5 ms·

> Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. You misunderstand me totally. > I believe in evolution

by derleth 14y ago

> Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. You misunderstand me totally. > I believe in evolution, but most arguments offered by evolutionists against creationism are crap. Except for the part where evolution has all the evidence on its side, right?

anamax 14y ago
>> Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. >You misunderstand me totally. Let's review. The initial claim was " Not understanding Evolution effectively locks students out from large swaths of science." I asked "Large in what way?" and provided examples of significant scientific domains that are completely independent of evolution. You responded with "Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator." We're talking about science in general, so there are lots of complex systems at issue. So, what were you trying to say given that context? >> I believe in evolution, but most arguments offered by evolutionists against creationism are crap. > Except for the part where evolution has all the evidence on its side, right? The fact that evolution has all the evidence does not imply that evolutionists make good arguments, as this thread has demonstrated. This thread has basically been a sequence of "The sky is green, therefore evolution is true."
- derleth 14y ago
  > So, what were you trying to say given that context? Evolution means science can be a complete philosophy, replacing traditional origin myths, without relying on religion to postulate a supernatural being pulling the strings behind the scenes. I thought I made that clear, but apparently not. The more down-to-earth statement is Life isn't magical. Evolution shows how we can end up with the massive variety of life we have now given physics as we know it. (Technically, evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life. Abiogenesis does. But, guess what, abiogenesis isn't magic either.) > The sky is green, therefore evolution is true. Well, how about "Gold looks golden, therefore special relativity is true"? https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ This gets directly at my second point: All science is connected. That's another way of saying All reality is connected. Which is another thing schools as they are now are lousy at explaining.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > Evolution means science can be a complete philosophy, replacing traditional origin myths, without relying on religion to postulate a supernatural being pulling the strings behind the scenes. I thought I made that clear, but apparently not. That's nice, but isn't expressed by "Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator." I get that you think that "can be a complete philosophy" is a big deal, but it doesn't actually matter. (Moreover, the fact that evolution can do certain things does not imply that those things were done by evolution any more than the fact that I can drive to the store implies that I did drive to the store.) Since you disagree, how about some examples of things that one can do with a science that is a complete philosophy? Heck, not even the things that folks do with recombinant DNA depends on evolution. Do you want to argue that physics depends on evolution. (Which reminds me, our physics friends might not agree that evolution makes science "complete". I'm pretty sure it doesn't handle the big bang, for example.) >> This thread has basically been a sequence of "The sky is green, therefore evolution is true." > Well, how about "Gold looks golden, therefore special relativity is true"? How about the color of my car? After all, that has as much connection to the arguements offered in this thread as your attempted "restatement". Your desire to have a good argument does not imply that you have one. > This gets directly at my second point: All science is connected. Yet, you've provided no support for that point. I'll ask again - how does evolution affect physics? How about geology? Heck - what can I do in biology with evolution that I can't do without? (And no, "explain" doesn't count unless that explanation lets you do something that you can't do without that explanation.) I'm pretty sure that there are things in biology that one can't do without evolution, but they're in the noise. And, contrary to Nye's claim, there's nothing outside of biology that requires evolution. As I asked before, what's the point of making clearly false claims about evolution? > That's another way of saying All reality is connected. Don't do the brown acid. > Which is another thing schools as they are now are lousy at explaining. Which teaching evolution, or not, won't address.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > Don't do the brown acid. Don't be condescending. You don't have any arguments, just an argumentative attitude, which isn't the same thing.

by derleth 14y ago

anamax 14y ago

>> Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. >You misunderstand me totally. Let's review. The initial claim was " Not understanding Evolution effectively locks students out from large swaths of science." I asked "Large in what way?" and provided examples of significant scientific domains that are completely independent of evolution. You responded with "Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator." We're talking about science in general, so there are lots of complex systems at issue. So, what were you trying to say given that context? >> I believe in evolution, but most arguments offered by evolutionists against creationism are crap. > Except for the part where evolution has all the evidence on its side, right? The fact that evolution has all the evidence does not imply that evolutionists make good arguments, as this thread has demonstrated. This thread has basically been a sequence of "The sky is green, therefore evolution is true."

derleth 14y ago
> So, what were you trying to say given that context? Evolution means science can be a complete philosophy, replacing traditional origin myths, without relying on religion to postulate a supernatural being pulling the strings behind the scenes. I thought I made that clear, but apparently not. The more down-to-earth statement is Life isn't magical. Evolution shows how we can end up with the massive variety of life we have now given physics as we know it. (Technically, evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life. Abiogenesis does. But, guess what, abiogenesis isn't magic either.) > The sky is green, therefore evolution is true. Well, how about "Gold looks golden, therefore special relativity is true"? https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ This gets directly at my second point: All science is connected. That's another way of saying All reality is connected. Which is another thing schools as they are now are lousy at explaining.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Evolution means science can be a complete philosophy, replacing traditional origin myths, without relying on religion to postulate a supernatural being pulling the strings behind the scenes. I thought I made that clear, but apparently not. That's nice, but isn't expressed by "Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator." I get that you think that "can be a complete philosophy" is a big deal, but it doesn't actually matter. (Moreover, the fact that evolution can do certain things does not imply that those things were done by evolution any more than the fact that I can drive to the store implies that I did drive to the store.) Since you disagree, how about some examples of things that one can do with a science that is a complete philosophy? Heck, not even the things that folks do with recombinant DNA depends on evolution. Do you want to argue that physics depends on evolution. (Which reminds me, our physics friends might not agree that evolution makes science "complete". I'm pretty sure it doesn't handle the big bang, for example.) >> This thread has basically been a sequence of "The sky is green, therefore evolution is true." > Well, how about "Gold looks golden, therefore special relativity is true"? How about the color of my car? After all, that has as much connection to the arguements offered in this thread as your attempted "restatement". Your desire to have a good argument does not imply that you have one. > This gets directly at my second point: All science is connected. Yet, you've provided no support for that point. I'll ask again - how does evolution affect physics? How about geology? Heck - what can I do in biology with evolution that I can't do without? (And no, "explain" doesn't count unless that explanation lets you do something that you can't do without that explanation.) I'm pretty sure that there are things in biology that one can't do without evolution, but they're in the noise. And, contrary to Nye's claim, there's nothing outside of biology that requires evolution. As I asked before, what's the point of making clearly false claims about evolution? > That's another way of saying All reality is connected. Don't do the brown acid. > Which is another thing schools as they are now are lousy at explaining. Which teaching evolution, or not, won't address.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Don't do the brown acid. Don't be condescending. You don't have any arguments, just an argumentative attitude, which isn't the same thing.