Evolution-A Summary

[David Sklansky]

Everybody is wrong again.

Evolutionists who claim their theory is a fact are wrong and always will be. But ID proponents are also almost certainly wrong because they, nowadays at least, try to argue that evolution theory can't explain everything.
Obviously proving that evolution can't explain everything would be nice for them. But so what if they can't?

Suppose another planet was composed of champion poker players who usually check raised semi bluffed when they picked up a flush draw on the turn. Explorers who encountered them might immediately think they read my book. But analysts who came along later would first claim that there is no reason to think they got ahold of my book,and then point out that survival of the fittest by itself would mean that these turn check raisers would have to evolve eventually.

But the above in no way eliminates the possibility that these check raisers actually got good by reading. Same with animal creation and especially human creation. Admittedly if it was God who did it without evolution, it would probably be necessary to concede that he also planted false clues. But so what. And a second problem would be that if the ID account is the more farfetched one, people could not be blamed for not believing in it, if they had no other good reasons for believing in God. But this is only a problem for certain religions.

Bottom line is that evolution can never be a fact. But those who persist that it doesn't do a good job of explaining things, even if it is wrong, are evidently making a fool of themselves.

Meanwhile the whole issue should be meaningless to religious people. Because even if evolution is totally right it doesn't say anything about the God most people beleive or disbelieve in. Because evolution does not as of now, explain how modern apes realize they exist, in a way that monkeys and computers don't. And it doesn't even offer a clue as to how specifically Mike Matusow can come into existence. If God decided to totally let the dice roll until beings smart enough to handle consciousness evolved, and only THEN decided to get involved by "infusing souls", what religious people would have a problem with that? Beside of course those few who have everything invested in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Actually, this "late intervention" by God is, I think similar to what Catholics and Jews believe. And even Not Ready, in his more lucid moments, reluctantly allows for that type of possibility. So why can't other religious people accept this rather than fight a losing battle?

Of course one day science might actually give a reasonable explanation for consciousness. Building a conscious computer would be one way to do it. A reasonable explantion for "selfness" is less likely, in my opinion. But even if they come up with one, keep in mind my earlier statement. Even if engineers can one day create a second RJT, doesn't mean God didn't create the first one.

[chezlaw]

careful, you're beginning to sound like me.

chez

[Unoriginalname]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Evolution is a fact. The mountain of evidence in support of this is so large, it would be rather ignorant to state that it is not a fact. Virtually every Biologist today (except a tiny minority of quacky ones) would say the same thing. The mechanisms of how evolution occurs are just theories, however.

We KNOW evolution occurred. We just aren't exactly sure HOW it occurred. Saying evolution is not a fact is almost as silly as saying 2+2=4 is not a fact. Sure, it's possible that some omnipotent being created all the complex arrangements of molecules in an instant and purposely littered the planet with numerous clues of an alternative explanation of human origin in order to deceive us. It's also possible that 2+2 really equals 5 and but some all-powerful being has tricked us into believing it really equals 4.

[MidGe]

Exactly, like gravity is a fact that has never been explained. The rules of it are eminently proveable (=falsifiable). So is evolution.

Should that not be the case, you may as well say that nothing is proveable in the physical world.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that evolution can never be a fact. But those who persist that it doesn't do a good job of explaining things, even if it is wrong, are evidently making a fool of themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as foolish as those who don't understand that the word "Evolution" is, unfortunately, used ( like skate and soul) for two different entities.

Evolution the Fact - this is, like water flowing downhill, a process you can observe and needs an explanation.

Evolution the Theory - well, actually a suite of theories held under that umbrella. The Theory of Natural Selection, The Theory of Sexual Selection, the Theory of Genetic Drift, etc.

The clearer way to express this is - Evolution the Fact is described by Evolution the Theory ( which is on much solider ground than the Theory of gravity which will be changed within our lifetimes).

[ QUOTE ]
Even if engineers can one day create a second RJT, doesn't mean God didn't create the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rather meaningless distinction since it doesn't rule any other claim either, so we'll have a bizillion explanations for RJT - 1) a product of some engineers 2) a product of evolution, one of the strongest theories mankind has. 3-bizillion) anything else you want to claim. Only the first two have any credence.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if engineers can one day create a second RJT, doesn't mean God didn't create the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my 6 year old suggested a similar justification for one reason for the spilt milk in the kitchen - "well, daddy, we can never know the easter bunny didn't come early this year and was thirsty. Prove me wrong." I'd be tempted to smack him upside the head. To hear such a line of thought expressed on a philosophy forum makes me embarrassed for my species.

Is there anything we can't add the comment "or god did it", or "or the FSM did it" to? What is the point of wasting the bandwidth?

I officially move that in SMP we assume a subliminal "or God/FSM did it" below the sig in all posts. cheeesh.

luckyme

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how any well informed person can dispute this unless they are mis-using the word "fact" to mean something that's been definitively proven. But in that case, the notion that the Holocaust happened isn't a fact either.

That's a non-standard way to use the word "fact," however.

[Lestat]

Good post.

While one could technically nitpick and make the argument that evolution (or any scientific theory), is not a fact, it's too trivial to take seriously.

What amazes me is how many people do not understand what a scientific theory is. I am NOT referring to DS, but am very much referring to people like godBoy who act as if evolution is little more than a best guess. Let's be straight on what a scientific theory is guys. Maybe it should be put in the FAQ.

A scientific theory is NOT a guess! This quote from wikipedia:

"a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

Sound scientific theories while often improved upon, are almost never proven completely wrong. A scientific theory is STRONG people! You need to stop mistaking the theory of evolution as a good sounding guess.

[maurile]

Evolutionary theory has been tested with great rigor for over a century, and it is the only theory of the origin of species we have that has not yet been falsified. Nothing in science can ever be proven beyond all doubt, but the correctness of evolutionary theory is about as sure a thing as the correctness of atomic theory or of the germ theory of disease.

In other words, it is a fact.

[David Sklansky]

No it is not. It may perfectly explain the diversity of animals. And creationists may be too stupid to realize that. But it does nothing to show why alternative explanations that might come along that would also perfectly explain things cannot be right.