Interesting interview - Richard Dawkins

[beefytee]

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.

I don't get this argument. I've had several personal experiences that lead me to believe in God. None of them had anything to do with evolution or creationism.

Are there examples of personal experiences that have anything to do with evolution? What did they have to do with evolution/creationism?

[woot]

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.

I'll not tear this apart piece by piece, but your treatment is absurd. There are a great many people who are theistic evolutionists, so your dichotomy is wrong. Also, until you can name something that is better than science when it comes to learning about reality, all your criticisms reek of mindless contrarianism. Yes, science has issues; it just has fewer issues than everything else.

As for your other post, I didn't just call you ignorant. I carefully demonstrated how you were ignorant and educated you so as to make you less ignorant. Convenient how you ignore the argument part. It's almost as if you enjoy wallowing in your ignorance and fear educating yourself.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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.

The biggest conflict that occurs is when you start discussing science classroom textbooks and cirrucula. Does intelligent design or the discussion of creationism and Adam and Eve belong in a science text or science classroom? Probably about as much as a discussion of the theory of evolution is appropriate in seminary. The conflict occurs when people from the extremes do not want their kids taught those "heretical/evalgelical" ideals.

[SeattleUte]

"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.

Well put. Agree that seizing on "theory" and applying a supposed layman's interpretation as opposed to the scientific term of art "theory" so well defined in your post is not only crude apologetics but a sure sign of ignorance.

[tooblue]

I'll not tear this apart piece by piece, but your treatment is absurd. There are a great many people who are theistic evolutionists, so your dichotomy is wrong. Also, until you can name something that is better than science when it comes to learning about reality, all your criticisms reek of mindless contrarianism. Yes, science has issues; it just has fewer issues than everything else.

As for your other post, I didn't just call you ignorant. I carefully demonstrated how you were ignorant and educated you so as to make you less ignorant. Convenient how you ignore the argument part. It's almost as if you enjoy wallowing in your ignorance and fear educating yourself.

The unfortunate thing is the post went right over your head. You are so certain you are going to prove me wrong that you have only further illustrated that you are representative of the extreme and have validated my observation.

Furthermore your insults are to be disregarded. Some aspects of evolution may be considered fact while others are still considered theory so therefore evolution is not a law like unto newtonian laws of mechanics.

[tooblue]

The biggest conflict that occurs is when you start discussing science classroom textbooks and cirrucula. Does intelligent design or the discussion of creationism and Adam and Eve belong in a science text or science classroom? Probably about as much as a discussion of the theory of evolution is appropriate in seminary. The conflict occurs when people from the extremes do not want their kids taught those "heretical/evalgelical" ideals.

And what's most fascinating is how similar the two sides are in their evangelism.

[tooblue]

I don't get this argument. I've had several personal experiences that lead me to believe in God. None of them had anything to do with evolution or creationism.

Are there examples of personal experiences that have anything to do with evolution? What did they have to do with evolution/creationism?

Personal truth is like unto Scientific truth -- they both are relative.

[woot]

The unfortunate thing is the post went right over your head. You are so certain you are going to prove me wrong that you have only further illustrated that you are representative of the extreme and have validated my observation.

Furthermore your insults are to be disregarded. Some aspects of evolution may be considered fact while others are still considered theory so therefore evolution is not a law like unto newtonian laws of mechanics.

Please read my post. You are still thinking that laws are better than theories. Opposite is true. Newton's ideas are still relevant, but they were turned upside down by Einstein. Newton's "laws" are only descriptive, not explanatory. A description is trivial compared to the importance and difficulty of explanation.

Do me a favor. Print out the statement below, attach it to your wall, and bang your head against it repeatedly. Thanks.

A THEORY CAN NEVER BECOME A LAW.

[SeattleUte]

Some aspects of evolution may be considered fact while others are still considered theory so therefore evolution is not a law like unto newtonian laws of mechanics.

It seems that your definition of theory is not the same as woot articulated. You're just repeating your assertion, talking past him. He agrees evolution is to a large extent comprised of theory. The geological events that brought Puget Sound into being are also theories. This doesn't mean what you seem to be implying it means.

[tooblue]

Please read my post. You are still thinking that laws are better than theories. Opposite is true. Newton's ideas are still relevant, but they were turned upside down by Einstein. Newton's "laws" are only descriptive, not explanatory. A description is trivial compared to the importance and difficulty of explanation.

Do me a favor. Print out the statement below, attach it to your wall, and bang your head against it repeatedly. Thanks.

A THEORY CAN NEVER BECOME A LAW.

THEN WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ASSERT IT AS LAW?

I have not stated that laws are better than theories. Those are your words not mine. I have only stated that some aspects of evolution may be considered fact while others are still considered theory.

You can choose to continue your retreat into the extreme or try to find some common ground. And then not only will I be 'reading' your post you will be 'reading' mine.

[Flystripper]

THEN WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ASSERT IT AS LAW?

I have not stated that laws are better than theories. Those are your words not mine. I have only stated that some aspects of evolution may be considered fact while others are still considered theory.

You can choose to continue your retreat into the extreme or try to find some common ground. And then not only will I be 'reading' your post you will be 'reading' mine.

there are no facts...only theories. You are using unscientific definitions to describe the scientific.

Around and around you go where it stops only you know.

[UtahDan]

I must have had temporary amnesia. Ill let it go at that.

[woot]

THEN WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ASSERT IT AS LAW?

I have not stated that laws are better than theories. Those are your words not mine. I have only stated that some aspects of evolution may be considered fact while others are still considered theory.

You can choose to continue your retreat into the extreme or try to find some common ground. And then not only will I be 'reading' your post you will be 'reading' mine.

Throw me a bone here dude. Am I to assume that your reading comprehension is really as poor as you're demonstrating here? Every word of the quoted post is based on wholesale ignorance, even in the face of my explanations.

Why should I look for common ground with your ignorance? I am the first to acknowledge that the truth is often found in the middle, but this is not one of those occasions. You are just wrong. Ignorantly, defiantly wrong. You are way out of your league in this conversation. Not only do you know seemingly zero about evolution, you also know seemingly zero about science in general. Why did it even occur to you to respond to this thread if you've never been interested enough to pick up a basic science book or for that matter watch a youtube video?

Or maybe you have but you understood them as well as you understand me.

[woot]

there are no facts...only theories. You are using unscientific definitions to describe the scientific.

Around and around you go where it stops only you know.

Well, there actually are facts; theories are how we organize facts into bodies of knowledge. TB is simply equating laws and facts, which are not similar. Many of the "laws" that are so famous aren't even laws. They're just conditional facts. This is one of the reasons why laws have pretty much gone away in science.

[pellegrino]

Throw me a bone here dude. Am I to assume that your reading comprehension is really as poor as you're demonstrating here? Every word of the quoted post is based on wholesale ignorance, even in the face of my explanations.

Why should I look for common ground with your ignorance? I am the first to acknowledge that the truth is often found in the middle, but this is not one of those occasions. You are just wrong. Ignorantly, defiantly wrong. You are way out of your league in this conversation. Not only do you know seemingly zero about evolution, you also know seemingly zero about science in general. Why did it even occur to you to respond to this thread if you've never been interested enough to pick up a basic science book or for that matter watch a youtube video?

Or maybe you have but you understood them as well as you understand me.

I think you both are misunderstanding each other. I understood his comment about two competing cultures, their similarities and how they interact. Your responses don't seem to have addressed that issue.

edit: As a disclaimer, I am a believer who has weighed the preponderance of evidence on evolution and see it as you do. How God fits into that doesn't concern me so much.