Why I am not an atheist.

[Audie]

Yes I read the link. But once science confirms something through repeated and accepted tests, the scientific community considers it a fact, and not a theory. Those who don't accept the confirmation might cling to the term "theory," but those who know its a fact don't consider it a theory any more.



John

Nononono and NO,

The closest you will get to hearing
the word "fact" from a scientist will be
something like, "it is a fact that this is my
data."

You may have good ideas but basing any of
it on something plain wrong spoils the pot.

ETA- it is impossible to have all relevant data,
so you cannot ever say for a fact that there is
no data to disprove the theory.

See why only a simpleton would call a theory a fact?

 

[John D. Brey]

First, on the progression you speak of.

It just is not like that. Evolution does not do
progress in any human culture sense.

It simply follows what works, this generation.

Is the cheetah not more advanced than the
common salamander, though, let alone a bacterium?

Look at who is successful! Incredible numbers of bacteria, what an absolutely stupendous life form! Fantastically successful.

The cheetah is rare, on its way to extinction.
What kind of progress is that?

ALSO- observe that many life forms
"degenerate" from a human poverty.

Behold the snake, whose ancestors had legs,
ears and eyelids. Butvsee how successful they
are for thiscseeming degeneration.

The early amphibians includrd big robust things
that foreshadowed the crocodile ( see parallel evolution).

Now we have tiny feeble colorless blind cave salamanders. Some progress!

Many many other examples.

I get the idea that, for instance, coach roaches or some fish at the bottom of the sea are better adapted for survival (since they've been around so long and would purportedly be around when we're long gone) such that making value judgements on evolution could be argued to be more of an anthropocentric prejudice and or a cultural phenomenon.

In Daniel Dennett's, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he pointed out these kinds of prejudice (as have so many others like say Richard Dawkins). And yet in Daniel Dennett's more recent book, Freedom Evolves, he's forced to come my way, or toward my argument since earlier in this thread I mentioned that God created the world perfect except for one thing: freewill.

Human freedom is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us. The differences between autonomous human agents and the other assemblages of nature are visible not just from an anthropocentric perspective but also from the most objective standpoints (the plural is important) achievable. Human freedom is real---as real as language, music, and money----so it can be studied objectively from a no-nonsense, scientific point of view. But like language, music, money, and other products of society, its persistence is affected by what we believe about it. So it is not surprising that our attempts to study it dispassionately are distorted by anxiety that we will clumsily kill the specimen under the microscope.

Human freedom is younger than the species. Its most important features are only several thousand years old--- an eyeblink in evolutionary history---but in that short time it has transformed the planet in ways that are as salient as such great biological transitions as the creation of an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the creation of multicellular life. Freedom had to evolve like every other feature of the biosphere, and it continues to do so today. Freedom is real now, in some happy parts of he world, and those who love it love wisely, but it is far from inevitable, far from universal. If we understand better how freedom arose, we can do a better job of preserving it for the future, and protecting it from its many natural enemies.

Freedom Evolves, p. 305.​

The stage in the travel from past to future associated with biological evolution is nearing its end. The human "freedom" whereby men can create new life forms in the twinkling of an eye in cosmic time will very rapidly lead to the jettisoning first of the death-cell, or the part of anatomy that causes senescence, and then very soon after that biological bodies will come to an end and the "soul" will receive bodies that are "incorruptible and that fadeth not away" (1 Corinthians 15:54; 1 Peter 1:4).

One widespread tradition has it that we human beings are responsible agents, captains of our fate, because what we really are are souls, immaterial and immortal clumps of Godstuff that inhabits and controls our material bodies rather like spectral puppeteers. It is our souls that are the source of all meaning, and the locus of all our suffering, our joy, our glory and shame. But this idea of immaterial souls, capable of defying the laws of physics, has outlived its credibility thanks to advances of natural science. . . . The self-understanding we can gain from science can help us put our moral lives on a new and better foundation . . ..

Freedom Evolves, p. 1.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Nowhere does he state nor imply that
he is speaking about anything "generally accepted".

Semantics can be slippery.

The picture of evolution that postulates an autonomous external world of `niches’ into which organisms must fit by adaptation misses what is most characteristic of the history of life.​

I read "the picture of evolution that postulates" as a metaphor reasonably restated as a picture of evolution generally accepted.



John

 

[Tiberius]

Yes I read the link. But once science confirms something through repeated and accepted tests, the scientific community considers it a fact, and not a theory. Those who don't accept the confirmation might cling to the term "theory," but those who know its a fact don't consider it a theory any more.



John

So you are just ignoring the link then?

Do you think you know better than scientists what the word "theory" means in a scientific context?

 

[Audie]

There is no science whatever to indicate God of any kind exists.

Its self defeating to attempt that argument.

Do you still hold to your progress and thermodynamics arguments? You changed the subject.

 

[John D. Brey]

Nononono and NO,

The closest you will get to hearing
the word "fact" from a scientist will be
something like, "it is a fact that this is my
data."

You may have good ideas but basing any of
it on something plain wrong spoils the pot.

ETA- it is impossible to have all relevant data,
so you cannot ever say for a fact that there is
no data to disprove the theory.

See why only a simpleton would call a theory a fact?

Ok. Maybe I'm incorrect technically speaking about the way the word "theory" is used in a scientific sense. I'll concede that since it's not important to what I'd argue.

I'll accept that the "theory of evolution" doesn't speak of something not yet proven; but that the "theory" in the phrase has nuances that don't mean it's unproven.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So you are just ignoring the link then?

Do you think you know better than scientists what the word "theory" means in a scientific context?

As I said to Audie, I'll accept that I'm thinking of the technical meaning of "theory" in an incorrect manner. Furthermore I'll accept the accepted meaning as you and she are putting it forth.


John

 

[Audie]

Semantics can be slippery.

The picture of evolution that postulates an autonomous external world of `niches’ into which organisms must fit by adaptation misses what is most characteristic of the history of life.​

I read "the picture of evolution that postulates" as a metaphor reasonably restated as a picture of evolution generally accepted.



John

Especiasly slippery if a person deliberately does it..and just plain false knows no semantic slips.

You have zero exidence that what you say is generally accepted (by the public) is in fact the case.

AND, if it is widespread or even the majority view of those unskilled in the art, it iS NOT
HOW SCIENTISTS SEE IT.

What amateurs do or don't think has nothing to do with the validity of a theory. Ok?

 

[Audie]

No again. Theory of evolution is something that is impossible to prove.
And there is zero nuance.
Nothing in science is ever proven. Impossible.

Your point, whatever it is, is void being based on falsehood.

And it is so far from a more technicality,
It is absolutely fundamental to science.

When you are wrong, as you are in this case, it
does far more for your credibility to concede and
learn than hedge about with " technically"
and "nuance", as if to salvage something of your
point, which was as wrong as 1÷1=3.

 

[Audie]

As I said to Audie, I'll accept that I'm thinking of the technical meaning of "theory" in an incorrect manner. Furthermore I'll accept the accepted meaning as you and she are putting it forth.


John

Not a technicality at all.
It is central to any understanding of science.

 

[McBell]

What is a name for one grossly ignorant of evolution
who pretends to know its wrong, but hasn't one fact?

um...
Creationist?

 

[Audie]

Ok. Maybe I'm incorrect technically speaking about the way the word "theory" is used in a scientific sense. I'll concede that since it's not important to what I'd argue.

I'll accept that the "theory of evolution" doesn't speak of something not yet proven; but that the "theory" in the phrase has nuances that don't mean it's unproven.



John

"Don't mean..unproven is like a double negati
Hard to tell what you mean.

But-

NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN IN SCIENCE.
its super simple. No technicality, no nuance.
No proof in science.
Theory is not fact.
Proof is In math and booze, NOT SCIENCE.

Its just, sorry, but, Ignorant to think otherwise.

 

[Tiberius]

As I said to Audie, I'll accept that I'm thinking of the technical meaning of "theory" in an incorrect manner. Furthermore I'll accept the accepted meaning as you and she are putting it forth.


John

So then what exactly are you arguing? That evolution is, at least, potentially falsifiable? No argument here. I can easily think of things that would prove evolution is wrong. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would do it.

But we never find such things. And just because we can imagine potential things that would prove it wrong, does not mean those things exist. I mean, you could claim you are a Human, and I could think of things that would prove that claim wrong. Doesn't mean that any of those things are actually the case though.

 

[Tiberius]

"Don't mean..unproven is like a double negati
Hard to tell what you mean.

But-

NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN IN SCIENCE.
its super simple. No technicality, no nuance.
No proof in science.
Theory is not fact.
Proof is In math and booze, NOT SCIENCE.

Its just, sorry, but, Ignorant to think otherwise.

Exactly. We can't even prove gravity is real. I mean, sure, it's behaved in a consistent manner with all the tests we've done, and we are completely justified in assuming that our understanding is at least close to being correct, but all it would take is for one single instance of something falling up and gravity would be disproven.

In science, you can never prove anything, no matter how much data you have, because the next bit of evidence could be the bit that proves it all wrong. But it's the easiest thing in the world to prove it wrong, because you only need one single bit of evidence.

 

[Audie]

So then what exactly are you arguing? That evolution is, at least, potentially falsifiable? No argument here. I can easily think of things that would prove evolution is wrong. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would do it.

But we never find such things. And just because we can imagine potential things that would prove it wrong, does not mean those things exist. I mean, you could claim you are a Human, and I could think of things that would prove that claim wrong. Doesn't mean that any of those things are actually the case though.

I hope this hyper over explanation is finally sufficient.

 

[Audie]

So then what exactly are you arguing? That evolution is, at least, potentially falsifiable? No argument here. I can easily think of things that would prove evolution is wrong. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would do it.

But we never find such things. And just because we can imagine potential things that would prove it wrong, does not mean those things exist. I mean, you could claim you are a Human, and I could think of things that would prove that claim wrong. Doesn't mean that any of those things are actually the case though.

I can't really figure what he is arguing.
A lot of it is just wrong, as with theory / proof.

Above, the "going my way" statement
is impenetrable, for me. Too many words,
too incohesive.
The stuff about "freewill" (sic )
makes no sense at all, that I can detect.

Maybe a simple direct statement can be coaxed forth.

 

[John D. Brey]

Especiasly slippery if a person deliberately does it..and just plain false knows no semantic slips.

You have zero exidence that what you say is generally accepted (by the public) is in fact the case.

AND, if it is widespread or even the majority view of those unskilled in the art, it iS NOT
HOW SCIENTISTS SEE IT.

What amateurs do or don't think has nothing to do with the validity of a theory. Ok?

I've been studying and debating evolution and Dawinism for decades and in that time it's been my observation that most people, scientists and laymen, tend to believe that evolutionary advance occurs when environmental niches "select" which organisms survive versus which don't.

In my humble opinion, when Professor Lewontin speaks of, "the picture of evolution that postulates an autonomous external world of `niches’ into which organisms must fit by adaptation," he's speaking of a picture that can be accurately painted with a pretty wide brush.

I'm not trying to be argumentative about this. It's just that the most important part of the argument I want to posit revolves around a corrected understanding of the relationship between an "environment" versus the organisms that live in it.

Professor Richard Lewontin seems to imply, and I would concur, that the environment is at least as much in the organism's genes as the organism is in the environment.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

No again. Theory of evolution is something that is impossible to prove.
And there is zero nuance.
Nothing in science is ever proven. Impossible.

Your point, whatever it is, is void being based on falsehood.

I think we're getting tangled up in semantics.

If I hypothesize that if I let go of this coffee cup it will drop to the table and smash, and then I let go of the coffee cup and it drops to the table and smashes, it could be said that I "proved" my hypothesis.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So then what exactly are you arguing? That evolution is, at least, potentially falsifiable? No argument here. I can easily think of things that would prove evolution is wrong. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would do it.

But we never find such things. And just because we can imagine potential things that would prove it wrong, does not mean those things exist. I mean, you could claim you are a Human, and I could think of things that would prove that claim wrong. Doesn't mean that any of those things are actually the case though.

Which is kind of the point of Karl Popper's statement that science never "proves" anything. It only makes something tentatively factual within a given framework.

Within that framework I gave quotations from a world-renown biologist (Richard Lewontin) as a perfect case in point concerning how context determines how we think of something being true or false. Richard Lewontin explains how there's no such thing as an "environmental niche" until the external fields and forces of the external world have passed through the transforming filter of the organism's genetic predispositions. In that sense, the genetic dispositions of the organism are at least as deterministic concerning what environment survives for the organism, as the environment determines what organism survives.

Ergo, the framework or context for understanding the theory of evolution that posits a pre-existing environment that determines which organisms survive, and which don't, misses what is most important about the truth associated with the theory of evolution.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In science, you can never prove anything, no matter how much data you have, because the next bit of evidence could be the bit that proves it all wrong. But it's the easiest thing in the world to prove it wrong, because you only need one single bit of evidence.

Why wouldn't proving it wrong be subject to the same principle as proving it right? It appears you're prejudiced against proving something right, but not about proving something wrong? <s>



John