Satan’s pride
Homosexuality-obsessed charity blackmailer Stephen Green and his followers mounted the “first-ever organised Christian witness against London’s ‘Gay Pride’” yesterday.
The purpose of our witness was two-fold. Firstly, we had to make clear that even in politically-correct Britain, Christians are still prepared to stand up for their Lord and deplore the sin of Sodom being paraded, in all its obscenity, and with the support of police parading in it in full uniform, through the streets of London. The Bible says: ‘Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.’
says Green, who recently demonstrated that he has no rational basis for this bible belief.
Secondly, I was deeply saddened by the sight of so many men and women celebrating their involvement in a sinful lifestyle characterised by deceit, degradation and death. We just had to reach out in the love of Christ with the message that Jesus died to save sinners like us and like them.
Sadly, all we got back from ‘the gays’ was hatred, expressed in screaming and obscene gestures, and threats of violence – actual violence on those four occasions during our hour of witness. I did not see any tolerance from the supposedly tolerant, nor any respect for the right of free speech. It is as if Satan cannot bear one word of dissent.
You are so right, Stephen.
According to the Independent on Sunday, one of the CV placards read “God gave them (sodomites; lesbians) over to a reprobate mind. Romans 1:28”. This is a rather problematic quote, as it implies that it was God’s will that “they” became homosexuals. In which case, who are CV to protest?
Last year I leafleted asking for rational debate. Not a single person was able to provide it.
Not a single person was able to provide it.
How can you possibly know that?
You’re quite right. But the only way of showing that they could do so was actually to do so. I have no way of knowing whether they actually could or not.
I always thought the “sin of Sodom” was in fact a lack of hospitality. Careful readers will agree.
???
Why does there have to be only one sin of Sodom? We are led to believe they were corrupt through and through. How can they have been corrupt through and through if they had only one sin? Most of us have more than that, and we don’t get destroyed by fire and brimstone.
(Famous last words…)
Who said there is? The CV quote refers to sin in the singular. They should be more specific in their narrow minded condemnation. Otherwise they might get dismissed as idiots.
Facetious? Moi?
Actually, I don’t consider myself to have any sins, thank you. They a false construct of an outdated belief system that I don’t subscribe to. So there. Nyer nyer nyer.
Why, were the gay pride marchers indulging in anal sex in oublic, in the streets of London during the march ?
Did I miss that ?
No one was able to provide you with a rational debate Christopher because, by defintion, there there would need to be a party on your side capable of rational debate – something you have repeatedly proven yourself incapabable of.
religious bigotry is not rational, therefore there is no rational debate to be had.
I attended the Gay Pride march this year and noted the presence of protestors (I admit to jeering at them – exercising my right to free speech!) – there were ten/fifteen protestors compared to 30,000 marchers and thousands more spectators.
also I forgot to say – there were more people of faith actually on the march (I spotted several gay christian groups, a specifically catholic group, jewish and muslim groups, all with banners and floats etc) than there were protesting against it
So is this a service you provide for every group you disagree with – the BNP, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Moslems Catholics, believers in democracy…?
Rational debate is what I (like, presumably, everyone else) favour as the best way of working out consistent views on a given issue.
If it were a service provided by one party, it would fail to be as even-handed and equal as all good debate must be.
Hi Mark-
Bigotry is the same as dogmatism. Both bigotry and dogmatism are characterised by not debating at all. By coming to conclusions before asking questions.
Therefore, you can guarantee that anyone who favours the path of genuine debate is unlikely to be a bigot.
That’s precisely why I was discouraged that no-one took up the offer of debate, because the only ppl who refuse debate are those very same people (call them dogmatists, or -rather rudely- ‘bigots’, or whatever you call them): the ones who come to conclusions before they ask the questions.
But Christopher, your attitude to homosexuals reveals that you are a bigot.
And as I’ve said elsewhere, anybody who believes in such an obviously ludicrous concept as god can’t really say anything about rationality.
more likely, people on a Pride march want to have a good time with their mates and don’t have the time or inclination to sit and chat with you.
however, I have debated homosexuality and gay issues with many people over the years with people arguuing form religious and non-religious points of view. No offence but I seriously doubt that you could come up with anything I haven’t heard many times before.
But Christopher, what debate could there be to be had?
You think what they do with their cocks is wrong, they think you should stop sticking your nose into where they stick their cocks (as it were).
Not much chance for any rational debate there.
Funny what short memories Christians have when it is convenient.
I was amused to see ‘The Rottweiler’ himself grumbling about gay marriage in the very spot in Rome where same sex unions were being blessed in the 16th century, according to Vatican records.
If anyone wants to read an interesting Irish Times article on the Yale academic who researched such unions, you can find it at
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm –
you may be more than slightly suprised!
blimey, stuart, there’s a turnip for the books.
oh, and christopher, in an earlier comments section you state categorically that you are not obsessed with homosexuality. How would you describe the behaviour of someone straight who leaflets a gay pride march asking for a (mass?) debate on gay sex? I think I’d be tempted to describe that person as absessed about it.
there was a great article in the LRB last month about church sanctioned same sex marriage in medievil europe – in england it was commonplace up until the early 19th century
Christopher, what I meant was, do you leaflet other groups with whom you disagree, such as the BNP, believers in democracy, Moslems, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses &c? Do you stand outside Kingdom Halls or synagogues or mosques or pub back rooms rented to the ‘Chesterton Society’ and challenge all comers to ‘rational debate’? Or have you to date chosen to leaflet and invite debate solely at gay events? I think I can hazard a guess at what the answer is going to be…
Hi Mark-
How many times you have ‘heard’ an argument before is irrelevant, if you simply ‘heard’ it without answering it. What is relevant is how many times you have been able to *answer* that argument, ie weigh it against your own and find it wanting according to the same criteria.
Hi Tom-
You mentioned that I had a view on topic A (homosexuality) and the gay-pride marchers had a view on topic B (privacy).
Of what relevance are these two topics to one another? (By all means debate both A and B, but dont confuse the two.)
The appeal to privacy is a classic way of avoiding any debate at all. And often the ppl who avoid debate are the ones who cannot hold their own in a debate.
Hi Joe-
From memory, I have leafleted at two kinds of event: twice re hommosexuality, five or six times re obscenity on stage (Triple-X and Jerry Springer). The times I leaflet, usually giving my own phone number, are precisely the times when I get the feeling people are avoiding debate.
That is a problem I have never had with JWs, BNPs or Muslims. They are only too glad to debate, which makes me at least grateful that they are so upfront and willing to allow their views (negative as those views may be) to be exposed to questioning. No need to leaflet them.
Im not likely to debate with the Chesterton society, if it exists. Chesterton was a great common-sense thinker and a wonderful exponent of rational ‘mere’ Christianity. Wrote like an angel too.
as I said, I have debated these issues many times over the years – I have heard arguments and responded to them.
actually, christopher, your claims not to be obsessed with teh gays was not realted to anything i’d written.
i’m simply taking a categorical statement you’d made and pointing out that your actions contradict your words.
Er, the ‘Chesterton Society’ was actually an oblique reference to the BNP. It’s one of the names the NF used to use to book venues for meetings, the Chesterton in question being their founder A. K. rather than his somewhat better-known cousin.
Mark – go for it. People willing to debate are ppl who are more likely to be relied on for honesty.
I do think that barging in and instigating debate with all and sundry can be unneccessarily aggressive. The only time it is necessary to do so is when ppl appear to be avoiding debate.
Having said that (about leafleting) Im hoping to be at the House of Commons on Monday re the Religious Hatred Bill, & look forward to campaigning on the same side as my humanist sparring partners.
Campaigning on the same side? Hardly. We’d be campaigning so we can be free to criticise the ludicrousness and irratioanlity of religion. You’d be campaigning so you can be free to spread the Christian message of hatred.
Yikes! All you need to do is get a concordance some time, look up the words compassion, forgiveness, mercy, grace, love (and hate/hatred) and see how often they appear in the New Testament.
Do the same with the writings and speeches of David Koresh – he was still a lunatic, sprouting nonsense, who got a lot of people killed.
‘Sprouting nonsense’?
I wondered what that was coming out of his cranium.
Hark brothers & sisters! The words of Christopher Shell PhD (we assume): a man who’s never made a spelling mistake! His arguments are now so transparently outgunned that he has to resort to taking the piss – while others here use it as device to expose him for what he is!
Where does it say in the NT to go out commit genocide against the jews? Nowhere that I can figure, yet his Christians forebears have done it down the ages. Remarkable how he won’t admit that in spite of the 10 commandments, the Christian faith has almost certainly been responsible (either directly or by proxy) for more suffering and death than any other faith in recorded history. Bit rich complaining when Islamic millitants return the favour!
Even now, Christians in Northern Ireland are blowing each other up whenever they get the chance; and Christians are fighting terrorism in the middle east. Seems to me that the secular states (like France) were rather keen to distance themselve from Bush and Blair’s Christian alliance.
In spite of all the sinning, rape, murder, debauchery etc., his own so-called saviour has failed repeatedly to make a single confirmed re-appearance in the last two millenia. Dead people stay dead, Chris! When are you people going to accept the difference between a quaint collection of moral stories and hard facts?
Better still, since you take the NT at face value, why don’t a bunch of us meet up and see how often we can kick you in the nuts while you invite us to do it more – or is that offer limited to a cheek slapping? How long will it be before you offer the shirt from your back to us when we tear off your coat? Didn’t Mathew have something to say about that?
Mind you, the same guy also relates one of the flat-earth stories: ” Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, ‘All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.'”
For someone living and recording 1900+ years ago, this passage must have made perfect sense – because they thought the Earth was flat. Nevertheless, in spite of Jesus supposedly being “son of god” he was apparently unaware of this. I would have thought the shape of the Earth was a pretty basic creation 101.
Gulp! Sounds like I must be a very violent type, what with all my ‘genocides, sinning, murder, rape, debauchery’.
How appropriate, therefore, to receive correction from someone of whom it may safely be said that violent and aggressive language (such as, for example, ‘you *****ing ***********, what wouldnt I give to kick you in the *****ing *********’) has never departed his lips.
Sorry to be so utterly beastly – now to business:
Everybody has always known that there is no mountain on earth from which one can see all the kingdoms of the earth. Least of all in ‘the wilderness’ of Judea. Where Jesus remained throughout the 40 days. Sounds more like a vision or hallucination to me – which one might expect during 40 days’ fasting.
Matthew is in any case embellishing Mark here: the 3 temptations correspond to 3 episodes on Israel’s wilderness wanderings, in order. In Matthew’s presentation, Jesus ‘fulfils’ the history of Israel, while also demonstrating himself to be a new and better Moses.
Excuses, excuses Shell! How quaint of you to villify my use of language when you use sarcasm at every available juncture. You cannot deny your ancestor’s bloody history any more than the holecaust can be denied. Green, his cronies and defenders (of which I assume you are one) are still bigots hiding behind a wall of religious freedom.
There can be no debate on homosexuality, because if (as you claim) God made us all – then he made the queers too; along with the paedophiles, murderers, thieves etc. Judge not, lest thee be judged.
The bible alludes to flat earth again in Revelation: “After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.” Revelations 7
Another vision? Another hallucination? Another bad dream or more crude invention intended to scare the [expletive deleted] out of the populace.
According to my astronomy references, ideas such as a spherical earth were not around in that part of the world until hundreds of years later; in fact, at the time those people still thought the sun revolved around the earth and did indeed believe the Earth to be flat.
So, who held back ideas about a spherical earth and heliocentric orbits: well, knock me over with a feather – the Christian church. And why did it do that? Well blow me down, it was because their book said the earth was flat!
You need to get things into context, Chris, or no one is going to take you seriously. Anyone who doubts the continued veracity of the arguments against real science could be amused by this:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/galhrsy.htm
Which opens thusly:
“Now that the traditional teaching of the Church about Creation and a literal reading of Genesis is being vindicated with the downfall of Darwinism, so also the traditional teaching about the structure of the universe is being admitted in various ways…”
Beg pardon! Downfall of what? Darwinism has never been more in such great shape! I just hope someone is around to care for this deluded author when it all turns to dust.
Well – let’s suppose for a moment that God made everybody. Does that include (to use one of your examples) paedophiles? No – because at the moment they come into existence they are not (yet) paedophiles. How could they be!! :o) The very idea is grotesque.
People enter into some of these categories through personal choice, personal weakness, psychological and environmental factors. For all we know, genetic predisposition may often play a part too. But none of us is at the mercy of our genetic predisposition, otherwise we would be spending a lot of time behaving like animals.
What did Ptolemy believe about the universe? I thought he pre-empted Copernicus by many centuries.
So far as I know (and I am by no means an expert) the version of evolution theory propagated by Darwin (involving gradual change and modification) is out of favour for lack of evidence, and people are moving towards a ‘punctuated equilibrium’ theory involving somewhat more sudden and striking changes – which well illustrates (as opposed to adequately explaining) the state of the evidence.
For all we know, Christopher, your paedophile may have a genetic predisposition towards kiddies, it just mightn’t surface until they begin to be sexually active/aroused at the same time as non-paedophiles. Therefore, were there a god, then it would’ve created the paedophiles.
You might as well say that your god didn’t create people who get breast cancer because that rarely occurs in anyone who isn’t elderly or late-middle-aged, yet the propensity to breast cancer is there in the vasst majority of sufferers.
Onto Darwinism: although the specifics of his theory have been shown to be probably incorrect, the general (and very important) principle that he established (namely that we are constantly producing slight changes, and those that are beneficial remain because it makes the animal with those changes fitter than before (survival of the fittest and all that), and that we are all evolved from the same ancestors) is constantly being reinforced, especially through genetic research and other forms of microbiology. Marc’s general comment is fundamentally correct.
Oh dear, you are a fatalist! Que sera sera. One would almost think we were robots, not thinking, choosing bneings with a will of our own.
Re Darwinism: I was under the impression that people are finding it difficult to identify beneficial mutations that add information (ie increase complexity), since those beneficial ones that one does find are in the habit of reducing information and thus decreasing complexity, the opposite from what Darwinian theory would demand. Whereas for Darwinism to be true one would need billions of instances of additions of information / complexity. But I dont speak as a biologist: would you know if there is any truth in this?
As far as I can see, most things seem to be a combination of nature and nurture. One person mistreated as a child will grow up to be shy and scared, another will grow up a bully perpetuating the cycle of mistreatment. Why does one go one way and the other another? Who knows? It would be unethical to do a study where children were deliberately mistreated, so we’ll probably never know f’sho.
Regarding Darwininsm, I’m afraid that that’s very wrong indeed. Firstly, Darwin’s theories wouldn’t necessarily require increased complexity, just increased survivability (to coin a very horrible word).
For example, it may be beneficial in terms of the amount of energy needed for a baby to grow within the womb (and thus the aomunt of food the mother needs to eat for baby to grow and thrive) for it to have one less biological system, such as ear muscles, which don’t help us. A creature that cannot twist its ears to better hear where something is coming from may have decreased survivability, but may be more likely to be a live birth, and these competing forces will determine which of the two variants survives in the long run. That ‘s quite a facile example, but a relevant and easily visible one, since some of us humans can waggle our ears with impunity, whereas others of us can’t. This suggests that it’s not a great advantage or a great disadvantage, which is why the mutation has survived but not completely taken over.
There are loads (which is the technical term) of examples where mutations have increased the complexity of a biological system. A quick example would be the incredibly intricate and complex blood clotting system. Russell Doolittle has shown how the enzymes (one of which was originally primarily a digestive enzyme) were duplicated, mutated in replication, and how this was repeated, with the end result (so far) being a sophisticated feedback mechanism that can allow for rapid blood clotting, but also to prevent it going too far and clotting our entire body’s blood supply each time we get a cut. This cascade system is far more complex than a single enzyme would have been. There probably are foetuses that have a mutation that means the feedback mechanism is mising or the stimulus requirement is not there that die almost as soon as they get to a reasonable size because their blood just clots out of nowhere. This mutation (and it would probably need to be the combination of a few other mutations that had no great negative impact and so survived, coupled with one of their own that topped it all off) would, quite clearly, not survive.
The problem that most arguments against evolution have is that they tend to assume that there’s only one mutation that was possible or that you have to see immediate results.
In fact, we’re all mutants, with slight errors in the copying of our DNA each time. In many cases, this has no effect (the errors may be in the non-coding (‘junk’) DNA that makes up a goodly proprportion of our DNA, or they may just be point mutations that don’t change what the triplet* codes for), in some cases, such as sickle-cell anaemia, it has an effect that is potentially positive in some climates (where malaria is rife) but is disastrous in others (where it isn’t).
Regardless of whether or not a mutation is benficial, at breeding it has a chance of being lost, especially if there are few offspring per breed and few breeding rounds. The only way a beneficial mutation survives is if it makes the creature with that mutation more desirable to members of the opposite sex, so it could be a mutation in the gland that regulates production of growth hormone, that results in the animal being a little bigger than the others, this advantage would typically lead to it being more able to snag all the nookie (or at least more of it than the other animals), so it would be more likely to be passed on, or, like sickle-cell anaemia (or having a slightly improved blood clotting mechanism), it could be a mutation that means you’re less likely to die of malaria, so you may be the only one around left to breed with.
*DNA has, as its’ coding part, 4 bases, A, T, G & C. These run in seemingly random strings that read like ATTGACCCTACGTACGT and so on. To produce a protein, DNA is copied into RNA (which is like DNA, but single-stranded. This is then read and made into proteins. The enzymes that ‘read’ the RNA do so in triplets, 3 bases at a time. 3 bases will code for a single amino acid, then it moves to the next 3 bases and attaches the next amino acid and so on, until there is a chain of amino acids (well, I say a chain; it’s actually all folded up, like a necklace that’s just come out of a draw). This is know as a protein.
There are 20 amino acids, but, as you will have deuced, there are 64 possible triplets (4 cubed). This means that many amino acids are coded for by more than one triplet, so a point mutation doesn’t have to make a difference.
I must apologise for the incredibly long post, but this is an incredibly complex subject
No – that’s exactly what I like. Good specific information like that increases understanding – dont ever try to simplify complex subjects.
I so agree with you that both nature and nurture must almost always play a part. How could they not? (The problem lies in assigning this or that to either nature or nurture or a combination.)
Darwin’s theories would require an overall megatrend of increased complexity in some ways, I would have thought – e.g. brains. In the sense that one couldnt begin the evolutionary process with a human-level brain.
You’re correct in that they would require more complexity where increased intelligence is a bonus, but less complexity where eg extraneous limbs are a disadvantage.
All in all, though, most animals are really rather complex, which would seem to show that just that is happening.
Advantageous mutations do often seem to be something new (hence we’re not just variations of single-celled organisms), but there are plenty of examples where it would be something less (which is why we don’t have a swim bladder), even though that might seem like a thoroughly disadvantageous mutation at first.
Interesting – the trouble is that because I havent got an overall grasp of the subject, I cant always necessarily ask intelligent questions. One of the other things that has puzzled me is that for almost any mechanism/bodypart to evolve an awful lot of extremely intricate and complex things would need to come together more or less simultaneously. Is that the wrong way of looking at it?
The way I’ve heard that explained is that some bodyparts originally evolve for different reasons, and are then adapted. ie. the blowhole of whales would have originally evolved as nostrils on the top of the head a-la hippos.
Tom might be able to give a better example and explanation.
Christopher – no question is stupid, not even yours (arf!).
Seriously, though, I know what you’re saying. It’s the theory of irreducible complexity, first put in such terms by Michael J Behe, a propnent of the ‘Intelligent Design’ theory (which is, ironically, a rather stupid theory for a scientist, since it didn’t even tally with the existing evidence at the time he came up with it).
Andrew’s example is a very good one, as is the aforementioned blood clotting mechanism (which tallies with Andrew’s blow-hole/nostril example), or even the human eye.
A typical irreducible complexity argument against evolution would point out that half an eye is no good at all. However, primitive light-sensitive molecules could help a creature to see if it was about to bump into something (which may or may not be threatening), if the brightness suddenly changed, say. Assuming that this creature would be aquatic Also it could be useful in keeping this creature away from too much light at the surface (where, without the atmosphere we have now, it could be exposed to harmful amounts of UV radiation). This could then develop to become more sensitive and more sophisticated until you reach the stage that goldfish are at, where they can see the full visible (to humans) spectrum, and UV & infra-red too!
An example put forward by Behe was a bacterial flagellum, a little motor that twists around propelling the bacterium. He said that no part of this was useful without others. However, a significant part of this appears like a spike that certain bacteria use to inject with. It would naturally be an advantage to have a larger spike, so that you can inject from further away and get more prey. A large spike with a little mutation could then wiggle, allowing some controlled movement of the spike (like a dalek’s plunger), again allowing for better stabbing, ‘cos the angle wouldn’t need to be so right. Another few beneficial mutations and it could become a flagellum, allowing yer bacterium to move around, injecting with impunity. Of course, at the same time as the beneficial mutations, there would be far more harmful or neutral mutations, but because of the advantage conferred upon the lucky bacterium by the beneficial mutation, that would after a few generations most likely wipe out the other bacteria, either through taking them as prey or through having a better competetive edge when it comes to getting the food source.
I brought up the flagellum, because it is analogous to a human limb. Also, bacteria are great examples for studying, because their DNA replication mechanism isn’t as sophisticated as ours, so they get more mutations per replication than we would. Also, they reproduce a lot quicker than us (as fast as every twenty minutes in an ideal medium).
Does this answer your question?
Christopher, the talk origins website answers a lot of queries and misconceptions about evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
That is all very helpful. At the present stage I am not sufficiently learned in this area to judge the weight of your points, and therefore have to rely on those (professional/informed biologists) who are. Thus, if Tom says something, that is worth more than it would be if a non-informed biologist said it. That is about all I have to go on.
A more general point: Normally in life we shun the dogmatic and embrace the open-minded. Now, there are 2 ways in which evolutionists can sometimes come across as dogmatic (and therefore opposed, in practice, to proper presuppositionless scholarship):
(a) They don’t believe in evolution as opposed to something else: rather, their presuppositions allow no other alternative in the first place. They believe in evolution by default. This brings 2 dangers: (i) unexamined presuppositions and (ii) circularity.
(b) They rely on the hypothesis method rather than the empirical method. In other words, there is a danger that evolution will win adherents partly by virtue of being the prevailing paradigm. But holding to a paradigm means imposing an entire worldview lock stock and barrel. Whereas the strictly empirical approach could more usefully show us what proportion of the data pointed to evolution (or Darwinian evolution, or whatever) and what proportion didnt.
This would not only allow people to see things with a fresh eye, unclouded by any imposed theory, but would also retain open-mindedness, which is all-important.
Accepting evolution is not a matter of belief Christopher.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for it.
I had a look at the link that Mark C provided last night, and it’s comprehensive and useful. Memory serves, it points to a number of pieces of evidence for evolution. Even if my memory fails me, I can categorically say that there are examples of evolution that have been observed and recorded by scientists, some in repeatable experiments.
The problem here, Christopher, is that you’re judging science and rationalists by the standards of religion and the religious. All scientific findings are written up and the method of the experiment(s) given in great detail. These articles are then peer-reviewed prior to publishing.
Post-publishing other scientists will usually attempt to replicate the experiments (especially if they are revolutionary or important in apparently confirming a (part of a) theory). If the experiment cannot be replicated, then they will write to the journal concerned saying that they could not replicate the results acheived by the authors of the paper. This will, in turn, stimulate others to attempt it and we’ll have many experiments in many different locations taking place to see if this is genuinely possible or was a freak occurence, possibly caused by equipment or scientist error to make it appear as though it had happened. A great example of this is the so-called coffee jar cold fusion from about 10-15 years ago. A couple of researchers though that they’d managed to get the holy grail of energy – Nuclear Power with no waste (or at least less waste than the original amount of nuclear material). They published their paper, and their colleagues/rivals around the workld began attempting to replicate the experiemnt. Nobody could. It was shown that there were serious errors in their work on this experiment.
Because of this, propnents of evolution cannot be dismissed as mere ‘believers’ in it. We have reliable evidence that it occurs. Also, the people who have shown it to happen have told us exactly how we can check this for ourselves. And other people, people who may well hate them and wish to ruin them by showing them to be charlatans, have done just this. And they found it to happen.
All scientific theories are published and discussed, dissected and reassessed, and evidence sought for and against (this is what most experiments are – an attempt by someone to see if their idea of how something works is correct. If it isn’t, then they’ll try another method, and another and another).
A theory, no matter how much evidence appears to back it up, is never technically considered a fact (despite the use of the word on the talkorigins site), because more sophisticated measuring in future may show it to be slightly incorrect (e.g. Newtonian gravity – pretty much right on a planetary scale, but way out on an atomic and subatomic scales). This is why the Darwinian model of evolution has been refined as the general understanding, because it has been regularly and routinely challenged by people looking to see where it’s correct or not.
The world of science is all about challenging the current understanding and breaking down the boundaries of our knowledge, not about blindly accepting things. If people want to accept things because of the credentials of others, and thus accept that they’re likely to be correct becasue they’ve studied this, then that’s one way of being. Personally, I never accept status as being a reason for accepting claims at face value.
I can certainly reccomend, Christopher, that you read the link that Mark C gave, then if you desire further evidence, search Medline (I gave the link in a recent comments section) for specific authors or subjects. It’s not a biased engine, it is simply like google but for life-sciences journals. Most papers will have only the abstract free of charge, but if you’re particularly interested in one, you can get a copy from the british library, usually, or direct from the publishers (each method will cost a few quid).
If you remain unconvinced by the evidence presented therein, you can attempt to replicate their experiments to see if it’s correct. This won’t be particularly cheap, but then you can’t put a price on knowledge, and it’s all there for you.
If, of course, upon conducting the experiments, you feel there’s a problem with their methods, you can write to the journals and give your findings. You may even want to do further experiments which will show precisely that something else is correct. The only problem with this, is that the 2 prevailing rivals to evolution (creation and intelligent design) simply cannot be shown to be true by scientific method, because they are negative theories, saying that we cannot know, and you cannot prove a negative. You could, though, disprove all the current evidence for evolution, leaving us with only a theory.
Nobody’s asking you to use blind faith, Christopher, we’re merely suggesting useful directions for your gaze to fall upon. It’s not dogma, it’s free thought, free will and human intelligence.
Christopher, another problem is that creationists (particularly american ones) consistently take quotes out of context and twist evidence to suggest that an element of uncertainty over some minutiae of the development of a particular animal or species is a damning indictment of evolution and proof that it’s all flawed and that there has to have been a creator.
This hostile, dogmatic and downright dishonest behaviour leads evolutionary scientists to temper their words and be more forthright in their defence of certain theories than they otherwise would be.
It’s a poisoned climate that is no good for anyone.
Well (although I am no expert) I agree that the point is not so much whether it works on the small scale (since it is entirely to be expected that there will be anomalous bits of evidence), but more whether it works on the large scale. It’s only if the anomalous bits of evidence become proportionally too many that the small-scale comes into play.
The classic creationist mis-quote is the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics where they miss the “in a closed system” clause.
Mis-information and lies is another common tactic, the most commonly spread story is that Darwin renounced evolution on his death bed, which is, of course, completely false. And of course even if he had, it wouldn’t take away from the scientific validity of evolution.
Your longer comment gives a useful summary of how theories come to be accepted. We both agree: The more checks and balances the better (though bear in mind that Darwinian evolution was bound to receive such intense checking merely by virtue of being the prevailing hypothesis). In that spirit, may I propose a couple more considerations that will help with checking and balancing:
(1) Im not sure that the point about evolution being seen by many scientists as the only viable alternative has been addressed. One can often show that theory A works tolerably well if theory A is the only game in town. But the type of weighing and testing which I have been arguing for for some time considers the mere presentation of positive evidence in favour of a theory to be an inadequate method. Rather, what has to be shown is that the theory ‘scores’ better than alternative theories as regards Criterion A, Criterion B, Criterion C and so on. Thus there is never a time when only one theory is in view. No theory gets the chance to be a ‘default’ theory, because, once it does, it is impossible for it to be properly evaluated, or proportionally ‘weighed’ against other theories.
For one can’t measure how ‘good’ a theory’s good points are in a vacuum. It is only possible to try to measure how much ‘better’ (or ‘worse’) they are than those of any other given theory, with regard to each criterion in turn.
(2) The intelligent design argument is not merely a negative way of saying ‘not-evolution’. It can also be a way of introducing the entirely reasonable possibility that our origins cannot be fully explained in terms of the closed system of this planet, or (conceivably) of this universe. We may be a second-order or third-order part of reality, rather than first-order. We have no reason to assume that the buck stops with us, and the world that we know.
Science progresses partly because it is a closed system; but to say that the laws of the universe ‘must be’ a closed system is to leave the realm of proper open-minded scientific enquiry and enter that of dogma.
We also have to consider the possibility that the universe(s) is/are (with apologies to Haldane, was it?) queerer than we can conceive. And – I would add – that its workings are vaster than we can conceive. Of course, they may not be. But we can’t pretend that we know that they are not.