Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[danieldemol]

I cant see anything about evolution in that post.

Well there was a history leading up to post 305 and post 308 link seemed to be all about the ToE to me.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

This is irrelevant. A strawman.

Well I'll let @Valjean speak for himself, but *if* that was his underlying point (or one of them) I don't see why it would be either a strawman or irrelevant to request you to address his underlying or essential message that he was trying to get across.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Well there was a history leading up to post 305 and post 308 link seemed to be all about the ToE to me.

In my opinion.

Anyway, what is your argument? Are you making the argument that TOE (what ever you are referring to by that phrase) is absolute fact? Rather than referring to others and trying to side with a group, why not make your argument yourself?

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Well I'll let @Valjean speak for himself, but *if* that was his underlying point (or one of them) I don't see why it would be either a strawman or irrelevant to request you to address his underlying or essential message that he was trying to get across.

In my opinion.

Your post was a strawman. Because its not relevant to me. I never made any argument about anything being a provisional assent. It is you who is making a strawman. Not others.

 

[danieldemol]

Anyway, what is your argument? Are you making the argument that TOE (what ever you are referring to by that phrase) is absolute fact? Rather than referring to others and trying to side with a group, why not make your argument yourself?

Thanks.

Because it makes no difference, by indicating that i agree with a certain argument i may as well be making it myself

 

[firedragon]

Because it makes no difference, by indicating that i agree with a certain argument i may as well be making it myself

So make your argument.

 

[Colt]

?????????? --How so?
How are you defining "proof?"

For one he razed Lazarus from the dead. Then as he said he could and would, the Son of God returned from the death of his mortal body and appeared a number of times before returning to heaven. It was proof enough for those who witnessed both events, even to the point of yielding up their own lives to the gospel.

 

[danieldemol]

So make your argument.

My argument is that the theory of evolution is so well evidenced that is that it *is* perverse to withold provisional assent from it.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

My argument is that the theory of evolution is so well evidenced that is that it *is* perverse to withold provisional assent from it.

In my opinion.

You are directly quoting Gould. You used his exact words as well. But you inserted TOE into it. No problem.

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. - Gould. He continues. So you replaced the word "fact" with "TOE".

I am not opposing your statement. But let me tell you something you should read about. There has been, and still are debates on evolution. You quoting Gould himself without knowing how much he disagrees with some of the mainstream ideas and he disagrees with Dawkins on some arguments.

Do bit of research on who you are cutting and pasting from. Its better that way.

Darwinian evolution is the most known and recognised mechanism. All given. But its not fact. Science does not recognised it as fact. As Gould says, if you want to use the word "fact", in science fact can only mean it is such a strong case. Thats it. No scientific theory is considered as such absolute certainty. What you missing in using someones quote is that you didnt understand the context. He would never use the sentence "theory of evolution" in his quote, but you inserted it using his exact quote found all over on the internet. What he says is that life has evolved, and is evolving and it is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Not "TOE". He does not use it that way, and it is wrong to use a quote like that and insert TOE into it. I am sure by the word TOE you are referring to Darwinian or Neo-darwinian evolution.

And you should read Gould. He directly says "Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” This is the response he was writing against the American "creationism" movement with the YEC mentality. It is not relevant to the whole world, and not relevant to all creationists in history, and has a specific meaning and agenda that you have completely misunderstood because you went quote mining.

Read his full article at least. This is written directly against the American YEC type creationist movement. Those who make bad arguments like "evolution is ONLY A THEORY". If you want I can find it and cut and paste it for you.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not a member of secular humanism, but I think that given the definition of fact explained in @Valjean 's link post#308;
'"fact" does not mean "absolute certainty."...
... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

I think Valjean's definition of fact makes him semantically correct.

Evolution is not raw data, and defined as data the Theory of Evolution does not qualify as fact according to my understanding, but defined as being confirmed to such a degree it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent, under this different definition the ToE qualifies as fact.

So as long as you view Valjean's post with an inside understanding of what he is actually saying he is correct on that, no need to be a co-religionist necessary.

By the way, how would you feel if instead of addressing your arguments one or all of the rest of us were to dismissively call Islam a cult?

In my opinion.

A good explanation, I have always understood that a fact is defined as something that is known or proven to be true, so a scientific theory that is accepted as true, would ipso facto be a scientific fact, at least that's my rationale. However as you point out, the word fact often seems to be wrongly equated with absolute certainty, but in science all ideas must remain tentative, and open to revision in the light of new evidence, even accepted scientific facts and theories in good standing. Facts and theories like species evolution (for example) cannot be ringfenced from critical scrutiny, but the idea that it would be substantively or wholly reversed, given how much objective scientific evidence now supports it, is so unlikely as to be effectively nil. Like discovering the world is flat and the centre of the universe after all, we can't rule it out, but that doesn't mean we will wake up in a geocentric universe on a flat earth one day.

 

[danieldemol]

Not "TOE". He does not use it that way, and it is wrong to use a quote like that and insert TOE into it. I am sure by the word TOE you are referring to Darwinian or Neo-darwinian evolution.

It is not wrong, because I am not quoting Gould. You asked me what *my* position is, not what Gould's position is.

As to what I mean when I say the Theory of Evolution, you can find an explanation here;
What is evolution?

As to the position of Gould, Wikipedia states;

'One reason for criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, and argued for the importance of mechanisms other than natural selection, mechanisms which he believed had been ignored by many professional evolutionists. As a result, many non-specialists sometimes inferred from his early writings that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never tried to imply). Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved.[92] Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works.[93]'

Source: Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia

So according to my understanding since Gould never tried to imply that Darwinian explanations were unscientific, it would be a misunderstanding to state that the Darwinian mechanism is not a valid mechanism of evolution supported by evidence to such an extent it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent from it.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

It is not wrong, because I am not quoting Gould. You asked me what *my* position is, not what Gould's position is.

you quoted Gould directly, verbatim, changed one word.

So according to my understanding since Gould never tried to imply that Darwinian explanations were unscientific

Who said he claimed it was unscientific?

You are fishing for an argument of your choice building strawman after strawman.

misunderstanding to state that the Darwinian mechanism is not a valid mechanism of evolution

Another strawman. Who said that "Darwinian mechanism is not a valid mechanism of evolution"? You are making up arguments I never made. Strawman after strawman.

Ciao.