Do you believe in evolution ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen Hawking
Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.[...] Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
Click to expand...

Richard Feynman
Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds
Click to expand...


-----------


edit - seems I've posted at the same time as the post above - but was just throwing a couple more quotes into the mix - just to point out that a couple of rather renowned Physicists don't/didn't see much use in Philosophy. I'd also add that I'd agree with Nitefly's post re: pointing out that assumptions are made in science does seem a bit pointless I'd also say that a comparison between these and the leaps of faith made by religious people isn't particularly comparable.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Genesis is a narrative which is both doxological and didactic in both form and context. It is a Teaching rather than a textbook. To take it in a literal historical context is to both ignore and misunderstand the nature and intent of the narrative.

(I would also point out the Adam, is both The Man and Mankind..there is no differentiation between the two in Hebrew)
Click to expand...

Precisely - and I'm sure the author(s) and original hearers of Genesis were aware of this.

A few years ago I attended a lecture on Creation by Dr Jane Williams (wife of Rowan). She went into some detail regarding the nature of the text of parts of scripture dealing with Creation including Genesis and parts of Job and the Psalms. At the end of the lecture someone asked her about the Creation vs Evolution question (I think they had come thinking that was what the lecture would be about). It basically wasn't even on her radar. She replied "no serious academic Christian theologian takes that to be a relevant issue."

It was the sort of answer I heard given by a palaeontology lecturer at university about the same subject. It's not taken seriously by either field.
 
Xordium said:
There is also a big difference between assuming the whole universe infinite at it is exists and the sun coming up tomorrow. The later is a deduction based upon countless patterns of evidence the other is an assumption without any evidence that can be presented unless it is taken to be true.
Click to expand...

OK now we are getting juicy!

I like your summary of the sun rising as 'a deduction based upon countless patterns of evidence'. I'm probably more confident in my assumption of evolution than I am about the sun rising. It's that much of a galacticly reasonable assumption. But you can take your type of criticism aimed at conceptions of the universe and apply it to, quite literally, anything. Can you truly be sure that the sun will rise? Can you really? Edit: For the avoidance of doubt, yes, you can.

There is merit in the philosophy of science, but it doesn't merit an entirely reasonable assumptions being 'handicapped', or unduly laced with absurd caveats, on the basis that we can't be sure of the construction of our own existence. That is why I end up frustrated with these conversations. Far too much emphasis on page 4 footnotes and less consideration on what's actually purposeful.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Stephen Hawking
Richard Feynman
Click to expand...

Like I acknowledged before you posted that Hawking said the same. I disagree with him and he never explains why - he makes a statement he never qualifies it. We are expected to take it as truth because of his qualifications in other areas.
 
Nitefly said:
OK now we are getting juicy!

I like your summary of the sun rising as 'a deduction based upon countless patterns of evidence'. I'm probably more confident in my assumption of evolution than I am about the sun rising. It's that much of a galacticly reasonable assumption. But you can take your type of criticism of aimed at conceptions of the universe and apply it to, quite literally, anything. Can you truly be sure that the sun will rise? Can you really?

There is merit in the philosophy of science, but it doesn't merit an entirely reasonable assumptions being 'handicapped', or unduly laced with absurd caveats, on the basis that we can't be sure of the construction of our own existence. That is why I end up frustrated with these conversations. Far too much emphasis on page 4 footnotes and less consideration on what's actually purposeful.
Click to expand...

I am glad it is juicy for you Nitefly! I am not arguing for the handicapping of anything I am arguing for a realisation and acknowledgement of what science does and does not do. A tolerance towards others in an area that we can't measure with direct observation. I make no bones about it I categorically think evolution is something as close as possible to 100% for me. It is an elegant and simple answer to a complex question - the best kind of answer. The reason you get frustrated is because you are far from the target audience for my posts are you!

Edit: re-reading your post I would also there I think there is a difference between a fundamental a priori construction that we use as a foundation for everything else and something else eg the sun not rise as something that I deduce to be almost likely based upon observation. One is born of direct observation and some inference then other hope!
 
Last edited:
Xordium said:
Like I acknowledged before you posted that Hawking said the same. I disagree with him and he never explains why - he makes a statement he never qualifies it. We are expected to take it as truth because of his qualifications in other areas.
Click to expand...

The frustrating part in all this is that it would likely be a very simple thing for him to go ahead and qualify those statements in as much a what his beliefs are in that regard.

On a side note, amusingly Sliver has scuttled off again when the pressing questions come that he can't answer with ad-hominems or strawman arguments.
 
The irony is that Feynman actually contributed to the philosophy of science.

Aside from this if Birds were able to utilise Ornithology it would teach them a huge amount, not only about themselves but about their prey and their predators...effectively making them better birds of whichever species that may be.

Can a scientist (particular a theoretical one) do without philosophy, of course they can, but is a scientist a better one when they have some grounding in the Philosophy of their discipline or science in general? I think they can be.
 
tbyeah said:
I'm not sure what point you are making?

The sole basis for Creationism is assuming the Bible is entirely true. Are you saying that this assumption is just as valid or invalid as assuming we exist, or that time passes?
Click to expand...

I am not talking about Creationism. I have little interest in something that I personally believe to be wrong.

I am not applying any weighting on any assumptions - well I did just do one - that I believe to assume the universe exists in the way I perceive it is as close to infinite as I can think of and greater than Nitefly's sun rising tomorrow.

I am challenging and will continue to the people who challenge those who believe in a god because it is unprovable. You can't prove it they say - we can prove things with science - all the while ignoring we all accept things on faith. One of which is absolutely massive.

I hope that clears it up for you.
 
Xordium said:
Like I acknowledged before you posted that Hawking said the same. I disagree with him and he never explains why - he makes a statement he never qualifies it. We are expected to take it as truth because of his qualifications in other areas.
Click to expand...

Nope I was just illustrating that there are Scientists who see little value in Philosophy. (my post was the same time/didn't see your post immediately above it until it had been posted)
 
Xordium said:
I am glad it is juicy for you Nitefly! I am not arguing for the handicapping of anything I am arguing for a realisation and acknowledgement of science does and does not do. A tolerance towards others in an area that we can't measure with direct observation. I make no bones about it I categorically thing evolution is something as close as possible to 100% for me. It is an elegant and simple answer to a complex question - the best kind of answer. The reason you get frustrated is because you are far from the target audience for my posts are you!
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say?

In an evolution vs creation debate (ridiculous this still even happens), we are all making the same assumptions about our existence and time passing. So assuming these, we look at the evidence available. Evolution is the only reasonable conclusion (until some more evidence casts doubt on it).

Edit: posted your post at the same time.

I would challenge someone who believes in (for example) the Christian god, as they worship something which allows all manner of horrors to happen, while it could easily prevent them. That to me is abhorrent.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
Can you truly be sure that the sun will rise? Can you really? Edit: For the avoidance of doubt, yes, you can.
Click to expand...

To continue my pedantry in this type of thread no you can't. At some point you know the sun will die, we can be confident not anytime soon for either of us to care, but at some point, no it will not "rise".
 
dowie said:
Nope I was just illustrating that there are Scientists who see little value in Philosophy. (my post was the same time/didn't see your post immediately above it until it had been posted)
Click to expand...

That's ok I am juggling a few things here! I agree not everyone will see it that way and I think my perspective is maybe born of necessity in that I don't have the luxury of hiding from the consequences of my actions. My actions have a direct effect that I will see at the time and if wrong in the mirror every day for the rest of my life. Kind of like this bloke:

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."
 
tbyeah said:
I would challenge someone who believes in (for example) the Christian god, as they worship something which allows all manner of horrors to happen, while it could easily prevent them. That to me is abhorrent.
Click to expand...

You would and they would most likely tell you that not all outcomes can be seen, God works in mysterious ways, that a parent guides their child to learn from mistakes rather than controlling them, and all the other usual answers.

Not really my area theology I'll pass the buck to Castiel although there is another thread already going on about this atm I believe.
 
Pudney said:
To continue my pedantry in this type of thread no you can't. At some point you know the sun will die, we can be confident not anytime soon for either of us to care, but at some point, no it will not "rise".
Click to expand...

Ha! :D

Nitefly said:
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.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe somebody actually went there. It poetically sums up the whole thing.
 
Xordium said:
I am glad it is juicy for you Nitefly! I am not arguing for the handicapping of anything I am arguing for a realisation and acknowledgement of what science does and does not do. A tolerance towards others in an area that we can't measure with direct observation. I make no bones about it I categorically think evolution is something as close as possible to 100% for me. It is an elegant and simple answer to a complex question - the best kind of answer. The reason you get frustrated is because you are far from the target audience for my posts are you!
Click to expand...

I think it's better to simply be an advocate of tolerance than to get buried in this current debate. That is after all the purpose (referencing my earlier use of the word), I would hope!

Your last sentence is a fair one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom