I think what is meant that since no one observed any of the evolution theory actually take place, science must take the theory on faith. Which is true. Evolution is theory, if you believe it, you do so on faith, not actual experience. A great deal of science is that way. There is as much faith in science as religion.
As for the spiritual side. Near death experiencers do not need faith to believe in spiritual events. They have actually experienced them, so they know they are real. Now scientists may say they didn’t because of blah, and blah, but the fact is, scientists don’t have a clue what they experienced.
Shortcomings of science doesn’t = credit for the Bible any more than it translates into credit for norse mythology, Buddhist cosmology or Lakota legends. All answer questions that science doesn’t.
Fuel: *When I observe a bird, I see that it has one unique characteristic that stands out, wings. I maybe can figure out one or two more unique things about them such as how they all fly off a telephone wire in perfect harmony without any observable “signal”. These are unique, but that’s about it i’m afraid, two things.
Now think of a bird observing us driving around in cars, playing tennis, sculpting, weightlifting, getting haircuts, ect. Come on buddy, this is not even comparable from an observation standpoint.*
All this demonstrates is that, as DF noted, you don’t pay much attention to birds. Furthermore, you see things from a human point of view instead of a bird’s point of view, so naturally you are going to perceive the human activities as being much more varied and meaningful.
From a bird’s point of view, all its different ways of grooming, nest-building, food hunting, predator evasion, flock communication, and everything else it does would be the distinct and meaningful activities. From a bird’s point of view, human activity is much more primitive and uninteresting than bird activity: humans don’t do anything except move around some and manipulate objects, mostly in repetitive and meaningless ways.
lekatt:There is as much faith in science as religion.
I think you misunderstand what “theory” means in science. “Theory” just means “this is the best and most consistent material rational explanation we have at present for this particular phenomenon, but we may have to change or abandon it in the future if new evidence indicates that it’s wrong.”
This is very different in many ways from faith in religious dogma. Religious faith means “This is true because divine authority has revealed it as true, and since divine authority is infallible, there is no way this could ever not be true.”
Those are quite different perspectives, and have quite different epistemological consequences for their adherents. The differences can’t be glossed over by sloppy use of words like “faith”.
Bah the OP is a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not directed, we are in no way evolutionarily superior than any other creature on this planet. We happen to be quite a successful animal, in our ability to populate different niches. But the cockroach does as well, as does the rat.
We have one defining feature – language. Nobody can give the exact conditions which led to the evolution of language, just like nobody can give the exact conditions leading to the cockroach being able to run 40 kmh or a peacock’s tail.
The one thing that sets us apart from our nearest primate cousins is language, which reinforces the social structure already present in our primate cousins. IMHO it serves as a great accelerator of social and industrial refinement. For instance tool building. Chimps can use tools, so we are not unique in tool using. But let’s say one chimp could tell the other chimp a better way to break a branch for fishing out insects from a tree trunk. And then the second chimp improved the first chimp’s method and told a third chimp, who improved it further. By the time you get to the trillionth chimp, you have a laser guided reciprocating saw. Language is the great unifier of our brain as well, as is probably behind self-identity and the concept of self. With this extends diversified social structures.
No one has actually observed a magnetic field or gravity either. But given the effects that are observable, it can be demonstrated what are the best ways to conceive of these things in order to make accurate prediction about the behavior of objects in the world. Remeber that gravity is “just a theory” too.
No it isn’t and no there is not.
I’ve worked at a scientific peer review journal of international renown, The Auk. There is actually quite a bit of questioning and doubting going on. The competition is very fierce because the stakes are so low. If a scientist can poke holes in another’s methods, test or conclusions, he will. A scientist is rewarded for doubting and being able to poke holes in another scientist’s work. That’s part of their job. When somone’s work is found to be incomplete or poorly studied or have incorrect conclusions it is returned for revision and ammendment. It is changed until it is in accord with observable facts. I’ve not heard of the Bible having to go through such a process.
Delusional schizophrenics and drug-addled crankcases do not need faith to believe in various events. They have actually experienced them, so they know they are real.
lekatt:…since no one observed any of the evolution theory actually take place…
Not true, actually: science does observe evolution take place all the time. Scientists have experimented with isolated populations of certain species and have seen them evolve into organisms different enough to be considered distinct species. Heck, medical researchers develop flu vaccines based on their knowledge of evolution in flu viruses.
No, nobody alive today has seen the biological evolution of Homo sapiens as a separate species, that’s true. Similarly, nobody alive today has seen any of the stone pillars of Stonehenge fall over.
However, since we understand how the theory of gravity works, and since it is a very good theory that explains a lot of the facts we observe today, we accept—not as a dogma of faith, but as an extension of our basic scientific model which so far is consistent and successful—that the fall of Stonehenge pillars in the past obeyed the laws of gravity.
Likewise, we accept, as an extension of our successful model of biological evolution, that human beings changed biologically in accordance with the laws of natural selection. In both cases, if we find new evidence to the contrary, we’ll change our theory. Extrapolating the behavior of successful theories from the present into the past isn’t the same thing as religious faith.
Scientists certainly do use some assumptions that can never be proved: that natural laws are consistent, that material phenomena can be accounted for by material explanations, and so forth. But you can’t argue from that that religious dogmas are just as “scientific” as scientific theories. Or that just because they both make some unprovable assumptions and make some claims about things that no living person has personally experienced, they are equally dependent on “faith”. Religious faith uses the concept of “belief” very, very differently from the way scientific theories use it.
So, anything that cannot be disproved is untrue? So, if I stole your car, but you couldn’t disprove my claim that i am innocent, then i didn’t do it? But i did it, i stole your car and now that you can’t disprove my claim, i am innocent to drive by your house everyday waving at you from your car. Makes no sense. I am not going to let unfalsifiablity keep me from finding the truth. Besides, evolution is unfalsifiable right now as well…there is no evidence right now to disprove it either.
yeah but have you seen one between the Tigris and Euphrates River and dated to be about 2000-5000 years old?
No, i meant finding 100 skeletons over the course of 10 years and in different places. Come one buddy, think for a change.
Look at every other mammals’ everyday activities and look our the average persons’ daily activities. Do you see the difference? Now, explain how this difference occurred and then use sciences’ theories to infer possibly why this happened. You can’t, so I take this as evidence, however small or insignificant, that there is a possibly of something working behind the scenes. Then i look over and see the Bible. Then i go from there.
Ok, after reading part of your post, i am realizing yo udidn’t see part of my recent post about how i am not trying to come to a conclusion here. I am trying to gain credit for creation by showing the shortcomings of modern science. I am not against science and i am not trying to battle with it’s relevancy… it has an abundance of evidence, but also an abundance of a lack of evidence. I am trying to use the lack of evidence as support for the other theories. That’s all.
And that’s a very scientific approach. Entertain other theories. But it seems that you entertain only one other theory. Aside from the Bible, what other theories are you trying to support?
And you will fail utterly in your quest, I’m afraid. If it were proven conclusively that evolution is false, that lends no credence to any other theory. All theories must stand, or fall, completely on their own. This is why creationism has gotten nowhere: it exists only as a counter to evolution. Its arguments consist solely of attempts at poking holes in another theory. It cannot offer any of its own theories to act as an alternate explanation. It only offers a simple homily: God did it.
Lack of evidence does not prove anything. That we don’t now know something says nothing about whether that something can be known.
Moderator’s Note:Fuel, please learn to use the quote tags correctly. See vB Codes Explained; if you specific questions about how the vB Codes work, you can post them in the ATMB forum. Thank you.
I am trying to gain support for any other scientific theories and written works that earn logical respect and prove to be competent works. The Bible seems to be the one written work (to me) that begs the most attention because of it’s cohesiveness and and accuracy. This is just my somewhat biased and uneducated opinion though. There are a good deal of religious works out there like the Quaran (sp?) which offer an explanation as well.
IMO, everyone needs to have an opinion on the Bible. While a number of people write off the Bible as errant, there is still such a wealth of validity in this book that anyone trying to find the answer to the perceived differences between us and animals must at least consider this books’ explanation as a valid theory, especially in the wake of modern sciences’ shortcomings.
The way humans are wired, this will indeed lend credence to this theory. You are right, logically it shouldn’t matter, but humans are so emotional when it comes to this point. That’s all i care is gained credibility with humans.
You are Soooooooooo wrong about Creationism existing to poke holes in another theory. Do you realize that Creationsm is older than evolution? It was around before evolution and evolution has sprouted up and tried to poke holes in Creationism. You got things a little “bass ackwards” there buddy.
i said nothing about intelligence, i mentioned creativity and complexity.
Again, i am not claiming anything to be true or untrue. Please understand this, because this is the third time i have had to say this. I am trying to gain acceptability.
Since the truth cannot be found right now, I am trying to gain credence for Creation from humans who are on the scientific side for no logical reason. The truth cannot be found, but it can be stumbled upon. The truth can also be hidden behind something such as science. I am here to make things as clear as possible, nothing more.
I’m not trying to gain acceptability personally, there, Chief. I’m trying to gain some acceptability for Creation and other explanations unrelated to science and evolution.