Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Popper's definition of metaphysics lines up with TSS's Webster link above which states, "b  :  abstract philosophical studies :  a study of what is outside objective experience"

Evolutionary theory as posited by their believers, is certainly extrapolation that is outside of their experience. 

Quite abusing Popper, and science.

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution

Edited April 1, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

Oh good, then you should have no problem showing me what I asked for here:

 

If only I was a betting man!

Remember the principle of "falsifiability"?  Ya, that was Sir Karl Popper who was responsible for establishing falsifiability in the world of science.  He is the father of scientific falsifiability. He is the one who asserted that "if a statement is to be scientific rather than metaphysical, it must be falsifiable."  Guess what the father of scientific falsifiability called evolution?  He called it a "metaphysical research program."  Ooh, and don't forget Masatoshi Nei, who I referenced previously.  He is a renowned geneticist and molecular evolutionary biologist who called natural selection a "dogma". I have also named a few other "qualified scientists" who agree with Popper already, but I guess you missed that part.  

A quick google search found me a list of 3,000 scientists who are Darwin skeptics.

Then there was this:

And that was just the first two or three links in the google search!

I'm having difficulty finding the numbers you state in your post. I'll start with the most obvious. You site the study done by Gross and Simmons, 2006. You site that it refers to "estimated 113,000 Darwin skeptic scientists" from their (Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, "How Religious Are America’s College and University Professors?", Working paper Harvard University, Oct. 5, 2006) That number is not stated anywhere in their paper. They mention Darwin once (that's one, as in the number between zero and two) and they ask the question (Our question asked respondents how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:

"The theory of intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."

Overall 84.1 percent of professors surveyed disagreed with the statement., with 75.3 percent registering strong disagreement.) Agreement was strongest at community colleges and weakest at elite doctoral universities.

How anyone then can calculate that number to be equal to 113,000 scientists as "Darwin skeptics"is beyond me. Please, someone, explain the math to me.

The number of 113,000 is stated on-line in a paper called "Scientists Who Believe the Bible" by David Cloud. He sites the study by Gross and Simmons but does not provide any quotes. (Nor could he, since they don't exist.)

You reference the number 3,000 scientists who are Darwin skeptics as stated by Jerry Bergman. (who proudly states that his Ph.D in Biology comes from Columbia Pacific University, an "unaccredited", "distance learning" school) By the way, for those who wonder, an unaccredited, distant learning school equals a diploma mill.

Bergman lists "almost" 3,000 names of Darwin skeptics but he fails to state which questions they were given, although he says if they have published Intelligent Design articles, he didn't bother contacting them. He also states he has an additional list of 1,000 names of scientists which he cannot publish for "fear of retaliation". He then goes on to state he could "if I had the time and resources, complete a list of over 10,000 names.

Well, which is it? 1,000, 3,000, 10,000 or 113,000 names.????

 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Quite abusing Popper, and science.

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution

I addressed this link and post before you even wrote it. I read it before you even knew about it.  Unfortunately, like you might expect from a dogmatist, it doesn't give the full story. 

If you would read my posts, it would help.  Remember when I wrote this:

Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, said this about natural selection:

Quote

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories;

Only under severe pressure from the dogmatic Darwinian community did Popper later retract that statement.  However, after retracting that statement he later revised his book and decided to leave his original conclusion, that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program" unchanged.  His original thoughts remained. 

John Horgan interviewed Popper in 1992 and said this:

Quote

Early in his career, the philosopher John Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying” One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/karl-popper-never-really-retracted-his-skeptical-view-of-darwinism/

Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: 

Quote

Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable. If one relies heavily on natural selection and sexual selection, simultaneously downplaying drift, which of course is what the neo-Darwinian does do, then Popper feels that one has a nonfalsifiable theory. And, certainly, many followers agree that there is something conceptually flawed with Darwinism.

 

[thesometimesaint]

AAAH That old canard of a vast conspiracy of scientists to force compliance with their dictatorial mandates.

[ERayR]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

AAAH That old canard of a vast conspiracy of scientists to force compliance with their dictatorial mandates.

Nothing of the kind.  It is the simple phenomena that any sheepherder knows well.  If you get the lead sheep going in a direction the rest of the herd simply follows.  In a word sheeple.

[thesometimesaint]

That's why I prefer goats. More independent than sheep. 

[longview]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

AAAH That old canard of a vast conspiracy of scientists to force compliance with their dictatorial mandates.

No need for a conspiracy any more.  They are blatantly open about chilling academic free speech.  The campus brownshirts have assaulted conservative speakers and attendees numerous times.  Your mocking tone will do nothing to obscure this tragic truth.

Godwin's Law. Poster removed.

[bcuzbcuz]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

No need for a conspiracy any more.  They are blatantly open about chilling academic free speech.  The campus brownshirts have assaulted conservative speakers and attendees numerous times.  Your mocking tone will do nothing to obscure this tragic truth.

CFR

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

No need for a conspiracy any more.  They are blatantly open about chilling academic free speech.  The campus brownshirts have assaulted conservative speakers and attendees numerous times.  Your mocking tone will do nothing to obscure this tragic truth.

Godwin's Law violation.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'm having difficulty finding the numbers you state in your post.

I don't want to turn this into a popularity contest.  I posted a couple links from a quick google search entitled "scientists who doubt evolution".  Are you guys really going to try to debunk them all, because there are pages of them?  If you guys want to continue believing that there is not one single credible scientist who questions the falsifiability of the theory evolution, that is fine, but, I think you know that is probably an ignorant belief.  

 The funny thing is that none of this matters.  Science is not a popularity contest.  

Every time I make a request for empirical evidence, you guys always dodge the question and make an appeal to the popularity of the theory among scientists, as if to say "just have faith in the scientists".  To me, that seems very unscientific.  Science is not about trusting popular ideas, it is about questioning them, but the theory has become so dogmatic that few dare question Darwin.  Science is about appealing to the empirical evidence and formulating repeatable empirical tests to falsify theories, it is not about dodging requests for empirical evidence and telling me to just believe in the scientists.

It is unfortunate that if someone questions the falsifiability of the Theory of evolution, they are accused of "denying reality" as SS has accused me of. He tries to prove my denial of reality by stating that the NAS and the AAAS support the Theory of evolution.  I am sorry, I didn't realize that the NAS and the AAAS were the authorities on the metaphysical questions of reality.  It wouldn't surprise me though, given their stance on the Theory of Evolution. 

No more nonsense about the popularity of the theory.  You have admitted that a scientific theory must be empirically falsifiable.  Now, instead of dodging the question for the fourth time now, how 'bout you act like a real scientist and focus on the empirical evidence instead of on faith in popular belief.

For the fourth or fifth time now, is this statement empirically falsifiable?

23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

AAAH That old canard of a vast conspiracy of scientists to force compliance with their dictatorial mandates.

Um, a direct quote from him in 1992 is not a conspiracy.  His original statement is in his most recently updated book - no conspiracy there.  Even Michael Ruse acknowledges that Popper still thinks that evolution is a "non-falsifiable theory", and he admits that Popper is not alone in thinking that Darwinism is "conceptually flawed".  

And yes, peer pressure is very real - even for scientists.  One of the most universal desires of man is to feel accepted.  No dictatorial mandates required.  The fact remains, in the end, Popper stood by his original statement. 

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't want to turn this into a popularity contest.  I posted a couple links from a quick google search entitled "scientists who doubt evolution".  Are you guys really going to try to debunk them all, because there are pages of them?  If you guys want to continue believing that there is not one single credible scientist who questions the falsifiability of the theory evolution, that is fine, but, I think you know that is probably an ignorant belief.  

 The funny thing is that none of this matters.  Science is not a popularity contest.  

Every time I make a request for empirical evidence, you guys always dodge the question and make an appeal to the popularity of the theory among scientists, as if to say "just have faith in the scientists".  To me, that seems very unscientific.  Science is not about trusting popular ideas, it is about questioning them, but the theory has become so dogmatic that few dare question Darwin.  Science is about appealing to the empirical evidence and formulating repeatable empirical tests to falsify theories, it is not about dodging requests for empirical evidence and telling me to just believe in the scientists.

It is unfortunate that if someone questions the falsifiability of the Theory of evolution, they are accused of "denying reality" as SS has accused me of. He tries to prove my denial of reality by stating that the NAS and the AAAS support the Theory of evolution.  I am sorry, I didn't realize that the NAS and the AAAS were the authorities on the metaphysical questions of reality.  It wouldn't surprise me though, given their stance on the Theory of Evolution. 

No more nonsense about the popularity of the theory.  You have admitted that a scientific theory must be empirically falsifiable.  Now, instead of dodging the question for the fourth time now, how 'bout you act like a real scientist and focus on the empirical evidence instead of on faith in popular belief.

For the fourth or fifth time now, is this statement empirically falsifiable?

 

I'm not denying that evolution is falsifiable. What I have consistently said is that it hasn't yet.

Science/The Theory of Evolution is not metaphysical. We have numerous lines of physical evidence for it.

As with any scientific theory as new physical(Empirical) evidence becomes available the theory can be modified or even disproved.

Take your shoes off, sit back, relax, and stay a spell.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm not denying that evolution is falsifiable. 

Obviously! I have never accused you otherwise.  I don't know how I can make this more clear to you.  I AM denying that the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable - that's what makes it metaphysical and not scientific. 

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science/The Theory of Evolution is not metaphysical. We have numerous lines of physical evidence for it.

Intelligent design can look at the same physical evidence and have a different explanation for it (metaphysical).  The metaphysical aspect is not in the physical evidence, but in the explanation of the physical evidence - how it got there, how it came to be, its origins, common ancestors etc.  None of this can be empirically tested or observable.  Yet, the Theory of evolution uses these metaphysical explanations as its framework. 

Once again (I am a patient man), is this falsifiable?

Quote

the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species.

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Intelligent Design is nonsense, a fraud, a scheme to con you. 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

SEE

What exactly wrong with that statement on what is known so far about the first species?

 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Intelligent Design is nonsense, a fraud, a scheme to con you. 

Intelligent Design is one metaphysical explanation for the physical evidence, the Theory of Evolution is another.  Neither are falsifiable, so I would say they are on par. 

I think we are up to 6 or 7 now, but I will try again (is anybody else noticing a trend here?).  

Once yet again, is this falsifiable?

Quote

the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species.

Edited April 1, 2016 by pogi

[snowflake]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 0:16 PM, thesometimesaint said:

Life is a product of Abiogenesis. Evolution is what happens after life exists.

That is the problem when you deliberately use non-scientific terms to describe a scientific theory. Class has a specific meaning in biology, and birds and fish are not in the same Class, and can not evolve into the same Class. Though there are birds that swim and fish that fly.

Special Creationism is still Creationism.

SEE http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/special_creation.aspx

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

David Berlinski wrote a great book on the questions and assumptions made with Darwinian theory called The Devil's Delusion.

Here is a short video on why he thinks the theory is more "religious" than science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Once yet again, is this falsifiable?

Quote

the current theory is that there were probably three common ancestors for all modern day species.

OK. I will say yes it is. Using the word "probably" is a clue.  Many things connected with the theory of evolution are falsifiable. Although I do agree that scientifically, it's the best guess about what happened that we have so far. 

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, JAHS said:

OK. I will say yes it is. Using the word "probably" is a clue. 

I'm not sure I understand how the word "probably" makes it falsifiable.  Can you elaborate?

31 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Many things connected with the theory of evolution are falsifiable. 

I would agree that the theory of evolution is a hodge-podge of falsifiable evidence (scientific) and non-falsifiable evidence (metaphysical).  It kind of reminds me of a superficially persuasive legislative bill that when you read the fine print, you find it is chock full of nasty riders.

Edited April 1, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

David Berlinski wrote a great book on the questions and assumptions made with Darwinian theory called The Devil's Delusion.

Here is a short video on why he thinks the theory is more "religious" than science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

Good video!  I watched the subsequent video and it was good too.  For Freedom, here is one credible scientist who now questions the falsifiability of the theory of evolution. Not that it matters one way or the other, but you asked.  He says in the video, "“It dawned on me right then and there, evolution was bankrupt as a scientific theory.”:

It just goes to show that when you allow room for other ideas in the school system, the dogma of evolution as a science theory can be dispelled.  The fascist squelching of other ideas in the school system is a great disservice to science. 

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by pogi

[danielwoods]

21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Quite abusing Popper, and science.

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution

Your link and his link use the same definition for metaphysics. How is that abusing science? 

 

Take the money out of science and see what happens. People have a tendency to not rock the boat when their financial security is threatened. 

 

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure I understand how the word "probably" makes it falsifiable.  Can you elaborate?

"Probably", implies that the theory has not been tested or observed properly and therefore there might not be three common ancestors for all modern day species.

[PeterPear]

This is how Charles Darwin evolved:

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished. 

And this is a damnable doctrine.” 

The autobiography of Charles Darwin

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12793.Charles_Darwin

It's amazing how some Mormons will ignore the First Presidency's statements against the theories of evolution, but will embrace the teachings of that nutjob, Charles Darwin. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

"Probably", implies that the theory has not been tested or observed properly and therefore there might not be three common ancestors for all modern day species.

Let's examine what you just said, "the theory has not been tested or observed properly".  I am glad that we finally agree on one thing.  The "theory" is bankrupt!

Again, how does that make it falsifiable?  And better yet, how in the world did it make it into a scientific theory if it has not been "tested or observed properly"?  I am not asking if it has been tested and observed, I am asking if it is even possible to subject this statement to repeatable empirical testing and observation.  If this statement cannot be empirically tested or observed, then it is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific, but merely metaphysical musing.  

Is it clear to you now, as you admit that it has not met the rigorous empirical testing standards to be considered a scientific theory?  Without testing and observation, it can only be considered a hypothesis at best - a metaphysical one at that. 

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by pogi

[bcuzbcuz]

On 29 March 2016 at 10:38 PM, snowflake said:

So if you would please go back and read all of 2 Peter 3, you notice that there will be scoffers willingly ignorant of creation, the flood and the end times. I have read quite a few posts on this thread that might fall into the "scoffers" category. 

As one reads the bible it is so important to look at the context of the scripture. In context, is peter talking about how God created the world or the end times?  When read in context, this verse along with verse 9 seems to be saying that "God work's on God's time, not on yours".. or God will get done what he said he will. Remember, God is outside of time, he created time so of course time does not matter to him.

In Genesis God seems to be clearly saying that these things happened in a day, not in a thousand years, I agree, how could he create plants before the sun and expect them to live?  One day, no problem.

Both 1 Peter and 2 Peter have been cast into doubt regarding authorship. Peter may have written 1 Peter but scholars in Greek say that 2 Peter was not written by Peter.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am glad that we finally agree on one thing.  The "theory" is bankrupt!

I have been in agreement with you the whole time (although I don't think I have responded to any of your posts yet). Perhaps you are referring to other posters.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Is it clear to you now, as you admit that it has not met the rigorous empirical testing standards to be considered a scientific theory? 

That has always been clear to me, although I have to say that the archaeological evidence and testing that has been done so far "suggests" that it is the best explanation that science can come up with so far. The only alternative is to believe that God did it all in ways we can't understand right now.