I believe in evolution because there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Not just because my brain whats to believe in something. This is just another religious person trying and failing to use 'science' to disprove evolution.

You didn't listen very closely. Sorry.>> ^E-Palmer:

I believe in evolution because there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Not just my brain whats to believe in something. This is just another religious person trying and failing to use 'science' the disprove evolution.

I did listen. Belief in a god is not the same a belief in evolution. People believe in evolution because it's been documented and studied and proven true, that's NOT why people believe in a god. They're not on the same level.

>> ^silvercord:

You didn't listen very closely. Sorry.>> ^E-Palmer:
I believe in evolution because there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Not just my brain whats to believe in something. This is just another religious person trying and failing to use 'science' the disprove evolution.

Also, that whole thing at the end about if you explain things too much it become transparent and invisible is complete bull. Just because you can understand something completely doesn't make it invisible or less notable. Just because you know what a flower is made of, how it grows and how it pollinates, doesn't make it any less beautiful.

ok

>> ^E-Palmer:

I did listen.
>> ^silvercord:
You didn't listen very closely. Sorry.>> ^E-Palmer:
I believe in evolution because there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Not just my brain whats to believe in something. This is just another religious person trying and failing to use 'science' the disprove evolution.

Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?

I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.

I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.

>> ^PalmliX:

Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

*length=6:50

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:50 - length declared by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.

Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?

Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.

I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Moving this video to silvercord's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.

As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.

I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

>> ^PalmliX:

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.
Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.
As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?
Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.
I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:
Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

You can't apply the scientific method to evolution!?!? How exactly do you think the theory has come to exist? Without the scientific method there would be no theory of evoloution.

Of course the scientific method is in the hands of imperfect human beings, we created it, who else's hands would it be in? Yes humans are imperfect and that can sometimes lead to bad science, but the answer to bad science isn't no science, it's more science.

Should we just give up on science all together because humans aren't perfect? How else do you suggest we separate fact from fantasy? Truth from fiction? I really find your philosophy troubling because it seems to suggest that since we can't know everything, right away, perfectly, that we might as well not try?

Also I really don't care about some inane argument Dawkins made that has now been refuted. As I've said before, he's just one man and at the end of the day his opinions really don't matter, his thoughts on evolution in no way change the facts of evolution or the validity of the scientific method in general.

It's a silly semantic game that you play when you say 'I didn't hear Keller say there is or isn't a god, or evolution is bunk' etc... Yes he didn't use those exact words but the larger issue at hand is the same and you know it!

Finally, evolution isn't falsifiable? I stopped taking science after grade 10 and I can already think of a couple ways evolution could be falsified. For example, if we found an organism that couldn't have been formed from the evolutionary process, or if we found the fossil of an animal that existed in a time that would have been impossible by evolutionary predictions. I'm sure biologists have come up with a lot more.

>> ^silvercord:

In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.
As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.
I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

Wow. I'm not here to argue whether or not evolution is true or not; thought I was clear about that. You're welcome to it over at talkorigins.org I, for one, don't think evolution is falsifiable since it isn't reproducible. I didn't say it didn't happen. Just that it isn't falsifiable. I can find evolutionists who both disagree with me and agree with me. It's just my position. Since the scientific method requires experimentation to prove the theory, well, I think there is a problem there. You don't. OK. I'm good with that. >> ^PalmliX:

You can't apply the scientific method to evolution!?!? How exactly do you think the theory has come to exist? Without the scientific method there would be no theory of evoloution.
Of course the scientific method is in the hands of imperfect human beings, we created it, who else's hands would it be in? Yes humans are imperfect and that can sometimes lead to bad science, but the answer to bad science isn't no science, it's more science.
Should we just give up on science all together because humans aren't perfect? How else do you suggest we separate fact from fantasy? Truth from fiction? I really find your philosophy troubling because it seems to suggest that since we can't know everything, right away, perfectly, that we might as well not try?
Also I really don't care about some inane argument Dawkins made that has now been refuted. As I've said before, he's just one man and at the end of the day his opinions really don't matter, his thoughts on evolution in no way change the facts of evolution or the validity of the scientific method in general.
It's a silly semantic game that you play when you say 'I didn't hear Keller say there is or isn't a god, or evolution is bunk' etc... Yes he didn't use those exact words but the larger issue at hand is the same and you know it!
Finally, evolution isn't falsifiable? I stopped taking science after grade 10 and I can already think of a couple ways evolution could be falsified. For example, if we found an organism that couldn't have been formed from the evolutionary process, or if we found the fossil of an animal that existed in a time that would have been impossible by evolutionary predictions. I'm sure biologists have come up with a lot more.
>> ^silvercord:
In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.
As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.
I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.