[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[zeke]

Perhaps you can provide references to support your various assertions here? Otherwise they look rather like a combination of libel and misrepresentation. I have read extensively amongst Gould's popular science articles and nowhere derive the understanding that he was either atheist or Marxist, or that he doubted evidence from molecular genetic analysis supported the idea of common ancestry.

Michael Ruse (Gould’s fellow Darwinian) stated that his good friend Stephen Gould was a Marxist…

"Quite openly, one of the leading punctuated equilibrists, Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his Marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs."​

It certainly appears that Gould (the son of a Marxist) consider himself to be a Marxist. He certainly did not contribute money to the Republican Party. For the record: Marxism is atheism, Gould did support the notion of common ancestry (he had no choice) and he correctly acknowledged that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Hope that helps, amigo.

 

[zeke]

I would be proud to call Sparrowhawke and Lord Kalvan my friends, BTW.

As would I - kumbaya...

 

[zeke]

-----> Just wanted to thank you guys (yeah, you too zeke) for the entertaining (and at times, educational) conversation.

Thanks, Sparrowhawke. We are here to entertain.

 

[zeke]

And now you are misrepresenting the substance of my argument to support your various assertions.

You just agreed with me that genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry - yes? Go back and actually read what you post. It is you who misrepresent me my friend. Barbarian has not caught on to the truth that genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry - yet. But he may be coming around - slowly.

 

[zeke]

Evolutionary theory would not propose that dogs would suddenly 'morph' wings.

Are you suggesting that evolutionary theory proposes dogs will morph wings after a l-o-n-g period of time? Does that come under punctuated equilibria or is it the result of genetic dissimilarity caused by a multiplicity of designers?

Also, the molecular genetic evidence that supports ancestral relationships between humans and chimps does not stand alone, as Linnaeus recognised centuries ago.

Did Linnaeus believe in common ancestry or did he propose that species had "fixed limits"? Do you agree with Linnaeus when he correctly stated that "all the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand"? Do you think he was a 'creationist' - believing that God created in the beginning?

All the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand, and the number of these is now and always will be exactly the same, while every day new and different florists' species arise from the true species so-called by Botanists, and when they have arisen they finally revert to the original forms. Accordingly to the former have been assigned by Nature fixed limits, beyond which they cannot go: while the latter display without end the infinite sport of Nature. ~ Carolus Linnaeus​

Are you an atheist kalvan?

Absent such evidence, I ask again whether you think that, if the existence of genetic similarity supports the idea of a common designer, whether the existence of genetic dissimilarity suggests the existence of a multiplicity of designers and, if no, why not?

I have already stated repeatedly that genetic similarity supports common design and I asked you what genetic dissimilarity you are referring to, exactly. Do you think there could be a multiplicity of designers? I don't. Where do you get that notion?

So what is the existence of organisms that are genetically dissimilar to one another evidence for? If not a multiplicity of designers, why not?

You may be confused - you are repeating yourself. Again, I ask --to what genetic dissimilarity are referring to, exactly. The ones you think may be caused by a multiplicity of designers or some other singular genetic dissimilarity.

You seem to have a somewhat cartoon-like understanding of evolutionary theory and evidence that supports it.

You are once again confusing biological evolution with Darwinian mythology. Darwinian mythology is cartoonish - biological evolution is science.

Again, there is nothing magical about this.

Flying dogs and reptilians sprouting wings where there were no wings is magical.

Please explain why mutations in genetic coding do not add new and/or different information to developmental processes.

I think you have it backwards my friend. The burden of proof is yours - you are the one making the extraordinary claim that dinos magically changed into birds. Where is the extraordinary evidence required to show where this new genetic information came from. No evolution of the gaps please --just some science. If you do not have the evidence just say you don't and we will understand your dilemma.

What do you mean by 'biological evolution'?

Genetic change in populations that is inherited over many generations.

 

[lordkalvan]

Michael Ruse (Gould’s fellow Darwinian) stated that his good friend Stephen Gould was a Marxist…

"Quite openly, one of the leading punctuated equilibrists, Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his Marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs."​

Thanks for that reference, although the characterization of Gould as a Marxist appears to be a matter of opinion. David Prindle's work on Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution makes the opposite case, however, acknowledging his left-of-centre political activism, but concluding that claims Gould was a Marxist were baseless and often used simply as a tool to taint his evolutionary ideas with the taint of political radicalism.

It certainly appears that Gould (the son of a Marxist) consider himself to be a Marxist.

It is clear that Gould was influenced by Marxist ideas, but this does not make him a Marxist, any more than being influenced by the ideas of Proudhon is necessarily an anarchist.

He certainly did not contribute money to the Republican Party.

And this is evidence he was a Marxist how, exactly?

For the record: Marxism is atheism...

Not absolutely: check out Liberation theology, for example and the ideas of Frederic Hastings Smyth, for example.

...Gould did support the notion of common ancestry (he had no choice)...

Why did he have 'no choice'? Do you mean he found the evidence overwhelmingly persuasive, or are you seeking to imply something else?

...and he correctly acknowledged that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Hope that helps, amigo.

Only if you can show where he 'acknowledged that homology supports common design' and that this acknowledgment is, as you assert, correct. Can you provide the actual quote by Gould to this effect and its context?

 

[Barbarian]

Also, the molecular genetic evidence that supports ancestral relationships between humans and chimps does not stand alone, as Linnaeus recognised centuries ago.

Linnaeus, although he did not know of evolution, did produce the nested hierarchy of living things that only come through common descent. And he did discuss the issue of apes and humans:

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ow...=onepage&q=linnaeus "I demand of you"&f=false

Did Linnaeus believe in common ancestry or did he propose that species had "fixed limits"?

Didn't say. But he did say that perhaps he should have put humans and apes together. Go to the link to see the rest of his statement.

Do you agree with Linnaeus when he correctly stated that "all the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand"?

Yep. The only difference between you and me in that, is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

Do you think he was a 'creationist' - believing that God created in the beginning?

If that's what a creationist is, most evolutionists are creationists.

Absent such evidence, I ask again whether you think that, if the existence of genetic similarity supports the idea of a common designer, whether the existence of genetic dissimilarity suggests the existence of a multiplicity of designers and, if no, why not?

Evidence. We can observe that closely related organisms are genetically more similar than distantly-related ones are to each other. And we can check it with organisms of known descent, so we know it works.

I have already stated repeatedly that genetic similarity supports common design

But reality shows you are wrong. It turns out to show closer ancestry.

So what is the existence of organisms that are genetically dissimilar to one another evidence for?

More distant ancestry. We can check that, too. It works.

You are once again confusing biological evolution with Darwinian mythology.

We can only note that you've been repeatedly asked to explain how any of the four points of Darwinism are cartoonish, and you've declined to do it. This does tend to reduce your credibility.

I think you have it backwards my friend. The burden of proof is yours - you are the one making the extraordinary claim that dinos magically changed into birds.

No magic. Just mutation and natural selection. As you see,many dinosaurs already had most of the characteristics of birds. Just change over time.

And yes, gradual, over a long period of time.

Where is the extraordinary evidence required to show where this new genetic information came from.

Mutation. Every mutation adds information to a population. Would you like me to show you the numbers?

 

[zeke]

Thanks for that reference, although the characterization of Gould as a Marxist appears to be a matter of opinion. David Prindle's work on Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution makes the opposite case, however, acknowledging his left-of-centre political activism, but concluding that claims Gould was a Marxist were baseless and often used simply as a tool to taint his evolutionary ideas with the taint of political radicalism.

Well, any way you wish to spin it - some of his contemporaries felt he was openly Marxist - why would they misrepresent him? And his evolutionary ideas were tainted by his left-wing political radicalism. Marxism is atheism and atheism loves evolutionism for the obvious reasons.

It is clear that Gould was influenced by Marxist ideas, but this does not make him a Marxist, any more than being influenced by the ideas of Proudhon is necessarily an anarchist.

Again - some of his contemporaries felt he was openly Marxist for the obvious reasons.

Not absolutely: check out Liberation theology, for example and the ideas of Frederic Hastings Smyth, for example.

One more time - anyway you wish to spin it some of his contemporaries felt he was openly Marxist. Lol - are you suggesting Gould was a follower of the Society of the Catholic Commonwealth? Surely you jest - yes?

"Quite openly, one of the leading punctuated equilibrists, Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his Marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs." ~ Michael Ruse​

Why did he have 'no choice'? Do you mean he found the evidence overwhelmingly persuasive, or are you seeking to imply something else?

I don't think he found the evidence compelling - that is why is was always in trouble with his fellow travelers. He could not accept a Creator-God for the obvious reasons. Do you need it spelled out?

Only if you can show where he 'acknowledged that homology supports common design' and that this acknowledgment is, as you assert, correct. Can you provide the actual quote by Gould to this effect and its context?

Sure - see his remarks in Natural History, January 1987. It was on the internet in the past - may still be.

The truth that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry is a fact my friend - even Francis Collins understands that a common designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again" and Gould accepted what you can’t quite digest – he had no problem admitting that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry because it is true. Amateur Darwinists always have trouble with this concept - why? Are you an amateur Darwinist?

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon​

 

[zeke]

Linnaeus, although he did not know of evolution, did produce the nested hierarchy of living things that only come through common descent.

You like that dogmatic word "only" don't you? Is that what your Magisterium teaches you to say? The truth is nested hierarchy supports a common designer as well as it supports common ancestry. Dogmatism is not good for inquiring minds my friend. You need to reassess you simplistic thinking.

Yep. The only difference between you and me in that, is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

Then you agree with with me and Carolus Linnaeus - "all the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand"? Do you believe God created "in the beginning"? Do you think our good friend kalvan agrees with that statement?

Evidence. We can observe that closely related organisms are genetically more similar than distantly-related ones are to each other. And we can check it with organisms of known descent, so we know it works.

We know that what works - common design? Very good. You do believe God designed - right ?

But reality shows you are wrong. It turns out to show closer ancestry.

Meaningless statement.

More distant ancestry. We can check that, too. It works.

Meaningless statement.

We can only note that you've been repeatedly asked to explain how any of the four points of Darwinism are cartoonish, and you've declined to do it.

But I have noted more than once that biological evolution is science. Darwinian mythology is cartoonish. You appear confused once again - are you? Where are you missing the boat?

No magic. Just mutation and natural selection. As you see,many dinosaurs already had most of the characteristics of birds. Just change over time.

Arguments to ignorance are logical fallacies. Your simplistic statement above is an oversimplification that remains baseless in reality. Where is your science that is required to support you projection? You post much but include nothing of substance to back up your empty words.

Mutation. Every mutation adds information to a population.

You remain confused and misinformed. Some mutations add information to a genome - some subtract information from a genome. Educate yourself. It has never been demonstrated that mutations have the magical power to change dino forelegs into wings. Are we on the same page?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Linnaeus, although he did not know of evolution, did produce the nested hierarchy of living things that only come through common descent.

You like that dogmatic word "only" don't you?

Find me an exception.

Is that what your Magisterium teaches you to say?

Let me guess; that was the word of the day in your calendar.

The truth is nested hierarchy supports a common designer as well as it supports common ancestry.

Show us that. With evidence.

Dogmatism is not good for inquiring minds my friend.

I have to say, you don't seem very friendly here. But your dogmatism might be more believable if you came up with a little more than unsupported assertions.

Do you agree with Linnaeus when he correctly stated that "all the species recognized by Botanists came forth from the Almighty Creator's hand"?

Yep. The only difference between you and me in that, is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

Do you believe God created "in the beginning"?

Yep.

Do you think our good friend kalvan agrees with that statement?

Never asked him. We disagree on other things, so it's possible.

Barbarian observes:
Evidence. We can observe that closely related organisms are genetically more similar than distantly-related ones are to each other. And we can check it with organisms of known descent, so we know it works.

We know that what works - common design?

Nope. There's no "design" reason why a T rex and a turkey should have similar molecules. But they do.

You do believe God designed - right ?

God is the Creator. "Design" is the work of an imperfect creature who must figure things out. It is borderline blasphemous to accuse God of "design", except in the weak usage of "intent."

I have already stated repeatedly that genetic similarity supports common design

Barbarian observes:
But reality shows you are wrong. It turns out to show closer ancestry.

Meaningless statement.

Nope. It's been repeatedly verified. Such evidence is admissible in court.

So what is the existence of organisms that are genetically dissimilar to one another evidence for?

Barbarian observes:
More distant ancestry. We can check that, too. It works.

Meaningless statement.

Nope. It's been repeatedly verified. Such evidence is admissible in court.

Barbarian observes:
We can only note that you've been repeatedly asked to explain how any of the four points of Darwinism are cartoonish, and you've declined to do it.

But I have noted more than once that biological evolution is science. Darwinian mythology is cartoonish.

Since you've repeatedly declined to offer any evidence, we can only conclude you made it up to impress us.

Barbarian observes:
No magic. Just mutation and natural selection. As you see,many dinosaurs already had most of the characteristics of birds. Just change over time.

Arguments to ignorance are logical fallacies.

But evidence, as you saw, is compelling. Would you like to see the list, again?

Barbarian observes:
Mutation. Every mutation adds information to a population. Would you like to see the numbers.

You remain confused and misinformed. Some mutations add information to a genome

But every new mutation adds information to a population. Remember, evolution doesn't happen to individuals; it happens to populations. I'm guessing you don't actually know how to calculate information content in a population. Am I right?

Educate yourself. It has never been demonstrated that mutations have the magical power to change dino forelegs into wings.

Since come dinosaurs already had wings complete with feathers, it's a moot point.

Are we on the same page?

You're seeing a lot of things for the first time. So, not yet.

 

[zeke]

Find me an exception.

To the word "only" ?

Lett me guess; that was the word of the day in your calendar.

It was a straight-forward question – did you learn your version of evolutionism from what your Magisterium taught you or are you self-taught?

God is the Creator. "Design" is the work of an imperfect creature who must figure things out.

I see – God created and then went on a long vacation and imperfect dinos got together and 'figured things out' including the decision to morph legs into wings of flight,. What fairyland book do you read?

It is borderline blasphemous to accuse God of "design", except in the weak usage of "intent."

Odd and worthless statement. Did you learn that nonsense from your Magisterium?

You're seeing a lot of things for the first time. So, not yet.

Not really - the Darwinian rhetoric on this thread is re-hashed drivel. The only thing I have not seen was your silly "borderline blasphemous" statement. You are original with that little ditty. What does it really mean? Or are you still confused?

 

[lordkalvan]

You just agreed with me that genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry - yes?J

Please pay attention to what I write and the intent behind my words. Proof is for alcohol and mathematics; science deals with the weight of evidence. In the case of genetic similarity, taken in conjunction with multiple lines of evidence from other research (developmental embryology, morphology, atavisms, vestigial features, shared traits, the fossil record, etc), the overwhelmingly persuasive conclusion is that common ancestry is as near certain as it can be. Does this mean that common ancestry can never be falsified as a theory? No, it doesn't, but nothing you have presented in this discussion serves to offer that falsification, nor does your attempt to interpret my comments as agreement with you that genetic similarity does not 'prove' common ancestry such that common design through special creation stands as a viable and equal alternative hypothesis.

Go back and actually read what you post.

Go back and understand what I post and do not attempt to quote mine my comments so that you can claim I am support an argument that I don't.

It is you who misrepresent me my friend.

No, you attempt to misrepresent my arguments by focussing on a particular phrasing without regard to its context and the thrust of the comments to which it pertains. This is not an act of friendship, so please desist from referring to me as your friend.

Barbarian has not caught on to the truth that genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry - yet. But he may be coming around - slowly.

I think Barbarian has quite effectively dealt with your comments. I note you still remain unable to refute his arguments with anything other than denial and hand waving.

 

[zeke]

Please pay attention to what I write and the intent behind my words. Proof is for alcohol and mathematics; science deals with the weight of evidence.

What proof (scientifically) is Glenfiddich 12 Year Old or do you not know? Are we still in agreement – genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry? For the record hasn't science 'proven' a number of things in the history of mankind? Hasn't science proven the earth is not flat? Are you sure science can't prove anything? What is your definition of “proof”?

In the case of genetic similarity, taken in conjunction with multiple lines of evidence from other research (developmental embryology, morphology, atavisms, vestigial features, shared traits, the fossil record, etc), the overwhelmingly persuasive conclusion is that common ancestry is as near certain as it can be.

Depends on who you choose to place your faith in - doesn't it? Those who believe via faith in naturalistic atheism will certainly agree with your statement but what choice do they have? Theists on the other hand have a choice because genetic similarity, morphology, vestigial structures, etc work as well for common design as they do for common ancestry.

Remember you and I have already agreed that genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry. Stephen Gould and Francis Collins agree with us – in fact the only one who chokes on that truth is Barbarian but his learning curve is improving – I think.

Does this mean that common ancestry can never be falsified as a theory? No, it doesn't, but nothing you have presented in this discussion serves to offer that falsification, nor does your attempt to interpret my comments as agreement with you that genetic similarity does not 'prove' common ancestry such that common design through special creation stands as a viable and equal alternative hypothesis.

But I am not trying to falsify common ancestry my friend. There are bigger fish to fry. If you choose to believe in that Darwinian fairytale via faith then so be it. And you have already agreed with me that genetic similarity does not 'prove' common ancestry. Are you now recanting?

Go back and understand what I post and do not attempt to quote mine my comments so that you can claim I am support an argument that I don't.

I have read your posts already – which argument do you think you supported in the past that you think you may no longer support. Please be specific. Thanks.

I think Barbarian has quite effectively dealt with your comments.

Are you referring to his silly argument that those who believe God 'designed in the beginning' are borderline blasphemers? You don't buy into that knee-jerk theory – do you? I think he is now embarrassed by that odd comment.

Have we agreed that Stephen Gould was an atheistic evolutionist who had a great fondness for Marxism or are we still discussing that one?

 

[Barbarian]

Are we still in agreement – genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry? For the record hasn't science 'proven' a number of things in the history of mankind?

Genetics has demonstrated that chimps are more closely related to humans than either is related to anything else. It's not just similarity; one way they are different, turns out to confirm common ancestry. Learn about it here:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Hasn't science proven the earth is not flat?

No, it hasn't. Science doesn't deal in "proof." But like common ancestry with chimpanzees, it has demonstrated that fact.

Are you sure science can't prove anything? What is your definition of “proof�

Logical certainty. That's deduction. You know the rules and determine the particulars. In science, you find the particulars and infer the rules.

In the case of genetic similarity, taken in conjunction with multiple lines of evidence from other research (developmental embryology, morphology, atavisms, vestigial features, shared traits, the fossil record, etc), the overwhelmingly persuasive conclusion is that common ancestry is as near certain as it can be.

Depends on who you choose to place your faith in - doesn't it?

No. Depends on whether faith or evidence is what sways you. Evidence points to common ancestry. The faith of creationists denies it.

Remember you and I have already agreed that genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry. Stephen Gould and Francis Collins agree with us

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

Looks like someone too advantage of your trust on that one.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. [...] Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact†can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.†I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

"Evolution as Fact and Theory", pp. 254–55 (originally appeared in Discover Magazine, May 1981)


That one, too.

Have we agreed that Stephen Gould was an atheistic evolutionist who had a great fondness for Marxism or are we still discussing that one?

Gould was an agnostic, and there is no evidence showing he was a Marxist.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Linnaeus, although he did not know of evolution, did produce the nested hierarchy of living things that only come through common descent.

You like that dogmatic word "only" don't you?

Barbarian suggests:
Find me an exception.

To the word "only" ?

I restored the context, so you could see. Good luck on your search.

(Zeke likes writing "Magisterium")

Barbarian chuckles:
Let me guess; that was the word of the day in your calendar.

It was a straight-forward question – did you learn your version of evolutionism from what your Magisterium taught you or are you self-taught?

The Church makes no dogma about that. If you want to be a creationist, the Church does not object. I've spent about a half-century learning about biology, so I've gotten a pretty good amount of evidence.

Barbarian observes:
God is the Creator. "Design" is the work of an imperfect creature who must figure things out.

I see – God created and then went on a long vacation and imperfect dinos got together and 'figured things out' including the decision to morph legs into wings of flight,.

You think that's what creation was about? Seriously?

Barbarian observes:
It is borderline blasphemous to accuse God of "design", except in the weak usage of "intent."

Odd and worthless statement.

Not for a Christian. It's an insult to attribute imperfection to God.

Did you learn that nonsense from your Magisterium?

It's not "nonsense." God is perfect and faultless, and being omnipotent, has no need for "design."

You're seeing a lot of things for the first time. So, not yet.

Not really - the Darwinian rhetoric on this thread is re-hashed drivel.

I notice, though, that you've repeatedly declined to show us how the four points of Darwinism constitute a myth. I think I know why.

 

[Sparkey]

Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proof”

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Published on November 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

Kanazawa concludes his article by comparing liklihoods and giving his opinion that creationists are wrong and evolution has a very small chance of being wrong. It's an amusing comment but not really appropriate for this forum. Those interested can read it here: Common Misconceptions About Science

 

[zeke]

Genetics has demonstrated that chimps are more closely related to humans than either is related to anything else.

But that hardly proves common ancestry - does it? Chimps and humans have a common designer.

Gould was an agnostic, and there is no evidence showing he was a Marxist.

But there is - go back and read my posts.

 

[zeke]

The Church makes no dogma about that. If you want to be a creationist, the Church does not object. I've spent about a half-century learning about biology, so I've gotten a pretty good amount of evidence.

But evidently not enough to prove God used Darwinian evolution to create - yes?

 

[zeke]

Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proof”

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Et tu, Brute?

Question for you Sparrowhawke. The well-known theistic evolutionist, Francis Collins - who believes in common ancestry via faith agrees with me - genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor". He says this because he knows that a common designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again" (The Language of God).

I think we can all agree that Collins is a first-class scientist - right? Why does he say genetic similarity does not prove a common ancestor. What does he mean by the word 'prove'. Is he being unscientific by using that word in the context of his statement? Has science 'proven' that the earth is not flat or are we still working on that one? You're not a member of the Flat Earth Society - are you?

You interject your opinions from time to time but you have never really declared your political affiliation. Are you a theistic evolutionist, i.e., do you buy into the notion that God used the leading atheistic creation-myth to create like Barbarian does or do you march to a different drummer?

 

[zeke]

The Church makes no dogma about that. If you want to be a creationist, the Church does not object.

Barbarian observes:
It is borderline blasphemous to accuse God of "design", except in the weak usage of "intent."

Does the Pope believe God designed the Universe? Does the Pope believe God designed and created man "in God's image" - "in the beginning" or does he agree with classical Darwinism that evolution did not have man in mind? Is the Pope a borderline blasphemer? Be careful how you answer - the Pope's ideas on this subject are surely on record and the Magisterium is watching.