Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[JaredJames]

As much as I would love to debate this with you, (I really do like a good debate, particularly on religion), I find myself spending far too much time on this thread and subject. So although I may drop in from time to time and give responses, I may not be here as much as I have. I think my viewpoint is clear. Until you can prove it, don't make wild claims.

 

[ideasrule]

I agree, I never said that. I suppose as much of an atheist I consider myself, if something really amazing happened (a miracle basically) I may change my mind (possibly agnostic), but it would take something mindblowing.

I wouldn't even require anything mindblowing. Religious people say science can't explain everything, but the day that any religion can explain any natural phenomenon unknown to the people 2000 years ago, I will convert to that religion on the spot. The explanation does not need to be airtight; it does not need to withhold the scrutiny of the entire scientific community for 150 years (something which the theory of evolution has done); it does not need to explain as much about the natural world as evolution, Big Bang, relativity, quantum mechanics, and many other scientific theories have.

Example: if I find that the Bible says "the planets orbit the sun in ellipses and the force between them falls as the square of the distance" or "the speed of light is the same for every observer", I'll convert to Christianity immediately.

 

[WaveJumper]

As unlikely as it is, how do you know science can't explain everything?

We are within what we are trying to describe. We can never know for certain if all that could exist lies within the universe. We can only assume it on various grounds but it is by no means 100% certain and it's a severe limitation. If we don't know this, how can we know what existence really is? We can't know if we have free will, we assume we do, but that's also untestable.

If there is a creator, what would stop us learning enough to become on parr?

Theoretically we can become what we now imagine God to be. The universe is an endless ocean of energy, there is potential, but the road is thorny. Even a teaspoon of vacuum energy is theorized to contain more energy than the most powerful nuclear bomb.

To know 'everything' if you like. If one 'being' can do it, why can't we. You see, this type of argument is continuous and open so many hypothetical scenarios, none more plausible than the other. Claim all you like about religion but claims are NOT evidence.

What religion are you referring to? When physicists are talking about god, more often than not, they don't refer to any religion.

My problem is that religous people attack science with the argument that science can't accept that there was nothing before, it can't accept infinity. Yet they then claim there is a creator, now no one has answered the question, what creates the creator?

Is this the only thing you don't know about what you experience as reality and universe?

Your paradoxical argument doesn't stand for me. Random chance does not lead to an endless chain of creators.

Your random chance that can explain everything is an imaginary concept. No one, not a single person on the planet knows if randomness exists at all. It makes sense that the particles in the Standard Model have the values they do because of "Random chance"?

There is evidence for science, there is no evidence for religious beliefs. If you want to believe in the great pixie in the sky go for it, but don't try and argue science unless you have facts to back it up.

You are not authorised to speak on behalf of science. You are authorised to speak on behalf of yourself and your fellow atheists. Science is about explaining what is testable. This does NOT mean that everything is testable.

 

[D H]

You aren't aware of your own ignorance.

You need to look in a mirror.

The term "god-of-the-gaps" originated with a Christian evangelical over 100 years ago. A Christian web site, http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps, says this about this style of argumentation:

God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.​

The fallacy of argument from ignorance, aka argument to ignorance, aka appeal to ignorance, aka argumentum ad ignorantiam, was known to the ancients. Arguing that because science has no hard evidence of how life arose invalidates abiogenesis or evolution is fallacious. This is an argument from ignorance. Arguing that because science cannot prove that a supreme being does not exist means that a supreme being does exist is also an argument from ignorance. In both cases, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

 

[WaveJumper]

I wouldn't even require anything mindblowing. Religious people say science can't explain everything, but the day that any religion can explain any natural phenomenon unknown to the people 2000 years ago, I will convert to that religion on the spot.

Look beyond the blatantly obvious. Why is an explanation possible? What makes this possible? Why is there something to be explained? And why is there someone to explain it?

 

[Emanresu56]

Existence requires an explanation.

No, it doesn't. Humans only desire explanations.

 

[WaveJumper]

You need to look in a mirror.

The term "god-of-the-gaps" originated with a Christian evangelical over 100 years ago. A Christian web site, http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps, says this about this style of argumentation:

God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.​

The fallacy of argument from ignorance, aka argument to ignorance, aka appeal to ignorance, aka argumentum ad ignorantiam, was known to the ancients. Arguing that because science has no hard evidence of how life arose invalidates abiogenesis or evolution is fallacious. This is an argument from ignorance. Arguing that because science cannot prove that a supreme being does not exist means that a supreme being does exist is also an argument from ignorance. In both cases, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

I am arguing that science cannot explain existence and the existence of reality(which is just about everything that can be perceived), and all the atheists who know what reality is and what existence is, are forever ignorant of their own ignorance. Including those who raise the God of gaps argument.

 

[Emanresu56]

I am arguing that science cannot explain existence and the existence of reality(which is just about everything that can be perceived), and all the atheists who know what reality is and what existence is, are forever ignorant of their own ignorance. Including those who raise the God of gaps argument.

First of all, you are misunderstanding what atheism is. Atheism is not a claim that god does not exist, it is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. That does not require the claim that god does not exist, nor does it require any claims at all. Second, most atheists do not claim to know any kind of an ultimate reality, in fact, some do not even agree with the idea of an ultimate reality. Third, how can you exclude the possibility of science explaining the "existence of reality"? Or do you agree that there is a possibility?

 

[WaveJumper]

Existence requires an explanation.

No, it doesn't. Humans only desire explanations.

Sorry, i require an explanation. If i decide to join the sect, i'll keep my blinders shut to these uncomfortable questions.

 

[Emanresu56]

Sorry, i require an explanation. If i decide to join the sect, i'll keep my blinders shut to these uncomfortable questions.

What "sect"? And if science cannot explain the existence of reality, how are you going to come to an explanation?

 

[ideasrule]

Look beyond the blatantly obvious. Why is an explanation possible? What makes this possible? Why is there something to be explained? And why is there someone to explain it?

I asked for an explanation of nature, not for more questions. You said that science can't explain everything; I say that if your religion can explain anything unknown to the ancients, I'll convert immediately. Of course, that explanation has to be backed up by objective evidence (what you called "the blatantly obvious"), not on further speculation.

 

[WaveJumper]

What "sect"? And if science cannot explain the existence of reality, how are you going to come to an explanation?

The sect that has "explained" everything. I never said we can explain Everything or hinted that we can come to explanations about everything.

 

[D H]

Where, oh where, have the moderators gone? This thread sure has gone downhill. I suggest deleting posts 295 and on (including this post).

 

[WaveJumper]

I asked for an explanation of nature, not for more questions. You said that science can't explain everything; I say that if your religion can explain anything unknown to the ancients, I'll convert immediately. Of course, that explanation has to be backed up by objective evidence (what you called "the blatantly obvious"), not on further speculation.

I have no religion whatsoever. I also don't belong to radical groups that have explained everything about existence and reality. Or who know that there is no explanation.

 

[Emanresu56]

The sect that has "explained" everything. I never said we can explain Everything or hinted that we can come to explanations about everything.

But you have claimed that science cannot explain everything, in which case, how are you going to come to an explanation, if you desire an explanation? I think science, if it can't explain everything now, is our best chance at explaining everything later. But, perhaps, there will always be insufficient data. I think these are very metaphysical statements in themselves, however.

 

[WaveJumper]

But you have claimed that science cannot explain everything, in which case, how are you going to come to an explanation, if you desire an explanation? I think science, if it can't explain everything now, is our best chance at explaining everything later. But, perhaps, there will always be insufficient data. I think these are very metaphysical statements in themselves, however.

Agreed. Science is amazing but Full explanation of reality and existence is extremely unlikely. We don't even stand a good chance for surviving as species for thousands of years, IMO.

 

[bp_psy]

We cannot explain everything, not ever.

Why do people always seem to be attracted to extremes?

Yes why do they?
You seem to contradict yourself here.I don't understand how can you make that statement with absolute certainty.In the time that humans have lived on this planet, their methods of acquiring knowledge have continuously developed.In the last couple of centuries the rate of development has been so high that it has become extremely hard predict what will come next, How do you know with absolute certainty that we will never be able to explain everything we want.Also maybe some scientist think that we will never be able to explain everything, But then again some of the brightest people in physics are doing serious work on theories that are motivated partly by the belief that everything can be ultimately known and explained.

I see that you are extremely certain of yourself. Can you explain some of these statements.

Reality and existence are paradoxical, without a creator the existence of reality is even more paradoxical.

How? Why?

 

[WaveJumper]

Yes why do they?
You seem to contradict yourself here.I don't understand how can you make that statement with absolute certainty.

Didn't you read post 303? In case you have not, here it is pasted:

"We are within what we are trying to describe. We can never know for certain if all that could exist lies within the universe. We can only assume it on various grounds but it is by no means 100% certain and it's a severe limitation. If we don't know this, how can we know what existence really is? We can't know if we have free will too, we assume we do, but that's also untestable."

In the time that humans have lived on this planet, their methods of acquiring knowledge have continuously developed.In the last couple of centuries the rate of development has been so high that it has become extremely hard predict what will come next, How do you know with absolute certainty that we will never be able to explain everything we want.Also maybe some scientist think that we will never be able to explain everything, But then again some of the brightest people in physics are doing serious work on theories that are motivated partly by the belief that everything can be ultimately known and explained.

Same as above. Even if we describe the visible and obvious, this is no guarantee that this is All that exists. We have to assume it and reach the conclusion that there is no creator/god. It's a large leap of faith, and i hate religious beliefs, even if they are athesistic.

I see that you are extremely certain of yourself. Can you explain some of these statements.

How? Why?

Scientific knowledge is tentative. This forum is a nice place to learn that. Scientific knowledge isn't the best argument against god and it's a misuse and abuse of science.(though science can more or less disprove certain religious types of gods - christian, islamic, etc.)

 

[cristo]

Locked pending moderation.

It would be a good idea if all members take a moment to read the PF global guidelines.