Is science a religion?

...and adhere to the traditions of our predecessors.

Please tell me, how many scientists have you ever actually watched work? If the answer is less than one, please describe your source for the above statement.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

It is less than one in real life, but what I've seen on videos, discovery channel, etc, a few. All of them automatically assumed things that I didn't see were clear. What's more, I know many people. I know human nature. You insist you can divorce your intellect from your emotions. That's called pride. I know all about that too. I have plenty of it myself. I try to rid myself of it as much as you try to rid yourself of bias. It has never worked for me, and I have no reason to believe it will work for you.

Try to keep this in mind as you are watching videos, etc. You are seeing only a small portion of what they do all day, day in and day out, for months and years on end. If it appears that they are "automatically" assuming something, it could simply be something they have previously established. Or, perhaps they are working in a field where certain basics have already been satisfactorily established, and can be taken as a given.I don't doubt that you know many people. I'm sure you have made certain conclusions about human nature that you feel are fully supported. However, I have seen very little from you that would suggest you understand how science works and how it proceeds.I know a great deal about human nature myself, but I wouldn't assume that qualified me as an expert in every field of human endeavor.This message has been edited by subbie, 05-12-2006 09:07 PM

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I could study the subject for 50 years and you still wouldn't accept my authority, unless I agreed with you. "There are no ID scientists." I've seen that idea written all over this thread. It's not true. I've seen ID scientists. They're demeaned as psudo-scientists in here when ID is the only description given for them. I don't need to know how scientists work to know there is bias all over this site. "You're a jerk." Yes, you must have that on good authority. "You're ignorant." Gee, it seems to me that I didn't reveal a pinch of what I've taken time to read on the subject. I admit I'm ignorant of all subjects compared to some, but I believe you'll find that a wise man will only make choices based on what he knows (and believes). Don't demean me for not taking your word for things. You wouldn't act any differently.I've seen some pretty lame answers in here regarding philosophy. You're lucky you have bones and enchanted zombies to skew them. If you had to use common sense to sway people, you'd have a lot more work to do.This is undeniable:
When you start studying your field, and you look at evidence that seems mysterious, your first, second, fifth reaction is not, "Maybe we should scrap our current theory." That is BIAS! I'm not saying you shouldn't have it. I'm saying you do in spite of yourselves. It's human nature.

Listen, mate. I've never called you a jerk. I've never called you ignorant. Now if you wanna get all pissy because you can't stand the heat, fine. But don't take it out on me.I've explained what science is. It doesn't start with answers and ignore all the evidence that goes against it. That's what creos do, they announce it in their founding paperwork. Don't believe me? I don't give a rat's ass.You think that's how all scientists work, and you base that on television shows and your assumptions of how all humans behave. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you, unless you're willing to discuss evidence. Nobody can ever have any rebuttal to claims you make based solely on your personal experience, but they really aren't very interesting, either. I damn sure know you don't have anything interesting to say about me that I don't already know.If some here think you are ignorant because you've chosen not to share "a pinch of what [you]'ve taken time to read on the subject," you can't blame them.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

No, actually, on many levels, scientists are repeatedly asking themselves exactly that question. As far as ToE, that is happening mostly on superficial levels and the theory is being constantly modified because of it, but in very fine-scaled applications to specific situations. At the deeper levels of the framework, there has been no reason to 'scrap' anything. In contrast, ID hasn't even produced a framework of anything that can even be tested, let alone explain anything.You really haven't got a clue how science works, do you? You think scientists have some intrinsic bias to protect current theory? If anything, a scientist would like nothing better than an opportunity to alter and advance theory, and that can only be done by demonstrating an inconsistency with the current theory and explaining why it is inconcsistent. I suggest that you are merely accusing science of what you and all you 'believers' know you are guilty of yourselves.EZ: You're biased.
bf: "No, you are"...
Really constructive.

There is one big difference between the 'faith' that you are mentioning, and the faith of religion.The "faith" in science is based on results. It is based on not only someone getting results, but other people being able to reproduce those results. It is based on the fact that the methods produce accurate, reproduceable and objective results. You could call it 'a degree of confidence' rather than 'faith', since the conclusions are based on experiance.

Ah, but to the true believer, their "faith" produces reuslts as well. There are millions of people in this country who claim to see evidence of god's work in their daily lives. In many cases this may be nothing more than a sense of being at peace with themselves and the world around them, but if they say their faith gives them that, who are we to tell them that it doesn't?True, these results are not independantly observable or repeatable, but that only means they are not scientific. It doesn't make the results any less real for the people who experience them. Thus, faith in religion, for many, is based at least in part on results, albeit results of a different kind.I'm not trying to equate science with religion, or religious faith with faith in the scientific method. And if you want to call it "a degree of confidence" instead of faith, fine by me. It seems to me that they mean the same thing.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

It was a general complaint about the thread. Others here have. The problem with this is that it utterly rejects anything that cannot be tested. It's a failure of a system. Science would do well to say more often, "We don't know." You cannot test how life came to be. You can only test how it MIGHT have come to be. Testing those theories starts with the assumption that there was no intelligence or supernatural involvement. That's bias. I don't think I can make it any clearer for you.By the way, "...that's what creos do..." You can call that "a degree of confidence," but I'm going to call it bias. Thus the reason that forums such as this always show you who believe in evolution as the victors. You want me to take evidence that was gathered by those who largely believe in Evolutionism, reiterate it, and show how it works with ID. Give us about 20 years more of ID folks finding the evidence, and I'll have more for you then. Right now, all I have to go on is that Evolutionism is amoral, pointless, and very speculative. Even if it was true that we evolved, it wouldn't do much for our society to believe that it was true."You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals..."

That takes faith in your comrads. You have that bias, I do not.

Oh, and don't forget that it's also faith that only those things that can result from tests are real. Everything that doesn't happen with tests is imaginary, and therefore not real. But you don't consider those faiths the same, even though their both based in NOTHING. They're an emotional reaction to the world. My emotional response is different than yours, so you became a scientist, and I became a science critic.

You have that backwards.Scientists are often saying "We do not know." It is creationists who assert knowledge in the absence of evidence, or worse still, assert knowledge in the presence of massive contrary evidence.You have been lied to. Creationists have spread falsehoods about science, and you have accepted those falsehoods on faith.

Dinosaurs in HistoryThis is a link that took me about 30 seconds to dig up, but it seems sound to me... and my perception means everything in my life I'm sure you all care what I do for a living, so I'll tell you. I am a programmer. I have attempted, on many occasions, to create programs that show some kind of intelligence. Of course, it's a waste of my time, although it can be fun. The way chemical reactions work, electricity flows through wires, etc., there's no spontaneity. What would cause animals to develop this spontaneity? Some might argue that we are not actually spontaneous because of the problem this causes evolution. I don't think it matters what we believe if we're bound by chemical processes and our surroundings. So, you move on from there and decide that there has to be some external, non-physical force that caused this diversity of opinion to grow. How can we test this scientifically? Oops! We CAN'T! Well, it must not be science then... and it must not be real.What a great religion!

I don't care if I've been "lied to". In case you didn't notice, I'm not using the evidence you all use to determine the truth of evolution. I come at it using a different method. A good 3/4 of what I've written was not told to me by anyone, at least not that I remember. I made it up. It's common sense! It's not that I couldn't use the evidence you all use, but I've admitted over and over that if I did, this debate would be lost. The best I can do is assert that the evidence is skewed in light of what believing the evidence would mean.Edited by brianforbes, : Admission of why I don't use "evidence"