Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:First, nothing proves the existence of evolution. It's a theory that has been refined and will continue to be refined until a theory that works better replaces it.

All true. Although it does a damn good job of explaing how viruses, bacteria, and other short-lived things mutate and adapt to changes in the environment. Things like drug-resistant AIDS, drug-resistant bacteria, grey vs brown squirrels, etc are pretty good indicators of evolution, and most layfolk should be willing to accept that as "proof" that the theory holds true.

I was being overly semantic. Of course evolution explains more or less everything we know about biology. I dislike sloppy language.

According to I can't remember who, Godel or possibly Bertrand Russell -- some top mathematician anyway -- it isn't possible to prove from first principles of logic that 1+1=2.

If one accepts that, then the definition of proof in a much more slippery science like biology must either be accepted as impossible or else taken on the balance of evidence.

In the case of evolution we have a theory to explain the divergence of species, and we have a logical mechanism supporting it -- genetics -- shown by experiment.

We have a chemical mechanism which supports the logical mechanism -- DNA.

We have both observational evidence of wildlife and experimental evidence that species do change and that their changes are in response to variations in the environment.

We have evidence that changes between generations are accompanied by changes in their DNA, and that changes induced in DNA cause changes between generations.

Everything above could alternatively be caused by the finger of God, or by the Noodley Appendage.

Kilkrazy wrote:According to I can't remember who, Godel or possibly Bertrand Russell -- some top mathematician anyway -- it isn't possible to prove from first principles of logic that 1+1=2.

If one accepts that, then the definition of proof in a much more slippery science like biology must either be accepted as impossible or else taken on the balance of evidence.

Everything above could alternatively be caused by the finger of God, or by the Noodley Appendage.

Yeah, you're thinking of Gödel's incompleteness proof, though I'm not sure your example is the best..

Biology has the disadvantage of needing to wait for successive generations for traits to become easily manifest. Evolution being what it is, I always wonder how anti-evolutionaries deal with purebred dogs, thoroughbred horses, and fancy goldfish...

Many species have swift enough generations for evolutionary effects to become apparent. The extreme case is bacteria, some of which can produce a new generation in 20 minutes.

I've never looked into Creationism (or intelligent design) deeply enough to know how it deals with examples of evolution in action.

I wonder why Creationists (or ID-ists) picked on evolution rather than quantum mechanics or some other strand of science.

Maybe they don't believe bacteria exists?

Well everyone can see moths. And we have examples of evolution in action among moths.

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder why Creationists (or ID-ists) picked on evolution rather than quantum mechanics or some other strand of science.

For the same reason that men like Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens pounce on religion for the actions and beliefs of creationists. Creationists see Science as a capital term that represents an entire world view. Disprove one part of it, and you've disproved it all. Of course this is logical gibberish, as it requires one to presume that there are only two possible solutions to the 'why' question. For their part, many scientists are no better, tending to assign overreaching merit to their mathematical deductions. Cosmology, in many of its guises, is a good example of this. Of course, the religious right cannot attack cosmology because that would require them to admit that macro-level 'reality' (for lack of a better term) has little relevance to our actual experiences beyond serving as a kind of self-created emotional mirror. Similarly, highly dogmatic scientists cannot allow creationism to be considered scientific because it would require them to admit that things like CERN are as significant a display of faith as St. Michaels Cathedral, or the Vatican.

Kilkrazy wrote:Many species have swift enough generations for evolutionary effects to become apparent. The extreme case is bacteria, some of which can produce a new generation in 20 minutes.

I've never looked into Creationism (or intelligent design) deeply enough to know how it deals with examples of evolution in action.

In general they ignore them. For their part, they understand the idea of theoretic proof a little better than most scientists do. Basically, they are rabidly searching for 'holes' which evolution is unable to explain. It doesn't matter that evolution is proven correct 300 times, they just need to find 1 example where it fails as an explanation in order to devalue the predictive power of the model. Of course, this doesn't actually prove creationism, but it can give them a way to get back in on the conversation. Truthfully, aside from the whole push for teaching ID in schools, I think the entire movement has been good for science. It has reminded people that they are working with models, and not reality.

In the end, random action is fully indistinguishable from a truly alien force of nature.

dogma wrote:It doesn't matter that evolution is proven correct 300 times, they just need to find 1 example where it fails

Note that this is generally true of science: a single failure outweighs any number of proofs. Cf. Haemonculi, Phlogiston, and the Aether.

That said, it is hard to prove a negative, which is why ID / Creationists like to demand that scientists "disprove" Creation (pseudo-) "Science".

This is why the FSM and IPU are so great. As I see it, the FSM created the IPU, who created YHVH, who became God which is now known as the Trinity, which created a Son, who always existed, and "died", but didn't really die.
____

dang. I think I got something mixed up in there, and *now* it doesn't make any sense at all...

Oh, I agree. But it is very easy to lose oneself in the mode of thought to which you are accustomed. In a very real sense the challenge mounted against science by ID was effective only because many people perceive scientists as acting with an almost religious self-certainty. Basically, they have this image in their head that science always gives us the right answer, not realizing that they can only do that by giving 100 wrong answers first.

There is a strong strand in public opinion that thinks and demands that science give 100% right answers.

This is what underpins the continual announcements that a glass of red wine a day can help prevent/cause cancer, and the like.

Much of this is driven by the media looking for exciting stories to run, and played by PR companies touting products.

I assume that most scientists understand the problems and holes in science, but the general public certainly doesn't. Scientists are not often very good at PR, and a lot of science is unexciting and difficult to understand.

If it was easy and fun, everyone would do it.

Where does Ben Stein come into play in this equation?

Obviously, you win his money.

Ahtman wrote:Where does Ben Stein come into play in this equation?

As a sad example of someone I once respected intellectually.