|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 4, 2008 16:24:29 GMT -4
Evolution doubters fall into the same category as HBs. They have the burden of proof. Evolution is a widely accepted fact in the relevant fields of study and is congruent with other sciences. People who propose that evolution is incorrect must provide an alternative explanation for the evidence. I have to disagree with this. People who doubt evolution don't have any burden of proof at all. Some people don't believe that evolution happens, but are not interested enough in the issue to really find out anything about it. I don't believe in God, but I don't have to prove there isn't one, do I? Now, if you actively promote that evolution isn't correct, or that God doesn't exist, or go on forums attacking evolution or God, then you should offer an alternate explanation.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 4, 2008 16:34:06 GMT -4
Now, if you actively promote that evolution isn't correct, That is really what I intended to address. The professional doubters that make a political issue out of undermining science without offering a better explanation. We are choking on them right now in Texas. I don't believe in God, but I don't have to prove there isn't one, do I? Only once someone can scientifically prove God exists. (Don't get started on this Jason, please.)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 4, 2008 16:36:30 GMT -4
but few people seem to worry about whether the theory of evolution has done the world more good than evil.A theory can of course not do good or evil. Which is my point - neither can a religion, since it's just a body of ideas. Not at all. I was just wondering how useful the "deep predictive power" ascribed to the theory of evolution a little earlier really is.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 4, 2008 16:39:21 GMT -4
I don't believe in God, but I don't have to prove there isn't one, do I? Only once someone can scientifically prove God exists. (Don't get started on this Jason, please.) If you think I believe you can scientifically prove that God exists then you haven't read many of my posts on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 4, 2008 16:47:04 GMT -4
Now, if you actively promote that evolution isn't correct, That is really what I intended to address. The professional doubters that make a political issue out of undermining science without offering a better explanation. We are choking on them right now in Texas. I don't believe in God, but I don't have to prove there isn't one, do I? Only once someone can scientifically prove God exists. (Don't get started on this Jason, please.) Well, he hasn't so far. (runs away)
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 4, 2008 17:01:20 GMT -4
I don't believe in God, but I don't have to prove there isn't one, do I? Only once someone can scientifically prove God exists. (Don't get started on this Jason, please.) If you think I believe you can scientifically prove that God exists then you haven't read many of my posts on the subject. Your right, I mostly skipped those threads.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 4, 2008 18:28:59 GMT -4
Not at all. I was just wondering how useful the "deep predictive power" ascribed to the theory of evolution a little earlier really is. And once again, I ask you to define 'useful'. Useful to whom? Useful in what way? What is the threshold dividing useful from useless?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 4, 2008 19:01:34 GMT -4
And once again, I ask you to define 'useful'. Useful to whom? Useful in what way? What is the threshold dividing useful from useless? It is a subjective term, obviously, but one that it shouldn't be too difficult to find common ground on. I suppose I mean useful in the sense of providing a practical benefit to mankind as a whole. The Apollo project, for instance, was useful. Practical technology with multiple uses was developed for the program, and techniques and methods first developed for it continue to be used today, both in aerospace and in other fields. The general knowledge of the moon the program discovered was not immediately useful but may prove so one day, should we finally go back.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 4, 2008 19:07:12 GMT -4
Try harder.
Do you reject as useless all knowledge without immediately obvious "..practical benefit to mankind as a whole"?
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Dec 4, 2008 19:18:54 GMT -4
Domestication of fauna and flora comes to my mind. They are an application of selective breeding. True, they predate the actual formulation of the theory of evolution. But I mean... gravity was useful before Newton received an apple of the head, too
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 4, 2008 19:28:03 GMT -4
Do you reject as useless all knowledge without immediately obvious "..practical benefit to mankind as a whole"? I would say it's not practical rather than useless. That's basically what practical means - able to be useful. It can still be interesting to know things for knowledge's sake, but it's not really practical. Of course, things we thought were useless do often become useful in some situations, so I wouldn't call esoteric knowledge useless so much as "not useful", until they do become useful.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 4, 2008 19:29:05 GMT -4
Domestication of fauna and flora comes to my mind. They are an application of selective breeding. True, they predate the actual formulation of the theory of evolution. But I mean... gravity was useful before Newton received an apple of the head, too Since domestication pre-dated evolutionary theory I don't think you can count it as a useful application of the theory. If you can point out areas where it has obviously improved domestication then you might have something.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 5, 2008 5:45:20 GMT -4
I suppose I mean useful in the sense of providing a practical benefit to mankind as a whole. What you've just said there is that the practical developments of Apollo have proved useful after the fact, but that the whole purpose of undertaking the project, the stated aim of going to the Moon, was useless. All the knowledge gained about the Moon has no practical benefit for mankind as a whole. How does it benefit anyone to know how the Moon came into being or what it is made of or how geologically inactive it is? How is Mr Bloggs who stacks shelves at a supermarket helped by the Apollo missions any more than by evolutionary theory? If something doesn't have immediately practical benefits it isn't necessarily useless. It might be useful in future, as you just said regarding Apollo. And as I said, I consider any advancement of knowledge useful.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 5, 2008 10:53:39 GMT -4
I have had to endure many an argument on how religion has been a force and inspiration for great evil in the world, but few people seem to worry about whether the theory of evolution has done the world more good than evil. Science invokes no moral judgements, it merely describes the natural world. Gravitational and aerodynamic theories predict the amount of force which a human body will incur on impact with the ground after being pushed from a cliff of specified height. They are silent, however, on the moral circumstances, if any, under which said person may, or even must, be pushed from that cliff.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 5, 2008 11:52:10 GMT -4
I have had to endure many an argument on how religion has been a force and inspiration for great evil in the world, but few people seem to worry about whether the theory of evolution has done the world more good than evil. Endure? Half the time you provoke them...
|
|