Science vs. Creationism

[BENTLEY]

Berlinski is a hack. If you like, I can link yo to several critiques of his positions that demonstrate this.

I know he has enemies among evolutionists. They hate him because his arguments against the theory are pretty compelling. Berlinski's a hack? - come on. Why is it so prevalent among evolutionists to resort to name calling?

I hate how this debate often becomes so heated. Everyone's so sure they're right. All that Berlinski says is that he isn't convinced. And he gives his reasons - basically that there's no proof of the theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of evolution we have none.

 

[BENTLEY]

Many of Darwin's arguments were speculative. That is science; you need to posit a way forward and a next step, not just catalog what is know.

Speculation is hypothesis. Ok. But science is testing that hypothesis. But we can't test this hypothesis because too much time prohibits us from testing it. So we're still left with just the untested hypothesis.

Most of the speculations have since been confirmed, a very few were rebutted. That is also science.

What are you talking about? Interpretation of fossils? Or were they able to recreate evolution in a vacuum?

 

[BENTLEY]

I agree. I would have been more precise by saying "observational, repeatable, objective evidence".

We can observe evolution? We can repeat it in a labratory?

 

[BENTLEY]

At the time Darwin wrote, the fossil evidence was lacking. Since then, we've found tens of thousands (at least) of fossils. There have been a couple of attempts at forgeries, but the same scientists (collectively) who found the genuine fossils also rooted out the forgeries.

For example, almost every fossil on this page was found after Darwin died:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

These are fossils. But their being found doesn't dispel the controversy. If this was incontrovertible evidence then this issue would be resolved. It is not. Everyone interprets the data to support their premature position. If we could just recreate evolution in a vacuum over and over and see for ourselves what happens then there might be something to the theory. But given that we can't do that, all we have are bones and the interpretation of them. Like - Joseph Smith finding that skeleton and saying he was a "descendent of Ham." I can't be convinced of something until its proof is clear without the need for interpretation.

 

[One Brow]

I know he has enemies among evolutionists. They hate him because his arguments against the theory are pretty compelling. Berlinski's a hack? - come on. Why is it so prevalent among evolutionists to resort to name calling?

He has no enemies. Really, very few people even think about him until he puts something out. It's not name-calling, it's identifying the quality of his work. Berlinski is smart, reasonably charming, well-mannered, etc. His comments on evolutionary theory are hack-work, therefore he is a hack.

However, I would be more than happy to link for you detailed descriptions of the mathematical failures, that have few or not insults.

And he gives his reasons - basically that there's no proof of the theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of evolution we have none.

We have no proof of Atomic Theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of matter being made of atoms we have none. Yet, Berlinski does not apply this logic to Atomic Theory.

We have no proof of the Theory of Gravity. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of gravitational attraction we have none. Yet, Berlinski does not apply this logic to the Theory of Gravity.

We have no proof of the Tectonic Plate Theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of continental drift we have none. Yet, Berlinski does not apply this logic to Tectonic Plate Theory.

Science does not deal in proof. Science deals in evidence, modeling, and testing. Anytime anyone tells you there is no proof of evolution, in a manner where they suggest there should be such a proof, they are deceiving you. Evolution has just as much evidence, just as usable models, and just as thorough testing as the Atomic Theory, the Theory of Gravity, or Tectonic Plate Theory.

 

[One Brow]

Speculation is hypothesis. Ok. But science is testing that hypothesis. But we can't test this hypothesis because too much time prohibits us from testing it. So we're still left with just the untested hypothesis.

Testing can include making and verifying predictions. We have used evolution to make predictions about both fossils and living organisms that were verified.

What are you talking about? Interpretation of fossils? Or were they able to recreate evolution in a vacuum?

Both.

We can observe evolution? We can repeat it in a labratory?

We can, and have.

These are fossils. But their being found doesn't dispel the controversy.

Of course not, because the source of the controversy is not evidence to begin with. For a variety of reasons, many people don't like to believe they share an ancestor with the chimpanzee, the rat, the red snapper, the mushroom, etc. Evidence matters little in the face of powerful emotions.

If we could just recreate evolution in a vacuum over and over and see for ourselves what happens then there might be something to the theory. But given that we can't do that, all we have are bones and the interpretation of them. Like - Joseph Smith finding that skeleton and saying he was a "descendent of Ham." I can't be convinced of something until its proof is clear without the need for interpretation.

No matter what the level of evidence, there will always be a need for interpretation.

 

[MVP]

All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of evolution we have none.

See my signature. Are you one of those?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

objective if it's a noun, sure
repeatable applies to both
observational applies to both

In another thread, perhaps on another day if you don't wish to have it now, I would enjoy having a discussion with you about this. For example, I don't think we mean "observation" in quite the same way, but I would be interested to hear what you mean, rather than assuming it, when you feel like discussing it.

If you want to test a scientific hypothesis you will set up an experiment and observe during the experiment.
Depending on the experiment you may be using the senses sight, sound, smell, touch, taste to observe. You may be using any of a number of measurements.

If you want to test a spiritual hypothesis you will set up an experiment and observe during the experiment.
Depending on the experiment you are most likely to use your sense of spirit to observe. A tool I can think of for getting a measurement is your own conscience/spiritual sensor for lack of a better term.

ob·ser·va·tion
noun \ˌäb-sər-ˈvā-shən, -zər-\

: a statement about something you have noticed : a comment or remark: the act of careful watching and listening : the activity of paying close attention to someone or something in order to get information

: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments

 

[MVP]

This guy David Berlinski's great. Youtube him.

Berlinski himself prefers to be known as a writer rather than as a scientist. Why would anybody take him seriously?

 

[♪alt13]

This is strictly about the choice of words. We have no theories about the beginning of life, just hypotheses. We don't want to water down the word "theory" as used in science; that just gives ammunition to the anti-science folks.

No. It is not my fault that the scientific use of the word theory is so ambiguous in terms of the level of validation one or another may have. Hypothesis would have been the incorrect term.

Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.

 

[One Brow]

No. It is not my fault that the scientific use of the word theory is so ambiguous in terms of the level of validation one or another may have. Hypothesis would have been the incorrect term.

Using the definitions you offered, in what way does abiogenesis qualify as theory over hypothesis? We have several testable ideas, no centrally accepted explanation.

 

[♪alt13]

This is strictly about the choice of words. We have no theories about the beginning of life, just hypotheses. We don't want to water down the word "theory" as used in science; that just gives ammunition to the anti-science folks.

Seriously? I wish you could explain it better because Darwin's rhetoric is so dry and tedious. And severely lacking in evidence. And yeah, he doesn't acquiesce to his critics, but he does at least acknowledge the reasons for their skepticism - and acknowledges that he lacks the proof to persuade them. But he sticks to his theory, defending it with vague, unprovable rhetoric. Let's sift thru a few excerpts to see his defense in action (this will be a lengthy post, friends. And this is only excerpts from chapter 9):
Darwin's defense for the lack of numerous intermediate varieties is that the geological record is extremely imperfect. Yes, it's sorely lacking. I agree. This is his best defense?

This isn't proof. This is speculative rhetoric.


How can he expected to prove something that takes eons of observational study? ok, so no proof here.

Speculative, vague rhetoric - the proof of which he admits is paltry.

Ok.


Again, Darwin clings to the vague bastion of "Time." Y'know, evolution takes an insane amount of time so we can't observe it in order to prove it, and y'know, no one lives for eons of time so no one can say one way or another what occurs over time, or doesn't occur over time. This is science? This is compelling?


Look at the evidence. Not the rhetoric. The evidence mentioned here is in conflict with Darwin's theory. To which, his rebuttal once again is Time. So much time that no one can possibly KNOW that his theory is incorrect. He again is given to speculative rhetoric. But when it comes to actual evidence he can't answer.


Speculation is his rebuttal.


Again, he says that TIME and the lack of perfection in the geological record allows for the possibility of his theory. Ok, fine. But this isn't proof of anything.
Darwin's arguments are speculative. This is science?

Just pulled out my copy. This is all from Chapter 10 FWIW.

Again you really need to understand is that this book was first published in 1859. Now I have not heard any objections from you about the hominid fossils that we have found since then and that I furnished a link for. Do you doubt the validity of these fossils? On what grounds? Or did you not even bother to look at the evidence you were presented?