming need of people like you to try to validate their dogmatic beliefs.

 

[fantome profane]

In a sense. While I have no quarrel with using nature to understand some aspects of this world, I think it is a great tool to understand many things, I don't think it is the be-all end-all. I think science must transcend beyond the natural (if possible) to truly understand the universe. And if science can't do it, then I think we need a new method of understanding.

I think you have just demonstrated that you do not have a sufficient understanding of what science is. Science is not the be all and end all of human understanding. It may well be that we must transcend science in order to fully understand the universe. It may be that we will need a new method of understanding. But what you don’t seem to understand is that although me may perhaps transcend science, science will not transcend methodological naturalism. If it does transcend methodological naturalism then it is no longer science.

Partially. Creationism uses methodological naturalism to an extent (ID), but at the same time it goes outside that realm into the higher mysteries if you will.

If it goes outside it is not science. Science is limited, but it is those very limits that make it science. Without those limits it is not science. It may be truth; it may be this new method of understanding (or a very old method of understanding). It may transcend science. But it is not science.


If you don’t understand why I say science cannot transcend methodological naturalism I cannot think of a better example than your comment in the other thread about the devil meddling with our genes to make it look like evolution occurred. For all I know you may be right about this. But obviously it cannot be demonstrated or falsified by any possible scientific means. It is not science.

Science need not be everything. But science must be science.