Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

[ArcticFox]

Of course. I'm not holding my breath, but the unseating of a scientific theory is incredibly exciting and a monumental step.

You would be amazed at how often people are incapable of saying that. The zealots, for instance.

Well, yes. Everybody can't be right.

I said "accepted" which isn't necessarily "right." How can new evidence ever be examined if people automatically exclude whatever doesn't fit the current accepted idea?

It is. It's not closed forever, but there nobody has brought anything substantial. It's been all spoons to a gun fight.

The debate isn't over when there are still people arguing it. By definition. You can't win an argument by simply declaring yourself right and demanding that the discussion end.

Besides, to know whether someone has brought something substantial, you would first have to be open to examining it objectively. I am not getting this vibe.

Nope, but "magic" isn't an appropriate explanation anymore than it was for why the sun went around the earth.

Well when someone tries to use magic as an explanation you'll have a point here.

Bring something substantial on how our brains developed so greatly or if we don't share common ancestry, why we share both gene and phenotypical resemblances to apes?

Are you suggesting there's only one possible explanation?

Except that Frans de Waal is, like I said, studying morality, not giving a set of rules to live by. Very interesting video, thanks for sharing.

That's a mighty fine hair you're splitting. de Waal is only a step away from describing a moral structure, and he wouldn't be the first.

I had a huge tirade about all the wrong things about that paragraph, but on a fifth re-read, I realized you are talking about the possibility that somebody takes it that way.

Glad you re-read it...

Can be used? Yeah. And people can use pillows to kill people. That means nothing. It's a scientific theory that explains biodiversity and goodness of fit.

..and my point is that when it IS used that way, it becomes religion.

But evolutionary biologists don't?
Actually, going to assume you didn't mean to make an appeal to authority but trying to defend him from my allegations that he is one sandwich short of a picnic.

Is an evolutionary biologist necessarily using evolution as a religion? I never said they were.

I've used to think I've seen it, but in reality, I was assuming they were thinking just like me. That they were comparative concepts everybody was pretty much the same on it. Even during my many years as a self-proclaimed "skeptic," I always kept seeing things as sides, like liberals and conservatives. I was wrong.
They are not remotely comparable and creationists frequently project their own sins onto evolution advocates and condemn them for it. The reasons people accept the theory of evolution, whether it be convinced by evidence or that it's just taught to them as science, is different than why someone believes in creationism or ID.

That may have been your experience, but don't assume it's that way for others. As I said before, I have no deep emotional need for evolution to be either true or false. It simply doesn't factor into the state of my spirit.

I'm not denying the "dogmatic evolutionist" exists, but it's nothing something I see a whole lot of. You reference them all the time, but they don't matter. Evolution is not a rhetoric, it's a scientific theory. Keyboard warriors aren't the champions of evolution. I'm not the champion of evolution. The scientists are. People squabble about it, but it's the scientists who are doing the work.

Why should scientists champion any theory in particular? Shouldn't they be championing the truth, wherever the data leads? It's a subtle difference, but an important one. This is why data and results sometimes get "massaged" to produce a certain conclusion.

And yes, it does sadly happen.

At this point, I'm done talking about the people. I'll hear whatever rebuttal you want to make about my assertions of Creationism, but as for how people act, it's a Red Herring and an Ad Hominem.

How is discussion the actions of people a red herring in a discussion about the way people act in debates over evolution? And the guy who jumped all over Dr. Muse is calling an ad hominem on me? Dude....

Still don't see what Creationism has to do with it though...

This isn't a group composed of people, nor is it the collective beliefs of self-proclaimed evolutionists. It's a theory. If you have problems with the theory, I'm happy to talk about it. In fact, I'd love to talk about why you think the theory of Evolution falls short, but I don't have the interest or ability to talk about people I don't know. I'd much rather talk about ideas.

Well, love it or hate it, those are the people that most loudly represent your side when it comes to debate... So you can either pretend they don't exist, or you can acknowledge it and see what can be done to improve matters. Would that not be better for ideas as a whole? I happily call out people who try to use Creationism to debate science because those people aren't helping matters.

[ArchAngel]

The debate isn't over when there are still people arguing it. By definition. You can't win an argument by simply declaring yourself right and demanding that the discussion end.

Besides, to know whether someone has brought something substantial, you would first have to be open to examining it objectively.

People are still arguing that the world is flat, but the debate is over. They haven't brought anything new. I've read through their arguments, too, and it's definitely worth going through the arguments at least once, and this includes ID and Creationism. If you provide me new arguments why ID is a valid explanation for biodiversity and goodness of fit. And whenever I get a new one, I'll go over it, but by and large, most are rehashed and debunked. At a certain point, you can call it over until someone brings something new and big.

Are you suggesting there's only one possible explanation?

I'm asking you to show me some. I'm quite interested on the mental divergence between us and our ape relatives. If you have any theories, please share.

That's a mighty fine hair you're splitting. de Waal is only a step away from describing a moral structure, and he wouldn't be the first.

They are vastly different. That one step away from describing a moral structure is "describing a moral structure." It's a slippery slope fallacy to say that merely studying morality will lead to asserting a morality system.
He was studying empathy and fairness in animals, and these are pillars in morality as we know it. Studying it and preaching a set are two very different things.

How is discussion the actions of people a red herring in a discussion about the way people act in debates over evolution? And the guy who jumped all over Dr. Muse is calling an ad hominem on me? Dude....

I did not characterize his arguments based on who or what he is. I make my assertions on him because of the arguments he made. What he is said is incredibly wrong and he is bonkers for saying it, not that he is bonkers so that what he said is wrong.
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy that characterizes the argument by the one saying it. For example, you can't call Evolution a religion because someone people are dogmatic about it. The theory of Evolution is independent of them. The people on the internet don't change how true or untrue Evolution is; the evidence does. This is what I mean by Ad Hominem.
If you are not addressing the theory of evolution but rather some entity that you see as the religion of evolution, that is entirely irrelevant to what I have to say, as well as something I know little about, have no interest in addressing, and something I suspect is largely imaginary. We'd be arguing two different things.

[ArcticFox]

People are still arguing that the world is flat, but the debate is over. They haven't brought anything new. I've read through their arguments, too, and it's definitely worth going through the arguments at least once, and this includes ID and Creationism. If you provide me new arguments why ID is a valid explanation for biodiversity and goodness of fit. And whenever I get a new one, I'll go over it, but by and large, most are rehashed and debunked. At a certain point, you can call it over until someone brings something new and big.

I'd have a much easier time accepting that assertion of objectivity (not only from you but from virtually every other person I've discussed this topic with. No offense Arch, but ALL of the Evolutionists I've debated say that very same thing. I give you credit for being closer to true objectivity than most, but I haven't yet encountered someone who really, truly is.) if not for two things:

1 - The tendency to imply that Creationism == ID. The two are not the same. At all. And yet when I discuss these things it's always my opponent hammering the Creationism thing no matter how careful I am to be very clear that isn't what I'm arguing. It's a love affair with an army of strawmen. I can sort of understand why people would want to do that. Creationism isn't science so if they can shoehorn all my arguments into that container, it feels like an easy win for them.

2 - The tendency for my opponents to think they already know all the arguments I'll raise and try to preemptively block them. That wouldn't be so bad except there's a natural tendency to not read my comments very carefully and so I might make one particular argument and my opponent sort of filters it into a different argument that they already assumed I'd make. Then it becomes a game of me trying to clarify and bring it back on track and them trying to insist they had it right to begin with.

The result is that every single time I debate this it becomes immensely frustrating because it doesn't feel like we discuss the actual issues, but rather a sort of semantic dance. It's word play, not issues. This is why I don't debate evolution anymore. I'm happy to talk about the problems with it to people who genuinely want to know, but most people go into that kind of discussion with their deflector shields at maximum and photon torpedo tubes loaded.

I'm asking you to show me some. I'm quite interested on the mental divergence between us and our ape relatives. If you have any theories, please share.

You said "substantial." Who gets to decide whether a piece of evidence is substantial enough? That isn't a rhetorical question. Really think about it. Once you have an answer, I ask you to consider the ramifications of that answer.

They are vastly different. That one step away from describing a moral structure is "describing a moral structure." It's a slippery slope fallacy to say that merely studying morality will lead to asserting a morality system.
He was studying empathy and fairness in animals, and these are pillars in morality as we know it. Studying it and preaching a set are two very different things.

I watch for patterns.

I did not characterize his arguments based on who or what he is. I make my assertions on him because of the arguments he made. What he is said is incredibly wrong and he is bonkers for saying it, not that he is bonkers so that what he said is wrong.

Ah, but you did specifically comment on his area of expertise, which comes off as an assertion that what he said is wrong because he's not in the right field to say it.

[ArchAngel]

1 - The tendency to imply that Creationism == ID. The two are not the same. At all. And yet when I discuss these things it's always my opponent hammering the Creationism thing no matter how careful I am to be very clear that isn't what I'm arguing. It's a love affair with an army of strawmen. I can sort of understand why people would want to do that. Creationism isn't science so if they can shoehorn all my arguments into that container, it feels like an easy win for them.

Well, for the most part, ID is a face for Creationism and most ID people are creationist. ID/Creationists very often use them interchangeably. I understand that with you, you draw a distinction, and ID is some weird backwards superclass to Creationism, but my criticism of Creationism largely translates to ID as well and both are unfounded. ID just has less Genesis in it.

2 - The tendency for my opponents to think they already know all the arguments I'll raise and try to preemptively block them. That wouldn't be so bad except there's a natural tendency to not read my comments very carefully and so I might make one particular argument and my opponent sort of filters it into a different argument that they already assumed I'd make. Then it becomes a game of me trying to clarify and bring it back on track and them trying to insist they had it right to begin with.

That's also just one of those things that happen in arguments. I try my best to avoid it, but it happens, and it happened to me, too. It happened to me from you in this very argument, and vice versa. Communication is not perfect, so it takes a little time and effort to get correct.

The thing is, much of it is rehashed. The list that spurred this debate is full of rehashed arguments I was fed in elementary school. Most of it is not revolutionary. I occasionally get a knew one here and there, and so I give it a look-see, but they are uncommon and generally unconvincing, but it is something good to think about.

The result is that every single time I debate this it becomes immensely frustrating because it doesn't feel like we discuss the actual issues, but rather a sort of semantic dance. It's word play, not issues. This is why I don't debate evolution anymore. I'm happy to talk about the problems with it to people who genuinely want to know, but most people go into that kind of discussion with their deflector shields at maximum and photon torpedo tubes loaded.

Well, if you start calling Evolution a religion, yeah, we're going to have to discuss the semantics on this.

You said "substantial." Who gets to decide whether a piece of evidence is substantial enough? That isn't a rhetorical question. Really think about it. Once you have an answer, I ask you to consider the ramifications of that answer.

Well, that's for me to decide. I'll give you a hint "Somebody made it" isn't substantial enough. I want mechanisms and evidence why it happened that way. Like actual theories. If it was designed by an intelligence, what are the markers? What would falsify it?

I watch for patterns.

That sounds like a fancy way of describing the Slippery Slope. What's the tell that what he is doing is not just research but also trying to set up a system of teachings for us to live by?

Ah, but you did specifically comment on his area of expertise, which comes off as an assertion that what he said is wrong because he's not in the right field to say it.

No, I was mocking the field of his doctorate. To be fair, I should probably become better acquainted with exactly what philosophy of biology is, but I NEVER made the assumption that he was wrong because of his field or experience.
My conclusions are based on what he said. You could have given me no name and just the quote, and I would have been equally flustered by the inanity of it.
All these allegations that I disprove of what he said are just assumptions from my insults; I do actually specifically lay out the stupid things in his quote because that's what I actually oppose.
Weren't you just telling me that you hate it when people move on arguments they'd assume you make instead of actually make?

[ArcticFox]

Well, for the most part, ID is a face for Creationism and most ID people are creationist. ID/Creationists very often use them interchangeably. I understand that with you, you draw a distinction, and ID is some weird backwards superclass to Creationism, but my criticism of Creationism largely translates to ID as well and both are unfounded. ID just has less Genesis in it.

I appreciate that you're acknowledging the distinction I'm drawing, but it isn't just me. Any serious ID researcher will do exactly the same, and not all ID researchers believe in the Bible. I'm aware that Creationists use the terms interchangeably but that's on them, not me. And dude, this comes across as justifying the pigeonholing.

That's also just one of those things that happen in arguments. I try my best to avoid it, but it happens, and it happened to me, too. It happened to me from you in this very argument, and vice versa. Communication is not perfect, so it takes a little time and effort to get correct.

This is true. Maybe that's one of those indicators of when a discussion has run its course.

The thing is, much of it is rehashed. The list that spurred this debate is full of rehashed arguments I was fed in elementary school. Most of it is not revolutionary. I occasionally get a knew one here and there, and so I give it a look-see, but they are uncommon and generally unconvincing, but it is something good to think about.

I can't really evaluate what's been rehashed and what hasn't, because I'm very picky about my sources when it comes to ID research.

Well, if you start calling Evolution a religion, yeah, we're going to have to discuss the semantics on this.

There's a difference between discussing semantics and trying to use semantics to make an external point.

Well, that's for me to decide. I'll give you a hint "Somebody made it" isn't substantial enough. I want mechanisms and evidence why it happened that way. Like actual theories. If it was designed by an intelligence, what are the markers? What would falsify it?

Doesn't it seem to you that a conflict of interest is created when the one whose premise is being called into question is the same one who gets to decide whether counter evidence is substantial enough? Doesn't it seem like a 3rd party, external and objective standard is in order?

That sounds like a fancy way of describing the Slippery Slope. What's the tell that what he is doing is not just research but also trying to set up a system of teachings for us to live by?

What can I say? I observe patterns. Time will tell.

All these allegations that I disprove of what he said are just assumptions from my insults; I do actually specifically lay out the stupid things in his quote because that's what I actually oppose.
Weren't you just telling me that you hate it when people move on arguments they'd assume you make instead of actually make?

Your assertions weren't quite as clear as you might think they were, brah.

[ArchAngel]

I appreciate that you're acknowledging the distinction I'm drawing, but it isn't just me. Any serious ID researcher will do exactly the same, and not all ID researchers believe in the Bible. I'm aware that Creationists use the terms interchangeably but that's on them, not me. And dude, this comes across as justifying the pigeonholing.

Perhaps. I do try to differentiate the terms with you, but my criticism of both has been largely the same. How about this, I'll let you put forward what ID is and what's great about it.

If you could lay these out for me:
What is the theory of ID?
What convinced you of ID?
Are there any predictive powers of ID?

This is true. Maybe that's one of those indicators of when a discussion has run its course.

NEVAR!
In the words of Glorian, ONWAAAAAARRRRDDD!!!

Doesn't it seem to you that a conflict of interest is created when the one whose premise is being called into question is the same one who gets to decide whether counter evidence is substantial enough? Doesn't it seem like a 3rd party, external and objective standard is in order?

I alone am responsible for my beliefs. I will hear whatever reasons why you or others think certain evidences are substantial.
If I am handling situations improperly, that can also be raised.

[ArcticFox]

Perhaps. I do try to differentiate the terms with you, but my criticism of both has been largely the same. How about this, I'll let you put forward what ID is and what's great about it.

If you could lay these out for me:
What is the theory of ID?
What convinced you of ID?
Are there any predictive powers of ID?

Reasonable, though certainly for a separate thread.

NEVAR!
In the words of Glorian, ONWAAAAAARRRRDDD!!!

Glorian? The reference escapes me... To the Googlecopter!

I alone am responsible for my beliefs. I will hear whatever reasons why you or others think certain evidences are substantial.
If I am handling situations improperly, that can also be raised.

A very subjective thing, tho.

[ArchAngel]

Glorian? The reference escapes me... To the Googlecopter!

Zombie Orpheaus's JourneyQuest.
Got sucked into that one, too.

A very subjective thing, tho.

Objective third parties help, but it will always come down to it. I try my best to be objective, though.

[ArcticFox]

Zombie Orpheaus's JourneyQuest.
Got sucked into that one, too.

Ah I haven't watched JourneyQuest yet.

YET.

Objective third parties help, but it will always come down to it. I try my best to be objective, though.

We all do. We also suck at it to varying degrees and on varying issues.