Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[robvalue]

Seriously Steve, please watch my video in the previous post. It addresses a lot of the misconceptions I suspect you have.

I'll say what I think is happening, and what happens quite a lot.

I think you are genuinely trying to follow the science. And that is admirable. However, any time the science runs contrary to your religious beliefs, you're going to stick with the religious beliefs. I'm not saying you're consciously doing this, but I am saying it is the net result. This becomes a hard barrier to learning. If you have preconceived notions that science "must" line up with, you are not doing science. Science is about working upwards from the evidence, wherever it may lead.

As I said, it's not just you. I've seen this everywhere. You're trying (in my opinion) to hold a scientifically respectable version of evolution in your head, along with whatever religious beliefs you have that try to explain the same thing. This causes you to have to sabotage or modify the scientific model so that it doesn't cause you cognitive dissonance.

This is just my opinion about what is happening. You needn't reply, but maybe you'd like to think about it for a moment. Why do theists spend so much time hammering away at the theory of evolution, while never being at all bothered by most other scientific theories? The fact that it is still standing, after all this assault, is testament to its strength. Theories are falsifiable. They're not decided by opinion.

PS: I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution being true. If it wasn't true, it wouldn't matter to me. I'm not trying to make you believe it either. I'm addressing the underlying issues that I think are present in your thinking. You have to decide if you're interested in science or pseudoscience. It seems to me you've been reading a lot of anti-evolution material. That's fine, you should read things from everywhere. But do read other things. Read genuine scientific books and articles. Read things written by qualified people who don't oppose evolution. Learn about what it is you're disagreeing with.

[SteveII]

Seriously Steve, please watch my video in the previous post. It addresses a lot of the misconceptions I suspect you have.

I'll say what I think is happening, and what happens quite a lot.

I think you are genuinely trying to follow the science. And that is admirable. However, any time the science runs contrary to your religious beliefs, you're going to stick with the religious beliefs. I'm not saying you're consciously doing this, but I am saying it is the net result. This becomes a hard barrier to learning. If you have preconceived notions that science "must" line up with, you are not doing science. Science is about working upwards from the evidence, wherever it may lead.

As I said, it's not just you. I've seen this everywhere. You're trying (in my opinion) to hold a scientifically respectable version of evolution in your head, along with whatever religious beliefs you have that try to explain the same thing. This causes you to have to sabotage or modify the scientific model so that it doesn't cause you cognitive dissonance.

This is just my opinion about what is happening. You needn't reply, but maybe you'd like to think about it for a moment. Why do theists spend so much time hammering away at the theory of evolution, while never being at all bothered by most other scientific theories? The fact that it is still standing, after all this assault, is testament to its strength. Theories are falsifiable. They're not decided by opinion.

PS: I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution being true. If it wasn't true, it wouldn't matter to me. I'm not trying to make you believe it either. I'm addressing the underlying issues that I think are present in your thinking. You have to decide if you're interested in science or pseudoscience. It seems to me you've been reading a lot of anti-evolution material. That's fine, you should read things from everywhere. But do read other things. Read genuine scientific books and articles. Read things written by qualified people who don't oppose evolution. Learn about what it is you're disagreeing with.

Your definition of evolution is too simplistic. 

From Wikipedia

The "theory of evolution" is actually a network of theories that created the research program of biology. Darwin, for example, proposed five separate theories in his original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for:

1. populations changing over generations
   
   
2. gradual change
   
   
3. speciation
   
   
4. natural selection
   
   
5. common descent[24]
   

By using your simplistic version, you have grouped everything together and in doing so, somehow endowed the 'fact' status of some portions of evolution on theories that still have a long way to go (irreducible complexity, biological networks, "tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree, fossil record/intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient, etc.). I am sure we will learn more about each of these things and theories will come and go as new information emerges.  

To be honest, I don't know to what extent evolution is true. It really does not matter to theism in general or Christianity in particular. I don't and won't argue the specifics of the science because, 1) I am not qualified and 2) I have never seen such an argument as productive. This is about as far as I go--pointing out that you (in the general sense) cannot look down on people who object to the whole ball of wax being 'fact'.

[SteveII]

Steve II - it's starting to really look like you aren't reading my posts and you're dancing around the issue.

Forget evolution, as I said, evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow and it wouldn't matter because ID and Creationism still have about as much evidence for them as the Flat Earth Society!

I am not a scientist, and neither are you, but the current consensus among scientists is that Evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, backed up by shelves of evidence. They have a different opinion about those 'gaps' which you would understand if you thought about the puzzle analogy. If you think you know better than the consensus of the scientific community then this is a lost cause... but then, I imagine you haven't come here looking to change your mind, you've come here because you consider yourself to be a Christian and you believe it it all, and you've come here to try to convince these atheists that they don't know what they're talking about, right?

The problem is, the facts don't support Christianity and they certainly don't support Creationism or ID, and if you actually turn around and consider them, neither of them are rationally or empirically justified. The whole construct is like one of those big knots where when you pull both ends, the whole things just comes undone. You owe it to yourself to consider the evidence, open your mind! Read The Selfish Gene, or The Greatest Show On Earth, both by Richard Dawkins - both are amazing books. Or you can go to talkorigins.com which I already listed in the last post. Or watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Or go here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

When did I give you the impression that I was willing to defend ID or creationism?

See my post above to Rob for my position on evolution. I just can't stand when people wave their hands in the air, look down their noses, and say things like: 

"They probably have a very narrow view of science."
"they are fed misinformation about science by their religion"
"these new ideas threaten their identity and community"
"but anyone who has studied evolution knows that it is a fact"

[Veritas_Vincit]

So I take it you concede the other points?

---

I'm sure you don't like it but that is genuinely how we see you because we can't believe your arrogance in thinking that you know better than hundreds of thousands of professional scientists.

[robvalue]

Okay. I guess we're done then. I'm trying to help you, I'm not looking down on anyone.

(I wonder if he watched my video even?)

[SteveII]

So I take it you concede the other points?

---

I'm sure you don't like it but that is genuinely how we see you because we can't believe your arrogance in thinking that you know better than hundreds of thousands of professional scientists.

What points do you think you made?

You reiterated that there are gaps (which you only agreed to after I pointed that out to you). No new point made.

You accused me: "you consider yourself to be a Christian and you believe it it all" and finished that sentence with "and you've come here to try to convince these atheists that they don't know what they're talking about, right?" to which I pointed you back to the post above where I explained my position.

Your comment "The problem is, the facts don't support Christianity" is just your misunderstanding what it is you are talking about but I don't have the time to correct you...but I did reply to "and they certainly don't support Creationism or ID" with my question: "When did I give you the impression that I was willing to defend ID or creationism?"

Richard Dawkins is a foolish man who does not think deeply about anything except his blind hatred of religion. His quote: “Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.” speaks volumes. Your threshold for 'amazing' seems to be quite low. 

Regarding your last sentence, if one does think that the all-encompassing theory of evolution is true, it is a belief and not knowledge. How can one fill the gaps you admit to with knowledge? You can only fill them with belief. My point remains: you can't throw around 'facts' and 'knowledge' and the word 'evolution' without being more precise. You certainly don't have warrant to call someone arrogant who points that out to you.

[SteveII]

Okay. I guess we're done then. I'm trying to help you, I'm not looking down on anyone.

(I wonder if he watched my video even?)

Didn't expect my reply to get through either.

I did. Every minute.

[robvalue]

Well, I appreciate you checking that out

[Veritas_Vincit]

So I take it you concede the other points?

---

I'm sure you don't like it but that is genuinely how we see you because we can't believe your arrogance in thinking that you know better than hundreds of thousands of professional scientists.

What points do you think you made?

You reiterated that there are gaps (which you only agreed to after I pointed that out to you). No new point made.

You accused me: "you consider yourself to be a Christian and you believe it it all" and finished that sentence with "and you've come here to try to convince these atheists that they don't know what they're talking about, right?" to which I pointed you back to the post above where I explained my position.

Your comment "The problem is, the facts don't support Christianity" is just your misunderstanding what it is you are talking about but I don't have the time to correct you...but I did reply to "and they certainly don't support Creationism or ID" with my question: "When did I give you the impression that I was willing to defend ID or creationism?"

Richard Dawkins is a foolish man who does not think deeply about anything except his blind hatred of religion. His quote: “Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.” speaks volumes. Your threshold for 'amazing' seems to be quite low. 

Regarding your last sentence, if one does think that the all-encompassing theory of evolution is true, it is a belief and not knowledge. How can one fill the gaps you admit to with knowledge? You can only fill them with belief. My point remains: you can't throw around 'facts' and 'knowledge' and the word 'evolution' without being more precise. You certainly don't have warrant to call someone arrogant who points that out to you.

What makes you think you know better than the consensus of mainstream scientists? 

I'm just telling you what they say - who are you to say that they are wrong and you are right? Because to be honest mate, until you show me your Nobel prize for demonstrating that one of the most comprehensively confirmed scientific theories in history was wrong, I'm not really interested in your opinion on the subject. Don't get me wrong, you have a right to your own opinion - but you don't have a right to your own facts, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go read a science book! Do some research! And by the way, I completely agree with the statement from Dawkins you just quoted. People who are mistaken need to be corrected if they try to share their incorrect views with others, and people who try to peddle pseudoscientific bullshit need to be publically exposed and shamed.

[SteveII]

What points do you think you made?

You reiterated that there are gaps (which you only agreed to after I pointed that out to you). No new point made.

You accused me: "you consider yourself to be a Christian and you believe it it all" and finished that sentence with "and you've come here to try to convince these atheists that they don't know what they're talking about, right?" to which I pointed you back to the post above where I explained my position.

Your comment "The problem is, the facts don't support Christianity" is just your misunderstanding what it is you are talking about but I don't have the time to correct you...but I did reply to "and they certainly don't support Creationism or ID" with my question: "When did I give you the impression that I was willing to defend ID or creationism?"

Richard Dawkins is a foolish man who does not think deeply about anything except his blind hatred of religion. His quote: “Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.” speaks volumes. Your threshold for 'amazing' seems to be quite low. 

Regarding your last sentence, if one does think that the all-encompassing theory of evolution is true, it is a belief and not knowledge. How can one fill the gaps you admit to with knowledge? You can only fill them with belief. My point remains: you can't throw around 'facts' and 'knowledge' and the word 'evolution' without being more precise. You certainly don't have warrant to call someone arrogant who points that out to you.

What makes you think you know better than the consensus of mainstream scientists? 

I'm just telling you what they say - who are you to say that they are wrong and you are right? Because to be honest mate, until you show me your Nobel prize for demonstrating that one of the most comprehensively confirmed scientific theories in history was wrong, I'm not really interested in your opinion on the subject. Don't get me wrong, you have a right to your own opinion - but you don't have a right to your own facts, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go read a science book! Do some research! And by the way, I completely agree with the statement from Dawkins you just quoted. People who are mistaken need to be corrected if they try to share their incorrect views with others, and people who try to peddle pseudoscientific bullshit need to be publically exposed and shamed.

Did my point go over your head or are you just ignoring it because you have no answer? See bold above. I'll try again: 

1. You admit to gaps in our knowledge/understanding of evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) 
2. Gaps in knowledge = facts not known = not full understanding of how the complete theory works. 
3. If you still believe evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) is true, it is a belief because you have bridged the gaps with something other than knowledge. You even used the word "consensus" which means a common belief. You don't need consensus for facts. For example, decent with modification is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Don't need consensus, don't need them to sign a statement, don't need to take a poll. 

Perhaps you think the gaps (irreducible complexity, biological networks, "tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree, fossil record/intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient, etc.) are trivial. Then it would be you that would need to do some reading.