I'll call it what it is. It's not a theory because it's not an explanation supported by facts, it's not chicken noodle soup because that's ridiculous. I never said it was a fact, or that I accept any of the hypotheses as fact. Nothing is taken on faith or miracles. I simply state "I don't know, but here are some good ideas."Gman wrote:Call it a hypothesis, call it a theory, or call it chicken noodle soup.. The fact here is that no one has 100 percent proof. What am I saying here? You are going to have to take what you project here by faith or miracles....Pierson5 wrote: No one knows exactly how it happened. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. There are plenty of good hypothesis though:
That is a topic for another thread though. Let's keep this one about evolution.
This again... Last time we discussed this, apparently there was some confusion on what you meant by the word. Before we go any further, please (either you or Bippy or both) define what you mean by "macro evolution."Gman wrote:No... Micro evolution is a fact, macro evolution is NOT a fact. It is "assumed" via micro evolution.Pierson5 wrote:Maybe we are getting confused with "against" and "deny." Plenty of people here deny evolutionary fact.
I actually found this looking into Plantiga's argument further down the thread...Gman wrote:No... But when someone says evolution does this and evolution does that (especially around origins) and leaves out God, what do you think that implies? A "hidden agenda?Pierson5 wrote:I haven't seen anybody make the claim that science "oppresses the belief in God." I have said before it may be in conflict with some individual's creationism stories (if we have a common ancestor with apes, how does that explain Adam/Eve, etc...). I know this is a simple example and doesn't apply to everyone, but I think you get the idea. This creates bias and a "hidden agenda."
We leave out God in germ theory. You think there is a hidden agenda there? God was the explanation for disease for a very long time. "God" has been used as an explanation for the unknown throughout the ages. When we discover what is actually going on, the "God" explanation is thrown out. You can easily look through Greek mythology and find many examples. We know what causes lightning and leave out Zeus. Hidden agenda? We now know the Earth revolves around the sun and can leave out Helios with his fiery chariot. We know the moon reflects the light given off by the sun and can leave out Selena to light it. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous reasoning. Evolution as a scientific fact (like most scientific facts) is accepted by the religious and non-religious alike. From what I have seen, ID is always linked back to people with a religious agenda (e.g. The Discovery Institute).A guiding intelligence isn’t (thus far) needed to account for the origin of species. There isn’t any independent evidence for such a being, there’s no specification of its characteristics, and its mode of action is obscure, to put it politely. So God plays no useful role in scientific accounts of evolution. Of course you can always add God in as an initiator – a remote controller, in some sense. But this adds nothing transparent or predictive to our understanding of speciation, so doesn’t appear in the theory.
The very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate biases and "hidden agendas." Is the method perfect? No. But it is the best method we currently have for deciphering what is true and what is not. If you have a better method, let's hear it.
Again, the very nature of the scientific method is to eliminate bias, etc... It doesn't matter what your philosophy is. The scientific community is made up of people with many different philosophies and the evidence converges to the most likely explanation. If you have a better method, blah blah blah.Gman wrote:No.. You totally missed my point. Science is a method, but people will always interject their philosophy into their science. Always... Whether you are a creationist, evolutionist, an atheist, or an alien from mars. Philosophy and science must conflict. Science and philosophy deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other philosophical. And that is why they conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, human life, from two different points of view. People try to divide them where they don’t interfere, but you can’t do that. Don't forget, you brought up pragmatic evolution. What we have here is philosophy vs philosophy or religion vs religion and very very little actual science..Pierson5 wrote:I would disagree. Science is a method. It's not a set of beliefs, it's not a denial of any beliefs. Science is comparable to a set of instructions on how you should tie your shoes, but is instead applied to observations.
If science is a god, so is the tag on my shirt that says to dry clean it.
I would agree. Evolution doesn't interfere with the existence of God, for most people. For others, it most certainly does. I gave you a pretty clear cut example (Adam/Eve). If the scientific evidence conflicts with individual's creation story, then they choose to not accept it. This is why we have people who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old, despite vasts amounts of converging scientific evidence.Gman wrote:Again... Evolution itself does not interfere with the existence of God. People's philosophy interferes with God, not the science itself. So do your own work...Pierson5 wrote:I still see a lot of false dichotomies here. Again, I don't care if you don't accept the vast amounts (see page 1) of evidence for evolution. You are adults and can believe whatever the heck you want. The same can be said for HIV, Holocaust and mental illness deniers. What I care about is the alternative that is being pushed to be taught in colleges and schools. Do the work, convince the scientific community and it will be taught in public schools and universities. Let's see the evidence!
Let's see the evidence! without your philosophy...
I have given you multiple individual lines of converging evidence. My "philosophy" has nothing to do with it. The evidence is examined by scientists from multiple backgrounds, and they come to the same conclusion.
My main problem with this your the second statement. You are convinced "macroevolution" is false which leads you to believe that ID is true. This goes back to my main point on page 1. This is a false dichotomy. If evolution is false, that says NOTHING about the validity of ID. We would be left with a bunch of organisms that appeared to evolve, but didn't. We would be left with a mystery. That doesn't make ID true. This is not how the scientific method works. I have given plenty of evidence for evolution, covering multiple pages. The only one who bothered to address my main point was Reactionary, and the "evidence" provided wasn't very convincing. Definitely not more so than the pages of evidence for evolution I provided.bippy123 wrote:As a former theistic evolutionist, I never saw a problem with believing In God and believing in Evolution. Heck even staunch evolutionists like Ken Miller never did.
My switch to ID came when I finally saw that Macroevolution was being tauted as a fact, instead of an assumption and there really wasnt and isnt any good evidence to make it a fact. Even in tests like the fruit fly tests and the bacteria tests as I have shown a few pages back, if anything they put a serious dink into the armor of macroevolution.
I allready know all the evidences that believers in macroevolution use since I was one myself and used to argue for them.
What I finally found disturbing is how fanaticial believers in macroevolution pushed their ideology as if it were a religion.
Pierson, how are you doing with Joe Nickell, its good that you dont use him as evidence for your stance against the shroud of turin. That wasnt too successfull for you was it lol
You never addressed my last point regarding the shroud and the discussion ended when you refused to address it. This has nothing to do with the current topic and is a red herring argument. If you really want to talk to me about the shroud, send me a PM asking to address the arguments in your thread. I'll try and get to it when I have time. We don't need to get off topic here.
The naturalism and super naturalism arguments are still relatively new to me (although VERY interesting). I wouldn't consider myself knowledgeable enough on the subject to articulately argue one way or another. Reading into it, I did find this, to which I would agree with most of what the author writes:narnia4 wrote:Its not that our faculties never fail us, its that they're generally truth-seeking. It might be true that certain animals are dangerous or plants could kill us, but lower animals can develop defense tactics or inherit traits aiding in survival without caring one iota whether there is some "truth" involved or not and without developing truth-seeking faculties. So while truth could be helpful in evolution, there must be countless ways in which we could have evolved that could aid in survival without coming to good conclusions about the nature of things.
I think the argument could be stronger than it is, I think the point is strongest when it relates to metaphysical truths (as you may have indicated). Knowing that you shouldn't poke a dog with a stick might aid in survival, knowing that naturalism is true certainly doesn't.
This is getting slightly off topic though. Not everyone who accepts evolution as fact is a naturalist, obviously.