|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the principles of world view | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi homunculus aka overmind
Lets pretend for a moment that creation and evolution are subjective to the individual. Why pretend something that is patently false? Evolution is not subjective, it is based on objective evidence and replicated observations. The objective evidence includes observed instances of evolution and speciation, and these are facts. Why pretend something that is true? "Creation" is subjective, as evidenced by the thousands of different religious models for creation, and the hundreds of different sects within religions. It is rather self-evident that these beliefs are purely subjective, based on the variety of beliefs.
Now, take a look at the principles or the world views of each. Neither is a world view. One is science (explains how things work not why) the other is myth (which myth depends on the subjective religion involved).
In the realm of creation, everything being created, designed and sanctified by the most high, we learn from the bible that everything is "beautifully and wonderfully made" and that the lord highly values and ponders on his creation and humans. Oh, you assume that creation means only christian biblical myth, as your subjective interpretation. What about all the other beliefs, including those that believe that life was created to evolve? You are mistaking your subjective opposition to evolution based on your subjective belief to apply to all subjective beliefs. That is not how "subjective" works. The fact is that there are many evolutionary biologists that believe in god. Steven Jay Gould is one, Ken Miller is another, to name a couple that should be well known to creationists.
In the realm of evolution, everything is prostrated to, nothing! Nothing created everything (big bang). Nothing created life (abiogenesis). Nothing designates purpose, reason, design and meaning. and human beings have absolutely no value at all. We are just a branch off the monkey block. Human life demands no respect and no consideration. I suppose you could say that the earth is God (enviro-mentally applied). Or say that man is God. Because there is nothing to decide what has worth and what doesn't. Evolution is science, not philosophy. It explains how life works, not why. You seem to think that evolution is diametrically opposed to subjective belief, however it is a fact that there are many subjective beliefs that are not diametrically opposed to evolution, so evolution is not necessarily opposed to subjective belief. That is part of the definition of "subjective." Science in general, and evolution included, uses objective reality to disprove subjective concepts with objective facts. If science "opposes" the subjective belief in a young earth, for example, it is not the science that opposes the belief, it is reality. It is an objective fact that the earth is old, and this is not subjective.
These world views govern morality and cultural application in social economics. Neither science (how things actually work) nor creation (myth of origin) govern morality - morality is based on cultural values and is subjective from person to person, from culture to culture. That some creation myth or other can control morality of the believers is falsified when we look at the jail population: there is no difference in the percentage of religions in jail and out, leading to the conclusion that religions have absolutely no effect whatever on moral behavior. Perhaps ridding culture of false beliefs would go a long way towards a more rational "social economics." Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : more by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Annafan,
... that God watching him and possibly punishing him was the main reason for him NOT murdering/raping his neighbor. Yes we all know about how such faith controls the homophobic\gay wanna be mass murderer inside ... how taking a wide stance on religion helps control those beastly urges ... The sad thing is that he had not learned any other reason to behave as a civil human being.
Dawkins and the host were totally baffled That's the usual response to a non-sequitur. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Rahvin,
That's what true science can and should do, learn what makes matter tick, and then transform that matter into all forms of useful products. When it comes to life, learn what makes plants, animals and humans tick, and then help them get well when they get sick. Which is exactly what the Theory of Evolution has done. I've always thought that creationists like John 10:10 should wear medical alert bracelets:
to cure me of any malady or injury, only methods based on faith. To refuse to do so would expose hypocrisy and materialistic selfishness. It should reduce the medical costs for the rest of us, let them preserve their world view (which is on topic, yes?), and over time ... The Amish do it, why not the YEC's (or do they have a lack of faith?). Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hello John 10:10
... I believe in the true science that can be proven true over time to work, not the false science that life somehow evolved by a theroy of evolution. Curiously what you believe has no impact on reality and how the real world behaves. When belief and opinion are contradicted by reality it is not reality that is wrong. Of course you are free to believe anything you like. You can believe you are the Napoleon of Christians defeating the unwashed multitude of unbelievers. Perhaps you would like to explain, and preferably refute (snide comment deleted), these pieces of information: Page not found
quote: The logical conclusion, is that if you think evolution, the theory of evolution and the science of evolution are false ideas, and that you have not benefited in any way from them, that you are living in a fool's paradise. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey lyx2no2,
So as long as the organisms with new and old neutral and beneficial genetic variations continue to survive and breed with success such mutations will continue to spread and change and spread and change and ... etc.
[impulsive curiosity]Please, to anyone who knows, how does one differentiate specialization in bacteria? [/impulsive curiosity] By the successful evolution of a new trait or ability. In one experiment that tracked the evolution of bacteria from a single ancestor through many generations, dividing later generations into different populations, all in one similar ecology that provided minimal nutrients plus a source of energy that the original single organism - and many generations afterward - was unable to use, some evolved an ability to make use of the second source of energy. Interestingly, only those that evolved later from a specific subset of later populations evolved the ability. Not only does this show a beneficial trait emerging (consumption of second nutrient), but the intermediate population evolved a neutral mutation that made the beneficial mutation possible. There are many instances of bacteria evolving new abilities - look at nylon digesting bacteria, chemical pollution digesting bacteria, and other instances where bacteria have evolve to use a resource that did not exist before man made, and discarded, it. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, John 10:10
Funny, I've been living and working in the real world of nuclear engineering for 44 years, designing, building, and repairing power plants. I understand why and how they function. Do you? I have a working knowledge, just as I have a working knowledge of automechanics, but you may well be more intimately knowledgeable in specifics, just as I expect you have more knowledge of what the bible says than I do. Curiously this has no effect or import to your knowledge of evolution or your opinion on many topics not directly associated with nuclear physics or biblical quoting. This is the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority, as an authority on one topic can be totally ignorant of another. The question for you - as a nuclear technician or engineer - is whether or not you would agree, that any person that has an opinion contradicted by the evidence of nuclear physics can be correct in his opinion, and that this opinion could cause nuclear physics to change? Enjoy. btw - an old saying of mine is that "science is the art of understanding the universe, engineering is the art of making practical use of science" -- they are not the same thing, and they do not use the same methodology. Engineering is concerned with making approximations good enough for practical design, and then adding factors of safety to cover what you don't know. Science is concerned with finding out what you don't know. Engineering depends on science to advance knowledge to increase the practicality of designs. Just over 50 years ago, your profession did not exist at all. That it does now exist, is due to scientists, not engineers. Edited by RAZD, : added tidbit by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi John 10:10, still having trouble distinguishing science from the practical application of knowledge gained from science?
When doctors are quizzed in medical school, they are not quizzed on how well they know evolutionsry biology theories. They are quizzed on how well they know how the human body ticks, and how to repair the human body when things go wrong. Correct, just as engineering students, they are tested on their knowledge of known results from known, repeated tests of theoretical results, and how to apply those known results of theoretical testing for practical benefit. But that knowledge is produced by scientists, not by engineering students or pre-med doctors. And it is produce by application of theory and replicated testing of results. All modern medicines are based on our knowledge of biology, and our knowledge of biology is improved and informed by our knowledge of evolution. Science expands our knowledge of the universe, and this results in new applications for medicine and for engineering. Modern evolution has produced practical applications to medicine, just as modern physics has produced practical applications to nuclear engineering. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi John 10:10, still not getting it.
I will correct my "opinion" ... Curiously that was NOT the question. Try again, with the added words in caps for clarity:
The question for you - as a nuclear technician or engineer - is whether or not you would agree, that any OTHER person, A LAYMAN, that has an opinion contradicted by the evidence of nuclear physics can be correct in his opinion, and that this opinion could cause nuclear physics to change? NOT you - somebody else, say someone like Paris Hilton, somebody without your experience and education in the field trying to tell you how to run things in a way that you KNOW from your experience in the field is just plain wrong ... can that person's uninformed opinion change the facts of nuclear physics?
This they do in labs and in the field with real science as they help humans will all manner of illnesses, not with theories of evolution that cannot help an ameoba get any better. Let me contrast this with your earlier statement in this post:
I will correct my "opinion" on certain matters of how atoms work when we finally "discover" how they really work. In other words YOU are operating on the basis of theories, because you admit right there that we don't know how physics REALLY WORKS. And if you are really interested, yes the theory of evolution can help sick amoebas get better. They can do this in labs and in the field with real science, just as they help humans will all manner of illnesses. The information provided by evolution on illnesses is one of the great leaps forward in medicine in the last 50 years, and the reason for this is genetics. Genetics just would not work without evolution. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : plastered paris by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's see if we can talk about the topic in a more general way than evo vs creo.
In conclusion, I would say that it all comes down to how we decide what principle to eat from. what tree to eat from, ... Everybody has a world view, and every world view is different. Your world view is composed of the knowledge you have, based on education (both formal and informal) and experience, plus your beliefs on how this knowledge fits into the "big picture" - in essence what you believe outside what you know. As the signature says, "we are limited in our ability to understand, by our ability to understand" and thus we are only able to add knowledge based on what knowledge we already posses. The critical question everyone should consider is how well does their world view measure up to the "big picture" and how can we test that. Any belief that is contradicted by any evidence of objective reality is one that does not represent the "big picture" and thus the scientific principle of falsifiability applies to beliefs: falsified beliefs should be discarded when they are shown to be false, invalid, contradicted. Does anyone have any other system for measuring whether a belief measures up to the "big picture"?? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024