Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[Pogo]

I don't state the attributes of God as facts since I can't prove what the attributes of a theoretical being which stands at the pinnacle of infinite ability in reality would be like.
The scriptures I believe in describe such a God as ultimately ineffable. The effable specifics of which may be theologically derived from an analysis of scriptural revelation.
Hypothetically, what we may infer about those attributes, at least philosophically, would come from the rational analysis done by capable individuals in various fields of study of the hypothetical progression of the finite attributes that can be found in nature.
E.g.: There are various degrees of 'intelligence' found in nature. So what would the progression of intelligent abilities look like at its extremes?

The one I defined above for you.

I'm prodded to speak of proof since faith is often derogatorily applied to religion as a sign of no proof, therefore no evidence as if science doesn't rely upon faith in its interpretations as well.
Proof is often demanded of religion while science itself can offer none beyond interpreted evidence and scientists none beyond their personal convictions.
One doesn't have to search far before one finds scientists and laymen presenting scientific results as evidence of fact.
But problems arise when one decides what exact fact the evidence is of as if it is indisputable. Both science and religion can suffer from those problems.
That's one reason that even the results of the almighty scientific process of producing evidence is subject to revision of its interpretations.

You seem here to be resorting back to the accusation that all religious sentiments are 100% un-evidenced, which I thought was still being debated?
I wasn't aware that the argument had been settled since science would have to present 100% un-evidenced statements as facts in order to settle it.

Yes, they are considered to be empirical. But that takes a bit of interpretation of the scientific 'jargon' involved as well.
The empirical in science is considered empirical only at the expense of ignoring our real limitations. Realistically these things are mental conveniences not actual depictions of reality.
Even if you don't have faith in a purposeful sustainment of our reality you must still have faith in unknowable purposeless 'laws' that are sustaining our reality.
Science is necessarily infused with a lot of jargon that must be interpreted because it is ultimately based on faith that the future will resemble the present since human beings are invariably removed from direct knowledge of reality.

For instance, consider the following...



Definition :

em-pir-i-cal

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

So what are we actually observing as concerns gases? Certainly not the gas molecules themselves.
What we are actually doing is interpolating values which themselves were derived from instrumentation not direct observation of what they are measuring.

Science in some cases even considers predictions to be empirical...

Empirical prediction intervals improve energy forecasting
Empirical density forecasting methods provide a probabilistic amendment to existing point forecasts.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC5565406

Now, can you tell me what can be verified about a prediction? What can be observed about a prediction? Or experienced? It’s a prediction. There's nothing that can be experienced, verified, or observed yet. Unless you consider some sort of information received psychically or metaphysically to be valid.

There is no way to empirically experience a prediction. We can only experience what led us to make the prediction and when/if that prediction comes to fruition as reality. Scientists aren't concerned with those little details though because it’s not convenient. So there has to be a certain amount of interpretation of the scientific jargon used.

In actuality there will always be a 'gap' between our 'empirical' observations and actual reality that requires interpretation and a dash of faith.
With a little research online one can even run into seemingly contradictory statements because of the scientific jargon used.

For example...
Googles AI overview gives us the following

"Are the natural gas laws theoretical?"

Yes, the natural gas laws, particularly when referring to the "ideal gas law," are considered theoretical because they describe the behavior of a hypothetical gas with perfect properties, which doesn't exist in reality; real gases deviate from ideal behavior, especially at high pressures and low temperatures.

Key points about the theoretical nature of gas laws:

• Ideal gas concept:

The gas laws are based on the concept of an "ideal gas," which assumes particles have no volume and no intermolecular forces, which is not true for real gases.

• Explanatory model:

While not perfectly accurate for all situations, the ideal gas law provides a useful model to understand and predict gas behavior under many conditions.

• Kinetic Molecular Theory:

The theoretical basis for the gas laws is the Kinetic Molecular Theory, which explains gas behavior based on the motion of particles.

And...
"Are the natural gas laws empirical?"

• Yes, the natural gas laws, also known as the "gas laws" are considered empirical laws, meaning they are based on observed data and relationships between pressure, volume, and temperature of a gas, rather than a deep theoretical understanding of the underlying mechanisms; examples include Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, and Avogadro's Law.

Key points about gas laws being empirical:

• Derived from experiments:

These laws were developed through repeated experiments and observations of how gases behave under different conditions.

• No complete theoretical explanation:

While the kinetic theory of gases later provided a more detailed explanation for gas behavior, the initial empirical gas laws were established before this theory was fully developed.

So take your pick, are they empirical or theoretical? I'd say the gas laws are defined with mathematical descriptions of theoretical conditions not empirical observations.
In other words, the gas laws are theoretical descriptions of empirical observations.
The language of the natural gas laws is literally mathematical in nature. Now look back at the definition of empirical and ask yourself if mathematics is empirical.
Depends on how we deal with the jargon of science doesn't it.

Yes and you deal with it poorly, Ideal gas laws are based on perfect simplifications and make predictions on that basis, they make empirical predictions and then we go back and evaluate the differences between this ideal response and the measured response and use other theories about molecular behaviour to modify them to closer be able to predict actual behaviour. None of this means that there is guesswork going on or evidence for some unknown entity.

First problem here is Law is just an observed regularity, it carries and implies not external lawgiver or controller.
Second a prediction is just that, if this then that. If it is something we can measure, then it is an empirical prediction.
Third Empirical just means it can be measured/ quantified. Happened / didn't happen, x amount. whatever.
Fourth, theoretical is according to our best understanding of what we know and has been observed, In science it does not cover such ideas as if there is an all powerful being, then he could do this. That is not the correct use of the word though it is a colloquial use of the world where guess or feeling would be more appropriate.

That is a start on your misuse/misunderstanding of the terminology.

What happens when a scientific prediction isn't fulfilled? Faith becomes disillusionment in the moment. Kind of like when scientists discovered that the predicted behavior of the universes expansion rate didn't and still don't fit the expectations of their theories.
Lol. Funny you should ask this. Yes, eclipses involve chance. Its impossible to be 100% precise in predictions involving an eclipse.

This is just baloney, an unfulfilled prediction does not lead to disillusionment, all it means is that the hypothesis that led to it needs revision and absolutely nothing about faith. If it did all scientists would have long since committed suicide in that most hypotheses are at least to some extent wrong, heck our highest level of understanding is at best only partially correct in that we just haven't found anything wrong with it yet.
As for eclipses being chance, I suppose you could use that description of the sun coming up tomorrow? There is a chance that every observation and everything we have learned about celestial mechanics in the entire history of mankind would suddenly be proved wrong tomorrow.

On the other hand, if you believe in Loki the Trickster is in charge, yeah then all bets are off, but so far there is no evidence for Loki or any other entity with this power.


You are presenting arguments from ignorance and incredulity in that you don't know what the terms mean and as a result they seem fantastical to you and so you want to fall back on your desired belief in an unevidenced entity to solve your confusion and reinforce your prior beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was or is the BBT ever taught as fact?, Maybe I am not old enough but I can't remember ever hearing that theories were facts.

One has to be careful with one's wording. Theories are not facts. Theories explain facts. The theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity. Such as that a large heavy rock will fall when dropped. And please note the concept of an "absolute fact" is just wrong. Scientific facts are the most reliable facts there are and even those are provisional. If someone could reliably observe certain massive rocks rising the theory of gravity would need some serious tweaking. But that has never been observed to happen. The support for the Big Bang is strong enough that it has risen to the category of being a scientific fact, The Big Bang is just the early expansion of the universe. The Big Bang Theory explains that early expansion and it may be wrong. It will definitely be tweaked in the future. The explanation is not a fact but the events are a fact.

 

[Pogo]

One has to be careful with one's wording. Theories are not facts. Theories explain facts. The theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity. Such as that a large heavy rock will fall when dropped. And please note the concept of an "absolute fact" is just wrong. Scientific facts are the most reliable facts there are and even those are provisional. If someone could reliably observe certain massive rocks rising the theory of gravity would need some serious tweaking. But that has never been observed to happen. The support for the Big Bang is strong enough that it has risen to the category of being a scientific fact, The Big Bang is just the early expansion of the universe. The Big Bang Theory explains that early expansion and it may be wrong. It will definitely be tweaked in the future. The explanation is not a fact but the events are a fact.

I guess I should have used two smilies, but in this thread obviously more explanation of reality is not redundant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Agreed. But what has been repeated over and over?

I don't commit details to memory very well, but off the top of my head, there are individuals in here who routinely conflate abiogenesis with evolution, don't understand that natural selection is not random, claim there are no transitional forms, say that evolution or atheism is a religion, etc. etc. etc. One guy in here keeps saying that evolution teaches a bird evolves into a cat (or the equivalent) despite being corrected untold times. Probably the most common error in here is that evolution claims that humans evolved from monkeys--it gets corrected all the time, but these people continue to say it.

 

[setarcos]

Yes and you deal with it poorly

Yes what? Your not clear here. You quoted the entire post. I start the post with an answer to a question concerning what I believe about God. Then I address several other issues in the post. So, yes what? If your going to start your reply by addressing something halfway down my post then you should make that clear or quote only what your reply is addressing. That makes for more efficient communication.

Ideal gas laws are based on perfect simplifications and make predictions on that basis, they make empirical predictions and then we go back and evaluate the differences between this ideal response and the measured response and use other theories about molecular behaviour to modify them to closer be able to predict actual behaviour.

Good grief, I expect critiques of what I've said with counterpoints but you shouldn't critique the understanding of another if your own is lacking. Especially by being hostile or rude.

There are no Ideal gas law(s). There is only the ideal gas law used in calculating other (natural) gas laws.
That ideal gas law is hypothetical and not empirical because an ideal gas does not exist in nature. As I've already said in my post, it is ideal not because it is based on empirical evidence but because it is derived from theoretical considerations of what an ideal gas would be like.
Kind of like the way some of Gods potential attributes might be derived from idealizing empirical observations as I described in the post you quoted.

There are no "perfect simplifications" of the other gas laws derived using the ideal gas law because there is no ideal gas existent in nature. Therefore those laws derived using the ideal gas law cannot ever be a perfectly simplified depiction of the reality of the gas in question. We can never predict the actual behavior of reality because of our limitations. All the major scientific players have stated this time and time again over the years and that is exactly what I pointed out in my post.
Science is an attempt to reduce the error % between our experience of the past and present with our future expectations. And it is all based on a foundation of faith that future fundamental conditions will resemble past fundamental conditions.

In any case other than the clarification I've done about your statement, your statement isn't a counterpoint to anything of mine you quoted. Here you've simply tried to lay out the scientific process of, as I've said in my previous post...being "…subject to revision of its interpretations." That is... attempting to limit error to a pragmatic level. The gas laws are useful to us because the expected %error rate is acceptable for practical purposes.

So what the heck are you really arguing against here?
I think you missed the whole point of the post.

None of this means that there is guesswork going on or evidence for some unknown entity.

Did I say there was guesswork going on? Again I think you missed the point of my post.
And there is always the specter of some unknown entity causing a skewed outcome in science. As I've said, the scientific process is all about attempting to limit or even eliminate those error causing unknown entities. The only way to do that is to really understand the fundamental principles governing reality. We're not there yet. For instance, if you've been keeping up with the physical sciences news there's current discussion about whether or not particle physics needs a fundamental rethink. There's arguments on both sides of the issue but it shows we don't currently understand reality.

First problem here is Law is just an observed regularity, it carries and implies not external lawgiver or controller.

How is that a problem concerning my post? I've said as much over and over again. Observed regularity used to predict future outcome.

Second a prediction is just that, if this then that. If it is something we can measure, then it is an empirical prediction.

You have to dig deeper here. The best that science can do is "if this then expect that". A subtle but important distinction.
So...If this then why that?
I've already shown you that the "if this" your talking about gives the conditions of the system for the present moment. That is the empirical observation. And that alone says nothing about why the future should reflect present conditions. For that you need some sort of predictive tool. In the case of the gas laws that tool is mathematics. But mathematics is not an empirical science. And neither is the ideal gas law which those other laws rely upon. I've covered this in my earlier post.
Recall...
"The empirical in science is considered empirical only at the expense of ignoring our real limitations. Realistically these things are mental conveniences not actual depictions of reality."
"So what are we actually observing as concerns gases? Certainly not the gas molecules themselves.
What we are actually doing is interpolating values which themselves were derived from instrumentation not direct observation of what they are measuring."

I've also covered the difference between making a prediction based on empirical evidence and the prediction itself which cannot be empirically derived.

Third Empirical just means it can be measured/ quantified. Happened / didn't happen, x amount. whatever.

Third what...problem? For who? What's your point?
Again I covered that in my post.
"Empirical prediction" refers to what the prediction is based off of -which I've shown to have its own problems- akin to an educated guess.
The prediction itself cannot be empirically derived since by definition there is nothing to observe, measure, quantify, or what ever, yet.

Fourth, theoretical is according to our best understanding of what we know and has been observed

Eh...I can see what your attempting to say but more accurately "theoretical" isn't empirical because it is based on what we think we know about what's been observed. That's why a theory is always subject to revision.
Again this is a problem how?

In science it does not cover such ideas as if there is an all powerful being, then he could do this.

Who said science covers such things? Point being?

That is not the correct use of the word though it is a colloquial use of the world where guess or feeling would be more appropriate.

?Not sure here. What is the correct use of the word and in reference to what?
I don't believe in guessing oneself to a depiction of God whatever that might mean.
Lighting strikes my enemies hut so I guess that God did it? One might assume then that I have an idea of what that God is already. But then I'd have to ask where that idea came from...a guess? A guess of what? A depiction you've never experienced?
There has to be a preceding depiction of "God" before one can guess that something into the picture. And that depiction must be based on some kind of experience prior to formulating that depiction. No matter how presumptive that depiction is it must be based in experience to be communicable. That is why God is often depicted in anthropomorphic terms. That of course is not to say that IF a God exists all that it is should be communicable.

That is a start on your misuse/misunderstanding of the terminology.

Is it? I'm pretty sure you haven't proven you point here. I'm thinking you could do better.
Thanks for replying though. I enjoy the civil discussions.

 

[setarcos]

This is just baloney, an unfulfilled prediction does not lead to disillusionment, all it means is that the hypothesis that led to it needs revision and absolutely nothing about faith.

What your describing is the science not the scientists. I think disillusionment is an apt noun when it comes to how many scientists feel when an experiment fails to produce an expected result. Scientists aren't robots you know. They have vested interests in knowing they are on the right track. And those scientists that believe their experiment will produce an expected result are basing that belief on a foundation of faith. I don't understand why that fact is not self evident to you at this point. Perhaps you confusing the faith scientists have with the facts experiments provide?

If it did all scientists would have long since committed suicide in that most hypotheses are at least to some extent wrong

Oh please. Disillusionment is a period of "morning" for your expectations not being fulfilled. Its rarely an unrecoverable condition. Incidentally there has been scientists who have committed suicide after the failure of experiments to confirm their expectations. Many scientists are under a lot of stress to prove their mettle in the realm of peer reviewed fields of study. Not all of them can handle that stress.

As for eclipses being chance, I suppose you could use that description of the sun coming up tomorrow? There is a chance that every observation and everything we have learned about celestial mechanics in the entire history of mankind would suddenly be proved wrong tomorrow.

And? What's your point? Your just repeating what I've already said over and over again.
Your just agreeing with me here. Unless your attempting sarcasm here and don't really believe what your saying? Its a matter of perspective as to what exactly would be proved wrong. Observations are observations. They are experience. You don't prove experiences wrong. What you can prove wrong is the interpretation of those experiences. Even a deluded persons experiences are still experiences that they have had. The basis of those experiences is a matter of interpretation though.

On the other hand, if you believe in Loki the Trickster is in charge, yeah then all bets are off, but so far there is no evidence for Loki or any other entity with this power.

No evidence that you know of, no evidence that anyone knows of, or no evidence to be had because there is no Loki...the only thing you can be sure of is that none of those things is intrusive upon your awareness enough to pursue proof of their convictions about Loki.
So you continue about your life the same as if you've never heard of Loki, so what? That's completely irrelevant to answering the question of Loki's existence. Perhaps someone is sitting in Loki's living room right now sharing tea and crumpets with him.
Its not reasonable nor even very logical for you to formulate a belief based on lack of evidence though it may be reasonable of you to have faith that Loki does not exist.

Consider...should you wish to get involved in considering Loki's existence you first have to define what is acceptable evidence. Then you have to decide what amount of that kind of evidence must accumulate before you can formulate a probable belief. Then you must consider if other people have any evidence for you to consider and to what degree. Then you may, given any evidences you've gathered concerning the existence of Loki, formulate a reasonable belief about Loki. For instance, if you gather evidence that shows that the Loki we are talking about is actually a fictional character first conceived of by so and so on such and such a date then you may conceivably develop a reasonable belief that the Loki we are considering does not actually exist but is a fictional character. Give the data you've collected concerning Loki you may even be able to formulate a probability that Loki exists or doesn't as described.
All else being equal, if you have no evidence for Loki existing and no evidence against Loki existing other than having no evidence that Loki exists then you can't even formulate the probability of Loki existing or not because you have no data which you can draw from so that you can formulate that probability. It simply remains an unknown.

You are presenting arguments from ignorance and incredulity in that you don't know what the terms mean

You are far far from showing this in your reply. I think I'm fairly meticulous in researching my terms. Not perfectly mind you but pretty meticulously.
I think your more concerned with rubbing in my face any perceived errors you find in my posts than you are trying to make sure you understand what I'm saying in those posts. I think you are more concerned with proving you are smarter than I am. I think that because of all the little insulting jabs. Those kinds of people always use the insults as exclamation points for how right they are and how wrong others are.
You haven't said anything in your reply that shows I have been inaccurate in my use of the terms I apply. For the most part it seems you've either posted something that is irrelevant to my post or have rehashed in your own words what I've already said and then tried to reframe your statement as something newly pointed out.

as a result they seem fantastical to you and so you want to fall back on your desired belief in an unevidenced entity to solve your confusion and reinforce your prior beliefs.

Fantastical? Unevidenced? You seem to be waffling between talking about physical laws and talking about God and then intertwining the two. That is what makes for confused conclusions and I'm not talking about my own.
Do you want to address faith in physical laws or faith in the Christian God? Faith in physical laws has been evidenced as shown in my posts. Faith in God has little to do with evidencing its existence to you.
Your slipping into an atheistic script concerning proofs of Gods existence.
That is not what my posts here are concerned with.

 

[setarcos]

I don't commit details to memory very well, but off the top of my head, there are individuals in here who routinely conflate abiogenesis with evolution, don't understand that natural selection is not random, claim there are no transitional forms, say that evolution or atheism is a religion, etc. etc. etc.

Okay, I understand that kind of frustration that builds. But I've said nor implied none of those things. So why attack me with the insulting critiques that don't make much sense in their applicability to my posts?

 

[stvdv]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

Sanatana Dharma and evolution go well together

Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?​

From Religious POV evolution makes sense
From Scienific POV evolution makes sense
From Common Sense POV evolution makes sense

So, I can't come up with any reasons to reject evolution

 

[anotherneil]

Sanatana Dharma and evolution go well together

Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?​

From Religious POV evolution makes sense
From Scienific POV evolution makes sense
From Common Sense POV evolution makes sense

So, I can't come up with any reasons to reject evolution

From a religious POV evolution doesn't seem to "make sense" to creationists.

 

[setarcos]

From a religious POV evolution doesn't seem to "make sense" to creationists.

That depends on the particular creationists "attitude" and training.
Genesis in scripture actually clearly implies an evolving creation. And that was written 3000 +- years ago. You shouldn't lump all creationist viewpoints into one pot. Evolution makes perfect sense to some creationists.

 

[metis]

From a religious POV evolution doesn't seem to "make sense" to creationists.

That largely is based on how one defines "creationists".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That largely is based on how one defines "creationists".

I prefer the original definition.

 

[metis]

I prefer the original definition.

But that actually can vary from religion to religion and denomination to denomination:
Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.[1][2] In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views,[3][4] which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena... -- Creationism - Wikipedia

 

[setarcos]

I prefer the original definition.

Like this one from stanford ...​

Creationism​

First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will.

Or this one from Britannica
creationism, the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo).Sep 6, 2024

Or perhaps this one...

creationism​

noun​

cre·a·tion·ism krē-ˈā-shə-ˌni-zəm

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

 

[McBell]

That largely is based on how one defines "creationists".

Creationist is merely one who believes in creation.

It is the almost infinite number of creation stories that make it rather interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that actually can vary from religion to religion and denomination to denomination:
Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.[1][2] In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views,[3][4] which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena... -- Creationism - Wikipedia

I was talking about the original meaning of the term, at least when it comes to biology, as coined by the one person accredited with originating it. The Oxford dictionary seems to claim that there was an even earlier usage of it, but it appears to be obsolete. I would have to pay to see the definition of that term as used in 1820. By the way, you used the wrong definition. We were talking about the definition of "creationist". I will give you one guess as to who first used that term in a biological sense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I was talking about the original meaning of the term, at least when it comes to biology, as coined by the one person accredited with originating it. The Oxford dictionary seems to claim that there was an even earlier usage of it, but it appears to be obsolete. I would have to pay to see the definition of that term as used in 1820. By the way, you used the wrong definition. We were talking about the definition of "creationist". I will give you one guess as to who first used that term in a biological sense.

The first known use of creationism in a biological context, as opposed to theological discussions about the soul, can be traced back to the mid-19th century. The term creationism was first used in this modern sense by Charles Darwin, though it was not popularized by him. He referred to the concept of special creation, a belief in the direct and separate creation of species by a divine being, to distinguish this view from his theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[McBell]

The first known use of creationism in a biological context, as opposed to theological discussions about the soul, can be traced back to the mid-19th century. The term creationism was first used in this modern sense by Charles Darwin, though it was not popularized by him. He referred to the concept of special creation, a belief in the direct and separate creation of species by a divine being, to distinguish this view from his theory of evolution by natural selection.

Now do the same for the word creationist...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Now do the same for the word creationist...

I don't need to look it up. A creationist is someone who adheres to creationism. Since we know what creationism means, we know what a creationist is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first known use of creationism in a biological context, as opposed to theological discussions about the soul, can be traced back to the mid-19th century. The term creationism was first used in this modern sense by Charles Darwin, though it was not popularized by him. He referred to the concept of special creation, a belief in the direct and separate creation of species by a divine being, to distinguish this view from his theory of evolution by natural selection.

I am not so sure about "creationism". I was making it very clear that I was talking about the term "creationist". And the sources that I use say it was the term "creationist" that Darwin coined:

" Creationist (n.) in an "anti-Darwin" sense is attested by 1859 in a letter of Darwin's, and it is said to be used in Darwin's unpublished writings as far back as 1842."

Though ironically that is from an article on the etymology of "creationism". I was worried a bit because by mistake I searched for the etymology of "creationism" and that was not to be found:

creationism | Etymology of creationism by etymonline

"science teaching based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis, the… See origin and meaning of creationism.

www.etymonline.com