Evolution and creationism

Great Debates
101

Diogenes
Ah yes. The old moving of the goal posts. You asked for something you cannot verify. I gave it to you. You claim you can do it, but you’ve not proved it. Why should I take the word of someone who can’t comprehend the simple point I’ve been making? If you are really THAT intelligent, prove it. Put up or shut up.

And yes, you personally do matter. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the point of all this. As an individual, it is impossible for you to know everything and anything about evolution. Don’t you understand that? Are you really so egotistical that you think you can learn everything? Even if you had the brain power, do you think you’d have the time?

My OP wasn’t that there are things in evolution for which “we” (I love the fact that you’ve changed your wording from “I” (singlular) to “we” (collective)) have only a scientists word, my OP was about the fact that there are things in evolution for which I have only a scientist’s word. And there are things for which you have nothing but a scientists word. Sure, you think you can verify anything you want, but you that is not based on any kind of proof. It is an assumption you’ve made.

102

I have not moved the goal posts, you just can’t answer my question. What I’m asking you to do is name a fact which is not checkable. To name something, [i[anything* in evolutionary theory which must be taken on “faith.” You have not been able to do this. You lose.

103

I’m definitely not a fan of DtC, but even I can’t see the basis of this position. Assuming DtC has at least a high school education, including a Grade 12 reading level, I’d be willing to bet that he could get a handle on this or any other subject within, say, thirty years. It’s not beyond his grasp because it wasn’t beyond the grasp of the other human beings who came up with the idea in the first place. You might be assuming DtC has some particular personal mental block or gap that would prevent him from grasping the math, but I don’t see a basis for that, either.

The fact that DtC doesn’t want to dedicate a sizeable chunk of his life proving a point means nothing.

104

I got as far as a Bachelor’s Degree…but I suck at math.

105

P/G, you nitwit, if you leave a partially written message in the “post” window, I can’t read it! So while you were waiting waiting waiting, I had not received your challenge.

Anyway, so you never said there are irrefutable arguments against evolution, just that you, personally, cannot refute them. Why generalize and suppose, then, that everyone else bases their beliefs on faith alone? I certainly do not. Evolution is a working theory of how species change over time. I understand it, and while I can neither witness it, or demonstrate all of the relevant mathematical formulas for carbon dating, I reject the notion that somebody must either observe something firsthand AND have a comprehensive understanding of all the details OR take in on blind faith to be true. Take, for example, the election of George W. Bush. I don’t comprehend it, I do not know the vote tallies, and there is no way to observe it in the sense of watching everybody vote (watching the announcement on TV, in this case, is just second-hand heresay). And yet, there seems to be something more than “faith” involved with my decision that he is, in fact, the president. There is good judgment involved, based on an accumulation of available evidence, that fits with my theory that he is president. So it is with evolution. I do not need to examine every fossil to believe it is true, nor do I have to suppose it is anything akin to the faith of the creationist, which exists DESPITE common sense and information, rather than because of it.

What we have here is a different debate. It’s not, as you said, in all-caps, an evolution-creation debate. It is about epistemology. Get away from the evolution theme, then, and ask: “What does it mean to know something?” Must we know a thing completely to know it all? Must we experience it to know it? Those are important philosophical questions, and get at different kinds of knowing and meanings of the word “know,” and could prove interesting. However, I will be able to contribute nothing to it, because philosophy of that kind makes my head hurt.

106

You moved the goalposts. At first, you asked for something (no hypothetical qualification made) which cannot be verified BY YOU. In the second, you asked for something which isn’t hypothetically possible by you. You changed from asking for something that you can’t really do, to something you can’t theoretically do. Can we put a man on Mars? Can we do it hypothetically? Those are two different questions.

But just because someone else could grasp it doesn’t mean Diogenes can grasp it. He asserted there is nothing about evolution that he cannot verify. I didn’t ask him to do that. Hell, I even stated there will be things he can’t grasp. This is the entire crux of the argument between us right now. He says there is nothing beyond him. I say there are plenty of things beyond him. He asked me to name 1. I did. In theory could he get there? Maybe. As he claims, he sucks at math, so I doubt he could. But yet, even knowing that he can’t refute mathematic arguments I make up against evolution (I don’t really know of any), that would not reduce his stance on evolution even a tiny bit. Nor should it. Because, in the end, he and I both know whatever arguments or contradictions I might put forth would eventually be shown to be false. But the knowledge this can be done is not proven, it is taken on presumption.
cricetus
No name calling. It isn’t nice. Nor is it called for.

I didn’t leave it in the post window. It was intended to make a point.

Further, I never claimed that we all base our entire trust in evolution on faith alone. I claimed that our experiences, instincts, gut instincts, knowledge, intellect, education and about a million other things are not enough to give us full knowledge of every argument against evolution. For those things which we cannot definitely refute, we rely on our trust in evolution to know it can be refuted.

107

You are right I don’t honor your scientific methods, any more than I honor religious doctrine. But I do find it strange you are willing to discount thousands of UFO sightings as meaningless, along with levitation. Never seen any UFOs myself nor any levitation. But angels, now I have seen angels. This probably means you think near death experiences don’t happen either. Oh well. maybe some day you will see one. As for evolution, I am just not going to accept as fact that you know exactly what happened millions of years ago. Call me all the names you wish. I had rather be honest, and just say I don’t know what happened.

108

You have not yet explained why verifying the mathematics of geological dating methods is beyond my ability.

You also got whooshed by Cricetus. The post window thing was a joke, dude.

109

Diogenes

Wow, you really like moving those posts, sir. It is no longer my burden to prove anything. You didn’t ask me to name something I can prove you can’t verify. You simply asked me to name something you can’t verify. I submitted that you can’t verify line fitting as used in isochron dating. In order for you to show I’m wrong, you will need to verify the math used in isochron dating.

See, the first request was “name something I can’t verify”.

Followed by “name something I can’t hypothetically verify”.

Followed by “Prove I can’t verify it.”

That is moving goalposts.

If I could find something I can prove you can’t hypothetically verify, I’d be naming something that is in direct contradiction to evolution. I know of no such thing namely because, ahem, I think evolution is right.

Once again, for those who didn’t get it the first 20 times, this isn’t a debate about the validity of evolution. This is a posit that for every individual, there are aspects of evolution we do not understand and yet we still accept evolution as truth.

Despite the fact we can hypothetically learn all the aspects, the reality is that we can’t. And despite this failing, we still accept evolution as fact.

110

Sigh. I debate whether or not to explain this, but…

OK, so you ask me a question, then write

waiting
waiting
waiting

Which indicates that you are waiting for a reply, but, well, since you are still adding text to the post, you haven’t submitted the post, and I haven’t seen your question. Get it now? It’s just like my mother saying “pick up! pick up!” to my voicemail, or adding to a letter, “I would have enclosed the money I owe you, but I’d already sealed the envelope.”

I’m not sure you have a point at all, but to your credit you did originally post this to MPointlessSIMS. Perhaps you should have just said, “I believe in evolution, but I don’t really know that much about it, so I’m just taking it on gut instinct.” This is close to what you did say, in fact. The problem was equating that with “faith” in creation, and then generalize it to include everybody else. I assure you that there is an epistemological difference between believing in something sensible, based on reasonable evidence, and believing in something irrational, because you want it to be true. I also assure you that many people – even non-scientists – are conversant enough with the theory and the supporting evidence to have a sound reality-based belief that is nothing like faith or trust or gut instincts. Perhaps not everybody who believes in evolution can refute all of the dogma from creationists, but that doesn’t mean everybody who believes in evolution has even a mote of “faith” in their belief. It’s Creationist dogma that science is a religion or involves faith.

It is indeed possible to know and refute all the arguments against evolution, since creationists have not made an original argument in many, many years and always rely on the same handful of preposterous, falacious, and flimsy arguments. It is possible – if you want to – to spend about a few hours reviewing the material and become expert enough yourself to do so.

111

You have not named anything I can’t very. You are still missing my point that nothing in science is taken merely on faith and that all of the relevant data is available to anyone who wants it. I’m still waiting for you to name something I (the rhetorical “I,” which is really just a way of saying anyone) cannot verify for myself if I want to.

112

cricetus
I know what you meant. Did you not see that I said I was using waiting to make a point, and not really waiting? I didn’t really sit there hoping you’d respond while I typed that into the post window.

I know quite a bit about evolution. I’ve spent many, many hour perusing the talkorgins website, along with countless other time spent looking at other arguments. It is because I spend this time looking at counter-arguments and doing further reading about evolution that this thought occurred to me.

Diogenes
You can’t possibly be reading my posts. I have a doubt you are even reading your own posts.

Once again, you’ve asked for something you (singular, Diogenes, the person at the other end of the computer), can’t verify. I’ve given it to you. In order for you to show me I’m wrong, you will need to prove that you, Diogenes, can verify it. If you can’t, I’ve given you exactly what you asked for. And no, I won’t take your word for it that you can. I want a cite. This is, after all, Great Debates. You cannot make claims without cites in here. Once again, put up or shut up.

I’m going to say this for the last time. Of course everything concerning evolution can be verified. But it can’t be done by you, Diogenes. If you don’t see the difference in those two statements, I can’t help you with this anymore.

Others seemed to have grasped this concept. See the posts by Nature’s Call and Larry Borgia.

One more thing. Given cricetus’ response to my post, I think he was dead serious in thinking I was waiting for him to respond. Who got whooshed now?w?

113

You really don’t get it.

The issue is not my personal research skills or my inherent ability to grasp higher mathematics, this issue is whether all of the data is accessible and reviewable from the ground up. I’m asking you to name something in evolutionary theory which it is not possible for “me” or anyone else to examine the evidence and the arguments for. I’m asking you to name something for whic the raw, empirical data is not available. Your uninformed opinions of my (or anyone else’s) personal ability to understand the data is completely beside the point. The only relevant point is that the data- the proof - is available for examination by anyone who is interested. There is nothing, nothing which I or anyone else, must take on faith. That puts evolutionary theory light years ahead of creationism which cannot boast of a single bit of physocal evidence or even a single cogerent objection to evolution. Epistimologically speaking, there is no legitimate comparison between religious faith, and confidence in a specific methodology and body of knowledge which has proven itself over and over again to be reliable and which has never once been shown to be fallible or false.

114

There is in my country, these statements of humor called “jokes.”

And yet, you really think the creationists have all these irrefutable arguments?

You.

115

Let us return now to one of your first posts…

I think it has been argued long and successully that no, there is no small amount of faith that evolutionists must have… that they must believe all arguments in favor of creationism have a valid refuation. It has been argued, and successfully, that a supporter of evolution needs no amount of faith at all, that said person can have refuted all current arguments for creation and will willingly consider each new argument if and when it surfaces with no presuppositions as to whether or not it can be refuted. Their belief, you see, is not based on refutations of creationism, but on mountains of evidence FOR evolution. And so it has been asked and answered. You are wrong. No faith is necessary to believe in evolution. No, not even a faith that creationist arguments will be refuted, because your belief is not based on the refutation of creationism.

And so when you say:

You have moved the goal posts considerably. Diogenes doesn’t need to do a damned thing. You’re wrong. Admit it and move on.

116

g_under_p, in the OP you wrote:

And in your last post, you said:

A question: Would you agree with those statements if they were about something other than creationism/evolution? Say you meet someone who claims that Australia doesn’t exist. There’s just a lot of water down there, the whole “Australia”-theory is an elaborate hoax originally created by the Brits who didn’t want to admit that they dumped convicts in the ocean to drown. Would you then be willing to say the following?

and

117

But some of us have, and you refuse to believe us. You say that not everything is “blind faith”, like tomorrow’s sunrise or Australia’s existence. Why do you not place the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the set of beliefs which are not blind faith?

I, too, am beginning to think that you are a creationist playing the “concerned evolutionist”: a common tactic. Would you agree to swear on something you hold dear that you are not?

A least squares fit yields a correlation: rigorous scientific journals require that the probability of achieving the same results by random chance be less than 1%. The combination of all such studies which returned a probability of less than 1% of being random yields a probability of less than one in many billions or trillions. In short, if isochron line-fitting was invalid, then we have been the subject of a decades-long fluke of such astronomical proportions that the only reasonable explanation is that God is deliberately planting misleading evidence.

But you asked for a derivation of the mathematics, not a demonstration of the statistical validity of applying it. I will talk you through the Gauss-Markov theorem if you wish, but I’m not sure why you consider it particularly relevant.

118

But we can learn the aspects which cannot be wrong, such as the fact that species die out to be replaced by others which weren’t there before over millions of years. This is evolution. It is a fact.

119

If I understand g_under_p’s point correctly, he’s talking about our personal, individual convictions about any particular subject. The degree of “faith” we each have in the mishmash of personal experience, second hand experience, education, argument from authority etc. that constitutes our personal body of knowledge.

For example, my own introduction to evolution was Attenborough’s Life on Earth documentaries which I watched as a kid. (Recently bought them on DVD and watched them again - thoroughly recommended!) I’ve read Dawkins and Gould, and followed their arguments. I’m convinced by Dawkin’s arguments for gradual natural selection and the relative fitness of genes.

I’ve heard of Behe’s arguments regarding irreducable complexity. I haven’t even read them, let alone attempted to understand and evaluate them. I have summarily dismissed them as flawed on the basis of my personal body of knowledge. How entitled am I to do so?

g_under_p’s challenge to Dio is not about whether the evidence for evolution is checkable in principle, of course it is. (And the evidence for creationism is not checkable even in principle, which I believe is Dio’s point.) It is about whether Dio has to personally take anything on faith to be convinced about evolution, and of course he does.

In some ways it’s a trivial point, since as others have pointed out we take a vast array of things faith from moment to moment, otherwise we couldn’t function. But that question, am I entitled to dismiss Behe without even reading his arguments? It bothers me.

120

The word, “faith,” means, in the religious context, a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”. To suggest that any kind of trust, no matter what the evidence, is equivilent to “faith” is a semantic game and dogma. How many arguments would be avoided if we could all just agree to use words as the dictionary suggest they be used?

If it bothers you, then read Behe and reject his arguments as the same old, same old statement of personal incredulity. But, as I said before Evolutionists are not required to refute creationism because Their belief is built on the mountains of evidence FOR evolution, and not on the refutation of arguments for creationism. If anything suggests that g_under_p is really a creationist trying to do a gotcha, it is his epistemological insistence on the disjunctive syllogism.

Behe is akin to a fellow in Seattle who meets a man from Miami. How did the fellow get from Miami to Seattle? the Seattlan wonders, and assumes it must be magic. Sure – there is some evidence that the Floridan drove, since he has souvineers from Chicago, Minneapolis, and Boise. But not every leg of the trip is apparent to the Seattlian, and since he cannot see direct evidence for every mile of the trip, he decides it could not have taken place at all, and the man must have arrived by magic. Who the magician is, he won’t say, but you can certainly presume it is your favorite magician with no argument from Behe.