h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

S'ok

"Do you think all of science is faith-based, or is it something particular to evolutionary biology?"
I believe I've answered that one already, several times.

Yes, all science is faith-based, as I've explained at length.
Creationism is faith-based.
Creationism is not science-based.
Evolution is faith-based.
Evolution is not science-based.

Attempts to confuse evolution with normal reproductive processes occuring within kinds of animals are not going to convince me that evolution is science-based.

"Oh, some supernatural omnipresent, omniscient being created us but he does not interfere with us especially when big bad things happen like wars and dying of cancer or tsunamis but he does help people out who pray or he sometimes gives people diseases and physical disabilities that he then cures to show what a caring person he is and that they some how need to change their lives and do something different."
If that is your view of God, then why do you think God created the Earth?

"And as for not not being able to capture supernatural phenomena in controlled condtions: people DO set up 'experiments' and 'investigations' into supernatural phenomena and get photographs of supposed events. However, they are not controlled even within the area of the experiment and the obvious reasons for the phenomena is ignored."
That's pretty much what I've been saying, yeah. You end up with "was probably caused by" and stuff. Example: A doctor says a patient is going to die within a week. Five days later the patient is miraculously healed though supernatural phenomenon and survives another three years. People claim that God healed the person without acknowledging the possiblity that the doctor was flat-out wrong and the event transpired through normal circumstances. Divine intervention may have occured, but there's never really any way to tell. As I've said, supernatural phenomenon is supernatural - you can't really test it scientifically. That's why it's called "supernatural."
Nerd42

The comedy just keeps getting better. Don't stop, Nerd42, you're getting funnier...

""Do you think all of science is faith-based, or is it something particular to evolutionary biology?"
I believe I've answered that one already, several times."

Lesson #1 - Just because you BELIEVE something, that doesn't make it true.

In fact, if YOU in particular believe something's true, based on the evidence I have available, it's probably a load of cobblers.

And now we enter the dark, dingy part of the post where Nerd42 gets so confused he can't even work out what he thinks himself. Observe:

"all science is faith-based,[...].
Creationism is faith-based.
Creationism is not science-based.
Evolution is faith-based.
Evolution is not science-based."

Hang on though... if science is faith-based - line 1 - and creationism is faith-based - line 2 - and evolution is faith-based - line 4 - doesn't that mean THEY'RE ALL FAITH BASED??? That, as far as YOU are concerned, they're all equivalent??? Why are YOU even drawing ANY distinction between them, if, as you say, you've explained "at length" that science is "faith-based"?



Don't get me wrong - I'm not crediting your inane wittering with making any sense about the real world.

I'm merely pointing out that you aren't even making sense in YOUR OWN terms, let alone in any rational or adult way.

This is part of the reason why arguing with creationists is so tiresome - they're just really, really bad at it.

SoRB

Hi Nerd,

You haven't explicitly said that all science is faith-based, just that you think evolutionary biology is. Now we can all understand your reasoning better, I think.

"Evolution is not science-based"

Ah, maybe not. So science is faith-based, but evolution is not science-based, and that's why evolution is faith based? You are confused, methinks.

We have just established that you think evolution is faith-based because all of science is faith based then you turn around and say evolution isn't science-based?! So then we're back to what makes evolution so special for you to claim it isn't a science? Is it perhaps because you think it disagrees with your bible?

We have painstakingly demonstrated in previous posts what philosophy is, what science is and why evolution is a science - we even admitted that science's ultimate foundations rely on assumptions. We are patiently trying to explore why you think evolution isn't science yet you ignore carefully constructed, well thought-out posts and contradict yourself.

If science is faith-based then you are correct in your assertion that evolutionary biology, as a science, is faith-based. Or, all other science apart from evolutionary biology are not faith-based, which makes evolution alone faith-based (for some unstated reason).

Strange how Science, the world's leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, would name the study of evolution 2005's top scientific achievement because of all the scientific advances that happened this year in evolutionary biology, the core uniting theory behind all biology? Dontcha think?

Isn't it more probable that you're just wrong on this point? You obviously cannot defend your position with logic arguments. Why not save yourself a lot of time and just admit that you think evolution isn't science because you simply don't believe it is. *That's* where the faith comes into this matter. You believe the bible is the literal word of your God which precludes you from being able to agree that evolution is science (for some reason). Admit it. I dare ya.


"Attempts to confuse evolution with normal reproductive processes occuring within kinds of animals are not going to convince me that evolution is science-based."

So, what would these "normal reproductive processes" entail, in your opinion? I'm not sure what you mean here. Like change in allele frequencies? Sexual recombination that generates genetic diversity? Random drift of alleles in small populations? You believe in evolution is all but name.

"Kinds" is not a term I, nor other scientists recognise to describe any biological grouping or phenomenon. It is a creationist invention. As the US was recently reminded in the news, creationism isn't science.


Ste

Fine simulpost there! Hello SoRB

"Ah, maybe not. So science is faith-based, but evolution is not science-based, and that's why evolution is faith based? You are confused, methinks."
No. Read my statements over again carefully - I think you've missed something.

"We have painstakingly demonstrated in previous posts what philosophy is, what science is and why evolution is a science - we even admitted that science's ultimate foundations rely on assumptions. We are patiently trying to explore why you think evolution isn't science yet you ignore carefully constructed, well thought-out posts and contradict yourself."
Where, specifically?

"If science is faith-based then you are correct in your assertion that evolutionary biology, as a science, is faith-based. Or, all other science apart from evolutionary biology are not faith-based, which makes evolution alone faith-based (for some unstated reason)."
No, no, read it over carefully:

Science is faith-based.
Evolution is faith-based.
Evolution is not scientific.

Perhaps what you're missing is not what these statements mean, but what they don't mean, in which case:

Those two statements...
...don't mean that evolution isn't true.
...don't mean that science isn't true.
...don't mean that evolution is science.
...don't mean that evolution is at odds with science.
...don't mean that the statement that evolution is faith-based and the statement that science is faith-based are dependent on one another.

You're saying I'm linking irrelevent things together ... I don't see where you're getting this from.

Strange how Science, the world's leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, would name the study of evolution 2005's top scientific achievement because of all the scientific advances that happened this year in evolutionary biology, the core uniting theory behind all biology? Dontcha think?

"Isn't it more probable that you're just wrong on this point? You obviously cannot defend your position with logic arguments."
Which position?

"Why not save yourself a lot of time and just admit that you think evolution isn't science because you simply don't believe it is. *That's* where the faith comes into this matter."
Not really. If my definition of science is in error (I defined it in a previous post) then I could very well change my mind and include evolution science, creation science and Flying Spaghetti Monster science as legitimate branches of science.

"You believe the bible is the literal word of your God which precludes you from being able to agree that evolution is science (for some reason). Admit it. I dare ya."
You sound like a character in Mel Brook's /History of the World./

"So, what would these "normal reproductive processes" entail, in your opinion? I'm not sure what you mean here. Like change in allele frequencies? Sexual recombination that generates genetic diversity? Random drift of alleles in small populations? You believe in evolution is all but name."

Ah-hem.

Beastiality is becoming rampant in the modern world according to some people. I'm not sure if they're right, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they are. Why then, are we not seeing gradual changes in human beings to become more animal-like?

BECAUSE THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CREATURES! THAT'S WHY!

""Kinds" is not a term I, nor other scientists recognise to describe any biological grouping or phenomenon."
I have already provided you with a link to a list of scientists. But here it is again, maybe you could take a look this time:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_creationsci

"Strange how Science, the world's leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, would name the study of evolution 2005's top scientific achievement because of all the scientific advances that happened this year in evolutionary biology, the core uniting theory behind all biology? Dontcha think?"
As I've said, I'm not disputing that evolutionary biologists control the scientific "community" and educational establishment. But the establishment is not always right - one of the legacies of scientists historically.

Isn't it interesting that theology used to be called the queen of sciences? Perhaps ICR should add historical scientists to their list as well? In which case they'd have to include Galileo Galilei, Matthew Maury, Benjamin Franklin, and Sir Isaac Newton. Doncha think?
Nerd42

I think what's puzzling people, Nerd, is the assertion that evolution is not science based.

We've already agreed that science is, in a sense, faith based, to the extent that it is carried on within a frameork of assumptions, such as "the real world exists", "that the real world is what it is regardless of what we think about it," and "that it is governed by laws of cause and effect" (for a brief philosophical view of the imlications of the universe being a rule governed system there's a journal entry on my page entitled "Boundaries"). To the extent that science is faith based, evolution is obviously faith based, too.

We've also shown that this faith is not equivalent to the faith that is involved in religious belief.

So, do you think that the faith based elements of science and religion *are* equivalent?

And why do you think that evolution is not science based.

Noggin

Nerd42, you don't disappoint. You just keep getting funnier, and stupider, with every post. I'll leave it to Ste to point out the egregious (look it up) errors in your logic calmly, I'm going to point and laugh at you. "No. Read my statements over again carefully - I think you've missed something." Two things: first, reading your statements carefully is boring, because they're very very stupid. Second, it's not us that have missed something. "...you ignore carefully constructed, well thought-out posts and contradict yourself." Where, specifically?" Well, there for starters you idiot. This is very much one of your standard tactics. I've also seen Della use it. You post reams of crap, which is carefully and intelligently rebutted, and then later you claim that nobody has shown you to be wrong. When it's patiently pointed out to you that in fact you HAVE been shown to be wrong, over and over again, you don't - as any intelligent or even conscious person might - look back at the thread and check. You simply say "where?", placing the onus for thinking back onto other people. Try, just once, thinking and acting like an adult. (Aside: how old are you, Nerd42?) "...don't mean that the statement that evolution is faith-based and the statement that science is faith-based are dependent on one another." Whether you like it or not, whether you even understand it or not, they imply equivalence, in the terms in which we are arguing. Perhaps YOU don't get that, but we do. Ok? "You're saying I'm linking irrelevent things together ... I don't see where you're getting this from." We're getting it from your posts. If you don't mean that, stop saying it. "You obviously cannot defend your position with logic arguments." Which position? Do try to pay attention. Are you seriously asking US to tell YOU what YOU think and are trying to argue in favour of? Your position is that evolution is not science. "...just admit that you think evolution isn't science because you simply don't believe it is. *That's* where the faith comes into this matter." Not really. If my definition of science is in error (I defined it in a previous post) then I could very well change my mind and include evolution science, creation science and Flying Spaghetti Monster science as legitimate branches of science." That is precisely the point we're making to you. That is precisely where your argument is leading you. "You sound like a character in Mel Brook's /History of the World./" I won't say what you sound like - I'd probably get moderated. "So, what would these "normal reproductive processes" entail, in your opinion? I'm not sure what you mean here. Like change in allele frequencies? Sexual recombination that generates genetic diversity? Random drift of alleles in small populations? You believe in evolution is all but name." Ah-hem. Beastiality is becoming rampant in the modern world according to some people." WHAAAAT??? You win the prize for most monstrous irrelevance brought into an argument. "I'm not sure if they're right," Something being a load of cobblers has never stopped you basing an argument on it before... and indeed it doesn't this time... "but for the sake of argument, let's assume they are. Why then, are we not seeing gradual changes in human beings to become more animal-like?" Um... because you have absolutely not even the very first idea of how evolution works? Because you don't have even the very first idea of how gradual "gradual" evolution changes are? And - newsflash - because individual behaviour is NOT a driver of evolutionary change? Oh, no, hang on, there must be a gibberish creationist reason I've missed... "BECAUSE THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CREATURES! THAT'S WHY!" Ah, how silly of us all. "I have already provided you with a link to a list of scientists." No, you have not. You have provided a link to a list of CREATIONISTS. As you yourself admit, that is NOT the same thing. Do try to keep up, it is most tiresome having to re

<"So, what would these "normal reproductive processes" entail, in your opinion? I'm not sure what you mean here. Like change in allele frequencies? Sexual recombination that generates genetic diversity? Random drift of alleles in small populations? You believe in evolution is all but name."

Ah-hem.

Beastiality is becoming rampant in the modern world according to some people. I'm not sure if they're right, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they are. Why then, are we not seeing gradual changes in human beings to become more animal-like?

BECAUSE THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CREATURES! THAT'S WHY! >

This pretty much shows that YOU know nothing about genetics. I really do suggest you actually READ about what stops different animals procreating and then what genetic 'mutations' are with regards to animals evolving. You will find they are two different processes.

Although based on your previous 'arguments' I doubt whether that would have any effect on your arguments. Facts do not seem to get in the way of your brand of 'logic'.

"I really do suggest you actually READ about what stops different animals procreating and then what genetic 'mutations' are with regards to animals evolving."
I've read about genetic mutations - I've read they are generally harmful.

"Although based on your previous 'arguments' I doubt whether that would have any effect on your arguments. Facts do not seem to get in the way of your brand of 'logic'."
It is possible to reason with sets of facts that are completely false, is it not? This observation you have made suggests that we are reasoning from different starting information.
Nerd42

Son of Blake: Shut up unless you have something to add. Calling people stupid is not constructive. (thinks about previous sentence a moment, then adds ...) At all. Who are you trying to convince by calling me stupid? Retreating to insults like that seems rather like a sign of despiration that your side's arguments aren't holding up. Dude, you have even less tact than ME - and that's saying alot because I'm usually pretty tactless.

"So, do you think that the faith based elements of science and religion *are* equivalent?"
Nonono, I've said I don't see how the difference can be objectively measured. You can define what is and isn't shaky logic, but shaky faith? According to what?

"And why do you think that evolution is not science based."
Because you can't repeat it in a controlled environment.

It's actually pretty easy to make up a creation story that happened a long time ago and then put it out of reach. Say it took billions and billions of years, or say that God was responsible. Either way, you can't do it over and film it happening, so it's not science.

That is, unless my definition of science is in error, which I admit is a possibility. The trouble is, people are so busy insulting me that they can't be bothered to actually try to convince me to change it, or else they've failed thus far. (Ste, you've actually been trying there, I'll give you that )
Nerd42

I've changed my mind about one thing in SOB's post. I think I will dignify this one bit with an actual response, so that I am not doing the same thing SOB is doing there.

"Tip: you will not find anything to do with science on the end of that link."

How do you know until you actually READ WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY AND THEN PROVE IT WRONG!?

In this sentence, I see the doom of Western civilization. So much for open-mindedness. So long, civility, and thanks for all the fish.

You know what, in order to save you the trouble of clicking on the ing link, I am posting the page's opening paragraph. I, as I've said, do not nessicarily agree with the views of the Institute for Creation Research.

"Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies — not their awareness of scientific facts.
Lists of scientists are divided into sections. Choose a list below.
» Scientists in the Physical Sciences
» Scientists in the Biological Sciences
» Scientist List FAQ"

"And why do you think that evolution is not science based."
"Because you can't repeat it in a controlled environment."

You are simply incorrect in this I'm afraid, Nerd. You think this because you're definition of evolution is not the same as everyone else's, including science's. If we're going to have a discussion about something you have to play by the rules...

Merry Christmas



Ste

So I'm not misdefining science, but misdefining evolution?

Do you think perhaps that to deny evolutionary theory is to deny that natural selection happens?

<>

It would probably be more accurate to say that to deny evolutionary theory is to deny that a combination of random mutation and natural selection can bring about the changes that evolutionary theory says it can, or to deny that such changes have taken place.

At a philosophical level, science requires that anything that exists within the universe is a result of consistent physical laws. Evolution by natural selection is an explanation of the development of the diversity of life that accepts this requirement. It has made predictions that can, and have been, tested in the laboratory, such as the existence of units of heredity (genes). It links together many different lines of enquiry in biology, geology etc. It suggests avenues of investigation, both in the laboratory and in the world.

You can investigate the past *only* on the assumption that it leaves traces in the present that are determined by rules. Evolution does this.

Noggin

"It would probably be more accurate to say that to deny evolutionary theory is to deny that a combination of random mutation and natural selection can bring about the changes that evolutionary theory says it can, or to deny that such changes have taken place."
And what is so unreasonable and outrageous about denying that and saying public education should consider all reasonable alternatives?

"At a philosophical level, science requires that anything that exists within the universe is a result of consistent physical laws."
Now hold on a second. Science requires that anything it is /applied to/ within the universe is a result of consistent physical laws. There are limits to the discipline, don't you think? Or, do you think that science can eventually answer all of man's questions about the universe?

"Evolution by natural selection is an explanation of the development of the diversity of life that accepts this requirement. It has made predictions that can, and have been, tested in the laboratory, such as the existence of units of heredity (genes)."
You credit evolutionary theory for the discovery of genes??? That genetics wouold never have become an area of study if it weren't for evolution? If evolution were science, that would probably be the tail wagging the dog, right? You'd have to come up with evolution based on observations of genes, not the other way around but instead you've got /because of evolution, we know genes exist./ The creationists say the existance of genes support their idea, but I won't trouble you with how, or with their reasons for making that claim, as actually trying to understand what other people think seems to be beyond you people's capacity. (i.e. the LIST OF SCIENTISTS LINK NOBODY WILL CLICK ON AND RESPOND TO)

"It links together many different lines of enquiry in biology, geology etc. It suggests avenues of investigation, both in the laboratory and in the world."
And so does the so-called "creation science".

"You can investigate the past *only* on the assumption that it leaves traces in the present that are determined by rules. Evolution does this."
The traces in the present are /far/ from conclusive, as there are many different interpretations for them. Evolutionary science focuses on only one possible interpretation.
Nerd42

Um, let me restate that last bit more clearly.

"You can investigate the past *only* on the assumption that it leaves traces in the present that are determined by rules. Evolution does this."
The traces in the present are /far/ from conclusive, as there are many different interpretations for them. Evolutionary science focuses on only one possible interpretation - operating on the assumption that this is the only correct interpretation. This assumption is considered above scrutiny. Any methods used to try to "prove" this assumption are only deemed accurate if they produce data that agree with the assumption. The assumption is that the Earth is billions of years old and that life has existed for millions of years.

Now, one of the places where I disagree with the folks at ICR is the age of the earth. I don't claim to know exactly how old the Earth is - but think public education should consider the different possibilities.

"So I'm not misdefining science, but misdefining evolution?"
Yes, I think so.


"You credit evolutionary theory for the discovery of genes??? That genetics wouold never have become an area of study if it weren't for evolution? If evolution were science, that would probably be the tail wagging the dog, right? You'd have to come up with evolution based on observations of genes, not the other way around but instead you've got because of evolution, we know genes exist."

Yes, evolutionary biologists discovered genes. Gregor Mendel observed how traits segregated in populations and concluded these traits had to be encoded in distinct entities. Before him people (especially Darwin) believed in "blending inheritance" where traits from parents blend together in offspring. Observation of plants by Mendel showed that blending inheritance is impossible and traits are inheritend in genes. He came up with his own theory of inheritance. That theory was subsequently confirmed and is now held to be true.

Evolution is the core concept of all biology. Without it nothing makes sense, including genetics. Genetics is the study of inheritance. Genetics would not exist if it were not for evolutionary biology. Or at least it would be 100 years behind where it is now. The discovery of Mendelian genetics/inheritance was a defining point in the history of evolutionary biology. Because of evolutionary genetics we know how genes pass through and change in populations. We know how new genes can come about and what these potentially adaptive new genes can do in terms of fitness of individuals.

Evolutionary theory wasn't based on genes, but a large part of it now is because of the discovery of genes: Population genetics, which is the quantitative core of evolutionary theory.


Ste