Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 2 Post By marnixR
  • 2 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: Is Evolution a Belief? - Article

  1. #1 Is Evolution a Belief? - Article 
    Forum Freshman EvolvedAtheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    52
    A link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. [Link to bookstore site deleted] - by a moderator for irrational reasons. (NNFR - No Need For Religion)


    Last edited by EvolvedAtheist; May 15th, 2014 at 07:44 AM. Reason: Irrationality - (Lol)
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist View Post
    A link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. Is Evolution a Belief?* - No Need For Religion (NNFR - No Need For Religion)
    Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.

    It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".

    But of course there are different degrees of confidence in the various theories we use, based on the degree to which they have been corroborated, by different forms of observation and successful predictions from them. And by those criteria, the basic structure of the theory of evolution (though not all details of course) is one we can be very confident of indeed.

    So, if we view it correctly, evolution is not a belief but a successful model, based on its ability to account for disparate observations and its predictive power.

    Just like relativity, and both Newtonian and quantum mechanics, in fact.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    EvolvedAtheist, I've deleted the link to your blog/bookstore.

    There are a couple of paragraphs of your blog entry that you could use here to advance your argument.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist View Post
    A link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. Is Evolution a Belief?* - No Need For Religion (NNFR - No Need For Religion)
    Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
    Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.

    --
    It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
    Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 14th, 2014 at 12:59 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist View Post
    A link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. Is Evolution a Belief?* - No Need For Religion (NNFR - No Need For Religion)
    Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
    Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.

    --
    It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
    Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.
    I think the process you are describing is that of seeing whether new data fit the model or not. I quite agree the extension of knowledge comes from whether the new data fit the model, add to it, modify it, or invalidate it in some respect.

    But I still contend that we tend to believe relativity, for example is true, rather than always pedantically keeping in mind that is just our best current model. The provisional nature of scientific truth is something we do not - for entirely practical reasons - always have at the forefront of our minds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist View Post
    A link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. Is Evolution a Belief?* - No Need For Religion (NNFR - No Need For Religion)
    Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
    Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.

    --
    It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
    Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.
    I think the process you are describing is that of seeing whether new data fit the model or not. I quite agree the extension of knowledge comes from whether the new data fit the model, add to it, modify it, or invalidate it in some respect.

    But I still contend that we tend to believe relativity, for example is true, rather than always pedantically keeping in mind that is just our best current model. The provisional nature of scientific truth is something we do not - for entirely practical reasons - always have at the forefront of our minds.
    I agree. My main point is there's not separation between models and data...they are intrinsically linked to one another in a spectrum from simple models used to obtain raw data (e.g. relationship between thermal expansion (or metal electrical resistance) and molecular movement (temperature), to reanalysis to quality check new data and put into a useful dimensional forms (e.g., superimposing that temperature data onto a grid), to more abstract predictive forms.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist View Post
    A link to share with you regarding the misconception of the evolutionary theory. Is Evolution a Belief?* - No Need For Religion (NNFR - No Need For Religion)
    Well it can be a belief, in the same sense that all scientists tend to believe in the theories or models that science uses.
    Which is no sense at all unless you completely change the definitions or like many religious apologist try to hijack the term to pursue a fallacy of false equivalence.

    --
    It is very hard, day to day, to maintain the strictly proper degree of objective distance from our models. They tend to become for us reality itself, when more properly we should regard them as best current approximations to reality. This is the sense in which all theories of science are, strictly speaking, "only a theory".
    Not really. Many times getting the raw measurement requires a simple model to convert some physical characteristic into what you trying to measure (pressure, temperature etc). Then, for complex systems, reanalysis of raw data can only done by models to check against physical consistency or set it on a observation grid. It is absolutely essential for turning data into knowledge. This integration of data by and into models is essentially the same as the observation.
    I think the process you are describing is that of seeing whether new data fit the model or not. I quite agree the extension of knowledge comes from whether the new data fit the model, add to it, modify it, or invalidate it in some respect.

    But I still contend that we tend to believe relativity, for example is true, rather than always pedantically keeping in mind that is just our best current model. The provisional nature of scientific truth is something we do not - for entirely practical reasons - always have at the forefront of our minds.
    I agree. My main point is there's not separation between models and data...they are intrinsically linked to one another in a spectrum from simple models used to obtain raw data (e.g. relationship between thermal expansion (or metal electrical resistance) and molecular movement (temperature), to reanalysis to quality check new data and put into a useful dimensional forms (e.g., superimposing that temperature data onto a grid), to more abstract predictive forms.
    Yes I see what you mean. A given measurement or observation has to make its way through a hierarchy of the relevant bits of various theories before it can be assessed against the model that is actually the object of scrutiny. Quite right.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    252
    What is a belief?
    Is the Pythagorean theorem a belief? If it isn't, then you must know with absolute certainty that it is true. If you haven't seen any proofs of the Pythagorean theorem, then you are simply taking peoples' word for it, making it a belief.
    If the Pythagorean theorem, to somebody who has never seen a proof, is not a belief, then neither is evolution.
    "A 4 degree Celsius warmer world can, and must be, avoided"
    -Jim Young Kim (World Bank President)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    let's make a distinction between a belief where all you can do is take someone's word for it, and a belief where at least in principle you can test the veracity of the things you've taken someone's word for

    in short, if i say "the moon is made out of green cheese", there would be ways to figure out whether this statement is correct + you could still take my word for it, but at least there's other options available to you
    whereas if i said "a million angels fit on a pinhead" then you have no option but to take your word for it or not, since i know of no way to verify the statement in any other sense
    Lynx_Fox and KALSTER like this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Evolution is not a "belief" if by that you mean an opinion. as in: "there can be no argument over opioins". Any scientific fact can be called a belief if it is held by someone who has not tested it himself. But a belief held because it is attested to by the majority of the scientific establishment, is a far cry from an unsuported opinoin. Calling evolution a belief is a step on the road to trying to devalue it into an opinion, It is a dishonest arguement, only a breath away from being a lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Anti-Pseudoscience Some's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44
    The fact is that darwinists believe in microbe-to-man evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.

    Men are four: He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool--shun him; He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple--teach him; He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep--wake him; He who knows and knows he knows, hi is wise--follow him!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,050
    And another seagull post from a known loon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The fact is that darwinists believe in microbe-to-man evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.

    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The fact is that darwinists believe in microbe-to-man evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.

    It is the purpose of all natural science to seek natural explanations of the physical world. Not supernatural explanations. There is no reason to treat the study of life any differently from any other branch of science. That does not mean scientists are atheistic, just that religious questions are not part of science.

    (I'm sure you know this, but I repeat it just for the sake of any other readers that may stumble across your contribution.)
    EvolvedAtheist likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The fact is that darwinists believe in microbe-to-man evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.

    We don't seek an explanation without a creator, we just seek an explanation. "God did it" is not an explanation. It's a cop out in the face of overwhelming ignorance.

    And your cartoon seems oblivious to the fact that the lab experiments simulate a natural environment, they don't synthetically create life with some kind of design...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman EvolvedAtheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    EvolvedAtheist, I've deleted the link to your blog/bookstore.

    There are a couple of paragraphs of your blog entry that you could use here to advance your argument.
    What makes you think this is might site anyway, just because my username has 'atheist' in it? It is also a resource website and a blog website, not just a bookstore.
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    EvolvedAtheist, I've deleted the link to your blog/bookstore.

    There are a couple of paragraphs of your blog entry that you could use here to advance your argument.
    What makes you think this is might site anyway, just because my username has 'atheist' in it? It is also a resource website and a blog website, not just a bookstore.
    Doesn't really matter. It's generally frowned upon to link to a site trying to make a profit. It's a cheap way to increase pageviews and revenue whether you own the site or not. Since there isn't really a good way to tell, it's best to err on the side of caution. If there is information on that site relevant to your case, place the material here and reference the site appropriately. Otherwise, it looks like spam.

    EDIT: I would also suggest taking out the snide comment directed toward the moderator in your OP. Leaving it in the same color as the mod's comment also looks like impersonation. It's best not to heckle the mods at all really. If you want to discuss the removal of the link, just PM the mod who edited it out and explain your case. They're willing to listen.
    exchemist likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman EvolvedAtheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    52
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The fact is that darwinists believe in microbe-to-man evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
    We don't seek an explanation without a creator, we just seek an explanation. "God did it" is not an explanation. It's a cop out in the face of overwhelming ignorance.

    And your cartoon seems oblivious to the fact that the lab experiments simulate a natural environment, they don't synthetically create life with some kind of design...
    ……..and moreover, oblivious also to the difference between evolution (for which there is a mass of detailed evidence) and abiogenesis (about which we only have a few speculative hypotheses).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman EvolvedAtheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    52
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Obvious troll. Not sure how you mods didnt caught up to that. Noone is this stupid on purpose.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 57
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2012, 06:43 AM
  2. Is belief harmful?
    By Arcane_Mathematician in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: July 26th, 2009, 09:50 AM
  3. Belief in Infallibility
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 9th, 2008, 04:03 AM
  4. After belief I've had a revelation
    By Quantime in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 01:46 AM
  5. My Belief
    By Awareness_truth in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2005, 11:42 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •