Darwin's Illusion

[John53]

I'm not sure -- did you say you are an atheist?

So no answer to my post.

I'm probably more agnostic. I don't believe any version of God I've investigated because of lack of evidence but I remain open to offers.

 

[YoursTrue]

@John53 OK, I see you are an atheist.

So no answer to my post.

I'm probably more agnostic. I don't believe any version of God I've investigated because of lack of evidence but I remain open to offers.

OK I realize what you say. We are all unique. As I said, I did not have a quibble with God growing up, although I couldn't figure why there were so many different religions. At a certain point though I decided there was no God. But things changed after I "looked" for God because I needed Him, couldn't find Him. I found Him or rather, He found me. I am glad He did. But since it's personal, and the forum being what it is, I leave it with you and your journey, and hope the best for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think every religion believes they are the only ones who have it right because of some special esoteric ability. Show me the evidence.

Since there is a God, He can reach a person. Does that mean every question is answered by Him now? No, it does not. It's kind of like science. But not quite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since there is a God, He can reach a person. Does that mean every question is answered by Him now? No, it does not. It's kind of like science. But not quite.

How would you show that there is a god? Remember the old saying:

If you can't show it you don't know it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know that there is a standard of evidence.

There isn't. There are different norms. I was teasing @blü 2

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think I've worked this out. I should believe whatever is posted without question or need of evidence. Everyone is right (except Darwin of course).

I don't know that there is a standard of evidence.

Okay, you two.
This is irrelevant, because you can as individuals do it differently. But if you want to get on a wild ride of what evidence is, then I can do that.

1st level. Is evidence cognitive in brains or independent of brains? Well, simple test. Point to evidence and explain how it is according to external sensory experience? You can't. You will always answer with what you think evidence is. That makes it a norm/standard/procedure to follow for what evidence is.

2nd level. Can the given person do meta-cognition or do the person take his/her/their thinking for granted?
Example:
Someone: I know the universe is physical and not from God.
Someone else: I know the universe is from God and not physical.
Me: I don't have to do either, because one of you are doing something false according to logic, yet we are all 3 in the universe.
The trick I use, is that I notice we are all 3 thinking, notice that we are 3 thinking differently and thus I test if I can think differently and get away with it.

3rd level. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
The first part is in other words, the different ways we evaluate what works.
Overall there are 5 different measures and then combinations for most contexts.
-Objective evidence as per observation/instruments and models made based on that.
-Objective logic as formal cognition in brains and how to do that.
-Inter-subjective norms for how we ought to interact, i.e. the social.
-Individually for how a given human cope; i.e. psychology.
-What happens when someone tries to make sense for all that and makes a model of that; i.e. a worldview.

4th level. For somebody like me, who have done this for close to 30 years including reading a lot of books about how worldviews work according to different models for different standards of evidence, I simply observe what is going on and answer with one of the 5 or a combination for a given context.

So for the dogmatic fundamentalistic theists it works for them subjectively, but it doesn't work for the standard of objective, but as long what they do, is subjective, they can do it subjectively.
And here is the joke for methodological naturalism and biology. They, you and I are variations down to the replication of the fittest genes, but since we are social animals, fittest is also local social environments and how to survive in them.
In other words, we are playing different limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism for different strategies of in effect the replication of the fittest genes.

Now if you want to do morality in effect as objective as possible and yet still accept it is subjective, I have learned that. But there is no <beep> objective evidence for that in the strongest sense. There are just some norms, that are more universal for the variation of humans and not:
I am right and you are wrong and I have evidence for that.

 

[John53]

Okay, you two.
This is irrelevant, because you can as individuals do it differently. But if you want to get on a wild ride of what evidence is, then I can do that.

1st level. Is evidence cognitive in brains or independent of brains? Well, simple test. Point to evidence and explain how it is according to external sensory experience? You can't. You will always answer with what you think evidence is. That makes it a norm/standard/procedure to follow for what evidence is.

2nd level. Can the given person do meta-cognition or do the person take his/her/their thinking for granted?
Example:
Someone: I know the universe is physical and not from God.
Someone else: I know the universe is from God and not physical.
Me: I don't have to do either, because one of you are doing something false according to logic, yet we are all 3 in the universe.
The trick I use, is that I notice we are all 3 thinking, notice that we are 3 thinking differently and thus I test if I can think differently and get away with it.

3rd level. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
The first part is in other words, the different ways we evaluate what works.
Overall there are 5 different measures and then combinations for most contexts.
-Objective evidence as per observation/instruments and models made based on that.
-Objective logic as formal cognition in brains and how to do that.
-Inter-subjective norms for how we ought to interact, i.e. the social.
-Individually for how a given human cope; i.e. psychology.
-What happens when someone tries to make sense for all that and makes a model of that; i.e. a worldview.

4th level. For somebody like me, who have done this for close to 30 years including reading a lot of books about how worldviews work according to different models for different standards of evidence, I simply observe what is going on and answer with one of the 5 or a combination for a given context.

So for the dogmatic fundamentalistic theists it works for them subjectively, but it doesn't work for the standard of objective, but as long what they do, is subjective, they can do it subjectively.
And here is the joke for methodological naturalism and biology. They, you and I are variations down to the replication of the fittest genes, but since we are social animals, fittest is also local social environments and how to survive in them.
In other words, we are playing different limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism for different strategies of in effect the replication of the fittest genes.

Now if you want to do morality in effect as objective as possible and yet still accept it is subjective, I have learned that. But there is no <beep> objective evidence for that in the strongest sense. There are just some norms, that are more universal for the variation of humans and not:
I am right and you are wrong and I have evidence for that.

No idea what most of that means.

If someone claims evolution happens rapidly I just want to know what their evidence for that claim is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No idea what most of that means.

If someone claims evolution happens rapidly I just want to know what their evidence for that claim is.

Yeah and I want to know how come some people can claim something without evidence and still be in the universe. But that is individualism both for you and I.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah and I want to know how come some people can claim something without evidence and still be in the universe. But that is individualism both for you and I.

How can someone talk about the condition of a region of the brain of people dead for thousands of years? Should I just accept that this person was able to examine those brains when no one else that studies and works with brains ever has? What about symbols that no one can translate or has yet to show is a language and yet a person claims it is a language as if it has been translated and that person even speaks it? Or claiming that we are not Homo sapiens on the basis of what they believe and for no reason that can be offered.

Just because someone can think it doesn't make it real outside of their brains to anyone else. It doesn't make it a functioning model that provides a basis for others to acquire knowledge.

I've a pretty imagination, I could come up with better fan fiction then I have read. I just couldn't come up the conviction that I'm personally convinced the story is real and no one else knows as much as I do because of that personal conviction.

I can accept that those things I mention are part of a belief system that someone believes. But that is the limit of it for me. When they start making claims about those things in an attempt to sway others to see it as they do, how is that different than them trying to convince me they are Napoleon?

 

[Audie]

I've come to expect being talked down to by creationists that have stopped learning, believing they know everything. They can believe in God and still learn about the world around I do. I do it. Others can too.

I think all this rationalization about claiming to present evidence that no one can is just a neat little word game to cover up the fact that there is no evidence to present and never will be. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to provide brain scans or sections of the brains of ancient people from 40,000 years ago to support wild claims about the conditions of the brains of those people. Claiming the existence of some physical aspect of ancient human brains without ever seeing evidence of those brains is ridiculous.

Any of us can make wild claims with no evidence, but there is no value in doing that.

The arrogance and dishonesty of creationists who presume to know more than any researcher on earth is if I may say so, most unchristian.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, you two.
This is irrelevant, because you can as individuals do it differently. But if you want to get on a wild ride of what evidence is, then I can do that.

1st level. Is evidence cognitive in brains or independent of brains? Well, simple test. Point to evidence and explain how it is according to external sensory experience? You can't. You will always answer with what you think evidence is. That makes it a norm/standard/procedure to follow for what evidence is.

2nd level. Can the given person do meta-cognition or do the person take his/her/their thinking for granted?
Example:
Someone: I know the universe is physical and not from God.
Someone else: I know the universe is from God and not physical.
Me: I don't have to do either, because one of you are doing something false according to logic, yet we are all 3 in the universe.
The trick I use, is that I notice we are all 3 thinking, notice that we are 3 thinking differently and thus I test if I can think differently and get away with it.

3rd level. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
The first part is in other words, the different ways we evaluate what works.
Overall there are 5 different measures and then combinations for most contexts.
-Objective evidence as per observation/instruments and models made based on that.
-Objective logic as formal cognition in brains and how to do that.
-Inter-subjective norms for how we ought to interact, i.e. the social.
-Individually for how a given human cope; i.e. psychology.
-What happens when someone tries to make sense for all that and makes a model of that; i.e. a worldview.

4th level. For somebody like me, who have done this for close to 30 years including reading a lot of books about how worldviews work according to different models for different standards of evidence, I simply observe what is going on and answer with one of the 5 or a combination for a given context.

So for the dogmatic fundamentalistic theists it works for them subjectively, but it doesn't work for the standard of objective, but as long what they do, is subjective, they can do it subjectively.
And here is the joke for methodological naturalism and biology. They, you and I are variations down to the replication of the fittest genes, but since we are social animals, fittest is also local social environments and how to survive in them.
In other words, we are playing different limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism for different strategies of in effect the replication of the fittest genes.

Now if you want to do morality in effect as objective as possible and yet still accept it is subjective, I have learned that. But there is no <beep> objective evidence for that in the strongest sense. There are just some norms, that are more universal for the variation of humans and not:
I am right and you are wrong and I have evidence for that.

The concept of fitness in biology seems to cause a great deal of trouble for religious people as they apply their personal views of the meaning of the term and ignore and advise rejection of any attempt at understanding the biological meaning. I've seen them become morally indignant at the idea of fitness, but only because they have decided to view it from their personal belief position as a means to sustain their dislike of science that makes them uncomfortable and challenges other aspects of their ideologies. It's a useful bias to sway themselves and others against a scientific theory.

Fitness in biology is not the Nazi concept of Übermensch, or anything remotely along those lines. The theory of evolution is a theory of science and has no moral authority or inherent properties of evil that cause people to commit genocide, but that is the straw army that is brought to the field to pit against science. I don't find attempts to do that moral. People do all sorts of evil things and use whatever excuse they can find. I consider making a straw man out of a theory to be evil personally.

Fitness in biology means that an organism has the traits that allow it to survive and reproduce in the environments in which it exists leading to the proliferation of the genotypes that form the basis of that fitness. Variation in those traits exist in populations and can be measured. That a person is less likely to reproduce than his or her neighbor doesn't mean they wont or don't deserve to or that they are being held back maliciously by someone that accepts a theory of how living things are related and diversified.

Intelligence might actually be a drag on fitness considering that the more intelligent and knowledgeable you are the more likely you are to reproduce less.

Religious people commit atrocities in the name of what they believe. People have done the same using attempts to pose their beliefs as reasoned claims.

All this does is show that humans can twist anything to lend support to their mad ideas. That is indication of what is in us and not in the tool used to come to the view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can someone talk about the condition of a region of the brain of people dead for thousands of years? Should I just accept that this person was able to examine those brains when no one else that studies and works with brains ever has? What about symbols that no one can translate or has yet to show is a language and yet a person claims it is a language as if it has been translated and that person even speaks it? Or claiming that we are not Homo sapiens on the basis of what they believe and for no reason that can be offered.

Just because someone can think it doesn't make it real outside of their brains to anyone else. It doesn't make it a functioning model that provides a basis for others to acquire knowledge.

I've a pretty imagination, I could come up with better fan fiction then I have read. I just couldn't come up the conviction that I'm personally convinced the story is real and no one else knows as much as I do because of that personal conviction.

I can accept that those things I mention are part of a belief system that someone believes. But that is the limit of it for me. When they start making claims about those things in an attempt to sway others to see it as they do, how is that different than them trying to convince me they are Napoleon?

Yeah, I know. But that is still only a variant for science you have here in these threads. The general one is to confuse what is subjective and claim it is objective.
But that is everyday in general culture for some people.
I will give you an example for another thread - "... fat, useless people ...". If you really question some people it ends in that other people are a negative as a fact and not that I transfer my feelings and project them into other people. It is the same:
I think/feel something as me about another part of the world and thus it is so for the other part of the world.

If you start noticing that one, then you realize it is not special for claims in regards to science.
It comes in 3 variants:
You are useless.
What you do, is useless.
I decide for all humans what is useless.

So yes as a scientist speak up against that as it is relevant to science. But if you look in general, that is not unique to science.

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This word game where a request was made to list the objections to Lenski's E. coli study and the response is that the person has objections in three categories isn't what was requested.

Like the others below (and like me), you were speculating on a motive, suggesting attention-seeking behavior. I agree, but I don't have a negative reaction to it. He has a lot of imagination but not a lot of rigor to guide it, and has come up with speculations that titillate him and that he wants to share and which he hopes will be taken seriously, but that's just not possible without the rigor.

I suspect they are here to proselytise and cry martyr if anyone dares not to believe without question.

I think you're right in some cases, although I don't get that sense in this case. I think he wants acceptance, not rejection. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to repost a few paragraphs on just that from a few months ago:

​

An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.​

​

Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are shown their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.​

​

Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.​

The arrogance and dishonesty of creationists who presume to know more than any researcher on earth is if I may say so, most unchristian.

I get that as well, but I have a different read on what's going on in such heads:

In my opinion, it's often Dunning-Kruger, which I've decided is the result of not knowing what critical thinking is or does, which is a little different from thinking that there exists a better way to think and the D-K victim falsely believes he can do it. That was my early understanding of that situation - somebody falsely believing he was flying with the eagles, but now I see at not being aware of the possibility of flight. The evidence for that is how often we read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound conclusion.

The bulb lit up for me when discussing Covid morbidity and mortality data, which showed the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent sever illness and death in immunocompetent people, and I got that answer. It suddenly occurred to me that if one is unaware of this way of knowing, all of his or her opinions not arrived at empirically (like favorite restaurant) are faith-based guesses, and such a person assumes that all of everybody's opinions are just gut feeling, hence, "That's just your opinion." This is the kind of person who might say that to his math teacher when corrected on a math problem if he didn't expect saying that to work out badly.

When I had this discussion with another RF poster regarding vaccine efficacy and got the "your opinion" response, I explained that it was more than a mere opinion, that it is possible to have opinions that are demonstrably correct, and it is possible to know that about such ideas, THAT was called arrogant. I was considered arrogant for being willing to say that one can be correct, know it, and know that contradictory opinions are incorrect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

AL was representative, not symbolic.

I don't know what that means. Is AL ancient language? Is it meant to mean a literal language with grammar and vocabulary, or is the word being used to include non-linguistic signals, like neurons communicating with one another across synapses using neurotransmitters?

Also, here we have the problem not only of ambiguity, but of another unsupported claim following a few dozen calls for evidenced argument. You've got the thread speculating about your motive. Why would you keep doing that after learning how it is received? People aren't paying attention to your message (logos) any more, just your meta-message (ethos). They no longer wonder what you have to say, but why you want to continue saying it in a setting you experience as hostile and disrespectful.

I just referred to a term from the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

Shouldn't you be noticing the effect your approach has on critical thinkers and modifying it to achieve your desired result if this is not it? You already know that they don't agree with you about providing evidentiary support for your bold claims. You think otherwise, but it's hurting you to keep insisting that you have met their requirements when you know they disagree. So modify your posting behavior accordingly, unless this is the outcome you were hoping for.

I would tell you the same thing I tell the theists who claim that their beliefs are justified by sufficient evidence, and who are also routinely rejected, which they understand as "just your opinion" and an arrogant one at that. If this is the result you're looking for - rejection of your beliefs and the kind of thinking that leads to them - then soldier on. If not, adapt. I don't know any critical thinker who would have a problem with somebody saying that they believe something as a gut feeling even if they reject that kind of thinking for themselves.

Ancient man didn't think.

Do you mean using symbolic language? My dogs think, just not in words. Certainly, if we wind back far enough, we come to prelinguistic primate ancestors (are they all "ancient man," or just ancient H.sapiens?), so if you mean thinking in words, I agree, some ancestors were the first to think in words, before which, none did.

Digression: I think we can also suss out the origin of the concepts of intelligence and creativity. It appears to me that there was a time when man had no concept of intelligence, and so considered the beasts his superiors and even made sacrifices to them. With time, man eventually understood that he was their superior in battle despite not having the strength or speed of the beasts, and that this advantage was related to his tools (weapons) and organization.

Also, we see when man had no concept of his brain being creative, and that all creative inspiration was received, as from muses.

I've elaborated further on both of these here if you are interested. Notice the use of evidence supporting each of these ideas. My thinking here is speculative, like yours, and the ideas are likely new to many, but presenting them unambiguously and with supporting evidence is why I don't get the kind of responses you do. That's not to say that other critical thinkers find these arguments compelling, but unlike with you, they have something they can try to rebut if they care to. They likely know exactly what I mean and why I say it. I think you could help yourself and improve your RF experience if tried to do something similar. Strive for clarity, and give your argument and evidence if any. You still might be rejected, but it will be your ideas (logos) and not your methods (ethos) that are rejected. Nor will your character or motives become an issue to speculate about.

It is impossible to understand AL if you already understand modern language.

OK. How about improving this? Why are you using non-standard abbreviations instead of writing words out? Go ahead and use standard abbreviations without explication like USSR and CIA. Then flesh it in with the reason you say so, which hopefully, contains your evidence if you used any. Why do you think you know this? How could it be possible that one learns something and can no longer understand something else?

 

[Audie]

Like the others below (and like me), you were speculating on a motive, suggesting attention-seeking behavior. I agree, but I don't have a negative reaction to it. He has a lot of imagination but not a lot of rigor to guide it, and has come up with speculations that titillate him and that he wants to share and which he hopes will be taken seriously, but that's just not possible without the rigor.

I think you're right in some cases, although I don't get that sense in this case. I think he wants acceptance, not rejection. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to repost a few paragraphs on just that from a few months ago:

​

An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.​

​

Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are shown their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.​

​

Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.​

I get that as well, but I have a different read on what's going on in such heads:

In my opinion, it's often Dunning-Kruger, which I've decided is the result of not knowing what critical thinking is or does, which is a little different from thinking that there exists a better way to think and the D-K victim falsely believes he can do it. That was my early understanding of that situation - somebody falsely believing he was flying with the eagles, but now I see at not being aware of the possibility of flight. The evidence for that is how often we read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound conclusion.

The bulb lit up for me when discussing Covid morbidity and mortality data, which showed the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent sever illness and death in immunocompetent people, and I got that answer. It suddenly occurred to me that if one is unaware of this way of knowing, all of his or her opinions not arrived at empirically (like favorite restaurant) are faith-based guesses, and such a person assumes that all of everybody's opinions are just gut feeling, hence, "That's just your opinion." This is the kind of person who might say that to his math teacher when corrected on a math problem if he didn't expect saying that to work out badly.

When I had this discussion with another RF poster regarding vaccine efficacy and got the "your opinion" response, I explained that it was more than a mere opinion, that it is possible to have opinions that are demonstrably correct, and it is possible to know that about such ideas, THAT was called arrogant. I was considered arrogant for being willing to say that one can be correct, know it, and know that contradictory opinions are incorrect.

If someone presents- as all reatii ists do-
that they know ToE is false then they are in fact
claiming to know more than any researcher.

I looks like arrogance to me even if they
don't comprehend just how arrogant that is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If someone presents- as all reatii ists do-
that they know ToE is false then they are in fact
claiming to know more than any researcher.

I looks like arrogance to me even if they
don't comprehend just how arrogant that is.

Yeah, arrogant is a feeling. Now that is relevant, but it or the dislike of it is not science. Go figure.

 

[cladking]

I just referred to a term from the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

I'll try again when I have more time.

I'm autistic but they never made a bus short enough for me and in those days everybody was instructed the same way. I just took it differently because I never believed anyone because I have no beliefs. I learned early on that everybody else can read minds so I taught myself to do the same. I got very good at it before I learned everyone else was just reading facial expressions and body language. C'est la vie. I do get better all the time.

The bottom line, the only thing that makes us different, now is that I still have no beliefs. Not only do the believers here believe in Darwin but they share every single one of his erroneous assumptions. People are blind to what they don't believe. Everyone sees only what he does believe. If you believe Darwin's assumptions then you believe his conclusion.

Everybody from the automechanic to our finest scientists thinks he sees reality but is actually seeing what he believes. Yes, I'm doing the same thing but I believe my beliefs are correct, my science is correct, and my logic is as sound as homo omnisciencis logic can be. I believe this gives me a far better chance at being right than Darwin. I also have another century and a half of science than Darwin. I also have two metaphysics and two different sciences (three more than Darwin). I could be wrong about nearly every single thing but it's interesting that in the entire world composed of theists, atheists, and those to whom neither apply I am the only single person who might be wrong about anything!!! What is more astounding is that everyone else holds most of their knowledge as belief and I know nothing and have no beliefs. Among the entire human population I might be the only individual who doesn't believe in intelligence or even linear human progress. Homo omniscience has been devolving for 4000 years and the rate of devolution is accelerating rapidly. "Human" progress wasn't even linear before the "tower of babel"! It is little more so now.

Almost every process affecting man is unsustainable. Eventually the "strong" will decide the "weak" need to be culled and the entire species will become extinct.

 

[cladking]

If someone presents- as all reatii ists do-
that they know ToE is false then they are in fact
claiming to know more than any researcher.

Historically when all peers share an opinion they are wrong.

 

[blü 2]

Not only do the believers here believe in Darwin but they share every single one of his erroneous assumptions.

By and large the people who post here are not "believers in Darwin" in two senses.

First, they're not believers by faith, but people who are persuaded by the evidence and the arguments from evidence that evolution is real and capable of explaining many aspects of nature. That's not to say that evolution is perfect, but its central thesis, descent with modification from a common origin, is not challenged by the evidence.

Second, they're not believers in Darwin. Darwin's On the Evolution of Species was published November 1859, which is over 163 years ago. What they and I think is a highly credible explanation of evolution is the modern theory of evolution, the version that exists in 2023. Like all scientific theories, it's a work in progress, and I have no doubt it will look different in 50 years time just as it looked different 50 years ago. But the central idea has remained strong and resilient.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like the others below (and like me), you were speculating on a motive, suggesting attention-seeking behavior. I agree, but I don't have a negative reaction to it. He has a lot of imagination but not a lot of rigor to guide it, and has come up with speculations that titillate him and that he wants to share and which he hopes will be taken seriously, but that's just not possible without the rigor.

I've speculated on several possibilities including attention seeking, but that in itself doesn't spawn the negative reaction so much as the contradiction, word games, the inconsistency, empty claims, misuse of terminology, the arrogance and false humility, fantasy and so forth. Put together that is a hard package to deal with. Which is why I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in further engagement. However, I am still enjoying your posts. I appreciate the opportunity to see myself reflected in the view of someone that is good at details, and compassionate in how you approach those things. I admit dealing with posters like that is a challenge and one much different than the average creationist. At least they have a belief that the communicate and recognize. I'm not sure what you do with a person that claims not to believe and to believe in the same paragraph.

I just don't see the point any longer.

I think you're right in some cases, although I don't get that sense in this case. I think he wants acceptance, not rejection. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to repost a few paragraphs on just that from a few months ago:

​

An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.​

​

Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are shown their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.​

​

Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.​

I agree. I think that acceptance is the goal, but a terrible path and broken down transportation has been chosen to reach it.

I agree with your thoughts here. I don't think creationists have much chance of seeing their arguments fly. And this in light of the fact that ultimately, I to am a creationist. Just not the kind regularly encountered here. I just accept that I don't know the details of creation and consider an examination using science as a means to discover them.

I get that as well, but I have a different read on what's going on in such heads:

In my opinion, it's often Dunning-Kruger, which I've decided is the result of not knowing what critical thinking is or does, which is a little different from thinking that there exists a better way to think and the D-K victim falsely believes he can do it. That was my early understanding of that situation - somebody falsely believing he was flying with the eagles, but now I see at not being aware of the possibility of flight. The evidence for that is how often we read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound conclusion.

The bulb lit up for me when discussing Covid morbidity and mortality data, which showed the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent sever illness and death in immunocompetent people, and I got that answer. It suddenly occurred to me that if one is unaware of this way of knowing, all of his or her opinions not arrived at empirically (like favorite restaurant) are faith-based guesses, and such a person assumes that all of everybody's opinions are just gut feeling, hence, "That's just your opinion." This is the kind of person who might say that to his math teacher when corrected on a math problem if he didn't expect saying that to work out badly.

When I had this discussion with another RF poster regarding vaccine efficacy and got the "your opinion" response, I explained that it was more than a mere opinion, that it is possible to have opinions that are demonstrably correct, and it is possible to know that about such ideas, THAT was called arrogant. I was considered arrogant for being willing to say that one can be correct, know it, and know that contradictory opinions are incorrect.

I get that. Not simply being unaware that they do not know what they do not know, but not being aware there are actuals to know and with confidence. Still, that arrogance does shine.

Anyway, as always, I enjoy your posts and I find they seem to temper my ire with a lot of sensibility.