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

[Harel13]

DON'T FALL FOR IT @Harel13! You're kinda safe with me!

@Heyo sorry for completely derailing the thread. Blame the staff.

 

[Sunstone]

How on earth is that a relevant question to ask about an axiom?

This thread has gone crazy. Quick! Someone rush it into group therapy with the basket case threads on postmodernism!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry about all this, @Heyo. I assume that we were both hoping for an honest and thoughtful discussion.

By the way, have you every read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery?

 

[Kenny]

The universe being "orderly" is the assumption that the laws of nature are the same for any time and any location. Many religions rest on a temporary suspension of laws of nature, a.k.a. "magic" or "miracles".
When things can change without (explainable, scientific) reason we call that "chaotic".

That results from 1. Science deals only with the natural world.

Hmmm...

Ok... can agree that science doesn't address the spiritual though the spiritual can be real, orderly, and knowable?

But how that is real science IF the spiritual affects the natural?

 

[Sunstone]

One issue that I think is frequently under-appreciated by all sides to discussions of this sort is the fact the sciences all but rely on group verification of observations. Someone might argue that it is not strictly necessary in principle, but in practice it is key. It is almost inconceivable that some fact would be recognized by most scientists as 'established' if the fact could not be verified by more than one person.

Moreover, group verification (more often called 'inter-subjective verification') is highly relevant to the Demarcation Problem. A common criticism of pseudo-scientific claims is that they have not -- and possibly cannot -- be verified by more than one person.

 

[McBell]

... though the spiritual can be real, orderly, and knowable?

Can it?
I mean outside the bold empty claim that it does or can?

But how that is real science IF the spiritual affects the natural?

Please present a scenario, either real or imagined, where the spiritual affects the natural?

I do not know of any, nor can I think of one.
Thus the reason I ask.

 

[Heyo]

Sorry about all this, @Heyo. I assume that we were both hoping for an honest and thoughtful discussion.

By the way, have you every read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery?

There is still time for serious discussion. It's not like OPs are restricted by space.

No, I've never read Popper or Hume or any other classical author on the epistemology of science. All my knowledge is second hand. But it's from many second hands so I have a high confidence that it's right.

 

[Kenny]

Can it?
I mean outside the bold empty claim that it does or can?


Please present a scenario, either real or imagined, where the spiritual affects the natural?

I do not know of any, nor can I think of one.
Thus the reason I ask.

Obviously, you have to approach it with an open mind otherwise it would look like a flat-earth mentality as you approach it.

John Hopkins Hospital, about 50 years ago, did what they called a "bridge" on the spinal cord of Cynthia Robinson ( a friend of mine).

She had broken her back in a ski accident.

The bridge didn't hold.

So they did it a second time and the bridge didn't hold
So they did it a third time and the bridge didn't hold.

Final diagnosis, "We cannot do anything else. Don't lift anything above 5 lbs, don't have babies etc. She remained in constant pain.

After a huge healing conference, she went back to her hotel room, knelt by her bed and started crying to God. In that process she realized that there was no pain. She got up did some "touch your toes" etc with absolutely no pain.

She went back to John Hopkins and they did another X-ray - back completely normal and restored. Their report, "The only explanation we have is a miracle".

Now, we could take a non-scientific approach and just say "we don't believe in the supernatural, this isn't scientific and maybe, could be, possibly could have and in our wildest imagination it was just the body doing it all by itself without the help of doctors".

Or, we could maybe, include the possibility that there is a spiritual arena that should be factored in.

PS. Two babies later and when she was in her fifties, still pushing a lawn mower.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This thread has gone crazy. Quick! Someone rush it into group therapy with the basket case threads on postmodernism!

Indeed, it has gone crazy. I read @Heyo 's OP with some admiration, and thought it could be the start of a very good discussion and opportunity for learning all round, and then it was just about instantly derailed by those who even question their own existence (which is a necessary corollary to the nonsense of existence independent of mind, because otherwise, there is no way to understand which mind creates which reality that is perceived by which other mind -- and how they can all come into line with enough observation. That means that we can read descriptions of presumably real things by totally independent observers, and align them almost perfectly -- like people attempting to describe minute details of the Eiffel Tower, or the Leaning Tower of Pisa, or the number of stamens on a water lily. To explain this would require a googolplex of assumptions.)

 

[Harel13]

In defense of the derailers, at least the derailment was mostly humorous. Usually the Evolution threads go nuts, and not in a positive way.

 

[Stevicus]

What is Science?

If it's green or it wriggles, it's biology.
If it stinks, it's chemistry.
If it doesn't work, it's physics.

I think that covers the highlights.

 

[Piculet]

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

Me neither....

 

[McBell]

Obviously, you have to approach it with an open mind otherwise it would look like a flat-earth mentality as you approach it.

John Hopkins Hospital, about 50 years ago, did what they called a "bridge" on the spinal cord of Cynthia Robinson ( a friend of mine).

She had broken her back in a ski accident.

The bridge didn't hold.

So they did it a second time and the bridge didn't hold
So they did it a third time and the bridge didn't hold.

Final diagnosis, "We cannot do anything else. Don't lift anything above 5 lbs, don't have babies etc. She remained in constant pain.

After a huge healing conference, she went back to her hotel room, knelt by her bed and started crying to God. In that process she realized that there was no pain. She got up did some "touch your toes" etc with absolutely no pain.

She went back to John Hopkins and they did another X-ray - back completely normal and restored. Their report, "The only explanation we have is a miracle".

Now, we could take a non-scientific approach and just say "we don't believe in the supernatural, this isn't scientific and maybe, could be, possibly could have and in our wildest imagination it was just the body doing it all by itself without the help of doctors".

Or, we could maybe, include the possibility that there is a spiritual arena that should be factored in.

PS. Two babies later and when she was in her fifties, still pushing a lawn mower.

How does this not fall under bold empty claim?
I mean the spiritual part?
Of course, nailing down a definition of "spiritual" that does not change with every other question is definitely part of the problem....

 

[Deeje]

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.

Being in Australia, I have woken up to this today and reading through the responses, it is apparent that something that was meant to be a serious and mature discussion has become a joke already.....so unless the responders here have something constructive to add, what is the point of it? The derailment has not added any credibility to the topic.

The didactic of this approach is meant for adults who are familiar with structured reasoning.

Since this thread is meant for "adults"......I think that some posters have already disqualified themselves.

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.

OK.....let's do it....

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.

3. The universe is real. Yep, no argument

4. The universe is orderly. Yep, no doubt about that. Laws govern everything in the universe and on earth.

5. The universe is knowable. Yep, up to a point. I don't believe that science knows as much as it thinks it does. Our knowledge of the earth and its biology, its ecology and the operation of its integrated systems is not complete by a long shot, so the universe itself is still out of reach for now. What science knows is impressive, but what it has yet to learn eclipses present knowledge IMO.

So the "systematic" approach is based on "creating models" (based on what?) with "explanatory and predictive power" (whose explanation and whose predictive power?) And what "tests" can be made to support said predictions when applied to the ToE's first premise? Who interprets said test results?

From my perspective, these axioms may apply in certain branches of science, but when applied to evolution of the 'macro' type, I believe that you are in no man's land already.

You are asking me to accept the 'predictions' of men whose strongly held 'beliefs' color every bit of 'evidence' they evaluate. Can you see a problem yet? If I reject you first premise because of a complete lack of substantiated evidence, can you see that everything you build on that unprovable foundation will likewise be rejected as equally unsubstantiated?

Having proven that "adaptation" is a built in mechanism in all living creatures, does not necessarily translate into accepting that small changes over time can result in the kinds of changes that will transform a four legged, furry land dweller into a whale. In all experiments associated with speciation, all new varieties were confined to one taxonomic family. The flies, the bacteria, the fish....all remained true to their "kind". Not one ended up as a new "family".

So, this is where I have a problem. The "assumptions" accepted by science in this area are just "guesses" based more on wishful thinking, than on clear cut evidence. All conclusions must of necessity fit into the evolutionary model, no matter how much suggestion is required to force that conclusion.

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.

No, sorry....I have no problem with science at all....my 'beef' is with how 'science' is applied in this particular field. The reason for this is how the ToE is taught to students, particularly high school children as absolute fact. It sets them up to swallow the same kind of unprovable 'kool aid' that you believe creation is.

Just because we can't "prove" God "scientifically", doesn't mean he can't exist. Can science "prove" that he doesn't? No....but they can "suggest" that it's unscientific to "believe" that he does. Why can't we use the same principle to expose the fact that science doesn't really "know" that there is no powerful, intelligent, creative force at work to account for the unwritten laws that govern everything? It does not involve "magic" of any description. Science knows of powerful creative forces in the universe, but attributes them to no one.

Science can't "prove" that its first premise in this theory ever took place, so scientifically, this is a pet theory based on nothing but suggestion as to how the whole process "might have" happened.

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

Lots....as above. Do you wish to continue?

The "you don't understand science" argument falls flat on its face if the science (ToE) you wish to present can't back up its first premise. It also divorces itself from abiogenesis, which to us is the more important issue. If you can't explain how life began, what is the point of arguing about how it changed?

For us, it's about the Creator, not just the creation.

 

[Kenny]

How does this not fall under bold empty claim?
I mean the spiritual part?
Of course, nailing down a definition of "spiritual" that does not change with every other question is definitely part of the problem....

Well... so much for a flat-earth approach.

Science considers all possibilities... I thought.

 

[McBell]

Well... so much for a flat-earth approach.

Science considers all possibilities... I thought.

So much for you wanting to have a serious discussion about it.

Your claim that spirituality is involved without anything other than the bare bold claim itself adds absolutely nothing but pure speculation to the situation.

How is the claim of spiritual involvement anything but a bold empty claim?
If you remove the want to believe spiritual involvement, what is left to indicate/imply/suggest/hint/etc. spiritual involvement?

Your story includes a "prayer" session.
I say so what?
The same scenario has happened multiple time without the prayer session.
And a few with the prayer being that they want to die instead of being healed.

So based upon the "success rate" of prayer....

So as far as I can tell, your argument is merely "GodDidIt" only you replace God with Spiritual.

Therefore you have not presented anything at all that science can look at, measure, investigate, etc.

Why should your claim of "spiritual" be taken any more seriously than Russells Teapot did it?
For I have as much evidence that Russell's teapot did it as you have shown that Spiritual did it.

I know you dislike this kind of response and would rather just ignore the fact that you have not presented anything at all to even imply that "spiritual" is anything more than your imagination gone wild, but the truth is, merely replacing "I Do No Know" with "spirit did it" does not help and until you can face up to that fact and present something, anything really, that can show you are not merely filling in the gaps with spirit instead of god.....

 

[Heyo]

OK.....let's do it....

3. The universe is real. Yep, no argument

4. The universe is orderly. Yep, no doubt about that. Laws govern everything in the universe and on earth.

5. The universe is knowable. Yep, up to a point.

Good.

I don't believe that science knows as much as it thinks it does. Our knowledge of the earth and its biology, its ecology and the operation of its integrated systems is not complete by a long shot, so the universe itself is still out of reach for now. What science knows is impressive, but what it has yet to learn eclipses present knowledge IMO.

I agree. And I think most scientists would agree, too. The axiom doesn't say that we know, it just expresses the confidence that we can know.

So the "systematic" approach is based on "creating models" (based on what?) with "explanatory and predictive power" (whose explanation and whose predictive power?) And what "tests" can be made to support said predictions when applied to the ToE's first premise? Who interprets said test results?

The models are based on observations. The best model recognizes all data.
Predictive power is measured by devising experiments and foretelling the outcome. An "experiment" doesn't have to be in a lab. It can also be a predicted observation. E.g. the Copernican model of the solar system did explain and predict the motion of the planets. And it was simpler than the geocentric model.

From my perspective, these axioms may apply in certain branches of science, but when applied to evolution of the 'macro' type, I believe that you are in no man's land already.

You are asking me to accept the 'predictions' of men whose strongly held 'beliefs' color every bit of 'evidence' they evaluate. Can you see a problem yet? If I reject you first premise because of a complete lack of substantiated evidence, can you see that everything you build on that unprovable foundation will likewise be rejected as equally unsubstantiated?

Having proven that "adaptation" is a built in mechanism in all living creatures, does not necessarily translate into accepting that small changes over time can result in the kinds of changes that will transform a four legged, furry land dweller into a whale. In all experiments associated with speciation, all new varieties were confined to one taxonomic family. The flies, the bacteria, the fish....all remained true to their "kind". Not one ended up as a new "family".

So, this is where I have a problem. The "assumptions" accepted by science in this area are just "guesses" based more on wishful thinking, than on clear cut evidence. All conclusions must of necessity fit into the evolutionary model, no matter how much suggestion is required to force that conclusion.

I'm not talking about ToE, yet.

No, sorry....I have no problem with science at all....my 'beef' is with how 'science' is applied in this particular field. The reason for this is how the ToE is taught to students, particularly high school children as absolute fact. It sets them up to swallow the same kind of unprovable 'kool aid' that you believe creation is.

Just because we can't "prove" God "scientifically", doesn't mean he can't exist. Can science "prove" that he doesn't? No....but they can "suggest" that it's unscientific to "believe" that he does. Why can't we use the same principle to expose the fact that science doesn't really "know" that there is no powerful, intelligent, creative force at work to account for the unwritten laws that govern everything? It does not involve "magic" of any description. Science knows of powerful creative forces in the universe, but attributes them to no one.

Science can't "prove" that its first premise in this theory ever took place, so scientifically, this is a pet theory based on nothing but suggestion as to how the whole process "might have" happened.



Lots....as above. Do you wish to continue?

Yes. And I didn't think we'd progress that fast.

The "you don't understand science" argument falls flat on its face if the science (ToE) you wish to present can't back up its first premise. It also divorces itself from abiogenesis, which to us is the more important issue. If you can't explain how life began, what is the point of arguing about how it changed?

If you can't explain how a car is build, what is the point in taking driving lessons?

 

[Kenny]

So much for you wanting to have a serious discussion about it.

Your claim that spirituality is involved without anything other than the bare bold claim itself adds absolutely nothing but pure speculation to the situation.

How is the claim of spiritual involvement anything but a bold empty claim?
If you remove the want to believe spiritual involvement, what is left to indicate/imply/suggest/hint/etc. spiritual involvement?

Your story includes a "prayer" session.
I say so what?
The same scenario has happened multiple time without the prayer session.
And a few with the prayer being that they want to die instead of being healed.

So based upon the "success rate" of prayer....

So as far as I can tell, your argument is merely "GodDidIt" only you replace God with Spiritual.

Therefore you have not presented anything at all that science can look at, measure, investigate, etc.

Why should your claim of "spiritual" be taken any more seriously than Russells Teapot did it?
For I have as much evidence that Russell's teapot did it as you have shown that Spiritual did it.

I know you dislike this kind of response and would rather just ignore the fact that you have not presented anything at all to even imply that "spiritual" is anything more than your imagination gone wild, but the truth is, merely replacing "I Do No Know" with "spirit did it" does not help and until you can face up to that fact and present something, anything really, that can show you are not merely filling in the gaps with spirit instead of god.....

It's just that your response is very unscientific... and I can't help that.

 

[Deeje]

Good.

I agree. And I think most scientists would agree, too. The axiom doesn't say that we know, it just expresses the confidence that we can know.

My own belief is that we are not mentally or intellectually fit to accommodate the knowledge that is yet to be gleaned. We are but a poor imitation of what God created because we doubted his authority for leading us in the learning process. We then chose other flawed humans to educate us...and here we are. Who educated them?

The models are based on observations. The best model recognizes all data.

All data? Really? Even all the conflicting stuff? Or only what fits into the evolution 'box' if you squeeze it in by the application of enough suggestion?

Predictive power is measured by devising experiments and foretelling the outcome. An "experiment" doesn't have to be in a lab. It can also be a predicted observation. E.g. the Copernican model of the solar system did explain and predict the motion of the planets. And it was simpler than the geocentric model.

That is the study of astronomy, not evolution. How does it apply to what we are discussing?

I'm not talking about ToE, yet.

LOL....I have been talking about evolution all along because it is the one branch of science that is in conflict with the existence of an Intelligent Creator. I was not going to allow you to make assumptions using one 'branch' of science to grow on another 'tree'. We can't let science 'fact' be confused with science 'theory'....

Yes. And I didn't think we'd progress that fast.

You have to get to the point Heyo....I am an Aussie and we cut to the chase pretty quickly....
We are not big on beating around the bush...so just the facts...OK?

If you can't explain how a car is build, what is the point in taking driving lessons?

Sorry, but that is a very poor analogy. Not knowing how a car is built does not affect my driving skill, nor does it distort the direction in which I am traveling....

 

[Heyo]

My own belief is that we are not mentally or intellectually fit to accommodate the knowledge that is yet to be gleaned. We are but a poor imitation of what God created because we doubted his authority for leading us in the learning process. We then chose other flawed humans to educate us...and here we are. Who educated them?

Your belief in a knowable universe isn't really needed. And for our final goal the future understandings are irrelevant. It is only important that you understand that scientists believe in a knowable universe. Scientists believe very few things. The axioms are the basics which can't be proven, all the rest follows.

All data? Really? Even all the conflicting stuff? Or only what fits into the evolution 'box' if you squeeze it in by the application of enough suggestion?

Not every theory fits all the data. Sometimes it is just most of the data. That is enough if it can make limited predictions. Sometimes one model only gets favoured because it is easier to handle. E.g. Newtonian mechanics is imprecise near big masses or at high speeds. But it is still good enough to compute a trajectory to Pluto. No need to involve Special Relativity.

That is the study of astronomy, not evolution. How does it apply to what we are discussing?

We are discussing Science. Astronomy is part of science.

LOL....I have been talking about evolution all along because it is the one branch of science that is in conflict with the existence of an Intelligent Creator. I was not going to allow you to make assumptions using one 'branch' of science to grow on another 'tree'. We can't let science 'fact' be confused with science 'theory'....

I was talking about science.

You have to get to the point Heyo....I am an Aussie and we cut to the chase pretty quickly....
We are not big on beating around the bush...so just the facts...OK?

We'll get to the point, maybe in a few weeks. Depends on how well you understand what you have to understand before we can talk about evolution.
I have tried to talk evolutionary biology with you to no avail. You still don't understand taxonomy (as evidenced in your first answer).
Remember that science is systematic. I'm trying to be systematic here. I'll lead you through all the steps necessary for understanding and from now on, since we managed the axioms, it will all be logical steps.

Sorry, but that is a very poor analogy. Not knowing how a car is built does not affect my driving skill, nor does it distort the direction in which I am traveling....

Not knowing how life originated doesn't affect my skill to explain how it diversified - but that is a discussion to be had later, much later.

I'm not at home for a few days and I don't know if I'll have reception where I'm going. So it most likely will be next week for the next part in the series on the scientific method.
(Except someone else wants to do that. I'd trust @exchemist or @Polymath257 with such a task or anybody with a solid background in science.)