4 ms·

We can't borrow from knowledge we'll have tomorrow, any conjecture on what will be found is at best a hypothesis in its own right. Data and verification for re

by torial 17y ago

We can't borrow from knowledge we'll have tomorrow, any conjecture on what will be found is at best a hypothesis in its own right. Data and verification for relativity is just well established (but arguably more research dollars go into that than evolution). Viewing the odds of discovering something tomorrow or the next hundred years is very subjective -- case in point, I view the odds of discovering something contradictory to evolution far higher than something contradicting relativity. So we are at an impasse, and I'd suggest we need to go on what we have now, rather than how something might unfold based on our own biases (I am not denying my inclination towards astrophysics!). If evolution could be harnessed to make verifiable predictions, I think it would be further along in terms of being a grounded and less disputed theory (with the understanding that no matter what, there will be dissenters). Or if alien life was found, I think evolution science would benefit from having a second playing field and might be on a better footing.

jacquesm 17y ago
> If evolution could be harnessed to make verifiable predictions That's an 'ID' talking point and verifiable false. There are many thousands of cases where evolutionary theory could be used to predict the outcome of an experiment and each and every one of those has held up. The interesting one would be the first -and only- counter example required, but to date not a single one has been found. Support for evolution is rock solid, to the point where the only people that try to undermine it usually have some kind of political agenda to push. You have to hand it to the ID (formerly creationist) groups though, they are doing an excellent job of sowing doubt amongst the uneducated, and they are getting skilled at the debate to the point where all but the most interested lay people can see the holes in their arguments. But when they go to hospital and need treatment suddenly science is a-ok and never mind the fact that these bacteria have evolved to become resistant to such and such an anti-biotic, give me the stronger stuff... Your viewing of the 'odds' of something turning up that would contradict relativity is at odds with that of for instance, one Albert Einstein, who searched for a way of unifying general relativity with electromagnetism, without success. Once found it is widely believed that either one or both of the 'parent' theories will need some adjustment. Evolutionary theory is much more vulnerable to falsification, a single example of a creature that could not have evolved and it would be history. In spite of millions of species that we can observe today and the many very motivated people searching for such a counter example none has been found.
- roundsquare 17y ago
  But when they go to hospital and need treatment suddenly science is a-ok I find this statement to be disingenuous. I would be hard pressed to believe that (most) creationists are against science in general or think that science itself is generally wrong. In fact, they seem to try to make scientific type arguments, and I'd suspect that most IDers believe that the arguments are in fact good science.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    It isn't disingenuous in the least. Science is a method. You either accept that method or you don't, you can't pick and choose. If you are not an expert biologist you probably shouldn't hold expert opinions on the subject, just as you are probably not an expert surgeon so you shouldn't hold expert opinions on surgery. To choose science for one specialty but pseudo science or dogma for another is inconsistent. The scientific method has brought us both surgery and insight in how we came to be here and so on. It's hypocrisy to claim special knowledge about our origins absence any evidence, but to be happy with the fruits of all that labour when it suits you. I prefer the (true) Mennonites in this respect, at least they are more or less consistent in their beliefs and their application of those beliefs. That doesn't make them less wrong, but they are at least not guilty of hypocrisy. You can't be against evolution and against science at the same time, evolution is science, and science at its best. Just like science put men on the moon and freed us from the shackles of the church it will occasionally cause a change of belief, either by replacing a wrong theory with a better one or by proving a widely held belief to be false. The only reason the ID'ers try to make scientific type arguments is to sound more plausible when faced with scientific opposition, not because they've suddenly seen the light. And dazzling the masses with pseudo science is a great way of confusing the issue, right up to the claim that ID is just another 'theory' that should be given equal time in education.
    - roundsquare 17y ago
      You either accept that method or you don't, you can't pick and choose. To choose science for one specialty but pseudo science or dogma for another is inconsistent. Yes you can (edit for clarity: Yes you can use dogma for one domain and science for another). It is perfectly consistent to say that the word of god is the ultimate truth but where god is silent on an issue science is the next best thing. There is no a priori reason to claim that the scientific method will give more accurate results than the word of god. The fact that science needs to keep updating itself is, for some (most?) people evidence enough that it can't be as accurate as the word of god. But, thats not my point. Most people get whatever knowledge they have of science from sources several level removed from the scientist. As a result, they don't get access to see the true science. Instead, they take what they hear from (seemingly) credible sources and trust it. Maybe they put some thought into the arguments given but generally they don't, especially if no one is disputing what they hear. With evolution though, there's people yelling at them from both sides. Both sides use what seem to be logical sounding arguments (though, under close inspection, one side's logic breaks down). In addition, one side also claims to represent god, which they are told is the ultimate truth. In their minds therefore it becomes: Science vs Science + Ultimate Truth It doesn't take a genius to see which side would win in that battle. However, with medicine, God appears to be essentially silent on the matter. There are no options to weight. Everyone agrees. Nice and simple. So yes, there is some hypocrisy, but its limited to the politically motivated few who are pushing the ID agenda. The masses are not guilty of true hypocrisy.

by torial 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

> If evolution could be harnessed to make verifiable predictions That's an 'ID' talking point and verifiable false. There are many thousands of cases where evolutionary theory could be used to predict the outcome of an experiment and each and every one of those has held up. The interesting one would be the first -and only- counter example required, but to date not a single one has been found. Support for evolution is rock solid, to the point where the only people that try to undermine it usually have some kind of political agenda to push. You have to hand it to the ID (formerly creationist) groups though, they are doing an excellent job of sowing doubt amongst the uneducated, and they are getting skilled at the debate to the point where all but the most interested lay people can see the holes in their arguments. But when they go to hospital and need treatment suddenly science is a-ok and never mind the fact that these bacteria have evolved to become resistant to such and such an anti-biotic, give me the stronger stuff... Your viewing of the 'odds' of something turning up that would contradict relativity is at odds with that of for instance, one Albert Einstein, who searched for a way of unifying general relativity with electromagnetism, without success. Once found it is widely believed that either one or both of the 'parent' theories will need some adjustment. Evolutionary theory is much more vulnerable to falsification, a single example of a creature that could not have evolved and it would be history. In spite of millions of species that we can observe today and the many very motivated people searching for such a counter example none has been found.

roundsquare 17y ago
But when they go to hospital and need treatment suddenly science is a-ok I find this statement to be disingenuous. I would be hard pressed to believe that (most) creationists are against science in general or think that science itself is generally wrong. In fact, they seem to try to make scientific type arguments, and I'd suspect that most IDers believe that the arguments are in fact good science.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  It isn't disingenuous in the least. Science is a method. You either accept that method or you don't, you can't pick and choose. If you are not an expert biologist you probably shouldn't hold expert opinions on the subject, just as you are probably not an expert surgeon so you shouldn't hold expert opinions on surgery. To choose science for one specialty but pseudo science or dogma for another is inconsistent. The scientific method has brought us both surgery and insight in how we came to be here and so on. It's hypocrisy to claim special knowledge about our origins absence any evidence, but to be happy with the fruits of all that labour when it suits you. I prefer the (true) Mennonites in this respect, at least they are more or less consistent in their beliefs and their application of those beliefs. That doesn't make them less wrong, but they are at least not guilty of hypocrisy. You can't be against evolution and against science at the same time, evolution is science, and science at its best. Just like science put men on the moon and freed us from the shackles of the church it will occasionally cause a change of belief, either by replacing a wrong theory with a better one or by proving a widely held belief to be false. The only reason the ID'ers try to make scientific type arguments is to sound more plausible when faced with scientific opposition, not because they've suddenly seen the light. And dazzling the masses with pseudo science is a great way of confusing the issue, right up to the claim that ID is just another 'theory' that should be given equal time in education.
  - roundsquare 17y ago
    You either accept that method or you don't, you can't pick and choose. To choose science for one specialty but pseudo science or dogma for another is inconsistent. Yes you can (edit for clarity: Yes you can use dogma for one domain and science for another). It is perfectly consistent to say that the word of god is the ultimate truth but where god is silent on an issue science is the next best thing. There is no a priori reason to claim that the scientific method will give more accurate results than the word of god. The fact that science needs to keep updating itself is, for some (most?) people evidence enough that it can't be as accurate as the word of god. But, thats not my point. Most people get whatever knowledge they have of science from sources several level removed from the scientist. As a result, they don't get access to see the true science. Instead, they take what they hear from (seemingly) credible sources and trust it. Maybe they put some thought into the arguments given but generally they don't, especially if no one is disputing what they hear. With evolution though, there's people yelling at them from both sides. Both sides use what seem to be logical sounding arguments (though, under close inspection, one side's logic breaks down). In addition, one side also claims to represent god, which they are told is the ultimate truth. In their minds therefore it becomes: Science vs Science + Ultimate Truth It doesn't take a genius to see which side would win in that battle. However, with medicine, God appears to be essentially silent on the matter. There are no options to weight. Everyone agrees. Nice and simple. So yes, there is some hypocrisy, but its limited to the politically motivated few who are pushing the ID agenda. The masses are not guilty of true hypocrisy.