Re: Scientism,truth, & knowledge

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:32:29 -0400

JQ: Is there a possibility that we may find evidence that the moon really
doesn't circle the earth and that the earth does not follow a path around
the sun (despite repeated space travel)? Is it possible that we are
misinterpreting the effects of gravity and thier implications, that someday
someone will realize that we were not attracted to the earth(or the earth
attracted to us)?

There is certainly such possibility despite some very convincing evidence
to the contrary. It is surely possible that our observations are distorted
by a faulty undersstanding of gravity.

JQ: Ive heard evolution compared to gravity and the moon rotating around
the earth. Does this mean that you are willing to admit that one
observation could turn evolution and all of its ideas upside down?

One observation could indeed turn evolution upside down if it cannot be
explained by evolution. For instance human fossils among the pre-cambrian
fossils which could not have gotten there through any other means than
direct deposit in the day and age of the pre-cambrian.

JQ: I think Evolution is already upside down for the following three
reasons.(there
could be more)

JQ: 1. random mutations have never been SHOWN to be able to produce
anything higher in order or of more use.

Of course random mutations is not what evolution is all about now is it.
Your argument is also known as a strawman argument.

JQ: 2. Natural selection works great on paper using limited
reasoning,
but has serious mechanistic flaws and has never been SHOWN to propagate
"favorable random mutations" towards the formation of any new usefull
genetic material for new tissues organs or etc.

That is also incorrect.

JQ: 3. Most evolution evidence is similar to the peppered moth
"evidence". First you must believe that evolution "got" the genetic
material for the different colors of the moth, then you can call it natural
selection(thus being evidence).

The genetic different material which increases in frequency due to
environmental pressure is what is commonly refered to as evolution.

JQ: More and more people every day are questioning the first claims before
going on to the second claims. Similarities in physical structures and
chemical structures are claimed as evidence for evolution. Is evolution
viable in the first place(first claim). Can similarities be only evidence
for evolution?

No, but it is consistent with evolution. One cannot exclude the
possibility of an intelligent though unobservable designer.

JQ: 4. Evolution is great if you are willing to assume a whole
lot, dont
ask too many questions,throw away alot of reasoning, ignore simple
probability and dont joke about your relatives(this is sensitive for some
reason). Just read about it, believe what you read, realize that evolution

As I said, strawman reasoning is just not a very convincing form of logic.

JQ: is fact whether you like it or not(you may grow wings next week) and
that it
is forever true because it is a both FACT and THEORY. You may disprove the
theory but never the FACT! It is as constant as the moons orbit and the
force of gravity.

Wrong again. Even evolution as a fact can be disproven. I guess the
confusion lies in the meaning of the word fact and theory.

SJ Gould:

[...]

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are
different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts
are the world's data. Theories are the structures of ideas that explain
and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival
theories to explain them. Einstien's theory of gravitation replaced
Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in
midair,pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors
whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to
be discovered.

Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such
animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and
mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty
only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no
claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do ( and then attack
us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science
'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse
to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to
rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
classrooms."

Regards

Pim