Is evolution still a controversial theory?

Zeev:

So far, on this tangent, all you've managed to express is that I'm wrong because you're right.

ieattime20:

You know, in every argument you've been in that I've read, no matter what the other person's point is or how eloquent they are or how many times they've proven that you've made a wrong assumption, you always resort to this.

Or you're simply deluded about what constitutes proving someone made a wrong assumption.  But every argument from you I've been subjected to doesn't impress me.  You criticism is an annoyance.  It's not substantive, it's just garbage.

But, I also thought I told you off, and you were happy to oblige.  I guess not.

So... your entire argument is that constantly shifting your goal posts makes you right.  Gotcha.

Nope.
My position has not changed once during this entire conversation.

Stop being a philosophic coward.

Quit your attitude and act like an adult.

You're being exceedingly disingenuous.  You've yet to define philosophy in meaningful fashion that supports your assertions or goes against mine.  Basically, you're lying.  Though you've probably defined the term several times.  Just somewhere else besides this thread.

Again, no. Also, I have reiterated on several occasions in this and other discussions that the term "atheism" does not need to exist.

Zeev:

Or you're simply deluded about what constitutes proving someone made a wrong assumption. 

Even the lack of belief is still a subjective thinking because it's completely based on perceptions. Whether or not some supreme being exists or whether it's anything else theories are still far from perfect and they continue to change. Lets just move on. I'm also to lazy to quote you.

shanoxilt:

My position has not changed once during this entire conversation.

Your counter to my revelation example has constantly change in why it doesn't work.  You keep asserting X is inherent in the process and when asked why it would be inherent, you simply change to Y being inherent.

shanoxilt:

Quit your attitude and act like an adult.

I'm not the one lying about what I said.

shanoxilt:

Again, no. Also, I have reiterated on several occasions in this and other discussions that the term "atheism" does not need to exist.

There you go, shifting goal posts again.

1)  You have absolutely not defined a philosophy on this thread in any meaningful way.
2)  The term 'atheism' not needing to exist doesn't make your point.  'The name of the idea needing to exist' is not in any commonly held definition of a philosophy I'm aware of.  The term existentialism does not need to exist.  That doesn't make existentialism any less of a philosophy.

Your counter to my revelation example has constantly change in why it doesn't work.  You keep asserting X is inherent in the process and when asked why it would be inherent, you simply change to Y being inherent.

I said that a perfect revelation would give perfect instructions of perfect proof to determine the existence of a supreme deity. My position has not once changed. Your interpretation of it has.

I'm not the one lying about what I said.

Given your hostile and dishonest tactics, I have to disagree. You have been nothing but a constant liar. And this is par the course for your posting history.

There you go, shifting goal posts again.

Nope. Stop your lies.

1)  You have absolutely not defined a philosophy on this thread in any meaningful way.
2)  The term 'atheism' not needing to exist doesn't make your point.

Actually, it does make my point. Theists and deists have the burden of proof. Atheism is a useless term because it is a dishonest shift of burden of proof. Back in my day, we just used the word "skeptic". It is much more descriptive.
Furthermore, it demonstrates the power discrepancies inherent in labeling.

That doesn't make existentialism any less of a philosophy.

What part of atheism is a philosophy? You seem so obviously more informed. :eyeroll:
Hmm? What are its metaphysics? Its ethics? Its aesthetics?

I can detail the answers for specific atheist philosophies, but not atheism in general. As I mentioned, atheism, deism, and theism mean nothing without a larger context.

How do you propose someone present this proof?  No, seriously, I'm curious.  If someone says, "I believe in God," how can they prove it?

The ignostic (igtheist) would ask, "What is meant by God?"

 

How can they prove their position when they say "I believe outer space is infinite"?

Using the science of astronomy and the mathematics which justify theorectical astrophysics.

 

Or "I believe in the existence of free will"?

What is a will? What makes it free? Are there non-free wills? The answers to these questions will determine the answers to your own questions.

Or "I believe in the existence of love"?

Which variety of love: agape, storge, eros, philia, or other?

John Cairns:

Well, how would you measure intelligence? IQ correlates highly (r=0.83) with educational attainment. If you prefer the psychometric g, that also correlates highly. I don't see what "drive" or "ineptitude" have to do with the discussion.

 Are you seriously trying to assert the existence of g? Are you referring to the same g of "The Bell Curve"?

If so, I have to tell you that the statistics concerning intelligence quotients are shoddy at best.

I completely agree with you Zeev.  That's not entirely fair to science.

People use polar opposites.  They don't feel they can believe in contrary thoughts at the same time.  We as a race are not logical or rational.  Why should we expect so much from one person when we cannot uphold the same expectations for ourselves?  People either believe in Science or Religion.  They don't find room for one when they believe in the other.  Then when the opposite raises it's head they are honour bound to their feelings even when proven wrong.  It doesn't matter if you lean more towards science or religion.  People rarely change their mind.  And when they are proven wrong they don't abandon their original thoughts and adopt new ones.  Leading to my frustration of science vs religion.  Why does it have to be one or the other?  Why can't it be both?

The big thing that bothers me about science is the people who say that science is correct.  Then something happens that changes the story and science is corrected again. q.v. The findings of Ardi predating Lucy by a million years.  Now if those people of science told me that they really don't know where all this came from or how humans evolved I would have a lot more empathy for them.  That is something I can relate with.  What I can't relate to is people saying 'this is how it is' only to change their story several years later with 'this is how it really is.'  Then I wait for them to say several years after that 'actually this is how it really is.'

Guess my frustration isn't really against science.  It is against the people that swallowed the red pill of science and are attempting to force the same red pill on everyone else.

Mendrian I agree with you that science doesn't change just to fit whims.  However people change how science told to fit their whims.  For example when Darwin was putting together his Origin of a Species he had drawings of different animals in utero.  Creative illustration was used to modify the features of various animals so they would look alike.  It wasn't til sometime later that we learned those illustrations were incorrect.

It makes sense that science cannot help me find someone to love and for them to love me back.  It also makes sense that science cannot help me be a better person socially.  Since science is telling me what our universe is and how it began, I figure that science will be able to tell me one day how the universe began and what is outside the horizon.  I don't want science to explain everything.  I just want those two questions answered.  I will happily wait the rest of my life for those two answers.  I will not judge science poorly if it cannot answer those questions before then.  I will however be disappointed in people that walk around with an air that science is superiour to everything else.

Now if scientists said "I don't know anymore than you do" I would start supporting them immediately.  Hell I would give them a big smile and a hug thanking them for admitting to being in the fog along with me.

Guys, there has been several reports about this thread and various posters. Please, lets just calm down and take a step back. Arguing is not getting this thread anywhere. You can debate of course, but it gets as far as people people getting pissed and filing reports, then something is wrong.

So, please, lets try to keep it civil. You don't have to agree everyone, but don't argue about everything they say please.

JimB:

...I just realized I'm getting way off track here.  It almost sounds like I'm trying to argue that love, or maybe subjective experience, is proof of a god, and I'm really not.  All I mean to say is, people attach names to the things they experience, and assume that the things we name are describing the same experiences other people are talking about.  For instance, my English professor mentioned at least once every semester that when the first clipper ships sailed to Africa, the native Africans couldn't describe the boats because the boats were so far outside of their experience.  When you think about it, it's kind of a miracle anyone ever manages to communicate anything.

I'm reasonably happy to agree with you here.

Actually, no.  Real things have real causes.  To me, that's reassuring, and proves that the universe makes a good kind of sense.  I get depressed listening to mothers tell me about how they don't think there's such a thing as love, though.

You're going to have to elaborate a bit more - I realise this may be a little off-topic, but I'm interested. Why did the mothers say they don't think there's such a thing as love?

John Cairns:

No, the opposite.  I'm saying people can't have faith without having something to base that faith on.  I don't limit that to religious faith, either; I couldn't have faith in, say, the basic kindness of humanity if I've only ever known constant assholes.

Hmm. Wouldn't it be correct, then, to say that you expect some kind of evidence for the basic kindness of humanity to believe in it?

I don't know what God is.  I believe that God is infinite, whereas I am not, and as such cannot be directly experienced or fully grasped.  One of the first things they taught me when I converted is that all of our myths are metaphors that are symbolically rather than literally accurate, because of our human inability to comprehend the inhuman; so any description of God must also be treated as a metaphor.

PS: I am actually not Christian, but Christian seems to be the language people discuss when talking about religion, so it's all good.

I believe that God can be experienced in an irrational fashion, but it's hard to describe an irrational state to someone, so I'm gonna leave that alone for now.

I think that's where I have to leave it too. I would have objections, of course, to the concept of an infinite being, but given that you define religiosity as an irrational state that leaves us back where we started really!

...................................................................................................................................................................................................

Mendrian:

Most athiests believe God doesn't exist, but not in some kind of rigid, dogmatic way. The definition of God is essentially such that he would be unknowable, intangible, and beyond our ability to observe. There are a nigh-infinite number of such possible phenomena; from the perspective of the atheist, God might exist, but it makes no sense to believe in him, since that creates a criteria to believe in any unprovable phenomena. "God might exist, but his existence is so far beyond my ability to perceive, if he exists, that he may as well not." Further evidence would, hypothetically, amend that. Granted, some people think that's a distinction between atheism and agnostic atheism, but a true agnostic simply says, "I do not know" and refuses to take a stance on it.

This is very well put, and gels exactly with my views on this subject.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Mordwyr:

Why does the debate over evolution have to include the question of God's existence? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

Because, ultimately, the only objections to evolution are those based on the belief of God's existence. Now, while believing in God does not mean that you necessarily believe in creationism or refute evolution, an atheistic stance is pretty much incompatible with "intelligent design."

Evolution is so widely attacked because it directly interferes with people's personal beliefs, in a way that other scientific theories such as quantum mechanics don't - and in America at least there are a number of wealthy institiutions that are prepared to make mischief in order to maintain the status quo. Imagine if relativity or quantum mechanics did run against people's literal reading of their holy texts! One can only imagine the derision that would be heaped upon these "theories" given just how difficult they are to understand.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Elisa Thalaman childe of ArbenGhast:

It makes sense that science cannot help me find someone to love and for them to love me back.  It also makes sense that science cannot help me be a better person socially.  Since science is telling me what our universe is and how it began, I figure that science will be able to tell me one day how the universe began and what is outside the horizon.  I don't want science to explain everything.  I just want those two questions answered.  I will happily wait the rest of my life for those two answers.  I will not judge science poorly if it cannot answer those questions before then.  I will however be disappointed in people that walk around with an air that science is superiour to everything else.

Now if scientists said "I don't know anymore than you do" I would start supporting them immediately.  Hell I would give them a big smile and a hug thanking them for admitting to being in the fog along with me.

Have you actually asked the scientists how the universe began and what is outside the universe? I'm pretty sure you'll get the answer "I don't know anymore than you do." The events of the beginning of the universe have been inferred down to fractions of a second after the big bang, but if you want to go before the literal beginning of time, then no, noone knows. And if you want those two questions answered scientifically, I'll bet you'll be wating a lot longer than your lifetime. But this doesn't mean that if science can't answer two probably ultimately unanswerable questions that one should disregard the vast number of answers to questions that can be answered scientifically.

John Cairns:

Evolution is so widely attacked because it directly interferes with people's personal beliefs, in a way that other scientific theories such as quantum mechanics don't 

Which I never understood, because the Theory of Evolution doesn't state where life originated, just that it evolves over time.

Mr Gone:

John Cairns:

Evolution is so widely attacked because it directly interferes with people's personal beliefs, in a way that other scientific theories such as quantum mechanics don't 

Which I never understood, because the Theory of Evolution doesn't state where life originated, just that it evolves over time.

In my experience the sticking point is usually not that the theory of evolution in general conflicts with people's beliefs about the origins of life, it's that a number of extrapolations based on the theory of evolution do.

For example:

"Mutation and selection pressures caused other organisms to evolve into man."
vs.
"Man was literally shaped from clay by the direct bodily action of an intelligent being."

The theory of evolution doesn't specifically state the former of these ideas, but based on the evidence at hand the first statement does seem to many a reasonable extrapolation of the theory of evolution.

Peter K.:

In my experience the sticking point is usually not that the theory of evolution in general conflicts with people's beliefs about the origins of life, it's that a number of extrapolations based on the theory of evolution do.

For example:

"Mutation and selection pressures caused other organisms to evolve into man."
vs.
"Man was literally shaped from clay by the direct bodily action of an intelligent being."

The theory of evolution doesn't specifically state the former of these ideas, but based on the evidence at hand the first statement does seem to many a reasonable extrapolation of the theory of evolution.

I see your point.