Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,566 Year: 4,823/9,624 Month: 171/427 Week: 84/85 Day: 1/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is science a religion?
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3782 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 226 of 295 (311770)
05-14-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:24 PM


Re: Misunderstandings
brianforbes, you stated
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.
Are you really trying to say that you alone are more capable of drawing scientific conclusions about science than practicing scientists? Or are you trying to say something else?
You've also stated (and I paraphrase) that if you used the evidence in this debate you would lose the debate. If you, with your inherent, anti-evolution bias, can see that the evidence is so strong, is it ethical to assert it is skewed? Why not show it is skewed and show how it is skewed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:24 PM brianforbes has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 227 of 295 (311771)
05-14-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:24 PM


Re: Misunderstandings
brianforbes writes:
It's common sense!
One of my teachers used to say, "Dirt is common - but it isn't worth much."

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:24 PM brianforbes has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 228 of 295 (311774)
05-14-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:24 PM


Re: Misunderstandings
brianforbes writes:
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.
There it is, in a nutshell, the reason why your opinion about the truthfullness of evolution is irelevant to the debate. As you stated above, you do not rely in the evidence. Instead, you rely on something else that you state to be common sense. The advaces of the understanding of how the world works that happened in the last few centuries have shown that common sense is not a very reliable way to find out the truth. In fact, I would say that, by stating that you got to your conclusions through common sense, you are actually weakening your point, not strenghtenning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:24 PM brianforbes has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4187 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 229 of 295 (311780)
05-14-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Dinosaurs in History - Spontaneity
AS i said before, your understanding of science is pure nonsense. this example is a pure strawman of evolution, ToE doesn't say that animals just sudenly change like you are claiming. nor does your example even trouble evolution since the theory doesnt' calim this nonsense
how about you go read a book on evolution?
you must not be working the right place to learn about AI then, they have created some very intelligent AI over the years

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:20 PM brianforbes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by CK, posted 05-14-2006 5:12 PM ReverendDG has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 230 of 295 (311782)
05-14-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:24 PM


brainforbes sums up Biblical Creationist thinking.
I don't care if I've been "lied to".
It's pretty obvious that many other Christian Biblical Creationists feel the same. Looking at the Biblical Creationist websites it looks like Lying for Jesus is the prefered tactic.
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.
We noticed. It's called wilfull ignorance. It's when you wilfully ignore all the evidence that does not support your desired point of view.
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.
Again, pretty normal for Biblical Creationists. They make it up. They have to. As you say:
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.
It is common sense. If the Biblical Creationists accepted the evidence that is there, overwhelmingly there, they would have to admit that Biblical Creationism is simply a perversion of Christianity.
The best I can do is assert that the evidence is skewed in light of what believing the evidence would mean.
Yes, exactly. Wilfull Ignorance.
BUT...
remember that you do not have to abandon Christianity, only the liars.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:24 PM brianforbes has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4204 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 231 of 295 (311784)
05-14-2006 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ReverendDG
05-14-2006 4:51 PM


Forgot dinosaurs what about Werewolves?
I must confess I was interested by this bit (and this very loaded question) of the site that was linked to -
quote:
"What historical animal, real or fictitious, do we have more stories about being killed because of its threat to people?"
I asked 5 people and 2 of those answered werewolf!
Edited by CK, : Changing post title.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ReverendDG, posted 05-14-2006 4:51 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by ReverendDG, posted 05-14-2006 5:31 PM CK has not replied
 Message 235 by subbie, posted 05-14-2006 5:46 PM CK has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4187 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 232 of 295 (311786)
05-14-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Misunderstandings
It was a general complaint about the thread. Others here have.
i called you a jerk, in refrence to the fact that you used the petty tactic of saying that if people don't agree with you they are stupid and biased - if i agreed with you, i would say you shouldn't use tatics like that, but since i don't i called you a jerk, which you are for using that tactic
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.
I'm sorry do you even understand what science DOES??
science can only test things that leave evidence, if something doesn't leave some form of evidence its pointless to add it to the mix. Science has said "I don't know" forever, you just are seeing the things they feel they do know - saying they should say "I don't know" shows you don't know
Testing those theories starts with the assumption that there was no intelligence or supernatural involvement.
when you find some evidence that shows that there was an intelligence involved or even that the supernatural exists then you can win a nobel prize, till then science will just forget things they have no evidence for.
That's bias. I don't think I can make it any clearer for you.
ok your usage of bias is just wrong, why should scientists suddenly take things at face value that has no evidence? you consider not allowing just anything to be counted as science bias?
whats the point of bothering with studing the world if we can't even define how we study it?
By the way, "...that's what creos do..." You can call that "a degree of confidence," but I'm going to call it bias.
i call your bias a buzzword used to insult thousands of peoples work over the last 150 years to make yourself feel better
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.
the problem is ID doesn't want to find evidence the same bloody way every other theory has, through the scientific method, hell it doesn't have any structure or framework or anything to back it up, why even call it a theory? the fact that evidence from scientists is viewed as somehow tained just shows that, you have no understanding of how evidence is gathered or how people go about reviewing it
Right now, all I have to go on is that Evolutionism is amoral, pointless, and very speculative.
the first two objections are purely human constructs and have nothing to do with science itself, as for your assumption that its speculative, that just just baseless willfull ignorance
Even if it was true that we evolved, it wouldn't do much for our society to believe that it was true.
what does evolution have to do with a social order? why is this relevent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:53 PM brianforbes has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1331 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 233 of 295 (311788)
05-14-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by brianforbes
05-14-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Misunderstandings
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.
***
You say that science "utterly rejects anything that cannot be tested" as if that's a bad thing. And you call it bias, again, in a seemingly perjorative manner. It is not bad that science rejects what cannot be tested. (In fact, science does not reject anything that cannot be tested, but I'll leave that discussion for another place.) It is just that science restricts its reach to those things that can be independantly verified. This isn't bias, it's simply what science is limited to. There are vast fields of human inquiry that deal with things that cannot be independantly verified; philosophy, esthetics, much of metaphysics, theology. These are not less important than fields of science, they are just handled differently.
If you want to reject the scientific method and the evidence that is generated through that process in your search for truth in life, that's your choice. I'm not going to say you are biased simply because intuition and what you call "common sense" carry more weight for you than science. I would aruge that science has produced more results and created more in the way of useful innovations than has intuition or common sense, but that's only one measure of progress. And I'm not going to argue that it's the only measure of progress, or even the most meaningful one. That's a value judgment for people to make on their own.
I value the scientific method because I believe it is the best way to acquire knowledge about how the world works, but I don't claim that it answers all questions. To do so would not demonstrate bias, it would demonstrate a tremendous lack of understanding. At the same time, to call science biased because it limits its field of inquiry to things that can be independantly verified by others suggests to me that you don't really know what bias means, or at least what most people think of when they talk of bias.
Science doesn't "start with the assumption that there was no intelligence or supernatural involvement." That is more or less a conclusion that science has reached, based on the lack of evidence of either, and, in particular, a tremendous amount of evidence strongly suggesting that there was no intelligence involved, at least in the field of the evolution of life. And it's not as if there's been no attempt to find evidence of supernatural forces at work in the world. People have been looking for that for 100s, 1,000s of years. The problem is that there isn't sufficient evidence to support the existence of such forces. To reject something as being non-existent based on a complete lack of evidence isn't bias. It's what science does. It's also actually what most people do on a day to day basis, for that matter. For some reason, however, those of a particular mindset don't see it as being the same thing when the conclusions that science reaches in a certain area disagree with the conclusions they've already reached in their own minds.
One final note. Although you don't say so explicitly, you seem to make the same mistake that many/most/all creos make. You seem to suggest that the question of "the origin of life," whatever that may mean, is significant in the context of discussing evolution. It isn't. The two are completely separate. The details of how life evolved can be studied and understood without knowing the first thing about how life began. And whether we have a complete understanding of the begining of life is irrelevant to our understanding of the evolution of life. Making this connection is important to creos for their social agenda purposes, but scientifically, it's a non sequitor.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 3:53 PM brianforbes has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4187 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 234 of 295 (311789)
05-14-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by CK
05-14-2006 5:12 PM


Re: Forgot dinosaurs what about Werewolves?
I was thinking vampire myself
followed by werewolf!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by CK, posted 05-14-2006 5:12 PM CK has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1331 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 235 of 295 (311791)
05-14-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by CK
05-14-2006 5:12 PM


Re: Forgot dinosaurs what about Werewolves?
quote:
"What historical animal, real or fictitious, do we have more stories about being killed because of its threat to people?"
Witches.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by CK, posted 05-14-2006 5:12 PM CK has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5948 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 236 of 295 (311792)
05-14-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by brianforbes
05-12-2006 5:56 PM


Re: I just know
I think much of what we find as contradiction in the historical texts is that we read our biases into it. It's human nature. Have you heard the theory that Lincoln was gay? Whatever we want to see there, we will find there. It's human nature. The only exception is when the evidence is overwhelming.
As with any human endeavor, biases can creep in. That's why science (and history, and other disciplines for that matter) expend a great deal of effort attempting to obtain independent verification. In fact, that's what the scientific method is based on - replication of results. Think cold fusion - since there was no way to replicate the results of the first research, it was ultimately rejected. The same for any other claim. It's one of the things that makes evolution so compelling - there have been multiple, independent lines of evidence corroborating the basic theory. We argue over details, but there's nothing that has been unearthed that calls into question the basic concepts.
I've seen several books by PhDs in Biology and other fields that challenge the evolutionary theory. In their books, they complain that nobody takes them seriously.
To be honest, I can think of only one PhD biologist - Jonathan Wells - who doubts evolution. His agenda is a bit suspect. His PhD was funded by the Moonies with the express purpose of "destroying evolution from within". Not very successfully, to be honest. You'd probably find his book, Icons of Evolution fascinating. Denton is the only other one, and he's pretty much recanted all his earlier anti-evolution writings. Other than that, beyond a handful of biochemists, one or two mol biologists (wasn't Borger mol bio?), and one ecologist (Salty started out life as ecologist), no one writing on the creo side is a life scientist. Their expertise, therefore, is not germane to the discussion.
As far as reading theories goes, have you read any actual evolutionary biology? Just curious. If not, perhaps you'd find one of the undergrad evo bio texts illuminating. My favorite is Douglas Futyma's Evolutionary Biology. It shouldn't be beyond a reasonably intelligent individual, which you seem to be.
The problem, as I've stated, is that I cannot believe in science if it doesn't jive with my theology. I believe the thing I hear people around here saying is that Science is more important than theology because it is testable. I can accept that if they give better evidence AND answers for the evidence that theologians (and prophets, etc.) give us.
[begin Yoda mode] And that is why you fail.[/yoda] But seriously, don't you think rejecting all that work by all those people from all those cultures just because of your particular perception of theology might just be a bit, hmm, wrong? Can you even entertain the possibility that reasonably smart folks working their entire lives in the field might - just might - know whereof they speak? Whatever your position in theology or metaphysics, when it comes to the physical world of our senses, it seems to me to behoove us to at least listen to what the folks that study that world have to say.
You wouldn't be opposed to them using the conclusions of science, though? What about a scientist using the conclusions of theology or history in their pursuits? That doesn't work, I suppose.
But why would they? My position, as I've outlined, is that the two have nothing in common. They don't play in the same sandbox, as I've said before. It would make no more sense for a scientists to use metaphysics to explain an observation of the physical world than it would for a theologian to use the scientific method to explain God. Neither are equipped to use the methodology of the other.
I've said it before, it takes faith to believe they work together fine.
That's my point. They don't "work together". They are concerned with completely non-overlapping arenas. That's why creationists end up looking like idiots when they try to deny science. As jar puts it, it's both bad science and bad theology.
I'm still better off believing that the evidence is skewed.
Unfortunately, whereas you can believe anything you want, you aren't entitled to your own facts. The facts speak loudly and unequivocally - evolution happens. Whether it makes you feel good or not is irrelevant. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Welcome to the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by brianforbes, posted 05-12-2006 5:56 PM brianforbes has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5948 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 237 of 295 (311793)
05-14-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by subbie
05-12-2006 6:09 PM


Re: It takes faith
I beg to differ, Questzal.
That's okay. You're allowed.
I think it does some faith. Faith in the scientific method, for one thing. Nobody can have direct, first-hand knowledge of all the facts necessary to fully understand evolution and how it works. Every scientist depends heavily on the work of other scientists. This is reliable only because all (good) scientists follow the scientific method. And, we believe the scientific method is the best method we have at our disposal right now for pursuing truth.
It also requires faith in our ability to accurately perceive the real world. And, it requires faith in our ability to intelligently reason and come to conclusions based on our reason that we can be confident in.
Of course. I have faith that I am an actual entity typing on an actual physical object communicating (indirectly) with another actual physical entity. From a philosophical standpoint, that might not necessarily be a given, I guess. However, in the context of discussions with True Believers (tm), faith has a somewhat different connotation. It is adherence to a philosophy or worldview in the absence of evidence - or even in the face of counter-evidence.
OTOH, it is at least theoretically possible to know all the facts upon which evolution is based. In reality, of course, there probably aren't enough days in a human lifetime for any one person to encompass it all, simply because the sheer volume of evidence is so vast. But therein lies the difference. A religious person, almost by definition, can't possibly encompass the evidence for the divine, simply because there isn't any (at least in the sense science means it when it talks about evidence). They rely on faith (or should that be Faith, with a capital F?).
These are the kinds of faith that are required, in my opinion, to accept evolution as a fact (or, as you suggest, blind faith in authority). And, because science places its faith in these things, and religion places its faith elsewhere, there is and will always be an insoluable conflict between those of a particular religious persuasion and the rest of the thinking world.
I don't have any fundamental disagreement with this, except as outlined above. I think it boils down to a basic difference between what Believers and Scientists mean when they discuss faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by subbie, posted 05-12-2006 6:09 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by subbie, posted 05-14-2006 7:35 PM Quetzal has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1331 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 238 of 295 (311797)
05-14-2006 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Quetzal
05-14-2006 6:29 PM


Re: It takes faith
Exactly. The True Believer (tm) relies on The Revealed Word (c) 0, for truths. The Scientist relies on the scientific method. And I have no truck with the True Believer (tm), so long as he doesn't drag his Faith into my method. If the True Believer (tm) wants to preach from the pulpit (or the sandbox, for that matter) until his face is blue that the world is 6,000 years old and goddidit, more power to him. I won't even go into his playground and piss in his sand. He can have that field. But if he wants to come into our playground, he has to play by our groundrules. He has to accept the scientific method. But that's all, really.
Intution can be a valuable tool in scientific inquiry. A spark of inspiration can turn a mass of seemingly unrelated informaiton into a cohesive collection of data providing compelling support to a previously unknown scientific principle. However, intuition is only a guide, a tool, to be used in evaluating information. It is not a master that allows one to cavalierly disregard any facts that don't feel right.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2006 6:29 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2006 8:59 PM subbie has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5948 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 239 of 295 (311821)
05-14-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by subbie
05-14-2006 7:35 PM


Re: It takes faith
We are indeed in 100% agreement. So, what do we talk about now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by subbie, posted 05-14-2006 7:35 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by subbie, posted 05-14-2006 9:09 PM Quetzal has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1331 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 240 of 295 (311823)
05-14-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Quetzal
05-14-2006 8:59 PM


Re: It takes faith
Idunno.
How's the guy in your picture doing?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2006 8:59 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Quetzal, posted 05-14-2006 11:18 PM subbie 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