The Mystery Thread

[Earthling]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

 

[Sunstone]

By "okay" do you mean rationally coherent? If so, then wouldn't that depend on precisely why you reject evolution and precisely why you accept other scientific theories?

 

[Earthling]

By "okay" do you mean rationally coherent? If so, then wouldn't that depend on precisely why you reject evolution and precisely why you accept other scientific theories?

I didn't mean rationally coherent because in a debate / discussion setting that would be too relative to the reader's position and therefore subjective.

By okay I mean acceptable.

 

[Axe Elf]

Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

If you are rejecting it for a theory that does a better job of explaining the evidence, then yes, that's okay. If not, then no, that's not okay.

 

[Jollybear]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

Sure, why not? Otherwise we assume all scientists (who are individual humans with flaws) are perfect in everything they say, along with there consensus.

 

[Earthling]

If you are rejecting it for a theory that does a better job of explaining the evidence, then yes, that's okay. If not, then no, that's not okay.

Isn't that subjective? Why couldn't I just say I don't know but I surely don't accept that theory?

Your answer seems to be centered around whether or not it would be acceptable for me to accept the theory in question, but how would that effect my overall estimation of other tenets of science?

 

[Earthling]

Sure, why not? Otherwise we assume all scientists (who are individual humans with flaws) are perfect in everything they say, along with there consensus.

This has been my estimation of the opinion of most "Creationist deniers" perhaps to coin a phrase having had "science denier" lobbed at me repeatedly throughout the day. It seems to me that they are suggesting science is infallible while insisting it isn't. Has that been your experience?

 

[Jollybear]

This has been my estimation of the opinion of most "Creationist deniers" perhaps to coin a phrase having had "science denier" lobbed at me repeatedly throughout the day. It seems to me that they are suggesting science is infallible while insisting it isn't. Has that been your experience?

Yes, thats been my experience too.

I wish most folks could just get past stuff like "evidence says this" and "science says that" or "my religion says this"

To just purely looking at WHAT the actual data/evidence/logic really says.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, thats been my experience too.

I wish most folks could just get past stuff like "evidence says this" and "science says that" or "my religion says this"

To just purely looking at WHAT the actual data/evidence/logic really says.

I think the point you were making is very difficult to articulate, and so though it seemed contradictory to me I think I get what you are saying, i.e. that evidence, science, or religion might well say these things but that isn't necessarily conclusive or inerrant.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

What exactly do you think the tenets of science are?

 

[Jollybear]

I think the point you were making is very difficult to articulate, and so though it seemed contradictory to me I think I get what you are saying, i.e. that evidence, science, or religion might well say these things but that isn't necessarily conclusive or inerrant.

Correct.

Thats why its good to question EVERYTHING. Especially to those we dont agree with. Question every single thing they say. If they believe something, youl find out real fast how much they understand there own views.

Once they start repeatedly saying "your a science denier" then they dont know much about there own "science"

 

[Thief]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

I splice the topic....
evolution is real
God set it into motion

He also jumped kicked the process in the garden event

 

[Earthling]

What exactly do you think the tenets of science are?

Excellent question. I did a little search to give me some hypothetical footing and came across this, which I thought was terribly interesting.

However, science isn't simply the accumulation of observable evidence and the orderly gathering of knowledge. All observations require interpretation and inference by scientists. To do this, scientists require imagination and creativity to make inferential statements about what they see. (Link)

Perhaps disciplines or fields would be a more appropriate word than tenets? Mathematics, history, biology, physics . . .

Branches? Ecology, Oceanography, Geology, Meteorology, Zoology, Biology, Botany.

 

[Earthling]

I splice the topic....
evolution is real
God set it into motion

He also jumped kicked the process in the garden event

I told @Axe Elf the other day that his avatar looked like Billy Ray Cyrus. I think yours looks like Jeff Lynne.

Okay. Does this emphatic mission statement you've made indicate that it's not acceptable for me to reject evolution and I should accept it while reconciling my belief in a God? Or is it exclusively a personal opinion?

 

[Axe Elf]

Isn't that subjective?

Determining which theory "best" explains the evidence can be subjective, yes. That is why there can sometimes be two or more theories in science that can be legitimately said to be "competing." To the extent that both (or all) of the theories explain the evidence with roughly the same degree of sufficiency, it is okay to reject one in favor of another depending upon your own personal opinion as to which explains the evidence "best." If a competing theory clearly does not explain the evidence as well as another, then it is NOT okay to reject the superior one for the inferior one.

Why couldn't I just say I don't know but I surely don't accept that theory?

In the absence of a competing theory that explains the evidence roughly as well as an established theory, a scientist is forced to accept the sufficient explanation of the established theory until such time as a new theory emerges which explains the evidence better (or at least roughly as well).

In other words, by saying "I don't know," you are already admitting that you have no legitimate grounds for rejecting an established theory.

Your answer seems to be centered around whether or not it would be acceptable for me to accept the theory in question

My answer is centered around the circumstances under which it would be okay for you to reject the theory of evolution while accepting the other tenets of science.

but how would that effect my overall estimation of other tenets of science?

If you accept the other tenets of science, then you accept the tenet that you should accept the theory that best explains the evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't mean rationally coherent because in a debate / discussion setting that would be too relative to the reader's position and therefore subjective.

By okay I mean acceptable.

In reality, your opinions on evolution are only meaningful to you. So if you're okay with it, does anything else matter?

 

[Earthling]

Determining which theory "best" explains the evidence can be subjective, yes. That is why there can sometimes be two or more theories in science that can be legitimately said to be "competing." To the extent that both (or all) of the theories explain the evidence with roughly the same degree of sufficiency, it is okay to reject one in favor of another depending upon your own personal opinion as to which explains the evidence "best." If a competing theory clearly does not explain the evidence as well as another, then it is NOT okay to reject the superior one for the inferior one.



In the absence of a competing theory that explains the evidence roughly as well as an established theory, a scientist is forced to accept the sufficient explanation of the established theory until such time as a new theory emerges which explains the evidence better (or at least roughly as well).

In other words, by saying "I don't know," you are already admitting that you have no legitimate grounds for rejecting an established theory.



My answer is centered around the circumstances under which it would be okay for you to reject the theory of evolution while accepting the other tenets of science.



If you accept the other tenets of science, then you accept the tenet that you should accept the theory that best explains the evidence.

I consider your answer satisfactory and so conclude the first part of the mystery thread for my part. I wasn't expecting that and need to contemplate what the second part will examine. In the second part I will most likely try and form some similar round of questioning from a theological perspective which would be at least a temporary departure from this one.

 

[Earthling]

In reality, your opinions on evolution are only meaningful to you. So if you're okay with it, does anything else matter?

Well, yes and no. Ultimately it is exclusively my responsibility, but I'm not content to rely exclusively on my own opinions on the subject dogmatically.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, yes and no. Ultimately it is exclusively my responsibility

To yourself, yes. But not to anyone else.

but I'm not content to rely exclusively on my own opinions on the subject dogmatically.

Unless you're a scientist or person of other importance on the subject, it's like I said....your opinions on evolution are only important to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This has been my estimation of the opinion of most "Creationist deniers" perhaps to coin a phrase having had "science denier" lobbed at me repeatedly throughout the day. It seems to me that they are suggesting science is infallible while insisting it isn't. Has that been your experience?

Please, science is far from infallible, the problem is that you cling to ideas and methods that are incredibly more fallible.

And your constantly refusal to learn while trying to claim that you know or even think something is not true is rather hypocritical at best. If you don't understand something the correct action is to say that you do not understand. One does not oppose those that have studied and understood this topic.