Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 15:35 (3932 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: Darwin theory obviously does not tell us how evolution causes speciation, but it must have happened.-TONY: This is the difference between certainty and speculation. You say "it must have happened". I say, show me. While that may seem like an unfair challenge, that is the exact same challenge I am faced with when I express my faith in God. I am told to prove that he exists. In fact, this is the same hang up DHW has with believing in something without evidence of it that is tangible. -For the record, I am NOT saying you are wrong, only that we all must adhere to the same standards. If theist must 'prove' god exists, then evolutionist must 'prove' speciation can, and has, occurred to a degree significant enough to explain the diversity we see today, within the proposed timeline for the history of the earth. I don't care much for double standards.-We are back to epistemology. On an absolute level, we know nothing ... which is tantamount to saying that we do not have "proof" or "definitive evidence" for any of our beliefs. If we did, they would be knowledge (absolute), not beliefs (relative). The most we can hope for is a general, intersubjective consensus among those who are aware of the subject. This reduces our "knowledge" to degrees of consensus. I suspect that you, David and I would agree that the Earth goes round the sun, and is round(ish), so we might refer to these as facts or "knowledge". David and I agree that 1) no-one has ever observed any form of life that did not descend from an earlier form, and 2) there is plenty of scientific evidence that a vast variety of complex animal life came about later than simple, unicellular forms of life; therefore, putting 1) and 2) together, we and many others believe that more complex forms of life evolved from earlier, simpler forms. One must always bear in mind that science is not the only means of acquiring "knowledge", but many of us are loath to disregard science if there is a general consensus among scientists. You are right, though: it's still belief and not knowledge, because there is no definitive evidence. And so we should really preface all our remarks by saying "I believe", or "in my opinion". However, I think even you would find it odd to say each time that in your opinion the Earth is round(ish) (although a Flat-Earther will disagree). Similarly, a scientist like David would not naturally say that in his opinion, diverse forms of life evolved from earlier forms, since he and so many other scientists see it as a "given". On the other hand, he recognizes the lack of general consensus concerning the existence of God, and so it would not seem odd to say that in his opinion God exists. It all depends then on the degree of consensus as to how we phrase our beliefs. "Double standards"? I'd say that is a little unfair. It's an epistemological problem rather than an ethical one.-****-David's response - much more succinct than mine! - centres on "starting point decisions". Once again it comes down to the epistemological level on which you wish to discuss these subjects.