Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Of course religious people don't have the same veiw, they don't believe in science or evolution

This statement is either disingenuous or deluded. The vast majority of 'religious people,' no matter how you define 'religious,' believe in science at least insofar as it produces technology, even if they perceive bias in some work. Many also believe in evolution to varying degrees, though pernicious misinformation erodes that demographic. Waving a strawman does not support your claims to objectivity and reason.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Religious beliefs are faith, which means believing things despite evidence to the contrary.

0.o I think your dictionary's broken. You're treating faith like something exotic that you don't experience. It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

Taosaur,

For one example; Perhaps you could explain peoples faith in praying?

There is no evidence that this has ever helped anyone. Further, it has never done anything like heal a severed limb or something that could have happened, by chance, without praying. Statistics can explain just about any 'miracle' caused by praying.

So why do people have faith in praying?

For another example;

Having a religious faith immediately sets forth a bias to scientific research. You can have a hypothesis that a God might exist, but if you are confident and believe a God exists regardless of any evidence or logic, then you have no reasoning for it. Furthermore, faith limits research as you can easily retort "God caused X" to whatever proposed research hypothesis is presented.

Of course, several do not do this, but the point is that you can and many do.

I hope you see where I was going with the latter part of this.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please read the thread before posting.

Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc. It is a fact that it happens.

If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.

~

This is what we will never be able to prove or Disprove however if we presume that this is true and that we do infact exist then Evolution would also be a conclusive Theorem under the existance and the rules that Apply to this universe.

O'nus how do you propose to stop people from saying God caused x god caused y etc, you cant! Also I dont understand why we cant accept theorems which have been proven to scientifcily correct to the Variables present at the times with God. Why do we have to deal in absolutes all the time? (I know this is going off topic a bit soz)

Originally Posted by Verto

This is what we will never be able to prove or Disprove however if we presume that this is true and that we do infact exist then Evolution would also be a conclusive Theorem under the existance and the rules that Apply to this universe.

Are you saying that evolution is also a preconceived bias..? I am not sure what you are saying here.

O'nus how do you propose to stop people from saying God caused x god caused y etc, you cant! Also I dont understand why we cant accept theorems which have been proven to scientifcily correct to the Variables present at the times with God. Why do we have to deal in absolutes all the time? (I know this is going off topic a bit soz)

You can stop people from saying and believing falsehoods by simply enlightening them. (ie. gravity, math, psychology, etc.). We do not have to deal with absolutes, but we ought to deal with empirical observation and those things which we can show and see. Tangible material that is not subject to manipulation, lies, and bias.

Say I have a deck of cards. You want to get the ace of spades from me. You can bet whether or not the card is in the deck to win. Theists will bet that the card is in the deck, Atheists will question it first and likely not bet in the end. They will want to see reasoning to believe that it is in there, not otherwise. I hope you see what I am trying to analgously illustrate.

What do you think...?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Taosaur,

For one example; Perhaps you could explain peoples faith in praying?

There is no evidence that this has ever helped anyone. Further, it has never done anything like heal a severed limb or something that could have happened, by chance, without praying. Statistics can explain just about any 'miracle' caused by praying.

So why do people have faith in praying?

1. because it feels good--prayer can have a "zeroing" effect similar to meditation, refocusing the mind and setting aside daily preoccupations
2. because they have perceived intervention in their own lives--again, you won't convince them to adopt strict materialism by citing statistics any more than they'll convince you to pray by laying out their biography. It doesn't mean they're bad or stupid, they just have different experiences and priorities.

Originally Posted by O'nus

For another example;

Having a religious faith immediately sets forth a bias to scientific research. You can have a hypothesis that a God might exist, but if you are confident and believe a God exists regardless of any evidence or logic, then you have no reasoning for it. Furthermore, faith limits research as you can easily retort "God caused X" to whatever proposed research hypothesis is presented.

If you've set up a scientific study of whether God exists, you've already got issues. There's a reason people drawn to the sciences also tend to be atheists and deists; it suits their way of thinking. For them, the scientific method may be the ultimate Golden Rule, applicable in variable measure to every aspect of life. For the rest of humanity, its relevance approaches zero.

Take leadership, for instance. While leaders can and should take into account the advice of experts, in the end they can only be so analytical--many decisions require intuiting systems too large and chaotic for detailed study and determining how to navigate or reshape them toward desirable outcomes.

Science and empiricism can and do coexist with religion and mysticism in the majority of people alive today. All of the above serve us as a society and serve the needs of different individuals with the society; all of them are susceptible to corruption and distortion; from my perspective all of them are equally imaginary; and all of them need more work.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

1. because it feels good--prayer can have a "zeroing" effect similar to meditation, refocusing the mind and setting aside daily preoccupations
2. because they have perceived intervention in their own lives--again, you won't convince them to adopt strict materialism by citing statistics any more than they'll convince you to pray by laying out their biography. It doesn't mean they're bad or stupid, they just have different experiences and priorities.

1) Could not you say that about just about any fetish? That is no justification. If it is, we could say that child pornography is justified because it 'zeroes' the fetished one. Of course, I think we both agree that this is not a justification or reason.

2) Perceving intervention is very subject to confirmation bias when approached with the randomness of the miraculous events and their sparse nature. That alone quells the validity of its initial nature; to act as a catalyst for the miraculous. How can it be a reliable source for miracles when it has absolutely no results or reason to believe in results? Would you say the samething about someone who tucks their shirt in before each game? This is superstitition and we both know that superstition is as profound as any anecodotal reasoning.

If you've set up a scientific study of whether God exists, you've already got issues. There's a reason people drawn to the sciences also tend to be atheists and deists; it suits their way of thinking. For them, the scientific method may be the ultimate Golden Rule, applicable in variable measure to every aspect of life. For the rest of humanity, its relevance approaches zero.

Right, if someone did set up a study for whether or not God exists, they are going to face problems. However, consider the following:

Study: To see what that cause is of a death caused by an implausible incident (ie. hockey puck flying from a game and killing one single audience member):
Theist: Conceives of a preconception of fate; they died because they were meant to die. Now they set out to prove this or disprove this.
Atheist: No preconcpetions. Invesitgates empirical reasoning free-from confirmation bias.

See the difference now?

Science and empiricism can and do coexist with religion and mysticism in the majority of people alive today. All of the above serve us as a society and serve the needs of different individuals with the society; all of them are susceptible to corruption and distortion; from my perspective all of them are equally imaginary; and all of them need more work.

Empiricism and Religion cannot coexist because they directly contradict each other. The one requires evidence and reason for facticity wheras the latter only requires a fundamental belief and idea; worship and memes to elevate it from an idea to a set tradition. The tradition easily becomes longer and the longer it becomes the more powerful it becomes. There is no reason for it, tradition is not a justification for a doctrine. The ancients slept with Catamites, young boys, as a tradition; does that mean it is justified or rational?

Militant Atheists do set out to disprove God and this is where I think you are subject to your own criticism; you are focusing only on those militant Atheists and Scientists that are setting forth to disprove things rather than investigate things. Please recognize the distinguishment and that this is the initial definitions that I have always ardently argued for.

~

O'nus, tell me this: are you convinced that there is one correct set of principles to live by, and one correct method for arriving at them?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

O'nus, tell me this: are you convinced that there is one correct set of principles to live by, and one correct method for arriving at them?

No, I think that is the room for debate.

If I were to answer this question instinctively, I would say "Discourse". Discourse is the best thing to live by because without it nothing would exist. We need interaction. All living things require interaction and discourse in order to survive and to develop.

With that said, if I have prevented or deterred any form of discourse, I want to be told so; I would do the same in turn. Although, I humbly note that you have been a very well versed and honorable person to speak with; you have taught me a great lot over the last while. For that, I thank you.

The ethical body is what is up for debate. That is what I am trying to avoid in my discussion becaues I hold, at this time, to be of profound aporetic nature. However, if that is what you want to strive towards, please let me know.

~

I see two big problems in this thread so far - both are vague or absent definitions. I think we should all agree on a good definition of these two terms before we continue our discussion.

The first word is "morals". If you define "morals" as a universal code of conduct, I would think most non-theists would say that they do not have morals. We do have personal opinions as to what is 'right' or 'wrong' to do in a given situation, but not in general (like thou shalt not kill - what if someone's intent on killing you?). I personally include these individual judgments of subjective 'right' and 'wrong' in my definition of morality. However,

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing.

That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are. So let's get this straight. Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?


The other word is of course 'faith'.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

I would argue that one can never know anything for 'certain', just beyond reasonable doubt - does that mean that everything is 'faith'? My definition of faith is also not "a belief held despite evidence of the contrary", because what if there is massively more evidence in favor of a belief?

I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence". In this light, personal experiences do count as evidence. However, assumptions and conjecture based on these experiences require faith. For example, the belief that "I was walking through the woods the other day and suddenly I felt a great joy, and a great clarity" is not faith-based. However, if one extends this experience and says "God touched me in the woods and now I see the light" is faith-based.

A trust in someone is also not 'faith' under my definition - it is a belief backed by your previous observations of their competence or success.

Can everyone agree on this definition of faith?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have studied behavioral psychology (of course, I'm no expert) and yet I have still seen no definitive evidence of moral codes among animals.What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing. What have you studied that has lead you to believe otherwise? There are alternative forms of evidence that you could provide other than a picture.

I'm not clear what you are using as a definition of "morals" if you can't see evidence of what we would call moral behavior in humans in animals as well. To start very simply, it is moral behavior when a when a mother takes care of her children instead of abandoning them, right? Obviously animals do this. A step up might be altruistic behavior in animals, examples of which can easily be found. (I'm defining that as an animal risking danger to itself to help another, in addition the parental behavior). Another analagous behavior to that which we call moral in humans is the aversion of breeding with siblings, parents, etc. Some animals have much more complex rules about sex even than that. Animals who live in groups have much more complex social "moral" behavior than those that live individually. Every human moral behavior can easily be explained by the biopsychosocial model of evolution, and in fact, make no sense otherwise (barring belief of course in a higher power who created the universe and is also deeply interested in human's sex lives.)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, not all cultures developed moral stigmas about killing and sex, and even the ones that have moral guidelines regarding these things differ drastically from each other.

OK, the vast, vast majority of cultures have moral guidelines concerning killing and sex. I guess I shouldn't say "all", but I'd be surprised if there were any.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The Romans and the Greeks had very few social restrictions when it came to sex,

So incredibly wrong I'm not going to bother.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

and most early meso-american cultures were not against killing for virtually any reason.

Wow, so wrong I'm seriously starting to wonder about you. You must have studied history at the same place you studied biology.

I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As far as your comment about Moses is concerned; religion existed long before Moses; among the Jews and otherwise. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a moral code that predated religion, as it is near impossible to tell when the advent of religion came about.

Well.. that actually is more support for my argument than yours, I would say.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

This statement is either disingenuous or deluded. The vast majority of 'religious people,' no matter how you define 'religious,' believe in science at least insofar as it produces technology, even if they perceive bias in some work. Many also believe in evolution to varying degrees, though pernicious misinformation erodes that demographic. Waving a strawman does not support your claims to objectivity and reason.

Yea, you're right, that was kind of a stupid thing to say. Most religious people of course believe in most aspects of science; they just away from it turn to faith when it comes to geology, biology, etc.; whichever happens to contradict something that they have faith in.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

0.o I think your dictionary's broken. You're treating faith like something exotic that you don't experience. It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

Well, I guess it can be used in both senses, can't it? I have faith that my car will start in the morning, but I can't prove it. I meant it in the religious sense of faith, which is belief despite a lack of or even evidence to the contrary, not the wider meaning of things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I think faith is "A belief which is not backed by empirical evidence".

That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with confidence.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.

That's precisely the case with religious faith of all kinds. Like the example of your car, virtually every action we take requires faith for us to proceed. Religious teachings and practices, when they're working, serve as both a well of faith--an energizing force--and a toolkit for shaping the mindstream to proceed more easily, with less resistance.

I take my personal understanding of religion from Buddhism, which is a very deliberate and self-conscious religion, but it is a religion. The other religions, and many secular philosophies, do the same things Buddhism does, but with different styles and emphases. Also, I would say, different strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That's problematic in that faith is not the belief itself, but the support of belief. Perhaps "a non-empirical support of belief." It's also synonymous with confidence.

I understand. You can take this route and it does make sense. It is faithful to believe in the uniformity of nature; that if nature does one thing a certain way, it will continue to do so. For example, once we empirically view one thing, we rely on nature to keep that empirical observation uniform. However, even this is a inductive inference to the unpredictable future. We cannot empirically observe the future, only predict and predictions are residual incarnations of implications and derived from inferences. Reinforcing these would be invariable beliefs and faith to theorems such as the uniformity of nature.

Is this what you are saying?

There is one problem with this; if we adhere to the randomness and arbitrary nature of reality, we must propogate this logic to universality. We must be able to apply it to all systems of view otherwise it is subject to bias and extends beyond its context to a separate entity; another set of beliefs.

This being the premise, we ought to not believe in the uniform nature of anything. Every moment ought to be random and give room for every single possibility. This means you ought to give leeway to the possibility that you can turn into jello in the next moment of reading this very setence.

My question is then, how plausible and pragmatic is this approach? Unfortunately, we are tangible mortal beings that rely on a physical approach to sensing reality and require a set of beliefs and preconceptions in order to best structure and interact with our environment. Without these, we would all inexorably die.

What do you think...?

~

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say.

Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

That seems to be directly opposing my view of what 'morals' are. So let's get this straight. Are they a universal code of which actions are right and which are wrong, or are they the ability to make decisions we consider right in any given situation?

I can't tell but it seems like you are agreeing with me. I was arguing that behavioral patterns that respond to social stresses were not the same as morals. Are you saying that they are? It is my belief that morality is opposed to natural social responses. This can be illustrated by a feeling of remorse after an 'immoral' act, even though no negative consequences were experienced.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.

OK, whatever. Maybe you'll learn about it someday.

These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol

However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.

I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that GOD made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?

Originally Posted by Verto

These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol

However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.

I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that GOD made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?

I was just watching Sam Harris lecture from last year's Beyond Belief conference, and he provided a good context for this question by distinguishing between evidence suggesting a god vs. being compatible with a god. When you look at evidence with the assumption that there is a god and ask, is this evidence compatible with my belief?--as you point out, you can always answer yes. If, however, you examine the evidence of cosmology, biology, history and other disciplines, and you ask instead, what does this evidence suggest?--the existence of a benevolent, involved creator is unlikely to come up.

Thank you, I like that answer. That is a very interesting way to look at this repetitive view that alot of Christians come up with.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please read the thread before posting.

Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc. It is a fact that it happens.

If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.

~

Theory is not a fact itself, but rather a statement about facts (it also has many other qualities, such as repeated, independently verifiable results; that's already been mentioned though). That said, i'm not denying the truth in theories, i am simply being pedantic about semantics, rhyming all the while...
I find it horrifying and at the same time hilarious that there has been a drive to teach Creationism alongside The Theory of Evolution; the former is a collection of untestable statements, and the latter is what i defined earlier - an attempt at truth, and a pretty damn good one.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

All you have to do is google or go to the Library. And plenty of information, modern science, quantum physics, etc. It will show you that evolution is an older model that doesn't hold up to the present known results of the latest work anyway. There will always be dinosaurs, but progress cannot be ignored. The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all. If those who bark at me for not responding correctly were more interested in the truth and less interested in making me look bad. Maybe they would realize their fragile ego has already being shattered by someone more qualified that they havn't even being bothered to read about yet.

What are you on about? The double slit experiment has nothing at all to do with evolution, nor will it ever have anything to do with evolution.
Let me say that again. Nothing to do with evolution.
Guess what, i play guitar. That also has nothing to do with evolution.

If you are going to construct an argument by referring to random things, your argument will get shot apart pretty quickly.

For those who don't know, the double slit experiment is a test of the wave-particle duality of matter and light. It works by allowing one photon at a time to pass between one of two slits. The experiment produced an interference pattern that could only be explained by wave theory, while a single photon appears particle-like in nature. Thus, through displaying both wave and particle attributes of photons, the double slit experiment confirmed wave-particle duality.

Hence, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory and can neither prove nor disprove it.

Sorry if this was already mentioned.

Spoiler for The truth about evolution:

The truth about evolution

Mmm, strawmenberry.

Guys, evolution is quite simple at base:

When split appart and copied during reproduction at cellular level, the DNA molecule will be changed slightly from the parent molecule. Why?

Because copying isn't perfect. There is no intelligence to it, so you get a slightly altered molecule.

That's it. There is NOTHING more to biological evolution. The rest is just the application of this basic fact and other spring-offs from it.