Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Anomalocaris]

In what way can something be well-established, and based on solid evidence, but be wrong? No, its not rhetorical. I'm asking to make sure we're using these terms the same way. Aka, for clarification.

Newtonian gravity is a beautiful theory and it works, but it's wrong.

Edit. Ninja'd by the laid back plum.

Most theories can be thought of as opening terms in the successive approximations of the behaviors of reality.    Behaviors of Reality = A+B+C+...…..    Sometimes using A alone can get you close enough to correctly forecasting the behavior of reality.     Some times you need A+B,  some times you need more terms than that.


But the fact that A alone is not always good enough does not mean A is wrong.  It is just incomplete.


What would likely be wrong is not A, but a mental picture, or cognitive explanation, of how A came to be pretty accurate that does not allow for adding B, and C, etc to make it more accurate.


Newton's law of gravity is correct but incomplete.   Imagining Newton's laws sprung from an force field that acts instantaneously over distance in a framework where time and distance are rigid unrelated coordinates is what is wrong, but that is not part of newton's law.  It is an explanation of newton's law.   The law is right but incomplete, the explanation of the law that is based on the assumption the law is largely complete is wrong.


The same applies in principle to evolution.   The reality of evolution almost certainly involve an extremely large number of effects or terms.    We can notionally rank these terms  in descending orders of their importance to the outcome of evolution:   The process of evolution = A+B+C+D+E...……..     We undoubtedly have the first few terms down, A, B C, maybe D.   We can forecast in big pictures how evolution goes.   But there are Es and Fs we are still investigating.    There are no doubt Ps, and Qs we haven't even thought of yet that would be needed to constitute a more complete picture of evolution.


But none of these terms is the christian god.    Why?   Because we have the big terms, A, B, and C.   The others would have effects of some magnitude.  But in all likelihood much less magnitude than the leading terms.   So any god that resides in those terms are pitifully weak and inconsequential gods.


I think recognition of this fundamental truth of how reality can be described is what separates from those who know science, and those christards and other religitards like John here who plays at knowing science.   To them truth is not a laborious effort at ever more precise and accurate approximations of behaviors of reality, it is imagined in their infantile mind to be received in its infallible entirely from on high.   So no wonder they diligent effort at predicting reality using the idiot benchmark of overreaching iron age bullshit of what truth is.