Evolution vs. Creationism

[just me]

JRR Tolkien was being read to me before most here were born or even thought of. I liked the Hobbit and the teacher that had a different voice sound for each individual. Hence, The Lord of the Rings brought back many fond memories. I personally enjoyed the movie and the scenery in NZ was quite awesome. "My Precioussssssssss"....I can almost still hear my teacher saying that.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I thought there were a lot of holes until I did some specific research on a few examples of supposed "irreducible complexity" and found that we do in fact have solid explanations (complete with examples of the stages present in the fossil records or still around in living species) for how complex parts evolved. There is no valid reason to believe that evolution is impossible, and considering the vast amount of evidence for the process, I'm not left with much doubt. Every single piece of evidence pertaining to biology is consistent with the theory evolution. That's why upwards of 99% of biologists accept it.

Creationism, by contrast, has very little supporting evidence. Almost all of the "evidence" that I have seen for it has been proven false (having been produced by dishonest or scientifically defunct methods), or is irrelevant. It has been disproven many times over, by geology, biology, and astronomy.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure there is a lot of evidence. I'm not saying it was impossible; I'm saying that it's basically kind of dumb to believe fully in it. It's the strongest argument we have, but that's about it. It irks me when people put so much faith in science, since really it's not nearly as concrete as many people believe.
The idea that there is either creationism or evolution is terribly limiting.

Maybe the reason you don't do well is confidence. You try hard to convince people that you're so bad at debate that you've probably long convinced yourself. Now, INTPs are supposed to be Fe inferior, but I know I can understand peoples' feelings pretty well when I make the effort.

I'd suspect you just don't want to put the effort into debate, and it's not that you're bad at it. It sounds like a normal behavior for types that have Ti as a tertiary or inferior...they just don't like using that function, and it's not that they're necessarily bad at it. I'm the same way, I often just don't care about feelings and I often think they're unimportant to the current situation. I just feel more comfortable looking at the world as a big equation.


Forming a good argument is really not terribly difficult. It helps to have an intuition for it, sure, but understanding what it basically is, and then where people tend to go wrong in argumentation is all you need to really know.

An argument is just the logical conclusion given certain premises. If all the premises are taken as true, does the conclusion logically follow? That's the first question you have to ask. If the conclusion does not logically follow from the given premises, then the argument is logically flawed in some way. Normally people aren't just purely illogical, but instead when their argument fails it's because they commit an informal fallacy. Basically, their premises are just irrelevant to the conclusion...such as an ad Hominem (Well, you're not a biologist, so you don't know if evolution is true or not; therefore, evolution is wrong) and argumentum ad populum (Well, the majority of Americans are Christian, so God must exist).

After that it helps to question the premises...are they true? If one or more of the premises is questionable, then you point it out. If one of them is actually false or unknown, then the argument probably falls (unless the premise was irrelevant and the other premises alone prove the conclusion).

I think that if IndigoSensor is like me, then probably what turns him off in debate is the headache of dealing with pushy people I'm not calling anyone on here pushy (don't take it as a insult; I'm not aiming this at anyone), but in my school many people debate almost all the time, and it can be exhausting. When everyone's keeping to their own opinions and are very vocal about those opinions, it can be hard to get a word in edge-wise; and for topics like this, the debates can get so heated over something that no one can even really prove. Best argument wins, but they're not necessarily right, and many times it just boils down to who keeps up with the argument the longest...

 

[just me]

Good observation. He who has the last word doesn't necessarily win. Maybe the internet does have a few crutches.
The breath of life has always amazed me. Science can produce many things, but some things it cannot even come close to producing. I will say life is precious and leave it at that for now. Maybe we can all agree on something.

 

[Duty]

that's about it. It irks me when people put so much faith in science

/facepalm


FAITH IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. Science is based off the principles and philosophies of showing proof...very rigorous and complete proofs leading from basic principles, combined with repeated observation of some phenomena, and repeated testing of some hypothesis, to produce theories. These theories then become laws as they are shown to be true in all cases, every time.

Legitimate science IS as concrete as people believe. The problem is when crappy scientists try to come around and propagate creationism or ID as being some kind of actual science. Neither of those principles is based off ANY legit evidence, and their "findings" are, at best, published in fringe magazines because their findings don't follow scientific method, don't follow reasoning from base axioms, or are generally a bunch of nonsense.

Any respectable scientist would LAUGH at another that tried to say he believed something based on faith. The scientific method itself is scrutinized in philosophy...it's rigorously defended and reasoned through by that field. No part of the process is not rational. It's a rational enterprise from start to finish, and it's honestly offensive to any respectable scientist to suggest he takes stuff based on faith.

I think that if IndigoSensor is like me, then probably what turns him off in debate is the headache of dealing with pushy people I'm not calling anyone on here pushy (don't take it as a insult; I'm not aiming this at anyone), but in my school many people debate almost all the time, and it can be exhausting. When everyone's keeping to their own opinions and are very vocal about those opinions, it can be hard to get a word in edge-wise; and for topics like this, the debates can get so heated over something that no one can even really prove. Best argument wins, but they're not necessarily right, and many times it just boils down to who keeps up with the argument the longest...

And hence why there is a scientific and professional philosophic community. Things get done because there is a method. Everyone there is reasonable, and they bring the facts with them. The "best argument" is the one with the rational conclusion that follows from premises that are true and relevant. It isn't about "edge-wise" or "the last word." These prove nothing.

The problem with talking outside that community is people don't understand the that debate is just about telling the truth and drawing conclusions. It's not about making your partner look bad. It's not about anything other then the truth. People get too concerned with other crap that nothing generally gets done in a debate outside the academic community. It's because people just aren't educated to the purpose of argumentation, or the methods.

But whatever, I don't know why I try. I'm not the smartest nor the most educated, but I understand how to make a point. I understand reason. I understand that the facts and rational conclusion should speak for themselves. I remember a certain English teacher trying to show that persuasive writing should appeal as much to your credentials and the audience's emotions as it does the facts. I think he was completely wrong...the facts should be convincing enough when they're right.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

^^ Many things in science are not concrete. If a theory cannot be accurately disproven, then it is considered true. That is a dangerous assumption; it's not so much true as it is probable. In fact, a good part of science is being able to measure an event and predict future outcomes; the actual reason behind such things are not always known.
Take physics, for example. We talk about energy, about waves, about magnetism; we know how to measure them and predict them and make formulas off of them. The actual physical existence of them, and the reasoning behind the phenomenon they describe...that's not so easy to describe.

Any respectable scientist would be able to own up to the fact that science is constantly changing, and that there is a lot of room for doubt in any branch of scientist. There is no truth; there is only probability. I may have worded myself wrong when I said "faith," but I was not mentioning it in comparison to religious faith. However, it does take a certain amount of understanding that there is only so much we can actually "know"

 

[IndigoSensor]

^^ Many things in science are not concrete. If a theory cannot be accurately disproven, then it is considered true. That is a dangerous assumption; it's not so much true as it is probable. In fact, a good part of science is being able to measure an event and predict future outcomes; the actual reason behind such things are not always known.
Take physics, for example. We talk about energy, about waves, about magnetism; we know how to measure them and predict them and make formulas off of them. The actual physical existence of them, and the reasoning behind the phenomenon they describe...that's not so easy to describe.

Any respectable scientist would be able to own up to the fact that science is constantly changing, and that there is a lot of room for doubt in any branch of scientist. There is no truth; there is only probability. I may have worded myself wrong when I said "faith," but I was not mentioning it in comparison to religious faith. However, it does take a certain amount of understanding that there is only so much we can actually "know"

Another example, MO theory. It isn't proven.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

^^ Most things aren't "proven"....they only can't be disproven

 

[Duty]

^^ Many things in science are not concrete. If a theory cannot be accurately disproven, then it is considered true. That is a dangerous assumption; it's not so much true as it is probable. In fact, a good part of science is being able to measure an event and predict future outcomes; the actual reason behind such things are not always known.

There's a big difference between how non-science does this and how science does it. Science takes observations and proof from axioms to draw their theories, while, say, religion just makes it up and goes with it.

You're speaking right now of a famous philosophy of science problem called "The problem of induction." Science is pretty well based on induction...repeated observation of the same phenomena when under the same conditions, repeatable by another scientist who can reproduce the same conditions.

It is a whole problem for philosophy of science, and one you'd have to research to truly get an understanding of (if you haven't already). I'll just leave by saying that it, for one reason or another, seems reasonable to conclude that if the same result happens 1000 times under the same conditions, then it will happen every other time you do it under those same conditions. If it suddenly changes, we automatically go to thinking that something about the conditions has changed (and that we're probably well on our way to discovering some new phenomenon!). Hume, who first brought up this problem in modern philosophy, concluded that we must believe in axioms derived from induction, "because nature so heavily impresses them upon our minds." It was just a psychological necessity for Hume.

Any respectable scientist would be able to own up to the fact that science is constantly changing, and that there is a lot of room for doubt in any branch of scientist. There is no truth; there is only probability. I may have worded myself wrong when I said "faith," but I was not mentioning it in comparison to religious faith. However, it does take a certain amount of understanding that there is only so much we can actually "know"

Well, science is very open to change and revision (this is a huge part of why it is superior in method to that of religious faith...faith usually assumes that we know all the answers already and can't be wrong about them).

Still, there can be truth out there. The philosophical problems of induction and knowledge justification have to be solved before we call it "truth" and not "probability," but it's still very possible for there to be truth. What is just maddening is that there are groups of people out there (namely, religion), that insist they have truth when they are very obviously not justified in making their conclusions. Faith is not appropriate justification to assert a proposition. It's even more frustrating when their "methods" (faith), leads them to actions that retard progress towards truth.


But no where down the line would I say science is based on faith. There are some philosophical issues with its background, but the whole scientific method is very reasonable, and certainly more reasonable then just "faith."

 

[just me]

Faith is the substance of all things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. unquote
One of my favorite explanations of faith.

 

[Milon]

^^ Most things aren't "proven"....they only can't be disproven

Like gravity!

My only complaint with science is that it has largely refused to believe in a spiritual dimension, and so it's understanding of the universe is rather incomplete and can lead to wrong assumptions. ie. Life is too complex and amazing for it to have evolved all on its own, therefore it evolved from alien bacteria instead! (Panspermia)

 

[just me]

" For it is the bitter grief of theology and its blessed task, too, always to have to seek (because it does not clearly have present to it at the time)
what in a true sense--in its historical memory--it has always known...
always providing that one has the courage to ask questions, to be dissatisfied, to think with the mind and heart one actually has,
and not with the mind and heart one is supposed to have."
Karl Rahner, S.J.

 

[just me]

Milon, yes it is a problem. Thumbs up to you.

 

[Satya]

" For it is the bitter grief of theology and its blessed task, too, always to have to seek (because it does not clearly have present to it at the time)
what in a true sense--in its historical memory--it has always known...
always providing that one has the courage to ask questions, to be dissatisfied, to think with the mind and heart one actually has,
and not with the mind and heart one is supposed to have."
Karl Rahner, S.J.

That is a somewhat convoluted way of saying that theology doesn't have clear answers and it depends upon the individual to find the truth that is within it.

 

[just me]

I think it says we can think outside the box.....and should.

 

[Satya]

I think it says we can think outside the box.....and should.

I like that interpretation.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Theology does have basis; it is not just a bunch of people making things up. There are themes over almost every major religion in existence. It's not so chaotic as one would think.

Science and religion are really, in many ways, different in a way similar to T and F are in MBTI. They are different ways to approach an answer, and they recognize different needs within the individual. Science is analytical; it is more concrete, and it is measurable. Religion is spiritual; it is solitary and personal, and it requires a more emotional commitment.
Both institutions have been corrupted in the past, and both have the ability to become corrupted furthermore in the future.

To say one is "better" is a bit short-sighted. For true strength of reason and mental health, one requires the ability to come into touch with both the emotional/spiritual side and the analytical/logical side. Anyone who decides to close off their minds to a different side of things is really hurting themselves more than anything.

There was a time where science and religion could coexist; that was a wonderful time for the arts and sciences both. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Satya]

There was a time where science and religion could coexist; that was a wonderful time for the arts and sciences both. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you replace "religion" with "spirituality" then I can agree with ya. Religion is a belief system that proclaims itself true without proof. That pretty much makes it mutually exclusive with science which constantly seeks evidence to determine the probability of something being true. Spirituality, is simply recognition of the spirit or soul, as some underlying force that exists within all life.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

^^ True I think that definitely does work best. Spirituality is truly a wonderful thing.

I was referring to the innovations of the Renaissance. Religion was still very prevalent.

 

[Duty]

Theology does have basis; it is not just a bunch of people making things up. There are themes over almost every major religion in existence. It's not so chaotic as one would think.

Science and religion are really, in many ways, different in a way similar to T and F are in MBTI. They are different ways to approach an answer, and they recognize different needs within the individual. Science is analytical; it is more concrete, and it is measurable. Religion is spiritual; it is solitary and personal, and it requires a more emotional commitment.
Both institutions have been corrupted in the past, and both have the ability to become corrupted furthermore in the future.

To say one is "better" is a bit short-sighted. For true strength of reason and mental health, one requires the ability to come into touch with both the emotional/spiritual side and the analytical/logical side. Anyone who decides to close off their minds to a different side of things is really hurting themselves more than anything.

There was a time where science and religion could coexist; that was a wonderful time for the arts and sciences both. There's nothing wrong with that.

(some people are going to find this post offensive, because it's true; if you have counterpoints, please feel free to give them, but don't get mad...)

Except religion/spirituality doesn't:

1. Make accurate predictions about the future.
2. Improve upon itself.
3. Explain newly discovered phenomena in the world.
4. Give us rational basis for believing what it says to be true, but expects one to believe its premises on base assertions or similar.
5. Most of all, it doesn't produce results like science has. Religion doesn't invent airplanes or cure disease (even though it likes to claim it cures disease...wonder why God has never answered the prayers of an amputee...)

So, these facts naturally lead me to the conclusion that religion is not yet a viable answer to the world's problems. In fact, what religion HAS produced are mostly problems of its own:

1. Crusades
2. Inquisitions
3. Witch hunts
4. Silly superstitions
5. Cultural traditions that people so desperately hold on to that they retard political, educational/social, and scientific progress so as to hang onto these traditions.
6. And I'd be unfair if I didn't name the positive things religion has done, which happens to be summed up in one point: It gives emotional solace and emotional security to those that look to it for such. Unfortunately for religion, these things can be found in more productive activities.

I know some of you will probably rage at this. That's fine, I'm just explaining my point of view on the deal. Religion has produced pretty much nothing, and is far from being a solution to the world's problems. In fact, it's been a prime aggregate of trouble. What's worse is these things are not isolated incidents (with the exception of the inquisition). Religious wars are constantly raging on the Earth (Israel/Palestine for one...), religion is constantly retarding progress, and silly superstitions are still rampant (I've read a crazy stat that went something like: 50% of Americans think the rapture will be in the next 10 years...). Even witch hunts are still propagated by religious interests (why do you think all the "terrorists" are Muslim?). Ok, that last one may be a small stretch, but the rest are reasonable.

Religion has been a constant block on reason and progress. It's not isolated and corrupt "once in a while."

 

[Quinlan]

What he said ^.

Although what you need to remember Duty is the "real world" is only temporary, the afterlife is forever. Who cares if you're causing misery? Life and the real world is just a warm up for the main event.:thumb: