Interesting interview - Richard Dawkins

[tooblue]

Evolution isn't a construct of man any more than gravity is. Sometimes we just learn things about reality. Pretty cool, huh?

So you are saying the 'theory' of evolution has been proven right? Or maybe just some aspects of the theory might have been proven right. So the theory of evolution is nothing like the theory of gravity that was proven right -- right?

[RobinFinderson]

So you are saying the 'theory' of evolution has been proven right? Or maybe just some aspects of the theory might have been proven right. So the theory of evolution is nothing like the theory of gravity that was proven right -- right?

My limited understanding of theories, gravity vs. evolutions:

For gravity, Einstein's theory of relativity is still the heavy in this fight, but there ARE competing scientific theories.

There are no competing scientific theories challenging evolution through natural selection.

[UtahDan]

So you are saying the 'theory' of evolution has been proven right? Or maybe just some aspects of the theory might have been proven right. So the theory of evolution is nothing like the theory of gravity that was proven right -- right?

tb, can I ask you what your investment in this issue is? In other words, 99% of the scientific world is satisfied that evolution has been proven and this is also true for most people, both of faith and not of faith, who don't think they have an ideological dog in the fight so to speak.

The only group that seems to really resist this notion are those who feel that their ideology contradicts life on earth having evolved. Since the LDS church doesn't seem to take the stand that revealed truth rules out evolution, and in fact has back well away from previous statements to that affect, is there a particular reason you feel compelled to try to keep the door cracked open to allow the possibility that it "might" not be right? Maybe you don't agree with me that LDS theology is compatible with evolution.

None of that is a back handed attack, I just don't run into many folks in or out of the church who take the stand you seem to be and I would like to get a sense of what motivates you internally on this. Maybe you are just a contrarian, some folks are. TIA.

[woot]

So you are saying the 'theory' of evolution has been proven right? Or maybe just some aspects of the theory might have been proven right. So the theory of evolution is nothing like the theory of gravity that was proven right -- right?

Wrong, of course. How much do you know about science? This paragraph outs you as an ignoramus.

"Theory" is the pinnacle of scientific research. There is nothing higher than a theory. Throwing it into scare quotes and using words like "proven" just makes you look silly.

Evolution is both fact and theory. We know it happened/continues to happen, but we don't know, and will never know, every tiny detail about how it works/worked. Thus, it will remain a theory.

Gravity is both fact and theory. We know it happens, but we don't know, and will never know, exactly how it works. Thus, it will remain a theory. Yes, it's also a law, mostly because it can be made into an equation. Scientific laws are mostly artifacts of a more cocksure past, and with rare exceptions don't happen outside of physics and chemistry.

A theory can never become a law. They are two different things. A law is always descriptive, a theory is always explanatory. Please get it out of your head that there is anything about the word "theory" as scientists use it that means it is inferior to some other classification. It isn't.

[Moliere]

Wrong, of course. How much do you know about science? This paragraph outs you as an ignoramus.

"Theory" is the pinnacle of scientific research. There is nothing higher than a theory. Throwing it into scare quotes and using words like "proven" just makes you look silly.

Evolution is both fact and theory. We know it happened/continues to happen, but we don't know, and will never know, every tiny detail about how it works/worked. Thus, it will remain a theory.

Gravity is both fact and theory. We know it happens, but we don't know, and will never know, exactly how it works. Thus, it will remain a theory. Yes, it's also a law, mostly because it can be made into an equation. Scientific laws are mostly artifacts of a more cocksure past, and with rare exceptions don't happen outside of physics and chemistry.

A theory can never become a law. They are two different things. A law is always descriptive, a theory is always explanatory. Please get it out of your head that there is anything about the word "theory" as scientists use it that means it is inferior to some other classification. It isn't.

It's funny how we all talk about facts and theories when we know so little about the world around us. This is just a guess, but I'd imagine that through all the science we have performed, we probably understand 0.001% of the natural world around us.

Tooblue isn't the only ignoramus.

[LA Ute]

It would be funny to see a lawyer pull a Mark McGwire in front of a judge:

"I'm not here to talk about the past. I only want to talk about the future."

That might be interesting to try in a temple recommend interview too.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's funny how we all talk about facts and theories when we know so little about the world around us. This is just a guess, but I'd imagine that through all the science we have performed, we probably understand 0.001% of the natural world around us.

Tooblue isn't the only ignoramus.

Why is that funny? Are you saying that since we don't know everything, facts and theories can't exist?

[Moliere]

Why is that funny? Are you saying that since we don't know everything, facts and theories can't exist?

Not saying they can't exist, just that our collection of facts is probably so small that drawing any broad or sweeping conclusion is ridiculous.

People use the theory of evolution to "prove" there is no God (I'm not saying any here said this, just an example). That's ridiculous. You can have evolution and God.

[SeattleUte]

Why is that funny? Are you saying that since we don't know everything, facts and theories can't exist?

Another common misperception born of religion's peculiar way of brain wiring. Science is the first to recognize it knows next to nothing (see my signature). That is what science is all about--a never ending search for truth, a relentless putting of everything to the test. Yet, paradoxically, religious people hold this very hallmark of science over science's head. As if it's a weakness and not a virtue. LOL!! If science claimed to know all it would have become religion! All I know is that when religion and not science defined our public ethos we had fewer books, more book burnings, much higher infant mortality, much higher rates of state sponsored killings (fascism and communism were religions, indeed, these systems were born out of reaction to percieved iniquities of the democrataic and capitalist west and attendant secularism), lower standard of living, a great many more epidemics, etc.

My favorite alltime post on Cougarboard is, "Science once told us that the world was flat"!

[Jarid in Cedar]

Not saying they can't exist, just that our collection of facts is probably so small that drawing any broad or sweeping conclusion is ridiculous.

People use the theory of evolution to "prove" there is no God (I'm not saying any here said this, just an example). That's ridiculous. You can have evolution and God.

I can't say that I have seen that argument before. that would be akin to arguing that since science has not perfectly described evolution, then God must exist.

[Flystripper]

tb, can I ask you what your investment in this issue is? In other words, 99% of the scientific world is satisfied that evolution has been proven and this is also true for most people, both of faith and not of faith, who don't think they have an ideological dog in the fight so to speak.

The only group that seems to really resist this notion are those who feel that their ideology contradicts life on earth having evolved. Since the LDS church doesn't seem to take the stand that revealed truth rules out evolution, and in fact has back well away from previous statements to that affect, is there a particular reason you feel compelled to try to keep the door cracked open to allow the possibility that it "might" not be right? Maybe you don't agree with me that LDS theology is compatible with evolution.

None of that is a back handed attack, I just don't run into many folks in or out of the church who take the stand you seem to be and I would like to get a sense of what motivates you internally on this. Maybe you are just a contrarian, some folks are. TIA.

This is par for the course with tooblue. He is nothing more than a contrarian. He will argue ad nauseum that dark is light and black is white because after all he is a creative mind and a true artist!

[beefytee]

fascism and communism were religions

Nice!

Is this a reaction to the "Global Warming is a religion" folks?

[SeattleUte]

Evolution is hard for orthodox Judeo-Christians for two reasons: First, it seems irreconcilable with the Adam and Eve story. You truly do have to interpret Adam and Eve allegorically, to which there could be no end in scriptural interpretation and exegesis (Orthodox types fear allegorical interpretaion like a vampire fears daylight; see, e.g., Jeff Holland's shouted challenges of "believe literally or else").

Second, evolution arises from natural selection, and inherent in this is the notion of randomness. Judeo-Christianity taught us that there is a progression in human experience according to a divine plan. This is probably not possible to square with scientific observations about the role of randomness in evolution. Related to this, perhaps, survival of the fittest being a virtue is antithetical to core Christian precepts, as Nietzsche and Ayn Rand in particular have noted.

[tooblue]

tb, can I ask you what your investment in this issue is? In other words, 99% of the scientific world is satisfied that evolution has been proven and this is also true for most people, both of faith and not of faith, who don't think they have an ideological dog in the fight so to speak.

The only group that seems to really resist this notion are those who feel that their ideology contradicts life on earth having evolved. Since the LDS church doesn't seem to take the stand that revealed truth rules out evolution, and in fact has back well away from previous statements to that affect, is there a particular reason you feel compelled to try to keep the door cracked open to allow the possibility that it "might" not be right? Maybe you don't agree with me that LDS theology is compatible with evolution.

None of that is a back handed attack, I just don't run into many folks in or out of the church who take the stand you seem to be and I would like to get a sense of what motivates you internally on this. Maybe you are just a contrarian, some folks are. TIA.

Creationism versus evolution is a fatal dialectic. There appears to be no common ground between the two extremes. Emboldened by the diplomas they bandy about as proof of their superior education and status scientists claim exclusive right to truth. Empirical methodology is esteemed as gospel and is played as a trump card in the face of complex questions.

Of course truth is relative -- especially scientific truth. It is in a constant state of flux. One could even characterize it as evolving. And as for empiricism it is like a badge an officer wears to signify his/her authority … nothing more than a piece of metal or empty vessel within which we place authoritarian ideals.

So, the real question is does the debate have to be fatal? Is there common ground to be found between the two extremes? Consider the fact that in contrast to diplomas and education the creationist is emboldened by personal experience -- a different type of accreditation if you will. And faith plays an equally significant role as trump card in the face of complex questions.

Of course increased personal experience with age permits personal truth to evolve. Blacks and whites meld into shades of gray. And faith without works, or a lack of honest and sincere action is an empty expression.

Ultimately, the above observation renders the protagonists of the two extremes more similar than different. Consider for a moment that whether a creationist states God is the originator of the universe or an evolutionist states a big bang is the originator they both are talking about an act of creation.

When a scientist comes to this forum, cocksure he is in the right he becomes a caricature of one extreme. Therefore his argument must be met by the other extreme in order to expose the absurdity of the discussion and to accelerate the fatality of dialectic.

[tooblue]

Wrong, of course. How much do you know about science? This paragraph outs you as an ignoramus.

"Theory" is the pinnacle of scientific research. There is nothing higher than a theory. Throwing it into scare quotes and using words like "proven" just makes you look silly.

Evolution is both fact and theory. We know it happened/continues to happen, but we don't know, and will never know, every tiny detail about how it works/worked. Thus, it will remain a theory.

Gravity is both fact and theory. We know it happens, but we don't know, and will never know, exactly how it works. Thus, it will remain a theory. Yes, it's also a law, mostly because it can be made into an equation. Scientific laws are mostly artifacts of a more cocksure past, and with rare exceptions don't happen outside of physics and chemistry.

A theory can never become a law. They are two different things. A law is always descriptive, a theory is always explanatory. Please get it out of your head that there is anything about the word "theory" as scientists use it that means it is inferior to some other classification. It isn't.

This is the common retort -- to state that the opponent is uneducated, ignorant or stupid. And then of course what does that make you?