Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,179 Year: 5,436/9,624 Month: 461/323 Week: 101/204 Day: 1/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone, and my senior paper
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 70 (692771)
03-07-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 11:22 AM


Welcome to EvC. Your paper sounds interesting.
You asked:
The history of science is more important, in my opinion, than a degree in science. Most biologists have not even read Darwin’s works. Without an understanding of the origins of the things they study, how can they know what they are studying?
By studying it and figuring out what it is. I don't see how the origins of the idea matters at all.
How would these guys showing "that two randomly acquired mutations within the prokaryotic FumC sequence are sufficient to cause substantial dual targeting by reverse translocation" be hindered by not having an understanding or the origin of the Theory of Evolution?
I don't see how not knowing the origin of, say Newtons classical mechanics, would be prevent me from studying the velocity of a ball based on the derivative of its position with respect to time. All I need is the equation and the data. The history of the mechanics is totally irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 11:22 AM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 70 (692792)
03-07-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 12:38 PM


Every science is different but in my area of focus, which is biology, I constantly see studies and experiments done that do not need to be. They are a waste of money and time. A lot of biologists ask questions that they would not ask if the simply understood the theory. Not everything has a purpose and we should not be asking questions like that. I mean do we really need a study to explain why a blind mole would have red hair? Do we really need to do study after study to show the purpose of the female orgasm? I think not
How would them simply understanding the theory cause those biologists to realize that they don't need to study those things?
Why do you think there are a number of scientists that deny Darwin's theory?
Because the ramifications interfere with their religion, period. I don't know of any scientists who deny Darwin's theory because of scientific issues. The one's that I've seen that say that they do, say that to hide the fact that its really a religious issue.
Also, do you know how many people and scientists think that Darwin's theory is a theory of the origin of life?
No, but they don't have to study the history of Darwin to learn that it isn't.
It also allows one to address critics and understand why modern science works. Many creationists look at science as if it is some type of religion. By being able to explain the history of scientific thought, we can show that it is not just some faith based idea.
If creationists could be taught, then they wouldn't be creationists any more. They don't want to accept the science because of thier religion. I don't think the history of scientific thought is going to help.
It is important to understand how the ideas came about and how they were built on each other. Newton was not just some guy sitting in isolation that came up with these ideas, nor was Darwin. Darwin’s main ideas come from an economist and a geologist, respectively.
Here's my point: Without knowing anything about any of that stuff, I can still realize that the random mutation + natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth. That's it. The theory works and it works regardless of how much history I know.
Would you be surprised to find out that Newton was actually talking about God in the bit when he explains his theories?
OMG, sooo suprised! Guess what: I can still calculate the velocity of a ball from the derivative of its position with respect to time both before and after knowing that. So why did it matter at all?
Newton was far more interested in God than he was physics. Understanding this bridges that gap that has arisen in between science and religion.
What gap? (see my signature)
The only gap is between science and fundamentalists. But that's because fundamentalists cannot learn and leaning is what science is all about. Even if its something that you think is completely stupid, like why a blind mole would have red hair, scientists investigate it because they want to learn (or get a grant).
Most of the greatest thinkers in history believed in a God. See how that relates to this website specifically? It is my opinion that one should always know the context of things and not just random facts
I'm not talking about random facts. I'm talking about a scientific understanding of a phenomenon and how its independent of the history of how that understanding came about. I don't need to know about Madam Curie's personal life to understand how radioactive isotopes behave.
I think you're really missing this big part of science. Scientific explanations are made specifically so that you don't have to understand the history of how the theory came about to get the concept across. You can go in the lab and perform the experiments yourself and learn the theories without even knowing anything about the person that originally came up with it.

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 12:38 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 2:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 70 (692798)
03-07-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 2:39 PM


Oh, I see. "Agree with me or I'll insult you".
Don't be so thin-skinned. You've presented your ideas on a debate board and they're going to be challenged.
I don't feel any hostility but the tone that you're perceiving it from comes from the fact that you've said that you think that the history of science is more important that the science itself, that scientists cannot understand what they're studying if they don't understand the history, and that if scientists did study their history more then they wouldn't waste time investigating so much stupid stuff.
I have not utterly disregarded these inane position of yours, I've explained why they are incorrect. I've asked pertinent questions that you've now avoided. And you've also now replied with hostility and insult.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 2:39 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 70 (692804)
03-07-2013 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 4:07 PM


You insulted me.
With which words?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 4:07 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 70 (692813)
03-07-2013 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 4:21 PM


Well it was these that got me specifically...
"OMG, sooo suprised! Guess what: I can still calculate the velocity of a ball from the derivative of its position with respect to time both before and after knowing that. So why did it matter at all?"
Its just a little snark, man. Geez, its nothing personal.
I simply brought up a point and you respond with "OMG, sooo suprised." Does that seem more friendly to you or more insulting and arrogant? Like I said, I was only looking tell about my paper, not discuss why you think history is irrelevant.
Well, you're paper's not done, so... all we really have to discuss here is your point on the relevance of history.
Would it make you all happy if I said the history of science is more important to non-scientists than a science class is? I still think a biologist should read Darwin, but to your average person, I still think A history of science course does a lot more than a biology course...
Well, that does make your point more clear. But it still depends on what it is important for.
I happen to think that, generally speaking, a good science education is more important that a good history one. But in regards to understanding the evolution vs creation debate, I can see how knowing the history behind it would be very helpful. Especially with regards to the fact that scientists weren't on some anti-religion crusade like creationists seem to think.
If you think the history of how science came to be, and the religious involvement, isn't important, fine. I am not sure why you are under the impression that there is science vs theology...Thoughout much of history they were the same thing...
okay, so you can look in a microscope without reading Darwin, but I bet you cannot explain to people the history of the creationism-evolution controversy. You may say, so what? Well it is quite simple...The way we get rid of this controversy is to educate people about it. Of course you will never convince the creationists of one thing or another, but you can explain the facts to those that are ignorant on the topic.
I think you might have been mislead on how big of a controversy there really is.
But I do see a good point in there. Creationists are not going to be convinced of evolution by throwing a bunch of science at them and I think you might be onto something with explaining the history of the emergence of the theory as a way to show that its not really about destroying religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 4:21 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 70 (692816)
03-07-2013 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 5:07 PM


If you type:
[qs]quotes are easy[/qs]
then it becomes
quotes are easy
"qs" means quote shaded. There also just regular "quote" that looks like this:
quote:
quotes are easy
Which I reserve for quotes that are not from the person I'm replying to. You can also use the "Peek" button at the bottom right of each post to see the exact text that was entered in the box. That'll show you how to do some of the other formatting.
I do have one question though...What do you mean by this?
"I think you might have been mislead on how big of a controversy there really is."
Do you mean I am underestimating it, overestimating it, or are you talking in the scientific field?
Overestimating. I don't think there's that much of a controversy. The creationists aren't that numerous, they're just really loud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 5:07 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 5:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 70 (692820)
03-07-2013 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 5:19 PM


Something like 50% of Americans do not believe in evolution.
You gotta look at the way the survey questions are phrased. I doubt that many people have a problem with RM+NS as an explanation for how species diversify.
People start getting hesitant when they think about humans evolving from "monkeys", though. But we wanna feel special.
Too, there's people who think that god used evolution to create organisms so they might still count as a part of the creationist group in a survey even though they don't doubt evolution.
There are also constantly court cases about it.
It only takes one person to propose a law. And those are copied from templates that are provided by groups like the DI.
What looks like a strong movement turns out to be a small group of people making a lot of noise.
I know most Christians do not have a problem with evolution, but I do not think this is a small problem, nor do I think it is going away any time soon.
People who have been creationists their whole lives aren't going to change their minds, but they will die some day. I don't think its spreading very much so I see it going away on its own eventually.
Go ahead and try to help, though. No reason not to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 5:19 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by KevinAthans, posted 03-08-2013 12:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 70 (692899)
03-08-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by KevinAthans
03-08-2013 12:56 AM


I understand your points. I would argue that the 50% that deny evolution are not included in your theological evolutionists. The question is about acceptance of evolution, not whether or not it is a mechanism of God.
Show me the question and the results, then we can talk about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by KevinAthans, posted 03-08-2013 12:56 AM KevinAthans has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024