The meaning of evidence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Sherlock Holmes

The meaning of evidence

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

This thread is to discuss the meaning of the term "evidence" particularly with respect to claims made by evolution advocates.

The reason I started this thread is that I often see - what I regard as - a conflation of consistent with and evidence for. If we are to make reasonable inferences and maintain objectivity and avoid making assumption unwittingly then the more precisely we define "evidence" the better I think.

The biggest risk here is to imply that some observation P is evidence for X and only X, rather than evidence for X and Y or Z. Unless we are on our guard we can informally exclude reasonable possibilities Y and Z and so on. Now the observation P might well be evidence for X and only X, but unless that is soundly established we simply can't assume that.

If we mistakenly regard P as evidence for X and only X then we fall into the trap of believing that P can only be observed if X was the cause.

This is exemplified by an analogy I recently put together that I think warrants its own thread, so here it is:


Consider this jigsaw

Image


None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we already believed for some reason or other, that they must overlap and we only had twenty random pieces and never see the rest, we could make up a jigsaw (theory) where we "fill in the blanks" so to speak and "show" that we sometimes have overlapping circles.

We'd be absolutely right too in saying the twenty pieces were consistent with an image that has overlapping circles, but we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles, because as we know, none of the circles actually do overlap.

So do you agree or not, there's a difference between observations that are evidence for some hypothesis vs consistent with some hypothesis and we should always be careful and make this distinction clear in our arguments?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #191

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:37 pm You're asking me to put effort into something that I can only really do if motivated to do so, like for example becoming convinced we are all descended from primitive ancestral life. That's an effort to do realistically and I can't do it frivolously.
Well I was trying to explore the fundamental disagreement you mentioned earlier. From my POV it's rooted in how you value scripture and I don't.

What do you think it's rooted in?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #192

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:54 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:37 pm You're asking me to put effort into something that I can only really do if motivated to do so, like for example becoming convinced we are all descended from primitive ancestral life. That's an effort to do realistically and I can't do it frivolously.
Well I was trying to explore the fundamental disagreement you mentioned earlier. From my POV it's rooted in how you value scripture and I don't.

What do you think it's rooted in?
No, its not rooted in scripture, my attachment to scripture is itself rooted in something deeper.

All I can glean at this stage is that it is rooted in my preparedness to abandon deeply held beliefs, a mental preparedness to start afresh, an absence of fear of being wrong. This is what I did in my mid twenties, from a position of self assuredness, atheism, I "cleaned the white board" so to speak and begin to build my worldview afresh, assuming as little as possible, demanding solid justifications for what I was going to believe, a willingness to say "I don't know" where previously I would has said things like you do, like "evolution is a fact".

I faced questions like:

Can we be certain we evolved?
Why do I care if we evolved?
Do I defend some beliefs to others, disingenuously? like they were facts when privately I can see there's room for doubt?
Do I try to appear confident even when there's some doubt about what I say?
What actually would be implied if I found we didn't evolve?
Does "God" increase or decrease the epistemological landscape?
Can I form an unbiased opinion on the "Bible"?
Why is the Bible relevant yet other theological systems (Buddhism etc) not?
Should I just push all this to the side and get back to my cozy world?

These lie behind our difference, these and many more are real things I struggled with and faced up to, we all face struggles, not saying you have not, just trying to describe how all this adjusted my worldview, I basically rebuilt my worldview from scratch and that was very hard for me but I developed strengths I never had before.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #193

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:16 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:54 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:37 pm You're asking me to put effort into something that I can only really do if motivated to do so, like for example becoming convinced we are all descended from primitive ancestral life. That's an effort to do realistically and I can't do it frivolously.
Well I was trying to explore the fundamental disagreement you mentioned earlier. From my POV it's rooted in how you value scripture and I don't.

What do you think it's rooted in?
No, its not rooted in scripture, my attachment to scripture is itself rooted in something deeper.

All I can glean at this stage is that it is rooted in my preparedness to abandon deeply held beliefs, a mental preparedness to start afresh, an absence of fear of being wrong. This is what I did in my mid twenties, from a position of self assuredness, atheism, I "cleaned the white board" so to speak and begin to build my worldview afresh, assuming as little as possible, demanding solid justifications for what I was going to believe, a willingness to say "I don't know" where previously I would has said things like you do, like "evolution is a fact".

I faced questions like:

Can we be certain we evolved?
Why do I care if we evolved?
Do I defend some beliefs to others, disingenuously? like they were facts when privately I can see there's room for doubt?
Do I try to appear confident even when there's some doubt about what I say?
What actually would be implied if I found we didn't evolve?
Does "God" increase or decrease the epistemological landscape?
Can I form an unbiased opinion on the "Bible"?
Why is the Bible relevant yet other theological systems (Buddhism etc) not?
Should I just push all this to the side and get back to my cozy world?

These lie behind our difference, these and many more are real things I struggled with and faced up to, we all face struggles, not saying you have not, just trying to describe how all this adjusted my worldview, I basically rebuilt my worldview from scratch and that was very hard for me but I developed strengths I never had before.
That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

To me that looks very much like you put the question of human evolution in a religious context, as evidenced by how your questions start with evolution but very quickly become focused on God, the Bible, and religion (theological systems as you put it). IOW, you felt the need to reevaluate your views on evolution in the same way you felt the need to reevaluate your views on religion.

Did you also reevaluate your views on things like plate tectonics, glacial erosion, pathogen-caused disease, subatomic particles, and other science related topics? Or was it just evolution?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #194

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:55 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:16 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:54 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:37 pm You're asking me to put effort into something that I can only really do if motivated to do so, like for example becoming convinced we are all descended from primitive ancestral life. That's an effort to do realistically and I can't do it frivolously.
Well I was trying to explore the fundamental disagreement you mentioned earlier. From my POV it's rooted in how you value scripture and I don't.

What do you think it's rooted in?
No, its not rooted in scripture, my attachment to scripture is itself rooted in something deeper.

All I can glean at this stage is that it is rooted in my preparedness to abandon deeply held beliefs, a mental preparedness to start afresh, an absence of fear of being wrong. This is what I did in my mid twenties, from a position of self assuredness, atheism, I "cleaned the white board" so to speak and begin to build my worldview afresh, assuming as little as possible, demanding solid justifications for what I was going to believe, a willingness to say "I don't know" where previously I would has said things like you do, like "evolution is a fact".

I faced questions like:

Can we be certain we evolved?
Why do I care if we evolved?
Do I defend some beliefs to others, disingenuously? like they were facts when privately I can see there's room for doubt?
Do I try to appear confident even when there's some doubt about what I say?
What actually would be implied if I found we didn't evolve?
Does "God" increase or decrease the epistemological landscape?
Can I form an unbiased opinion on the "Bible"?
Why is the Bible relevant yet other theological systems (Buddhism etc) not?
Should I just push all this to the side and get back to my cozy world?

These lie behind our difference, these and many more are real things I struggled with and faced up to, we all face struggles, not saying you have not, just trying to describe how all this adjusted my worldview, I basically rebuilt my worldview from scratch and that was very hard for me but I developed strengths I never had before.
That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

To me that looks very much like you put the question of human evolution in a religious context, as evidenced by how your questions start with evolution but very quickly become focused on God, the Bible, and religion (theological systems as you put it). IOW, you felt the need to reevaluate your views on evolution in the same way you felt the need to reevaluate your views on religion.

Did you also reevaluate your views on things like plate tectonics, glacial erosion, pathogen-caused disease, subatomic particles, and other science related topics? Or was it just evolution?
Why do you ask? where is this going?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #195

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:14 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:55 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:16 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:54 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:37 pm You're asking me to put effort into something that I can only really do if motivated to do so, like for example becoming convinced we are all descended from primitive ancestral life. That's an effort to do realistically and I can't do it frivolously.
Well I was trying to explore the fundamental disagreement you mentioned earlier. From my POV it's rooted in how you value scripture and I don't.

What do you think it's rooted in?
No, its not rooted in scripture, my attachment to scripture is itself rooted in something deeper.

All I can glean at this stage is that it is rooted in my preparedness to abandon deeply held beliefs, a mental preparedness to start afresh, an absence of fear of being wrong. This is what I did in my mid twenties, from a position of self assuredness, atheism, I "cleaned the white board" so to speak and begin to build my worldview afresh, assuming as little as possible, demanding solid justifications for what I was going to believe, a willingness to say "I don't know" where previously I would has said things like you do, like "evolution is a fact".

I faced questions like:

Can we be certain we evolved?
Why do I care if we evolved?
Do I defend some beliefs to others, disingenuously? like they were facts when privately I can see there's room for doubt?
Do I try to appear confident even when there's some doubt about what I say?
What actually would be implied if I found we didn't evolve?
Does "God" increase or decrease the epistemological landscape?
Can I form an unbiased opinion on the "Bible"?
Why is the Bible relevant yet other theological systems (Buddhism etc) not?
Should I just push all this to the side and get back to my cozy world?

These lie behind our difference, these and many more are real things I struggled with and faced up to, we all face struggles, not saying you have not, just trying to describe how all this adjusted my worldview, I basically rebuilt my worldview from scratch and that was very hard for me but I developed strengths I never had before.
That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

To me that looks very much like you put the question of human evolution in a religious context, as evidenced by how your questions start with evolution but very quickly become focused on God, the Bible, and religion (theological systems as you put it). IOW, you felt the need to reevaluate your views on evolution in the same way you felt the need to reevaluate your views on religion.

Did you also reevaluate your views on things like plate tectonics, glacial erosion, pathogen-caused disease, subatomic particles, and other science related topics? Or was it just evolution?
Why do you ask? where is this going?
Because we are discussing/exploring the real root issue behind our disagreements. If you'd rather not, feel free to say so.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #196

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:22 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:14 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:55 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:16 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:54 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:37 pm You're asking me to put effort into something that I can only really do if motivated to do so, like for example becoming convinced we are all descended from primitive ancestral life. That's an effort to do realistically and I can't do it frivolously.
Well I was trying to explore the fundamental disagreement you mentioned earlier. From my POV it's rooted in how you value scripture and I don't.

What do you think it's rooted in?
No, its not rooted in scripture, my attachment to scripture is itself rooted in something deeper.

All I can glean at this stage is that it is rooted in my preparedness to abandon deeply held beliefs, a mental preparedness to start afresh, an absence of fear of being wrong. This is what I did in my mid twenties, from a position of self assuredness, atheism, I "cleaned the white board" so to speak and begin to build my worldview afresh, assuming as little as possible, demanding solid justifications for what I was going to believe, a willingness to say "I don't know" where previously I would has said things like you do, like "evolution is a fact".

I faced questions like:

Can we be certain we evolved?
Why do I care if we evolved?
Do I defend some beliefs to others, disingenuously? like they were facts when privately I can see there's room for doubt?
Do I try to appear confident even when there's some doubt about what I say?
What actually would be implied if I found we didn't evolve?
Does "God" increase or decrease the epistemological landscape?
Can I form an unbiased opinion on the "Bible"?
Why is the Bible relevant yet other theological systems (Buddhism etc) not?
Should I just push all this to the side and get back to my cozy world?

These lie behind our difference, these and many more are real things I struggled with and faced up to, we all face struggles, not saying you have not, just trying to describe how all this adjusted my worldview, I basically rebuilt my worldview from scratch and that was very hard for me but I developed strengths I never had before.
That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

To me that looks very much like you put the question of human evolution in a religious context, as evidenced by how your questions start with evolution but very quickly become focused on God, the Bible, and religion (theological systems as you put it). IOW, you felt the need to reevaluate your views on evolution in the same way you felt the need to reevaluate your views on religion.

Did you also reevaluate your views on things like plate tectonics, glacial erosion, pathogen-caused disease, subatomic particles, and other science related topics? Or was it just evolution?
Why do you ask? where is this going?
Because we are discussing/exploring the real root issue behind our disagreements. If you'd rather not, feel free to say so.
Its time consuming is all. I get the feeling to that you want to somehow show that questioning evolution is/was driven by "religious" ideals. It wasn't really although it might seem like that.

My discomfort began with theoretical physics really. How it became evident to me that each new theory always raised more questions and threw out old abstractions just to bring new ones in. One day while staring at a page of equations I just went into a daze, realizing that this was fruitless as a pursuit of knowledge as it would never end. If I lived forever and was a genius even, it would never end, one theory would dominate for a time then be replaced with another and then that one with yet another. That realization for some reason hit me like a brick wall.

The whole point of studying physics was to understand at a deeper level how the universe works, yet here it was - clear as day - that this was fruitless, almost meaningless, it was clearly impossible to ever truly understand even if one lived for a million years, because reductionism always generates new primitives that must then themselves be reduced, on and on and on. The universe became - and this was crystal clear to me - unfathomable, it was not understandable, certainly not if relying on scientific inquiry. To admit to myself a person well versed in science and mathematics that the universe cannot actually ever be understood via science was a huge blow.

That realization had a profound effect on me and gave me what I regard as an insight into science that I had not previously had, science was fascinating in and of itself and still is, but as a means to truly understanding it became an empty shell, pretty outside but lacking true depth.

As for evolution I was challenged by a friend (who attended some church) if I could really prove evolution was viable, actually dig down and see if I could justify my belief in it. So I did that, and this was after my "epiphany" with physics where I'd now become more aware of the role belief plays in science, the role that being attracted to an idea can sometimes itself color how we evaluate the idea. I was fascinated by physics but now saw it was almost futile, not in terms of utility but in terms of ever really understanding.

Evolution became important to me because it represents a belief system and is defended like a belief system sometimes. Stuff like "evolution is a fact" and "if you doubt evolution then you don't understand evolution" and "there's so much evidence for it" and a host of other phrases designed to protect, to defend the belief.

It clearly doesn't seem that way to you but that's how it looks to me.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #197

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:50 pm Its time consuming is all. I get the feeling to that you want to somehow show that questioning evolution is/was driven by "religious" ideals. It wasn't really although it might seem like that.
From what you've described, there were at least some theological factors involved.
My discomfort began with theoretical physics really. How it became evident to me that each new theory always raised more questions and threw out old abstractions just to bring new ones in. One day while staring at a page of equations I just went into a daze, realizing that this was fruitless as a pursuit of knowledge as it would never end. If I lived forever and was a genius even, it would never end, one theory would dominate for a time then be replaced with another and then that one with yet another. That realization for some reason hit me like a brick wall.

The whole point of studying physics was to understand at a deeper level how the universe works, yet here it was - clear as day - that this was fruitless, almost meaningless, it was clearly impossible to ever truly understand even if one lived for a million years, because reductionism always generates new primitives that must then themselves be reduced, on and on and on. The universe became - and this was crystal clear to me - unfathomable, it was not understandable, certainly not if relying on scientific inquiry. To admit to myself a person well versed in science and mathematics that the universe cannot actually ever be understood via science was a huge blow.

That realization had a profound effect on me and gave me what I regard as an insight into science that I had not previously had, science was fascinating in and of itself and still is, but as a means to truly understanding it became an empty shell, pretty outside but lacking true depth.
That's really interesting, and again thanks for sharing.

It seems like science's inability to ultimately provide absolute certainty was an issue for you. In my experiences, that's a pretty common complaint.
As for evolution I was challenged by a friend (who attended some church) if I could really prove evolution was viable, actually dig down and see if I could justify my belief in it. So I did that
How did you go about doing that?
Evolution became important to me because it represents a belief system and is defended like a belief system sometimes. Stuff like "evolution is a fact" and "if you doubt evolution then you don't understand evolution" and "there's so much evidence for it" and a host of other phrases designed to protect, to defend the belief.
Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason people defend evolution is because it's constantly attacked?
It clearly doesn't seem that way to you but that's how it looks to me.
Actually I agree in a general sense. Evolution is staunchly defended by science advocates, and at times some of the people defending it can be jerks. That's too bad, but it's human nature I guess.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #198

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:12 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:50 pm Its time consuming is all. I get the feeling to that you want to somehow show that questioning evolution is/was driven by "religious" ideals. It wasn't really although it might seem like that.
From what you've described, there were at least some theological factors involved.
My discomfort began with theoretical physics really. How it became evident to me that each new theory always raised more questions and threw out old abstractions just to bring new ones in. One day while staring at a page of equations I just went into a daze, realizing that this was fruitless as a pursuit of knowledge as it would never end. If I lived forever and was a genius even, it would never end, one theory would dominate for a time then be replaced with another and then that one with yet another. That realization for some reason hit me like a brick wall.

The whole point of studying physics was to understand at a deeper level how the universe works, yet here it was - clear as day - that this was fruitless, almost meaningless, it was clearly impossible to ever truly understand even if one lived for a million years, because reductionism always generates new primitives that must then themselves be reduced, on and on and on. The universe became - and this was crystal clear to me - unfathomable, it was not understandable, certainly not if relying on scientific inquiry. To admit to myself a person well versed in science and mathematics that the universe cannot actually ever be understood via science was a huge blow.

That realization had a profound effect on me and gave me what I regard as an insight into science that I had not previously had, science was fascinating in and of itself and still is, but as a means to truly understanding it became an empty shell, pretty outside but lacking true depth.
That's really interesting, and again thanks for sharing.

It seems like science's inability to ultimately provide absolute certainty was an issue for you. In my experiences, that's a pretty common complaint.
As for evolution I was challenged by a friend (who attended some church) if I could really prove evolution was viable, actually dig down and see if I could justify my belief in it. So I did that
How did you go about doing that?
Evolution became important to me because it represents a belief system and is defended like a belief system sometimes. Stuff like "evolution is a fact" and "if you doubt evolution then you don't understand evolution" and "there's so much evidence for it" and a host of other phrases designed to protect, to defend the belief.
Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason people defend evolution is because it's constantly attacked?
It clearly doesn't seem that way to you but that's how it looks to me.
Actually I agree in a general sense. Evolution is staunchly defended by science advocates, and at times some of the people defending it can be jerks. That's too bad, but it's human nature I guess.
Where in danger of going around in circles again!

I don't want to use the term "certainty" where I mean "understanding". I was told from before I can remember that science in particular physics, aims to understand nature, that is develop some insight into why things are as they are. It is this, that I discovered is missing in physics, scientists today don't really understand the universe any better than people did a thousand years ago. We may have better theories that show deeper connections and so on, but at the end of the day we have no idea how or why anything exists at all, so it offers only a limited understanding and certain questions are simply absolutely beyond the reach of science.

Fair point - yes evolution is attacked much more and often by people who really are naïve, I accept that.

You said "defended by science advocates" but if that implies that no science advocates ever question or challenge or reject evolution then I take issue. Several times here someone has said at some point that any one claiming to be a "scientist" and questioning evolution really can't be a scientist, this is all part of this defense mechanism I spoke of, where dissent has to be relegated to the realm of lunacy and pseudoscience.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #199

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:52 pm Where in danger of going around in circles again!
I hope not. I am quite curious about how you went about trying to prove evolution to be viable after your friend challenged you.
I don't want to use the term "certainty" where I mean "understanding". I was told from before I can remember that science in particular physics, aims to understand nature, that is develop some insight into why things are as they are. It is this, that I discovered is missing in physics, scientists today don't really understand the universe any better than people did a thousand years ago. We may have better theories that show deeper connections and so on, but at the end of the day we have no idea how or why anything exists at all, so it offers only a limited understanding and certain questions are simply absolutely beyond the reach of science.
So it was science's inability to ultimately explain everything that bothered you?
Fair point - yes evolution is attacked much more and often by people who really are naïve, I accept that.
Thanks, but my point wasn't really about people being naïve. Rather it's about how the reason why evolution is so strongly defended is because it's so frequently and passionately attacked. IMO, if it weren't for religious zealots' constant (and at times dirty) attacks on evolution and undermining of teaching it, most people would hardly ever hear anything from "evolutionists" (and the term "evolutionists' itself wouldn't exist).

IOW, what you see from evolution defenders are mostly defensive actions, carried out in response to being attacked. Take away the attacks and the defensiveness disappears.
You said "defended by science advocates" but if that implies that no science advocates ever question or challenge or reject evolution then I take issue. Several times here someone has said at some point that any one claiming to be a "scientist" and questioning evolution really can't be a scientist, this is all part of this defense mechanism I spoke of, where dissent has to be relegated to the realm of lunacy and pseudoscience.
Well, if there was a cadre of qualified scientists doing that I would agree with your point. But from my POV and experiences, the vast, vast majority of people who challenge or reject evolution are not qualified to do so, and only challenge or reject it because of how it conflicts with their deeply held theological beliefs. That's why their arguments are so often ridiculously uninformed. If it were really about the science, their arguments would actually be scientifically informed and valid. Instead we get a lot of nonsense about evolution and Nazis, evolution leading to racism, humans not being apes, etc.

That's probably one of the main things I've noticed in all the time debating creationists.....how many claim their position is based in science, yet their arguments are almost completely devoid of it. From a human behavior standpoint, it's quite fascinating.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #200

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 7:04 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:52 pm Where in danger of going around in circles again!
I hope not. I am quite curious about how you went about trying to prove evolution to be viable after your friend challenged you.
I don't want to use the term "certainty" where I mean "understanding". I was told from before I can remember that science in particular physics, aims to understand nature, that is develop some insight into why things are as they are. It is this, that I discovered is missing in physics, scientists today don't really understand the universe any better than people did a thousand years ago. We may have better theories that show deeper connections and so on, but at the end of the day we have no idea how or why anything exists at all, so it offers only a limited understanding and certain questions are simply absolutely beyond the reach of science.
So it was science's inability to ultimately explain everything that bothered you?
Fair point - yes evolution is attacked much more and often by people who really are naïve, I accept that.
Thanks, but my point wasn't really about people being naïve. Rather it's about how the reason why evolution is so strongly defended is because it's so frequently and passionately attacked. IMO, if it weren't for religious zealots' constant (and at times dirty) attacks on evolution and undermining of teaching it, most people would hardly ever hear anything from "evolutionists" (and the term "evolutionists' itself wouldn't exist).

IOW, what you see from evolution defenders are mostly defensive actions, carried out in response to being attacked. Take away the attacks and the defensiveness disappears.
You said "defended by science advocates" but if that implies that no science advocates ever question or challenge or reject evolution then I take issue. Several times here someone has said at some point that any one claiming to be a "scientist" and questioning evolution really can't be a scientist, this is all part of this defense mechanism I spoke of, where dissent has to be relegated to the realm of lunacy and pseudoscience.
Well, if there was a cadre of qualified scientists doing that I would agree with your point. But from my POV and experiences, the vast, vast majority of people who challenge or reject evolution are not qualified to do so, and only challenge or reject it because of how it conflicts with their deeply held theological beliefs. That's why their arguments are so often ridiculously uninformed. If it were really about the science, their arguments would actually be scientifically informed and valid. Instead we get a lot of nonsense about evolution and Nazis, evolution leading to racism, humans not being apes, etc.

That's probably one of the main things I've noticed in all the time debating creationists.....how many claim their position is based in science, yet their arguments are almost completely devoid of it. From a human behavior standpoint, it's quite fascinating.
But here we go again, so let me ask - are there any qualified competent science researchers or professors who question evolution or are skeptical of claims that all life we see evolved?

Tell me how many please, name some and how you arrived at the number and how you decided they were qualified? Even after our albeit brief, frank exchange this issue of "qualified to do so" keeps coming up. It seems you really believe that there are zero and that the very act of expressing skepticism instantly disqualifies the person, instantly reveals that they actually don't understand the subject.

Can you see why I ask this? don't you see anything suspicious about stating that every skeptic for process X inherently does not understand process X? doesn't that sound just a little Kafkaesque?

Did you never read the novel or watch the movie Catch 22?



Locked