What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Will Bouwman]

The default belief of all human societies has been in a God or gods.

How many of those beliefs do you take to be true?

Evolution is the new kid on the block. It's up to Evolution to prove it's true -- not on others to prove it's false.

Well, as Popper pointed out, it is far easier to prove something false than to prove it true. That's why there are, for many phenomena, competing hypotheses, which is true for the presence of human beings on this planet. It seems to me that there is strong evidence that the Biblical account is wrong.

...in every case of time-plus-randomess we have in the real world, there are vast quantities more "disordered" results than orderly ones. And that's very, very easy to demonstrate.

Take, for example, a roulette wheel. (Now, it only has 37 numbers on it, so it's horribly skewed in favour of you getting any desired result: say a "00." A better model would be a roulette wheel with billions of numbers on it; but let's give you every advantage.) If you spin it, what are the chances you get the desired result? 1-36, of course. There are 36 "failed" results for every one "successful" result. Randomness makes that necessary.

That's not how evolution is believed to work. To use your analogy, a more germane representation would be that wherever the ball lands, the number changes. That won't stop you playing roulette, it's just a slightly different version.

[Immanuel Can]

The default belief of all human societies has been in a God or gods.

How many of those beliefs do you take to be true?

One, of course. I'm a realist. And like all views, it owes us evidence. But here, judging by the OP, we're asking about the "evidence for human evolution" that might be acceptable, rather than the evidence for God. I've done a fair bit of talking about the latter elsewhere, if that's a direction you'd like to look.

Evolution is the new kid on the block. It's up to Evolution to prove it's true -- not on others to prove it's false.

Well, as Popper pointed out, it is far easier to prove something false than to prove it true.

Popper's been criticized on that point, too (see Duhem-Quine, Kuhn, Lakatos, Toulmin, and Feyerabend, for examples.) It seems it's not much easier to falsify a belief than it is to verify one. Ayer and Poppoer were wrong on opposite sides of that issue, it seems. But I do think falsification is somewhat easier than verification, even if both have problems.

It seems to me that there is strong evidence that the Biblical account is wrong.

I imagine it does seem that way to you. You're an Atheist, apparently, so it's bound to. I disagree, of course.

...in every case of time-plus-randomess we have in the real world, there are vast quantities more "disordered" results than orderly ones. And that's very, very easy to demonstrate.

Take, for example, a roulette wheel. (Now, it only has 37 numbers on it, so it's horribly skewed in favour of you getting any desired result: say a "00." A better model would be a roulette wheel with billions of numbers on it; but let's give you every advantage.) If you spin it, what are the chances you get the desired result? 1-36, of course. There are 36 "failed" results for every one "successful" result. Randomness makes that necessary.

That's not how evolution is believed to work.

Not by random-chance-plus-time, you mean? In every version of it I've encountered, that's exactly what is asserted. And if it's not randomness behind evolution, then we have guided evolution, and you're back to the Theistic hypothesis very, very fast.

To use your analogy, a more germane representation would be that wherever the ball lands, the number changes.

That wouldn't just make the odds 36:1 of achieving any result on a given spin, it would make it higher by however many number changes took place. And if your "00" was one of the numbers that changed, it would make future "00's" impossible.

But we're not on a "roulette wheel." That's just an analogy, and one that's far, far too favourable to the Evolutionist's case, numerically speaking. I shouldn't be that generous. A more accurate analogy would be that the Evolutionist is playing with a "wheel" that has not 37 numbers, but billions. And then, what are his chances of hitting his number?

[Will Bouwman]

The default belief of all human societies has been in a God or gods.

How many of those beliefs do you take to be true?

One, of course.

Then all the other beliefs are a challenge to your own. If you maintain that so many beliefs are false, you raise the question of what you can say about your belief that others couldn't say about theirs.

I'm a realist. And like all views, it owes us evidence. But here, judging by the OP, we're asking about the "evidence for human evolution" that might be acceptable, rather than the evidence for God. I've done a fair bit of talking about the latter elsewhere, if that's a direction you'd like to look.

My point is that one should be able to accept evidence for human evolution or God, even if we are not persuaded by that evidence.

Evolution is the new kid on the block. It's up to Evolution to prove it's true -- not on others to prove it's false.

Well, as Popper pointed out, it is far easier to prove something false than to prove it true.

Popper's been criticized on that point, too.

Challenging ideas is the meat and potatoes of philosophy, so of course Popper has been criticised.

(see Duhem-Quine, Kuhn, Lakatos, Toulmin, and Feyerabend, for examples.) It seems it's not much easier to falsify a belief than it is to verify one. Ayer and Poppoer were wrong on opposite sides of that issue, it seems. But I do think falsification is somewhat easier than verification, even if both have problems.

Well, the criticisms of Popper are mostly about scientific hypotheses, rather than factual claims. The Duhem-Quine argument is that there is no such thing as a stand alone hypothesis, so any observation not consistent with an hypothesis might be a flaw in an auxiliary hypothesis. There is also the fact that various explanations can be posited for an observation, all of which might be consistent with that observation, hence all hypotheses are underdetermined. That is a point I have made repeatedly and while it is possible to explain why the Earth is flat, or only a few thousand years old, both factual claims are false.

It seems to me that there is strong evidence that the Biblical account is wrong.

I imagine it does seem that way to you. You're an Atheist, apparently, so it's bound to. I disagree, of course.

Well the suggestion that I reserve judgement on the existence of God because I am an atheist, is ad hominem. I'm sure you would resist the accusation that you believe in God because you are a theist.

...in every case of time-plus-randomess we have in the real world, there are vast quantities more "disordered" results than orderly ones. And that's very, very easy to demonstrate.

Take, for example, a roulette wheel. (Now, it only has 37 numbers on it, so it's horribly skewed in favour of you getting any desired result: say a "00." A better model would be a roulette wheel with billions of numbers on it; but let's give you every advantage.) If you spin it, what are the chances you get the desired result? 1-36, of course. There are 36 "failed" results for every one "successful" result. Randomness makes that necessary.

That's not how evolution is believed to work.

Not by random-chance-plus-time, you mean?

No, I mean your idea that one random mutation inevitably extinguishes all chance of reproductive viability, and that therefore "for every successful mutation, there have to be millions of unsuccessful ones."

To use your analogy, a more germane representation would be that wherever the ball lands, the number changes.

That wouldn't just make the odds 36:1 of achieving any result on a given spin, it would make it higher by however many number changes took place.

The odds are exactly the same; there aren't more or less numbers, they're just not necessarily 00 to 36.

And if your "00" was one of the numbers that changed, it would make future "00's" impossible.

That doesn't follow. 00 is as random as any other number, it therefore has exactly the same chance of being randomly reintroduced.

But we're not on a "roulette wheel." That's just an analogy, and one that's far, far too favourable to the Evolutionist's case, numerically speaking. I shouldn't be that generous. A more accurate analogy would be that the Evolutionist is playing with a "wheel" that has not 37 numbers, but billions. And then, what are his chances of hitting his number?

Well, if there are billions of numbers, what are the chances that one number changing will appreciably affect the game?

[Impenitent]

even with trillions of numbers- the odds it is even are about half

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

How many of those beliefs do you take to be true?

One, of course.

Then all the other beliefs are a challenge to your own.

Not a serious one.

If you maintain that so many beliefs are false, you raise the question of what you can say about your belief that others couldn't say about theirs.

That it's actually true, of course. That's the difference.

My point is that one should be able to accept evidence for human evolution or God, even if we are not persuaded by that evidence.

We should always look at the evidence, of course. What we should not do, and what the monkey-to-man chart models so clearly, is to assume a wanted conclusion and then work too assiduously at making the data seem to line up with it. When the monkey-to-man view was exposed as foolishness, it immediately raises the question of what allegedly "scientific" men were doing in assembling the chart in the first place.

Now, that's some historical evidence that deserves some inspection, for sure.

Well the suggestion that I reserve judgement on the existence of God because I am an atheist, is ad hominem.

I did not mean it as an insult. I simply meant that since you are an Atheist, it must be the case that whatever data you know of conduces to that view.
I'm assuming you are operating on evidence, are you not? But I don't suppose that necessarily means you possess all of the relevant data; and indeed, how could one possess sufficient evidence to warrant Atheism? The thing would be impossible.

I'm sure you would resist the accusation that you believe in God because you are a theist.

But not the suggestion that I am a Theist because the data I possess conduces me to that belief. That would be quite reasonable.

That's not how evolution is believed to work.

Not by random-chance-plus-time, you mean?

No, I mean your idea that one random mutation inevitably extinguishes all chance of reproductive viability, and that therefore "for every successful mutation, there have to be millions of unsuccessful ones."

"One random mutation inevitably extinguishes all chance of reproductive viability"? I never said any such thing, and in fact, believe the opposite: that there should be many, many cases of "false start" animals that were only eliminated after many generations. In fact, given the purported timespan of billions of years, there should be much more variety than we see, plus mountains of fossil evidence of defunct evolutionary "tries."

And if your "00" was one of the numbers that changed, it would make future "00's" impossible.

That doesn't follow. 00 is as random as any other number, it therefore has exactly the same chance of being randomly reintroduced.

There are infinite numbers. That makes the chances of any single number being reintroduced infinitely improbable.

[/quote]Well, if there are billions of numbers, what are the chances that one number changing will appreciably affect the game?
[/quote] Very good, actually. The parameters for a life-sustaining universe are vanishingly small, and the chances of a chaotic or imbalanced universe incapable of sustaining a coherent form are magnificently large. The Fine Tuning debate is where you'd want to look for those odds...and they're most impressive against the possibility of any life existing at all...let alone a balanced and life-promoting universe populated by intelligent observers like human beings.

For example, it would take only a small variation in the strong or weak forces in the atom to blow apart or collapse all matter into chaotic bits. Or it would take only a comparatively small change in the size of our moon to cause our oceans all to stagnate and all life to be gone. A little closer to the Sun and we'd fry: a little farther, and we'd freeze...and so on. There are many, many such finely-balanced constants that must by in place for any life -- even single-celled life -- to exist.

[Will Bouwman]

...all the other beliefs are a challenge to your own.

Not a serious one.

No one's personal belief is a serious threat to anyone else's. I personally believe that all beliefs are underdetermined and that people believe what they believe for essentially aesthetic reasons. One likes an idea in more or less the same way that they like a painting or a piece of music. Like you, I don't think my belief is under any serious threat because of what others think.

If you maintain that so many beliefs are false, you raise the question of what you can say about your belief that others couldn't say about theirs.

That it's actually true, of course. That's the difference.

Anyone can say their belief is true, believe it sincerely and argue doggedly, but the depth of faith has no bearing on the truth of the associated belief.

My point is that one should be able to accept evidence for human evolution or God, even if we are not persuaded by that evidence.

We should always look at the evidence, of course. What we should not do, and what the monkey-to-man chart models so clearly, is to assume a wanted conclusion and then work too assiduously at making the data seem to line up with it.

It's not clear to me that monkey to man charts demonstrate any such motivation.

When the monkey-to-man view was exposed as foolishness, it immediately raises the question of what allegedly "scientific" men were doing in assembling the chart in the first place.

Scientific ideas develop and even change radically. The consensus among evolutionary biologists currently is that humans and other great apes had a common ancestor, which given the genetic and physiological similarities seems entirely plausible.

Now, that's some historical evidence that deserves some inspection, for sure.

What is the evidence?

...since you are an Atheist, it must be the case that whatever data you know of conduces to that view.

No, it is rather that the data suggestive of God is only compelling to someone wishing to believe it. I have no wish to believe in any particular god, so I don't. That should not be understood to mean I wish not to believe in gods.

I'm assuming you are operating on evidence, are you not? But I don't suppose that necessarily means you possess all of the relevant data; and indeed, how could one possess sufficient evidence to warrant Atheism? The thing would be impossible.

You and I mean different things by atheism/Atheism. I take it to mean that I am not a theist; you, I understand, believe that commits me to the belief that there is no God. I don't need any evidence that God does not exist to not believe that he does.

I'm sure you would resist the accusation that you believe in God because you are a theist.

But not the suggestion that I am a Theist because the data I possess conduces me to that belief. That would be quite reasonable.

It is perfectly reasonable and for all I know you might be right about the existence of God, but again, you choose to interpret substantially the same evidence that I have differently.

"One random mutation inevitably extinguishes all chance of reproductive viability"? I never said any such thing, and in fact, believe the opposite: that there should be many, many cases of "false start" animals that were only eliminated after many generations.

I can't imagine the logic by which you arrive at that conclusion. Why, for example, should a species that survives for many generations suddenly be eliminated?

In fact, given the purported timespan of billions of years, there should be much more variety than we see, plus mountains of fossil evidence of defunct evolutionary "tries."

That would require fossilisation being much more common than it demonstrably is.

The Fine Tuning debate is where you'd want to look for those odds...and they're most impressive against the possibility of any life existing at all...let alone a balanced and life-promoting universe populated by intelligent observers like human beings.

Among the problems with fine tuning arguments is the assumption that various constants have an arbitrary value that could be otherwise. We simply do not know enough about the nature of the substance of the universe, or even if the universe is in fact substantial, to support any such claim. Any god invoked to account for a lack of knowledge is a god of the gaps.

[Immanuel Can]

...all the other beliefs are a challenge to your own.

Not a serious one.

No one's personal belief is a serious threat to anyone else's.

It depends. Does it matter if a belief conforms to reality or not? I think so. In that case, a belief that better conforms to reality is always a threat to those less realistic.

I personally believe that all beliefs are underdetermined and that people believe what they believe for essentially aesthetic reasons. One likes an idea in more or less the same way that they like a painting or a piece of music.

But are all beliefs like that? Is one's belief in mathematics, reason or science merely aesthetic?

If you maintain that so many beliefs are false, you raise the question of what you can say about your belief that others couldn't say about theirs.

That it's actually true, of course. That's the difference.

Anyone can say their belief is true, believe it sincerely and argue doggedly, but the depth of faith has no bearing on the truth of the associated belief.

That is true: faith will not make an untrue thing true. But likewise, the refusal to have faith will not make a true belief false. Epistemology does not determine ontics. Rather, epistemology is only as good as it is conformable to reality.

My point is that one should be able to accept evidence for human evolution or God, even if we are not persuaded by that evidence.

We should always look at the evidence, of course. What we should not do, and what the monkey-to-man chart models so clearly, is to assume a wanted conclusion and then work too assiduously at making the data seem to line up with it.

It's not clear to me that monkey to man charts demonstrate any such motivation.

Oh, it certainly should. There's no other motive for the existence of the thing. We know now for sure that human beings didn't come from monkeys, so there's no other source for that thing but fiction, based on insufficient indications from very thin "evidence."

When the monkey-to-man view was exposed as foolishness, it immediately raises the question of what allegedly "scientific" men were doing in assembling the chart in the first place.

Scientific ideas develop and even change radically.

Yes: but wildly erroneous ones like that shouldn't appear at all. If sufficient evidence doesn't exist, then no theory at all should be sold the way the monkey-to-man thing was sold. It was in every textbook, all the museums, on t-shirts and coffee mugs...it become a pop meme, really, because it was so accepted as fact -- with the only problem being that it was complete hogwash.

The consensus among evolutionary biologists currently is that humans and other great apes had a common ancestor, which given the genetic and physiological similarities seems entirely plausible.

Three problems with that explanation of the monkey-to-man thing: first, that it was definitely asserted that men came directly from monkeys, which they did not; secondly, that the "common ancestor" proposed even now is a very early "pre-ape" kind of thing, perhaps back as far as the primordial soup; and thirdly, it makes the very obvious mistake of assuming that genetic similarity argues for causality. But on that third thing, we should note that all living things share a huge amount of genetic similarity, and yet not all are proposed to be "ancestors." In fact, as Pfizer (yes, that Pfizer) notes, we "We’ve long known that we’re closely related to chimpanzees and other primates, but did you know that humans also share more than half of our genetic material with chickens, fruit flies, and bananas?" I don't see any chicken-to-man or banana-to-man theories floating around...do you?

Now, even if, say apes are closer to humans genetically than are bananas, all it would imply is that apes and men were composed of from the same elements, not at all necessarily that it's more probable that one came from the other. The old correspondence-causality fallacy applies here: we can't deduce causality from similarity. And since Genesis insists that man was not created ex nihilo, but rather "out of the dust (or substances) of the earth," it's utterly unsurprising to find similar elements of composition in many life forms, including apes and fruit flies.

Now, that's some historical evidence that deserves some inspection, for sure.

What is the evidence?

That what passes sometimes as "science" in the public mind can be quite fraudulent, when unscrupulous popularizers jump on it. The monkey-to-man thing is an excellent example of pseudoscience being treated as complete scientific orthodoxy, and skeptics being ridiculed for not believing it, when it was hokum from the start.

...since you are an Atheist, it must be the case that whatever data you know of conduces to that view.

No, it is rather that the data suggestive of God is only compelling to someone wishing to believe it. I have no wish to believe in any particular god, so I don't. That should not be understood to mean I wish not to believe in gods.

Well, the real God is certainly a very particular one: so if you don't wish to believe in particular gods, it seems to me that that means the same thing, effectively. However, there's a point worth making about data here: nothing is evidence for somebody who's already committed to the proposition that there will be no evidence. Evidence has to be recognized AS evidence; otherwise, maybe it exists but cannot be recognized.

So let me assume you that you're an Atheist, or at least an unconvinced agnostic. If there were evidence for God, what sort of thing, what sort of practical demonstration, would you recognize AS such evidence? In other words, are there any conditions under which you can conceive of yourself being convinced of the existence of God?

I don't need any evidence that God does not exist to not believe that he does.

No, of course: one can believe whatever one wants to, or refuse to believe whatever one chooses to. But then, your skepticism must be non-evidentiary, and not applicable to anybody but yourself. Thus, it would reduce to the claim, "I personally lack belief in God," which, to me, would have to be the least surprising claim you could make. Of course you lack belief. If you say you don't know anything about God, I have to believe you.

But it doesn't go very far. If I "lack belief" that Detroit exists, that's a "me" problem, not a "you" problem; and it doesn't mean Detroit doesn't exist, or that, if I were less unreasonable, I couldn't also devise any test to prove the existence of Detroit. It just means, "I lack belief in Detroit."

In the same way, "I lack belief in God" is a very inconsequential claim. It doesn't tell me that I'm obligated to lack that belief, or that anybody else is. It doesn't even tell us whether you could change your mind in the next five minutes. All it tells us is that, at this second, you lack something.

...you choose to interpret substantially the same evidence that I have differently.

That's an interesting claim: what made you think you knew already what evidence I -- or anyone else, presumably -- could possibly have?

"One random mutation inevitably extinguishes all chance of reproductive viability"? I never said any such thing, and in fact, believe the opposite: that there should be many, many cases of "false start" animals that were only eliminated after many generations.

I can't imagine the logic by which you arrive at that conclusion. Why, for example, should a species that survives for many generations suddenly be eliminated?

When another branch of that species more "evolved" than it appears on the scene, the theory has to hold that it would occasion the extinction of the previous "less evolved" one. If not, the theory would make us expect we'd be neck deep in actual Piltdowns, Javas and Peking men. And clearly, we're not.

In fact, given the purported timespan of billions of years, there should be much more variety than we see, plus mountains of fossil evidence of defunct evolutionary "tries."

That would require fossilisation being much more common than it demonstrably is.

Not at all. We're talking proportions here. Given the existence of billions of years of false starts, it's vastly more probable that however many fossils we have, they'd almost all be of the various false start "ancestors" that survival-of-the-fittest is supposed to have killed off. There are supposed to be innumerably more of them than of the "survivors."

The Fine Tuning debate is where you'd want to look for those odds...and they're most impressive against the possibility of any life existing at all...let alone a balanced and life-promoting universe populated by intelligent observers like human beings.

Among the problems with fine tuning arguments is the assumption that various constants have an arbitrary value that could be otherwise.

You have the argument backwards. Fine Tuning implies there are NOT many other possible constants that would produce life, not that they "could be otherwise."

We simply do not know enough about the nature of the substance of the universe, or even if the universe is in fact substantial, to support any such claim.

That's certainly not the case. We can, and have, measured all sorts of these things like the strong and weak forces in the atom, the gravitational weights and spacings of the planets, the rate of expansion of the universe, and so on. And in fact, secular scientists, whenever they are not thinking about the implications, often point out the miraculous fineness of the very "tuning" to which the Fine Tuning Argument refers. (See, for example, https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/sy ... exist.html)

The facts aren't in doubt: the willingness to make the logical and necessary conclusion, though, certainly is.

[Will Bouwman]

Does it matter if a belief conforms to reality or not?

No. People have their own reasons to believe all sorts of things that bear no relation to reality.

Is one's belief in mathematics, reason or science merely aesthetic?

What is there to believe about any of those which is analogous to a belief in God?

...the refusal to have faith will not make a true belief false.

I don't believe anyone refuses to have faith.

Epistemology does not determine ontics. Rather, epistemology is only as good as it is conformable to reality.

Two and a half thousand years of epistemology have demonstrated, quite clearly, that we cannot know the reality our beliefs are intended to conform to.

There's no other motive for the existence of the thing.

Of course there is.

Three problems with that explanation of the monkey-to-man thing: first, that it was definitely asserted that men came directly from monkeys, which they did not...

I don't know what hypothesis you are specifically referring to, but any idea that we are descended from contemporary monkeys is obviously not true. Monkeys, like us, have their place in the natural order. One version has it that God created Earth and designed creatures to fill ecological niches, for perpetuity, another is that living things take advantage of opportunities and adapt to do so efficiently.

...secondly, that the "common ancestor" proposed even now is a very early "pre-ape" kind of thing, perhaps back as far as the primordial soup...

That is not a problem with an explanation, it's just an explanation; one that is consistent with material evidence.

...and thirdly, it makes the very obvious mistake of assuming that genetic similarity argues for causality.

Making assumptions is not a mistake, there can be no hypotheses without them.

But on that third thing, we should note that all living things share a huge amount of genetic similarity, and yet not all are proposed to be "ancestors." In fact, as Pfizer (yes, that Pfizer) notes, we "We’ve long known that we’re closely related to chimpanzees and other primates, but did you know that humans also share more than half of our genetic material with chickens, fruit flies, and bananas?" I don't see any chicken-to-man or banana-to-man theories floating around...do you?

No, for the simple reason that no one is suggesting that. There are however, many people who believe that all living things have primordial ancestors, which given the diversity and geographical boundaries of living things strikes me as a viable alternative to design.

Now, even if, say apes are closer to humans genetically than are bananas, all it would imply is that apes and men were composed of from the same elements, not at all necessarily that it's more probable that one came from the other. The old correspondence-causality fallacy applies here: we can't deduce causality from similarity. And since Genesis insists that man was not created ex nihilo, but rather "out of the dust (or substances) of the earth," it's utterly unsurprising to find similar elements of composition in many life forms, including apes and fruit flies.

I don't suppose anything Genesis insists is utterly surprising to anyone it charms. One alternative to the creation story that is part of Genesis is that, rather than dust of the Earth, all living creatures are predominantly composed of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, about 98% in the case of humans. Hydrogen, being the simplest element, consisting of one proton and one electron in its most common form, is believed to have been created in the aftermath of the big bang. Carbon and oxygen are products of nuclear fusion in the cores of stars that long ago blew up. According to that version of events, we are not dust of the Earth, but of the stars.

Evidence has to be recognized AS evidence; otherwise, maybe it exists but cannot be recognized.

Evidence is evidence and can be recognised as such, but no single piece of evidence is exclusive to any one hypothesis.

So let me assume you that you're an Atheist...

There is no need, I have stated quite clearly that I don't believe that God exists, and made plain that I do not therefore believe that God does not exist.

...or at least an unconvinced agnostic. If there were evidence for God, what sort of thing, what sort of practical demonstration, would you recognize AS such evidence?

I am confident that everything you recognise as evidence for God, I do too.

In other words, are there any conditions under which you can conceive of yourself being convinced of the existence of God?

You have the advantage of knowing the conditions of being convinced that God exists. Rather than asking, you could tell me what they are.

If you say you don't know anything about God, I have to believe you.

What do you believe you know about God that I don't?

Given the existence of billions of years of false starts, it's vastly more probable that however many fossils we have, they'd almost all be of the various false start "ancestors" that survival-of-the-fittest is supposed to have killed off. There are supposed to be innumerably more of them than of the "survivors."

That is what the fossil record shows.

You have the argument backwards. Fine Tuning implies there are NOT many other possible constants that would produce life, not that they "could be otherwise."

No. Fine tuning implies that of all the arbitrary values that physical constants could have, it is something like miraculous that they have the values conducive to life.

That's certainly not the case. We can, and have, measured all sorts of these things...

You misunderstand. What we have measured are measurable phenomena. All we can say is that if the universe is made of some material, we can measure some of the bits we have the means to measure.

The facts aren't in doubt: the willingness to make the logical and necessary conclusion, though, certainly is.

That is an acknowledgement of my point that people believe things for personal reasons.

[Age]

Once again, what 'we' can clearly see, here, is another forum, and thread, where people just end up, and only end up, fighting FOR, or AGAINST, 'one' OR 'the other'.

Which is funny to watch and observe considering that there is NO 'one' OR 'the other', here, AT ALL.

EVERY thing was created by the coming together of at least two OTHER things.
EVERY 'created' thing 'evolves'.
While ALL 'created' things 'evolve' they interact with other things, which in turn 'creates' more and newer things, which ALL of 'evolve'.

There is NO 'one' OR 'the other', here. And, NEVER WAS NOR EVER WOULD BE.

[attofishpi]

...or at least an unconvinced agnostic. If there were evidence for God, what sort of thing, what sort of practical demonstration, would you recognize AS such evidence?

I am confident that everything you recognise as evidence for God, I do too.

I was going to leave you both in peace, but on this one Will I am a tad confused and it's similar to a point you made in the Shroud of Turin thread.

If you recognise anything as evidence for God, then why would you not believe that it exists?

Re the Shroud thang, I guess by your non response you are as baboozled as the scientists that have studied it.

[Immanuel Can]

Does it matter if a belief conforms to reality or not?

No. People have their own reasons to believe all sorts of things that bear no relation to reality.

That may be true; but if so, it's a sad commentary on human beings. The problem, then, is in the observer, not with the data. A person who (let us say as the rare exception to your rule) prefers reason to aesthetics is still much better than the person who operates on mere aesthetics.

Is one's belief in mathematics, reason or science merely aesthetic?

What is there to believe about any of those which is analogous to a belief in God?

Truth. In none of them does mere aesthetics preferences make any difference at all to what is the right answer.

...the refusal to have faith will not make a true belief false.

I don't believe anyone refuses to have faith.

I agree. Since we are contingent, limited, temporal beings, that's inescapable. We will have to have faith in something, because none of us can know everything, and yet we all need to make choices and act. So we all end up exercising faith in all kinds of things.

But there's good faith and bad faith, as Sartre noted. What makes a faith good or bad? Things like the quality of the data or the reliability of the object in which that faith is invested. And this is a matter of reality, not of aesthetics.

Epistemology does not determine ontics. Rather, epistemology is only as good as it is conformable to reality.

Two and a half thousand years of epistemology have demonstrated, quite clearly, that we cannot know the reality our beliefs are intended to conform to.

"Demonstrated'? A funny word to use. No, I think it has been postulated, and some reasonable defense added to it, perhaps, but not "demonstrated." There's a paradox there. Certainly our knowledge of reality is imperfect; yet there is also, undeniably, something "out there" that shapes our knowledge. And our perception of it is usually not vague, but rather sufficient to inform us of what will work or operate in that reality. So much so, that if we meet somebody who has completely "lost touch with reality," like an insane person has, not only we but they have a severe problem. Our grasp of reality may be partial and fallible, but it's also substantial and generally reliable enough for us to make good decisions on a regular basis.

So we must not overstate the unreliability of human perception. Yes, it's flawed; no, it isn't generally so flawed that we cannot function well. Yet the flaws in it are what makes faith necessary to all of us; we simply cannot be certain that we are always right, and have to venture trust in things when our knowledge of them is not absolute.

There's no other motive for the existence of the thing.

Of course there is.

And that is...what?

Three problems with that explanation of the monkey-to-man thing: first, that it was definitely asserted that men came directly from monkeys, which they did not...

I don't know what hypothesis you are specifically referring to,

I can hardly imagine that's not true. If you went to school, it is the very theory you were likely taught. And if you weren't, you saw it in diagrams, or printed on t-shirts and coffee mugs, or in museum displays...I'm quite certain you must have seen the monkey-to-man illustration, unless you were living on the moon.

...secondly, that the "common ancestor" proposed even now is a very early "pre-ape" kind of thing, perhaps back as far as the primordial soup...

That is not a problem with an explanation, it's just an explanation; one that is consistent with material evidence.

There isn't material evidence for this "common ancestor." It's a supposition. We don't have a single specimen of any such, because (rather conveniently) it is said to have become completely extinct millions of years ago.

...and thirdly, it makes the very obvious mistake of assuming that genetic similarity argues for causality.

Making assumptions is not a mistake, there can be no hypotheses without them.

What makes a hypothesis better than a wild guess is the quality of the data giving us reasons to make the assumption.

...or at least an unconvinced agnostic. If there were evidence for God, what sort of thing, what sort of practical demonstration, would you recognize AS such evidence?

I am confident that everything you recognise as evidence for God, I do too.

I cannot imagine how you became "confident" that you know what I know. But I'm also fairly confident it isn't true. If you knew what I know, you'd be a Theist for sure.

In other words, are there any conditions under which you can conceive of yourself being convinced of the existence of God?

You have the advantage of knowing the conditions of being convinced that God exists. Rather than asking, you could tell me what they are.

But what I can't tell you is what you would accept. That much, you must tell me. I can't decide it for you.

If you say you don't know anything about God, I have to believe you.

What do you believe you know about God that I don't?

Well, first and foremost, that God exists. That, at least, you'd have to recognize.

Given the existence of billions of years of false starts, it's vastly more probable that however many fossils we have, they'd almost all be of the various false start "ancestors" that survival-of-the-fittest is supposed to have killed off. There are supposed to be innumerably more of them than of the "survivors."

That is what the fossil record shows.

It doesn't actually. It lacks those billions of "false start" fossils that should exist, if the theory were true. It's utterly improbable that the only fossils found in the record would be the few successful evolutionary specimens, and none of the inevitably vastly more numerous evolutionary failures postulated should ever be so fortunate as to end up in the fossil record.

In that sense, the "random mutation" explanation eats itself: it requires us to ignore the fact that the fossil record is improbably devoid of the very evidence "random mutation" would lead us to expect.

You have the argument backwards. Fine Tuning implies there are NOT many other possible constants that would produce life, not that they "could be otherwise."

No. Fine tuning implies that of all the arbitrary values that physical constants could have, it is something like miraculous that they have the values conducive to life.

We're speaking past each other here, but you're asserting what I'm asserting. Fine tuning means that the values that permit not only life but even material reality are exceedingly narrow. And the narrower a parameter is, the less likely it's a product of mere chance. That's easy to demonstrate.

The facts aren't in doubt: the willingness to make the logical and necessary conclusion, though, certainly is.

That is an acknowledgement of my point that people believe things for personal reasons.[/quote] Perhaps some do. I do not doubt some do. But not all people, and not all people all the time, and not in every area of epistemology.

Consider you and me, right now: we are not debating whether you aesthetically prefer to believe in Evolutionism and I aesthetically prefer to believe in Theism...because we can't even debate such aesthetics, if that's what they are: what have you to say about what I prefer, or I to say about what you prefer, if reality never impinges on the discussion to arbitrate it? What we're debating is which one of our views best reflects the reality of what actually is the case, regardless of our aesthetic preferences. And this is why we do it with reference to evidence, not merely to taste.

Indeed, it is very easy to show that aesthetics and truth are vastly different issues. A man may aesthetically prefer to believe that cancer is best treated with palm branches and olive oil; another may aesthetically choose to believe it's best treated with radiotherapy and cancer drugs. But only one will survive. Truth inevitably takes its revenges on the careless aesthetician.

Likewise, you may prefer Atheism, and I Theism. But either God does exist, or He does not. Nothing in our aesthetic preferences will affect that fact. But it will affect our personal relationship TO that fact.

[Will Bouwman]

Does it matter if a belief conforms to reality or not?

No. People have their own reasons to believe all sorts of things that bear no relation to reality.

That may be true; but if so, it's a sad commentary on human beings. The problem, then, is in the observer, not with the data. A person who (let us say as the rare exception to your rule) prefers reason to aesthetics is still much better than the person who operates on mere aesthetics.

It is not that people choose to believe for aesthetic reasons, it is that for philosophical questions, there is no choice. That's what makes them philosophical. The existence of God is one such question. Whatever evidence you may have, there is none that cannot have an alternative explanation to God.

I don't know what hypothesis you are specifically referring to,

I can hardly imagine that's not true. If you went to school, it is the very theory you were likely taught.

As it happens, I remember several occasions on which I did go to school. None of those include my being taught that we are descended from monkeys. I was instead, taught that great apes and ourselves have common ancestors.

There isn't material evidence for this "common ancestor."

As you reported, we have many genes in common with bananas. That you choose to interpret that to be a function of all things being built of the same "dust" doesn't prevent it being evidence for a common ancestor.

What makes a hypothesis better than a wild guess is the quality of the data giving us reasons to make the assumption.

How do you imagine an hypothesis that is consistent with high quality data is any better than a wild guess that is also consistent with that data?

I cannot imagine how you became "confident" that you know what I know.

For the simple reason that you have yet to reveal some piece of evidence that I don't already know.

But I'm also fairly confident it isn't true. If you knew what I know, you'd be a Theist for sure.

You can test that hypothesis by the simple expedient of telling me what you know.

...what I can't tell you is what you would accept. That much, you must tell me. I can't decide it for you.

Then you are conceding my point that what decides belief is personal.

What do you believe you know about God that I don't?

Well, first and foremost, that God exists. That, at least, you'd have to recognize.

Which you claim I will once I know what you know, but until you tell me what you believe will make a theist, we'll never know.

[Immanuel Can]

No. People have their own reasons to believe all sorts of things that bear no relation to reality.

That may be true; but if so, it's a sad commentary on human beings. The problem, then, is in the observer, not with the data. A person who (let us say as the rare exception to your rule) prefers reason to aesthetics is still much better than the person who operates on mere aesthetics.

It is not that people choose to believe for aesthetic reasons, it is that for philosophical questions, there is no choice. That's what makes them philosophical.

I don't think that's the case. Aesthetics is only one compartment of philosophy, and by no means the controlling one. If you argued for ontology, epistemology or logic, you might be able to defend that; aesthetics, no.

Whatever evidence you may have, there is none that cannot have an alternative explanation to God.

That's actually true of everything. There's always another explanation, but not necessarily one that's probable or even remotely plausible. But in extremis, there's always something a cynic can suggest. That's very far from suggesting that the reason for choosing the more plausible, evidentiary or rational one is merely aesthetic.

I don't know what hypothesis you are specifically referring to,

I can hardly imagine that's not true. If you went to school, it is the very theory you were likely taught.

As it happens, I remember several occasions on which I did go to school. None of those include my being taught that we are descended from monkeys. I was instead, taught that great apes and ourselves have common ancestors.

Then you were very fortunate to have escaped the massive propaganda campaign that almost everybody else experienced. Just google "monkey-to-man diagrams," and you'll see.

There isn't material evidence for this "common ancestor."

As you reported, we have many genes in common with bananas. That you choose to interpret that to be a function of all things being built of the same "dust" doesn't prevent it being evidence for a common ancestor.

In extremis, no. But does that make the "common ancestor" theory plausible? Not at all. It makes it entirely unnecessary, in fact, and requires us to examine further evidence.

What makes a hypothesis better than a wild guess is the quality of the data giving us reasons to make the assumption.

How do you imagine an hypothesis that is consistent with high quality data is any better than a wild guess that is also consistent with that data?

Because there are higher and lower levels of explanation of the data. I regard the hypothesis that time-plus-random-chance created beings as sophisticated as we are as extremely low. And by such secular reckonings as the article I pointed out to you, the same is quite reasonable from a secular viewpoint, as well.

I cannot imagine how you became "confident" that you know what I know.

For the simple reason that you have yet to reveal some piece of evidence that I don't already know.

That doesn't logically follow. It does not follow that I haven't yet said anything to you that you don't know that you've heard what I know.

...what I can't tell you is what you would accept. That much, you must tell me. I can't decide it for you.

Then you are conceding my point that what decides belief is personal.

Not at all. I'm merely asking you what you would accept as evidence. And if the answer is "nothing," then we can be unsurprised at your assumption that you've seen no evidence. But the fault won't be on the lack of evidence, but your staunch refusal to see evidence of any kind as evidence.

[Ben JS]

[...]
First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.
[...]

You're wrong.

The totality of existence (universe) is a thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking.

[Want an out? Say you were only referring to living things. In which case, be more specific with your declarations.]

[Age]

[...]
First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.
[...]

You're wrong.

The totality of existence (universe) is a thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking.

LOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?

[Want an out? Say you were only referring to living things. In which case, be more specific with your declarations.]

There is NO so-called 'out'.

The 'Thing', known as the Universe, or Everything, Totality, or ALL-THERE-IS, ALSO ONLY exists BECAUSE OF 'two things' 'coming-together', or CO-EXISTING.

Now, the Fact that 'this' is PROVABLE, and thus IRREFUTABLE, you too can ALSO come to UNDERSTAND. That is; if you WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.

However, if you prefer to just STAY BELIEVING what you obviously are, here, then, again, you are absolutely free to.

Considering that you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'totality of existence' (the Universe) IS 'created' FROM the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things, then what IS the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, here.

SHOW 'us' that you ACTUALLY DO KNOW what you are SAYING and CLAIMING, here.

you WANT TO come, here, and CLAIM that 'my thinking' IS FLAWED. So, now go and PROVE it.