Advocating Reality

Evolution is often decried as 'theoretical' because the term 'theory' is attached to it.   Scientists use the word 'Theory' in a very different way than other people do.  It is much more similar to a mathematical 'Theorem' than it is to the traditional use of the word 'theory'. Hopefully you remember high school geometry, but in case you don't, here is a refresher on the Pythagorean Theorem: On any right triangle (a triangle with one 90 degree angle) the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and this is reflected in the formula a² + b² = c². No matter what, each and every right triangle abides by this theorem.  Every time it has been tested, it has given the correct result.  The theorem would be easily falsified (proven wrong) if a single right triangle was found that did not exhibit the dimensions predicted by the theorem.  Of course, this is entirely unlikely, if not impossible, so ...

I wrote this some time ago and never published it. It's pretty simple but I hope that it helps to get the point across. How We Evaluate Claims When we are presented with a particular claim, regardless of the content, we go through a process to determine whether or not the claim is true. If we can find nothing with which to justify the claim, we can simply stop there. There is no need to accept a claim which has not been positively justified. We certainly can go on to search for disconfirming evidence, something which would show that the claim is not true; however by this point it isn’t necessary to do so in order to reject the claim’s truthfulness. However, time and time again, we see and hear people making the argument that ‘you can’t prove that it’s NOT true’. We don’t have to. It is never reasonable to accept a claim based on the non-existence of disconfirming evidence alone. Bertrand Russell demonstrates why this is so with his teapot analogy. For example, it may be that ‘...

If, for the moment, we accept the Creationist argument that our scientific observations regarding the age of the Earth are off by a scale of about 1:750,000 (6,000 years versus 4.5 billion), then it logically follows that our method should be proportionally ‘off’ by about the same amount.  We should be able to recalculate our findings accordingly and, on paper, this should match up our findings to be closer to the Creationist claims.   I am basing these calculations on an ending point of 8/1/2014 at 8:00 AM (the date that I originally wrote this article). So, for instance, the claim is that the Earth was created on or around 4,000 BCE, compared to the scientific view of the Earth forming about 4.5 billion years ago.  We will now synchronize our Scientific chronology to this timetable and see what happens. Just for contrast, according to Science, in 4000 BCE the wooden plow is being used in central Europe. Agriculture has spread to what today is Britain and Irela...

As a result of an online debate with a wonderful fellow (whom I happen to have once had as a pastor, in fact), I will be reading Josh McDowell's best-selling book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith".  I will be taking liberal notes, and upon completion I will create and upload a YouTube video review of the book.  Also, just in case anyone cares, I will be purchasing this book rather than borrowing it from one of my many Christian family members (who very likely would be more than happy to provide one), mainly because I'm probably going to take notes in the sidebar.  To maintain my own personal philosophy, I will be purchasing the book at a 'Half-Price Books' or other used book store to ensure little or no royalties will go toward encouraging this sort of behavior (heh). For his part, my counterpart will be reading "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, and making a similar review afterward (wh...

Hey everyone, we've finally got Episode #2 finished up!  I think that it turned out well, and we definitely learned a great deal in the process.  Please comment and let us know what you like, what you don't like, etc. Advocating Reality Podcast #2 - Evidence-Based Thinking Thanks! Edit:  I've created an MP3 version of the podcast, I don't want to use the Blogger video module any more.

I often question myself when I argue with religious people and other believers in the supernatural - not necessarily my own position, but the manner in which I assert it.  It has been pointed out to me that I tend to be brisk and sarcastic in my arguments.  I agree that this is true, but I think there's more to it than that. Any time I respond to someone, I read my own post over and over again, often times long after posting it, just to look for any possible holes in my argument and to observe how I responded to particular comments.  Time and time again, I find that the real sarcasm doesn't begin until I start to get exasperated with the same argument over and over again.  I also find that it happens when the other party starts asserting what my beliefs are or makes other assumptions about me or my position.  In short, I keep it to a minimum, but it does happen. I have always held strong convictions, but for many years I maintained a strict habit of keeping...