|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the principles of world view | |||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The problem that we Creationists will always have with the "belief system of evolution" is that you believe life evolved without a Creator, and we do not. False. Science does not work on "belief." Science relies on evidence. Secondly, the theory of evolution does not depend on the method for the origin of life. The theory of evolution works equally well if 1) life arose naturally, 2) life was created by some deity, 3) life was seeded here by aliens, 4) life was transmitted back from the distant future, or 5) other. Makes no difference, because the theory of evolution deals with changes in the genome after life began.
You say it's proven science, and we most emphatically say it's not! No science is "proven." All science is tentative. Within that caution, some theories have more supporting evidence than others. The theory of evolution is among the best-supported theories in science.
I believe in the science that studies the disease of polio, and then develops a cure, saving countless millions from this dredful disease. I believe in the science that studies why certain atoms fission, and then learns how to harness this energy for the good or detrement of mankind. I believe in the science of learning how to overcome gravity, and then developing airplanes and spacecrafts to take us places where gravity held us down. Your "belief" is immaterial. Belief has no role in science. Rather, it is what the evidence shows.
But I do not believe in the "so-called science of evolution" that has never been proven with a high degree of accuracy from start to finish in a single experiment where life forms evolve from single cells to fully grown creatures able to reproduce. You are battling a strawman because what you don't believe in has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Again, the theory of evolution does not cover, nor does it depend upon, origins. And from your scare quotes surrounding "so-called science of evolution" you are implying that the theory of evolution is not science. That is the latest creation "science" talking point, and it is false. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it follows the scientific method. Whether creationists like it or not, that's the way it is. And again, you are looking for "proof." Name one scientific theory that has been proved. You have set up a strawman definition and no doubt consider your argument superior. Perhaps you should study the scientific method before you make such statements. Finally, you say you want to see life develop from nothing to creatures able to reproduce. Again, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. You need to seek out the folks studying abiogenesis or origins and harass them. I know creationists are reluctant to study science. Just last night I was told on another forum "...evolution is not science and is of Satan." But if you are going to make claims about science it would be much more effective if you had some basic education in those fields on which you are commenting, lest you appear as much a zealot as the poster I just cited. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
That's precisely why the theory of evolution is not real science, nor ever will be. Real science is science that can be proven to be true in the time frame of a human's life span to a high degree of accuracy. "So-called evolutionary science" is worthless when it comes to true science, and produces no worthwhile good for mankind. ... Yes, some people at this forum need to learn some basic education of what true science is all about. This is another recent creationist tactic, separating "true" science from, I presume, "false" science. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are doing science if you follow the scientific method, whether creationists approve or not. You don't need credentials, rigorous training or fancy equipment; you do need to follow the scientific method. Creationists, on the other hand, seem determined to destroy the evolutionary sciences. This recent sophistry of separating the evolutionary sciences from "true" sciences is just one such tactic. And you fell for it. And its both nonsense and dishonest, start to finish. It is nothing more than an attempt to censor a science that creationists don't agree with for religious--not scientific--reasons. I've seen many posts on other websites suggesting that all of the evolutionary sciences be defunded (likewise you described evolutionary sciences as "worthless"). This is all a part of the creationists' stealth efforts to destroy any science they disagree with, and ultimately to impose their religious views on the rest of us. But it won't work; there was this little event called The Enlightenment, and the genie is out of the bottle. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: Curiously, all that this proves, if it's true, is that not all scientists know how science works, and why. Most engineers know a lot of science, but often that is from learning what has been worked out by the scientists rather than advancing scientific theory themselves. Your mileage may vary. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Until you are able live long enough to observe and prove the claims made by the theories of evolution, they are just that - theories, not facts, and certainly not true science.
Theories are "true" science--to the extent that such a thing as "true" science exists. A theory is the current best explanation for a given set of phenomena. To become a theory an idea or hypothesis must have undergone rigorous testing and must have made successful predictions. And, there must be no facts which contradict that theory. There is no higher level of explanation in science than a theory. A law is not higher, as theories explain laws. Proof is not a part of science; see the math guys down the hall. You seem be be laboring under the notion that the recent creationist talking point of purporting to differentiate between "true" science and evolutionary science is legitimate. It is not. Perhaps you folks should stop trying to interfere in science, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Theories are just that, theories until they are proven to be true. Theories may be studied by scientific methods, but that does not make them "true science" in and of themselves. When they are proven to be true, then the theories and the science that proved them to be true may be considered true science. I challenge you to name one scientific theory that has been proven "true" -- by scientists. And that is claimed as such -- by scientists. You might consider the definitions I have included below in your answer. Otherwise, you really should drop this "proven to be true" and "true science" nonsense. That is just the latest scheme cooked up by creationists to denigrate the theory of evolution. It might work with sympathetic school boards, but scientists know the difference--even if you don't. Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this. And lest you think I am just making up these definitions and that "true" sciences such as physics would never agree, check out the source for the latter two. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You write:
Genetics just would not work without evolution. But to those with a different world view, one capable of overcoming all evidence that does not agree with that world view, genetics means nothing when it contradicts scripture and revelation. Science means nothing when it contradicts scripture and revelation. This is the "world view" problem. When one's world view accepts revelation and scripture as the highest forms of knowledge, as I have seen some declare on other websites, then anything that attempts to contradict that belief--no matter what the evidence--will simply be ignored, or disbelieved! So, when one believes that man originated by "special creation" scientific evidence will mean nothing. Scientists may claim that "genetics just would not work without evolution" but if that claim contradicts a world view based on scripture and revelation it is obviously a false claim. Or, as I was informed on another website a few days ago, "I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan." That is an extreme version of "world view" but there are folks like that out there. To some, scientific evidence means nothing, as they have accepted a world view that won't allow any outside influences (evidence, science, etc.) to penetrate. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024