Do you believe in evolution ?

[manic111]

Look, I'm not getting into philosophy because it just muddies the waters. This thread is about Evolution and whether or not people accept it as true.

This is a philosophical discussion.

Evolution is patently "true" so far as scientific theory can take us. I don't think anybody who accepts scientific theory can deny evolution. Accordingly, that point is almost moot.

The real discussion here is therefore whether or not scientific theory is appropriate for telling us the truth, rather than exclusively being a predictive tool. This is a question about science, and not within science. Science cannot give us this answer. It is a philosophical question.

What you have done above where you have outlined scientific theory (observe, hypothesise, test, repeat) is correct. But it does not address the question which the majority of this thread attempts to.

 

[tbyeah]

The scientific method is peerless as a predictive tool, but yes, it can't provide deep truths. It will tell you what will happen, and give possible (or even probable) explanation why. Indeed, for most mundane things, science can give you an answer as indistinguishable from the truth as makes no odds. But for things that can't be observed directly, or don't behave in a wholely predictable way, the scientific method is pretty poor at giving the truth.

None of this diminishes science in any way, it just diminishes some people who treat it like a Christian treats the bible a bit.

If you notice, though, I haven't argued against evolution. I accept it as accurate, I just neither believe or disbelieve in the truthfulness of it in a wider context.

I know you haven't, I'm just unsure as to what you mean. You accept evolution, but you don't believe in the truthfulness of it?

 

[Sliver]

I am extremely grateful my geology degree included studying a little philosophy of science to nip this kind of positivist claptrap in the bud for most of my peers.

Are you saying the scientific method is claptrap ? Talk about placing yourself in the tin foil hat brigade, you must be making your own tin foil hats too.

 

[manic111]

Are you saying the scientific method is claptrap ? Talk about placing yourself in the tin foil hat brigade, you must be making your own tin foil hats too.

No, he's saying that people who state that scientific method directly portrays the truth are talking claptrap.

 

[Castiel]

I know you haven't, I'm just unsure as to what you mean. You accept evolution, but you don't believe in the truthfulness of it?

He, like I, accepts the accuracy of it and the valid application of it. What he doesn't do is attribute a strictly held belief to it either in the positive or negative. It is simply something he accepts within the limitations of its application, not that it necessarily infers anything in a broader context outside of its predictive ability as is often argued.

 

[Sliver]

No, he's saying that people who state that scientific method directly portrays the truth are talking claptrap.

Well I never claimed any tautologies in that particular post did I. In fact, in a subsequent post I addressed the problem of absolute truth.

The only claptrap I see are the people in this thread who are unable to read simple English.

 

[manic111]

Well I never claimed any tautologies in that particular post did I. In fact, in a subsequent post I addressed the problem of absolute truth.

The only claptrap I see are the people in this thread who are unable to read simple English.

What have tautologies got to do with this?

 

[Castiel]

And so we begin the devolution of the thread into petty squabbling.

 

[Sliver]

What have tautologies got to do with this?

In logic it defines an absolute truth. If you've never studied logic you won't be familiar with them. I used an example of tautologies in an earlier post to demonstrate that science can never provide an absolute truth. I was basically conceding that science can never be certain (100%) about anything, but what is important is it's accuracy.

 

[manic111]

In logic it defines an absolute truth. If you've never studied logic you won't be familiar with them. I used an example of tautologies in an earlier post to demonstrate that science can never provide an absolute truth. I was basically conceding that science can never be certain (100%) about anything, but what is important is it's accuracy.

I have studied logic, I've got a degree in analytic philosophy.

Fair enough, I came to this thread late, and from the last page or so it looked like you were dogmatically pushing evolution as "truth" rather than as an accurate predictor. Apologies for not reading your earlier posts.

 

[LOAM]

The one thing I utterly hate about these threads, that spoil them for me to the point I generally avoid them is the lack of tolerance towards peoples religious beliefs, I class myself as fortean agnostic in that i'm happy sat on the fence looking in each garden but more often than not I find myself in a position of religious defence purely because of the rabid militancy of some who think others need to be educated. You are the very people you claim to despise, you preach and you do so offensively and loudly!

In the context of the thread accept that not everyone chooses to reject evolution due to a lack of understanding of the process, they do so because it goes against their belief structure, some can align evolution with their beliefs and infact most do and are happy to do so. I know many Christians and i'm yet to meet one that doest accept evolution.

Finally how many times do we need to have the "blame religion for wars" nonsense, we are a hostile species that war, religion is an excuse not a cause. I dont deny that some wars have been over religion but most recent have been territorial or resource based. WW2 was caused by frustration of loss of territories and the rise of fascism and resulted in 50-70 million deaths. I'm not sure any religious persecution could equal that. should we say that scientists are to blame for those deaths for discovering chlorine gas, gun powder and metal alloys etc? Of course not!


I'd to add that the OP wants punching in the face (over tcp/ip) for starting this. His post count speaks volumes!

 

[Sliver]

I have studied logic, I've got a degree in analytic philosophy.

Fair enough, I came to this thread late, and from the last page or so it looked like you were dogmatically pushing evolution as "truth" rather than as an accurate predictor. Apologies for not reading your earlier posts.

Cool, no problem, and I really respect your honesty, not many people here are that principled.

 

[dowie]

In the context of the thread accept that not everyone chooses to reject evolution due to a lack of understanding of the process, they do so because it goes against their belief structure, some can align evolution with their beliefs and infact most do and are happy to do so.

Yep plenty can do as evolution doesn't make any wider claims, its purely an explanation of the observed data. Its not in conflict with the religious ideas of most people and it doesn't make any claims to the origins of life and/or a creator etc... Though I would take issue re: the lack of understanding - a lot of the arguments put forth by creationists do demonstrate a lack of understanding of the process especially when posters claim to accept small changes but not big changes etc.. Also when a belief structure includes falsifiable claims then it is quite open to being dismissed - young earth creationists obviously have this issue....

 

[SlyReaper]

more often than not I find myself in a position of religious defence purely because of the rabid militancy of some who think others need to be educated. You are the very people you claim to despise, you preach and you do so offensively and loudly!

I don't accept that. There's a double standard. Anything an atheist says on the subject of religion/evolution/whatever is automatically considered ten times more offensive and belligerent than an equivalent statement made by a religious person.

My belief is that the world would be far better off without the kind of closed-minded wilful ignorance that religion often instils in its followers - am I supposed to tread on eggshells when discussing that topic? Because the folks in the other camp certainly don't.

Edit before someone jumps down my throat: I said "often" instils. Not always. If you happen to believe in God, but still have a healthy curiosity about the world and don't reject ideas out of hand just because the G-man tells you to - I have no problem with that.

 

[Tom0]

Nice little documentary that touches a lot on life's intricacies and evolutions.

I struggle not to believe in evolution when there are so many weird and wonderful things like in the video that occur, why can't humans be one of them? Even though we aren't the nicest animals.

To my mind it's the most plausible theory for life for me, even though at heart I'm an agnostic atheist (if there is such a thing).

I believe beyond our science and what we know of our universe there must be something, is the beyond creating us whatever it may be or are we just all there is ever?

The unknown things, like the idea of parallel universes and other such theories that take the mind a mile away, they keep the heart believing and guessing there is something I suppose.

Even then if that were true I'd want to know the science behind that...

 

[LOAM]

I don't accept that. There's a double standard. Anything an atheist says on the subject of religion/evolution/whatever is automatically considered ten times more offensive and belligerent than an equivalent statement made by a religious person.

My belief is that the world would be far better off without the kind of closed-minded wilful ignorance that religion often instils in its followers - am I supposed to tread on eggshells when discussing that topic? Because the folks in the other camp certainly don't.

Edit before someone jumps down my throat: I said "often" instils. Not always. If you happen to believe in God, but still have a healthy curiosity about the world and don't reject ideas out of hand just because the G-man tells you to - I have no problem with that.

Well of course you dont accept that, if you fall into the group I describe it likely makes you feel uncomfortable. Eggshells and respect are two separate stances, neither of which are commonly displayed here. From my experience, the atheists of GD are considerably more doggedly militant than the theists.

 

[SlyReaper]

Well of course you dont accept that, if you fall into the group I describe it likely makes you feel uncomfortable. Eggshells and respect are two separate stances, neither of which are commonly displayed here. From my experience, the atheists of GD are considerably more doggedly militant than the theists.

Damn right it makes me feel uncomfortable to be compared to religious zealots. If I ever had a message to give, it's to think for yourself and don't accept the word of authority, not even mine. Look at the evidence, think it through, and form your own view of the world. I have never been about "believe what I believe, or you suffer eternal damnation".

 

[arknor]

Evolution ! video gamer that does outdoor activities !
bonobo geek > human geek

 

[Nitefly]

Dolph, on one hand you rightly point out how others aggressively shout down religious views wrongly on the basis of science (quite rightly), but then you always go ahead make some of the most pointless quasi-criticisms (although I suspect you'd argue they were merely observations, in which case I would still claim they were pointless).

I neither believe nor disbelieve in evolution. Evolution is the mechanism that best fits both the observable evidence and the a priori assumptions of the scientific method, and is therefore a good mechanism for predicting behaviour.

If you want to believe in anything more than that, or disbelieve that the process can correctly predict reality, that's your choice, but it is nothing more than a statement of faith on your part.

I find this incredibly frustrating. You fully know that the only place where you can truly provide proof of anything (beyond that of a factual observation) is in mathematics. There is, factually, no proof of theory in biology, physics or even chemistry. But that is to completely miss the point. The factual evidence supporting evolution, especially in light of molecular phylogenetics (yes, busting out the big terms), is of such magnitude that to hint at a fallacy (of evoluton in the general sense) is like suggesting up could be down, or that black could be white.

Yes I have faith that evolution as currently understood in the general sense (so as to exclude going ultra-hardcore with technical/niche theories relating to asymmetry or eusociality), is completely true. You've got me there. I also have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I guess you've got me there too. But then, giving due consideration to the possibility that the sun might not rise tomorrow, is totally absurd.

Edit - This is absolutely ridiculous, but for the avoidance of doubt I feel the need to acknowledge that one day the sun will 'die'. In the paragraph above I am giving specific reference to the sun not rising tomorrow - 27.07.14.

 

[413x]

Dolph, on one hand you rightly point out how others aggressively shout down religious views wrongly on the basis of science (quite rightly), but then you always go ahead make some of the most pointless quasi-criticisms (although I suspect you'd argue they were merely observations, in which case I would still claim they were pointless).



I find this incredibly frustrating. You fully know that the only place where you can truly provide proof of anything (beyond that of a factual observation) is in mathematics. There is, factually, no proof of theory in biology, physics or even chemistry. But that is to completely miss the point. The factual evidence supporting evolution, especially in light of molecular phylogenetics (yes, busting out the big terms), is of such magnitude that to hint at a fallacy (of evoluton in the general sense) is like suggesting up could be down, or that black could be white.

Yes I have faith that evolution as currently understood in the general sense (so as to exclude going ultra-hardcore with technical/niche theories relating to asymmetry or eusociality), is completely true. You've got me there. I also have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I guess you've got me there too. But then, giving due consideration to the possibility that the sun might not rise tomorrow, is totally absurd.

Edit - This is absolutely ridiculous, but for the avoidance of doubt I feel the need to acknowledge that one day the sun will 'die'. In the paragraph above I am giving specific reference to the sun not rising tomorrow - 27.07.14.

Nice post. I think I agree with everything.
The chance of error is still around but so so small it is statically insignificant.