Obviously you don't really understand a few things.
First of all, despite what you said in a comment below, I do not read any conservative news sources, except when someone gives me a link to them. My main sources of news are CNN.com and PBS NewsHour. I used to regularly read National Review but I don't have time anymore and gave it up.
Second, in at least one of the journal entries you linked to, I defended Obama from what I thought was an unfair attack. And in many of the others, including the posts about Fred Walser and Anne Kornblut and Sarah Palin, what I called "lies" were reported by the mainstream media as such, too.
Third, and most important, however, is that none of this has anything at all to do with my presentation, which is about getting detailed information from government sources about the electorate, or from the voters themselves (about only themselves). That is: geo data for precincts and counties, canvassing data for precincts, individual voter demographic data, and candidate contribution data (in this case, by city).
I come to no conclusions with the data, I simply gather it and make it available in different forms. Any analysis I do is very cursory and obvious (such as, Senator Stevens gets most of her money from Arlington, where she lives, while Walser gets most of his from Monroe, where he lives and his wife is mayor). And some of the data I even got from the Democratic Party itself! ZOMG!
Oh right, I see, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and evil and should be ignored. Noted for future reference.
The God of the Bible (a) cares what happens to people
Yes.
and (b) performs miracles when things become too extreme
Not always, no. The Bible contains many examples of God NOT stepping in directly when things get too extreme. The Jews were enslaved for 400 years with nary a finger lifted. For several hundred more years leading up to Jesus' birth, the Jews were enslaved and oppressed. Far worse things happened to them for far longer than in the Spanish Inquisition, and this was to God's Chosen People.
The Old Testament is full of this kind of thing, but it's totally absent from the past few centuries of history.
First, that is your assumption. There's some who believe, for example, that God intervened to save Britain from Hitler.
Second, the New Testament texts are pretty clear that we are in a "new age" after Jesus' death and resurrection, which many believe implies that God will be less likely to be directly involved.
The God of the Old testement didn't leave you grasping at straws for proof of his existance, he made with the smiting.
No, that's not true at all. We have no significant record of miracles to prove God's existence to the people of Noah's time, or to Sodom and Gomorrah. They were smitten, but those who lived to tell the tale already believed anyway.
Rationalize all you want, but there's 0 modern evidence of smiting.
No proof, granted, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And many people who knew of the "smiting" in Old Testament times *still didn't believe.* And what's more, I've already proven that lack of smiting happened for long periods of time in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament changed the equation anyway.
You've got no logical case here.
That's how one disproves a hypothesis in Science: the hypothesis makes predictions that fail.
Except, of course, that your hypothesis is based on a view of the Bible that a. no one who believes the Bible holds, and b. clearly doesn't represent what the Bible actually says. So it's therefore worthless.
What you are doing is not at all how science works. You are taking a preconceived notion and ignoring the facts to make your argument fit.
In the past few centuries people have invented a new God that is not active in the world, and gives no evidence of his existance, but that's not the God of the Bible.
False. Indeed, the Old Testament and New Testament BOTH teach of accepting the truth of God through faith, not through miracles. Even Paul, in his letter to the Romans, talks about how Abraham, the spiritual father of all Jews and Christians (and Muslims, too), was justified before God not because he believed in physical miracles, but because he had faith.
Question for you, now: if you're going to attack the God of the Bible, shouldn't you actually have a very good understanding of the Bible, rather than relying on some dime-store comic book view of it? Then you wouldn't appear so completely irrational.
I'd also question where you belivee the first principles of any logical system (moral or otherwise) come from other than the participants in a discussion agreeing to accept them as the basis for the discussion.
That's irrelevant. You are saying the God of the Bible is disproven. In order to do that what YOU think God is/should be does not matter, as what matters is what the Bible and its adherents say.
Clearly, if you are looking at whether the Christian conception of God is consistent with reality, you have to look at what the Christian conception of God *is*. And you obviously didn't.
Err, which one? You'd be hard pressed to utter any sentance with the word "God" in it that didn't represent the beliefes of some Christian sect.
Does it matter, since you were not using ANY mainstream Christian conception of "God"?
You seem unwilling to either propose or agree to any set of principles that clarify the nature of God
That's not true at all. Disagreeing with your flawed conception does not imply I am unwilling to agree to ANY principles. Come on, that's Logic 101.
So I'll throw you a bone: part of God's nature is that he would never do something outside of his nature. This appears tautological, true, but some people don't get it, so it's worth saying. God also has no physical limitations, which obviously means he is not bound by time. God created the universe in order to create the maximum amount of good, which -- given that good, to God, includes free will in his creation -- also brings with it a fair degree of bad.
which makes it quite the unintersting tautology when you claim His existance cannot be disproven.
Bullshit. Most people HAVE NOT STUDIED IT - they can grasp it just fine when they do, even from popular works.
Again, this is simply false. They can understand the theory, but that is not the same thing as understanding that the theory is true.
I'm just rebutting your assertion. ou claimed that the theory is not easily comprehended by non-scientists.
No, I did not make that assertion, in fact.
Secondly, you're being disingenuous or ignorant if you think the science can prove the "truth of the concept."
Neither. You are reading way too much into my use of the word "truth." We know evolution happens. Science has proved it. It's true. But we cannot prove that easily to non-scientists.
But why should anyone believe the biologist?
Um, because they might just be able to explain something you don't understand?
That doesn't answer the question.
Why should you believe ANYONE when they tell you ANYTHING?
No, that is MY question to YOU. On significant non-personal matters, there is no reason to believe anyone when they tell you anything, unless it's proven.
Honestly, this is pointless bickering because nobody is skeptical to that depth on a practical level.
Bullshit. The more practical the question, the more likely many people are to not believe it without proof.
More importantly, why would you DISBELIEVE the biologist without good reason?
This is beside the point. I am arguing for lack of belief, which is very different from disbelief.
Ah fuck it, go back to school and learn what science is and what it isn't.
I already know. You're the one having issues here.
The layman can gain enough understanding of evolution to grasp WHY scientists believe it is true
And to a rational person, that isn't good enough for belief.
This is exactly the point philspear is trying to make too.
Correct. And he is dreadfully wrong.
You can't comprehend something if you don't TRY.
So?
Please, for fuck's sake, TRY to comprehend science before you criticize it!
Oh get a grip. Not a single thing i said can rationally be construed as a criticism of science, but only on the irrational use of science by people who should know better, but don't.
I don't think you know what "axiomatic" means, because, in fact, it is not axiomatic at all. Claiming it doesn't make it true.
Actually, that's *exactly* what axiomatic means. Statements presented without basis, which themselves form the basis for a logical system.
Except that your claim only met the first part of your definition, not the second.
And given there are no "first principles" for moral or theological argument except those we invent, well, you have to start somewhere.
Except that you don't get to dictate it.
You seem to like the word "fallacy" a bit much.
I use it appropriately. For example, this is another fallacy, for rather than actually criticizing my uses of it, you are criticizing me directly FOR using it.
Without starting with "God exists" or "God does not exist" as an axiom, what set of principles would *you* propose which which the actions of a Christian-style God would act in logical consistancy.
Clearly, if you are looking at whether the Christian conception of God is consistent with reality, you have to look at what the Christian conception of God *is*. And you obviously didn't.
If you're not capable of understanding a scientific theory, you work on understanding it.
Um, yeah, because after a long day of work, and then coming home to mow the lawn, eat dinner, and play with the kids, I find that there's just enough time to... oh wait, no there isn't.
You don't say it's not true because you can't understand it.
You're being dishonest. In this dicussion, no one said or remotely implied that it isn't true. All we're talking about is people not accepting it as true, which is completely different. Skepticism is not the same as denial.
What is unreasonable to me is to say "I can't do these experiments myself so I don't believe them."
You're completely wrong. That is absolutely reasonable. And in fact, it is the MOST reasonable thing to do in that situation. By all logic, reason, and science, the most rational response when faced with the unknown is to say, simply, "I don't know."
What you are saying is completely irrational and unscientific, that when faced with the unknown, people should just believe whatever they are told.
It's unreasonable because what exactly are we supposed to do? Not come to any conclusions that you can't verify in your garage?
Not come to any conclusions that have not been proven to us. Yes. Exactly. Absolutely.
I also have to say, if scientists seem to demand that people "just take their word for it" it might be because they're used to dealing with creationists and assume any resistance to believing them is theologically-driven
Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that scientists often tend to unscientific and irrational reactions.
I am an anti-intellecutual intelectual, advocating closed-mindedness and also mindlessness for the masses, and am full of bullshit
Yes, as demonstrated clearly by your claim that it is unreasonable to not believe something that has not been proven to themselves.
Variation, mutation, descent with modification. Differential survival. Populations and gene pools. Fitness in environmental niches. That's basically it, minus the nitty-gritty details and the exceptions to the rules.
None of this is particularly hard to grasp when explained clearly.
First, you're wrong. Actually, most of that is difficult to grasp for most people.
Second, you are, of course, ignoring the point, which is not about whether the concept can be understood, but whether the TRUTH of the concept can be understood. Whether it can be proven to a non-scientist.
You've added nothing to the discussion because you have not gone to the actual point.
If you have doubts about their authenticity (and have some notion of how they managed to survive peer review), then ask a biologist.
But why should anyone believe the biologist?
No, the science proves the subject is correct
Not to someone who doesn't understand the science, it doesn't. To a non-scientist, it is mere theory, not proven.
If you mean that the average person will not be in a position to disprove evolutionary theory without studying evolutionary biology, then sure, you're correct.
Yup, that's what I'm saying. And I stick by my guns.
Feel free to stick to your logical fallacies, but don't expect me to respect them.
No (active) God worth bothering about stands around and lets atrocities (by His definition) be carried out in His name. This is axiomatic.
I don't think you know what "axiomatic" means, because, in fact, it is not axiomatic at all. Claiming it doesn't make it true.
If we propose a God that *does* matter (that is, His Will affects the reality we inhabit)
A newly introduced logical fallacy. Another example of question-begging. Why would you suppose that intervening in the Inquisition would be the best way to further His Will? You are assuming that which you cannot back up.
What's really and obviously true is that you personally believe the God of the Bible does not exist and are pretending that you can prove it, simply to make yourself feel better. But you can't prove it. The best you can offer is purely fallacious arguments.
if you, a scientist, cannot explain it easily enough for a non-scientist to understand, then how can you expect that non-scientists should just take your word for it?
By reading one of the many high-school level textbooks which explain it specifically for non-scientists.
Um, except that they do not prove anything, they just give the general idea behind it.
We don't "believing that people should accept what they say JUST BECAUSE they say it."
Yes, you really do. You even reiterate that belief below:
Failing to read any of the extensive literature... is not an excuse for skepticism though.
What you are saying is that everyone should either take your word for it, or study it themselves. The latter is reasonable, but not everyone can do it, and you're saying the only other valid response is to just take your word for it, and that is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
If you can't be bothered to gain a high-school level understanding of evolution
More bullshit. They do not prove evolution to most students in most high schools, they merely introduce the ideas.
yes, we do expect you to listen to people who have.
No. You expect them to BELIEVE people who have. And that's anti-intellectualism of the highest order, disguised as the opposite.
You are preaching closed-mindedness and mindlessness to the masses.
The basics of evolutionary theory ARE easily comprehended by non-scientists.
Incorrect.
how many popular books have been written on the subject? 5000?
... which of course means nothing. Come on now, don't waste my time with irrelevancies. Quite obviously, having one or one million books about a subject doesn't prove the subject is correct, let alone that the subject is easily understood by any particular person. If that were the case, then the Bible would be true and everyone would be able to easily understand it.
It's reasonable to attack a non-scientist for refusing to learn anything about evolutionary theory.
Straw man fallacy. No one ever said anything about "refusing to learn." You'd do better for yourself if you didn't invent arguments to attack.
Honestly, reading one or two books by Stephen Jay Gould would more than do the trick.
Incorrect. The problem is that Gould and others can only tell a layperson the idea behind it. They can't prove it without the layperson having a far more advanced understanding.
philspear said it correctly: one just needs to have an "open mind." But that is not how science works: we do not believe things by having an "open mind," we believe things by having them proven to us. But if we don't have significant understanding, we can't have them proven to us.
I am a Republican, though that's irrelevant to what I am saying.
It is relevant to the discussion.
No, it's not.
You seem to be trying to draw me into a line-by-line argument. For example you were critiquing the use of the word "basic" and how something that is basic could or could not be proven using simple methods. The only reason people get into line-by-line arguments is if they fundamentally disagree with someone and want to disprove anything they've said to try to win or something like that.
Bullshit. I was proving that what you were saying was not rational. I was not hyperfocusing on the words you were using, I was getting to your main, irrational, point: that non-scientists should be expected to understand and agree with evolutionary theory.
You're a republican, so it seems to me that your motivation here is to defend your canidate by picking me apart on minutiae.
As I already pointed out clearly in the last point, you are wrong. This has nothing to do with party, or politics. I have a pet peeve about scientists irrationally believing that people should accept what they say JUST BECAUSE they say it. That is the belief you were expressing. The Church of Science and its Elders do not belong on the lofty perch they try to make for themselves.
If you don't understand evolution and are skeptical about it
This is not about me. I understand it perfectly well for my needs, but then, I have a strong scientific mind and a bit of a scientific background. Most people don't. This is the point.
many people smarter than me have written about it much more concisely and clearly than I could here, you should be reading them, not challenging me to defend whether or not microevolution proves macroevolution
You're only proving my point: if you, a scientist, cannot explain it easily enough for a non-scientist to understand, then how can you expect that non-scientists should just take your word for it? It's closed-minded lunacy: you expect everyone to conform to what you think is right, completely ignoring the excellent reasons why they might not do so.
Even if you are right, that doesn't mean everyone should agree with you.
This is a particularly common blind spot of many technical people, especially scientists (although it's also a common affliction with "religious" types of all kinds, including evangelicals, environmentalists, and so on): just because you're right doesn't imply that someone is wrong not to believe you. The PROCESS of belief matters.
The bottom line is that you cannot reasonably expect anyone to believe anything that isn't easily proven to them. Period. And macroevolution is not easily proven to most people. To scientists, of course, it is. To most people, it's not.
Your domino theory has also likely been written extensively about better than I could.
Huh? Why would I expect you, or anyone else, to write about that?
If you're just on a crusade to stamp out unreasonableness, well, you're not going to get anywhere in convincing someone online they're being unreasonable.
If they are as closed-minded as you appear to be, yes, that's true. I tend to have high hopes for people to be more open-minded, though those hopes are often in vain.
My agenda here is against unreasonableness. It's not reasonable to attack a non-scientist for not understanding something that isn't easily comprehended by non-scientists.
I am not a creationist, but I know many people that are in that general vicinity. Some are unreasonable, ignoring all claims that might contradict their views. Most, I've found, are more like what Palin seems to be: she grew up being taught some version of creationism; she has a basic understanding of evolution, but not a deep enough understanding to internally accept it without a leap of faith; so she doesn't claim to know.
And of course, the fact is, that none of us really knows what happened. We know macroevolution has happened, and continues to happen, yes. I know enough of science to be convinced of this. What we don't know, however, is that every single change was the result of macroevolution: it is clearly possible, for example, that man was a special creation of God, or a that God intervened at some point in man's evolution.
I tend to not believe this, as I believe more in what I call "The Great Domino Setter-Upper." If God is all-powerful, why would he NEED to intervene in His creation for man to exist? He easily could have planned it out perfectly in advance, such that man WOULD evolve to be what he is.
However, I don't expect that people have the philosophical and scientific background necessary to really internalize such thoughts. People -- all people, including you -- will take whatever their world view is, and make the facts fit that world view. Most people will modify their world view gradually as the facts require.
My agenda here is about intellectual honesty and fairness.
All that said, I am a Republican, though that's irrelevant to what I am saying. I've defended Obama and Biden and Kerry and Gore and Lieberman and others from unfair attacks, on many occasions. Not Edwards, though. I cannot recall an unfair attack against him.
Perhaps what is more important than that I am a Republican or Christian is my background in journalism, philosophy, and libertarianism, which leads me to closely investigate claims, to be skeptical of what I am being told, and to analyze the necessary implications of claims being made.
You can observe microevolution and artificial selection.
Yep. But irrelevant.
To prove to yourself that humans came from lower animals, pretty much the only thing you have to do after that is 1. have an open mind
Also, having an open mind is required to believe in Scientology. Yawn.
look at non-human primates
Yeah, um, I'm not an idiot. This doesn't prove anything... well, except that it proves my point that you are essentially requiring people to believe something that can't be easily demonstrated to a non-scientist.
It's really the open mind part that is the limiting factor, and you don't have to understand punctuated equalibrium to understand the basics of evolution.
You're just conceding my point here: that you really want people to just accept what they are spoonfed, rather than to actually understand it.
Not understanding it and "logically" being skeptical of it aren't easily excusable.
That's utter nonsense. If you can't actually show it to be true, and the person isn't a scientist, then not understanding it is not only excusable, it is expected. Again: Barack Obama and Joe Biden likely do not understand it.
And if you don't understand it, then being skeptical is a perfectly rational response (and IMO, the most rational response).
You likely don't understand the chemical mechanisms of the drugs your doctor perscribes you, but if you're not willing to understand the reasoning behind it you at least acknowledge that he knows more about it (or at least the pharmecutical company that made it does) and you should take his word for it that it works rather than believe it doesn't.
Actually, no. Not at all. I research new drugs on my own, and when I inevitably reach the point where I can understand no more, I take it skeptically and monitor the effects. I do not take his word for it that it works, at all.
Yes, I really do. I do not accept scientific claims until I've been convinced of them by more than just the word of someone who knows more than me.
But this is beside the point anyway: you were talking about understanding earlier, not belief. You said she didn't understand evolution. Most people don't, including most politicians, including -- almost certainly -- most politicians you've voted for.
Nah, Christianity was experimentally proven false - the Inquisition was, in fact, that proof.
Um. I hope you don't really believe that obviously fallacious claim.
But go ahead, provide the proof, I'd love to see it.
the specific God described in the Old Testament took a particularly dim view of people doing things in His Name that were contrary to his wishes.
Correct. And?
We (humanity) performed the experiment, and no caring God who perfoms miracles in order to protect his people or advance his value system exists.
Are you actually saying that if the Old Testament God really existed, then he would have struck down the perpetrators of the Inquisition? Because if so, then you have no idea what the Old Testament actually says.
If this is what you are saying, then you are clearly guilty of the straw man fallacy.
So you think all candidates for President should have an in-depth understanding of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, or neurology.
Funny, I thought we were electing a political leader, not a Scientist in Chief.
No, as I said, BASICS.
No, you said it can't be figured out by simple investigative methods. That implies someone with a scientific background.
"What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?" Because you said you want the President to understand it, and the President is usually not a scientist.
A basic principle of chemistry is that all things are made out of atoms. You can't prove that yourself.
I can investigate claims and prove it to myself by the evidence of other people. Indeed, I've done precisely that. Evolution, you can't do that without a true scientific background, because it's too complex. You can only take someone's word for it.
But denying the very fundamentals of biology is not a good sign
No one denied anything. Not understanding evolution -- which is the case with pretty much every non-scientist -- is one thing. Not understanding it logically leads to being skeptical of it. Denying it is another matter entirely. Palin never denied it, in fact.
Well, I *am* a published philosopher, so I'm technically a professional bullshitter. I do wonder what question you think I begged, however.
Really? You really don't know?
Seriously?
It's a simple philosophical fact that Christianity could be essentially true. Yet you make the claim that believing in the Bible is "stupid." You have no actual logical basis for making that claim, but you assume it to make the argument that people can hold stupid views and brilliant views at the same time.
I don't question the hypothesis, that people can hold stupid and brilliant views simultaneously. However, if I were to show it, I would use views that are actually provably stupid, not ones that I simply happen to think, without any logical justification, are stupid.
Um, it's only "basic" if a non-scientist could prove it to themselves using simple investigative methods. No, it is not "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was part of what could be considered the second revolution in evolutionary theory (the synthesis of genetics with natural selection, second to Darwin's original formulation) wrote an essay, the title of which speaks for itself: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Take an in-depth look at any aspect of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, neurology, etc and the only reasonable explanation is evolution.
So you think all candidates for President should have an in-depth understanding of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, or neurology.
Funny, I thought we were electing a political leader, not a Scientist in Chief.
What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?
Because you said you want the President to understand it, and the President is usually not a scientist.
And I don't think you mean you want the President to understand it anyway. Do you really think any of the politicians you prefer understand it? No, they just blindly accept what you (and I, if we're talking just about "basic" evolutionary theory here) agree with. But they don't actually *understand* it.
So I don't think you want understanding, just agreement, and I don't see how that's interesting.
Presumably the connection is that a creationist clearly lacks even a modest helping of critical and independant thinking.
More specifically it's because I'm a biologist dependant on federal funding. There should be no one within arms reach of the federal budget who has such a flagrant misunderstanding of something so basic.
Um, it's only "basic" if a non-scientist could prove it to themselves using simple investigative methods. No, it is not "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
It's kind of like putting a pedophile in charge of the preschool.
You're kinda like a biologist trying to be a debater.
I was always skeptical of Einstein's claim that human stupidity was unlimited. Since the humans are countable finite, it requires that some humans possess infinite stupidity.
Congratulations! Another prediction proved.
And yet, you're still in fact wrong, and I am in fact right.
Come on, you have to be pulling my leg. You can't possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.
That's my line.
Actually, I have two degrees. Supposedly two of the best universities in America
I am not foolish enough to think that means anything. I know far too many people with advanced degrees from top universities. Indeed, most of the time, people who tell people of their degrees where it's irrelevant are the ones least likely to have deserved them.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you don't really understand a few things.
First of all, despite what you said in a comment below, I do not read any conservative news sources, except when someone gives me a link to them. My main sources of news are CNN.com and PBS NewsHour. I used to regularly read National Review but I don't have time anymore and gave it up.
Second, in at least one of the journal entries you linked to, I defended Obama from what I thought was an unfair attack. And in many of the others, including the posts about Fred Walser and Anne Kornblut and Sarah Palin, what I called "lies" were reported by the mainstream media as such, too.
Third, and most important, however, is that none of this has anything at all to do with my presentation, which is about getting detailed information from government sources about the electorate, or from the voters themselves (about only themselves). That is: geo data for precincts and counties, canvassing data for precincts, individual voter demographic data, and candidate contribution data (in this case, by city).
I come to no conclusions with the data, I simply gather it and make it available in different forms. Any analysis I do is very cursory and obvious (such as, Senator Stevens gets most of her money from Arlington, where she lives, while Walser gets most of his from Monroe, where he lives and his wife is mayor). And some of the data I even got from the Democratic Party itself! ZOMG!
Oh right, I see, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and evil and should be ignored. Noted for future reference.
The God of the Bible (a) cares what happens to people
Yes.
and (b) performs miracles when things become too extreme
Not always, no. The Bible contains many examples of God NOT stepping in directly when things get too extreme. The Jews were enslaved for 400 years with nary a finger lifted. For several hundred more years leading up to Jesus' birth, the Jews were enslaved and oppressed. Far worse things happened to them for far longer than in the Spanish Inquisition, and this was to God's Chosen People.
The Old Testament is full of this kind of thing, but it's totally absent from the past few centuries of history.
First, that is your assumption. There's some who believe, for example, that God intervened to save Britain from Hitler.
Second, the New Testament texts are pretty clear that we are in a "new age" after Jesus' death and resurrection, which many believe implies that God will be less likely to be directly involved.
The God of the Old testement didn't leave you grasping at straws for proof of his existance, he made with the smiting.
No, that's not true at all. We have no significant record of miracles to prove God's existence to the people of Noah's time, or to Sodom and Gomorrah. They were smitten, but those who lived to tell the tale already believed anyway.
Rationalize all you want, but there's 0 modern evidence of smiting.
No proof, granted, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And many people who knew of the "smiting" in Old Testament times *still didn't believe.* And what's more, I've already proven that lack of smiting happened for long periods of time in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament changed the equation anyway.
You've got no logical case here.
That's how one disproves a hypothesis in Science: the hypothesis makes predictions that fail.
Except, of course, that your hypothesis is based on a view of the Bible that a. no one who believes the Bible holds, and b. clearly doesn't represent what the Bible actually says. So it's therefore worthless.
What you are doing is not at all how science works. You are taking a preconceived notion and ignoring the facts to make your argument fit.
In the past few centuries people have invented a new God that is not active in the world, and gives no evidence of his existance, but that's not the God of the Bible.
False. Indeed, the Old Testament and New Testament BOTH teach of accepting the truth of God through faith, not through miracles. Even Paul, in his letter to the Romans, talks about how Abraham, the spiritual father of all Jews and Christians (and Muslims, too), was justified before God not because he believed in physical miracles, but because he had faith.
Question for you, now: if you're going to attack the God of the Bible, shouldn't you actually have a very good understanding of the Bible, rather than relying on some dime-store comic book view of it? Then you wouldn't appear so completely irrational.
I'd also question where you belivee the first principles of any logical system (moral or otherwise) come from other than the participants in a discussion agreeing to accept them as the basis for the discussion.
That's irrelevant. You are saying the God of the Bible is disproven. In order to do that what YOU think God is/should be does not matter, as what matters is what the Bible and its adherents say.
Clearly, if you are looking at whether the Christian conception of God is consistent with reality, you have to look at what the Christian conception of God *is*. And you obviously didn't.
Err, which one? You'd be hard pressed to utter any sentance with the word "God" in it that didn't represent the beliefes of some Christian sect.
Does it matter, since you were not using ANY mainstream Christian conception of "God"?
You seem unwilling to either propose or agree to any set of principles that clarify the nature of God
That's not true at all. Disagreeing with your flawed conception does not imply I am unwilling to agree to ANY principles. Come on, that's Logic 101.
So I'll throw you a bone: part of God's nature is that he would never do something outside of his nature. This appears tautological, true, but some people don't get it, so it's worth saying. God also has no physical limitations, which obviously means he is not bound by time. God created the universe in order to create the maximum amount of good, which -- given that good, to God, includes free will in his creation -- also brings with it a fair degree of bad.
which makes it quite the unintersting tautology when you claim His existance cannot be disproven.
Well, that's simple logical fact.
you have nothing to back up your assertion.
Other than logic, you mean.
Bullshit. Most people HAVE NOT STUDIED IT - they can grasp it just fine when they do, even from popular works.
Again, this is simply false. They can understand the theory, but that is not the same thing as understanding that the theory is true.
I'm just rebutting your assertion. ou claimed that the theory is not easily comprehended by non-scientists.
No, I did not make that assertion, in fact.
Secondly, you're being disingenuous or ignorant if you think the science can prove the "truth of the concept."
Neither. You are reading way too much into my use of the word "truth." We know evolution happens. Science has proved it. It's true. But we cannot prove that easily to non-scientists.
But why should anyone believe the biologist?
Um, because they might just be able to explain something you don't understand?
That doesn't answer the question.
Why should you believe ANYONE when they tell you ANYTHING?
No, that is MY question to YOU. On significant non-personal matters, there is no reason to believe anyone when they tell you anything, unless it's proven.
Honestly, this is pointless bickering because nobody is skeptical to that depth on a practical level.
Bullshit. The more practical the question, the more likely many people are to not believe it without proof.
More importantly, why would you DISBELIEVE the biologist without good reason?
This is beside the point. I am arguing for lack of belief, which is very different from disbelief.
Ah fuck it, go back to school and learn what science is and what it isn't.
I already know. You're the one having issues here.
The layman can gain enough understanding of evolution to grasp WHY scientists believe it is true
And to a rational person, that isn't good enough for belief.
This is exactly the point philspear is trying to make too.
Correct. And he is dreadfully wrong.
You can't comprehend something if you don't TRY.
So?
Please, for fuck's sake, TRY to comprehend science before you criticize it!
Oh get a grip. Not a single thing i said can rationally be construed as a criticism of science, but only on the irrational use of science by people who should know better, but don't.
I don't think you know what "axiomatic" means, because, in fact, it is not axiomatic at all. Claiming it doesn't make it true.
Actually, that's *exactly* what axiomatic means. Statements presented without basis, which themselves form the basis for a logical system.
Except that your claim only met the first part of your definition, not the second.
And given there are no "first principles" for moral or theological argument except those we invent, well, you have to start somewhere.
Except that you don't get to dictate it.
You seem to like the word "fallacy" a bit much.
I use it appropriately. For example, this is another fallacy, for rather than actually criticizing my uses of it, you are criticizing me directly FOR using it.
Without starting with "God exists" or "God does not exist" as an axiom, what set of principles would *you* propose which which the actions of a Christian-style God would act in logical consistancy.
Clearly, if you are looking at whether the Christian conception of God is consistent with reality, you have to look at what the Christian conception of God *is*. And you obviously didn't.
If you're not capable of understanding a scientific theory, you work on understanding it.
Um, yeah, because after a long day of work, and then coming home to mow the lawn, eat dinner, and play with the kids, I find that there's just enough time to ... oh wait, no there isn't.
You don't say it's not true because you can't understand it.
You're being dishonest. In this dicussion, no one said or remotely implied that it isn't true. All we're talking about is people not accepting it as true, which is completely different. Skepticism is not the same as denial.
What is unreasonable to me is to say "I can't do these experiments myself so I don't believe them."
You're completely wrong. That is absolutely reasonable. And in fact, it is the MOST reasonable thing to do in that situation. By all logic, reason, and science, the most rational response when faced with the unknown is to say, simply, "I don't know."
What you are saying is completely irrational and unscientific, that when faced with the unknown, people should just believe whatever they are told.
It's unreasonable because what exactly are we supposed to do? Not come to any conclusions that you can't verify in your garage?
Not come to any conclusions that have not been proven to us. Yes. Exactly. Absolutely.
I also have to say, if scientists seem to demand that people "just take their word for it" it might be because they're used to dealing with creationists and assume any resistance to believing them is theologically-driven
Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that scientists often tend to unscientific and irrational reactions.
I am an anti-intellecutual intelectual, advocating closed-mindedness and also mindlessness for the masses, and am full of bullshit
Yes, as demonstrated clearly by your claim that it is unreasonable to not believe something that has not been proven to themselves.
Variation, mutation, descent with modification. Differential survival. Populations and gene pools. Fitness in environmental niches. That's basically it, minus the nitty-gritty details and the exceptions to the rules.
None of this is particularly hard to grasp when explained clearly.
First, you're wrong. Actually, most of that is difficult to grasp for most people.
Second, you are, of course, ignoring the point, which is not about whether the concept can be understood, but whether the TRUTH of the concept can be understood. Whether it can be proven to a non-scientist.
You've added nothing to the discussion because you have not gone to the actual point.
If you have doubts about their authenticity (and have some notion of how they managed to survive peer review), then ask a biologist.
But why should anyone believe the biologist?
No, the science proves the subject is correct
Not to someone who doesn't understand the science, it doesn't. To a non-scientist, it is mere theory, not proven.
If you mean that the average person will not be in a position to disprove evolutionary theory without studying evolutionary biology, then sure, you're correct.
No. I mean that it cannot be proven to them.
Yup, that's what I'm saying. And I stick by my guns.
Feel free to stick to your logical fallacies, but don't expect me to respect them.
No (active) God worth bothering about stands around and lets atrocities (by His definition) be carried out in His name. This is axiomatic.
I don't think you know what "axiomatic" means, because, in fact, it is not axiomatic at all. Claiming it doesn't make it true.
If we propose a God that *does* matter (that is, His Will affects the reality we inhabit)
A newly introduced logical fallacy. Another example of question-begging. Why would you suppose that intervening in the Inquisition would be the best way to further His Will? You are assuming that which you cannot back up.
What's really and obviously true is that you personally believe the God of the Bible does not exist and are pretending that you can prove it, simply to make yourself feel better. But you can't prove it. The best you can offer is purely fallacious arguments.
if you, a scientist, cannot explain it easily enough for a non-scientist to understand, then how can you expect that non-scientists should just take your word for it?
By reading one of the many high-school level textbooks which explain it specifically for non-scientists.
Um, except that they do not prove anything, they just give the general idea behind it.
We don't "believing that people should accept what they say JUST BECAUSE they say it."
Yes, you really do. You even reiterate that belief below:
Failing to read any of the extensive literature ... is not an excuse for skepticism though.
What you are saying is that everyone should either take your word for it, or study it themselves. The latter is reasonable, but not everyone can do it, and you're saying the only other valid response is to just take your word for it, and that is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
If you can't be bothered to gain a high-school level understanding of evolution
More bullshit. They do not prove evolution to most students in most high schools, they merely introduce the ideas.
yes, we do expect you to listen to people who have.
No. You expect them to BELIEVE people who have. And that's anti-intellectualism of the highest order, disguised as the opposite.
You are preaching closed-mindedness and mindlessness to the masses.
The basics of evolutionary theory ARE easily comprehended by non-scientists.
Incorrect.
how many popular books have been written on the subject? 5000?
... which of course means nothing. Come on now, don't waste my time with irrelevancies. Quite obviously, having one or one million books about a subject doesn't prove the subject is correct, let alone that the subject is easily understood by any particular person. If that were the case, then the Bible would be true and everyone would be able to easily understand it.
It's reasonable to attack a non-scientist for refusing to learn anything about evolutionary theory.
Straw man fallacy. No one ever said anything about "refusing to learn." You'd do better for yourself if you didn't invent arguments to attack.
Honestly, reading one or two books by Stephen Jay Gould would more than do the trick.
Incorrect. The problem is that Gould and others can only tell a layperson the idea behind it. They can't prove it without the layperson having a far more advanced understanding.
philspear said it correctly: one just needs to have an "open mind." But that is not how science works: we do not believe things by having an "open mind," we believe things by having them proven to us. But if we don't have significant understanding, we can't have them proven to us.
I am a Republican, though that's irrelevant to what I am saying.
It is relevant to the discussion.
No, it's not.
You seem to be trying to draw me into a line-by-line argument. For example you were critiquing the use of the word "basic" and how something that is basic could or could not be proven using simple methods. The only reason people get into line-by-line arguments is if they fundamentally disagree with someone and want to disprove anything they've said to try to win or something like that.
Bullshit. I was proving that what you were saying was not rational. I was not hyperfocusing on the words you were using, I was getting to your main, irrational, point: that non-scientists should be expected to understand and agree with evolutionary theory.
You're a republican, so it seems to me that your motivation here is to defend your canidate by picking me apart on minutiae.
As I already pointed out clearly in the last point, you are wrong. This has nothing to do with party, or politics. I have a pet peeve about scientists irrationally believing that people should accept what they say JUST BECAUSE they say it. That is the belief you were expressing. The Church of Science and its Elders do not belong on the lofty perch they try to make for themselves.
If you don't understand evolution and are skeptical about it
This is not about me. I understand it perfectly well for my needs, but then, I have a strong scientific mind and a bit of a scientific background. Most people don't. This is the point.
many people smarter than me have written about it much more concisely and clearly than I could here, you should be reading them, not challenging me to defend whether or not microevolution proves macroevolution
You're only proving my point: if you, a scientist, cannot explain it easily enough for a non-scientist to understand, then how can you expect that non-scientists should just take your word for it? It's closed-minded lunacy: you expect everyone to conform to what you think is right, completely ignoring the excellent reasons why they might not do so.
Even if you are right, that doesn't mean everyone should agree with you.
This is a particularly common blind spot of many technical people, especially scientists (although it's also a common affliction with "religious" types of all kinds, including evangelicals, environmentalists, and so on): just because you're right doesn't imply that someone is wrong not to believe you. The PROCESS of belief matters.
The bottom line is that you cannot reasonably expect anyone to believe anything that isn't easily proven to them. Period. And macroevolution is not easily proven to most people. To scientists, of course, it is. To most people, it's not.
Your domino theory has also likely been written extensively about better than I could.
Huh? Why would I expect you, or anyone else, to write about that?
If you're just on a crusade to stamp out unreasonableness, well, you're not going to get anywhere in convincing someone online they're being unreasonable.
If they are as closed-minded as you appear to be, yes, that's true. I tend to have high hopes for people to be more open-minded, though those hopes are often in vain.
My agenda here is against unreasonableness. It's not reasonable to attack a non-scientist for not understanding something that isn't easily comprehended by non-scientists.
I am not a creationist, but I know many people that are in that general vicinity. Some are unreasonable, ignoring all claims that might contradict their views. Most, I've found, are more like what Palin seems to be: she grew up being taught some version of creationism; she has a basic understanding of evolution, but not a deep enough understanding to internally accept it without a leap of faith; so she doesn't claim to know.
And of course, the fact is, that none of us really knows what happened. We know macroevolution has happened, and continues to happen, yes. I know enough of science to be convinced of this. What we don't know, however, is that every single change was the result of macroevolution: it is clearly possible, for example, that man was a special creation of God, or a that God intervened at some point in man's evolution.
I tend to not believe this, as I believe more in what I call "The Great Domino Setter-Upper." If God is all-powerful, why would he NEED to intervene in His creation for man to exist? He easily could have planned it out perfectly in advance, such that man WOULD evolve to be what he is.
However, I don't expect that people have the philosophical and scientific background necessary to really internalize such thoughts. People -- all people, including you -- will take whatever their world view is, and make the facts fit that world view. Most people will modify their world view gradually as the facts require.
My agenda here is about intellectual honesty and fairness.
All that said, I am a Republican, though that's irrelevant to what I am saying. I've defended Obama and Biden and Kerry and Gore and Lieberman and others from unfair attacks, on many occasions. Not Edwards, though. I cannot recall an unfair attack against him.
Perhaps what is more important than that I am a Republican or Christian is my background in journalism, philosophy, and libertarianism, which leads me to closely investigate claims, to be skeptical of what I am being told, and to analyze the necessary implications of claims being made.
You can observe microevolution and artificial selection.
Yep. But irrelevant.
To prove to yourself that humans came from lower animals, pretty much the only thing you have to do after that is 1. have an open mind
Also, having an open mind is required to believe in Scientology. Yawn.
look at non-human primates
Yeah, um, I'm not an idiot. This doesn't prove anything ... well, except that it proves my point that you are essentially requiring people to believe something that can't be easily demonstrated to a non-scientist.
It's really the open mind part that is the limiting factor, and you don't have to understand punctuated equalibrium to understand the basics of evolution.
You're just conceding my point here: that you really want people to just accept what they are spoonfed, rather than to actually understand it.
Not understanding it and "logically" being skeptical of it aren't easily excusable.
That's utter nonsense. If you can't actually show it to be true, and the person isn't a scientist, then not understanding it is not only excusable, it is expected. Again: Barack Obama and Joe Biden likely do not understand it.
And if you don't understand it, then being skeptical is a perfectly rational response (and IMO, the most rational response).
You likely don't understand the chemical mechanisms of the drugs your doctor perscribes you, but if you're not willing to understand the reasoning behind it you at least acknowledge that he knows more about it (or at least the pharmecutical company that made it does) and you should take his word for it that it works rather than believe it doesn't.
Actually, no. Not at all. I research new drugs on my own, and when I inevitably reach the point where I can understand no more, I take it skeptically and monitor the effects. I do not take his word for it that it works, at all.
Yes, I really do. I do not accept scientific claims until I've been convinced of them by more than just the word of someone who knows more than me.
But this is beside the point anyway: you were talking about understanding earlier, not belief. You said she didn't understand evolution. Most people don't, including most politicians, including -- almost certainly -- most politicians you've voted for.
Nah, Christianity was experimentally proven false - the Inquisition was, in fact, that proof.
Um. I hope you don't really believe that obviously fallacious claim.
But go ahead, provide the proof, I'd love to see it.
the specific God described in the Old Testament took a particularly dim view of people doing things in His Name that were contrary to his wishes.
Correct. And?
We (humanity) performed the experiment, and no caring God who perfoms miracles in order to protect his people or advance his value system exists.
Are you actually saying that if the Old Testament God really existed, then he would have struck down the perpetrators of the Inquisition? Because if so, then you have no idea what the Old Testament actually says.
If this is what you are saying, then you are clearly guilty of the straw man fallacy.
So you think all candidates for President should have an in-depth understanding of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, or neurology.
Funny, I thought we were electing a political leader, not a Scientist in Chief.
No, as I said, BASICS.
No, you said it can't be figured out by simple investigative methods. That implies someone with a scientific background.
"What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?" Because you said you want the President to understand it, and the President is usually not a scientist.
A basic principle of chemistry is that all things are made out of atoms. You can't prove that yourself.
I can investigate claims and prove it to myself by the evidence of other people. Indeed, I've done precisely that. Evolution, you can't do that without a true scientific background, because it's too complex. You can only take someone's word for it.
But denying the very fundamentals of biology is not a good sign
No one denied anything. Not understanding evolution -- which is the case with pretty much every non-scientist -- is one thing. Not understanding it logically leads to being skeptical of it. Denying it is another matter entirely. Palin never denied it, in fact.
Well, I *am* a published philosopher, so I'm technically a professional bullshitter. I do wonder what question you think I begged, however.
Really? You really don't know?
Seriously?
It's a simple philosophical fact that Christianity could be essentially true. Yet you make the claim that believing in the Bible is "stupid." You have no actual logical basis for making that claim, but you assume it to make the argument that people can hold stupid views and brilliant views at the same time.
I don't question the hypothesis, that people can hold stupid and brilliant views simultaneously. However, if I were to show it, I would use views that are actually provably stupid, not ones that I simply happen to think, without any logical justification, are stupid.
Um, it's only "basic" if a non-scientist could prove it to themselves using simple investigative methods. No, it is not "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was part of what could be considered the second revolution in evolutionary theory (the synthesis of genetics with natural selection, second to Darwin's original formulation) wrote an essay, the title of which speaks for itself: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Take an in-depth look at any aspect of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, neurology, etc and the only reasonable explanation is evolution.
So you think all candidates for President should have an in-depth understanding of biology, medicine, clinical trials, genetics, molecular biology, or neurology.
Funny, I thought we were electing a political leader, not a Scientist in Chief.
What on earth gives you the idea that basic in science means something you could prove to yourself using simple investigative methods?
Because you said you want the President to understand it, and the President is usually not a scientist.
And I don't think you mean you want the President to understand it anyway. Do you really think any of the politicians you prefer understand it? No, they just blindly accept what you (and I, if we're talking just about "basic" evolutionary theory here) agree with. But they don't actually *understand* it.
So I don't think you want understanding, just agreement, and I don't see how that's interesting.
Presumably the connection is that a creationist clearly lacks even a modest helping of critical and independant thinking.
More specifically it's because I'm a biologist dependant on federal funding. There should be no one within arms reach of the federal budget who has such a flagrant misunderstanding of something so basic.
Um, it's only "basic" if a non-scientist could prove it to themselves using simple investigative methods. No, it is not "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
It's kind of like putting a pedophile in charge of the preschool.
You're kinda like a biologist trying to be a debater.
Wow, that was exceptional question-begging! You should turn pro.
I was always skeptical of Einstein's claim that human stupidity was unlimited. Since the humans are countable finite, it requires that some humans possess infinite stupidity.
Congratulations! Another prediction proved.
And yet, you're still in fact wrong, and I am in fact right.
Unfortunately, this Lego set will be banned in Switzerland.
The only relevance in your life is your collection of foes.
Even if that were true, I'd still have far more relevance in mine than yours.
Come on, you have to be pulling my leg. You can't possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.
That's my line.
Actually, I have two degrees. Supposedly two of the best universities in America
I am not foolish enough to think that means anything. I know far too many people with advanced degrees from top universities. Indeed, most of the time, people who tell people of their degrees where it's irrelevant are the ones least likely to have deserved them.
How?
Because the person who wrote most of the code that allows him to post that comment is a McCain supporter.