What science says:
The Large Hadron Collider has succeeded in recreating a miniature version of the Big Bang by smashing stripped-down lead atoms together.
The reaction created temperatures a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun, which have not been reached since the first billionths of a second following the Big Bang.
This was expected to cause atomic particles such as protons and neutrons to melt, producing a “soup” of matter in a state previously unseen on Earth
The reaction created temperatures a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun, which have not been reached since the first billionths of a second following the Big Bang.
This was expected to cause atomic particles such as protons and neutrons to melt, producing a “soup” of matter in a state previously unseen on Earth
What the Bible would say:
In the beginning, there was light.
You could follow that up with, "... hotter and brighter than the sun." But the Bible (especially in the first 10 chapters of Genesis) often kept it short and sweet.
By the way, everything after that point is post Big Bang, technically. But it's often lumped into the whole shebang because it all only follows if the premise of a big bang is accepted.
not quite... what I really meant could more neatly be summed up as "if the current scientific consensus were true" - because it includes big bang theory plus the theory of evolution plus, apparently, something else Darryl mentioned which I don't remember.
ReplyDeletehow about, "the current scientific consensus regarding the beginning of things." (things would include the laws of physics as well as planets and stars, and plants and animals and people, etc.)
ReplyDeleteyes, that sounds about right. (the beginning of things - kind of like Genesis? ;))
ReplyDeleteAbiogenesis, or biopoesis, which regards how organic chemicals (hydrocarbons, nitrates, etc.) came together and formed self-replicating molecular structures. It's after this even that evolution would come into play as, once we have molecules that can reproduce, they can start adapting to their environment.
ReplyDeleteI am currently reading The Cosmos and the Creator by Hugh Ross. He sure gives plenty of evidence for a big bang. Good book but too technical for me even though comments on the cover say it is in terms the average person can understand, I must be below average!
ReplyDeleteI think it's very hard for scientists to make something like cosmology accessible to most people. There really are just too many concepts to it that require a more-than-passing-understanding of quantum physics, which is something that's pretty counter-intuitive. Such as the idea of energy and mass being related by Einstein's equation (E=mc2): people have seen it, but who among laypeople really get the implications of it?
ReplyDeleteI'd recommend something like The Blind Watchmaker as a great book for laypeople to help them understand something like evolution without having to know intimate details on alleles and variation and all.
i would guess by the title that the author is a theist?
ReplyDeletei think i meant deist.
ReplyDeleteNeither. Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
ReplyDeleteso why does he mention a watchmaker?
ReplyDeleteThe title of the book is based on the argument against evolution that uses the watchmaker analogy, which I hope we're all familiar:
ReplyDeletePut all the components for a watch into a bag and start to shake it. How long before a working watch is formed?
The general thesis of the book is that there's no need for a watchmaker for evolution to have occurred; i.e., evolution is a unplanned response to selective pressure present in the environment. He demonstrates through clear examples how, at best, if there's any kind of watchmaker involved in evolution, the watchmaker is working completely blind (IOW, just throwing things together in the hopes of things working).
blind rather than experimenting.
ReplyDeleteWelllllll, those who contend that evolution was guided by a watchmaker presume the watchmaker knows what he's doing.
ReplyDeletebut God doesn't always do things the way we think he should.
ReplyDeleteI think Dawkins's approach was to not presume anything, but instead to look solely at the evidence and results. He looks at how things progressed (multiple, similar eye developments), and also where the progression went wrong (the connection of the optic nerve in humans which creates a huge blind spot in our vision).
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Dawkins sincerely intended not to assume anything, but humans being humans, we have basic assumptions lurking about in our heads even unconsciously and these affect the way we interpret evidence.
ReplyDeleteso he looks at how things progressed and at where things seem to have gone wrong, and since he regards the Bible as a whole load of nonsense he will not look at this explanation: in the beginning God made the world and saw that it was good, but then man sinned and the whole world around him was affected by it. things changed drastically.
But your own answer is just as flawed as his, then, since you're making similar assumptions. At least his are based on scientific reason and not preconceived notions.
ReplyDelete(snip a long response that would distract from Meg's post)
hey, I never claimed not to be making assumptions. but dawkins can't prove that my assumptions are wrong, so by ignoring this possibility he is making an assumption.
ReplyDeletewe all have preconceived notions. if there's one thing i've learned from Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything it's that scientists are just as likely to screw up due to preconceived notions as anyone else. in fact, preconceived notions can grandly misdirect a course of study for several decades (or longer). even when one scientist (or whatever you want to call them from back in the 1700 or 1800 or 1900's, depending on what we're talking about) shouts out that everyone's on the wrong track, that person generally doesn't last long enough to finally see the rest of the scientists come around to the more reasonable way of thinking. ether, and the iguanodon's thumb being on his nose, and valuing diversity of species are all classic examples of that.
ReplyDeleteif you haven't read the book, btw, i highly recommend it. i've been listening to it on CD and the reader is quite good.
I think it's more a case of Dawkins presenting objective evidence and then presenting scientific reasoning behind it. No assumptions except that the scientific method is the most rational approach to take WRT exploring the world.
ReplyDeleteOh, please don't get me wrong: I'm in no way suggesting that scientists all agree. Quite the contrary, consensus is not a prerequisite for science. If that were the case then quantum theory, Faraday's tests, heck even Rutherford's and then Bohr's atomic theories would never have gotten off the ground. Scientific learning has always come from scientists pushing the boundaries of knowledge to find where things break and then learn why it broke.
ReplyDeleteA great example is Newton. Who would say that Newton was wrong? His work regarding gravity is absolutely obvectively verifiable. He said that F=ma where F=force, m=mass and a=acceleration. There's no room for opinion in this.
Except that in the early 20th century an upstart not-even-a-scientist named Einstein said Newton, after 200 years, had it wrong, Newton was missing a factor in his equation: F=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)2)ma where v=velocity of the object and c=speed of light. And scientists rejected him out of hand....until experimental evidence proved Einstein right.
The same can be said across the board for science: there are always new discovers and ideas that disturb previous understanding. But, contrary to what others have said, that is by no means a rational reason to reject scientific discovery at all. Science advances based on those discoveries, not stops.
I beg to differ. I don't see in what way it's more rational to assume God's non-existence than to assume his existence; or to assume the Bible isn't true than to assume that it is.
ReplyDeletea completely rational and objective approach would be to say: there is more than one explanation. I, Dawkins, think explanation A is more credible because.... however, I have not proved that explanation B is incorrect.
instead of which he just doesn't bother with explanation B - pretending that it is not there.
That's because you're not taking a skeptical approach to things, which is why I say you have far more assumptions involved in your conclusions. You're presuming that your beliefs are beyond question, and therefore reject anything that disagrees with them (which you said in a previous thread regarding evolution).
ReplyDelete(edit)
The onus of proof is always on the positive claimant. You assert your god exists, then it is on your shoulders to show that proof in any rational discussion. It's irrational to accept, or expect others to accept, an unsupported assertion.
And, honestly, a rational approach is to say, "There is one causal explanation for an event, so we should find out what that explanation is". As for what you call explanation B: science doesn't deal in the metaphysical.
hmmm...
ReplyDeleteYou're presuming that your beliefs are beyond question, and therefore reject anything that disagrees with them
no, I am not presuming that my beliefs are beyond question - all I said was that Dawkins hasn't proved that my beliefs are wrong, therefore he has no rational grounds for ignoring the possibility that they are right.
You assert your god exists, then it is on your shoulders to show that proof in any rational discussion. It's irrational to accept, or expect others to accept, an unsupported assertion.
no, I don't have to prove it - I would if I were to demand that others take it as fact, but I am not asking others to take it as fact, simply to acknowledge that this is a theory which has not been disproved.
(Meg, do tell me if/when you want me to shut up already.)
ReplyDeleteI was including your other statements on this topic in my response.
ReplyDeleteno, I don't have to prove it - I would if I were to demand that others take it as fact, but I am not asking others to take it as fact, simply to acknowledge that this is a theory which has not been disproved.
You said that "a completely rational and objective approach would be to say: there is more than one explanation". This presumes that your basis for such a claim of "more than one explanation" (the existence of some god) is an accepted premise. So you are asking others to take it as fact. Otherwise you wouldn't be expecting it to be treated like a valid theory.
i think people look at science as it stands right here and now (or their view of how it stands right here and now) and they say, "this is it. this is verifiable and true and you either agree with it or you're a right wing fundamentalist moron." but as you just pointed out, and i mentioned before that, scientists disagree with each other all the time. the snapshot of what we think science has discovered and determined for certain right now is probably not even close to being the complete picture. it might be on the right track, but if you take your first step in a twenty mile long journey, you can take that step in the right direction and still be very far away.
ReplyDeletei agree.
ReplyDeletei find it seriously ironic that you're assuming you know how skeptical meirav is being and then say that she's the one making more assumptions.The onus of proof is always on the positive claimant. You assert your god exists, then it is on your shoulders to show that proof in any rational discussion.scientists make far more positive claims than some other's, such as creationists, makes. the creationist might say something like, "God created the world." Then they use their strongest basis of knowledge as proof positive of that statement. Very open and shut case. The Bible says it, therefore it is. There's no requirement that they need to use your basis of knowledge to prove a point such as that. The scientist, on the other hand, might say something like, "Homo Sapiens are not related to Sinanthropus pekinensis." The scientist, using their strongest basis of knowledge (which in this case would be the fossil record) can not prove that statement using their very own basis of knowledge! the weight is definitely heavier on the scientist. Even if every fossil that exists is ever found, there's still the possibility that there won't be enough to prove that statement. But does their lack of ability to prove the statement mean it's false? Certainly not.
ReplyDeletekeep chatting. i'm certainly fine with it.
ReplyDeleteif i'm away from this thread for a bit it's only because it takes a bit more thought and i'm dealing with processing nathan stuff instead.
you're assuming that that is the only other explanation that she could be referring to. do you really think there are only two explanations? or even just one explanation? your example of Newton's formula is an argument against your own argument.
ReplyDeleteDo you also accept, or do you reject, the various native american, polynesian, indian or other beliefs and sacred writings?
ReplyDeleteThe point, as I said, is that to it's irrational to accept an unsupported assertion when having a discussion. When someone introduces something like belief without objective support then the discussion becomes irrational, since belief is not evidence or support for a statement.
so you're saying we should chuck any belief in string theory or quantum physics or non-quantum physics as well?
ReplyDeleteAnd, more importantly, that scientists don't agree about everything doesn't mean that the data is wrong or that theories are invalid. People reject evolution for such weak reasoning as "well, not all scientists agree", which is flawed reasoning on the part of the person and shows a lack of understanding of science and how it works.
ReplyDeleteSo, yeah, it's progress and disagreement does not mean everything known is wrong.
Irony is so ironic isn't it? :P
ReplyDeleteI wasn't saying I was without assumptions: instead, I was more pointing out that she was dismissing Dawkins for what she said are assumptions and was just using that same logic to dismiss her as well. ;)
scientists make far more positive claims than some other's, such as creationists, makes.
They also provide far more support for those claims.
The scientist, using their strongest basis of knowledge (which in this case would be the fossil record) can not prove that statement using their very own basis of knowledge!
Why can't they?
the weight is definitely heavier on the scientist
Why? Why shouldn't the weight be EQUAL for both the scientist and the creationist? Why does the one get an Easy Button while the other has to do heavy lifting?
Not an argument against: the example of Newton's formula was to show that science never assumes it has it all wrapped up or that there's nothing left to learn, and that disagreement in science is how science advances.
ReplyDeletewhich is exactly what i said.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you reject quantum or newtonian physics? Those are verifiable and explored disciplines with a wealth of experimental evidence. String theory is also a well explored (and still growing, given its relative age compared to QM and Newtonian theory) discipline with a growing body of objective evidence.
ReplyDeleteI was emphasizing, at least for my benefit. ;)
ReplyDeleteheck if i know. it's the scientists that argue about it, not me. has something to do with migration patterns, bone structure and probably some amount of racism as well.
ReplyDeleteexactly! so why are you giving meirav the Hard Button?
ReplyDeletedork. *eyerolll*
ReplyDeleteCan you cite a source where scientists say they can't use the body of knowledge from paleontology and related disciplines to support the conclusion?
ReplyDeleteBTW, morphology, placement in geological strata, etc. are how science pulls together data to formulate and then support a hypothesis. DNA isn't the only path to establish ancestry.
dude, don't look at me. it's scientists, over time, who have these arguments amongst themselves. all i'm saying is that they don't all believe each other. eventually the majority of scientists seem to come around to a similar way of thinking. but they certainly disagree with each other a lot as well. it all depends on what they Believe to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI'm not. I'm giving her the same button as I give myself. That it might be relatively harder for her to use it than me is another matter entirely.
ReplyDelete:)
it was one of the points of contention among paleontologists that bill bryson mentioned in his book, a short history of nearly everything. at least, i think i picked the right disputed hominid.
ReplyDeletevery good book, btw. i recommend. (didn't i say that already in here?)
:-P
ReplyDeleteI think you might be misinterpreting things in that regard, then. QM was initially rejected by scientists in the late 19th century since it was so far removed from how they understand the world. But, since the early 20th century, when a growing body of evidence showed it to be correct, that those who rejected it came to accept it. No physicist today says QM is wrong or invalid.
ReplyDeleteI would also say that it's not about what they believe so much as it is about what the body of evidence supports that is the factor. Even Einstein for years rejected the idea of an expanding universe, but eventually realized reality doesn't change to suit our desired outcome.
Can you cite his reference then? Sadly, when I was a theist I repeated a lot of similar arguments against biology that turned out to be based on someone's mistaken understanding (and a few times on outright deception) regarding the science behind it.
ReplyDeleteAh, give over. After over six years, you know me at least in this regard. :D
ReplyDeletehi. I'm just coming back to this post and finding 25 new comments, so forgive me if I'm saying stuff that has already been addressed, it's going to take me a while to catch up here.
ReplyDeleteI think I see where we've misunderstood each other and I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough - when I said that it would be rational and objective to say "there is more than one explanation" I should have added the word "possible" before "explanation". I was not suggesting that Dawkins should be embracing the biblical explanation as fact, just as a possible explanation, which has not been disproved.
I really do not expect anyone to take these things as fact, in the sense of something that has been proved by scientific means. God's existence is something one can only believe by faith - I may offer you supportive evidence, but proof? never.
hope this helps clarify what I am saying and what I'm not. and thank you for keeping me on my toes!
it would be irrational if I were to enter into discussion with someone who doesn't believe in God and say to them: you should accept that evolution isn't true because this theory doesn't agree with what the Bible says.
ReplyDeletehowever, I see nothing irrational in stating: I am a person who believes in God and believes the Bible to be true and therefore when I realised that the theory of evolution doesn't agree with what the Bible says, I began to review my attitude to this theory.
it would be irrational for me to suggest that other people, who do not accept my basic premise, should accept my conclusions on the grounds of my basic premise. but it is not irrational for me to state that this premise is part of the grounds on which I base my conclusions.
It definitely does, and thank you for clarifying it for me. I think I see more clearly what you were trying to say. :)
ReplyDeleteNow, let me ask you this: where do you draw the line on those "possible explanation(s)"? For example, like what I asked Meg, do you also include the Hindu, various Native American, Polynesian and other genesis stories into the mix and treat them all equally to your and Dawkins's theories?
right. thus was my point. and there's stuff today not everyone agrees on. i'm just not enough into science to know exactly what it is. what's fresh in my mind is all the controversies in the book i just finished. the point is, people held beliefs that determined what they considered to be right and true. these people that held these beliefs were scientists. we all have beliefs that we base our opinions of what is true and what is not upon. i'm sure it happens just as much today as it did a hundred years ago.
ReplyDeletewould you please stop agreeing with me in a way that seems like you're arguing against me? it's really rather maddening.
i listened to it on CD. there are no footnotes on a CD.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if it seems that way. But what I'm trying to get across here with your question about QM is that the disagreement was over decades ago: there's nobody disagreeing with quantum theory since at the last the 1950s. So I'm not sure why you asked me if I'd throw it out.
ReplyDeleteI just googled "sinanthropus pekinensis" and see that it's one of the yarns I mentioned that I had repeated as well when I was a theist. The controversy and inability to study them scientifically was due to the fossils being lost for a few years during WWII and there only being casts of the fragments to study. In deference to the person I read and the author you've read there are newer fragments for the same species (homo erectus pekinensis) found and studied.
ReplyDeleteSo this is not a case of scientists basing theory on their opinions, but instead seems to be of an author not being thorough in fact checking his claims.
it was an example. i'm sorry if it didn't make sense to you. since it doesn't seem to work as an example for you because you're caught in a specific time and place, then please chuck it out.
ReplyDeleteHaha. Maybe if it were in the context of "Back in the 1920s, would you have tossed quantum physics" it would have been clearer to me.
ReplyDeleteA more contemporary example might be: "do you accept or rejects theories regarding quantum gravity?" That's a theory that's had some off and on traction so far as I know. And, from my knowledge of gravity and QM, I would generally reject the theory since gravity doesn't show any properties of coming in discrete packets.
I'm not in a position to make an informed comment on those other genesis stories that you mention. But how about we go back to my initial comment on this thread and why I made it -
ReplyDeleteyou mentioned Dawkins' book, in which (as far as I understood) he attempts to refute a particular argument - the "intelligent design" argument, which claims that from looking at the world and all that is in it we can see that this can't have just happened by accident (I'm not, for the moment, arguing this myself, just stating what the position is that Dawkins is arguing against). The name of the book refers to the watchmaker metaphor which has been used in this argument, and Dawkins (as far as I understood) is arguing that if there really was a "watchmaker" then he must have been blind, because...
because of what? because of all the stuff that's gone wrong, all the bits in the watch that don't work properly, that don't seem to be designed very well.
what I was trying to say is this: if that is his refutation of the "intelligent design" argument, then he has not successfully refuted it, because there is a coherent alternative explanation for the evidence he's looking at: the explanation being that yes, there was a watchmaker and yes, he did know what he was doing, but then something happened which drastically changed the design of the watch, and this watch has never been the same since. the watch still shows signs of the cleverness of the watchmaker, but it also has a lot of stuff wrong with it. it has been spoiled.
What you're calling a "coherent alternative explanation" sounds more like an attempt at rationalizing the situation. To fulfill this alternative explanation, you're assuming (to use a single example) that, prior to sin, the human eye was perfectly wired; i.e., the optic nerve connected from behind the eyeball and didn't come through back of the eye, forming the blind spot, and that the cornea was not so loosely connected that it can easily be detached, and that all animals had the same eyeball placement.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the objective evidence for this?
If it's truly an alternative explanation, then there has to be some supporting evidence or reasoning beyond assumptions based on one interpretation of what the bible says. Otherwise, you have to admit that you're making a huge assumption that things were "drastically changed".
But, if you cannot show any evidence to support this, than you'll have to concede that the design was, at best, flawed from the very beginning since you cannot show it was ever otherwise. And that casts a poor light on any proposed designer. Or, as Dawkins describes there was no design involved and what we have is simply the result of a very, very long process of adaptation to surroundings and nothing more.
(ugh, editing since I didn't think to add this part until after saving)
Now, for the flip side, regarding evolution, we see evidence for adaptation for things such as eyes in many different places. Multiple eye formations are seen in various phyla, including those that have no eyes at all. We see everything from species that have only light sensitive cells, to rudimentary eyes, eyes with the ability to focus on distance or which have a wider range of vision (the difference between predators and prey), single and multiple optic arrangments, optic nerves attached optimally or poorly, optimal for night vision or for color or contrast, and more. And, the big one, eyes that are pretty much useless vestigial organs present and wasting biologial resources but inoperative.
All in all, evidence supports Dawkins conclusion. All without preconceived notions but instead by accepting the evidence as it is.
huh? if I can't show evidence to support this, then I have to concede that I can't prove it - that's all. (and I have no problem with that)
ReplyDeleteif someone wants to prove that the design was, at best, flawed from the beginning, then they're going to have to find a way of proving that what I'm saying can't have happened. it is not good enough to say "we haven't seen evidence to support it, therefore we reject it" - just because X has not been proved (and possibly even can't be proved), that's not proof that X is incorrect. lack of evidence may make it less probable in your eyes but it doesn't make it impossible.
(btw, for all I know there may be evidence for some of these things, I really don't know. there are scientists who have looked into this stuff and know a lot more, but I'm afraid science has never grabbed me so I tend to hear the stuff they say and think "wow, that's interesting" and then forget it two minutes later.)
Sorry, it's absolutely rational to say exactly that. Why should any theory be entertained if there's no supporting evidence for it?
ReplyDeleteMind you, I'm not saying "lack of proof is proof of lack". I'm saying that, without proof, it's only rational to reject any assertion as unsupported.
As for possible/probable, that's an interesting thing to talk about given where my current class is going now (discussions on entropy). If you were to look at just the energy principle (fundamentally, E=mc2), then there is no reason why a ball sitting on a tabletop shouldn't spontaneously jump up off of the table and start bouncing. With all of the kinetic energy (Kint) within the ball and the table, there's no reason that some portion of that energy should come together at some point at the spot where both the table and the ball touch and turn into translational kinetic energy (Ktran). This doesn't violate the principle at all.
That is, until we consider entropy. For any set of atoms bigger than a nanoparticle, there are so many possible ways that energy can go that, while it's possible that the energy could fall into that particular state and make the ball jump into the air, the probability of it happening is so remotely miniscule as to be effectively impossible.
The point being: while it may not seem to violate any rules, something can still be considered unlikely enough to be impossible. So in light of that, it's also perfectly logical to reject any assertion without supporting evidence.
While being forced into slave labor by Christene today (we're getting ready for family coming for Thanksgiving) I thought on this and came up with what I hope is a decent analogy:
ReplyDeleteThink of scientists as police detectives and scientific research as working on a criminal investigation. Do you think it's logical for the police to spend time investigating people regarding the crime for which there is no evidence to support including them? How about if there's one person (or even some group) who claim they "just know" (believe) that person to be responsible for the crime? How about if there's then evidence to indicate that not only was the person in question not involved, but that the crime occurred in some totally different way?
How about when there's evidence to suggest that some crime occurred in way X, should the prosecutor be required to also explain all of those unsupported ways to the jury? Or is it a waste of time and resources to spend on fruitless endeavors for which there's nothing more than someone's opinion?
oh, an analogy - goodie, I love analogies, they're such fun!
ReplyDeleteso, here are the various thoughts that spring to my mind as a result - in no particular order:
police time and resources are limited and therefore the police do have to make decisions based on probability - and that probability is going to be based on stuff they have learned from experience, and, interestingly, I would think that they would have learned to treat their hunches with respect because I'm pretty sure a good detective does tend to have good hunches. but that's not my main point, that's just a little comment in passing. generally, yes, they do have to decide which possible explanations to investigate and which ones to ignore. (and sometimes it turns out that the one they ignored was actually the one that would have led to the answer...)
so the police choose which avenues to explore, and let's say that they do find a suspect that they really think is the one who's done it, and they have gathered all sorts of evidence. what next? there's a court with a judge and jury who look at this evidence and try and work out whether the case is watertight - has the prosecutor proved beyond reasonable doubt that this suspect really did do it? (or in this case, that nobody did it...)
so, say dawkins is standing there in court and saying: members of the jury, I put it to you that the universe was not made by an intelligent designer. I have shown you evidence to support the theory that the universe just happened by accident; and I have not found any evidence to support the opposing theory.
has he proved beyond reasonable doubt that the opposing theory is wrong? no, he hasn't. the opposing theory is still live and kicking and unrefuted.
sure, I do not expect Dawkins to suddenly decide to accept this opposing theory just because I and a whole load of other people say this is how we reckon it all happened. nor do I expect you, Darryl, to suddenly decide that - the only way a person can reach the conclusion I have reached is through God's intervention. however, I would expect both you and Dawkins to see that the theory I am suggesting has not been refuted, and not to try and tell me that just because I haven't proved it, I ought to reject it.
I thought you were saying "lack of proof is proof of lack" when you said:
ReplyDelete"But, if you cannot show any evidence to support this, than you'll have to concede that the design was, at best, flawed from the very beginning since you cannot show it was ever otherwise."
Imagine unlimited time and budget. That part wasn't as important as the emphasis on following paths that lead to a result as opposed to follow a path just because someone feels/believes/wants it to result in something.
ReplyDeletehas he proved beyond reasonable doubt that the opposing theory is wrong?
That wasn't the thesis of the book, to disprove intelligent design. The book demonstrates that the evidence shows that things occurred due to what he termed an "arms race" between organisms and their environment (selective pressure, predator/prey responses, environmental catastrophes). ID only gets mention in the title and the preface where he talks about how some have suggested life was designed and that evidence shows a decided lack of design.
I would expect both you and Dawkins to see that the theory I am suggesting has not been refuted, and not to try and tell me that just because I haven't proved it, I ought to reject it.
Well, honestly, this and other discussions should never be about converting the other side. ;)
My goal here isn't to persuade you away from your beliefs. I have no interest in that. My responses have only been triggered by your statement before that you've rejected evolution based on it not agreeing with the bible and because scientists don't agree with each other due to their having assumptions about what should have occurred, primarily the latter. What I'm hoping to show is that, if you feel that scientists are wrong because you believe them to have assumptions and reject anything that disagrees with them, then you're equally as wrong since you're fundamental assumption (reality must agree with your biblical views) has made you reject valid science for no other reason than it disagrees with that religious view (scientists disagreeing was something else I tried to show is not a Bad Thing(tm) but is an essential part of growing scientific knowledge, and it's important to realize that while they disagree on specific points, the general thesis of science is accepted based upon objective evidence).
Or, to put it more bluntly, evolution in particular is not a debated topic in biology: it's an accepted theory that underlies quite a large portion of medical science. Where people disagree is on specific points, like punctuated equilibrium verses progressive adaptation and the relationships between some species. Evolution as a whole is not a point of disagreement among scientists.
No, that's why I said that you'd have to admit that "at best" it was a poor design if it was designed. I wasn't saying it was proven wrong: I was saying that if it's designed at all then it was done by a very, very poor engineer since the design is fundamentally horribly inefficient and broken. From an adaptive perspective, it's "good enough". But if it's the product of an artisan then it's an example of bad work.
ReplyDeleteand what I have been trying to say is: no, it is not an example of bad work - the initial work was proclaimed by God to be "very good", it was spoiled later.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why we seem to be going round in circles here, there must be something I'm not stating clearly enough but I can't see what it might be :(
maybe this is where our misunderstanding comes from - because what I said on the other thread about why I rejected evolution was just a brief, sketchy comment in answer to your question there. I was not trying to give a full explanation for my views on evolution.
ReplyDeletenor was I attempting to do that here on this thread - I was just trying to show where I think Dawkins is missing an important point.
accepted by many - not by all scientists. there are scientists who reject this theory.
ReplyDeleteWe're going in circles due to you not being able to cite an example of what "very good" meant. Since we only have examples of bad design, there's not to support your claim of good design.
ReplyDeleteSuch as...? What scientists, working in biology, have rejected evolution?
ReplyDeleteI put the "working in biology" portion in there because there have been a few scientists, working in unrelated disciplines, who have rejected it due to religious belief but who are not authorities on biology. An astronomer, for example, rejecting evolution theory is not a valid example since he is not an expert in that field, despite his education in some other science.
And, also, be sure that when you say "reject" you mean they have totally disavowed evolution theory and aren't just arguing against different pieces, such as the debate around punctuated equilibrium and similar mechanisms.
no. we're going round in circles because you continue to expect me to try and prove the alternative explanation I offered, even though I'm pretty sure I said that I don't believe it's possible to prove it, and I have not asked you to treat it as though it has been proved - just to accept that it has not been proved wrong.
ReplyDeleteany evidence that I would try to offer you, you'd find some other way of explaining it - you're looking at the world through the eyes of the theory of evolution (and big bang theory, and that other stuff you mentioned) and anything that I would call "well designed" you would regard as a result of many generations of evolution. I'm not here to try and persuade you that I'm right - just to show that it is not irrational to hold the view that I hold, given that I do believe in the Bible and therefore take seriously what it says. there is an alternative explanation to the one you take as gospel truth - I can't prove to you that it's true, but neither can you prove to me that it isn't.
I don't know. If I find out I'll come back to you. All I know is that there are people from a science background who say evolution theory is wrong, I've heard a couple of them speak but I don't remember what their fields of expertise were.
ReplyDeleteAnd now that you've said that, we can bring the discussion to a close.
ReplyDeleteThe reason your "coherent alternative explanation" (your words) is not considered scientific, and why Dawkins wouldn't include it and why people like me would not accept it being taught in schools, is because it's not scientific since it's unfalsifiable. You admit that even you believe it can't be proven, so how would that ever be treated as science?
What you're doing there (only believing what you want to believe and ignoring or rejecting anything that disagrees with that premise) is the same as what you've accused scientists of doing. Doesn't that mean that, by your own standard, you're just as guilty of intellectual dishonesty as those scientists if that's what they were actually doing? How is it knowledge to say "I believe it and no objective facts can change it"?
My point is: science is about knowledge, not belief. About facts and not desires. And about truly seeking knowledge, not protecting dogma. If science finds some theory to be wrong, it's thrown out. Science doesn't hand pick facts to support theories and ignore what violates them: when theories are violated, they're discarded. I'll again point to Rutherford, to Einstein, to Maxwell and Faraday, and say that while they were initially seen as crazy or strange theories, when the facts showed the preceeding knowledge to be incomplete or wrong, that knowledge was modified in favor of a closer understanding of reality and truth.
Science is to learn where we're wrong and correct it, not to protect what we thought was right.
And, again, it's not my job to prove your "theory" wrong: it's your job to prove that it's right. I'm not sure why you keep saying I can't prove it, like that's somehow proof of some validity...
I look forward to hearing about biologists who don't accept what is the underlying theory of their field. Kind of like computer scientists who would reject Maxwell's equations, really... :)
ReplyDeleteeureka! I think I finally get what's going on here, why I have felt like we're talking different languages or something... it's not different languages, so much as not agreeing about what game we're playing and what the rules are. a bit like if you were playing a game of baseball and I turned up with a tennis racket and tried to hit your ball with my tennis racket. you wouldn't be interested in whether or not I can get the ball to wherever it is that they're supposed to go in baseball (next base? sorry, baseball is totally outside of my cultural background) - you'd just be totally perplexed as to what on earth a tennis racket was doing there - it doesn't belong, it's not how this game is played.
ReplyDeleteit seems to me that you have been trying to play a game called "being scientific" whereas I have assumed we're playing "let's philosophise about stuff" and the rules of these two games are different. in the "being scientific" game, any statement that is not "falsifiable" doesn't count - no matter how true it might be - scientists just don't bother with those things. scientists are concerned only with the stuff that is "falsifiable" - that sort of stuff can be presented as a scientific theory, and the more evidence they can present to back up this theory, the more seriously they take it. so seriously at times, that they treat it as though it's definitely true and anyone who says otherwise is a complete moron being "unscientific".
so, here's me, a person who has never been into science, just looking at this from the outside and philosophising about it. I see an argument presented by some people, let's call them Group A, who say: we don't buy the theory of evolution because from what we see around us we think it seems obvious that all this stuff didn't just happen at random, there must have been an intelligent designer. I then see a guy who we'll call RD who argues against Group A's argument, saying: no, based on what we see around us it isn't obvious that there was a designer, because there is so much that's wonky, if there was a designer he wasn't doing a particularly brilliant job.
this is the point where I walk in and offer a counter-argument to RD, saying: RD claims that the wonkiness of stuff is evidence that if there was a designer, he can't have been very good at it, therefore what Group A are saying can't be true; but I say, the wonkiness of stuff is not evidence that if there was a designer he wasn't very good at it - that is only one possible theory to explain why there is so much wonkiness - there is another possible theory, which is that there was a very good designer who made everything perfectly but then something drastic happened which spoiled his work, and this is why it all seems very wonky now.
at which point you come in saying: get your tennis racket off this baseball pitch. you're offering an unscientific argument. and I say: sorry, I don't see why the unscientificness of this argument makes it irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not RD's argument holds water. his argument is about what reasonable conclusions we can reach from looking at the evidence before us, and I'm saying his conclusion is not the only reasonable one on the table. sure, the alternative explanation I offered is not "falsifiable" - I never said it was. I didn't think we were playing "let's be scientific", I thought we were looking at what is or isn't a reasonable explanation for how things began.
We started playing "let's be scientific" when you wanted your ideas to be treated as an alternative theory to evolution. You can't say " I want to be treated as science" but then complain when it is treated as science and falls short of that mark.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you want to just talk philosophy, then you still have to accept that not all assertions are automatically accepted. There's still a burden of proof on someone making the assertion, even if that proof doesn't require objective evidence. Proof can come in the form of internal consistency and coherence.
I'm game for discussions of either type. I was just as much at home in philosophy and ethics and other navel gazing classes as I was in my hard science classes! Probably the only one that where I didn't enjoy the deep thought discussions was literature: I don't always get why "sultry" is better than "somber". :D
IOW, if you're not interested in being treated as "coherent alternative explanation" (which requires it be viewed through the same lenses as evolutionary theory) but instead are just philosophizing, then please be clear about that in future. I got the impression you wanted your idea to be treated as a theory given your insistence that it was on the same level as hard science, and when you said Dawkins was wrong to dismiss ideas like yours since he hasn't proven them wrong, as though it were truth by default.
To borrow from your example: Dawkins and I are playing baseball and keeping score based on hitting the ball, running bases, outs, strikes, etc. You (hypothetical you; i.e., people who want ID to be considered a theory) walk in and say "your score is wrong because it doesn't follow the rules of tennis". When Dawkins and I point out that tennis rules don't fit the requirement for our game and that our score is based on the rules that abide by the reality of our game, you insist that we haven't shown tennis rules don't really apply to our game and insist we at least report your score as an "alternative scoring system".
bleh. i don't have the brain energy to catch up with this thread right now. i think i have thoughts on it, but i don't even have enough brain power going right now to know that for sure.
ReplyDeletebut... this line about being forced into slave labor caught my attention. i want to know how she does it. any time i've tried to press rob into service i generally end up regretting it.