Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Olmstead]

Right. So if someone believed they'd made observations incompatible with evolution, and they'd formed a hypothesis around it (not ID obviously, so some other theory!), what would be the best way for them to overturn evolution in your opinion? How would that person go about it?

Well, the first step would obviously be to thoroughly test whether there really is an incompatibility with evolution. Not because the theory of evolution is dogmatic, but because it's well-established and held up under centuries of scrutiny. The first thought shouldn't be "Eureka, this overturns evolution!" but "This doesn't make sense, let's run the numbers again...".

 

[acbytesla]

Well, the first step would obviously be to thoroughly test whether there really is an incompatibility with evolution. Not because the theory of evolution is dogmatic, but because it's well-established and held up under centuries of scrutiny. The first thought shouldn't be "Eureka, this overturns evolution!" but "This doesn't make sense, let's run the numbers again...".

Evolution is, no pun intended, an evolved science. Darwin is often considered the first to propose it, but it predates Darwin by hundreds of years. You could reasonably argue thousands of years as humans have been breeding domesticated animals for that long.
Darwin's main contribution was the idea of natural selection. That genetic changes in species in the wild was caused by their environment.

But Darwin didn't understand the mechanism that caused the biological changes. He thought it was blending. He knew nothing about genes, DNA, RNA etc.

If your goal is to disprove evolution. You have already blown it and are not doing science. Science isn't goal oriented. It is merely the exploration of the natural world. And since evolution is the change in species over time, you will have to ignore that humans are larger than they were a hundred years ago. As well as other changes not only in humans, but other species.

And if you posit a supernatural cause you're not doing science because it relies on methodological naturalism. Which precludes supernatural causation.

The Discovery Institute doesn't practice science. They don't do experiments. They don't make predictions and they refuse to accept the mountains of experiments and data resulting from it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Well answer me this smart guy. If a person were to be wrong, how SHOULD they go about it? Huh? What does your precious science say about that? No answer huh? That's what I thought."

 

[GDon]

The proponents of Intelligent Design did not make observations incompatible with evolution and then form an hypothesis around it. They decided what they were going to believe, imagined the kind of evidence that would be required to support it, and then went looking for something - anything - which they could misinterpret as such evidence.

In this case, I'm not talking about ID, but some other new hypothetical theory. How would one go about showing one's theory better explains the evidence than evolution theory?

 

[JoeMorgue]

In this case, I'm not talking about ID, but some other new hypothetical theory. How would one go about showing one's theory better explains the evidence than evolution theory?

You don't. You don't pick a theory and go "How can I prove this is true?"

That's not how science, the only thing that accurately describes reality, works.

 

[GDon]

You're not going to overturn evolution. Not because it is dogma or some kind of sacred cow.

Never? I'm sorry, but your first statement IS dogma. I know what you mean, and I understand that you mean "highly unlikely", and I agree. But "you're not going to"?

Evolution is a fact. Not accepting it is like not accepting gravity. We can see the evolutionary process not only in the geological record, but in the genetics.

I agree that evolution is a fact. Perhaps I should have been clearer distinguishing between "Evolution" (which we can see clearly in the fossil record, etc) and "Theory of Evolution" (which explains what we see in the fossil record, etc). Just as disputes over the Theory of Gravity doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist.

 

[GDon]

You don't. You don't pick a theory and go "How can I prove this is true?"

That's not how science, the only thing that accurately describes reality, works.

I make observations that conflict with the Theory of Evolution. I form a hypothesis. What is my next step?

 

[GDon]

Well, the first step would obviously be to thoroughly test whether there really is an incompatibility with evolution. Not because the theory of evolution is dogmatic, but because it's well-established and held up under centuries of scrutiny. The first thought shouldn't be "Eureka, this overturns evolution!" but "This doesn't make sense, let's run the numbers again...".

And after you've run the numbers again, to your satisfaction? What's the next step?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I make observations that conflict with the Theory of Evolution. I form a hypothesis. What is my next step?

"Yes operator. Yes I demand to speak to science's manager."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In this case, I'm not talking about ID, but some other new hypothetical theory. How would one go about showing one's theory better explains the evidence than evolution theory?

Not that I'm sure you are serious but let's say you are. You start with an observation that something isn't quite right, something that's been observed doesn't fit evolution theory.

You develop an hypothesis to test if your observation is correct.

Take the cholera example and I don't know if this is what happened or not. Dr Snow might have observed that other places along the waterfront with foul air were not experiencing the same number of cholera cases.

So he mapped out the cases (he actually did that) and he noticed the heaviest concentration was around the Broad St Pump. He went on from there developing piece after piece of evidence.

 

[GDon]

If your goal is to disprove evolution. You have already blown it and are not doing science.

Nonsense. You can be biased as hell and still do science. What you've written starts to border on "True Science" and Scientism. Science is there to REMOVE biases.

 

[GDon]

"Yes operator. Yes I demand to speak to science's manager."

I like it! The Karen style of Science!

 

[Leumas]

In this case, I'm not talking about ID, but some other new hypothetical theory. How would one go about showing one's theory better explains the evidence than evolution theory?

The steps are

1. Learn to read stuff and to understand the stuff you read
2. Learn Science
3. Learn Biology
4. Learn Genetics
5. Learn Evolution
6. Learn Honesty
7. Learn Reality
8. Learn Jesus is a lie
9. Learn the Scientific Process and Method
10. Learn how to do research
11. Learn Honesty
12. Learn to overcome Cognitive Dissonance and face reality for what it is

 

[Leumas]

I make observations that conflict with the Theory of Evolution. I form a hypothesis. What is my next step?

You do not know what the theory of evolution is... you do not know what observations that conflict with theory of evolution would be... you do not know what a hypothesis about evolution would be... the next step....

Learn the stuff you did not know and then you will see that your observations were wrong and your hypotheses badly formed upon wrong bases.

Go back to school and

1. Learn to read stuff and to understand the stuff you read
2. Learn Science
3. Learn Biology
4. Learn Genetics
5. Learn Evolution
6. Learn Honesty
7. Learn Reality
8. Learn Jesus is a lie
9. Learn the Scientific Process and Method
10. Learn how to do research
11. Learn Honesty
12. Learn to overcome Cognitive Dissonance and face reality for what it is

 

[Leumas]

I agree that evolution is a fact. Perhaps I should have been clearer distinguishing between "Evolution"... and "Theory of Evolution" (which explains what we see in the fossil record, etc). Just as disputes over the Theory of Gravity doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist.

So your dispute for the theory of evolution is

Some alien or god or God did it???​

 

[arthwollipot]

Never? I'm sorry, but your first statement IS dogma. I know what you mean, and I understand that you mean "highly unlikely", and I agree. But "you're not going to"?

There comes a point where we no longer need to equivocate. Technically yes, we can treat it as though the equivocation is there, but for the most part we can say...

I agree that evolution is a fact.

And that means that you're never going to overturn it.

I make observations that conflict with the Theory of Evolution. I form a hypothesis. What is my next step?

You don't make such observations. That's the point. If you had, and they were reliable enough to survive the gauntlet of scientific enquiry (I guess in a completely different hypothetical universe from ours), then your hypothesis would already be the commonly accepted scientific theory. But it isn't, because the only observations that can be made (in this universe) confirm the existing theory.

 

[Leumas]

And after you've run the numbers again, to your satisfaction? What's the next step?

Learn what the "numbers" are in the first place and how to "run" them... because "running the numbers" a gazillion times when you do not know what they are or how to run them you will be just wrong a gazillion times.

 

[Leumas]

Nonsense. You can be biased as hell and still do science. What you've written starts to border on "True Science" and Scientism. Science is there to REMOVE biases.

If you knew what science is or what "doing science" is or what the scientific method is or what is research and experimentation are... you would see how wrong this statement is.

 

[Leumas]

I agree that evolution is a fact.....

And now I suggest you pause and read your own words... and heed them...

In a similar vein, and to paraphrase CS Lewis: Nothing worse than trying to defend weak arguments in defence of your worldview.....

Sometimes people continually using bad arguments do more harm against their own side than anything the other side can do....

 

[Steve]

"In the Maritime Sailors' Cathedral
The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times
For each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Today it chimed 30 times.