Only if it does dishonest things, such as fudging measurements, cherry-picking or misrepresenting evidence, quote mining, exaggerating or downplaying the significance of error bars, and so on.
If it passes muster on all those things, then it’s fine.
In scientific circles it’s called “quality control.” In the workplace it’s called “not getting fired.”
Only in applied science where the understanding is fixed and immutable. it does not apply to theoretic or exploratory science where the understnding is less clear or disputed (even amongst scientists)
The proble is that you seem to be unable to distinguish between aplied and theoretic science. Evolution, for example, has little or no application in iteslf, athough there are things like genetics that have sprung out of it that have proved useful.
The point is that not all science is clear cut and accepted or defined. Also such theories are open to interpretation beyond that as dicttated by those who consider themselves “proffessional”.
it would appear not, because no one is claiming that the data used for ToE is false, only that the results do not necessarily prove what is claimed or can achieve what is claimed.
Richard
Actually, there are plenty of young-earth or other antievolutionary claims that the data used for evolution is false. One problem in addressing such claims is that there is a huge mass of data. There are mistakes, rare forgeries (well, you can find fake specimens for sale pretty easily online, but those are not often the basis for any scientific analysis), and inaccurate reporting (such as errors introduced in creating larger databases from existing data). So it is possible to find individual invalid data points. But ignoring the mass of valid data while focusing on the mistakes is not honest, especially when fakes and mistakes that are seen as favoring the alternative view are not criticized. (For example, the “doorknobs in a coal seam” lie is not only dishonest in claiming that the doorknobs were from a coal seam when they were from a shipwreck that was carrying coal and doorknobs, it’s stupid to claim that doorknobs obviously made in the 1800’s were buried by the Flood.)
Proving what is claimed is problematic in multiple ways:
What is “proof”? Mathematics has a strict definition. In science there is always a possibility that some better explanation exists than what we have thought of. We can show that a particular idea has a high probability. Sometimes what can be demonstrated is that an idea is very likely to be part of the explanation. Some ideas simply do not work and can be ruled out, but “proof” is elusive in science. However, this is not a valid excuse to dismiss what is well-supported because you don’t like it. Science often can calculate a relative likelihood of two different ideas (though this can get into the controversies relating to applying Bayesian logic); having only 95% confidence that idea A is correct is not a good reason to promote idea B for which we have 100% confidence that it is not correct.
“What is claimed”: Here, there are major problems with whether what is claimed is really the science versus making additional claims that aren’t supported by the data. For example, I encountered a paper that showed that patients benefitted from massage therapy and claimed that this supported chiropractic claims about getting the muscle fascicles back in alignment. The study showed nothing about muscle fascicles. Similarly, claims that biological evolution supports atheism or particular ethical systems are common but theologically and philosophically invalid. Biological evolution is a pattern in the normal way of creating new kinds of organisms; with a little thought one can spin it as agreeing with whatever philosophical position one wishes.
Is the standard of proof reasonable? Our knowledge of the data is incomplete, and there are errors. But the overall direction of the data that we have can be known. Broad patterns are not overthrown by finding a minor adjustment or exception.
That is a blanket statement that does not unnderstand why Evolution is considered atheistic.
Simplistically, ToE is self contained based on random changes. That is a principle that excludes God’s inclusion because there is no defined direction or design intent which contradicts the principles of Genesis.(Not the details)
Richard
Quite so. In fact, @adamjedgar was doing exactly that a couple of days ago, when he (falsely) claimed that “a number of fossils of early man were intentionally falsified”.
But @jammycakes was clearly referring to creationists misrepresenting evidence - a topic that the likes of @RichardG avoid at all costs.
Actually, it’s a blanket statement that does understand why evolution is considered atheistic. Evolution is considered atheistic based on “god of the gaps” errors, on the part of both those promoting atheism and those promoting theism. Evolution is no more and no less self-contained than gravity. Both describe the physical patterns followed by certain components of the universe, without specific reference to ultimate causes. As far as evolutionary biology is concerned, many evolutionary changes are “random” in the sense of unpredictability - the best model we have for several relevant processes involves a probability (though many components of evolution are not random, and it is to some degree a matter of individual perception as to what aspects you emphasize in describing the overall pattern). But the Bible says that God is in control of the outcome of casting lots, of the long-term weather, of the course of human history, etc. God is no less involved in the course of evolution than in any other component of nature; labeling it as “random” does not change that. [Of course, there are all sorts of different ideas about the mechanisms and extent of God’s control over events, such as the range between more deterministic and free-will views, but “random” events are not particularly different from any others in fitting them into a view on God’s working.] Dawkins’ claim that evolution enabled an intellectually satisfied atheism is an insult to the intellects of atheists, but not a credible philosophical statement.
If a YEC misrepresents or denies Evolution I argue for Evolution (Theistic)
I argue against ToE because it idoes not reflect the Nature of god that i recognise.
The “God of the Gaps” arguent was overturned and discouraged during the late 80s and early 90s.
Grr.
I am fed up with people who cannot tell the difference between ToE and othe scientific rules or theories.
Absolute cobblers!
ToE does not have full data to make the assumptions it claims.
gravity can be measured IRL. ToE cannot.
Precisely. And that is not a modus operandi for God.
That is a jewish belief that does not migrate to Christianity (although there was a member who did beieve it)
If it is of God, by definition it is not random.
I don’t have much time for Mr Dawkins but on this point we agree. if ToEis correct, God did not do it and therefor, probably, does not exist. As I know God does exist the rest is rather accademic.
NB please note I distinguish ToE from a theistic version where God is involved.
Richard
I didn’t say misrepresenting evolution, I said misrepresenting evidence - a subject you apparently avoided instinctively.
Added:
Inappropriate comparison of the effects of gravity vs the theory of evolution noted.
Gravity can be measured. Evolution* can be measured.
The theory of evolution cannot be measured - but not can the theory of gravity.
No it can’t.
You might be able to witness simple examples of the evolutionary process but you cannot witness or measure events that happened before you were born.
The effects of gravity can be neasured. Unless you are going to anthropmophisis gravity that should be enough.
Richard
The Story of Proof: Logic and the History of Mathematics by John Stillwell (Author)
by John Stillwell (Author)
On the contrary, I am well aware of the difference.
What you are talking about here is situations where there is insufficient evidence to distinguish between competing hypotheses.
In such cases, I don’t have a problem with agreeing to disagree.
No, it is definitely a modus operandi for God. God’s ways are not our ways; His thoughts are not our thoughts. We cannot predict exactly what God will do in a particular situation.
Plenty of things happen today in a “random” way. Quantum fluctuations, mutations, encountering a friend while you’re around town, etc. To what extent is God involved in those processes? How tightly does He constrain the outcomes? There are a range of views on those questions, but the “randomness” of evolution no more removes God from the picture than the “randomness” of flipping a coin. If one accepts the Biblical picture that God is at work in all that happens, then He is involved in both. (There is a difference between believing that God is sovereign over the outcome of casting lots and other “random” processes and believing that such activities are a primary way of deciding something. Acts records the disciples casting lots to choose the best candidate to replace Judas, but it was after they had already narrowed down the list to the best of their ability; similarly, I know of a Christian statistician who chose between two seemingly equal job offers by a coin flip, and got the better option as a result; however, the Bible simultaneously affirms that God in in control of the outcome of divination-type efforts and that they are wrong.) Again, I have emphasized that the “random” is how it seems from a human viewpoint. Ultimately, it is indeed appropriate to call it non-random in the sense that it is directed by God. But considered merely on the level of what we can determine scientifically, the humanly unpredictable components of evolution may legitimately be called random as long as we don’t wrongly interpret that to mean excluding God’s purpose from the process.
Of course, if one is talking about an atheistic view, then it excludes God. But evolution happens in theistic evolution as well as in atheistic evolution; evolution is merely the physical pattern; there is nothing within evolution that justifies atheism. In distinguishing between “ToE” and a theistic version, you need to look where someone else is drawing that distinction instead of assuming that they are accepting atheism as part of the package.
The other thing about casting lots to decide upon the disciple to replace Judas, is that there was free will involved, ie. they decided something like “heads means choose Matthias, tails means choose Joseph”. They prayed to the Lord to show them who He had chosen, meaning to direct their free will for the choice according to His will.
As you say, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” – Proverbs 16:33.
BTW (everyone) - shouldn’t the discussion about ToE go in the analogous thread on science, as this thread is on the discipline of history?
Congratulations on misusing Scripture.
The whole point is to compare the principles of ToE with Genesis. God created the Heavens and the earth., and He created man in a specific image. Whether it is a physical one or just a position is not relevant here, What is relevant is that it was not haphazzard or a cosmic fluke…
I am not going to debate the existence of chance or how it is incorporated into life as a whole… Suffice it to say chance exists, but nit in the form of creation. (IMHO))
Richard
I see a couple issues here.
With regards to “assumptions”, I think it is the job of the professional historian to be clear about who wrote the historical narratives of their source material, and what the motivations may have been. Throughout human civilization, it is usually the dominant culture, or the victors in conflict, that have written the history books. Invariably they “spin” the historical account to make themselves look good. The historian should investigate that the facts in a historical account are as close to the truth as possible. They should also attempt to present a balanced viewpoint as to the interpretation of the history.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.