Evolution and creationism

Great Debates
121

Oh, I agree, religious faith is rather different to my faith that my car will start! (Although the word does have more than one usage in the dictionary.) My point was that g_under_p and Dio seemed to be talking past each other. I could be misunderstanding both their positions of course.

It doesn’t bother me that much, and my pile of books that I might get round to reading someday is large enough as it is. I do feel largely entitled to reject Behe’s arguments unread, and I believe I can justify it. But there is an element of risk to such a dismissal.

122

My Dad pulled that one on me, like, twenty times.

Trouble was, he kept writing it on postcards.

123

No, I don’t. What I’ve said all along is that all arguments against evolution can eventually be refuted. They just can’t all be refute by me.

See, I never claimed to be a super being like Diogenes is claiming to be. I fully admit there are arguments I will never be able to refute. Not because the evidence to refute them isn’t there, but simply because I don’t have the time or drive to obtain the knowledge necessary to do that. Certainly not in all cases. Maybe you do. I seriously doubt it, though.

I have never moved this condition. It has been consistent from the beginning. Individuals are limited in the amount of knowledge they can attain.

hildea
“Australia exists” is a pointed, well defined, single fact. It is not a conglomeration of facts, other theories and observations. It wouldn’t take many lifetimes to gather all the evidence to refute the claim that Australia doesn’t exist.

To be quite honest, I should have used global warming instead of evolution/creation as the vehicle for this point. Or maybe second hand smoke and links to cancer. I don’t know. There are lots of complicated, deep discussions I think that could have been had. I had thought of using a different vehicle, but because the thought occurred to me while I was reading about evolution and because I am so much against creationism, I thought this would work. Apparently I’ve come across looking like a creationist, despite the fact I’ve said over and over again that I fully admit any single claim against evolution must eventually be proven false.

I think you have verified the facts to a very large degree, yes. I don’t doubt that, not even for a moment. What I don’t believe is that you (personally) have verified all the facts as they relate to: Mathematics, biology, geology, inheritance, speciation, geography, microbiology, etc. The key word being all. However, I do believe that “we”, people as a whole, have verified all the facts.

In simple terms, each of us understands:

  1. Species change over time
  2. Species change to such a degree that eventually they become separate species
  3. This change can take place over millions of years
  4. The force behind these changes is natural selection

But encompassed in these simple ideas are much more complicated ideas. Ideas which as a group become impossible for a single individual to learn. As a body of work, every single bit of evolution is verifiable. Pick any single fact and you can check it until you are well convinced of its validity. But there are millions, if not billions, of single facts. You, the individual, can’t check them all. As a group, we, the scientific community, can and have.

Unfortunately, I am not the scientific community. While I have complete access to the knowledge of the community, I cannot possibly attain all that knowledge. So, when someone who has spent 40 years studying geology comes along and tells me that some of the methods used in geology are complete bunk, I shrug it off. Even if their argument at first pass sounds reasonable, I still don’t give it any weight or consideration. Sure, I could spend the next 40 years learning why their claims are wrong, access all those great stores of knowledge we have been talking about, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so for the very simple reason that after I do spend those 40 years refuting whatever specious claims were made, I’m pretty damn sure I’ll end up right where I am today: convinced that the claims were bogus.

Please note the difference between these two statements:
Every single point about evolution can be verified by 1 person.
There aren’t any points about evolution that can’t be verified by a single person.

If you see the difference in those two statements I think you will see my point. The first statement is obviously false. Not because there is a lack of evidence, which is where I think so many people are getting emotional, but because of the limitation of the individual.

124

And you still insist on calling this incomplete knowledge “faith” rather than “working conclusions as justified as that of tomorrow’s sunrise”? (Note that I could construct all kinds of arguments for the non-existence of Australia if I am allowed to utterly ignore the vast, overwhelming evidence for it.)

I think you shoudl familiarise yourself with an important principle in science: falsification. A beautiful theory can be utterly destroyed by a single fact if you are intellectually honest. Evolution has withstood centuries of the finest minds in humanity attempting to falsify it, without success. Creationism was falsified immediately by the discovery of the fossil record, and by countless other facts since.

The layman need not undertake a course in Infinite Science to dismiss creationism. He need only know those falsifying facts.

125

To hold yourself to the same standard you demand of Diogenes, you must right now . . .

We’re waiting . . .

126

I know what Diogenes was asking. He wanted me to argue against evolution, which I obviously can’t do. If I could come up with something which couldn’t be verified, I’d have a Noble prize. By moving the goalposts as he did, he built a strawman argument that I had little interest in partaking in.

His original request was to name something he couldn’t verify. It was unqualified and specifically used “I” (meaning Dio). Later he added the qualification that it needed to be something which no one could verify, not just something he couldn’t verify. He even changed it to be hypothetically instead of actuality. That is a strawman argument.

127

What you haven’t demonstrated, g_under_p, is that it is either necessary to personally verify all the data OR admit some kind of “faith-like” belief in evolution, any more than it is necessary to personally verify that every single time I have one thing and add another thing I have two things in order to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. That no one person can verify everything is true, but it’s also irrelevent. No one person NEEDS to verify everything. That does not make their belief tantamount to faith.

128

I’m not sure anyone is emotional as much as simply confused. Any complex concept is beyond the complete understanding of one individual, though many individuals studying different aspects of the concept (assuming there are no major contradictions) form a convergence giving support for the concept as a whole. No individual, for example, is or could be familiar with every aspect of World War Two, yet there isn’t any major doubt that such a war did occur. Assuming otherwise would require postulating some huge and ridiculous conspiracy, and that is harder to believe than the events of the war, so we go with the belief that the war happened. As with evolution, WW2 historians argue over minor esoteric points. This doesn’t invalidate the overall theory, though.

Creationism and religion, though, don’t converge. There are multiple competing religious theories of the creation and no indication that a general consensus will or ever could be reached. If there is convergence of any kind, it comes from converting or slaughtering opponents, and not from gradual acceptance of a reliable observable fact.

So, in short, what’s the point of this thread?

That actually, heh, false. “Falsifiability” is an important scientific concept but it has no meaning in religious debate. A claim that the universe was created by God cannot be proven false. This doesn’t prove it is true; it only proves that the concept is (scientifically) meaningless.

129

From dictionary.com
Australia:

The world’s smallest continent, southeast of Asia between the Pacific and Indian oceans.

A commonwealth comprising the continent of Australia, the island state of Tasmania, two external territories, and several dependencies. The first British settlement, a penal colony at Fort Jackson (now part of Sydney), was established in 1788. The present-day states grew as separate colonies; six of them formed a federation in 1901. In 1911 Northern Territory joined the commonwealth and the Capital Territory, site of Canberra, was created. Canberra is the capital and Sydney is the largest city. Population: 17,843,000.

According to the CIA

And to cite any more references would be pointless. I can quote thousand of sources which show Australia exists. Now, should you choose to disbelieve those sources, that is your perogative.

As far as I can tell, Diogenes never verified for me the validity of the line plotting math used in isochron dating. He merely claimed it could be done.

To SentientMeat - I’m well aware of falsification. I’m also well aware that this has been used quite well against creationism.

I’m not insisting on the use of the word faith. Sheesh. Back on page one I told you to use your own word. Whatever you want to call a staunch, unwavering belief in something to which you have incomplete knowledge, call it that.

130

OK, given that “staunch and unvvering” are themselves innaccurate terms, I’ll call it “science”.

131

Since it’s not possible to have complete knowledge of anything, why do we even need a word to describe the condition? To differentiate it from what, exactly?

132

Ah, but can you prove (or disprove) that the Prime Minister of Australia had bacon and eggs for breakfast on June 3rd, 1961?

If you can’t, I daresay your proof of the existence of Australia is incomplete and thus you have taken the existence of Australia on faith.

Or something like that.

133

You’re awfully obsessed with Dio’s ability to do isochron dating for one who complains other people are moving the goal posts. Dio doesn’t need to prove anything. His belief in evolution is still based not on faith, but on information and reason and is not comporable to a belief in something for which there is no evidence and which contradicts the known evidence.

Dio also hasn’t constructed a strawman argument. He has not exaggerated or misrepresented your argument.

What you don’t get is that evolutionary scientists don’t have a “staunch, unwavering belief in something [for] which [they] have incomplete knowledge,” they have “a working belief in something for which they have substantial knowledge.”

134

This has to be my last reply for the day, I’m afraid. I can readdress this tomorrow, but for now I need to get going onto my day job. Sorry folks.

I’m going to list some assumptions. If you disagreed with these assumptions, my conclusions fall apart. Fair enough.

Assumptions:

  1. You (the individual) do not know everything there is to know about evolution.
  2. There exists, even if you aren’t aware of what they are specifically, apparent contradictions within geology as it relates to evolution. You are, however, aware that apparent contradictions exists.
  3. Some of the contradictions requires years of study to resolve and are beyond your ability to resolve with your present level of knowledge.
  4. Your inability to resolve these contradictions does not change your view on evolution.

Conclusion: You are exhibiting a degree of trust in evolution.

Maybe not faith, because the connotation to that word is that in the end you can’t verify the basis for your trust. But it is something.

The difference to me between an evolutionist and a creationist is that the evolutionist is based on facts and the creationist based on faith. But when each looks down, they see themselves standing on rather secure footing. Each thinks the facts line up with their viewpoint. Each has verified the facts to the point at which they have become convinced they are right. The reality, obviously, is that the creationist hasn’t dug deep enough or has been duped.

135

I think p/g was originally just saying that he believed in evolution without really knowing much about it and not being able to refute creationists arguments. Since that time, he’s argues that he’s actually well read in the field, which makes me wonder why he still can’t refute creationist arguments, but that’s really beside the point. His fatal error was in calling this faith, and generalizing it to all people. To defend it, he’s taken the indefensible position that one must have detailed and complete knowledge of a system to believe in it. What’s in order is either to explain why it’s necessary to understand all aspects of a thing to believe in it, or relegate that belief to a faith-like construct.

I believe in my cat. I do not know how it works, and could not explain how it turns purina into poop. Is my belief in my cat thus “faith-based”? Or can we accept that there is a threshold of information that can bolster a belief that is shy of “every damned thing”?

136

I just couldn’t let this go another day.

Dio was the one that set that particular goalpost. Do I need to quote it again. Okay…

He didn’t ask for something that can’t be verified. He didn’t ask for something that he can’t hypothetically verify. He asked for something he cannot verify.

He then changed this request to be a request for something which cannot be verified by anyone. Pure strawman. My original point was that there are, indeed, facts which are beyond the individual’s ability to verify. Sure, hypothetically it can all be verified. But in reality, not so much.

137

(1) accepted.

(2) I am unaware of any apparent contradictions within geology as it relates to evolution. So I neither accept that there are apparent contradictions, nor that I am aware that apparent contradictions exist.

(3) I do not accept that contradictions exist, nor do I accept, even on the condition that such apparent contradictions existed, that it would require years of study to understand these, at least to the extent that it is necessary to understand them to maintain my belief in evolution.

(4) I do not presume that my belief in evolution would survive the assault of evidence to the contrary or unresolvable contradictions. It is a “working belief” that currently aligns with all of the available information.

Conclusion: Even if all the above were true, and I have “trust” in the sense of confidence my side will bear out, this is not the same as “faith.” If you say it’s not supposed to be tantamount to “faith,” you should not have used that word.

If you are merely saying that “evolutionists are confident that evolution is true,” you are right, but that’s not a very interesting observation.

138

That’s not what people mean by “strawman.” A strawman argument is an inflated, exaggerated, unfair representation of the other guy’s argument. “Evolutionists say that our grandfathers were monkeys,” for example, is a strawman.

Your original error is that because individual facts are beyond an individual’s ability to verify, entire systems of belief that involve those details involve a degree of faith. One can draw a conclusion based on known facts. That they have confidence their theory will hold up is not faith. Scientists are perfectly willing to drop things that don’t work anymore. Even falsifiability is falling by the wayside.

139

g_under_p, it appears you are arguing from your “point” that there is therefore a symmetry between the “beliefs” of an evolutionist and a creationist (as Diogenes the Cynic well puts it).

I’ll grant that the same word “faith” can be twisted to fit both evolutionists and creationists if you expand “faith” to mean “every damned thing” (thanks cricetus).

You made a challenge to reduce the math involved in isochron dating to axioms no less fundamental than 1+1=2. You rightly retracted that. You may wish to consider retracting your implicit demand in forcing the word “faith” to fit - that implicit demand being, “You must reduce all knowledge to the axiom that your five senses are not deceiving you, otherwise you must take on ‘faith’ what your five senses indicate.” (please read this carefully before arguing that the problem goes away if we exchange “faith” with a different word - that’s not my point here).

Consider this absurdity: My next door neighbour is black. Your car is black. Therefore they are similar with respect to blackness, and you are not allowed to own your car.

To suggest there is a similarity between an evolutionist’s “faith” and a creationist’s “faith” is just as absurd. This is why you have been met with such opposition, and why you have been charged with having ulterior motives.

So, before defending the point any further, answer this: Why does it matter? What are you getting at? As my English teacher used to tell me with every essay, “So what?”

I have a hunch your answer is, “I just thought it was interesting, that’s all,” but I understand why some may find it difficult to believe that, given how passionately you’ve argued the pointless point.

If, though, your answer is anything like, “And therefore creationists are justified in their ignorance of the facts,” then the opposition you’ve faced is well founded.

140

There exist debate on some relatively minor points of geology (including this donnybrook on “hot spots” in the Earth’s mantle - I’m just glad geologists don’t generally arm themselves, or a gunfight might’ve broken out), but none (that I’m aware of) that put the Earth at less than four billion years old, more than enough time for evolution to occur.

If there is an apparant contradiction that suggests the Earth might not be old enough for evolution to have occured, please share.

Well, more generally, we’re exhibiting a degree of trust in the self-correcting nature of science, and various fields of science have converged on evolution as a robust theory. Trying to equate this with the faith held by a creationist is… amusing, to say the least.