evolution discussion with faith

You accept that allele frequencies in populations change over time due to imperfect replication and selection by the environment.That's the ToE in a nutshell.

quote:

---

Expertise is not the same as what they do.

---

I know.Their skill is developing explanations for natural phenomena and then testing the consequences of the explanations.ALL scientists do this, don't you agree?

quote:

---

You are asking the wrong question. The main expertise of a scientist is a deep an thorough knownledge of his discipline, and of tools (such as mathematics) that are useful to the discipline.

---

But then all a scientist is, using this definition, is a knowlegable lab or field tech.

quote:

---

What empirical scientists do, is systematically study some aspect of the world that fits within their specialty. An intense curiousity is part of this systematic study. Their work may involve devising suitable ways of systematizing their study. It may involve devising measurement methods or other methods for gathering data.

​

Explanations of natural phenomena emerge from this kind of study. But I think it is a bit too simple to say that what scientists do is "generate explanations of natural phenomena and test."

---

It is, however, the skill that is common to all scientists, and crucial for the basic work of science.

quote:

---

Sorry Schraf, I don't accept your definitions, formulations or inferences about my attitude, so I can't answer your post. Sorry Schraf, I don't accept your definitions, formulations or inferences about my attitude, so I can't answer your post.

---

So, then can I take from this that do do not accept that the main expertise or skill of all scientists, regardless of the particular area that they study, is to formulate explanations of natural phenomena and then testing the consequences of the explanations?Do you think that some scientists are trained to do this and some are not?

quote:

---

I just believe it's possible to have a big problem with the ToE without thinking scientists are stupid or nuts.

---

But if you think the hundreds of thousands of scientists who study Evolutionary mechanisms, such as Population Geneticists all accept the ToE, and base all of their explanations for natural phenomena on it, are all gravely mistaken, then you are, by definition, claiming that thousands of scientists are in fact very poor at formulating explanations for natural phenomena and testing the consequences of those explanations.Do you think the entire field of Population Genetics is a bogus field, filled with scientists who can't do science?

quote:

---

I have no disrespect at all for Population Genetics but according to you I must have.

---

Well, Population Geneticists are scientists.What scientists in the life sciences do is generate explanations for natural phenomena and then test the consequences of those explanations.If you reject the ToE, then you reject the very premise of Population Genetics.You are saying, in effect,"Hey, you! Population Geneticists! You know all of those explanations for natural phenomena you have generated and tested with the skills you learned in Graduate school, like other scientists?The explanations based upon the premise of the Theory of Evolution being correct? Well, the ToE CAN'T be correct, because I say so, and even though it SEEMS to be correct to you, because your tests of your explanations all seemd to validate it, you are all really wrong about the underpinnings of your entire field of study.You are all such poor developers and testers of explanations you haven't even realized that the ToE, which you have based all of your explanations upon, is totally wrong."This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2006 01:36 PM

This thread is not really to discuss the evidence for evolution.The topic is to discuss if Faith believes that the hundreds of thousands of Biologists, geneticists, etc., are so poor at doing science (which is the process of generating explanations for natural phenomena and then testing the consequences) that very nearly all of them over many decades have been making enormous numbers of grave mistakes which somehow all seem to point in the same erronious direction; that the main explanation of the natural phenomena is the Theory of Evolution.You have said that you do not accept that science consists of using various methods, depending upon the field, to generate explanations of natural phenomena and then testing the consequences of those explanations.Well, if you don't accept this, then what process is it that you think science actually is? If you don't agree with my description, what description are you using?

quote:

---

I believe this has been answered. I believe scientists in general are quite competent at what they do, hypothesizing and testing and so on, and that this is a completely different level of scientific work from the ToE.

---

But Faith, that's just it.It isn't "different".The THEORY of evolution IS the overarching hypothesis that informs every other more "specific" hypothesis in all branches of Biology.It isn't logically consistent for you to say that you believe Evolutionary scientists to be competent at theorizing and testing theories, but then conclude that the overarching theory/hypothesis that they have come up with, that all of their other theories/hypotheses are informed by, is completely wrong.If they have tested the consequences of this explanation, and if they are competent at testing the consequences of this explanation, then how is it that you can conclude that the explanation is wrong from a scientific basis?

quote:

---

I believe they are handicapped by the ToE which they subscribe to,

---

But you just said that you believe that they are competent at testing the consequences of the explanations they generate?Are you saying that the consequences of the explanation known as the ToE have not been tested at all, or are you now saying that scientists are NOT competent at testing it?

quote:

---

in that their thinking can only go in the directions it prescribes, but that this doesn't interfere with the ordinary work of science.

---

The "ordinary work" of Evolutionary science, just as with all other life sciences, is testing the consequences of explanations.Are you saying that the explanation known as the ToE hasn't been tested, or that those testing it are incompetent at testing it?Also, you may not realize it, but you have just implied that all scientists who work with Evolutionary subjects (and apparently, not any who do not) have a bias that makes them ignore evidence contrary to their preferred result. This is considered a serious charge in the scientific world of poor science at the best and fraud at the worst.Is this what you meant to imply?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-11-2006 11:08 AM

quote:

---

Schraf, I'm sorry but I believe I have answered you adequately and I'm sorry if you don't think so. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

---

Well, this is pretty much how I figured this would finish up.First of all, I would like to compliment you on your conduct in this thread. I am really impressed by how positively level-headed and congenial you have remained the entire time. I have enjoyed it very much and it has been a pleasure to debate with you.I am content with having had the conversation, but I unfortunately do not consider that you have ever addressed the issue adequately, or really at all.To sum up my point, I will quote both of us from my last message.

quote:

---

I believe this has been answered. I believe scientists in general are quite competent at what they do, hypothesizing and testing and so on, and that this is a completely different level of scientific work from the ToE.

---

Now, if you believe that these specific points have been addressed in one of the messages of this thread, please point me to the message number, because I do not recall them ever being answered.You have asserted that you do not believe this group of scientists are incompetent at testing theory, but I do not think you have explained how you can hold this opinion at the same time you believe them all to be completely wrong about the major theoretical underpinning to nearly all of the life sciences; the theory that they have been continually testing in a million ways for the last 150 years.Again, thanks for a very enjoyable exchange.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-11-2006 08:03 PM