Audie wrote:Morny wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:As for what Basic science is, I am sure everyone has an opinion on that too.
Perhaps you're hung up on my use of the word
basic? OK. In any event, evidence-based theories, not opinion, decide what is
well-established science, e.g., what is in high school science textbooks. And if you disagree with with any of the items in my list, you disagree with almost all scientists' judgment as to how well the evidence supports the scientific theory.
But despite all that, my main worry is still the significant percentage of the population, who dismiss well-established scientific findings with little or no understanding of, or curiosity about, the scientific reasoning behind those findings.
For example, who here understands, or cares about, the scientific support for common descent from the evidence of biological traits forming a nested hierarchy? Maybe
every reader who agrees didn't bother to post? All I know is that those who did question that evidence in another thread, either didn't respond to my follow-up explanations, ... or didn't (better yet) look up the scientific evidence/argument themselves before posting that they now better understood common descent.
Its rare to find anyone well informed about geology / evolution.
Much rarer still, to find someone who is, but does not accept deep time
and evolution as valid.
Among those few, there may be one or more whose objections are not
entirely religious.
But not a one among any of them can bring forth any actual data to show that
ToE is false.
It is because ToE is never actually defined in any fixed sense, that there is such confusion.
To just say ToE and leave it at that without the details is just so impractical and unfruitful to any discussion re: such.
For example, if by ToE you mean
Naturalistic evolution for the life that we see, then that to me is so greatly improbable that it is realistically impossible.
If, on the other hand you are simply talking a
natural evolution of life's diversity then now you have a greater probability of such having some legs since such doesn't exclude God's orchestration.
And if you don't see a difference between "Naturalistic evolution" and "natural evolution" then you're as guilty as any creationist who mixes in their personal philosophical beliefs on the world with science.
For example, the enormous amount of symbiotic relationship and even biological features, organs, on the cellular level and the like.
The fact we see many similar biological systems, but different... one my wife was talking about this morning to me, mothers lactating milk whether humans, cows, cats or dogs are all systems very similar in purpose and function, and yet these systems are otherwise quite different and unique to each. Or the ecosystem and dependencies of creatures upon each other, some for which it is a mutual symbiotic matter of life or death if they did not exist at the same time.
Then we have these biological systems, organs and the like which we are to just accept independently evolved numerous times over aka convergent evolution.
All this is suggestive of "life" being designed to work together.
Like a "fine-tuning" argument for all biological life... many, many examples can be thought of which show purposeful design.
Therefore, if in one's ToE they mean a Naturalistic accounting of life's diversity, I laugh. They're like YECs to me. So improbable that they're crazy.
I ought to write off anything further such a person says. Basically talking "magic" -- like a fairy tale where the princess kisses a frog. What point is there talking to such a person who'd actually believe such? Thankfully, noone believes this fairy tale to be true, at least I'd hope so.
BUT, if by ToE one only intends a natural evolving of life, then while improbable to me (anything evolving is highly improbable right?), anything is possible with God.
The moment one conflates Naturalism with their science, is the moment they're just telling their own story of how they are really espousing their own view of a godless world.
I saw that coming.