So, do you agree on common descent? I ask because both models are based on that.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
-
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!
Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
So, do you agree on common descent? I ask because both models are based on that.
Ciao
- viole
Why do you keep saying "Darwinism?" Darwinism's more a Creationist term than a biological one. I agree that if you believe in magic poofing and special creation, then mechanism becomes pretty much hopeless, as creatures can pop into being at any time with no "explanation" whatsoever.
Zosimus
Active Member
As I said, the origin of life is intrinsic to the argument over Darwinism. You have responded by talking about evolution. Evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing.
Zosimus
Active Member
gnostic
The Lost One
The flaws of deductive reasoning is more of problem than with inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is far more problematic and have weaker argument than inductive reasoning, because it (deductive) is less involve in reality, requiring no evidences.
Deductive reasoning is only most useful in understanding social convention, human emotion or behaviour, cultural.
And your ignorance continue to astonish me.
Where does science say knowledge needs to be "immutable"?
If science is immutable, then why would we need Einstein's General Relativity or Planck's Quantum Physics. If physics was immutable, then we would be stuck with 17th century Newton's law on motion and gravity.
You do realise that Special Relativity and General Relativity do have something to do with gravity, but on a much larger astronomical level, don't you? You do realise that Quantum Mechanics do involve gravity at subatomic (or quantum) level?
If science was immutable, our computers would be stuck with 1960's architecture and design. The would be no PCs, no laptops, no tablets or no smartphones. Technology would be at standstill, if science was immutable. If science was immutable, there would be no progress.
Science allows for changes. Changes in our knowledge of the natural world and man-made world. Science can replace obsolete theory with new one, modify or correct existing theory.
Reading your replies, I am very embarrassed by your absurd ignorance with science.
Why do insist in embarrassing yourself on things that you clearly don't understand?
And this evolution thread, not a Big Bang thread. Your ignorance on both subjects have been duly noted by everyone here.
gnostic
The Lost One
More stupid straw man from you.
I have never said Evolution and Darwinism are the same things, BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER USED Darwinism. Darwinism is a creationist label, which biologists never used. The way I see it, only idiot creationists use Darwinism to mean anything, and it is propaganda tactics.
When I referred to Charles Darwin, I have always used Natural Selection, not Darwinism. Darwin never called his theory on Natural Selection - "Darwinism".
And SECOND, I have always stated that there were other biological or evolutionary mechanisms, other than Natural Selection. Natural Selection is just one of 5 mechanisms in evolution. I have already listed them recently in my thread - The idiocy of creationism, using "Darwinism".
Natural Selection is evolution, or at least part of evolution, as are Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift and Genetic Hitchhiking. All of them are parts of evolution and all of them relevant to evolution. I don't play favor of one mechanism over another.
So you accusing me of making Evolution and Darwinism synonymous to one another, is just another one of your silly games of attacking the straw man.
And like I said in the idiocy of creationism thread, why don't they (creationists) call "relativity" EINSTEINISM or "quantum physics" PLANCKISM. They singled out evolution, and called it DARWINISM, but they don't do the same with relativity or quantum physics, only demonstrate the hypocrisy (and idiocy) of creationism and creationists.
gnostic
The Lost One
And you think I care what Dawkins have to say?
I am not a fan of Dawkins...never have been. I understand Dawkins' position, but I don't agree with everything he have to say.
I am not a fan of Hawking too. Yes, he is a brilliant theoretical astrophysics, and I really don't doubt that, but I don't agree with his brand of multiverse, because it is too theoretical, with no evidences to support it.
Until evidences support or his theory become testable, nothing Hawking have to say about multiverse is true. And Hawking is not the only one to advocate multiverse theory, and each and everyone are untestable.
I am engineer, not a theoretical astrophysics, and I think all theory that are theoretical are not true, until it has been tested and verified, and with two bachelors in applied science (one for civil engineer and one for computer science), I valued evidence, verification, testability, refutability of any statement or explanation more highly than mathematical proof of theoretical physics.
Don't get me wrong, I like to read and understand theoretical physics subjects, like superstring theory, supersymmetry, M-theory, multiverse and any theoretical astrophysics topic, but understanding doesn't mean accepting them as true.
Theoretical physics are more mathematical, but have less real-world application, because they aren't testable.
You have read novels, haven't you, Zosimus? Do you assume that everything the author write about in his or her novel to be true, not fiction? Does novels being fictional lessen your enjoyment in the books?
That's how I treat any untestable theoretical science, something to be understood (and even enjoy), but NOT NECESSARILY treated as being true,
When you're talking about creationists you can't help but touch on the arguments and language they use in their argument. I doubt he has much use for the term in conversation with other biologists.
Zosimus
Active Member
Wow! My jaw dropped when I saw that. I've seen a lot of pro-Darwinism arguments, but I've never seen an all-out attack on deductive reasoning! It confirms my worst fears about Darwinism apologists.
Let's take a simple example. Imagine that I have the theory that heavier objects fall faster than do light ones. I test my theory by going to a high place, and I find out that the experimental results do not match the predictions of the theory. So I abandon the theory. I conclude that the theory is wrong.
The above is called deductive reasoning. This procedure, known as modus tollens, is the only logically valid way to do science. Additionally, this example refutes your claim that deductive reasoning never uses evidence.
Knowledge is justified true belief. It is not possible, by very concept, to "know" things that are false. Knowledge is, therefore, immutable because when you realize that something is true, your opinion of it can never change. In contrasts, science has little if any knowledge. Science works with theories, and theories are subject to revision because theories are neither facts nor knowledge.
Science is immutable because science is often wrong. However, your above examples are not examples of science as much as of technology. Improvements in computers are due mostly to increased capital investment, better process control, six sigma quality control, and factors that have little to do with what most people regard as "science."
Zosimus
Active Member
How amusing. Next you'll be saying that Lamarckism is a creationist propaganda tactic.
Darwinism is the correct term. It is the term used by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or are you implying that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to discredit the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (aka neo-Darwinism)?
Zosimus
Active Member
I am employing a modus tollens argument. You have claimed that only Creationists use the label Darwinism. I have responded by pointing out that Dawkins uses the label, and he's not a Creationist. Therefore, your argument has been refuted.
It has nothing to do with being a fan of Dawkins. Either you accept that your initial claim was wrong, or you need to argue that Dawkins is a Creationist.
Lacks relevance.
Lacks relevance.
Lacks relevance.
Interesting OP.
I can't tell you which theory I believe in but given a heavy influence from Soviet Science and Marxist philosophy I still implicitly accept certain Lamarckian ideas as philosophically convenient (even if I cannot say whether or not there are true). E.g the evolution of the human hand, humans evolving to stand on two legs, the growth in size of the brain, the evolution of vocal chords and language, as all down to inheritance of acquired traits etc. In Marxist philosophy these ideas, dating back to Engels in the late 19th century, are treated as the result of human labour and therefore as the interaction of the organism with its environment in the Lemarkian tradition.
I simply haven't had the time to catch up with 21st century explanations as its another area where Marxist views on science depart from mainstream views both on philosophical grounds but also due to being overtaken by more recent discoveries. (Marxist views on physics and its attack on the Big Bang as creationist are difficult enough to get my head around as a non-scientist).
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, of course, God could be responsible for affecting or directing life to evolve in certain direction.
But you are forgetting that biology is still a BRANCH OF science, and evolution (as well as all mechanisms in evolution, including Natural Selection) is a FIELD IN biology.
And as scientific discipline, biology required that any statement (eg in theory or hypothesis) made, needs to be "falsifiable" and "testable". Essentially, what this mean is that the statement needs to be empirically verified (hence, it would need "evidences") before it can be accepted to be true.
Trying to assert God into the picture in biology - more specifically evolution - WOULD require that there be evidences for God.
Well, there are no direct evidences for existence of God, which make YOUR ASSERTION or CLAIM of God "directing" evolution - "speculative", "unfalsifiable" and "untestable" - and let's not forget - "wishful thinking" - and would require creationists such as yourself, to use all sorts of logical fallacies to twist God into science.
How many times have I stressed that for any statement to be scientifically verified and validated, it needs evidence, Evidence, EVIDENCE???!!!
You cannot - like every other creationists that I have come across, here and elsewhere - seem to grasp the concept of evidence.
Any statement, no matter how many logics you may apply to the statement, cannot be objectively true, unless there are testable evidences to back up the statement.
Take for instance, the theoretical theory on the multiverse model (actually it is "models", because there are numbers of different scientists advocating their own brands of multiverse) can be very logical - with all the mathematical equations (proofs) being belt out...and yet, not a single model of multiverse is testable in reality.
Multiverse is logically feasible, but not empirically feasible, which makes every single models "not true".
But the thing is, not only is your assertion about god's intervention not empirically possible, it is also not logically possible.
yiostheoy
Member
Can't believe you guys and gals cannot just let this thread die.
Science is Empirical and as such it has nothing to do with "believing".
The theory is either consistent with the data or it is not.
In evolutionary theory the data are from the striking resemblance of all the vertebrates and also the archaeology of the fossils.
Evolution is consistent with morphology and archaeology.
End of story.
Science is Empirical and as such it has nothing to do with "believing".
The theory is either consistent with the data or it is not.
In evolutionary theory the data are from the striking resemblance of all the vertebrates and also the archaeology of the fossils.
Evolution is consistent with morphology and archaeology.
End of story.
Do you accept that oxygen, and therefore water, cannot exist before the stars?
Do you accept that the sun is a second generation star, and therefore the earth, like the whole solar system, is much younger than other stars and galaxies?
Do you accept that we and trees have a common ancestor? Both in gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.
Do you accept that fundamental interactions are ultimately and inherently random?
Do you accept that spacetime, according to relativity, is immutable and eternal?
If not, what do you accept of modern science?
Ciao
- viole
yiostheoy
Member
I think the neat thing about the Hubble Space Telescope is that it has enabled us to set a limit on the age of the Universe -- 15 billion years.
We had already figured out on our own that the Earth is 4.5 billion years.
The realm of Science ends for periods before 15 billion BC, and the realm of Philosophy begins there.
gnostic
The Lost One
Deducive reasoning only depends on the person's logic alone. That can be a problem.
Let's me give you a hypothetical example.
Let say that there are two professors from different universities, both used deductive reasoning in their debate. Both arguments presented are very logical and well-presented on both sides.
Then how would you determine whose view is right?
If neither sides presented any evidence, then either one of them could be right, or they are both right, or they are both wrong.
Inductive reasoning, not only required the logic, but the evidences to back up that logic.
Does inductive reasoning has flaw(s)?
Sure, but so does deductive reasoning. There are actually more flaws in deduction than there are for induction.
In fantasy world, if we were all geniuses, with highly logical minds. But we live in a real world, therefore nothing is real, until there are evidences to support one's view.
With inductive reasoning, the conclusion should be based on the available and verifiable evidences. I would call this bottom-up approach. With inductive reasoning, one can leave one's ego and bias aside, and let the evidences either verify his premise or refute (or debunk) it.
Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, rely on its logic or reasoning, and expect (or hope) the evidence to fit in with their premises. This is a top-down approach, and often this approach lead one to approach problem or situation with logical fallacies (circular) and biases.
Look, Zosimus. I am not saying that deductive reasoning shouldn't be used or that it has no merits. Far from it.
I just think there are some better approaches than deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning would be the one i would choose to use.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
I do the same thing here.
For instance, the Hebrew scriptures.
If I know I am discussing or debating with Christians, especially with whom I am directly replying to, I would use the "Old Testament" to indicate that I am referring to the Hebrew scriptures.
If I am replying to someone, who I know to be Jewish, I would use "Tanakh", and if I am talking specifically of books attributed to Moses, I would use "Torah".
So I do try to use the languages of the people that I am replying to.
Of course, when I am confronted by both Jews and Christians, I would use "Hebrew scriptures", whenever I can.
I supposed that's what Dawkins is doing in that interview.
But in any case, Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are not scientific terms, even if someone like Dawkins may use it.
With science, if I talking to creationists or theists, I would not use Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism. Heck, I wouldn't even use "evolutionist", if I could help it.
With evolutionists, they are simply biologists.
Like, I have said time and time again.
Why do creationists not use Einsteinism for "relativity" or Planckism for "quantum theory"? Why single out evolution (or more precisely Natural Selection) with Darwinism?
It is just pure creationist propaganda tactics.
Zosimus
Active Member
I don't know which is worse – your logic or your grammar.
Look, let's compare deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning and see which one works better.
With deductive reasoning, you get a true response as long as your initial premises are true and you follow the rules of logic.
With inductive reasoning, you can get a false conclusion even when all inputs are true and you do everything correctly.
So which one do you think is better?