Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

[Vitruvius]

Then why go to all the trouble of denying science if not for the tax breaks?

I don't even get the questions, because a) I'm not at all "denying science," by insisting that only real science, science done according to the scientific method, with integrity, testing, evidence and controls, should be called "science" -- that is exactly what "science" entails. Don't you know that?

So you think you...are best qualified to decide what is, and is not scientifically valid?

Not at all. I'm just saying what "science" is. It's not my opinion: it's the actual definition. If something doesn't conform to the rigours of the Scientific Method, then sorry...it's just not "science" -- not because I say so, but because the word "science" has a specific meaning.

There's an experiment in Evolutionary Genetics by Stephen Jay Gould, where there's 10 test tubes in a row, filled with nutrient rich solution, and a bacteria is introduced into the first test tube. Wait half an hour, take one drop from the first test tube and introduce it to the second, wait half an hour, etc - and you can see evolution occur in bacteria.

You're just wrong, and I don't think it's ignorance per se. Neither are you stupid, but you are biased. That means you're false on purpose; and attacking science. Why? It's valid knowledge of Creation (assuming God exists.) Why worship a book about the Creator and then lie to yourself about His Creation?

And b), I have said no word about "taxes," and don't know how "denying science" would even GET anybody "tax breaks." So that doesn't even remotely make sense to me. Sorry.

Religions are largely tax exempt.

Well, yes, many are; but it's not at all clear to me how that would make "denying science," as you put it, even among those "religions" that do it, the cause of any "tax" break.

It started out as a wee jab; a humorous - but not untrue remark. If you're going to dig your morally high heels in - I'll keep showing you the truth of that remark. You killed the humour. Tax man likes to think he's got a soul - that's funny! But thinking about it in terms of my argument that science has been denied the authority it rightfully owns as truth - it does seem somewhat conspiratorial, does it not?

Let's take Humanistic churches, like the United or the Unitarians...they worship anything that is even given the name of "science," including Evolutionism. Are you saying you don't think they get exactly the same tax breaks? Sorry...that's just verifiably not so. Check it for yourself. It's very clear that even "religions" that do not "deny science" still get the same tax breaks as any that do. They get their tax status because they're "religions," not because of any attitude they hold or don't hold toward science.

If the Church of Humanism didn't come into existence fairly recently and take advantage of existing religious tax exemptions, that might be a point, but as they did, it isn't!

So it's pretty clear that "denying science" has nothing at all to do with "taxes," one way or the other.
You're not making sense.

What's clear is that you've no sense of humour!

[Immanuel Can]

There's an experiment in Evolutionary Genetics by Stephen Jay Gould, where there's 10 test tubes in a row, filled with nutrient rich solution, and a bacteria is introduced into the first test tube. Wait half an hour, take one drop from the first test tube and introduce it to the second, wait half an hour, etc - and you can see evolution occur in bacteria.

Let's look at that case. Gould, you say, has reproduced Evolution in the lab? Surprisingly, it wasn't in all the newspapers. I would have thought it would have made the headline in every newspaper, magazine and current-events website...and been chief candidate for the Nobel Prize. But what do I know?

Let's see the data. Where did you get it?

And b), I have said no word about "taxes," and don't know how "denying science" would even GET anybody "tax breaks." So that doesn't even remotely make sense to me. Sorry.

Religions are largely tax exempt.

Well, yes, many are; but it's not at all clear to me how that would make "denying science," as you put it, even among those "religions" that do it, the cause of any "tax" break.

It started out as a wee jab; a humorous - but not untrue remark.

Oh. Well, a better "jab" is one that's got some kind of truth to it. The humour's supposed to come from coupling something outrageous with something surprisingly apt, or as you put it "not untrue". There was, perhaps, something outrageously implausible...I just couldn't detect any aptness or truth in the claim. It came off as merely...uninformed...on that matter.

But thinking about it in terms of my argument that science has been denied the authority it rightfully owns as truth - it does seem somewhat conspiratorial, does it not?

The claim that science simply "is truth," rather than, say, being one very good way of getting at probabilities in the material universe....well, no epistemologist is going to let that one stand, be he religious or secular. So I'm a bit surprised to see it repeated here.

As for the very vague expression "has been denied," it does indeed smack of conspiracy thinking, since it fails to mention any agent of that "denying" ...however, conspiracy thinking is not always a sign of great understanding or intellection, is it? It can be a product of paranoia, or black-and-white thinking, or just weak information: that's what often makes it the first recourse of the unsophisticated. And I don't think we're aiming to join their ranks, are we? So we should evaluate that possibility rationally.

If that's the right explanation for us to adopt, then we'd need to know who was "in on" the conspiracy, how it was arranged, what they did, and how they managed to do it. It doesn't seem that, since the 17th Century, when the Scientific Method first appeared, that science has been on the back foot, does it? I wouldn't say so, given where we are now. If it's a "conspiracy," it's a pretty ineffective one.

So I think "conspiracy" is maybe too simple a sort of explanation to justify the facts, don't you?

[Vitruvius]

There's an experiment in Evolutionary Genetics by Stephen Jay Gould, where there's 10 test tubes in a row, filled with nutrient rich solution, and a bacteria is introduced into the first test tube. Wait half an hour, take one drop from the first test tube and introduce it to the second, wait half an hour, etc - and you can see evolution occur in bacteria.

Let's look at that case. Gould, you say, has reproduced Evolution in the lab? Surprisingly, it wasn't in all the newspapers. I would have thought it would have made the headline in every newspaper, magazine and current-events website...and been chief candidate for the Nobel Prize. But what do I know? Let's see the data. Where did you get it?

Sorry, my mistake. It's John Maynard Smith. Triple barrel name - wrong one!



Stephen Jay Gould writes on the same subject. I explain, but not qualify my apology.

And b), I have said no word about "taxes," and don't know how "denying science" would even GET anybody "tax breaks." So that doesn't even remotely make sense to me. Sorry.

Religions are largely tax exempt.

Well, yes, many are; but it's not at all clear to me how that would make "denying science," as you put it, even among those "religions" that do it, the cause of any "tax" break.

It started out as a wee jab; a humorous - but not untrue remark.

Oh. Well, a better "jab" is one that's got some kind of truth to it. The humour's supposed to come from coupling something outrageous with something surprisingly apt, or as you put it "not untrue". There was, perhaps, something outrageously implausible...I just couldn't detect any aptness or truth in the claim. It came off as merely...uninformed...on that matter.

Interesting theory of comedy. Personally, I like the red nose/white face theory of comedy; representing sex and death respectively. The red nose is a metaphor for the engorged penis - and is consequently unruly, loud, stupid kind of comedy. I'm a white face type myself, dead pan, intelligent, cruel. Maybe you need a penis waving in your face to recognise the comedy.

But thinking about it in terms of my argument that science has been denied the authority it rightfully owns as truth - it does seem somewhat conspiratorial, does it not?

The claim that science simply "is truth," rather than, say, being one very good way of getting at probabilities in the material universe....well, no epistemologist is going to let that one stand, be he religious or secular. So I'm a bit surprised to see it repeated here.

Evolution is true, the laws of thermodynamics are true, the bacterial theory of disease, the periodic table, earth orbiting the sun - also true. We've had this discussion. Methodologically, all scientific conclusions are provisional, but there comes a point where that's not honest to the state of knowledge.

As for the very vague expression "has been denied," it does indeed smack of conspiracy thinking, since it fails to mention any agent of that "denying" ...however, conspiracy thinking is not always a sign of great understanding or intellection, is it? It can be a product of paranoia, or black-and-white thinking, or just weak information: that's what often makes it the first recourse of the unsophisticated. And I don't think we're aiming to join their ranks, are we? So we should evaluate that possibility rationally.

If you were capable evaluating that rationally, that would be good, but you're not. No offence, but you've got a dog in the race. I've explained the argument to you, and you start at the top of the page with 'no,no,no,no' responding to and rejecting it it line by line. How are you supposed to understand the whole argument if you won't even read it, and think about it, before you start no-no-ing it?

If that's the right explanation for us to adopt, then we'd need to know who was "in on" the conspiracy, how it was arranged, what they did, and how they managed to do it. It doesn't seem that, since the 17th Century, when the Scientific Method first appeared, that science has been on the back foot, does it? I wouldn't say so, given where we are now. If it's a "conspiracy," it's a pretty ineffective one. So I think "conspiracy" is maybe too simple a sort of explanation to justify the facts, don't you?

Well, clearly I don't think that. I think that the arrest and trial of Galileo divorced science as an understanding of reality from science as a tool, and we've used the tools, but paid no heed to science as an understanding of reality. We've persisted with overlapping and mutually justifying religious, political and economic ideological conceptions of reality - and applied science to achieve ideological ends. That's why, for example, we have nuclear weapons and climate change - but we don't have limitless clean energy from magma, despite a NASA study, over 40 years ago, that showed limitless clean energy is available. That's why governments have ignored climate change - and while scientists are issuing dire warnings to humanity, Trump digs coal!

[Immanuel Can]

There's an experiment in Evolutionary Genetics by Stephen Jay Gould, where there's 10 test tubes in a row, filled with nutrient rich solution, and a bacteria is introduced into the first test tube. Wait half an hour, take one drop from the first test tube and introduce it to the second, wait half an hour, etc - and you can see evolution occur in bacteria.

Let's look at that case. Gould, you say, has reproduced Evolution in the lab? Surprisingly, it wasn't in all the newspapers. I would have thought it would have made the headline in every newspaper, magazine and current-events website...and been chief candidate for the Nobel Prize. But what do I know? Let's see the data. Where did you get it?

Sorry, my mistake. It's John Maynard Smith.

Okay, let's see the data you're referring to for JMS. But still, what's your evidence that (unbeknownst to all newspapers, magazines and websites, and the Nobel Committee, apparently) he's managed to prove Evolutionism in his lab?

And since you didn't apparently even remember the right guy, are you sure you actually read the data yourself? Or did somebody just tell you about it?

Evolution is true

You have remarkable faith. I would never believe a thing on so little data.

I think that the arrest and trial of Galileo divorced science as an understanding of reality from science as a tool

I've never heard that explanation of what happened, even from the most ardent Atheist historians. That's a new one.

So...somehow, after Galileo, "science as an understanding of reality" was "divorced" from "science as a tool"? Do you mean that people stopped believing in science or that they stopped doing science, or both? It seems to me that neither of these things happened.

...we've used the tools, but paid no heed to science as an understanding of reality,

So many questions...which "tools"? And what's your reason for thinking that "we" (do you mean all human beings?) have not "paid heed" to (and now, I don't even know what this could mean) to "science as an understanding of reality?"

How do you square such a claim with history? It seems to me that since the time of Galileo, any grip the Catholic hierarchy had on "us" has slipped considerably, to the point where it's not even very strong on most Catholics, let alone "us". And as for science, it seems to me that it's only increased its influence since the 17th Century, not diminished.

You're going to have to clear that up for me.

[Vitruvius]

...

[Vitruvius]

There's an experiment in Evolutionary Genetics by Stephen Jay Gould, where there's 10 test tubes in a row, filled with nutrient rich solution, and a bacteria is introduced into the first test tube. Wait half an hour, take one drop from the first test tube and introduce it to the second, wait half an hour, etc - and you can see evolution occur in bacteria.

Let's look at that case. Gould, you say, has reproduced Evolution in the lab? Surprisingly, it wasn't in all the newspapers. I would have thought it would have made the headline in every newspaper, magazine and current-events website...and been chief candidate for the Nobel Prize. But what do I know? Let's see the data. Where did you get it?

Sorry, my mistake. It's John Maynard Smith.

Okay, let's see the data you're referring to for JMS. But still, what's your evidence that (unbeknownst to all newspapers, magazines and websites, and the Nobel Committee, apparently) he's managed to prove Evolutionism in his lab?

It's not called evolutionism - that's a pejorative term that demonstrates your bias. I really cant speak for the Nobel Prize committee, but scientifically - evolution is not in doubt. Watson and Crick, I believe won the Nobel for their work photographing DNA - actually I just looked it up. They did. There's a rumour they stole a key idea from Rosalind Franklin - who was working at the same site on the same problems. Science is competitive, and peer review is part of that competition. If a scientist is wrong - their peers will destroy them to make their own name. If evolution were untrue - it wouldn't be down to religion to point that out. The theory has been around for 170 years, and is confirmed by genetics.

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might -- hope against hope -- have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other area of human knowledge. New discoveries may conceivably lead to dramatic, even "revolutionary" shifts in the Darwinian theory, but the hope that it will be "refuted" by some shattering breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to a geocentric vision and discard Copernicus." Dennett.

And since you didn't apparently even remember the right guy, are you sure you actually read the data yourself? Or did somebody just tell you about it?

Please forgive me.
NO!
How very Christian of you!

Evolution is true

You have remarkable faith. I would never believe a thing on so little data.

This is a pitiful ad hominem. Or maybe, this is your attempt at humour. Are you joking?

I think that the arrest and trial of Galileo divorced science as an understanding of reality from science as a tool

I've never heard that explanation of what happened, even from the most ardent Atheist historians. That's a new one.

Yes. It is a new one, and isn't that just a little bit sad.

So...somehow, after Galileo, "science as an understanding of reality" was "divorced" from "science as a tool"? Do you mean that people stopped believing in science or that they stopped doing science, or both? It seems to me that neither of these things happened.

Immediately upon Galileo's arrest, Descartes withdrew a work on physics from publication - and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in which, by use of a skeptical argument, (doubting everything that might be doubted, including the evidence of the senses, and even that he had a body) he established subjective certainty - I think therefore I am. In fear of the Church philosophy directed its efforts in the course of subjectivism, which is consistent with religious rejection of the mundane, and emphasis of the spiritual. Meanwhile the Church continued burning heretics right through to 1792. Last time we discussed you said the Church treated Galileo leniently, but that doesn't mean they were kind. Galileo was lucky not be tortured to death. He was certainly threatened with it, and forced to recant, his works were banned, and he was held under house arrest for the rest of his life. And the heretic burning continued for the next 160 years. Tell me about the issues of the day 160 years ago. We forgot; while subjectivist philosophy, that in effect - rejects the mundane (objective) to emphasise the spiritual (subjective) became the established mode of thought.

...we've used the tools, but paid no heed to science as an understanding of reality,

So many questions...which "tools"? And what's your reason for thinking that "we" (do you mean all human beings?) have not "paid heed" to (and now, I don't even know what this could mean) to "science as an understanding of reality?" How do you square such a claim with history? It seems to me that since the time of Galileo, any grip the Catholic hierarchy had on "us" has slipped considerably, to the point where it's not even very strong on most Catholics, let alone "us". And as for science, it seems to me that it's only increased its influence since the 17th Century, not diminished. You're going to have to clear that up for me.

If the above doesn't answer these questions for you, maybe you're asking the wrong questions. I'd ask how you explain Dire Warnings to Humanity from scientists - while politically Trump digs coal, if science has been afforded all the recognition it deserves? And I asked first!

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, let's see the data you're referring to for JMS. But still, what's your evidence that (unbeknownst to all newspapers, magazines and websites, and the Nobel Committee, apparently) he's managed to prove Evolutionism in his lab?

It's not called evolutionism - that's a pejorative term that demonstrates your bias.

Okay, so where's your data? You must have looked at something, because I'm presuming you'd never just have blind faith in somebody's name. So you saw something...what was it?

The theory has been around for 170 years, and is confirmed by genetics.

Ummm...no. Genetics cannot prove Evolutionism. Genetics only establishes that we are made of the same kind of "stuff" as other creatures. That's not surprising, though. The Bible says the same thing.

And Dennett...well, the best I can say about him is that, for all his bluster, he's as convincing as Dawkins is diplomatic.

And since you didn't apparently even remember the right guy, are you sure you actually read the data yourself? Or did somebody just tell you about it?

Please forgive me.

For what? Are you saying you actually didn't check the data? Or that nobody told you about it?

Evolution is true

You have remarkable faith. I would never believe a thing on so little data.

This is a pitiful ad hominem. Or maybe, this is your attempt at humour. Are you joking?

Not at all. It takes a lot of faith to believe something on no evidence at all. It just might not be a good kind of "faith."

So...somehow, after Galileo, "science as an understanding of reality" was "divorced" from "science as a tool"? Do you mean that people stopped believing in science or that they stopped doing science, or both? It seems to me that neither of these things happened.

Immediately upon Galileo's arrest, Descartes withdrew a work on physics from publication - and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in which, by use of a skeptical argument, (doubting everything that might be doubted, including the evidence of the senses, and even that he had a body) he established subjective certainty - I think therefore I am. In fear of the Church philosophy directed its efforts in the course of subjectivism...

Wow. Well, that's a version of history from no textbook. You're now saying the Catholics are responsible for subjectivism? And science went...where...while all this was allegedly happening?

...we've used the tools, but paid no heed to science as an understanding of reality,

So many questions...which "tools"? And what's your reason for thinking that "we" (do you mean all human beings?) have not "paid heed" to (and now, I don't even know what this could mean) to "science as an understanding of reality?" How do you square such a claim with history? It seems to me that since the time of Galileo, any grip the Catholic hierarchy had on "us" has slipped considerably, to the point where it's not even very strong on most Catholics, let alone "us". And as for science, it seems to me that it's only increased its influence since the 17th Century, not diminished. You're going to have to clear that up for me.

If the above doesn't answer these questions for you, maybe you're asking the wrong questions.

No, they're salient questions, for sure. Do you actually imagine that the Popes have remained as strong as in Galileo's day? I think that's a very hard case to make. And do you think modern people don't like science? That would be an impossible case to make, I suspect.

I'd ask how you explain Dire Warnings to Humanity from scientists - while politically Trump digs coal, if science has been afforded all the recognition it deserves? And I asked first!

You want me to speak for the last American president? Sorry...I don't even purport to speak for him. I doubt whether any Americans can, and I certainly can't. You'll have to take that up with him.

Or did you mean, "has science got all the recognition it deserves"? I don't know how one goes about answering such a question. Do you know "what science deserves?"

But this is true, for sure: that between the 17th and 20th Centuries, it got an increasingly loud voice and large say in human affairs. From the Industrial Revolution to the Technological Revolution, and all the time in between, it's become one of the biggest totems of modern society; and the Catholic clergy, by comparison, have shrunk in influence immensely.

Do you think science should have gotten more than it did? What makes you thnk so?

[Gary Childress]

Hi, IC. What do you think was the beginning of everything? Do you believe the Hebrew Bible account is true or do you believe some other account (Hinduism perhaps) is true? I mean, right now it seems like the sciences have a pretty good grasp of a lot of things, and evolution (though ultimately a theory) seems pretty plausible to me, from my (admittedly) layman's understanding. And the fact that it seems quite plausible seems, to me, like it's not just some freak accident that someone came up with the idea of evolution. I mean, there are some things that seem to fall reasonably well into place in the theory that seem, to me, to lend a lot of credence to the notion that living beings evolved from simpler to more complex organisms over time. Perhaps even evolved out of seemingly inanimate matter.

Now with that said, I don't think evolution necessarily rules out the possibility of a higher power or the possibility of continuity of a soul after death or whatnot. In fact, I would say that the existence of so many accounts of there being a higher power and continuity of something after death is, quite possibly, a reasonably good indication that there may very well be such things. I honestly hope there are. I mean, I wouldn't wish to go full Carl Sagan here and just dismiss all religion as purely primitivistic gibberish. I think things like faith in the future and higher justice are important in human affairs and hopefully, there is some mechanism in the universe that sees to it that those things are upheld.

[Vitruvius]

Okay, let's see the data you're referring to for JMS. But still, what's your evidence that (unbeknownst to all newspapers, magazines and websites, and the Nobel Committee, apparently) he's managed to prove Evolutionism in his lab? Okay, so where's your data? You must have looked at something, because I'm presuming you'd never just have blind faith in somebody's name. So you saw something...what was it? Ummm...no. Genetics cannot prove Evolutionism. Genetics only establishes that we are made of the same kind of "stuff" as other creatures. That's not surprising, though. The Bible says the same thing. And since you didn't apparently even remember the right guy, are you sure you actually read the data yourself? Or did somebody just tell you about it? You have remarkable faith. I would never believe a thing on so little data. Not at all. It takes a lot of faith to believe something on no evidence at all. It just might not be a good kind of "faith." So...somehow, after Galileo, "science as an understanding of reality" was "divorced" from "science as a tool"? Do you mean that people stopped believing in science or that they stopped doing science, or both? It seems to me that neither of these things happened. So many questions...which "tools"? And what's your reason for thinking that "we" (do you mean all human beings?) have not "paid heed" to (and now, I don't even know what this could mean) to "science as an understanding of reality?" How do you square such a claim with history? It seems to me that since the time of Galileo, any grip the Catholic hierarchy had on "us" has slipped considerably, to the point where it's not even very strong on most Catholics, let alone "us". And as for science, it seems to me that it's only increased its influence since the 17th Century, not diminished. You're going to have to clear that up for me. No, they're salient questions, for sure. Do you actually imagine that the Popes have remained as strong as in Galileo's day? I think that's a very hard case to make. And do you think modern people don't like science? That would be an impossible case to make, I suspect. You want me to speak for the last American president? Sorry...I don't even purport to speak for him. I doubt whether any Americans can, and I certainly can't. You'll have to take that up with him. But this is true, for sure: that between the 17th and 20th Centuries, it got an increasingly loud voice and large say in human affairs. From the Industrial Revolution to the Technological Revolution, and all the time in between, it's become one of the biggest totems of modern society; and the Catholic clergy, by comparison, have shrunk in influence immensely. Do you think science should have gotten more than it did? What makes you think so? Or did you mean, "has science got all the recognition it deserves"? I don't know how one goes about answering such a question. Do you know "what science deserves?" And Dennett...well, the best I can say about him is that, for all his bluster, he's as convincing as Dawkins is diplomatic.

I decided to collect all your responses into one passage. That's because I'm doing all the work. You don't want to understand. And I tire of trying to help you. Certainly, the prospect of dealing with all those quotes again, for the sake being insulted - does not appeal. Notice how negative it is? No, not, neither, never, nor. And when it's not that it's incredulity - laid on with trowel. Do you actually imagine...followed by some mischaracterisation of what I actually said. The only thing that would keep me in such a conversation, after so roundly defeating your position is bloody minded stubbornness - and as important as I think it is to address our relationship to science as an understanding of reality, I'm unable to convince of that because you refuse to be convinced. I notice however, that you deleted my question about science as valid knowledge of Creation. Why worship a book about the Creator and then lie to yourself about His Creation? As you didn't address that I feel no obligation to answer your questions. I think we're done. I'm not going to be a test of faith for you. That's not my intention; my intention is to show that our relationship to science is mistaken - and we need to address that in order to solve climate change.

[Immanuel Can]

I tire of trying to help you.

So funny. Thank you for your "help." I don't know what I'd do without you.

...and as important as I think it is to address our relationship to science as an understanding of reality,

You never did address that.

You talked about "tools" and about "understanding of reality," and called both "science," but never explained what you meant by the rather bizarre allegation...if I can even get it straight...that modern people had been deprived of either the "tools" or the "understanding of reality" because of something the Catholic clergy did to Galileo over 300 years ago.

I did ask for that explanation. Do you have it?

[Vitruvius]

I tire of trying to help you.

So funny. Thank you for your "help." I don't know what I'd do without you.

...and as important as I think it is to address our relationship to science as an understanding of reality,

You never did address that.

You talked about "tools" and about "understanding of reality," and called both "science," but never explained what you meant by the rather bizarre allegation...if I can even get it straight...that modern people had been deprived of either the "tools" or the "understanding of reality" because of something the Catholic clergy did to Galileo over 300 years ago.

I did ask for that explanation. Do you have it?

If you haven't gotten it yet, you're not trying. Indeed, you're trying not to. So thanks but no thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

Hi, IC. What do you think was the beginning of everything?

Hi, Gary.

Well, we're way off topic now, of course, but hey, we're so far from the OP we may as well sail on.

There are only two possibilities, really: either mankind is a product of cosmic accident, or man is the deliberate product of God's creating.

Do you believe the Hebrew Bible account is true or do you believe some other account (Hinduism perhaps) is true?

I'm a Christian.

I mean, right now it seems like the sciences have a pretty good grasp of a lot of things, and evolution (though ultimately a theory) seems pretty plausible to me, from my (admittedly) layman's understanding. And the fact that it seems quite plausible seems, to me, like it's not just some freak accident that someone came up with the idea of evolution. I mean, there are some things that seem to fall reasonably well into place in the theory that seem, to me, to lend a lot of credence to the notion that living beings evolved from simpler to more complex organisms over time. Perhaps even evolved out of seemingly inanimate matter.

It took them a long time to get that story plausible. There's a whole history to the Theory of Evolution, one that most people know nothing about. Most people don't really know anything except Darwin; but it's been worked on a long, long time. And for most of history, it was impossible to render in a coherent or plausible way. Darwin's big achievement was to be the first character to succeed in framing the Gradualist story in a way anybody could believe. But it had been tried before, many times.

That doesn't make it wrong, of course; but it does point out that Darwin didn't discover it on the basis of pure originality or pure truth. It was an idea that had been around. It also wasn't a very intuitive one; for while all known ancient civilizations had conceptions of the Creation, the idea of some accidental process that would end up producing so much order, complexity and evident design did not manage to sell itself easily.

But when it arrived, it was very popular in some circles. Certainly the Atheist set loved it. And it had some allure to the scientific community as well; for if there is no God, then we are free to do as we please in the universe, and material science becomes the master-discipline, the one that deals with everything that is actually real. So the story offered human beings both a sense of freedom from restraint or accountability, and also power...the means and right to exploit it's ingenuity and the resources of the Earth to the full, unchecked by any thought of ever having to answer to the Creator.

But it also had appeal to some people who were perhaps simply agnostic or uncertain about God, or who were struggling with questions of meaning and pain; for it promised to provide them with the sort of narrative that would at last let them get off the fence and let them stop struggling with the thougth that any of it had to have meaning. Looking for answers where the answers are so complex can be exhausting. So it could come as a relief to a weary skeptic to finally be able to say, "Thank God maybe I now don't have to think about God anymore."

There are many reasons, then, why something like Evolutionism could have an appeal. Some are ideologically confirming, some are morally libertine, some are psychologically soothing, and some promise great prestige and power to particular factions. But of course, none of these rationales I've mentioned actually has to do with truth. And that, of course, is quite another question.

Now with that said, I don't think evolution necessarily rules out the possibility of a higher power or the possibility of continuity of a soul after death or whatnot. In fact, I would say that the existence of so many accounts of there being a higher power and continuity of something after death is, quite possibly, a reasonably good indication that there may very well be such things. I honestly hope there are. I mean, I wouldn't wish to go full Carl Sagan here and just dismiss all religion as purely primitivistic gibberish. I think things like faith in the future and higher justice are important in human affairs and hopefully, there is some mechanism in the universe that sees to it that those things are upheld.

I get that. But of course, if Evolution's story is taken seriously, then there's really no such prospect. What "mechanism" would we posit that would be guiding us toward justice if there is no sentience behind the universe? We would probably have to give that up.

And that leaves us with a very simple and rather discouraging story. It's the story in which human beings are just bewildered inhabitants of an indifferent universe, one that sort of "coughed them up by accident," but never had -- nor was ever capable of having -- any interest in their existence at all; and far less in their continuation or their gratuitious yearnings for justice or meaning. And this is just the story that Evolutionism presents to us, as Dawkins has so poignantly put it. He writes,

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

There it is. That's the harsh truth behind Evolutionism. And Dawkins (let us give him credit where he's due) is at least courageous enough to stare into the abyss that worldview opens up. Most people are not. They find they have to keep back something of another worldview...like, hope of some kind of eternity, or a justice yet to be realized, or a deeper meaning hidden behind the calous randomness of chance and time.

[Immanuel Can]

I tire of trying to help you.

So funny. Thank you for your "help." I don't know what I'd do without you.

...and as important as I think it is to address our relationship to science as an understanding of reality,

You never did address that.

You talked about "tools" and about "understanding of reality," and called both "science," but never explained what you meant by the rather bizarre allegation...if I can even get it straight...that modern people had been deprived of either the "tools" or the "understanding of reality" because of something the Catholic clergy did to Galileo over 300 years ago.

I did ask for that explanation. Do you have it?

If you haven't gotten it yet, you're not trying. Indeed, you're trying not to. So thanks but no thanks.

Well, no hard feelings. I merely wanted to know what you thought. But there are huge pieces missing, and so many unanswered questions...many things I asked and you dropped immediately.

I do know what that means. So it's okay. Conversation is always a privilege not a right, so thanks for your time.

[Ansiktsburk]

Puberty blockers - whatever rocks you boat, and does not hurt other people, except their feelings of what is Proper.

[uwot]

Gould (John Maynard Smith), you say, has reproduced Evolution in the lab? Surprisingly, it wasn't in all the newspapers. I would have thought it would have made the headline in every newspaper, magazine and current-events website...

Something that everyone over the age of 6 and isn't a religious nut knows to happen isn't news.

...and been chief candidate for the Nobel Prize.

You mean like this? "Ways to speed up and control the evolution of proteins to produce greener technologies and new medicines have won three scientists the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06753-y

But what do I know?

About 5% of what would give you the authority you credit yourself with.