Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,595 Year: 4,852/9,624 Month: 200/427 Week: 10/103 Day: 10/0 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is science a religion?
brianforbes
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 295 (312904)
05-17-2006 3:13 PM


My conclusion
All your voodoo of the past few days has been working . but I went to a doctor, so lets test your magic against medical science! (My temp is now 102f . )
Look at it this way, there's no way to test the stars, planets, galaxies, 'most everything that we see in the sky. Does that make astronomy any less scientific? Think about it.
At the moment it is only testable in certain ways. The tests are not conclusive, so I agree with your assertion about what I would have to believe. It’s about as much science as Evolutionism and ID.
A proposition may be scientifically unsupportable but true nontheless.
I agree with that statement fully. It’s not our beliefs about a thing that make them true. The filters we adopt that help us find what is actual that form what we come to believe.
Your belief that what your Mommy and Daddy told you is true has no bearing on whether it is actually true.
That was quite helpful. It shows me, and I hope it shows you, that we can be guided intellectually by relationships that are primarily emotional.
We are at the point now with the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, and many other points of data, that there is no serious scientific debate about whether or not evolution occured or not. The data is in and it's overwhelming.
If you say it points to Evolutionism, fine. I say it points to something else. You have your reasons, I have mine (or should I say preconceptions - 5% turns into belief, find evidence to support your belief).
The germ theory of disease isn't any less true because it's a theory.
I read this really good paper by someone who appeared to me to be an educated man. That document is at my office, so I can’t give you his credentials (not that credentials matter all that much when observing truth). It said that things like viruses and thorns were introduced as obstacles to what the plant or virus was created to do. The virus could have been created to do any number of things, but it was corrupted by man’s sin. It sounds good to me . and it is verifiable, just not here on earth . yet .

So I suppose since I’m sick I should let this thing for a little while at least. I’m in pain.
I hope that I was able to establish that Evolutionism is inconclusive. (Don’t bother telling me I didn’t give any evidence for it. If you didn’t see it, I tried. I’m sure others would claim my evidence was sound.) I understand that we all have to have working theories, so I can’t blame you for having the wrong bias. To me, your bias seems very reasonable. The problem is that many reasonable people have different filters. Evolutionism IS the most reasonable given the proper filter. That doesn’t stop those who are religious from using the same logic with different filters from coming to different results. In my experience, most scientists are smart, but theologians and philosophers (both trained and untrained) are often smarter. Does the fact of intelligence make the conclusions of some more likely? Probably. Still, it’s impossible to consider all aspects of all fields in one persons lifetime. Given the fact that everyone, no matter how intellectual, is also emotional, we cannot know that one man’s opinion is more true than the next man’s without proper research. We cannot even know how important emotions are to the equation. They may be very important. Without time for the proper research, we can only be convinced, not sure. It takes faith. Thus my conclusion is that Science, as it was defined though this thread, is fundamentally a filter by which we see the world. To value this filter above others takes faith, no matter how miniscule that faith may be. Although this doesn’t meet the definition of religion for most of you, it does for me. You can continue on your way saying it’s not religious, but I want you to know it does take some faith.
Would I trust a scientific conclusion? Usually. They are very systematic and under very tight scrutiny. Does that mean that my trust is well founded? I don’t know. It depends. I have to take the issues one at a time. It’s all faith.

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by nwr, posted 05-17-2006 3:29 PM brianforbes has not replied
 Message 258 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-17-2006 5:02 PM brianforbes has not replied
 Message 259 by ReverendDG, posted 05-17-2006 7:50 PM brianforbes has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6419
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 257 of 295 (312918)
05-17-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by brianforbes
05-17-2006 3:13 PM


Re: My conclusion
All your voodoo of the past few days has been working . but I went to a doctor, so lets test your magic against medical science! (My temp is now 102f . )
I doubt that anyone here has been practicing voodoo. I'm sure we all wish you the best, and hope you will soon be feeling better.
Thus my conclusion is that Science, as it was defined though this thread, is fundamentally a filter by which we see the world.
My view is that science is more like a camera. Granted, a camera is imperfect, so the picture is presents can sometime distort what is pictured. But science attempts to minimize that distortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by brianforbes, posted 05-17-2006 3:13 PM brianforbes has not replied

CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 258 of 295 (312951)
05-17-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by brianforbes
05-17-2006 3:13 PM


Re: My conclusion
quote:
We are at the point now with the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, and many other points of data, that there is no serious scientific debate about whether or not evolution occured or not. The data is in and it's overwhelming.
If you say it points to Evolutionism, fine. I say it points to something else. You have your reasons, I have mine (or should I say preconceptions - 5% turns into belief, find evidence to support your belief).
That's not an answer that's just a rejection out of hand, you didn't give examples of how these pieces of evidence point to something else.
BTW drop the -ism after evolution. It's not an ideology, it's a science and scientists don't debate that.
Also it is the evidence-based nature of science that makes it very much not faith-based. I don't have to take it on faith that cells exist, I can look into a microscope. I don't have to take it on faith that land vertebrates evolved from fish, I can look at the fossil evidence of species such as tiktaalik, panderichthyes, and ichthyostega and judge for myself. No faith is required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by brianforbes, posted 05-17-2006 3:13 PM brianforbes has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4191 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 259 of 295 (312980)
05-17-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by brianforbes
05-17-2006 3:13 PM


Re: My conclusion
I read this really good paper by someone who appeared to me to be an educated man. That document is at my office, so I can’t give you his credentials (not that credentials matter all that much when observing truth). It said that things like viruses and thorns were introduced as obstacles to what the plant or virus was created to do. The virus could have been created to do any number of things, but it was corrupted by man’s sin. It sounds good to me . and it is verifiable, just not here on earth . yet .
uh, what?
thats not true at all, wheres the evidence of this? this sounds like notihng more than ad hoc reasoning to prop up the author and your's beliefs
so far your arguements come down to "i don't agree with it so its wrong" - you can be stubbern as much as you like, but that doesn't make evolution with its evidence go away or be wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by brianforbes, posted 05-17-2006 3:13 PM brianforbes has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5601 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 260 of 295 (313054)
05-18-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by romajc
05-16-2006 1:28 AM


Common Sense
romajc writes:
I don't look to science for my beliefs. I look towards what I feel is common sense and reasonable.
Common sense is very unreliable to tell truth from fiction. That's why the scientific method was created to begin with. I actually think that by stating that you base your beliefs in common sense you are weakening whatever point you are trying to make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 1:28 AM romajc has not replied

brianforbes
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 295 (313496)
05-19-2006 10:34 AM


only clarity, nothing new
I doubt that anyone here has been practicing voodoo. I'm sure we all wish you the best, and hope you will soon be feeling better.
Thanks. I’m back at work and my fever is next to gone. I keep sweating, however, which I like about as much as having a man rub me lightly with his fingers. It’s very uncomfortable.
My view is that science is more like a camera. Granted, a camera is imperfect, so the picture is presents can sometime distort what is pictured. But science attempts to minimize that distortion.
It’s a camera that doesn’t pick up sound, dimensions, or live motion. It only deals in colors and pixel location.
BTW drop the -ism after evolution. It's not an ideology, it's a science and scientists don't debate that.
The question of whether it’s an ideology is not in the realm of science to answer. It is a philosophical question. I’ve heard some really good speeches regarding that topic.
so far your arguements come down to "i don't agree with it so its wrong" - you can be stubbern as much as you like, but that doesn't make evolution with its evidence go away or be wrong
I’ve said some things on the thread that might produce doubt in some people regarding evolution, and there’s way more than that coming from authors of many fields of study that confirm the doubt. The point of this thread is not to dispute evolution, but to show that science is a religion. The fact that you can dispute it without claiming the ridiculous shows me that it takes faith. That would be my only reason for putting in evidences for or against on this thread.
To be honest, I’m not in a position to debate you all on the facts. I majored on the concepts and minored on the facts during my studies. I have to say that given a different debate, such as, “Which is better, Evolution or Creation?,” or “Which has a more encompassing perceptual model?,” evolution doesn’t do as hot.
(Completely off topic: I looked up that last sentence type on a grammar web site. It looks stupid. Anyone with “authority” want to claim that it’s right?)

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-19-2006 11:06 PM brianforbes has not replied

CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 262 of 295 (313757)
05-19-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by brianforbes
05-19-2006 10:34 AM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
quote:
"BTW drop the -ism after evolution. It's not an ideology, it's a science and scientists don't debate that."
The question of whether it’s an ideology is not in the realm of science to answer. It is a philosophical question. I’ve heard some really good speeches regarding that topic.
WTF are you talking about? Evolution is a scientific theory, of course it's a question for science to answer. What could be less relevant to science than whether or not theories are ideologies? Evolution is no more an ideology than gravity is. I am no more a darwinist than I am a newtonist. I am no more an evolutionist than I am a gravitist. I don't believe in evolution or gravity, I accept that they occur based on overwhelming evidence. Don't give me the law/theory heirarchy nonsense, those terms are not mutually exclusive. A law describes some physical phenomenon in the form of a mathematical formula, while a theory is an explanation for a phenomenon. Nothing in science is in stone not even laws, Newton's laws have been replaced by Einstein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by brianforbes, posted 05-19-2006 10:34 AM brianforbes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 9:59 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 295 (314019)
05-20-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
02-26-2006 5:44 PM


I wouldn't say that "science" is a religion, but that many scientists like those at Dover are religious in their scientific ideologies.
What I mean by this is that scientists that are evolutionists are religiously interpreting facts albeit incorrectly. And those in Dover did so and are guilty of religious dictatorship, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the American Bill of Rights. To honor theirs and not others.
I don't understand why those at Dover aren't making an outcry over this.
Nevertheless, science is "the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by research based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism.
So if science discovers that there exists a supernatural Creator... this does not change what real science is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 02-26-2006 5:44 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 9:56 PM MrEd has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5166 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 264 of 295 (314021)
05-20-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by MrEd
05-20-2006 9:49 PM


MrEd writes:
I wouldn't say that "science" is a religion, but that many scientists like those at Dover are religious in their scientific ideologies.
How so?
MrEd writes:
What I mean by this is that scientists that are evolutionists are religiously interpreting facts albeit incorrectly. And those in Dover did so and are guilty of religious dictatorship, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the American Bill of Rights. To honor theirs and not others.
In what way is the thinking of evolutionary biologists "religious?" It might help if you gave your definition of religion.
MrEd writes:
Nevertheless, science is "the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by research based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism.
Excellent, this is an unusually accurate description.
MrEd writes:
So if science discovers that there exists a supernatural Creator... this does not change what real science is.
That would be great! Let us know if that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 9:49 PM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:35 PM Belfry has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 295 (314023)
05-20-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-19-2006 11:06 PM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
>Evolution is a scientific theory, of course it's a question for science to answer.
If you look at how the scientific method actually begins...you would realize that evolution isn't even that. It isn't observed, which is how the scientific method begins.
On the contrary, science has aquired the "knowledge" that evolution never occurred and that creation did. Looks as if the Dover guys have gotten amnesia about the "laws" that nature demonstrates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-19-2006 11:06 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 10:04 PM MrEd has replied
 Message 278 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-20-2006 11:30 PM MrEd has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5166 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 266 of 295 (314025)
05-20-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by MrEd
05-20-2006 9:59 PM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
MrEd writes:
If you look at how the scientific method actually begins...you would realize that evolution isn't even that. It isn't observed, which is how the scientific method begins.
Actually, evolution is observed. We have many instances of observed speciation in modern times, and the primary mechanisms of evolution (mutation and natural selection) are observable in essentially all populations. The theory itself was formed based on observations of patterns in natural populations.
MrEd writes:
On the contrary, science has aquired the "knowledge" that evolution never occurred and that creation did.
Since when? Support your assertion.
MrEd writes:
Looks as if the Dover guys have gotten amnesia about the "laws" that nature demonstrates.
How so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 9:59 PM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:46 PM Belfry has not replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 295 (314029)
05-20-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Belfry
05-20-2006 9:56 PM


MrEd writes:
I wouldn't say that "science" is a religion, but that many scientists like those at Dover are religious in their scientific ideologies.
>How so?
Well, they begin with not wanting creation/intelligent design evidences to be allowed in the "science" classrooms. They "only" want to dictate evolutionism, which is a "belief", to be the doctrine of the science classrooms.
Religion is a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine.
These evolutionists take the "belief" that the universe was not created, but that "always" existed. Despite the scientific "facts" that show that if the universe was eternal we would've ran out of hydrogen a long time ago.
Every star in the sky generates energy by converting hydrogen into helium via thermonuclear fusion and releasing energy. This consumption of fuel shows that they had a beginning. Our sun has only consumed 2% of its hydrogen. Do the math.
All scientists know this, but the evolutionists choose to ignore this and "believe" in there diehard myth. It's religious.
This fact among others...
cause and effect, design, etc...
Then, they ignore the fact that the earth's helium content show that the earth is less than 2mil yrs old.
The earth's magnetic field's decay rate show that the earth can not be older than thousands, not millions of years.
They ignore the fact that Carbon 14 dating can only "theoretically" date humans, animals, and plants and no longer than 40-50 thousand years based on its half life.
Not to mention they ignore the historic records of a world wide flood that took place some 4-5 thousand years ago that completely rearranged the earth, its geology, and its climate which makes it impossible to radiometrically date anything older than 4-5 thousand years ago.
Then, how can DNA, which would completely decay away in "thousands" of years still be found in dinosaur bones???
Point is, they are the religious ones- not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 9:56 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by jar, posted 05-20-2006 10:47 PM MrEd has replied
 Message 270 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 10:56 PM MrEd has replied

MrEd
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 295 (314030)
05-20-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Belfry
05-20-2006 10:04 PM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
>Actually, evolution is observed. We have many instances of observed speciation in modern times, and the primary mechanisms of evolution (mutation and natural selection) are observable in essentially all populations. The theory itself was formed based on observations of patterns in natural populations.
Actually, not at all, as the evolutionists would have you believe.
Evolution is not what we observe, but variation within a gene pool. Nothing of a different gene pool can change into something of a different gene pool. Mutations are defects, not beneficial natural selections.
A deck of "face" cards can not form "number" cards and vice versa. Similiarly, human gene pools can not form apes and vice versa.
Canine gene pools can not form cats and vice versa. This is what "has" been observed.
Then, what we "see" is order going into disorder, life is decaying. What we observe is actually "devolution", not evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Belfry, posted 05-20-2006 10:04 PM Belfry has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34053
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 269 of 295 (314031)
05-20-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by MrEd
05-20-2006 10:35 PM


Just more PRATTs
Ed, most of your posts, in addition to just being PRATTs have nothing to do with this thread.
The only point of this thread is the simple question, "Is science a religion". In addition, since it is on the science side, bringing in old myths about floods or gods or the other stuff has no bearing or value.
If you think science is a religion, then you will need to bring in verifiable evidence to support your position. Myths are just myths. PRATTs are just PRATTs.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:35 PM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:59 PM jar has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5166 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 270 of 295 (314033)
05-20-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by MrEd
05-20-2006 10:35 PM


MrEd writes:
Well, they begin with not wanting creation/intelligent design evidences to be allowed in the "science" classrooms. They "only" want to dictate evolutionism, which is a "belief", to be the doctrine of the science classrooms.
They want to restrict science classes to teaching science. Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories.
MrEd writes:
Religion is a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine.
Hmm, so how does this apply to evolutionary theory?
MrEd writes:
These evolutionists take the "belief" that the universe was not created, but that "always" existed. Despite the scientific "facts" that show that if the universe was eternal we would've ran out of hydrogen a long time ago.
Actually, evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of the universe. That falls into the realm of cosmology. You're incorrect about the hydrogen, but that's off-topic, and as you'll see if you stick around, this forum is unusually strict about staying on-topic. If you like, you can start a topic about it. Coragyps started one in the "Links and Information forum" here on that very subject.
MrEd writes:
All scientists know this, but the evolutionists choose to ignore this and "believe" in there diehard myth. It's religious.
Again, evolutionary theory is not concerned with the origin of the universe. Plus, you have not shown that evolutionary biologists are concerned with the "supernatural, sacred, or divine."
MrEd writes:
This fact among others...
cause and effect, design, etc...
Then, they ignore the fact that the earth's helium content show that the earth is less than 2mil yrs old.
The earth's magnetic field's decay rate show that the earth can not be older than thousands, not millions of years.
All false, but again off topic. Unless the admins want to allow it. Can I get a ruling?
MrEd writes:
They ignore the fact that Carbon 14 dating can only "theoretically" date humans, animals, and plants and no longer than 40-50 thousand years based on its half life.
No, they do not ignore that, and they use other radiological methods for older and/or inorganic specimens. This article might help you get up to speed.
MrEd writes:
Not to mention they ignore the historic records of a world wide flood that took place some 4-5 thousand years ago that completely rearranged the earth, its geology, and its climate which makes it impossible to radiometrically date anything older than 4-5 thousand years ago.
No, they do not ignore the "historical records," but rather recognize them as myths and legends. They have been falsified by geological evidence.
MrEd writes:
Then, how can DNA, which would completely decay away in "thousands" of years still be found in dinosaur bones???
It hasn't been.
MrEd writes:
Point is, they are the religious ones- not science.
It is the scientists you are calling religious. It is the fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge scientific findings that contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis.
By the way, you can click on the little box that says, "peek" in the corner of my post, to see how I'm coding the quote boxes. It helps a great deal with readability in these discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:35 PM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 11:04 PM Belfry has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024