Re: EVOLUTION vs.anything else

zagor

I felt compelled to writh another article that is follow up to my earlier thread...
What I often find is that people who rubbish evolution have never read even one book that fully describe any aspect of it. Even if they have picked a book or an article it was with intent to prove it wrong, hence, their bias has already made a foregone conclusion. It is really hard to have any reasonable discussion with a person of that order. Which in itself also hides a lack of education. Properly formulated research must show thorough understanding of past findings, theses and claims and then expand on it either to confirm it or to prove it wrong. Anything less that that is pure amateurism. You have to be able to develop your argument without resorting to clichés, dogmatism, unrecognized research or letting your feelings do the talking. Particularly if you want to discuss things that are on fringes of the science you must show thorough understanding of body of knowledge that has been accumulated to that point. Of course, you don’t have to do that if your life has other preoccupations, but please do not get offended if your comments get dismissed then. It is really like being a builder or a carpenter and walking into say medical conference, you just wouldn’t stand a chance would you? While people can listen you out of politeness you cannot in your right mind expect to be taken seriously. Now of course, there is a lot of that in science including biology and evolution that needs quite a lot of work and crystallizing so to speak. Hell we have exact science of physics with two major branches being incompatible with each other while precisely describing their particular phenomena i.e. Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity. Now how could that be I hear question already. Well the simple answer is that they precisely describing their particular angle and that there is even deeper level of truth still undiscovered that unifies it all. Remember a story of four blind men and an elephant? One grabs the leg and is convinced that the thing looks like a pillar, another hits elephant’s tummy and say it looks like a wall, third one grabs a tail and say, “this thing is a rope” the last one grabs elephant’s ears and thinks it looks like a piece of cloth. See my point? So in order to dismiss or replace something with something else you must provide even deeper level of truth. There are, of course, many things in evolutionary theory over which many scientists are scratching their heads. But that’s not unusual. In any other field of human endeavor you have problematic area. An archeologist finding a bone or a tool can be perplexed with how it got there if say a layer is 10.000 years old while peace is from much earlier period. There might be quite a simple explanation to it. That site was say disturbed at some point, dog might have hidden an old bone he found 10.000 years ago at a spot he thought no one would find it or anything else. But now 10.000 years later archeologist is puzzled when he sees confronting evidence. But there’s really nothing unusual about it, as with anything else today, life is hardly simple on the face of it and there are usually many possible answers that can explain presented evidence. All we can do is to try and interpret the best we can but it is not always easy. P eople do make mistakes. I mean, even today with all technology and resources, say, forensic scientists examining a scene of a crime can still misinterpret what they are seeing. They have followed right methodology, and we know it is right because it worked earlier in so many occasions so it is well tested. However, this particular crime might have been highly unusual which prevents accepted methodology to fully explain it. Now it that can be said about scene of crime old few hours, days or months, what can be said about site old thousands or millions of years? So of course, there is a lot of place for improvement, but you are not improving it by completely dismissing well-tested methodology, what you do do is to try to purify it and get even deeper level of truth. I know, I might get pounded for it by some staunch supporters of other views, but that’s why I find many arguments in book Forbidden Archeology intriguing. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it but some findings do demand explanation. But that is science again with all of its human nature. So if you want to refute evolution by all means try, but in order to do that you’ll have to learn it first and then when you know it well you can try to go even deeper into finding something that is even more unifying. Hell you might be even presently surprised with a Noble Award coming your way.

Qcmbr

I agree Zagor with a lot of what you said and I think there is merit in also suggesting that those who rubbish other peoples deep religious experiences maybe are guilty of a similar fault. I can't help being a believer in God - I've had too many experiences that are fact for me. People are still happy to go full tilt at that belief for maybe the same reason you point out in anti-evolutionists - I doubt many would deny God if they had something that they personally recognised as factual proof of His existence.

I could devote my time to an exhaustive study of earth sciences but other than on this forum I'd struggle to justify my new wealth of knowledge.

In the light of this universal lack of knowledge regarding other peoples 'expert' subjects maybe we should all consider not rubbishing peoples ideas and thoughts...just a thought.

zagor

I agree Zagor with a lot of what you said and I think there is merit in also suggesting that those who rubbish other peoples deep religious experiences maybe are guilty of a similar fault.

Fair point, I have no problem with peoples religious feelings at all, nor do I ever mock people on those grounds. Having been a jw before I was one of those anyway and didn't appreciate mockery back than, so I fully appreciate your point here.
The article is however, primarily directed toward people who simply dismiss evolution and at the same time want to impose Intelligent Design on grounds that since they don't want to know about evolution no one else should, not should it be taught in schools. That is what I find problematic here. And if you see my previous thread you'll see what I'm talking about

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/104540/1.ashx

Forscher

Intresting post Zagor. Hopefully I'll ge this in before the Evolutionists jump all over you with their ad homenism.
The problem isn't that they haven't read, or are uneducated. Many are highly educated and wide read. Folks like AlanF and TeraGod prove that all the time. The problem is their world view and education. At some point they bought into the philosophy of materialism. Usually, if one wants a graduate education, especially in any of the sciences, one must either buy that world view, or fake it. Since Materialism is the bedrock of the modern sciences all who study at that level learn that the only acceptable way to interpret the evidence is through the filter of that philosophy. they are also taught to reject as "irrelevant" any firm evidence to the contrary of accepted scientific dogma. That is why you see the phrase "all relevant evidence" in so many public statements of so many scientists. It is an admission that there is evidence to the contrary, but they are saying that the evidence doesn't count.
Materialists don't see their world view for the narrow view that it is. They delude themselves into thinking that, by rejecting the idea of a creator, they are opening their minds up when the very opposite is the reality. Of course, the same charge can be laid at the feet of creationists as well, as we are so constantly reminded here. You can say that both groups are narrow in their thinking. Any world view narrows one's mind. To hold otherwise is to kid oneself.
Because the world views of the two groups are so far apart, it is nearly impossible to come to a mutually acceptable framework for interpreting the evidence. That is why it appears to you that evolutionists are so misimformed. They reject credible evidence that support the creationist thesis, such as Human footprints that are contemporaneous with fossilised dinosaur remains and reject the evidence as "irrelevant". that is why many creationists reject evidence that forces postulated by Darwin may have a role in the diversity of our planet. I've been challenged to define MicroEvolution, unfortunately Any definition I come up with will be rejected my the materialists here because the acrimony by the two groups worldwide has caused the evolutionists to redefine terms in a way that would make agreement on the matter impossible. There was a time when even the scientific community used the two terms MicroEvolution and MacroEvolution and a reasonable debate was possible using that line of demarcation. But, in response to ID and the recent resurgence of creationist political power, the evolutionists have blurred that line making any agreement impossible.
So there you have it Zagor. I say take the high road. Let the materialists engage in their bashing all they want. Makes the weakness of their position all the more apparent.
Cheers!
Forscher

Check this site out http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Forscher

On that, at least, You and I can agree.

;-)
Forscher

jeanniebeanz

Damn my disabetes after I've eaten, it blurrs my vision! I miss things and can't hardly read what I write!

I feel your pain...

J

Re: EVOLUTION vs.anything else

Share this