tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post3354539223245488243..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Facing FactsMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47997014835615635932010-03-22T22:39:28.192-07:002010-03-22T22:39:28.192-07:00CS, one of the pieces that is widely credited in p...CS, one of the pieces that is widely credited in philosophy with thoroughly refuting the "phenomenal qualities like colors are non-physical" argument that you are presenting here is Paul Churchland's<br />The Rediscovery of Light, (1995) Journal of Philosophy 93 (5):211-28.<br />You'll have to get it from the journal directly or from an anthology, however, because I can't find a free, electronic copy of it. <br /><br />And I'm not offering an argument from authority here, but here are the numbers for professional philosophers' attitude about the question of non-physicalism:<br /><br />Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?<br /><br />Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.4%)<br />Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27%)<br />Other 153 / 931 (16.4%)<br />Source: http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl<br /><br />That 56% of them accept or lean towards physicalism amounts to a huge mandate among people who are professional contrarians.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22228236753995047212010-03-19T17:54:43.588-07:002010-03-19T17:54:43.588-07:00Anonymous (CS) said...
"Here is a case among...Anonymous (CS) said...<br /><br />"Here is a case among others where evolution theory gets revised and a reason why I am not totally sold. Many other scientific theories have been wrong and abandoned but evolution seems special. Why? I want good science and evolution and its faithful followers seem determine to make it work.<br /><br />Am I wrong for being skeptical here?"<br /><br />Skepticism is one thing, adopting an all or nothing false dichotomy is something else. The example you cite shows nothing more than that this: When we follow the weight of the evidence we are obligated to change our minds when new evidence changes the overall weight of the evidence. Over time we accumulate more evidence, and insofar as the evidence reflects an underlying truth about the nature of our reality, we can expect our understanding of the nature of our reality to tend to become more complete over time. Its not a straight path with an a-priori known ultimate destination, nor is it an undirected random walk. Its a curved path and when you look at small segments of that path its not clear that it has an overall direction. But when you take a birds eye view of the entire path it does have an overall direction despite its local curves. That is why an empirical, weight of the evidence approach works well. We know it works because it has taken us places. Religion, in comparison, has not taken anywhere with respect to knowledge of how the work works.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88840006663729431912010-03-19T17:41:27.631-07:002010-03-19T17:41:27.631-07:00I don't see any evidence that sound perception...I don't see any evidence that sound perception, color perception, and perceptions of all types generally, exist independently of the material. Since they don't exist independently of the material it follows that they appear to be dependent on the material. That dependency, in turn, implies that perceptions have a material basis. Given this material dependecy circumstance I can't derive the reality of the supernatural, which is the notion that there is a mind independent of the material, from the phenomena of perceptions.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79348968403593307722010-03-18T21:02:27.138-07:002010-03-18T21:02:27.138-07:00Explicit atheist,
I cant see how you think color ...Explicit atheist,<br /><br />I cant see how you think color or other mind dependent objects have a physical basis. Rather, mind dependent objects seem to be a basis for many so called behaviors and notions. Mind dependent objects are a big problem for the naturist movement as it struggles to explain away mental phenomenon that has no external reality outside our minds. Again, if you deny that there are mind dependent objects then you have a lot of work to do in explaining why we countenance entities that are only descriptive by well more descriptions. I am sure you believe in things being true by definition. Well if so then you believe in mind dependent objects.<br /><br /><br />Color does not have a physical basis as its a property of the EMR field X and derived from the mind. You cannot describe me what the color of red is physically but you can point to its association with a physical object. Colors are defined into our schemas and it is entirely possible that the color green could have been associated with such and such wave length instead of red. Another example of a mind dependent object is love. Love is true by its definition and only after understanding its definition we apply it to behaviors that contribute to its existence. So to physically associate such and such wavelength as a basis for a color is to confuse the order of its basis - that being a mentally produced object.<br /><br />Essentially, it is really not possible to describe red as it has no weight, height, mass or any other physical characteristics. But is does have a an association with many physical. Objects i.e. fire engines, wave length X, <br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23976114210304394052010-03-18T20:14:08.419-07:002010-03-18T20:14:08.419-07:00Anonymous:
"However, if we consider that com...Anonymous:<br /><br />"However, if we consider that compatibilism is false then it seems that this can extend to mind dependent objects, which have no physical basis to their material counterparts. Such entities as color, notions (love, mental states etc), and many other things we give countenance to are pure fantasy in a position of non compatibilism. Is this what you are arguing and do you agree with the aforementioned implication?"<br /><br />Everything you mention has a physical basis. Color, for example, only exists in the context of a physical detection of light of different lightwaves. We don't have a material explanation for color perception, but we have every reason to consider it an emergent property of material phenomena. Color perception doesn't exist independently of the material. Different light detecting organs in different organisms detect different ranges of wavelengths like different audio detecting organs in different organisms detect different ranges of audio. We don't know if the experiences are qualitatively the same but insofar as we have a common evolutionary history it appears to be likely that our qualitative experiences overlap. Those qualitative experiences may be somewhat, or even entirely, arbitrary, except to the extent they were directed by the natural selection pressures.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29902901710680393222010-03-18T19:37:16.161-07:002010-03-18T19:37:16.161-07:00Anonymous:
"I personally believe philosophy ...Anonymous:<br /><br />"I personally believe philosophy is above science - it is the foundation for all disciplines of academia. And thus I do hold more weight in self evident and a priori truths than scientific truths. Scientific truths seem to guide everyday decisions about the world. But without philosophical truths scientific truths lack interpretation. The theory of human evolution requires the intervention of a philosophical debate because it has been incorrectly framed as dissolving a scientific problem - the question of a God creator."<br /><br />Weight of the evidence is literaly the only basis we have to justify our beliefs. Philosophy that is grounded in weight of the evidence has substance, philosophy that is not grounded in weight of the evidence has no substance. To me, its an important ethical imperative, as well as a pragmatic imperative, to ground our beliefs in weight of the evidence. Without that there isn't a rational anchor and we are lost in circular reasoning. We can disagree about what the weight of evidence is and what it implies. Skepticism and doubt are needed because the weight of the weight of the evidence is often lite or absent. But if one side dispenses with weight of the evidence and appeals to faith or personal interpretations of personal experience or tradition or non-empirical based authority instead of or contraty to weight of the evidence then we don't have a rational common ground for debate.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2682908830933174562010-03-18T07:50:07.484-07:002010-03-18T07:50:07.484-07:00Wow regina you still are the angry atheist.
MM: I...<i>Wow regina you still are the angry atheist.</i><br /><br />MM: It appears a rude and immature troll has infested your site.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71873430282390573052010-03-18T04:19:32.363-07:002010-03-18T04:19:32.363-07:00Matt,
“Unless we have some positive reasons here,...Matt,<br /><br />“Unless we have some positive reasons here, it's just as silly for me to insist that my belief in invisible fairies is compatible with all of the known scientific facts”<br /><br /><br />In your response you attack compatibilism pretty strongly. Yet it would be very difficult to demonstrate that compatibilism is incoherent or philosophically contradictory. Are you saying religion and science are practically inconsistent? Because this is the only argument I think would circumvent a logical contradiction yet would still fly in the face of the masses who believe in God, angels, and demons - essentially the majority of society. Thus I am curious in what sense you can claim that science and religion are inconsistent if not practical (asinine beliefs etc) or logically?<br /><br />However, if we consider that compatibilism is false then it seems that this can extend to mind dependent objects, which have no physical basis to their material counterparts. Such entities as color, notions (love, mental states etc), and many other things we give countenance to are pure fantasy in a position of non compatibilism. Is this what you are arguing and do you agree with the aforementioned implication?<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25630085216037047412010-03-18T03:58:02.447-07:002010-03-18T03:58:02.447-07:00Wow regina you still are the angry atheist. You we...Wow regina you still are the angry atheist. You werent exactly the best student in class and your post speak volumesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79285530461114265902010-03-17T12:27:00.249-07:002010-03-17T12:27:00.249-07:00Just one of the many evidences in our genomes for ...Just one of the many evidences in our genomes for common descent with other primates: <br />(From <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html" rel="nofollow">29+ Evidences for Macroevolution</a> at Talk.Origins)<br /><br />We require vitamin C in our diets because we have a broken gene for L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase, one of the enzymes in the biosynthetic pathway for ascorbate, aka vitamin C. Lo and behold, apes and many other primates also require vitamin C because they have the same mutation in the same gene. In computer science, such similarity would be known as "bug for bug compatibility." The most parsimonious explanation: common ancestry.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77529469628460902762010-03-16T18:29:44.285-07:002010-03-16T18:29:44.285-07:00Anon,
By the way, did my above response answer yo...Anon,<br /><br />By the way, did my above response answer your, <br /><br />"You cannot possibly think human evolution theory is as strong as the second law? Will you address this?"<br /><br />The answer is, yes I do, and I beleive I have!M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-63231220641345380402010-03-16T16:36:53.300-07:002010-03-16T16:36:53.300-07:00"Its much different than lets say a scientifi..."Its much different than lets say a scientific law like gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, which really aren’t up for debate anytime soon nor are constantly being revised.<br /><br />"Perhaps using GR was not as appropriate to show its strength giving its relies on the law of gravity but I wonder why you didn’t address the second law I mentioned? "<br /><br />Anon,<br /><br />OK, one time, just for you (usually I wouldn't, but I think you might benefit). GR IS a theory of gravity. It solved Newton's, "I can't describe the force, but live with it, the equations are pretty accurate." Einstein proposed a space-time tensor that allowed the disposal of some, "spooky action at a distance." OK, so GR is a theory of gravity and is one that is still today being tested, being pushed to see if it breaks down. Check some fairly recent pop science literature, physicists as population aren't done trying test whether it not it will fail under certain conditions. On the other hand, they are quite sure that breaks down at the quantum level. Einstein wrote it himself, Hawking is famous for pointing it out again with the big bang singularity.<br /><br />As for the second law I agree, no serious physicist is testing it to see if it breaks. There has to date been no evidence that it might. Along that same line of reasoning, no serious biologist is testing the theory of evolution to see if it breaks. There has to date been no evidence that it might. That is not to say that there are not certain people testing it (people still try to get patents for perpetual motion machines) but serious scholars in both fields are strongly convinced of the sustainability of both the second law and evolution.<br /><br />Side note: There is a serious scientist proposing the second law as a catalyst for evolution. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/2010/03/Whitfield-Nascence-man.pdf<br /><br />I hope that clears up a couple of things for you.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81875586810131950062010-03-16T13:06:52.167-07:002010-03-16T13:06:52.167-07:00Retreats to a defense of compatibilism (between sc...Retreats to a defense of compatibilism (between science and religion) on the basis of its logical possibility misses the point, by and large. Certainly there is a way to engineer one's God beliefs in a way that carefully navigates around any conflicts with scientifically justified knowledge. And certainly that are people who claim to be both, although the fact that people, given their general propensity to inconsistent belief systems, do it is a pretty weak justification. There will be a couple of problems with this project, as I see it. First, the notion of God that has been adapted (ad hoc) to avoid any conflicts with scientific knowledge ends up pretty impoverished not very philosophically interesting or significant. He doesn't have a brain, so he's not conscious, and so on. Second, the engineered notion of God is miles away from the sort of being that the vast majority of believers believe in and the one that is the center of the major religious traditions. So going to church on Sunday and then going your biology lab on Monday morning amounts to a lie. It's disingenuous to actively propagate the traditional God of religions that is deep problematic and then retreat to the sanitized God when the problems are pointed out. And it's even worse to defend this duplicity by a retreat to the logical possibility of their compatibility. Mere possibility is never enough to justify, and contrary to the claims being made here, science does give us a number of powerful reason to doubt that such beings are real. So what's needed is an actual justification for believing. And part of adopting the God view, I've been arguing, is addressing some serious questions about how G fits with F. We've been assured that it's possible that a person can believe both. What I want to hear are some reasons to think that they are both true, and that God, as the almighty creator of the universe, had some hand in F. How is it exactly that God is the almighty creator of everything when from all appearances our physical theories give us a framework that already accounts for everything? What work needs to be done by God that couldn't have been done by evolution or physics? Unless we have some positive reasons here, it's just as silly for me to insist that my belief in invisible fairies is compatible with all of the known scientific facts. It might be compatible in some sense of the word, but that doesn't make it not an assinine thing to believe. (I think the fundamental confusion between possible and probable is one of the biggest errors I run into in these discussions on a daily basis.) <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84067764407647144072010-03-16T10:43:11.460-07:002010-03-16T10:43:11.460-07:00Tully,
While a large number of scientists are a...Tully, <br /><br /> While a large number of scientists are atheists (I don't know they outnumber the agnostics), many of those do not hold that belief in god is illogical or that their atheism is something they have proved logical or demonstrated scientifically. I think it is absurd to claim that Occam's razor say is the same as a logical proof rather than a form of belief. In addition many atheist scientists like Scot Atran make a much stronger claim, that the data shows that religion and science can be quite compatible. Certainly one can pick a religion that is not compatible with science, like one can pick a system of government that is not compatible with free speech, but to go from there to imply that no system of government is compatible with free speech is plainly false. <br />As is a claim that one can operate without some system of belief, as if Hume's problem of induction or Godel's theorem don't exist. <br /><br />History has shown that people (who believed the sun went around the earth) are quite capable of believing that the earth revolves around the sun, without losing their belief in God. There is no reason to believe that people will be unable to believe in both God and a 13.7 year old universe and all that goes with it.<br /><br />Some people will undoubtably lose faith in all notions of god if their current notion is incompatible with new facts they come to accept, as some people (anarchists) lose faith in all systems of government. Most people however will just alter their idea of god or good government and continue to believe as before.paulvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-73602992023049966242010-03-16T07:54:55.961-07:002010-03-16T07:54:55.961-07:00Its much different than lets say a scientific law ...<i>Its much different than lets say a scientific law like gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, which really aren’t up for debate anytime soon nor are constantly being revised.<br />...<br />Science is revisable but its theories are not. And when scientific theories are revisable they are not good theories.</i><br /><br />Your statements have no basis in reality.<br /><br />Newton's formulation of gravity was the reigning explanation for a couple centuries. Relativity may be viewed as a tweaking of Newton's laws of motion for cases of very high velocities and very high masses, Newton's laws are still taught in schools and are sufficiently accurate for a great many daily tasks.<br /><br />As I already mentioned, general relativity itself may have to be tweaked to account for the observations of "dark energy."<br /><br />As to whether such theories are being "revised" or "discarded" seems to be a semantic exercise on teh slippery slope.<br /><br /><i>Regina,</i><br /><br />F*ck you, asshole. <br /><br /><i>Please address the strength of my argument</i><br /><br />Your argument has no strength to address. Besides being wrong, it was rather lacking in the detail necessary to even discern your intent, let alone address the direction of your error.<br /><br /><i>... and not nick pick at the GR stuff.</i><br /><br />There you go. Your argument was that theories like general relativity are more solid than the theory of evolution. Obviously, there are two ways to address that; to establish the strength of the theory of evolution or point out the weaknesses of general relativity. Your objections are fatuous.<br /><br /><br /><i>Is EVT a strong scientific theory, why is it revisable, laboratory experiments for species connection etc<br /><br />You're right though I was hinting at a difference between human evolution and evolution.</i><br /><br />How many textbooks do you want me to regurgitate right here? Is there some reason you have not/cannot find this material at length in other places? I could suggest a few books to start with.<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Triumph-Idea-Carl-Zimmer/dp/0061138401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268750282&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea</a> by Carl Zimmer covers the basics.<br />If you feel you're ready for it,<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268750328&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">Why Evolution Is True</a> by Jerry Coyne covers specifically the evidence supporting belief in the theory of evolution in depth. Like most current books on evolution, it dedicates a chapter to human origins; not because we are different in any relevant respect with re3gard to evolution, but to refute Creationists who cannot give up human exceptionalism.<br /><br />To mention a few specific points, the DNA evidence is very clear that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees dating to a few million years ago. The similarities go beyond merely gene sequences to overall chromosomal organization and noncoding elements of our genome. You can read up on SINEs (short interspersed nuclear elements) and LINEs (long interspersed repetitive elements) for example.<br /><br /><i>laboratory experiments for species connection etc</i><br /><br />Look up "camel llama hybrid."Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-41571373149244235312010-03-15T21:16:57.929-07:002010-03-15T21:16:57.929-07:00Christians are linked to positive emotional intell...Christians are linked to positive emotional intellgence.<br /><br />Yeah these studies remind me of forbes best places to live, eat, work, and die...<br /><br />Humans are human...<br /><br /><br />Results showed a positive correlation between intrinsic religious orientation and perceived EI, and in particular, its subcomponent emotional understanding<br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4JWMT04-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2ad3a55312f560382ddeb324cad1e851<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83591530126760862182010-03-15T21:06:09.850-07:002010-03-15T21:06:09.850-07:00Here is a case among others where evolution theory...Here is a case among others where evolution theory gets revised and a reason why I am not totally sold. Many other scientific theories have been wrong and abandoned but evolution seems special. Why? I want good science and evolution and its faithful followers seem determine to make it work.<br /><br />Am I wrong for being skeptical here?<br /><br /><br />"Shaking Up the Tree of Life<br /><br />Among the study's surprising findings is that the comb jelly split off from other animals and diverged onto its own evolutionary path before the sponge. This finding challenges the traditional view of the base of the tree of life, which honored the lowly sponge as the earliest diverging animal. "This was a complete shocker," says Dunn. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong."<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080410153648.htm<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71783477478665833332010-03-15T20:58:05.109-07:002010-03-15T20:58:05.109-07:00Regina,
Please address the strength of my argumen...Regina,<br /><br />Please address the strength of my argument (scientific laws verses human evolution theory) and not nick pick at the GR stuff. Is EVT a strong scientific theory, why is it revisable, laboratory experiments for species connection etc<br /><br />You're right though I was hinting at a difference between human evolution and evolution.<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23945572820444663462010-03-15T20:50:12.055-07:002010-03-15T20:50:12.055-07:00Tully,
Human evolution is connecting the dots to ...Tully,<br /><br />Human evolution is connecting the dots to form a scientific theory. It more a soft science in terms of how its reaches its conclusions utilizing the rationalization of available data to connect species. Its much different than lets say a scientific law like gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, which really aren’t up for debate anytime soon nor are constantly being revised. <br /><br />Perhaps using GR was not as appropriate to show its strength giving its relies on the law of gravity but I wonder why you didn’t address the second law I mentioned? You cannot possibly think human evolution theory is as strong as the second law? Will you address this? After all my point was the strength of human evolution compared to other more stronger scientific theories and its contentious/revisable nature. Science is revisable but its theories are not. And when scientific theories are revisable they are not good theories. Usually they are abandoned but human evolution seems to be except here and I am not sure why.<br /><br />I do believe evolution is true in a general sense but I am not content with the broad and speculative nature of the connection of species. <br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61193149493004598812010-03-15T19:26:52.494-07:002010-03-15T19:26:52.494-07:00"So if it was a tricky call to make for him, ..."So if it was a tricky call to make for him, we can forgive lesser people for getting it wrong."<br /><br />Curious, how do you define "lesser?"<br /><br />I'll be honest with you, I don't consider you in anyway to be lesser than a dead guy named Popper. <br /><br />But can we all err? Absolutely. Are we all susceptible to pre-existing biases? Without a doubt. <br /><br />Knowing that we all need a way to decide what is really true. I have chosen evidence. That which has successfully explained the past and can accurately predicate the future. <br /><br />What do you base truth on? And I am really curious, why?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69362572412069954172010-03-15T18:34:38.474-07:002010-03-15T18:34:38.474-07:00Paul,
"Of scientists who are strong atheists...Paul,<br /><br />"Of scientists who are strong atheists, can they claim that it is "based on the same methodology that [they] use to determine what is true in [their] scientific inquiries?"<br /><br />Short answer, yes. Long answer, depends on the deity we are talking about. If someone wants to propose the deistic god who doesen't now nor has during the last 13.7B years actively interacted with the natural universe, then no. Scientists don't argue from a scientific perspective (that deity is left to philosophers who, by the way, are also largely atheistic).<br /><br />However, if we are talking about a deity that takes an active part in the natural universe, then yes it is from a scientific perspective that that those gods are falsified. A proposed entity that results in a change in the course of events that would be expected without that entity in the natural universe, is a question for science. Those entities would be at the heart of the majority of theistic belief on the planet today and they have been, beyond any reasonable scientific doubt, falsified.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-54928745534064460022010-03-14T18:59:08.385-07:002010-03-14T18:59:08.385-07:00More on human evolution: Aside from the plentitude...More on human evolution: Aside from the plentitude of fossil evidence, there is the DNA evidence linking us to chimps, Neandertals - and to every other species known on the planet. Phylogenetic trees based on this DNA evidence correlates very strongly to trees based on fossil and anatomical comparisons, which are based on thoroughly different experimental methods. If some supernatural being specially created humans separate from all other species, He/She did it in a way which has the appearance of evolution. CS is way off base to suggest otherwise.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-17737418421214989232010-03-14T17:51:00.875-07:002010-03-14T17:51:00.875-07:00M. Tully: "Biologists on the other hand, have...M. Tully: "<i>Biologists on the other hand, have with viruses, bacteria, Drosophila and more corroborated in the lab those things things that they had observed in the fossil record.</i>"<br /><br />Note that CS specifically runs on about "<b>human</b> evolution," as though there were some reason to believe that evolution of modern <i>Homo sapiens</i> is different from that of all other known species on our planet.<br /><br />CS is wrong in the comparison to physical theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. While there is excellent data supporting both relativity and quantum, and excellent real-world examples of each (relativity is supported by observed gravitational lensing and GPS navigation satellites require relativistic corrections, quantum theory underlies much of modern technology such as lasers and semiconductor electronics) the two have not been completely reconciled, and the discovery of dark energy has put the ultimate accuracy of relativity in question.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there is no scientifically credible competitor to evolution, and no large set of data which would require a different theory.<br /><br />Note that the Wikipedia article on Cro-Magnons classifies them as "<i>early</i> modern humans," clearly related to but with some noticable differences from modern <i>Homo sapiens</i>, and that it cites the DNA study which backs up that classification.<br /><br />Richard Dawkins has a nice chapter on human evolution in his latest book (The Greatest Show on Earth) in which he stresses the gradual change apparent in the fossil record. Several fossil species have been moved back and forth between <i>Homo</i> and its predecessor <i>Australopithecus</i>.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82531663985282473712010-03-14T17:29:07.494-07:002010-03-14T17:29:07.494-07:00Placental mammals arise about 54 million years ago...<i>Placental mammals arise about 54 million years ago.</i><br /><br />I wouldn't say that, although it depends on what you mean by "arose."<br /><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0423_020425_firstmammal.html" rel="nofollow">Earliest Known Ancestor of Placental Mammals Discovered</a><br />125 million years old.<br /><br />The age you mentioned is about when they rose to prominence after the demise of the dinosaurs, but they were tip-toeing around the margins for quite some time.<br /><br />In a similar fashion, modern humans may date to about 200,000 years ago, but they did not poof suddenly into existence. They arose from earlier hominin and primate populations.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81890864599481091012010-03-14T13:07:56.879-07:002010-03-14T13:07:56.879-07:00This post, and most of the comments thereon, are b...This post, and most of the comments thereon, are based on a false dichotomy. It is not true that theists believe X while atheists believe Y. This situation is not nearly so symmetrical. As you know, it would be more accurate to say that theists believe X, Y and Z while atheists believe none of those things. Atheism is not a belief, it is a refusal to believe. Just as "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby, "not believing in gods" is not a belief.<br /><br />But we can go much farther than this. Not only is there no evidence for most religious propositions, there is no evidence that anyone believes them. And if people don't believe them, this neatly explains how people can claim that "belief" in rationality and "belief" in god are compatible. People do believe in rationality (in the weak sense that they find it useful) but they do not believe in gods. Thus, they are not faced with a conflict between two belief systems because they don't have two belief systems, only one.<br /><br />As a philosopher, Matt, you should know that a report of a belief is not the same thing as a belief. People report religious beliefs all the time. This does not prove that they actually have such beliefs. <a href="http://noonebelievesingod.com" rel="nofollow">I think they don't.</a>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.com