Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

quote:

---

That is not true, and I said smart ones believe in God.
I have heard a doctor say its in God's hands now, many times.
You've never heard a doctor say that?

---

Yes, when a doctor has given up. This is why science does not insert God into their theories because it is a form of giving up as well. What produces lightening? Zeus, therefore no other explanation is needed. Anyone who claims that Zeus does not produce lightening is doing so just to avoid believing in Zeus. Sound familiar?If you can, would you address this next point. If doctors who believe in God do not insert God into their scientific findings, why should biologists insert God into their findings on biodiversity?

quote:

---

What the heck are you talking about.
I never suggested inserting God into anything but your own life.
I also do not think it is a good idea for scientists to ever give up on any of their pursuits.

---

So science is correct in rejecting supernatural explanations for the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and subsequent evolution of life?

quote:

---

To be a true scientist, shouldn't you be willing to accept any possible explanation for something?

---

This is false. To be a true scientist you only accept the explanations that are testable. For instance, I could claim that the whole Earth was created last Tuesday with the appearance of age, including our own memories. Now, this is possible if we accept supernatural forces. So, do I have to accept this possibility and form theories around it? Of course not, since it is untestable. A scientist is only allowed to accept theories that are testable and falsifiable. Now, if you can give us the potential falsifications for the supernatural creation of the Universe then we can start to consider it as a possible SCIENTIFIC theory.

quote:

---

But being a scientist means that you shouldn't believe in whats not proven.
It should also mean to not exclusivly push something on someone because you think its right.

---

As Schrafinator said, scientists accept theories by the weight of evidence. All theories are tentative and are abandonded when they are falsified. Nothing in science is taken on faith. However, we have creationists who push their religion into science classes in the face of contradictory evidence, including strong evidence that points to common ancestory. Their reasons for doing this are usually not related to scientific accuracy but as an effort to reinsert God back into secular education. Creation scientists are scientists in the same way snake oil salesmen are medical researchers.So again, answer this question. Should the results of a medical trial include references to the supernatural? If not, then why should any of the sciences include references to the supernatural?

quote:

---

Is it absoloutly true that we evolved?
Big difference.

---

What is the difference?

quote:

---

Is it true that germs make you sick, doesn't really matter how?

---

Germ theory is consistent with all of the evidence, yet it could be wrong. So I wouldn't say it is "true". And the HOW is important as well, as it supports Germ theory (and it is my day job to figure this out as well). Also, since you believe that it is OK to insert the supernatural, I could argue that it is evil spirits causing disease and the germs are created by the presence of the demon. Since this is possible, I could discount germs as the cause of disease and have my theory taught in medical schools, since this is what a true scientist would do (examin all possibilities).And again, what is the difference between the theory of evolution and Germ Theory? How do they differ in how the determine the accuracy of their models?

quote:

---

I should have said true scientist would explore any possible explaination.

---

And this is still incorrect. A true scientist would explore any possible explaination that is TESTABLE, that isn't falsified by evidence, and is potentially falsifiable by objective evidence. Supernatural mechanisms do not fit into this description since the supernatural is not testable nor is it falsifiable by objective evidence. Therefore, a true scientist CAN NOT include supernatural explainations as part of his investigation. However, a true PHILOSOPHER may include the supernatural, but a philosopher is not a scientist.

quote:

---

I read science reports that say our DNA points to us all starting from one person, funny so does the bible.
If thats true doesn't that go against evolution, because evolutionists say whole populations evolve at one time?

---

This is another piece of creationist propoganda. Mitchondrial Eve does not refer to a single woman but instead to a mitochondrial lineage. There were humans before this Eve. The same goes for Y chromosome Adam. It doesn't refer to a single person and in no way indicates that there were not humans before this person. Also, chronologically these two lineages (mitochondria and y chromosome lineages) are separated by thousands of years so it is impossible that these two lineages were actually two people that started the human race. Again, you might want to read something besides creationist propoganda.

quote:

---

We give things explainations now that change in the furture, so whats the difference?

---

And why do these explainations change? Because we find OBJECTIVE evidence that falsifies the theory. Creationists like to claim that scientists will not abandon evolution at any cost, yet cite instances where scientific theories were abandonded because they were falsified by data. So which is it? Are theories accepted because of evidence without and falsified by evidencea and therefore allowed to change, or are theories simply athiestic tenets that are held in faith without evidence and therefore unfalsifiable?Next, when our explanations change do they change to include supernatural deities? No, they don't. Can you name one scientific theory that requires the intervention of the christian God? Can you name one scientific theory that doesn't work unless you pray about it? When we change scientific theories, is it because someone got new instructions from God? You seem to be missing the point. Please cite one instance where the supernatural is used in science. Then, explain why evolution, a scientific theory, SHOULD include references to the supernatural.

quote:

---

There is evidence that disease is caused by demons and evil spirits, and I have seen peopl cured by praying.
So why couldn't they teach that in schools.
They don't have to say its true, just a theory.

---

Where is the double blind study that shows this? How did they control for the placebo effect? Did they also pray to Zeus to see if a false god would also cure the sick? Can I repeat the experiments myself? Is the study published anywhere so that I can replicate their methodology? If the study does not fit these criteria then it is not scientific. What you have is anecdotal evidence which is inherently unreliable as has beens shown by numerous scientific investigations.

quote:

---

If I showed you a documneted miralce, would you say that is a theory with the intervention of God?

---

Depends on how the miracle was documented. You must also show that such miraculous recoveries are never associated with non-believers or with those who pray to other gods (if you are stating that only one god exists). Also, the intervention must be repeatable by the same methodology. As is seen in many drug studies, people are miraculously cured by sugar pills all of the time.

quote:

---

They also don't have to teach it as science, or teach it as Christian science.
The point is, that it happens all the time, yet it is ignored, and not taught in schools.
Mostly because man cannot explain it, and the people who are trying to explain it, don't believe in nit, so they give it a bad rep.

---

This makes humanity look really guilty of horrific acts. Take sub-saharan africa. Right now, certain countries have a 25% HIV infection rate. That is right, 25% of the populace in some of these countries are infected. Now we have a problem. Either christians are withholding this miraculous healing out of apathy or the medical field is keeping them out. OR, is this really a once in a while deal that is a fluke of the human body? No one is counting out the body's ability to cure itself in spectacular ways, but medicine is counting out the capricious actions of a supernatural deity.Now, if you are sick where do you go? To a faith healer or to a scientifically trained doctor? Christians vote with their feet, and the vast majority rely on the scientific method to cure their ails. Admittedly, they also rely on prayer, but as many have found out their prayers are usually not answered.To give you an idea of what positive thinking can do for a patient, read this article. In this study, doctors thought they were on to something with an orthroscopic knee surgery that was supposed to alleviate pain due to arthritis. What they found is that people reported the same recovery even if they were subjected to a sham surgery. Instead of actually doing the full surgery, the surgeon would make a single incision and then sew it up immediately. The mind and the body can do weird things, but often it is due to the positive attitude or the perception of the patient. The same could be said for similar effects among those who have strong faith in God. They feel comforted and strengthened by their faith and the body is better able to heal itself. Given the powers of the Placebo Effect, I would say that this is entirely possible. However, you will not see doctors handing out sugar pills to cure migraine headaches anytime soon.

quote:

---

I am not saying that evolution=religion. I am also sure that any creationalist is not saying that in the literal sense. Its a metaphor.

---

Au contraire, mon frer. They mean it quite literally. Their contention is that evolution is not backed by any evidence whatsoever. Instead, evolution is just a faulty interpretation to support athiesm. What they seem to ignore is the vast numbers of christians who study and support evolution as a scientific theory that has no bearing on their spiritual lives. The fact of the matter is that evolution is supported by volumes of evidence without including or excluding any deity. At this time, it is the most accurate theory that explains the biodiversity that we observe today. Do you agree with this last sentence?

quote:

---

I don't know about other people, but I believe in God, and what I have found is so beatiful, that I only wish to share it with others. I do not not want to force it down anybodys throat either, thats not how you find God, but you do need to hear about it once and a while, otherwise you would have a hard time finding him in todays society. If TOE somehow blocks that, and it does contribute to that, then that is when TOE starts replacing religion.

---

Who is doing the "blocking"? Is it scientists who accurately report their data or is it christians that require other christians to abandon scientific theories in order to become one of them? I think it is creationists that turn evolution into a religion, not scientists.Given the fact that many christians have no problem with evolution and christianity, it would seem that it is creationists who are creating the conflict between science and religion.

quote:

---

I personally do not call TOE a religion, but if someone uses the idea that we evolved and were not created it to replace religion, and not believe in God, then I claim that is where they put there faith.

---

That doesn't make TOE a religion no more than the theory of gravity is a religion if someone uses it to deny the existence of God. Using a naturalistically derived theory to deny the existence of the supernatural is a logically fallacious argument, and has no bearing on the accuracy of the theory. I will agree with you that it is wrong to use evoltution to deny that there is a God, or any other scientific theory to deny the existence of any deity.

quote:

---

I love science, even if I don't understand it completely, but I probably understand it better than 97% of the rest of America.

---

[joke]Understanding science better than 97% of America really isn't saying much.[/joke]I don't mean this as an insult, but you may understand science but you don't understand how science works. That is, you might know quite a bit about physiology, biochemistry, etc. but from what I have read you don't understand how the scientific method works. This is why a lot of scientists cringe when creationist theories such as Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory are trotted out. They reak of poor scientific methodology. Almost all creationist theories are ad hoc. That is, they are theories that have no evidencial support and are constructed in order to keep the main theory (which also lacks evidence) from being falsified. For instance (as an example, not for discussion), what evidence led Walt Brown to hypothesize that the tectonic plates moved as he proposes? The answer is no evidence whatsoever. What he constructed was a theory that kept a world wide flood from being falsified by inserting a story that only exists in his head. This is not how science works. For a theory to be supported it must be derived from evidence instead of being derived from an attempt to stop another theory from being falsified.In your own posts, you state that scientists should investigate untestable mechanisms. In other words, scientists should insert the supernatural and supernatural mechanisms in their work in an attempt to be "fair". However, this is far from being fair in a scientific sense. For a scientific theory to be "fair" the evidence has to be testable by everyone through a common methodology. If I use spiritual experiences such as voices from God or alien abductions to support my theories this is inherently unfair because no one else can check my evidence.If you think science should include the supernatural perhaps you could lay out an argument that would result in a reliable theory that is testable by everyone irregardless of religious convictions.

quote:

---

What I'm saying is seeing how most people don't get it, we have to be careful what we teach them. Most people would just take it as golden.

---

And this is why creationism is so rampant among people with a poor understanding of science. If they think that the sun orbits the earth, how do you expect them to critically examine any scientific theory. This is why popular polls showing that numerous Americans accept creationism is such a poor argument. It is more a reflection of their gullibility than their ability to examine scientific theories.

quote:

---

But that is not true. Jesus taught us exactly how to recieve the Holy Spirit, and have eternal life. It is an experiment that anyone can do, but it requires all of your heart. Once you recieve the Holy Spirit, you may feel differently about what you just said.

---

Tried it for the first 22 years of my life. It didn't work. There are many on this site that will tell you the same story. Therefore, it is not objective evidence and it is not repeatable by an objective observer. Hence, it can not be investigated by science. Hence, scientific theories do not include references to the supernatural. Also, have you spent enough time meditating to reach enlightenment through Buddhism? If not, then you might feel differently about what YOU just wrote.At the same time, I am not here to ridicule your faith. Quite the opposite, actually. I hope that your faith stays intact and I also hope to help you understand how science functions and how it is not an attack on your faith. I want science and religion (ie supernatural) to be completely separate as they have been for the last 200 years (or most of that 200 years at least).

quote:

---

Just because its a lot more difficult than spinning something around in a centerfuge, and looking at under a spectrograph, doesn't make it invalid.

---

What does make it invalid as a scientific endeavour is that it is not repeatable by a skeptical observer. Skepticism is the hallmark of science, and to accept what you are putting forth I have to drop all skepticism. This sounds like the opposite of science.

quote:

---

Irregardless of relilgious convictions would elemenate the experimant completely.

---

Exactly. This is why it isn't science. All of science is done in the absence of religious convictions. Including religious convictions would add bias.