Why does it matter where we came from to make evolution law? I really don't understand what evolution has to do with the big bang theory.

With your logic, I can't be sure I even exsist. Becasue my underlying assumption is that I came from either a) the big bang b) was created by something. Neither of which can be proven.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Your answer is indeed one suitable for ninth grade. It completely fails to take into account the findings of twentieth century philosophy of science, such as the rather important (at least for this discussion) refutation of the whole concept of verification by Karl Popper. It is a simple fact that laws of nature are, by logical definition, theories which can never be fully proven.

As for not teaching creationism, that is not a problem at all. Creationism is a non-scientific belief, not a scientific theory. As a scientific theory, it would be laughably weak, since it is essentially untestable and derived solely from mythology rather than any form of empiric data.

Creationism, bluntly put, is a really, really bad theory, which is completely unscientific and extremely weak. Evolution, on the other hand, is a really, really strong theory. Suggesting that the two be taught alongside eachother shows a blatant ignorance of the very nature of science.

Even the Vatican says that evolution is compatible with their beliefs.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,...w=wn_tophead_5

Associated Press
12:00 PM Nov. 04, 2005 PT
VATICAN CITY - A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

Creationism, bluntly put, is a really, really bad theory, which is completely unscientific and extremely weak. Evolution, on the other hand, is a really, really strong theory. Suggesting that the two be taught alongside eachother shows a blatant ignorance of the very nature of science.

That isn't where all the elements come from according to the big bang theory. Not at all.

The different elements are byproducts of nuclear fusion, lower mass stars producing lighter elements, bigger stars with more mass producing heavier elements, etc.

You exist weather you were created by God or random events.

aliens created life through evolution

Google 'Coccyx'

Google 'machiavelli'

Exactly, And I evolve wether I was created by God or random events. Correct? Do you see what I'm getting at? Since you completely skipped over the point I made.

you are completely misrepresenting Karl Popper said

"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."


Basic scientific method, take your theory, establish a counter theory (the opposite in it's entirety not just in part) prove the counter theory to be false by proving the underlying assumption is wrong. That only way to make a theory into a law.

That was exactly what was done when we established the LAW of constant gravitational force (G).

Creationism (again not biblism) does not specify who did the creating, for example aliens seeding the primordial ooze with a culture which would prosper and EVOLVE (like modern day scientist do with bacterial cultures in a lab) is a valid creationism theory which is 100% compatible with every single piece of empirical data that you use to prove that Darwinism is true.

As for teaching creationism in schools you just proved my point. You don't understand the difference between a law and a theory. Your arguing that your theory should be promoted to the level of a law (because it a "really really strong theory"), without the necessary falsification of it opposite theorem is because the school blindly refuses to teach any alternative theory.
You don't understand the necessity of the counter theory in a scientific proof.

I never said you evolved i said you exist. Your argument is that you can't prove your existance (the implied statement is nothing is provable) based on my logic. You don't understand the necessity of a counter theory.

congrats on 1k

Karl Popper? As in the lead singer of the Blues Traveler? LOL j/k

and dollars were made to be placed in his pockets :1orglaugh

okay here's your evolution proof.
http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/evolution.jpg

My argument had nothing to do with whether one can prove their existence. Did you even read my posts? That was an exclamation about the logic you used. Let me break it down for you so there is no way to dodge my questions anymore. With this being the third time I am asking you. Please try to answer my question.


What you are saying here is basically. "Evolution cannot become a law, because it is based off the big bang theory, which cannot be proven". Correct? Please let me know if I've misunderstood you here.

So with that(again), My question(s) is. Why does it matter where we came from to make evolution law? What does evolution have to do with the big bang theory?


And for the record, the comment about whether I could prove I exist, was ripping on this comment of yours
With your logic, anyone who believed the big bang theory could not be proven to exist as the underlying assumption of their creation could not be proven. :pimp

Old thread alert.

The portion of Evolutionary Theory which states living things came into existence from a big bang, then formed complex cells, and then turned into species that turn into new species is a theory by proxy, because it hasn't been directly demonstrated or observed. It's supported by limited understanding of pre-existing conditions on the earth, limited historical physical evidence (such as fossil records), and by observing limited and often unpredictable examples of micro evolution in viruses, bacteria, and germs. The theory of evolution is an aggregate of all of this. To say this is the equivalent to a Law such as the Law of Gravity is an overstatement. Gravity is a singular observable physical fact that doesn't rely on history or the complex nature and development of living things.

In actual fact - if the universe were slightly different (thats the content of the local big bang) - we wouldnt be here.

It is only because of the way it turned out - that we are here.

And indeed - the universe itself can not exist in a stable manner under any other condition than this one. And even this isnt totally stable.

Relax - sit back - and exand with it.

"Gravity is a singular observable physical fact that doesn't rely on history or the complex nature and development of living things."

So is Evolution - Evolution however is a little more complex.

I observe it in life - I see it everywhere.

It is observed - and is therefore a fact.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Thanks, I needed that laugh. You are living proof that creationists are clueless indeed.

What Popper said was NOT that to prove a theory, you establish a counter theory and prove that to be false. That would be idiocy.

His claim was that it is impossible to prove a theory true by positive outcomes of tests (no amount of white geese I see is proof that all geese are white, since there could always be a brown or other non-white one). However, a single negative outcome proves the theory in question to be false.

Read that again. A single negative outcome proves the theory in question to be false. Just the theory in question.

For example, if my theory states "All geese are white", and I see a black goose, that proves my theory wrong.

What you are saying is absolutely nonsense. Let's say I have the theory that "All geese are white". According to you, I should now establish a counter-theory, e.g. "No geese are white", prove it false (which is easily done by taking a picture of a white goose), and voila, I have proven the clearly false "All geese are white" to be a law.

Read the following slowly, and at least five times (you need it)

What Popper proved (logically) is that proving theories (empirically) is impossible. "Proof" is impossible. One can only try to prove them false ("falsify" them), by subjecting them to the most risky and demanding experiments. A single instance of the theory not working will prove it false, and each positive result does not prove the theory but rather "corroborates" (makes stronger) the theory.

Ockham's Razor: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate

There is no "necessary falsification of the opposite theorem", you fool.

Would it hurt you to at least read an introductory book on the philosophy of science before you open your mouth and spout absolute nonsense?

Ever hear of culling sheep? Or the species that have adapted in our lifetimes (like that predatory fish that evolved rudimentary legs)?

Evolution occurs. That is a fact. The only point up for discussion is whether or not evolution is the only force at work.

Even the Catholic church regards evolution as a 'fact'.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

The thing that bothers me is that people don't understand the concept of a 'creator' isn't incompatible with the concept of evolution if they'd take five seconds to really think it through rather then just arguing in circles.

Trying to put 'intellegent design' into a biology class is a travesty. It's a philosophical concept. Evolution as a theory is not trying to identify the origins of existence it's an observable scientific phenomena, that has no bearing on whether or not the universe was created or not.

No, it's not. No serious philosopher could take the design argument seriously after Hume's arguments against it. ID is a religious concept.

All Hume managed to do is conclude empericism doesn't get you anywhere, and if you think he's the first to argue that probability after the fact isn't a valid philosophical support for the theory of 'creationism' you really need to do some more classical reading, or even better come up with your own opinions rather hten just regurgitating outdated philosophy.

As for the rest just because an arguement has been debunked doesn't mean that it still doesn't fall into the realm of philosophy. Every philosopher has gaping holes in their logic, but you don't seem to have any problem accrediting them.

Might I add you can't disprove creationism any more then you can prove it.

You obviously didn't read much of Hume. I was specifically referring to his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which effectively destroys most previous viability of the design argument.

Wanting to come up with your own opinions is no excuse for ignoring the findings of the past. Hume's refutation of the design argument still stands, and stands strongly, so ignoring it or calling it "outdated" is just stupid.

As for what's philosophy and what not... an argument ceases to be philosophical if it is no longer subjected to the essence of philosophy: rationality.

Invoking the design argument without any new argumentation comes down to ignoring all the arguments made against it, and thus invoking it based on irrational belief rather than logic. Philosophy dictates that one bases one's arguments on rational deliberation and logic, not belief, and thus argumenting based on belief is unphilosophical.

You don't need to disprove something to disregard something as unscientific, irrational and irrelevant. Since creationism fails to provide any useful predictions, it is untestable, and therefore unscientific (know your Popper). Since it is not based on any empirical inference or logical deduction, and there is a much stronger competitive theory, believing in it is irrational. Since it is both irrational and unscientific, it is irrelevant - it has no predictive, explanatory or other value, apart from providing people with an easy to understand end-all "explanation" for everything.

I guess the fact that I agreed with you in principal went right over your head. My point was that Hume's refutaion of the design arguement specifically has much more classical roots.

As for the rest I simply found it amusing that you felt the need to validate an arguement that stands on it's own by 'name dropping' a dead philosopher. Since you seem so 'well read' what would Hume say about you externally validating your arguements? :1orglaugh

All philosophy requires you to make some sort of unfounded assumption at some point.

All philosophy fails to provide any sort of useful predictions in a scientific sense.

That's probally why it's not called science. :1orglaugh

What would that competative theory be?

There is still hope for adult when theological discussions can still take place on an adult webmaster board and be taken seriously. I'm actually impressed !

Part of the reason why this country (USA) is becoming such a steaming pile of shit is that we've got a growing group of drooling idiots who disregard science and believe in a man in the sky showering down plagues and disasters upon the sinful masses, where higher education is considered elitest and untrustworthy, where slackjawed yokels are indoctrinated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Riley. and want our kids to think that cavemen rode around on dinosaurs and the Grand Canyon was created in "The Flood".

Fuck.

Fundamentalists = scary.

And you tried to make that point by getting his argument wrong, claiming it was "that probability after the fact isn't a valid philosophical support".

His arguments (yes, that's a plural) do have more classical roots. However, since you apparently have no clue what his arguments are, I strongly doubt that you know what those roots are.

Very few philosophers would object to referring to someone who already made the argument, and better than you ever could yourself, instead of writing a whole new book on it.

That is not only untrue, it also follows a foundationalist model of knowledge. The foundationalist model of knowledge, however, isn't used much anymore these days, since it is clear to most intelligent people that knowledge exists in a coherent body rather than in some infinite tower of stacked beliefs. Thus, the very claim that philosophy requires making unfounded assumptions is entirely meaningless.

However, what I was referring to was method rather than foundation, and it is exactly there where the difference between philosophy and belief shows. Belief is not a valid method of justifying beliefs (if it were, it would be more than a little circular), logic and rational deliberation are.

Bush thinks 51% of Americans believe he's God.


SilentKnight

Probability after the fact is the core support for 'intellegient design theory', and therefore what I chose to focus on. Thanks for playing!

So I'm right? I guess this is your way of saying you don't know where they came from originally, as evidenced by your next comment.

Ad hominem.

Nice to know you speak for philosophers everywhere.

Give me one example of a philosophy that doesn't begin with a fundamental assumption. Preferabally more specific then just a name.

You believe that the universe had no creator. You can't prove that (and please when I say creator stop trying to put a christian spin on it as I don't like words put in my mouth). Yes the arguement is completly circular, which is why I find it amusing that you say one side of the circle is any more valid then the other.

Please explain to me how the idea of a higher power is any more or less likly then the idea that there is no higher power.

Philosophy, being subject to logic, is not untestable. The sort of predictions you are talking about (it actually does make other predictions), it can't make because it's not about the empirical nature of physical reality. That's besides the point, however, since it's testable in another way, one that is more suited to its nature. (just like you would test mathematical theories by mathematical and logical analysis, rather than physical predictions)

Creationism, whether the traditional kind or the intelligent design kind, speaks about purely physical aspects of physical reality. It fails, however, to make any predictions or even to be testable in any physical way. Worse, it defies logic as well, and thereby places itself entirely out of the realm of rationality.

Most of its proponents actually do call it science, and present it as an alternative to common scientific theories.

:eek7 Have you missed the entire discussion?

I like you. Can we go on a date?

So you're trying to say that all questions of origin fall outside of the realm of philosophy? You've also just said that claiming there is no higher power is just as silly as claiming there is one by inference. Thanks for making my point.

Once again I guess you completly missed my first post saying it's a travesty taht it's allowed into biology classrooms.

You're missing my point completly. I've meerly stated that creationism is just as valid as the idea that there is no creator. If you want to say that BOTH ideas are equally silly as neither is philosophically or otherwise proveable, well guess what I agree. On the other hand I would argue if you'd accept the idea that there couldn't possibally be a creator as valid then by the very circular nature of the agruement you have to accept the other side of the coin as well.

Probability after the fact is only an issue if you accept the very arguments that were refuted by Hume. However, taking Hume's arguments into account, the whole idea of probability doesn't even come into play, since design is LESS probably than the alternative (that is, no design).

Thanks for playing, and doubly so for losing.

No, you're not right, since Hume was in fact the first philosopher to present the arguments against design in the way he did, and by implying him being unoriginal in his thinking you grossly misrepresented him. Which, once again, is not surprising, since you have shown your ignorance of his arguments.

I could go into how Aristotle emphasized the non-deliberative nature of natural teleology, or Spinoza's criticisms of the design argument in his Ethics, but I'm fairly sure that would be entirely wasted on you.

That's the general idea of ridiculing someone, yes. Glad you got that point, at least.

I read many hundreds of philosophical works a year, and almost all have one thing in common: when using other philosophers' arguments, they refer to other philosophers' works rather than paraphrasing their entire theories.

You are, once again, following the foundationalist mindset. Which is one neither I nor most other philosophers today adhere to. Most contemporary philosophers reject the very concept of a "foundation" (= fundament), therefore your question is nonsensical.

However, here is an example from a time when people were still foundationalists:

I can doubt everything. However, I can not doubt that I think, since doubting implies thinking. In order for me to think, I have to be there. Therefore, cogito ergo sum.

Following Ockham's Razor, there is no reason to assume a creator. If there is no reason to, we shouldn't.

Following your argument, we should assume that anything exists that can possibly be imagined and cannot be proved to be false. That includes invisible fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and a whole lot more.

Please explain to me how the idea of no invisible purple midgets masturbating with your socks is any more or less likely than the idea that there are no invisible purple midgets masturbating with your socks.

Ockham's Razor, again.