Theory of Evolution

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

There used to be a poster here who denied the existance of gravity. He also believed that the sun rotated around the earth. I would suggest that if you have something better, you contribute to the conversation rather than just being the debate judge.

When persons appeal to the theory-ness of evolution as though this means evolution hasn’t been “proven” and I point out that this is misguided that seems to be contributing to me. Unless you think the only thing that would contribute to the conversation is if I got in line with them and agreed. Is that what you think?

When persons try to defend their accusations against evolution and its theory-ness by saying “gravity is not a theory” and I point out that that is misguided this also seems to contributing to the conversation. Unless you think the only thing that would contribute to the conversations is if I got in line with them and agreed.

If you don’t like what it has to contribute, you can contribute your own reasons as to why or ignore my posts. But if the fact that I don’t agree with some of what’s being said makes me “debate judge” then it seems to me that acting like the arbiter of what does and doesn’t contribute is also trying to be the “debate judge.”

Actually, Newton did not give us the mathematics of gravity, he postulated the laws of motion.

Yes he did. It’s the inverse square law. The laws of motion were themselves postulated on mathematical formulation. In fact the book in which he discussed the laws of motion is called Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (natural philosophy being the common term for what we now call science).

Concepts of gravity are as old as science.

I guess… if you think science started with Newton. Prior to that we had things like impetus theory.

Gravity isn't postulating an unobserved phenomina.

Yes it is. You don’t observe the force of gravity (as Rosenberg says, “Newtonian gravity is not a ‘contact’ force… it is a force itself completely undetectable except through its effects…” (85)).

You can claim that everything is a theory on some level but it contributes nothing to the discussion.

Perhaps you didn’t see the posts where some persons used the theory-ness of evolution to dismiss it. See post #2 for example. If people say “evolution” is just a theory and therefore we don’t have to take it seriously, how is it not contributing to the discussion if I point out that this is a confusion as to how science uses the term theory? You may not like what I have to say, but it is definitely relevant to what another person is saying.

Let’s say person A says:

1. Evolution is called a theory.
2. If something is a theory it hasn’t been demonstrated to be true.
So evolution has never been demonstrated to be true.

Now let’s say person B says:

1. Science uses the term theory even for things that have been “demonstrated to be true” like gravity.
2. Most evolutionists believe evolution has been demonstrated to be true (cf. the book by Coyne “Why Evolution is True”).
So pointing to the fact that science considers evolution a theory won’t allow you to immediately move to the conclusion that evolution is unproven or undemonstrated.

Now person C says:

“What person B said doesn’t contribute.”

Which of the three persons is being debate judge?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Gravity is a law, we explain it via theory because we don't understand how/why it works. We know there are laws of gravity because it can be observed.

Evolution is not a law, it is a theory and can not be observed.

Basically a scientific law is a universal statement, taken to be true, that has some explanatory power. Gravity or motion are considered to have laws in that we can explain things by universal statements that appear to correspond to reality: All bodies in motion (or rest) will remain in that state unless some other force acts upon them.

In light of this, it's clear that the fact that we can't explain why (hypothetically) apes evolved from lemurs rather than tarsiers in terms of laws is irrelevant.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

When persons appeal to the theory-ness of evolution as though this means evolution hasn’t been “proven” and I point out that this is misguided that seems to be contributing to me. Unless you think the only thing that would contribute to the conversation is if I got in line with them and agreed. Is that what you think?

When persons try to defend their accusations against evolution and its theory-ness by saying “gravity is not a theory” and I point out that that is misguided this also seems to contributing to the conversation. Unless you think the only thing that would contribute to the conversations is if I got in line with them and agreed.

If you don’t like what it has to contribute, you can contribute your own reasons as to why or ignore my posts. But if the fact that I don’t agree with some of what’s being said makes me “debate judge” then it seems to me that acting like the arbiter of what does and doesn’t contribute is also trying to be the “debate judge.”



Yes he did. It’s the inverse square law. The laws of motion were themselves postulated on mathematical formulation. In fact the book in which he discussed the laws of motion is called Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (natural philosophy being the common term for what we now call science).



I guess… if you think science started with Newton. Prior to that we had things like impetus theory.



Yes it is. You don’t observe the force of gravity (as Rosenberg says, “Newtonian gravity is not a ‘contact’ force… it is a force itself completely undetectable except through its effects…” (85)).



Perhaps you didn’t see the posts where some persons used the theory-ness of evolution to dismiss it. See post #2 for example. If people say “evolution” is just a theory and therefore we don’t have to take it seriously, how is it not contributing to the discussion if I point out that this is a confusion as to how science uses the term theory? You may not like what I have to say, but it is definitely relevant to what another person is saying.

Let’s say person A says:

1. Evolution is called a theory.
2. If something is a theory it hasn’t been demonstrated to be true.
So evolution has never been demonstrated to be true.

Now let’s say person B says:

1. Science uses the term theory even for things that have been “demonstrated to be true” like gravity.
2. Most evolutionists believe evolution has been demonstrated to be true (cf. the book by Coyne “Why Evolution is True”).
So pointing to the fact that science considers evolution a theory won’t allow you to immediately move to the conclusion that evolution is unproven or undemonstrated.

Now person C says:

“What person B said doesn’t contribute.”

Which of the three persons is being debate judge?

Then take a stand and make an argument. if you believe in macro-evolution then put out your arguments. if you don't, then put out your arguments. If you don't know then change your name to Intellego ut Credam.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Then take a stand and make an argument. if you believe in macro-evolution then put out your arguments. if you don't, then put out your arguments.

I have taken a stand on one thing: dismissing evolution on the basis that it’s considered a theory is invalid. And I have put forth arguments for that.

As far as evolution itself is concerned, I don’t have much of an opinion about that. Although I find it unlikely given what I do know. But I know that what I do know isn’t enough to make a very strong case for or against it.

I will say that I think evolution and an old earth can be (but is not necessarily) consistent with Christianity and Scripture being God-breathed. I don’t think Christians should make it a watershed between whether God is God and the Bible is true or not.

If you don't know then change your name to Intellego ut Credam.

My moniker has reference to my basic epistemology and approach to God, it doesn’t mean that I first adopt all my beliefs and then afterwards seek to justify and understand the world from them. No one does this, or at least I hope no one does this.

It is in God’s light that we see light (Psalm 36:9) and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7). But that doesn’t mean I don’t seek to understand a great many other things before believing them.

(P.S. I took a stand on another thing too: the evidence that Ida is a "missing link" is underwhelming and the entire process of trying to show common descent by fossils is largely just imaginative story telling)

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I have taken a stand on one thing: dismissing evolution on the basis that it’s considered a theory is invalid. And I have put forth arguments for that.

As far as evolution itself is concerned, I don’t have much of an opinion about that. Although I find it unlikely given what I do know. But I know that what I do know isn’t enough to make a very strong case for or against it.

I will say that I think evolution and an old earth can be (but is not necessarily) consistent with Christianity and Scripture being God-breathed. I don’t think Christians should make it a watershed between whether God is God and the Bible is true or not.



My moniker has reference to my basic epistemology and approach to God, it doesn’t mean that I first adopt all my beliefs and then afterwards seek to justify and understand the world from them. No one does this, or at least I hope no one does this.

It is in God’s light that we see light (Psalm 36:9) and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7). But that doesn’t mean I don’t seek to understand a great many other things before believing them.

(P.S. I took a stand on another thing too: the evidence that Ida is a "missing link" is underwhelming and the entire process of trying to show common descent by fossils is largely just imaginative story telling)

Yes, you did take the one stand, and frankly I was surprised. but you are more skilled in the arts of semantics and rhetoric and seem to spend an awful lot of your time disecting others reasoning rather than presenting your own. Out of fairness, I will answer your original response directly.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

When persons appeal to the theory-ness of evolution as though this means evolution hasn’t been “proven” and I point out that this is misguided that seems to be contributing to me. Unless you think the only thing that would contribute to the conversation is if I got in line with them and agreed. Is that what you think?
You lack a point of context. The context of our conversation uses a common definition of "mere speculation". Rather than arguing the definition, perhaps you should suggect better wording.

When persons try to defend their accusations against evolution and its theory-ness by saying “gravity is not a theory” and I point out that that is misguided this also seems to contributing to the conversation. Unless you think the only thing that would contribute to the conversations is if I got in line with them and agreed.
I think that you should contribute something of substance.

If you don’t like what it has to contribute, you can contribute your own reasons as to why or ignore my posts. But if the fact that I don’t agree with some of what’s being said makes me “debate judge” then it seems to me that acting like the arbiter of what does and doesn’t contribute is also trying to be the “debate judge.”
As I said, you try to turn every post into a lecture on semantics and rhetoric. And then you will justify it by saying that you are playing the devil's advocate. You are not our teacher so I think there is no need for the Socratic method.



Yes he did. It’s the inverse square law. The laws of motion were themselves postulated on mathematical formulation. In fact the book in which he discussed the laws of motion is called Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (natural philosophy being the common term for what we now call science).
The Laws of Motion did not define the mathmatics of gravity.



I guess… if you think science started with Newton. Prior to that we had things like impetus theory.
So, I'm sure that the ancient Persians and Greeks were fascinated by the fact that when you dropped the ball, it fell to the graound every time, since they hadn't "discovered" gravity.



Yes it is. You don’t observe the force of gravity (as Rosenberg says, “Newtonian gravity is not a ‘contact’ force… it is a force itself completely undetectable except through its effects…” (85)).
When I drop a ball, I am sure that I am not observing gravity but the results of the first law of Pokemon. Again, you would rather redefine a term than let a point lie. (Love the fact that you threw in a quotation. Nice touch.)



Perhaps you didn’t see the posts where some persons used the theory-ness of evolution to dismiss it. See post #2 for example. If people say “evolution” is just a theory and therefore we don’t have to take it seriously, how is it not contributing to the discussion if I point out that this is a confusion as to how science uses the term theory? You may not like what I have to say, but it is definitely relevant to what another person is saying.
You need to take language in context. One meaning of the word "theory" is "mere speculation".

Let’s say person A says:

1. Evolution is called a theory.
2. If something is a theory it hasn’t been demonstrated to be true.
So evolution has never been demonstrated to be true.

Now let’s say person B says:

1. Science uses the term theory even for things that have been “demonstrated to be true” like gravity.
2. Most evolutionists believe evolution has been demonstrated to be true (cf. the book by Coyne “Why Evolution is True”).
So pointing to the fact that science considers evolution a theory won’t allow you to immediately move to the conclusion that evolution is unproven or undemonstrated.

Now person C says:

“What person B said doesn’t contribute.”

Which of the three persons is being debate judge?

The person A argument is not mine, and I think that it is not what most are saying here. Again, you lack a common context.
Touche on the person C. But now I have responded properly.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Yes, you did take the one stand, and frankly I was surprised.

In fact every time I put forth an argument (whether that is positive or negative) I’m taking a stand or a position. Someone may not like the position I take or they may wish I’d take a different position, but it’s a position nonetheless.

but you are more skilled in the arts of semantics and rhetoric and seem to spend an awful lot of your time disecting others reasoning rather than presenting your own.

Even if this were true, every time I “dissect” another’s reasoning I’m presenting my own. For instance, in this thread I presented my reasoning as to why evolution can be a theory without that meaning that evolution has no evidence in favor of it. I presented my reasoning as to why gravity can be a theory and why from a scientific standpoint, it must remain a theory.

You lack a point of context. The context of our conversation uses a common definition of "mere speculation". Rather than arguing the definition, perhaps you should suggect better wording.

Better wording for what?

I think that you should contribute something of substance.

How have I not contributed something of substance? Personally, I think sticking to a discussion of what persons are saying would be more substantive then turning this into a big ad hominem… again. Take my advice and just start a blog about me, that way we’ll have a little sandbox where you can dump all your theorizing about me.

What I did was respond directly to what persons were saying. What would a substantive response to the claim “Evolution is a theory because it can’t be proven” look like to you?

As I said, you try to turn every post into a lecture on semantics and rhetoric.

When someone tries to make a point about evolution based on the fact that it’s called a “theory,” how should I refute that without using semantics? Give an example, please.

And then you will justify it by saying that you are playing the devil's advocate.

Is that what I’ve done here? What’s the basis of this assertion?

You are not our teacher so I think there is no need for the Socratic method.

Did I say I was anyone’s teacher? What’s the basis of this assertion? I might as well say that since you’ve taken it upon yourself to correct my methods on several occasions you must think you’re my teacher…

The Laws of Motion did not define the mathmatics of gravity.

I didn’t say they did.

So, I'm sure that the ancient Persians and Greeks were fascinated by the fact that when you dropped the ball, it fell to the graound every time, since they hadn't "discovered" gravity.

Yep. Most tried to explain it by teleology, saying that things belonged on the ground so that’s where they went.

When I drop a ball, I am sure that I am not observing gravity but the results of the first law of Pokemon.

You’re not observing gravity. You’re observing the results of gravity. Those are two different things.

Again, you would rather redefine a term than let a point lie. (Love the fact that you threw in a quotation. Nice touch.)

What did I redefine?

You need to take language in context. One meaning of the word "theory" is "mere speculation".

I realize that. That’s why in post #30 I said “’theory’ in science is not primarily a statement about the uncertainty or the certainty of a thing…” That’s the point. When scientists call evolution a theory they don’t mean it is mere speculation. So making some remark like “last time I checked, evolution was still a THEORY” misses the boat. I explained all this in post #30 and in previous posts.

The person A argument is not mine, and I think that it is not what most are saying here.

I didn’t say it was yours. A person here did capitalize on the fact that evolution is a theory and appeared to draw a conclusion from this about the merits of believing it. A debate then broke out over whether gravity is a theory.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

In fact every time I put forth an argument (whether that is positive or negative) I’m taking a stand or a position. Someone may not like the position I take or they may wish I’d take a different position, but it’s a position nonetheless.
You youself said that "I don't really have much of an opinion bout that [evolution]." So, you aren't taking a position on the subject at hand.



Even if this were true, every time I “dissect” another’s reasoning I’m presenting my own. For instance, in this thread I presented my reasoning as to why evolution can be a theory without that meaning that evolution has no evidence in favor of it. I presented my reasoning as to why gravity can be a theory and why from a scientific standpoint, it must remain a theory.
Not really, you are presenting an argument for the use of the word "theory" but adding nothing to the discussion of the theory of evolution.



Better wording for what?
For the word "theory" as it is being used.



How have I not contributed something of substance? Personally, I think sticking to a discussion of what persons are saying would be more substantive then turning this into a big ad hominem… again. Take my advice and just start a blog about me, that way we’ll have a little sandbox where you can dump all your theorizing about me.
See above.

What I did was respond directly to what persons were saying. What would a substantive response to the claim “Evolution is a theory because it can’t be proven” look like to you?
I perhaps would have said that proof, even when it is objective, is evaluated subjectively, through our senses and through our a prioris. That in addition to being able to make a defense for our belief in creation, we must pray for those who we testify to, that the Holy Spirit would open their hearts to what we are saying.



When someone tries to make a point about evolution based on the fact that it’s called a “theory,” how should I refute that without using semantics? Give an example, please.
I think that you should deal with the meaning that they are using rather than pretending that they are making an argument based upon the definition you are using.



Is that what I’ve done here? What’s the basis of this assertion?
Two previous posts in which you used this reasoning for not taking a stand on an issue.



Did I say I was anyone’s teacher? What’s the basis of this assertion? I might as well say that since you’ve taken it upon yourself to correct my methods on several occasions you must think you’re my teacher…
Five questions in a row...I would say that is the Socratic methodology.



I didn’t say they did.
When I said he didn't calculate the laws of gravity your said, "Yes, he did..."



Yep. Most tried to explain it by teleology, saying that things belonged on the ground so that’s where they went.
So, the study of gravity is ancient. It was one of the easiest, observable, natural phenomina.



You’re not observing gravity. You’re observing the results of gravity. Those are two different things.
dictionary definition: Gravity, the accelerating tendency of bodies [ITC the ball] toward the center of the earth [thus falling to the ground].



What did I redefine?
You redifined my use of gravity (see above) and my use of observable.



I realize that. That’s why in post #30 I said “’theory’ in science is not primarily a statement about the uncertainty or the certainty of a thing…” That’s the point. When scientists call evolution a theory they don’t mean it is mere speculation. So making some remark like “last time I checked, evolution was still a THEORY” misses the boat. I explained all this in post #30 and in previous posts.
Actually, you did the exact opposite. You said, "this is how we are all going to use this word so what you are saying doesn't mean anything." You didn't say, "We should rephrase what we are saying to something like...."



I didn’t say it was yours. A person here did capitalize on the fact that evolution is a theory and appeared to draw a conclusion from this about the merits of believing it. A debate then broke out over whether gravity is a theory.

I would much rather talk about the issue at hand, but as you insist.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

You youself said that "I don't really have much of an opinion bout that [evolution]." So, you aren't taking a position on the subject at hand.

The subject at hand is more than just the truth or falsity of evolution. Right now, the subject at hand is whether or not the truth or falsity of evolution is the subject at hand. But you don’t get to simply stipulate that the subject at hand is whatever you want it to be for your ad hominem purposes. The person who opened the thread made the subject Ida. I addressed that subject. Then another commenter brought up the fact that evolution is a theory and because it is a theory can’t be “proven”. I addressed that subject. Then it was said that gravity is not a theory, I addressed that subject. Now you want to turn this into an ad hominem thing against me and so now I’m addressing that subject.

This all looks rather ironic in light of your earlier comment about being a debate judge.

Not really, you are presenting an argument for the use of the word "theory" but adding nothing to the discussion of the theory of evolution.

As I pointed out above, I’m simply responding to the points other people have brought up. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. Apparently you want this thread to be nothing more than statements for evolution or against evolution. Well I don’t find that very reasonable. I added to the discussion of the theory-ness of evolution, that you wished I had rather said something for or against evolution is nothing more than an uninteresting piece of biographical information pertaining to your preferences.

You seem very concerned about adding to “the discussion” (which you also think you can stipulate to be whatever you want)… Apparently you think this entire diatribe about me is somehow adding to the discussion. That seems odd to me. I’m sure there is no one here that actually cares to read this. In fact I don’t care too much to read this.

Not really, you are presenting an argument for the use of the word "theory" but adding nothing to the discussion of the theory of evolution.

I’m presenting an argument for the use of the word “theory” in reference to evolution. I did that in response to what someone said about evolution being a theory. I’m sorry if it doesn’t meet your standards of relevance, but I find your two-cents irrelevant. I’d be equally unimpressed if you started telling me that I should have taken a stance on whether cats are better than dogs.

For the word "theory" as it is being used.

I did. See post 30.

You said that you would have responded to the claim “Evolution is a theory because it cannot be proved” with the following:

proof, even when it is objective, is evaluated subjectively, through our senses and through our a prioris. That in addition to being able to make a defense for our belief in creation, we must pray for those who we testify to, that the Holy Spirit would open their hearts to what we are saying.

This looks irrelevant. You appear to be talking about persuading persons to creationism, the comment was about why evolution can’t be proven. Perhaps you could draw it out more.

I think that you should deal with the meaning that they are using rather than pretending that they are making an argument based upon the definition you are using.

The person didn’t say what they meant by theory. They referred to the theory of evolution. I didn’t pretend that they meant anything, I simply pointed out what scientists mean by it.

Two previous posts in which you used this reasoning for not taking a stand on an issue.

So if a person doesn’t take a position they are automatically playing devil’s advocate? That doesn’t sound reasonable to me. By the way, do you take the position that we will be wearing some sort of footing in heaven, like slippers, or will we be walking around bare-foot? (If you don’t take a position, I’ll accuse you of playing devil’s advocate.)

Five questions in a row...I would say that is the Socratic methodology.

Where exactly are you getting this criterion for the Socratic Method?

If I only ask you four questions in a row, does that count as the Socratic Method?

Do you always assume that when a person asks multiple questions in a row that they are trying to establish themselves as a teacher?

Did you consider that maybe I’m asking questions for no other reason than your points are unclear to me or does everything have to have some nefarious motive behind it with you?

When I said he didn't calculate the laws of gravity your said, "Yes, he did..."

You said he didn’t give us the mathematics of gravity. I said “Yes he did. It’s the inverse square law.”

Then you said “The laws of motion did not define the mathematics of gravity.” I said “I never said they did” and I didn’t… I said that Newton gave us the mathematical inverse square law for gravity.

I think that you should deal with the meaning that they are using rather than pretending that they are making an argument based upon the definition you are using.

What meaning were they using? Where did they state their definition? How did I pretend they were making an argument based upon my definition? Some sort of syllogistic illustration would be helpful.

So, the study of gravity is ancient.

That’s very anachronistic. Skim through some Aristotelian physics and see how much it resembles Newtonian physics. Ancient persons may have asked “Why do objects fall?” but they no one until Newton answered gravity.

It was one of the easiest, observable, natural phenomina.

Gravity isn’t observable, though it’s effects are. You know you can’t observe causation either, but you can observe it’s effects (I’m sure that will cause a big hullabaloo). If it was so easy, I wonder why no one figured it out before the 17th century. Things always seem obvious after the fact.

dictionary definition: Gravity, the accelerating tendency of bodies [ITC the ball] toward the center of the earth [thus falling to the ground].

I’m sure this will cause more hullabaloo, but dictionaries aren’t always very good at defining things in disputes. Dictionaries usually aren’t concerned with the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions to a concept, which is what we should be worried about if we want to carefully define a thing and give the criteria by which we are applying the definition.

But a better definition can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary or even TheFreeDictionary.com:

“the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass”

“The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.”

A ball falling to the ground is not gravity, that is an effect of gravity. The “drawing toward” or falling is the effect.

You redifined my use of gravity (see above) and my use of observable.

How did I do that?

Actually, you did the exact opposite. You said, "this is how we are all going to use this word so what you are saying doesn't mean anything."

Can you quote me? No, because I never did that. If you think I implied that, please give an actual argument to that effect rather than simply making the assertion.

You didn't say, "We should rephrase what we are saying to something like...."

Now who is playing semantics? Who cares if I didn’t use that phrase? You’ll have to formulate some argument as to why I should have used those words rather than the ones I did.

I was only concerned with demonstrating what it means for evolution to be a theory according to scientists. If you want to do more than give me uninteresting biographical information about how you would like my statements to be phrased then start giving some arguments in addition to your assertions.

I would much rather talk about the issue at hand, but as you insist.

That’s somewhat amusing. If you would rather talk about “the issue at hand” (whatever you’ve now stipulated that to be), then do so. I’m not twisting your arm. It was your decision to make this another ad hominem discussion about me.

Now I’m just curious as to whether you actually believe that I’m forcing the issue in this direction or if this is just a bad attempt to shrug off responsibility for making me the focus rather than “the topic” (whatever you stipulate that to be).

 

[greatkraw]

Lighten up! A place with "Christian" in its title doesn't have to be the classiest place on the 'Net, but I think it should try to be.

It is not a hypothesis, but a family of hypotheses. I should think that just about none of them have been disproved by the scientific method, although there are a great many that no one talks about anymore. Much of them are pure speculation, and some can be demonstrated over and over again in a laboratory (i.e. nature).

you do not use scientific method to DISPROVE an hypothesis but to prove it

you should have said none of these hypothesis has been proven nor can they be

 

[charisenexcelcis]

The subject at hand is more than just the truth or falsity of evolution. Right now, the subject at hand is whether or not the truth or falsity of evolution is the subject at hand. But you don’t get to simply stipulate that the subject at hand is whatever you want it to be for your ad hominem purposes. The person who opened the thread made the subject Ida. I addressed that subject. Then another commenter brought up the fact that evolution is a theory and because it is a theory can’t be “proven”. I addressed that subject. Then it was said that gravity is not a theory, I addressed that subject. Now you want to turn this into an ad hominem thing against me and so now I’m addressing that subject.
The subject at had is the theory of evolution. Check the title. My post was about what I felt was the weaknesses of macro-evolution.

This all looks rather ironic in light of your earlier comment about being a debate judge.



As I pointed out above, I’m simply responding to the points other people have brought up. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. Apparently you want this thread to be nothing more than statements for evolution or against evolution. Well I don’t find that very reasonable. I added to the discussion of the theory-ness of evolution, that you wished I had rather said something for or against evolution is nothing more than an uninteresting piece of biographical information pertaining to your preferences.
I was one of the people you responded to, so here we are in this conversation.

You seem very concerned about adding to “the discussion” (which you also think you can stipulate to be whatever you want)… Apparently you think this entire diatribe about me is somehow adding to the discussion. That seems odd to me. I’m sure there is no one here that actually cares to read this. In fact I don’t care too much to read this.
You responded to one of my posts, so I answered you.



I’m presenting an argument for the use of the word “theory” in reference to evolution. I did that in response to what someone said about evolution being a theory. I’m sorry if it doesn’t meet your standards of relevance, but I find your two-cents irrelevant. I’d be equally unimpressed if you started telling me that I should have taken a stance on whether cats are better than dogs.
You responded to one of my posts, so I answered you.


I did. See post 30.
No, you put forth the definition of "theory" that you use, you did not suggest a better way of saying it, since the context was obviously using the definition meaning "mere speculation".

You said that you would have responded to the claim “Evolution is a theory because it cannot be proved” with the following:



This looks irrelevant. You appear to be talking about persuading persons to creationism, the comment was about why evolution can’t be proven. Perhaps you could draw it out more.
You asked the question of how I would respond. I responded with a suggestion that what the poster considered "proof" and what a evolutionist might be considered "proof" is two different things and so when approaching the subject, there needs to be a work of the Holy Spirit as well.



The person didn’t say what they meant by theory. They referred to the theory of evolution. I didn’t pretend that they meant anything, I simply pointed out what scientists mean by it.
In the context, it is apparent how they are using the word.


So if a person doesn’t take a position they are automatically playing devil’s advocate? That doesn’t sound reasonable to me. By the way, do you take the position that we will be wearing some sort of footing in heaven, like slippers, or will we be walking around bare-foot? (If you don’t take a position, I’ll accuse you of playing devil’s advocate.)
It's not you minimal response to the prompt that is the problem, it is your number of responses outside the prompt.



Where exactly are you getting this criterion for the Socratic Method?
The Socratic method uses questions, directed at the student, to lead the student to the proper conclusion.

If I only ask you four questions in a row, does that count as the Socratic Method?

Do you always assume that when a person asks multiple questions in a row that they are trying to establish themselves as a teacher?
Depends upon the question. for instance, this series of questions is definitely Socratic because you are not so much trying to find answers as responding to my statements with questions in hope of leading to your foregone conclusion.

Did you consider that maybe I’m asking questions for no other reason than your points are unclear to me or does everything have to have some nefarious motive behind it with you?
I don't think that it is nefarious. I think that it is habitual.


You said he didn’t give us the mathematics of gravity. I said “Yes he did. It’s the inverse square law.”


Then you said “The laws of motion did not define the mathematics of gravity.” I said “I never said they did” and I didn’t… I said that Newton gave us the mathematical inverse square law for gravity.
You are correct. I apologize for my mistake.



What meaning were they using? Where did they state their definition? How did I pretend they were making an argument based upon my definition? Some sort of syllogistic illustration would be helpful.
Where several definitions are possible, context is the first factor in deciding which definition is used. This is particularly true in English.


That’s very anachronistic. Skim through some Aristotelian physics and see how much it resembles Newtonian physics. Ancient persons may have asked “Why do objects fall?” but they no one until Newton answered gravity.
Actually, Newton was following up on Gallileo's comment about gravilty in the light of a sun-centered system. Gravity simply meant weight, so when the ancients were asked, "Why do objects fall?" they answered, "Because of gravity."



Gravity isn’t observable, though it’s effects are. You know you can’t observe causation either, but you can observe it’s effects (I’m sure that will cause a big hullabaloo). If it was so easy, I wonder why no one figured it out before the 17th century. Things always seem obvious after the fact.
Gravity is invisble, but observable.


I’m sure this will cause more hullabaloo, but dictionaries aren’t always very good at defining things in disputes. Dictionaries usually aren’t concerned with the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions to a concept, which is what we should be worried about if we want to carefully define a thing and give the criteria by which we are applying the definition.
This I love. "Dictionaries aren't very good at defining things in disputes."
But a better definition can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary or even TheFreeDictionary.com:

“the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass”

“The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.”

A ball falling to the ground is not gravity, that is an effect of gravity. The “drawing toward” or falling is the effect.
A ball falling to the ground is a observable action, which we call gravity.



How did I do that?
See above.



Can you quote me? No, because I never did that. If you think I implied that, please give an actual argument to that effect rather than simply making the assertion.



Now who is playing semantics? Who cares if I didn’t use that phrase? You’ll have to formulate some argument as to why I should have used those words rather than the ones I did.
And that is exactly the point. We are in a thread on the theory of evolution and instead of discussing evolution, we are discussing what theory means, what observable means, what gravity means, whether dictionaries can be used to define words, etc.
I was only concerned with demonstrating what it means for evolution to be a theory according to scientists. If you want to do more than give me uninteresting biographical information about how you would like my statements to be phrased then start giving some arguments in addition to your assertions.
As I said, you responded to my post, I answered you.



That’s somewhat amusing. If you would rather talk about “the issue at hand” (whatever you’ve now stipulated that to be), then do so. I’m not twisting your arm. It was your decision to make this another ad hominem discussion about me.

Now I’m just curious as to whether you actually believe that I’m forcing the issue in this direction or if this is just a bad attempt to shrug off responsibility for making me the focus rather than “the topic” (whatever you stipulate that to be).

I will continue to respond for as long as you do.

 

[Chris_lemon]

I really hate the animosity of religion towards science, science has done way more for civilization than religion ever will, if it wasn't for us ditching our superstitions and learning how to examine the REAL world then the human race would have perished thousands of years ago.

I think it's time you guys listened to the geniuses that gave us vaccines and aviation and countless other technologies we take for granted. Show these people some respect and don't just dismiss Evolution as a theory, but it accept it for the best answer we have for how we came to be and how we got there.

Just accept, like all of Arch Bishops and Priests that the creation story was just a metaphor that Jesus used to get his point across to a less intelligent civilization, only when Christianity realizes this can it be taken seriously by the scientific community and the public.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I really hate the animosity of religion towards science,

Religion has no animosity towards science. The scientific revolution was made possible by a religious (Christian) worldview. Isaac Newton was motivated by a desire to discover God's rational ordering of the universe. As even the atheist Anthony Gottlieb admits, ""If, like Aristotle, you believe in something like Plato's purpose-filled account of nature, you have a philosophical incentive to dissect things in order to find evidence for such an account in their intricate functioning. But if, like Lucretius, you are mainly concerned to refute superstitious and theological ideas, there is not much point in going out of your way to lift up stones when all you are going to find underneath them is a teeming mass of inexplicably sophisticated phenomena... The same was true to some extent in later, Christian times, when empirical investigations could be glossed as uncovering and thereby glorifying the works of Providence" (The Dream of Reason 217)


The Christian religion at least doesn't have any animosity towards science. On the contrary, it provides motivation to do science. Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.


Of course, Christianity does have animosity to certain theories of science. Theories which may undermine the truth and give man an excuse to worship the creature rather than the creator. But why is that a problem? It would be question begging on your part (assuming what needs to be proved) if you are going to say that if Christianity (or religion) is against some theory of science that it must be against science itself. First you'll need to demonstrate the correctness of the theory.

science has done way more for civilization than religion ever will

This is more question begging. Has science ever solved the problem of sin? Has science made men more peaceful? Has science given us any form of ethics?


Of course, I know that religion has sometimes been used as a tool to do evil, but religion has also given us a standard of morality by which we can deem those abuses evil! Science can never give us such a standard. Science cannot even give you the standard by which you have come on this thread and made these value judgments. Science can't tell you what is beautiful or what is lovely. It can't tell you what you should do or what you shouldn't do.


And what are some things science gave us? Bombs, guns, man-made viruses for genocide, safe abortion (murder) on demand, etc. etc. It all depends on how you want to paint your picture. Since they scientific revolution, are there less murders? Are men more righteous? Does man have more value? On the contrary, many who crusade in the name of science want to take away any value of man. Man is nothing, just a chance product with no actual meaning or purpose in life. If religion gives us nothing more than value in the universe, it has already given us far more than science ever could.

if it wasn't for us ditching our superstitions and learning how to examine the REAL world then the human race would have perished thousands of years ago.

Really? How does that argument go? Was humanity on the brink of extinction prior to the scientific revolution? Hardly. And this line of reasoning is a bit ironic in light of the common atheist argument that religion arose via natural selection because of its survival benefits. If anything, humanity will be helped to extinction by the hand of scientists. Eric Pianka, for example, would like to save earth by releasing an ebola virus to kill of most of humanity.

See here: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html>

I think it's time you guys listened to the geniuses that gave us vaccines and aviation and countless other technologies we take for granted. Show these people some respect and don't just dismiss Evolution as a theory, but it accept it for the best answer we have for how we came to be and how we got there.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm sure all of us would rather listen to the genius who created the heavens and the earth and told us how we got here.

Just accept, like all of Arch Bishops and Priests that the creation story was just a metaphor that Jesus used to get his point across to a less intelligent civilization, only when Christianity realizes this can it be taken seriously by the scientific community and the public.

Of course the nature of the scientific community is always changing. You want us to adopt the popular view today just so we can be "taken seriously" by today's scientific community and then in 100 years when the community looks entirely different you want us to change again so that we can again be taken seriously.


All you mean by being taken seriously by the scientific community is becoming parrots of what ever the scientific community happens to be saying. In that case, Christianity loses it's purpose and its distinctiveness. Christianity becomes useless because it doesn't stand outside of culture or against culture in order to guide culture, it simply stands as a mirror of culture in order to reflect culture.


The truth is, those people who tell us to agree with popular opinion don't want us to do that so that we can be taken seriously, but so that we don't have to be taken seriously. We'll just be regurgitating fairy tales from which you can find whatever meaning you want.

(P.S. Charis, I'll respond to you when I have more time)

 

[greatkraw]

I really hate the animosity of religion towards science, science has done way more for civilization than religion ever will, if it wasn't for us ditching our superstitions and learning how to examine the REAL world then the human race would have perished thousands of years ago.

I think it's time you guys listened to the geniuses that gave us vaccines and aviation and countless other technologies we take for granted. Show these people some respect and don't just dismiss Evolution as a theory, but it accept it for the best answer we have for how we came to be and how we got there.

Just accept, like all of Arch Bishops and Priests that the creation story was just a metaphor that Jesus used to get his point across to a less intelligent civilization, only when Christianity realizes this can it be taken seriously by the scientific community and the public.

Dude, you been indoctrinated by too many fairy stories

The Bible talks about lies masquerading as 'Science falsely so called'

The scientific method is a good tool when objectively applied

 

[Chris_lemon]

It just seems that religious people only bother to kick up a fuss against scientific "theories" (fact) that oppose their doctrine. Religious people will go to any lengths or make up any argument, rational or not in order to try and disprove these human discoveries. Why is this possible? Frankly because science embraces it, science welcomes any criticism as it is all about DISCOVERY and the TRUTH. Religion does not welcome such scrutiny and deflects it by creating a sense of "religious privilege" were people are allowed to go and spread lies to children about the important questions and issues with an immunity from scrutiny or questioning. This is what I oppose and it is not connected to my personal beliefs it just happens to be a matter of principle and respect.

Moreover, I think the way in which science has embraced criticism on Evolution and STILL it is widely accepted as the best possible answer is a credit to its integrity and clarity.

Another point I would like to address is the whole argument of our morality coming from religion and not science. Religion is created by man, therefore the morals (that are a by-product of religion) also come from man. Animals (including humans) have been without organized religion longer then they have been with it and I don't believe for one second that morality was absence before some dude found some stone tablets with the 10 commandments on them (many of which are immoral and outdated anyway) this is just absurd and religion cannot take credit for morality.

 

[greatkraw]

It just seems that religious people only bother to kick up a fuss against scientific "theories" (fact) that oppose their doctrine. Religious people will go to any lengths or make up any argument, rational or not in order to try and disprove these human discoveries. Why is this possible? Frankly because science embraces it, science welcomes any criticism as it is all about DISCOVERY and the TRUTH. Religion does not welcome such scrutiny and deflects it by creating a sense of "religious privilege" were people are allowed to go and spread lies to children about the important questions and issues with an immunity from scrutiny or questioning. This is what I oppose and it is not connected to my personal beliefs it just happens to be a matter of principle and respect.

Moreover, I think the way in which science has embraced criticism on Evolution and STILL it is widely accepted as the best possible answer is a credit to its integrity and clarity.

Another point I would like to address is the whole argument of our morality coming from religion and not science. Religion is created by man, therefore the morals (that are a by-product of religion) also come from man. Animals (including humans) have been without organized religion longer then they have been with it and I don't believe for one second that morality was absence before some dude found some stone tablets with the 10 commandments on them (many of which are immoral and outdated anyway) this is just absurd and religion cannot take credit for morality.

these paragraphs show you have been indoctinated into a world view which bears little resemblance to the reality of things

you have been conned about what the scientific method actually reveals and you have no concept of Biblical Christianity but have willingly embraced a caricature

 

[Chris_lemon]

You may think this, but at least I have the majority of the free-thinking, culturally developed world on my side of the argument

Also, wow....your use of the word "indoctrinated" is ironic at best.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

It just seems that religious people only bother to kick up a fuss against scientific "theories" (fact) that oppose their doctrine.

Of course they do. What's wrong with that? "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5).

Religious people will go to any lengths or make up any argument, rational or not in order to try and disprove these human discoveries.

This is just more question begging. No one will be convinced by the charge that they are making up arguments or going to any length (supposedly you mean irrational lengths) until you give a demonstration.

Why is this possible? Frankly because science embraces it, science welcomes any criticism as it is all about DISCOVERY and the TRUTH.

Then scientists should read the Bible more, because that's all about truth too and it holds the most important truths for mankind.

But the idea that scientists (it's pointless to talk about "science" in such a fashion) embrace any criticism is laughable. Did you read my first post here? I quoted Lewontin to the opposite effect. I'll reproduce it again here:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science*in spite*of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*in spite*of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,*in spite*of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our*a priori*adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.​

"Science" in some idealized form may be open to all criticisms, but so is Christianity. Christianity has nothing to hide or fear, being grounded in the revelation of God.

Scientists are just as biased and dogmatic as any religionists.

Religion does not welcome such scrutiny and deflects it by creating a sense of "religious privilege"

Of course, you aren't taking into account that Christianity is based on revelation from God. You're right, God has no challengers and no one can criticize him or find fault in him, try as they might. That doesn't make him or his infallible revelation less certain and it doesn't mean it is in an epistemically worse position that science.

First you're going to have to argue why we should think that God, the source of all truth, should be open to scrutiny and criticisms.

Naturally, Christians are open to having their understanding of God's revelation criticized. But that's a different subject and a more complex one. For example, we have to establish the proper criterion by which one can legitimately criticize a reading of God's Word. And the fact that some Christians don't allow their understanding of God's revelation to be criticized, because they assume that their understanding is God's understanding, isn't much of a point, since scientists can be just as stubborn and have just as much a god-complex.

were people are allowed to go and spread lies to children about the important questions and issues with an immunity from scrutiny or questioning. This is what I oppose and it is not connected to my personal beliefs it just happens to be a matter of principle and respect.

The problem is you're describing a situation that I doubt anyone is buying. You're assuming that certain things are lies spread to children, but you haven't identified what those lies are or how they are lies. You're taking your entire position for granted and trying to offer criticisms from that vantage point. This won't convince anyone who doesn't already share your vantage point. In which case, you're just giving a pep-speech to your choir.

Moreover, I think the way in which science has embraced criticism on Evolution and STILL it is widely accepted as the best possible answer is a credit to its integrity and clarity.

Scientists have not taken criticism of evolution well at all. Trying to bad any opposing viewpoint from being taught doesn't sound very open minded to me.

Another point I would like to address is the whole argument of our morality coming from religion and not science. Religion is created by man, therefore the morals (that are a by-product of religion) also come from man.

Well you haven't given us any reason to accept the claim that religion is created by man or that morals are created by man. But if they are, then they aren't actually morals at all. They are simply personal preferences.

Animals (including humans) have been without organized religion longer then they have been with it

What's your proof of the claim that humans have been without religion (I don't see why whether it is "organized" or not is relevant) longer than they have been with it. For example, when do you suppose humanity started and when do you suppose that they became religious?

and I don't believe for one second that morality was absence before some dude found some stone tablets with the 10 commandments on them (many of which are immoral and outdated anyway) this is just absurd and religion cannot take credit for morality.

You just described us as having isn't morality but personal preferences. You said morality comes from man. In that case, morality didn't exist before man existed. So morality, whatever you think that is, cannot be something objective. It exists only in so far as the opinions of men exist. So you want to assert that religion cannot take credit for morality, yet what you've described can't even properly be called morality!

According to the Christian worldview, morality didn't start with the 10 Commandments, that's another assumption on your part. They started with God and were given to man from the very beginning of his creation.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

You may think this, but at least I have the majority of the free-thinking, culturally developed world on my side of the argument

Also, wow....your use of the word "indoctrinated" is ironic at best.

Romans 3:4 Let God be true though every one were a liar...

And whether or not such persons are "free-thinking" is disputable. For example, read the Lewontin quote that I have given twice now. That doesn't sound free thinking to me.

Here is a quote by another supposedly "free thinker," Christopher Hitchens: “You could be an atheist and wish that the belief was true. You could; I know some people who do,” he says. “An antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who’s very relieved that there’s no evidence for this proposition.”

<http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/nothing_sacred.html>

The whole "free thinking" thing is really just a delusion and, yes, a product of secular indoctrination.

As for "culturally developed" I have no idea what you mean by that. If a society builds skyscrapers and has a complex economy they must have a better grasp of the truth??

 

[Chris_lemon]

So in what way does religion separate "morality" from "personal preferences"? A supernatural dictator? lovely.

Also, of course morality was absent before man. Just have to look at the behavior of animals to see that.

My point is, life on earth has predated religious scripture substantially.