Strawman Beware!!!

Strawman Argument
(np) 1. Stating a misrepresented version of an opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to knock down. A common, but deprecated, mode of argument.


Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification.

There are NO alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some people point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

It's a fact that birds exist, because a lizard used it's free will to grow wings. I believe that, I honestly do!

No free will involved, it is a natural process of survival. For some reason a mutation happened and it served the organism well and it survived in the genes. It is a hit and miss process. A mutation happens caused by whatever influence that caused it/or several influences that caused it and the organism flourished because of the change and it continued. There is no free will with evolution. Not until we can successfully alter dna, to get desired results in future generations, which we are getting closer to this option everyday and then it will be free will for us.

It's magic. Got it.

No magic, more similar to natural selection, what works survives what doesn't doesn't. It is very logical and straightforward, not too ambiguous.

I found this point of of view... written by others in the scientific community... copied and pasted it for convenience and preservation of my own words, which could not possibly match my own feelings on this matter as much as these do.

It is those in this world who have such an old idealogical fingerprint embedded so deeply into their person that true contemplation of evidence cannot even BEGIN, let alone be understood and accepted... Yet they have NO answer to the contrary... except sometimes a completely illogical, irrational, not to mention impossible view which is partially based on folklore.

I already told you, I got it. It's magic.

Magic Lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF7I6G8zAiE
DAVID PATON
BILL LYALL
(As recorded by Pilot)

Oh, ho, ho it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so
It's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so.

Never been awake
Never seen a day break
Leaning on my pillow in the morning...

Lazy day in bed
Music in my head
Crazy music playing in the morning... light.

Oh, ho, ho it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so
It's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so.

I love my sunny day
Dream of far away
Dreaming on my pillow in the morning...

Never been awake
Never seen a day break
Leaning on my pillow in the morning... light.

Oh, ho, ho it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so
It's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so.

Oh, ho, ho it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so
It's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so.

It is just that if they entertain another prospective theory at all, it is a major sin. So they defend to the point of ridiculous and use terminology of "it just is, god just is, incest just is, etc.....I believe that is what is meant with above quote.

In spiders' thread on evolution, I posted an extensive listing of fossil records which, for all intents and purposes, support evolution to the point of being overwhelming. All of which he laughs in the face of...

Need I say more?

yes, he should laugh.. LOL i laugh as well, Fossil records prove that we were apes? How about evolved humans? What abouot evolved apes? Creativesoul, you can call yourself a athiest and relate your self to an ape, ill stick with God and call my self a human.

And why should i take someone seriously who, relates someones God as a strawman? Almost like middles-school drama

sob...whimper...the guy I make fun of in every post didn't take my fossils seriously! How dare he insinuate that fossils don't prove evolution! Just because we don't know if any of the fossils had children or that the children were different from the parents doesn't mean we aren't right. We can assume!



Dude, without the assumption that evolution exists, all fossils are is proof that something died.

Hey i want wings!


::Grows them and flys away::

is evolution the new illegal immigration

adj nope cause I haven't even got on my soap box yet

I give up, seems too many evolutionists here are anti creationists and vice versa. Where's the middle ground? Why can't it be both? You don't have to believe in creationism, but it's unfair to knock those who do, and these threads are heart breaking to me as someone who believes in both;^[

Turtle, sorry for the disappointment. Maybe you are a special breed, oh no, evolution in progress here....LOL

It amazes me... absolutely amazes me...

Why don't all of you who have just made assumptions concerning my intent and my character just kick back and tell me who I am?

I have presented well documented scientific evidence for holding value in this singular 'aspect' of my 'belief system'. It was very little compared to what IS available as evidence to support evolution.

Evolution does not affect my belief system one iota... whether it is, or whether it is not... in fact... the way it is and always was.

It is good that I have evolved myself, lest I would tempted to engage in such juvenile antics.

I judge not another... and know that value is in each one of us.





As I stated earlier:


In the truest of senses... I believe one 'conforms' unto his/her own idealogical exposure, whether out of need or out of convenience, or both, which may or may not agree with another's.

The separate and individual uniqueness of this world's fingerprint upon one shapes his/her world according to the 'agreements' made within each individual.

We are all... each... a law unto ourselves... incorruptably so, without one's own recognition of themself.

My 'God' owns more than one taxi-cab...

You know, the absolute purest beauty of what 'Christianity' brought to my life was the beginning of my own self-recognition... the salvation from the fingerprint of the world... although not completely understood as such at the time...

Until one quits searching for 'inner peace' by looking outward, and at the source of the fingerprint, through the fingerprint, it will always be incorruptable... if there is such a thing as enemy my friend, one is his own worst, when one does not recognize themself, and that which steals one from the 'Spirit' that lives within each of us...



Something I would like to share with those who have displayed the 'need' to falsely accuse me by bearing false witness...



Say what you mean, and mean what you say; make your words impeccable...

Never assume anything about another... simply ask

Take nothing personally...

Always do your best, which will inevitably vary in measure from day to day...


May each and every one of us find an enduring inner peace...

Just like 'teenage' acne,

the 'bible-inerrancy-presuppositionalist-apologetic-fundies'

... keep 'popping-up' with their obsessive-compulsive 'in their face' pimples !!!

No one can get rid of teenage acne, it's a fact of the chemical change reality of growing up.

It's the same with 'fundies'.

An absolute and unconditional obessive and compulsive attitude, is a fact of the 'fundie' reality.

There is no use applying reason, rationality or 'hard facts' to any questions raised by a 'fundie', unless it supports the only 'presupposed' answer they are already 'programmed' t accept : 'the bible is absolutely right - anything which might hint at the bible being wrong MUST BE SUPPRESSED!'.

The 'puzzle' analogy helps draw a picture of the 'presuppositional-apologetic-bible-inerrancy-obsessive-compulsive' condition.

Imagine a group of people around a table covered with pieces of a puzzle. Not one person around the table knows what the end-state of the puzzle is.

Some start assembling pieces, others keep their arms crossed and claim they won't 'play' until they be shown a picture of end-state.
The crossed-armed folks further claim that it is a waste of time, that the puzzle is 'nothing', since they can't understand what it might be, '... it is just an empty space: nothing!'. They can't fathom that the puzzle is already complete in its emerging form, before 'assembled state'.

As the picture takes shape, some of the player start 'imagining' and speaking what it might be.

The cross-armed folks start calling the early discoverers 'heretics'. Their focus is still on the empty space, which leaves no room for anyting else to emerge.

Finally, just a few pieces reamain to be connected, to complete the puzzle. Most every player has long figured out the 'end state' of the puzzle. Not so for the 'cross-armed' player. 'there are three pieces missing!!! would claim the 'fundie'. 'This is inconclusive. Any of those three pieces could change the whole picture. I still think it is nothing, and I INSIST!!!'.

DNA and Phylogentics are some of the 'last' group of pieces being assembled, giving the puzzle its obvious and 'most probable' conclusive state.

But as expected, the 'cross-armed-fundies' are focusing all their 'presupposed-bible-inerrancy' attention on the 'three' missing pieces, rather then the 90% completed parts, which they perceive as the 'evil' contradictory evidence, disturbing the order of their bible story.

'Evolution: prove me wrong!' doesn't contitute an honest debate. It is certainly not an open-minded invitation to forward anything.

It is nothing other than a non-negotiable fundie 'presupposition' provocation, looking for a 'boxing arena' to practice its 'apologetics' 'suppress the opposition' antics!!!

Really guys, READ 'CERVANTES', 'DON QUICHOTTE'!!! It may not change anything about your condition on the long term, but at least, you'd be 'presupposing' while reading, instead of 'presupposing' keying at JSH!!!