[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Andr�s]

Evolution theory is science, and it's based on observation.
It's not repeating what makes it valid, it's that it is still the best explanation consistent with most available data.
There are many fossil evidences of evolution of many species and examples of natural selection (the mechanism of evolution) in action in living species.

[Chronon]

I think what Dogscoff had to say about his philosophy of religion is relevant here. As is usual with these discussions, we are operating on a number of different levels. As Dogscoff argued, there is a huge difference between organized religion (the Church) and a personal spiritual journey. I would argue that the path to enlightenment is a sort of personal progress (although the Zen masters would whack me around the shoulders for conceiving of it in this way ).

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

Moreover,in the spirit of the Devil's Advocate (and post-modernists' advocate, too), I would like to toss out the postulate that progress itself is a modern myth. On one hand we have modern medicine, computers, cd players, SUV's, and Quick Marts. On the other hand, we have the atomic bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, and totalitarianism (impossible without modern technology). Are we really improving ourselves?

About twenty years ago I would have answered a resounding yes. Now I'm not so sure...

[Andr�s]

Evidence supporting Evolution vs Evidence supporting Creationism

[Fyron]

Chronon:

ethnic cleansing

We have _always_ had ethnic cleansing. This is nothing new.

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.

Baron Munchausen :

This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a question

It is only repeated because people keep missing my point. I have no choice but to reword it, in hopes that they can see it.

Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith?

As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.

[Gryphin]

Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?

[spoon]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?

One theory:
1) Nothing
2) Nothing

The follow-up:
1) What was there before God?
2) Where did God come from?

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Evidence supporting Evolution vs Evidence supporting Creationism

Wrong example. The issue is not which theory is 'better'. The issue is that evolution is NOT a proven theory. I am asserting uncertainty, inconclusiveness, not a rival theory. This is the instant assumption of the believers in Scientism, though. Anyone who challenges evolution must be a religious fundamentalist.

[Fyron]

Electron theory is not a "proven theory" either.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.

Ah, but they are NOT different. There is such a thing as science but it is a long, long way from providing a complete world-view. To fill in the gaps a series of myths have been erected over the past couple of centuries. Gradualist evolution is one of them.

As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.

Gradualist evolution is much broader than the 'evidence' which is claimed to prove it. It incorporates some, some, observations of the real world, but it glosses over major gaps and in fact defines the issues in ways that makes proof essentially impossible in any practical sense.

Variation within species has been observed, yes. Evolution of one species into another has NOT been observed. And it cannot pratically be expcted to be observed, since it takes millions of years. How convenient.

The so-called 'fossil record' is so fragmentary that they're not even certain if they can identify species. They are usually talking about families (the next level up in taxonomy) when identifying fossils. And there are millions of years and thousands of miles between the examples cited in an 'evolutionary line'. The horse for example, is supposed to have evolved on Asia, Europe, and North America over 30+ million years. What is the 'proof' that these widely scattered, and structurally very different, fossils represent one line of evolution? The High Priests^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H experts say so! Oh, that's great.

See:
The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

This was bad enough. But in the Last few decades another branch of science has come up with outright contradictory evidence. Genetics is now advanced enough to compare the chromozones of various species and see how similar they are. It turns out that structurally similar species which have so-far been classed as related may have far less genetic similarity to each other than to completely unrelated (in the 'scientific' taxonomy system) species! The various species of frogs for example, don't have the same number of chromozones, let alone a high degree of similarity in genetic content in those chromozones.

Where does this leave the comparisons of fossils? All you have to go on in a fossil is 'gross anatomy' -- structure. Which is now known to NOT be related to genetic makeup. The 'fossil record' is now useless as any sort of 'proof' of evolution. We have no way of knowing the relationship of the various fossilized creatures that we find scattered all around the world.

Which brings us back to the problem. Evolution cannot be proven. Yet it is accepted, enforced even, by the modern scientific community. It's an article of faith, the new faith of Scientism. And as I said before, identifying the new faith as a faith and not a science doesn't mean I am a supporter of the old faith. This is not an either/or. It's a NOT.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Fyron]

If your rant (other than the whole Scientism junk) actually represents the full situation, then the theory of evolution will be changed to accomodate the inconsistencies. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. In fact, this serves to corroborate everything I have said, not disprove it. I said that if scientific theories are proven conclusively to be wrong, science will evolve.

The theories proposed by Newton were changed after people like Einstien came along. There was a lot of resistence, but it did happen. These new theories have been changed some in recent years due to new evidence. The changes met with resistance. I never once said that science changed at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot of conclusive evidence to prove something wrong.

Going back to the religious aspect: religions (primarily in reference to the fundamentals of the religion, mostly as evidenced by the religious scriptures of that religion) do not change like science does to include new evidence. They stay the same, and declare the new evidence to be wrong. Science is not equatable to religion.