For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[SteveII]

Science is based almost entirely on inference.

That and the whole scientific method thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

A method for generating sound propositions to be used in strong inferences.  

Steve, you can;t shoot holes in the theory.  It's beyond you.  Try to find a way to square your god beliefs away with reality, it's the least you can do.  Hell, do it for jesus. You weren't magic'd into existence. Life does share a common ancestor. There's no one yanking levers and pulling the genetic strings.

[Silver]

Science is based almost entirely on inference.

That and the whole scientific method thing.

I'm guessing you don't know what inference means:

in·fer·ence
ˈinf(ə)rəns/Submit
noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That and the whole scientific method thing.

I'm guessing you don't know what inference means:

in·fer·ence
ˈinf(ə)rəns/Submit
noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

I thought it was what made static on the radio.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here's a question for you Godscreated. I shall give you some strings of characters.

Which string contains the most data and which contains the most information?


String A:

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000


String B:

123456789012345678901234567890


String C:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234

The question wasn't for me and I'm unfortunately ignorant about this stuff (despite understanding the very easy to grasp basics of natural selection) but I intuit that string B contains the most helpful and predictable information but string C contains the most interesting information. So I'm not sure how to conclude. String A doesn't seem to inform anything though. I assume string A contains the most data if we're talking quantity simply because it has the most numbers? Despite it giving virtually no info.

---

The theory of evolution is testable. It has been tested and found to be correct.

Regardless as to your position on evolution, this statement just isn't true unless you equivocate on the definition of 'evolution'. The word can be used in three senses: 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") 

The second and third definitions are not testable and there are significant gaps in our knowledge about them. You think they are correct because #1 is correct and then through inferred by a naturalistic worldview, the other two must be correct--but that is a far cry from fact. 

That's not what the equivocation fallacy is. The equivocation fallacy would be if she was equivocating back and forth from one of those meanings to the other without letting it be known that she is doing that. Whereas here Mathilda is simply using the definitions of "evolution" that are actually relevant to science. (I.e. the theory of evolution as opposed to a layman definition of the word "evolve").

---

We should have a list, "The 73 stages of Evolution Denial".

I think it's more like a 3 stage loop repeated over and over

---

All 3 are well understood:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024/science...academy-of

That's funny, because from your own link, the very first sentence starts with..."While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation..." Why do you think they start the entire description of their paper off with that phrase? It's not even like it was buried on page 47, it's the very first sentence.

The very fact you take the scientific method itself, as it continues to investigate things as opposed to pretend to know stuff absolutely, as a criticism of it just demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

---

Steve, science is the study of the natural.  Of course there's an assumption of naturalism.

I mean, c'mon, you're not even trying at this point.

That wasn't my point. I was giving the reason why #2 and #3 are inferred. An inference fueled by an observable fact and a philosophical worldview does not a fact make. 

I have no problem with methodological naturalism and the related principles as part of a philosophy of science. But we need to be more precise when we throw around the word 'fact' and ridicule people who object.

They're scientific facts. Not absolute facts.

Philosophical naturalism need not be absolutely true for the sensible conclusion of philosophical naturalism probably being true after the tons of evidence gathered by methological naturalism to support its strong likelihood of being true.

But I would say that philosophical naturalism is absolutely true if the only alternative is supernaturalism and supernaturalism fails to have even a coherent definition. Is there any difference between something supernatural and something non-existent? That's the question.

I mean, if you take the whole of noumena/thing-in-itself to be "supernatural" then that just waters down the whole concept of supernatural. I assume supernatural is supposedly more than that. Noumenological + specialness, maybe?

I believe that the noumenological world is fully natural but it's the parts of the natural world that are by definition unexperiencable and undetectable by science. It need not be supernatural at all. We can never know objective reality we can only know and experience subjective reality (science studies our perceptions of the observable world not our non-perceptions of the unobservable world) but objective reality may not be much different to subjective reality at all, provided that our perceptions and scientific evidence is accurate . . . why bring God into the picture?

[vorlon13]

What contains more disorder:

The Old Man and the Sea

-or-

Merriam Webster Dictionary


?????????

[Silver]

What contains more disorder:

The Old Man and the Sea

-or-

Merriam Webster Dictionary


?????????

I was thinking the DSM.

[SteveII]

A method for generating sound propositions to be used in strong inferences.  

Steve, you can;t shoot holes in the theory.  It's beyond you.  Try to find a way to square your god beliefs away with reality, it's the least you can do.  Hell, do it for jesus.  You weren't magic'd into existence.  Life does share a common ancestor.  There's no one yanking levers and pulling the genetic strings.

I am not trying to shoot holes in it. Only point out that the end-to-end theory has significant philosophical moorings, which, when properly understood does not support mocking people who don't accept an end-to-end theory of evolution as scientific fact.

[Harry Nevis]

Science is based almost entirely on inference.

That and the whole scientific method thing.

This explains SOOOO much.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you don't like getting mocked, Steve, stop saying stupid things and making vapid arguments. That has jack shit to do with evolution or scientific facts, or the philosophical moorings of any given theory..that's entirely your own problem, and you can solve it any time you like.

You're pleading, here, to be mollycoddled when it comes to evolutionary biology. Let me ask you a question. What would be more disrespectful, and less helpful. Granting the request, or denying it?