[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[Paul E. Michael]

Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory. Which of those do you think there is no evidence to support?

Problem: Since I do not refer to anything by your phrase, "evolutionary theory," naturally, I also do not refer to any thing(s) (much less any points) by your phrase, "Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory." So, if you're referring to some point(s) by that phrase, feel free to list them here. I just work with/against what you hand me, so if you've something you'd like me to comment on, you're going to want to hand it to me, here.

Good question. First, it's important to remember that organisms don't evolve; populations do.

Classic Darwinist slogan: "organisms don't evolve"

Yet, don't Darwinists, out the other side of their mouth, say (for instance) "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," and "Birds evolved from dinosaurs"? Now, dinosaurs are organisms, no? And birds are organisms, no? Aren't dinosaurs organisms you call "dinosaurs"? And, aren't birds organisms you call "birds"?

So, when you say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," this is what you are saying: "[Organisms I call 'dinosaurs'] evolved into [organisms I call 'birds']."

Similarly, when you say "Birds evolved from dinosaurs," you're saying: "[Organisms I call 'birds'] evolved from [organisms I call 'dinosaurs']."

Do you wish, then, to repudiate, as inexorably misleading, such favorite Darwinist slogans as "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," and "Birds evolved from dinosaurs," since the subjects of these slogans are organisms?

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory. Which of those do you think there is no evidence to support?

Problem: Since I do not refer to anything by your phrase, "evolutionary theory," naturally, I also do not refer to any thing(s) (much less any points) by your phrase, "Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory."

Feel free to name them whatever. Just tell us which of them you think there is no evidence to support. Or if it's several, name the one with the least support and we'll look at that. You're up. If you have no idea what his theory says, tell me, and I'll give you a quick summary. I was trying to avoid patronizing you. Would you like me to explain to you what the theory actually says?

Classic Darwinist slogan: "organisms don't evolve"

As you know, that's just a fact. Organisms are stuck with the genomes they have. Even by Darwin's definition, it's populations that evolve.

Yet, don't Darwinists, out the other side of their mouth, say (for instance) "Dinosaurs evolved into birds,"

Yes. Notice it's not "a dinosaur evolved into a bird." Rather it's "dinosaurs" (a population) that did so. Does that help?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Yeah. Like "humans are people." And "people are humans." There's a lot of those things.

But these tautologies are based on observable realities. So, for example, a fact must be observable. If you can't actually observe it, it's something else. As Dr. Wise points out, transitional fossils are a fact. What they mean, is a matter of analysis and that involves theory. He's honest enough to admit that these many transitional series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", even as he suggests that there may well be a day when there will be a good creationist explanation for these facts. He points out that the fact of fossil whales appears to make no sense from a creationist standpoint, since they would be in what amount to "flood deposits" according to creationism. He still thinks there might be a way to explain that, even if no one presently knows what that might be.

Does that help?

Well, what you wrote, here, does help in this sense, at least: You make it clear that your use of the word, "fact," is such that you refer, by the word, "fact," only to things which are not, and cannot be, components of arguments. IOW, you do not call any premises, "facts," nor do you call any conclusions, "facts." You do not call things that are true, "facts." Rather, you call things like dirt, or things which, for instance, can be dug out of the dirt, and have weight, mass, and various physical properties, "facts."

So, what you call "facts" are things which neither logically entail truth(s), nor are logically entailed by truth(s). What you call "facts" are not amenable to being organized into a syllogism, such as

Major Premise: Fact 1 (All S's are P's)​

Minor Premise: Fact 2 (x is an S)​

Ergo,​

Conclusion: Fact 2 (x is a P)​

The only sense in which what you have told me you call "facts" have anything to do with logic and reasoning is merely as things one might refer to by means of the terms component to premises and conclusions. IOW, according to your use of the word, "facts," that you've told me about above, you would not call the proposition, 'All S's are P's' (even if it is true) a "facts". A piece of rock, or a bone, according to you, is what should be called a "fact," rather than a true proposition such as, say, "This piece of rock is igneous," or "Bones are full of calcium."

So, according to your sense of the word, "facts," if you ever present any argument, your argument will not be based on/composed of facts, since arguments are based on premises, and (according to your sense of the word, "facts") premises are excluded from being facts. Likewise, according to your sense of the word, "facts," facts do not entail other facts, and are not entailed by other facts.

If you ask me, yours is just a dreadful way in which to use the words "fact" and "facts". According to your usage, a man sitting in a chair, at a desk, typing on a computer, could alternatively be called "a [fact] sitting in a [fact], at a [fact], typing on a [fact]". For my part, I rather use the word "fact" as a synonym for the word, "truth," or the phrase, "true proposition".

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Yes. Notice it's not "a dinosaur evolved into a bird." Rather it's "dinosaurs" (a population) that did so. Does that help?

But, when you say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," by the word, "dinosaurs," are you referring to the organisms you call "dinosaurs"? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory. Which of those do you think there is no evidence to support?


Feel free to name them whatever. Just tell us which of them you think there is no evidence to support. Or if it's several, name the one with the least support and we'll look at that. You're up. If you have no idea what his theory says, tell me, and I'll give you a quick summary. I was trying to avoid patronizing you. Would you like me to explain to you what the theory actually says?

I, of course, do not take your word for it that whatever (if anything) you are referring to by your phrases, "evolutionary theory," "his theory," and "the theory," is a theory. I mean, if, like other Darwinists, you're just going to hand me some cognitively meaningless string of words and erroneously refer to that cognitively meaningless string of words by the word, "theory," why would I be the least bit moved to follow your lead and call the non-theory you're handing me a "theory"? Theories are things, some of which are true, and the rest of which are false. What is cognitively meaningless is not only not true, but also does not even rise to the level of being false; what is cognitively meaningless is no theory. You would agree that any thing, whether a theory or not, can easily be referred to by anyone, at will, by the word, "theory," right? So, obviously you don't get a free pass from me, for me to just start singing in your choir by calling whatever you hand me, a "theory," just because you choose to call it a "theory," right?

"I was trying to avoid patronizing you."

Why's that? Does it come natural to you to not avoid patronizing those who don't revere what you, while wearing your Darwinist suit, say to them?

 

[Barbarian]

Well, what you wrote, here, does help in this sense, at least: You make it clear that your use of the word, "fact," is such that you refer, by the word, "fact," only to things which are not, and cannot be, components of arguments. IOW, you do not call any premises, "facts," nor do you call any conclusions, "facts."

Of course.

You do not call things that are true, "facts."

But I do. Many things that are true also happen to be facts. Remember what a fact is. It's something observable. Something that does not require interpretation to know. There are also things that are not facts, that happen to be true. Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed. Common descent is true, but it's not a fact, because one has to interpret facts to understand it.

From a Christian philosopher, discussing epistemology (the study of how we know things):
Here’s a little taste of what I tell students in my theology classes when I talk about epistemology and theological method. I first talk about a hierarchy of knowledge.

On the lowest level is data — unsorted, chaotic information that humans sort intuitively and that we also learn to discern and understand.

The second level of knowledge is the level of facts. Scientific or secular investigation of the world yields much factual information about what the world is like and how it works, at the natural, physical, chemical, biological, sociological, and other levels. Factual information yields a phenomenological understanding of the world, but not a purposeful understanding of the world. In other words, a facts-oriented view of the world cannot answer the why question — i.e., it cannot answer questions of ultimate meaning. This is why scientific cosmological arguments seem to over-reach when they purport to answer transcendent questions, attempting to make Christian faith irrelevant.

What is Truth? Epistemology and You

Here’s a little taste of what I tell students in my theology classes when I talk about epistemology and theological method. I first talk about a hierarchy of knowledge. On the lowest level is…

bdrcooper.com

I don't know if one should make a distinction between data and facts, but he's got it basically right.

So, what you call "facts" are things which neither logically entail truth(s), nor are logically entailed by truth(s). What you call "facts" are not amenable to being organized into a syllogism,

Well, let's see if we can find something like that in the literature:

1. "A stratomorphic intermediate fossil (or stratomorphic intermediate fossil group) is a fossil (or fossil group) which is BOTH a stratigraphic intermediate AND a morphological intermediate between two other fossils or two other fossil groups."

2, The therapsids are both stratigraphally intermediate, and morphologically intermediate between the reptiles and the mammals. ( "Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates —has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals")

3. Therefore, therapids are stratomorphic intermediate fossils.

YE creationist and paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

I rather use the word "fact" as a synonym for the word, "truth," or the phrase, "true proposition".

Truth is, as Cantor demonstrated mathematically, a stronger thing than provability.

I mean, if, like other Darwinists, you're just going to hand me some cognitively meaningless string of words and erroneously refer to that cognitively meaningless string of words by the word, "theory," why would I be the least bit moved to follow your lead and call the non-theory you're handing me a "theory"?

For non-scientists, "theory" is kind of a fuzzy concept. It has a very specific meaning in science. It is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence. They are essentially hypotheses that have had their predictions repeatedly verified. As you probably know, a scientific hypothesis must be both predictive and testable.

Theories are things, some of which are true, and the rest of which are false.

You're confusing informal usage with the scientific term. In fact, until supported by evidence, an idea cannot be a theory. So, perhaps we might be in the break room, and one researcher says "the oddest thing happened today..."

And so we begin saying "did you check to see...?" or "Maybe..." These are hypotheses, assuming that they can be tested. And maybe he goes back and starts testing to see. If one of the ideas turns out to be true, and others can reproduce the results he gets, then it's a theory. Until then, just an hypothesis.

A piece of rock, or a bone, according to you, is what should be called a "fact," rather than a true proposition such as, say, "This piece of rock is igneous," or "Bones are full of calcium."

Actually, the first is a conclusion, based on facts. The second is an observation, a fact.

You would agree that any thing, whether a theory or not, can easily be referred to by anyone, at will, by the word, "theory," right?

Any thing, whether a dog or not, can easily be referred to by anyone at will, by the word "dog." I don't see the point. Words mean things. They tend to mean very specific things in science. If you don't use them as scientists do, you will confuse yourself and others.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes. Notice it's not "a dinosaur evolved into a bird." Rather it's "dinosaurs" (a population) that did so. Does that help?

But, when you say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds," by the word, "dinosaurs," are you referring to the organisms you call "dinosaurs"?

A population of those organisms, yes. Remember, evolution happens to populations, not to individuals.

Yes or No?

I think you've got it. Do you see why an individual cannot evolve, since evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Paul E. Michael Some correction on the word "theory". This was all written by Isaac Asimov:

"Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is 'only a theory,' giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decides that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.

"A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from those observations and experiments and has survived the critical study of scientists generally.

"For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the 'cell theory'); of objects attracting each other according to a fixed rule (the 'theory of gravitation'); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the 'quantum theory'); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the 'theory of relativity'), and so on.

"All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses, nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is 'only' a theory, that is all it has to be.

"Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as 'only a myth.'"

THE 'THREAT' OF CREATIONISM (Published 1981)

www.nytimes.com

Does that help? Generally when creationists use the word "theory", they mean something like a hypothesis. But evolution is much more than a hypothesis, at this point.

 

[Barbarian]

I, of course, do not take your word for it that whatever (if anything) you are referring to by your phrases, "evolutionary theory," "his theory," and "the theory," is a theory. I mean, if, like other Darwinists, you're just going to hand me some cognitively meaningless string of words and erroneously refer to that cognitively meaningless string of words by the word, "theory,"

Darwin set out a very succinct and specific set of points for his theory. I'm just trying to make sure you actually know what the theory is.

So, obviously you don't get a free pass from me, for me to just start singing in your choir by calling whatever you hand me, a "theory," just because you choose to call it a "theory," right?

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Remember what, in science, "theory" means.

"I was trying to avoid patronizing you."

Why's that?

Because I don't want to suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. But I want to make sure that you do. So now, I'm going to tell you about Darwin's four points just to be sure, even though I'm going to assume you don know what they are:

1. More are born than can live
2. Every individual is slightly different than parents
3 Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce.
4. Favorable differences tend to be retained in a population and unfavorable ones tend to be removed, and this is the way speciation happens.

Which of these do you think lack evidence?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Because I don't want to suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. But I want to make sure that you do. So now, I'm going to tell you about Darwin's four points just to be sure, even though I'm going to assume you don know what they are:

I very much doubt he knew of those four points.

 

[Barbarian]

I very much doubt he knew of those four points.

It's not hard to find. I'll assume that he did. No question about that, now that I've posted them.

 

[T. E. Smith]

It's not hard to find. I'll assume that he did.

People like him typically don't care to look, though.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

1. More are born than can live

By "born," do you mean born alive?

To be born alive is to live, so obviously ALL that are born alive can live, seeing as that they do live. So, if by "born," you mean born alive, then what you've just handed me is patently false. And, obviously NONE that are born dead can live. And those two options—alive and dead—exhaust all your ways of being born.

2. Every individual is slightly different than parents

Every individual what?

Every individual human is different from each of his or her parents. And guess what: each of the parents of every individual human who has ever been born is, himself or herself, also an individual human. Darwinists give lip service to the truth that no non-human has ever given birth to a human, but then eagerly turn around and asininely contradict that truth by claiming the falsehood that every individual human alive today is descended from non-humans.

3 Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce.

"likelihood"?

Are you using this popularly parroted word to refer to something? If so, to what? Are you referring to some property of something? If so, to the property of what thing are you referring? It's not the name of a property of any proposition. Truth is a property of some propositions, and falsehood is a property of the rest of them; but "likelihood" is, so far as I know, not the name of any property of any proposition. So, to what (if anything) are you referring by your word, "likelihood"?

Obviously, if you're merely using your word, "likelihood," in a cognitively meaningless way, then, in saying "Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce," you're not expressing any proposition. Why, then, would you hand me a non-proposition, something that is neither true nor false, and bring up a question only germane to propositions: viz., does it "lack evidence"? Obviously, since only propositions are supported by evidence, your non-proposition is not supported by evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

By "born," do you mean born alive?

To be born alive is to live, so obviously ALL that are born alive can live, seeing as that they do live. So, if by "born," you mean born alive, then what you've just handed me is patently false. And, obviously NONE that are born dead can live. And those two options—alive and dead—exhaust all your ways of being born.

Good question. Darwin was referring to living long enough to leave viable offspring.

2. Every individual is slightly different than parents

Every individual what?

Organism.

Every individual human is different from each of his or her parents. And guess what: each of the parents of every individual human who has ever been born is, himself or herself, also an individual human. Darwinists give lip service to the truth that no non-human has ever given birth to a human, but then eagerly turn around and asininely contradict that truth by claiming the falsehood that every individual human alive today is descended from non-humans.

This makes the false assumption that humans today are just like humans 50,000 years ago. We've evolved a lot in that time. In fact, there's considerable issue about whether or not Neandethals are of our own species. They are very, very close to being a separate species, but not certainly so. It should be noted that Darwin pointed out that if evolution is true, we would find it very difficult to define closely related species. If creationism were true, there would be no problem at all.

At some point, we find a speciation event. In anatomically modern humans, it is almost certainly the result of a chromosome fusion that made one population of hominids reproductively isolated from others. Shall we talk about the evidence for that?

It is a certainty that anatomically modern humans evolved from other species of humans, and that the earliest humans evolved from another group of hominids. Would you like to discuss how we know this?

3 Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce.

"likelihood"?

Yep.

Are you using this popularly parroted word to refer to something?

Probabilities. For example, a person whose metabolism is more efficient than most of his fellows', has a greater likelihood of surviving famine. But he might not, for various reasons; he just has a higher likelihood of surviving than the rest.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Nevertheless, the smart money is on those that are most fit. (Fitness being applicable only in context of the environment)

Obviously, if you're merely using your word, "likelihood," in a cognitively meaningless way, then, in saying "Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce," you're not expressing any proposition. Why, then, would you hand me a non-proposition, something that is neither true nor false

You're wrong about that. Such differences are often testable, and we can see that some mutations add to the likelihood of survival and some detract from that likelihood. Most, BTW don't do much of anything; you have about 100 mutations that weren't present in either of your parents.

Would you like an example?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

But I do. Many things that are true also happen to be facts.

Every thing that is true is a fact. Whatever is not true is not a fact.

Remember what a fact is. It's something observable.

Every fact is a truth; every truth is a fact. Every fact is fact independently of whether or not it is/can be observed.

Something that does not require interpretation to know.

Interpretation of what? In any case, every fact is a fact independently of whether or not it is known.

There are also things that are not facts, that happen to be true.

False. Whatever is not a fact is not true.

Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed.

Since, by your word, "evolution," you are not referring to any truth, you are not referring to any fact.

Common descent is true,

Your phrase, "common descent," is not even a proposition, so, on the contrary, it is neither true nor false. What you've written, here, is akin to saying

• "Kitchen is true."
• "Space is true."
• "Rolls Royce is true."
• "20 is true."

but it's not a fact,

I agree. It is not fact; it is not truth.

because one has to interpret facts to understand it.

Fact is fact independently of whether or not it is understood.

Actually, the first is a conclusion, based on facts.

Here, you're telling me that a piece of rock "is a conclusion, based on facts." Sorry, but, on the contrary, no piece of rock is a conclusion, and no piece of rock is based on facts.

The second is an observation, a fact.

Here, you're telling me that a bone "is an observation, a fact." Again, on the contrary, no bone is an observation, and no bone is a fact.

Any thing, whether a dog or not, can easily be referred to by anyone at will, by the word "dog."

Exactly. Just as you are referring, by the word, "fact," to things that are not facts. Just as you are referring, by the word, "theory," to things that are not theories.

I don't see the point.

The point is that somehow you've gotten it into your imagination that the fact that you, Barbarian, call something "fact," entails that what you are calling "fact" is fact. Same with your use of many other words you cherish, like "theory," "truth," "evidence," "science," "scientist," etc. I got news for you: that you, Barbarian, call something "fact" does, in fact, NOT entail that what you are calling "fact" is fact. So, when you call something "fact," do you expect others to take your claim for it that what you are calling "fact" is fact? Or, multiply yourself by the I don't know how many hundreds, or thousands of your fellow, professional Darwinists: do you you expect others to take y'all's claim for it that what y'all (in the high-priestly, reverend dignity of y'all's so-called "scientific consensus") choose to call "fact" is fact?

Words mean things.

False. No, they don't. Persons mean things by means of words.

They tend to mean very specific things in science.

"Specific thing(s)" is a redundancy. If you disagree, feel free to give me an example of a thing you'd like to refer to by the phrase, "non-specific thing".

If you don't use them as scientists do, you will confuse yourself and others.

Here, by your word, "scientists," you mean Darwinists. Myself, being a rationally-thinking person, rather than a Darwinist, I prefer to use words as rationally-thinking persons use them, instead of using them how Darwinists use them; which is why I'm not confused by, nor beholden to the self-destroying language game professional Darwinists have constructed and rehearse for their own purpose.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is a fact, because it is directly observed.

Since, by your word, "evolution," you are not referring to any truth, you are not referring to any fact.

No, that's wrong. Evolution, as you learned, is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Since it is directly observed, it's a fact.

(questions what it means to say bones contain calcium)

(Barbarian notes that it is a fact that bones contain calcium)

Here, you're telling me that a bone "is an observation, a fact."

That bones contain calcium, is an observed fact.

You would agree that any thing, whether a theory or not, can easily be referred to by anyone, at will, by the word, "theory," right?

Any thing, whether a dog or not, can easily be referred to by anyone at will, by the word "dog." I don't see the point. Words mean things.

No, they don't.

Hard to explain dictionaries, then. I think we're getting close to identifying your difficulties.

Words tend to mean very specific things in science. If you don't use them as scientists do, you will confuse yourself and others.

I got news for you: that you, Barbarian, call something "fact" does, in fact, NOT entail that what you are calling "fact" is fact.

As you see, anything which is observed is a fact.

"Specific thing(s)" is a redundancy. If you disagree, feel free to give me an example of a thing you'd like to refer to by the phrase, "non-specific thing".

Again, your difficulty is with English, not with science. For example, "20 mm socket" is a specific thing. "Tool" is a non-specific thing. As you might be now thinking, "specific" is a relative term. Hence "can you be more specific?"

I notice you've still avoided showing me how any of Darwin's four points aren't true. Will you be able to do that soon?

 

[Barbarian]

Your phrase, "common descent," is not even a proposition, so, on the contrary, it is neither true nor false.

It is, to be precise, common descent of all living things on Earth is an inference from evidence. This is why your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits that the large number of transitional fossil series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

It's not a fact; it's a conclusion which is strongly supported by the facts.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

This makes the false assumption that humans today are just like humans 50,000 years ago.

Oh, I know, right? Because, if there's one thing young-earth creationists are known for—those of us who hold to the truth that mankind is less than 10,000 years old—it is that we make the Darwinist assumption that humans have been around for at least 50,000 years.

Humans, for as long as humans have lived on earth, have always been humans. Every human that has ever walked the earth is a human, and is not a non-human. Is that elementary truth distasteful to you? Would you prefer to say that some humans have been non-humans?

Has any human who has been born ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I notice you've still avoided showing me how any of Darwin's four points aren't true. Will you be able to do that soon?

I notice you've still avoided showing me that any of the things you have called "Darwin's four points" are cognitively meaningful—you've avoided showing me that they are even points. Will you be able to do that soon?

 

[T. E. Smith]

I notice you've still avoided showing me that any of the things you have called "Darwin's four points" are cognitively meaningful—you've avoided showing me that they are even points. Will you be able to do that soon?

They are the foundation for the entire theory of evolution! Of course they are meaningful.