There is very little as narrow as the eurocentric "scientific method".  The "ancients" didn't believe the universe revolved around earth- europeans did.  Aztecs, Arabs, Africans,  Chinese, all had active and reasonably accurate fields of astronomy,  without the benefit of the scientific method.  There are many examples of the narrow mindedness of western scientists,  all espousers of the "scientific method".

Evolution makes sense to me- but it's called evolutionary THEORY for a reason.  Doubting the mental facilities of those who don't think like you or believe what you believe sounds sorta hypocritical to me.

Ah but atoms became molecules and molecules became protein strings and protein strands became viruses and etc etc.  Ah but the first quark, that was set spinning by the word of God.    (and the word sounded like a big bang!)

One can have knowledge and understanding of the scientific method and be highly educated, but never aapplied it to the evidence of evolution.  One could have been pursuing other avenues of knowledge and taken someone else's word that the evidence is flawed.  They could be therefore smart and educated but just very lazy. 

Hi pigeye!

<< There are many examples of the narrow mindedness of western scientists, all espousers of the "scientific method".

If one is talking about many centuries ago, the influence of the western "church" completely muddied the water on who believed what.

<<< Evolution makes sense to me- but it's called evolutionary THEORY for a reason.

It's called a "Theory" mostly because the subject is still so new that its label hasn't changed in them minds of those that don't think deeply about it. ( "thinking" without the influence of a "faith" that is)

<<< Doubting the mental facilities of those who don't think like you or believe what you believe sounds sorta hypocritical to me.

Tossing out the "hypocritical" card here is like when a person does something wrong and then cries "personal" attack in an attempt to shoot the messenger with a form of emotional blackmail. If there was only one person responsible for what went wrong, of course it's personal.

The subject of this thread is whether some group of people is actually using logic, unimpeded by an emotional hang up, to assess the truth or probability of a truth. The subject "IS" about how people think or "don't think"

Therefore emotional blackmail of criticizing the writer for  "those that don't think like you" being hypocritical is itself a crappy logic because what you would deny the writer is the subject of thread. The logic you use actually helps make the case for the writer. I suppose you could take comfort in that there is a compliement of sorts buried in what I just said.

Actually, I see this thread as a metaphor of the most the logic used in postings in CH where agendas rule.

How can anyone seriously think that evolution has not been proven?

bigapplepie wrote:

How can anyone seriously think that evolution has not been proven?Not everyone is blinded by science.

Ummm....b/c a proof doesn't exist.  Show me some kind of proof, and I'll show you an argument with a materialistic presupposition that already supposes it's true.

For a theory to be proven, don't the individual mechanisms have to be tried tested and proven?  And in the case of evolution, the mechanisms are still being debated!!  Evolution is assumed to be true, then the details of how it works are to be ironed out later, which is getting harder to do as the factions of "scientists" (I put in quotes because they are not using hte scientific method and are just guessing really) split further apart on how it works. (due to conflicting evidence)

How can anyone seriously make a rhetorical statement with no meat.  Do you have any?

I'm not going to spend much more time on this.  I remember why I stopped debating this on-line.  You can't get indoctrinated people to use logic and admit what they know to be true and where the are speculating.  They are just too committed to their religion.  

Pigeye: What do you mean "mechanisms are still being debated?"

As I said in my first post, see Gould vs. Dawkins.  More hard evidence, like fossils point to (at least when joined with a materialistic presupposition), and many believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is the theory that evolution occurs in "explosions", or in other words no change for long periods, then one day something occurs in the environment and life transforms quickly, at least in evolutionary terms.  This is in contrast to the more recognized "change over time" theory, which makes more sense to the biologist (again with the presupposition thing!), but doesn't match the hard data.  The two theories are not compatible.  That is why Dawkins and others were so nasty to Gould, b/c it undermined them, but overall it points to what I was saying before.  The evidence from different areas of science of what we do actually know to be true in the past is contradictory, at least in terms of creating a "unified" theory of evolution, but the theory rages on, not because of a scientific proof has been made, but because of the commitment to it.  If evolution has been proven, wouldn't this debate be solved?  The fossil evidence has a similar problem, see below.

PIgeye: And in what way are biologists "just guessing"?

Who limited this to biology by the way? I would call someone who uses a systematic, proven method, like the scientific method someone doing real scientific work, biologist or not.  Trying to piece together what happened in the past with extremely limited evidence is someone just guessing.  Watch the next time a new fossil is discovered what happens to the evolutionary model.  Some species that was once thought to precede so-and-so, now isn't and this new found species is the real ancestor.  Don't you see something wrong with this philosophically?  How long before some other bone shard is found that contradicts this new evidence and the model changes again?  The model isn't deemed true because of the evidence, the evidence is arranged with the assumption the theory is true.

PIgeye: Isn't the fact that there are now strains resistant to penicillin 'proof' of evolution? Where is the materialistic presupposition?

I kept my post simple by calling macro-evolution evolution.  No this isn't proof of a new species with new tools, limbs, flagellum, what have you.  This is a change with in a species.  Go back and listen to Behe again.

I'll make one more point, a little different than evolution, then move on.  How can you explain the first cell?  Scientists can't put together the most optimum conditions to make a protein develop from it's ingredients, they've tried.  Couple this on top of the fact that a protein in open environment dissolves quickly.  You are telling me that proteins RANDOMLY formed in the environment to create amino acids that RANDOMLY formed walls and the other cell "organs" and NOT ONLY THAT!, actually encoded within itself a reproductive sequence that splits itself in 2, along with every cell "organ", and does this without subjecting itself to the outside environment enough that it doesn't die!  This did not happen!  ask a computer programmer.

pigeye wrote:

and still be considered intelligent and/or educated?

 

I started wondering about this last night as I listened to an interveiw

 

with Michael Behe on Point of Inquiry.

 

I wonder because I know people who are very sceptical of evolution (or other well

 

proven, generally accepted scientifc idea(s)) and I notice that makes it very

 

difficult for me to take them seriously, even on other topics upon which they

 

 

are demonstrably expert.

 

Ah yes, ye olde Litmus Test. A priori.

Just like the Democrats in Congress who say they'll vote against confirming any Supreme Court nominee who thinks Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned.

There's another word for that, y'know: Prejudice. Pre (beforehand) + judice (to judge).

"He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him." (Proverbs 18:13)

Now I'm not accusing you of doing that, Dr. Eye; but you seem to be admitting as much when you say it's hard for you to take someone seriouslyeven if, by your own admission, they're an expert in some field or otheronce they fail your litmus test on the theory of evolution.

Kinda reminds me of how ufologists often aren't taken seriously because they fail the widely-held litmus test that says anyone who believes there are extraterrestrials is cuckoo. But then--oho! someone right in this-here thread got through sayin' that if it could be demontrated that life exists elsewhere in the universe they might accept that as disproving the theory of evolution.

Well, good gravy-waltz! Is that all it would take?

Bring it on! WAR OF THE LITMUS TESTS!!!!

(P.S. - Sadly, we Bible-thumpers tend to have our litmus tests, too. And we ought not do that. Now I'm not saying the issues we use as litmust tests to form our judgments are not important; I'm just sayin', things are never that cut-and-dried. As Kybear suggested, new knowledge has a way of re-calibrating the scales of what is considered accepted truth.)

Or something like that. Ask me tomorrow; I just got through eating sauerkraut.