Sunday, April 25, 2010

It’s Not Just Science

The influence of evolutionary thought reaches far beyond science. Consider, for example, the histories we are given of how the theory of evolution arose. Charles Darwin and co-founder Alfred Wallace were deeply influenced by non scientific considerations and these influences have, to a certain extent, been explored. Janet Browne, Peter Bowler, Michael Ruse, Keith Thomson, Neal Gillespie, Adrian Desmond and James Moore are but a few of those who have elucidated the cultural, political and other non scientific forces that influenced Darwin and Wallace. As Bowler explains, historians are now far more concerned about the social environment within which scientific knowledge was generated, and far more willing to admit that the development of science is not the inevitable triumph of a series of factually true assertions about the natural world. That sounds like good, solid historiography. But there’s a catch.

Today’s history tellers cannot avoid the undeniable non scientific influences in evolutionary thought. But they do avoid the obvious implication; namely, that evolution entails non scientific premises. It is, as it were, a social construct. Evolution is a theory created by humans, out of human concerns that have very little to do with science.

All of this is plain to see. Every proof for evolution hinges on deep metaphysics that are independent of any scientific experiment ever conducted. As Stephen Jay Gould explained:

Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.

The strong arguments for evolution, as Elliott Sober has explained, incorporate assumptions about nature, design and god. If evolution is true it would be a remarkable triumph of philosophical and theological (not scientific) thought.

So why don’t our history tellers tell us these things? Why don’t they explain that evolution is not merely contingent on the history of ideas, but that evolution is, itself, just another one of those ideas? Every time evolutionists proclaim evolution to be a fact they are demonstrating their metaphysical influences. Why don’t our history tellers tell us this?

The answer is simple: our history tellers are, themselves, evolutionists. Their not too subtle explanations of the rise and success of evolution are filled with the very metaphysical influences that mandate evolution in the first place. Michael Ruse argues evolution is necessary to resolve the problem of evil and Peter Bowler repeats that creationism and design are clearly false. Thomson drives home the point in a passage worthy of Darwin himself:

We adopt the noble lion as a metaphor for strength and bravery, but there is little nobility in being the deer (or child) that is ripped apart by the lion and eaten while its viscera are still quivering in the dust. It is hard to see a divine utilitarian goodness in venomous snakes, stinging wasps, mosquitoes and poisonous plants, or in leprosy, malaria and cancer, or in the miseries of old age and the death of the very young. For humans, ugliness, disharmony, war, tyranny, famine, viciousness, greed, racism, inter-religious and intra-religious conflict seem to be at least as common a part of our conditions as goodness, happiness, peace and beauty.

This is the stalemate debated in every pulpit, denied at the hospital bed, eluded at every graveside – an acid eating away at the faith of young and old. A benign and loving God has somehow to be squared with all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that flesh is heir to. If God has not created all this misery and evil, and if they do not flow as some natural consequence of his creation, we would have to accept that it has some other cause. In that case, God would not be the only First Cause, but one of many possible causes. Given the premises on which it was based, natural theology could not avoid the challenge of finding an explanation of this paradox, to provide a new explanation of why good and evil are equally God's work. This was its Achilles heel, and in the attempt to produce a rational scientific explanation of misery, want and evil, a door was opened for Darwin.

These histories are evolutionary. They are told from the perspective of the history of ideas that led to evolution. They effortlessly transition from a telling of the history to a preaching of the message. Evolutionary thought has influenced far more than just science.

42 comments:

  1. Today’s history tellers cannot avoid the undeniable non scientific influences in evolutionary thought

    Similar, today's theological historians cannot avoid the undeniable non religious influences in religious thought.

    I'm not sure I understand what your point is, Cornelius. Are there people claiming that science is pure an untainted by human frailty? If so, then I submit that they're in a laughably insignificant minority. It rather seems (IMHO) that you're arguing against a position which people generally don't hold.

    The theory of evolution developed in the midst of (and to some extent in spite of) non-scientific influences. Obviously, you can't separate the theory from how it developed. The same holds true for politics, religion and art (et al).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent stuff again, though most Darwinists won't get it.

    Now lets watch the Darwinians come in squealing and whining that it is not so; that evolutionary theory is as proved as gravity, that no real scientist doubts it, that all opposed are religious nuts and that anyone who doubts "is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that".

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'They effortlessly transition from a telling of the history to a preaching of the message.' - and you would prove that evolutionary science is anywhere near as guilty of this as religion is how?
    It's really simple actually, whatever the original basis for following the evolutionary path in science, the vast and rapidly accumulating evidence for evolution grows daily. In the meantime, religion's accumulating evidence is....? Cowering in a corner gathering dust?
    'Evolutionary thought has influenced far more than just science.' - well of course it has! The fact that it disproves so may religious claims means it has a wide impact, not to mention the way it has encouraged and assisted scientific endevour in other fields.
    'Now lets watch the Darwinians come in squealing and whining that it is not so; that evolutionary theory is as proved as gravity, that no real scientist doubts it, that all opposed are religious nuts and that anyone who doubts "is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that".' wow! Point 1 - who's squealing? Point 2 - it's evidence overwhelms religion's by a factor of about eleventy squillion. Point 3 - correct, science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, and yes they are. Point 4 - we have considered it, some people many times, and it's still a fact that the only thing that's ever been 'created' is religion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where's:

    ===
    It's really simple actually, whatever the original basis for following the evolutionary path in science, the vast and rapidly accumulating evidence for evolution grows daily.
    ===

    From a scientific perspective, it is the falsifications that are growing rapidly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. you must be joking! What a baseless claim. The evidence is overwhelming.
    Do all your articles contain selective facts, extrapolations from unrelated topics and time-shifting of paradigms?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where's:

    "you must be joking! What a baseless claim. The evidence is overwhelming."

    No, from a scientific perspective, the many falsifications are very real (and not even too controversial for that matter).

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'many' falsifications. Compared to how much proven and highly credited science? 0.5% maybe?

    And science in all its facets is one 'discipline' for want of a better term, yet religion is mult-faceted and full of multiple 'theories' and 'beliefs'. Which one is accurate?

    Each time a concept is disproven or found to be inaccurate it is replaced by stronger, more credible and proven science, not by a 'god' or a 'creator'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where's:

    ===
    'many' falsifications. Compared to how much proven and highly credited science? 0.5% maybe?
    ===

    Good question. It is not controversial that the fundamental predictions of evolution have not fared well in light of the empirical evidence. The falsifications are by no means trivial. The bottom line is that we are nowhere close to evolution being a fact in the scientific sense. Given the religious / metaphysical claims, yes, then evolution is a fact. So the fact claim is legitimate, we just need to understand that it entails metaphysical premises. It is not a scientific fact, it is a metaphysical fact.


    ===
    And science in all its facets is one 'discipline' for want of a better term, yet religion is mult-faceted and full of multiple 'theories' and 'beliefs'. Which one is accurate?

    Each time a concept is disproven or found to be inaccurate it is replaced by stronger, more credible and proven science, not by a 'god' or a 'creator'.
    ===

    Evolutionary thought is all about metaphysics. And these arguments you allude to here are powerful arguments. We just need to remember that the premises are metaphysical. That's how a scientifically unlikely theory can be transformed into a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ahh, I see you've quoted "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb."

    It is a classic, and anyone interested can read it here:

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda%27s-thumb.html

    Gould's primary data is the evolution of the Panda'a thumb from a wrist(?) bone. Interestingly, the genetic program evolved also effects the bones of in the hind limbs.

    The evolutionary prediction is that features evolve from precursors, and show contingency in how the do so. Gould goes on to describe the Panda's Thumb in this light. (the real thing, not the blog!)

    This does conflict with a design or God based hypothesis, and a philosopher or historian of science isn't shy about pointing that out. Why should they be? A major line of inquiry into the working of the world, and they should hold their tongue about the implications? And similarly be silent when religion impinges on science? Should they not hold their ground? But the evidence is fact-based, and fits a reasonable hypothesis.

    Maybe we should just wear two hats, and clearly indicate which statements are the evidences and methodology for evolution, and which are philosophical abstractions related to such. Gould does blur the line here.

    Darwin, to whom Gould is referring to, can hardly be faulted-he's acting as a natural philosopher, and a formalized scientific method hardly was his guide. He made a logical, evidence based argument against the conventional wisdom of the day.

    Gould years later argues for "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" or Noma. "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." Gould (2002). Rocks of Ages.

    Of course, there are problems. Religion insists on miracles, and notions such as ID/Creationist science impinge on science. Similarly, the old age of the earth, evolution, and non-geocentric models might conflict with the religious beliefs of YEC, anti-evolutionists, and geocentrists, respectively.

    So we're constantly bumping into each other. The clearest distinctions, I think lie in the classroom. Science can be taught as science. I wouldn't support "God wouldn't make malaria" in biology class or "God caused Katrina to smote New Orleans" in Earth Sciences. Out in the real world, we can philosophize away and butt heads.

    But back to the classroom, Dr. Hunter et al. must put ID or creationism on equal footing with evolution.

    I guess there are two claims:

    1) ALL data supporting evolution stems from metaphysical/religious grounds. Therefor, ID is a competitive hypothesis.

    and/or

    2) Said data is false.

    Uphill battle there, especially if the falsifications are the little quips posted here, and the metaphysics found is not the data or method, but just some grand philosophizing and contrasting of the result with creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Hunter,

    As a history major with a lifelong interest in science, I'm very interested in the subject of this post. Awhile back I wrote an article on the origins and influence of Darwinian thought from a historical perspective (http://crosseyedblog.com/?p=1153 - it was meant to be the start of a series that I have not completed yet, and it probably needs some updating), and I recently wrote an essay for college on the subject.

    I am glad to hear a scientist acknowledge the importance of the historical perspective. Too often the trend is to keep anything related to science unquestionable unless one happens to be a scientist (*ahem* an evolutionist, to be specific), which only masks the serious mindset problems that are behind Evolution.

    Thank you for keeping such an enlightening blog!

    Sincerely,

    ~Amanda~

    www.amandaread.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'which only masks the serious mindset problems that are behind Evolution' - you must be either kidding or extremely naive. So who should question science, plumbers? Or maybe rastafarians? Perhaps accountants?
    'Thank you for keeping such an enlightening blog! - I wouldn't call distorting and misrepresenting factual concepts as enlightening. More like shrouding the truth behind a screen of fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cornelius Hunter: Every proof for evolution hinges on deep metaphysics that are independent of any scientific experiment ever conducted.

    Well, that's obviously false. There is a huge literature of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory. There is little scientific doubt that people and peafowls share a common ancestor. Common Descent is one of those fields where amateurs can confirm the evidence by examining their local strata and looking for fossils.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zach:

    ===
    "Every proof for evolution hinges on deep metaphysics"

    Well, that's obviously false.
    ===

    That would be trivial to support if true. All we need is a single textbook, popular work like Darwin's, journal article, whatever, proving evolution sans the usual metaphysics. I have searched the literature and cannot find it. Meanwhile, there are myriad proofs in the literature based on metaphysics. And peer-reviewed work acknowledges the use of metaphysics. So Zach, instead of the usual vague assertions, all we need is a reference.

    Until someone supplies a reference that proves evolution without relying on the usual metaphysics, I'll stand by my claim which is abundantly supported by the literature.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Zach: "There is a huge literature of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory."
    ---
    Really? Why have none of you Darwinian fundamentalists posted any of it here?
    Where is it?

    You don't know the difference between empirical and imagined evidence.

    Of for Darwinists "empirical" and "speculation" are equal terms.

    All we ever see is evidence that some variation with the taxonomic family occurs, something even hard line creationists accept.

    You confuse evidence for adaptation and variation with evidence for macro evolution.

    All Darwinians do, and in a gratuitous manner, by extrapolating micro into macro without ever even asking if such crossing is legitimate or even possible.

    We know that genetic entropy and the deleterious nature of mutations contradict such free-for-all extrapolation.

    And contrary to your bogus and extremely gullible claim, no there is not a single grain of evidence supporting macro evolution anywhere.

    You merely believe there is.

    All Darwinists believe that some other Darwinist has "overwhelming evidence".
    They never know who really has any at all.

    However, when sift through the volumes of literature and remove evidence for micro evolution, what remains is nothing but just-so stories, terrible logic, sophism and "mountains of overwhelming" wishful speculations.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tom: "More like shrouding the truth behind a screen of fantasy."

    Thanks for so uniquely describing Darwinism and its multiple fairy tale like "scientific" explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "All Darwinians do, and in a gratuitous manner, by extrapolating micro into macro without ever even asking if such crossing is legitimate or even possible."

    No differences in mechanism. Is dropping a weight and measuring its acceleration 'micro'-gravity? Do we need to push some planets around to understand the forces at work?

    "Really? Why have none of you Darwinian fundamentalists posted any of it here?
    Where is it?"

    Start here:

    "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
    The Scientific Case for Common Descent"

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Robert: "He made a logical, evidence based argument against the conventional wisdom of the day."

    That statement of yours is laughable.

    Please Rob, go take a course in logic and philo. -you obviously have no idea what you're talking about or you've never read OOS or DOM.

    The whole of Darwin's arguments were based on metaphysical constructs crammed with the most gratuitous speculations and extrapolations one could find outside of science fiction novels.

    Darwin was a hypocritical materialist seeking to remove all the divine from science.

    See Gould has been brought up: "[Darwins’s notebooks] include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism — the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products" ~ Stephen Jay Gould

    And, "to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock." - Darwin - private notes

    You're very mistaken. Admit it and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rob: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
    The Scientific Case for Common Descent""

    My goodness look at this! I can barely believe anyone would come to Dr. Hunter's blog and point us to the incredibly bad "29 evidences" doc over at TO.

    That kind of reference pointing reveals more clearly just how poorly you understand the subjects involved.

    You might want to start by looking up the several refutations that have been written to that poorly thought out doc which was written, no doubt, to confuse those who are deeply gullible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cornelius Hunter: All we need is a single textbook, popular work like Darwin's, journal article, whatever, proving evolution sans the usual metaphysics.

    As we can directly observe evolution, such as Lenski's experiments with bacteria, or the Grants' observations of wild finch populations, there isn't much dispute that evolution occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hitch: You confuse evidence for adaptation and variation with evidence for macro evolution.

    We have ample evidence of Common Descent, starting with the nested hierarchy. We can show that the posited transitions are consistent with descent with modification, and that observable mechanisms are sufficiently robust as to explain those transitions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hitch: The whole of Darwin's arguments were based on metaphysical constructs crammed with the most gratuitous speculations and extrapolations one could find outside of science fiction novels.

    Doesn't sound like you've actually read Origin of Species which marshalled evidence from many fields of research. Darwin was a very careful researcher and observer. Even without the his theory of evolution, he would be considered one of the foremost scientists of his day. To just pretend that his argument wasn't persuasive, that it didn't lead to entire new fields of study, or that the vast majority biologists are simply not smart enough to understand their own fields of study is just handwaving.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hitch-

    Anyone who would argue Darwin was not a careful observational scientist, and that his books lack grounding in these observations; and anyone who would say there is no evidence for macro-evolution at all isn't someone I care to reason with.


    You have angry rants with no content.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Zachriel:

    =========
    Cornelius Hunter: All we need is a single textbook, popular work like Darwin's, journal article, whatever, proving evolution sans the usual metaphysics.

    As we can directly observe evolution, such as Lenski's experiments with bacteria, or the Grants' observations of wild finch populations, there isn't much dispute that evolution occurs.
    =========

    I forgot about those findings. You are correct, evolution is a fact. Now back to the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Any sound science depends upon a sound metaphysics -- the choice isn't between doing metaphysics and not doing metaphysics, but rather between doing sound metaphysics and doing shoddy metaphysics.

    The Darwinists always opt for the shoddy -- and self-refuting -- metaphysics. Consider how the Darwinist typically begins his argument (such as it is), examples of which Mr Hunter has given in this article: the appeal to evil (both natural evil and moral evil). Now, consider where the Darwinist’s argument logically leads: there are no such things as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ -- is it really possible to have a more incoherent and self-refuting metaphysic than that?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hitch: "... and that anyone who doubts "is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that"."

    I frequently wonder whether people realize that Dawkins was making a moral assertion in that infamous quote. But then, he and the other pseudo-atheists frequently make moral assertions -- even as they deny the possiblity of meaningfully making moral assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cornelius -

    "I forgot about those findings. You are correct, evolution is a fact. Now back to the real world."

    That's beneath you. Sarcasm alone is a schoolyard refutation. Zach has a valid point. What about these studies? Are Lenski's experiments with bacteria or the Grants' observations of wild finch populations evidence for evolution, or are they not? And if not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ilion -

    "Any sound science depends upon a sound metaphysics -- the choice isn't between doing metaphysics and not doing metaphysics, but rather between doing sound metaphysics and doing shoddy metaphysics."

    The whole of science is based on the idea that all forces in the universe are NATURAL - not SUPERNATURAL. We cannot assume that God or miracles exist. Because if we do, we have no reason to trust the results of our experiments - they could just be affected by miracles.

    If a theory allows that the supernatural/miracles happen, it is not science.

    The theory of evolution does not allow for them. The theory of gravity doers not allow for them. Germ theory does not allow for them.

    This is the metaphysical position of all scientific theories. The theory of evolution's is no different to that of any other scientific theory.

    "Now, consider where the Darwinist’s argument logically leads: there are no such things as ‘good’ and ‘evil’"

    I've no idea what you are talking about here, and it rather seems you don't either. The concepts of good and evil are as relevant to the theory of evolution as the concept of Snoopy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't allow my time to be wasted by fools (intellectually dishonest persons), nor do I wish to taunt the stupid (those who simply cannot understand the matter). You appear to be one or the other, Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ilion -

    Insults? You can't do any better than that?

    Your total failure to even attempt to engage the points I have raised speaks volumes about the impotence of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ritchie:

    ===
    Zach has a valid point. What about these studies? Are Lenski's experiments with bacteria or the Grants' observations of wild finch populations evidence for evolution, or are they not? And if not, why not?
    ===

    No, he is equivocating and he knows it. It is astonishing, but this is the type of pretzel logic to which evolutionary thinking leads. Now notice how you have reversed the equivocation. Instead of "proof" you know recast the claim as mere "evidence for." Of course they are evidence for evolution. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, just as there is for Thales claim that all is water, and for alchemy, geocentrism, the flat earth, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cornelius Hunter: No, he is equivocating and he knows it.

    Absolutely not. The evidence for evolution includes everything from the direct observation of the processes of evolution, to the historical evidence for Common Descent. The relationship between these sets of evidence are critical for understanding the support for the Theory of Evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Intentional equivocation ... or equivocation which was unintentional when made, but not repudiated when pointed out ... *is* intellectual dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Cornelius -

    I fail to see how this is the result of pretzel logic. Experiments such as those done by Lenski and Grant do directly infer a force of evolution. Are they not exactly the kind of empirical evidence genuine scientific theories should be based on?

    "There is plenty of evidence for evolution, just as there is for Thales claim that all is water, and for alchemy, geocentrism, the flat earth, etc."

    See, I'm not actually sold on this point. What evidence IS there for geocentrism? What evidence IS there for a flat Earth? I'd really like to know.

    You clearly would like us to think there is evidence for these false theories to make the point that a theory can have supporting evidence and still be wrong - so that you can then justify dismissing out of hand any supporting evidence for evolution that gets in your way. But DO these theories really have supporting evidence? Or does all the evidence actually support the superior theories which replaced them?

    ReplyDelete
  35. IlĂ­on: ... but not repudiated when pointed out

    Reread the previous comment. It describes the relationship between evolutionary processes, Common Descent, and the Theory of Evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ilion -

    So your argument has boiled down to: 'Agree with me or you are being intellectually dishonest'?

    ReplyDelete
  37. ...nothing?

    Shame. I was looking forward to a response on this one (from Cornelius).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Amanda:

    "Thank you for keeping such an enlightening blog!"

    Thank you Amanda.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ritchie:

    ====
    I fail to see how this is the result of pretzel logic.
    ====

    Equivocation = pretzel logic.



    ===
    Experiments such as those done by Lenski and Grant do directly infer a force of evolution. Are they not exactly the kind of empirical evidence genuine scientific theories should be based on?
    ===

    Sure, but we're not talking about "theories" in general. We're talking about evolution. Experiments such as those done by Lenski and Grant do not prove evolution and evolutionist's claims that they do are fallacious. Journalists should be able to understand this.


    ===
    "There is plenty of evidence for evolution, just as there is for Thales claim that all is water, and for alchemy, geocentrism, the flat earth, etc."

    See, I'm not actually sold on this point. What evidence IS there for geocentrism? What evidence IS there for a flat Earth? I'd really like to know.
    ===

    Geocentrism successfully predicts risings and settings of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars. It successfully predicts conjunctions, eclipses, etc. Likewise, the flat earth has myriad successful predictions, and indeed is used today.




    ===
    You clearly would like us to think there is evidence for these false theories to make the point that a theory can have supporting evidence and still be wrong
    ===

    That's not controversial.


    ===
    - so that you can then justify dismissing out of hand any supporting evidence for evolution that gets in your way.
    ===

    No, it is not a matter of dismissing "any supporting evidence." It is a matter of weighing all the evidence together.


    ===
    But DO these theories really have supporting evidence? Or does all the evidence actually support the superior theories which replaced them?
    ===

    That is a false dichotomy.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Zachriel:

    ======
    Cornelius Hunter: All we need is a single textbook, popular work like Darwin's, journal article, whatever, proving evolution sans the usual metaphysics.

    As we can directly observe evolution, such as Lenski's experiments with bacteria, or the Grants' observations of wild finch populations, there isn't much dispute that evolution occurs.

    Cornelius Hunter: No, he is equivocating and he knows it.

    Absolutely not. The evidence for evolution includes everything from the direct observation of the processes of evolution, to the historical evidence for Common Descent. The relationship between these sets of evidence are critical for understanding the support for the Theory of Evolution.
    ======

    Yet more equivocation from evolutionists. The first equivocation is on "evolution." A single mutation in a bacteria, or a bird's beak changing shape, is equated with all life evolving.

    The second equivocation is on "proof." Evidence for a theory is equated with proof.

    So the evolutionist claims evolution is a proven fact, as much as is gravity. When under scrutiny, however, the evolutionist backpedals and redefines evolution as a mutation in a bacteria, and proof as redefined as mere supporting evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Cornelius Hunter: A single mutation in a bacteria, or a bird's beak changing shape, is equated with all life evolving.

    Not at all. They're not the same. But to see why a bird's beak changing shape is important to understanding evolution, we have to start with Common Descent.

    Cornelius Hunter: Evidence for a theory is equated with proof.

    Again, science doesn't deal in proof. Evidence is support.

    Cornelius Hunter: So the evolutionist claims evolution is a proven fact, as much as is gravity.

    We can directly observe evolution, and we have strong evidence of Common Descent. We can show that the rates of evolutionary change is sufficient to explain the historial record.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Cornelius -

    "Sure, but we're not talking about "theories" in general. We're talking about evolution. Experiments such as those done by Lenski and Grant do not prove evolution and evolutionist's claims that they do are fallacious. Journalists should be able to understand this."

    Evolution is a force which is inferred, like magnestism or gravity. It is not directly observed. You can never PROVE evolution much as you can never PROVE gravity. Only demonstrate it. Which is what Lenski et al did.

    "Geocentrism successfully predicts risings and settings of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars. It successfully predicts conjunctions, eclipses, etc."

    Fair enough. But heliocentrism predicts these things to - and other things which geocentrism fails to account for.

    So in the case of geocentrism v heliocentrism, what we see is a theory replaced by a theory which explains more evidence. Yep, that pretty much seems to me to be how science works.

    Is there a theory out there which accounts for more evidence than the theory of evolution does? If not, then like it or not (and it seems you don't), it is simply the best that we've got. And will remain so until a better one comes along.

    ReplyDelete