You asked the other day why you kept getting attacked. This is why. Several of these statements are lies. They have been shown to be lies, yet you repeat them.
Science has never assaulted religion. It just hasn’t. Individual scientists have challenged religion while many other scientists have found no conflict.
The evolutionary process is a fact, and you have repeatedly ignored posts with citations to demonstrate that it is a fact. Beyond that, the word theory in “Theory of Evolution” is not used in the way that you insist on misusing it. This, too, you have had shown you on numerous occasions.
Science has never dictated (or declared or speculated or otherwise suggested) that there is no such thing as spirit. Some individual scientists have expressed that as a personal belief not supported by science and other scientists have expressed a belief in spirit, while noting that science does not have the tools to address things outside the physical.
So, you wander into one more thread, posting three separate falsehoods in a single paragraph–falsehoods that many posters have demonstrated to you on numerous occasions that they are false–and then you will wonder why you are being “attacked.”
Not very up to date on the news, are you? There’s quite a lot of exchange between the two sides, often quite vituperative. Ignorance and pseudoscience can be quite stubborn, but educational sessions such as the ones you describe are a part of healthy debate. The more evolution is argued, the more its strengths become apparent, which is where this latest series of challenges by the “intelligent design” crowd will backfire.
On the contrary, kids who are stimulated to ask questions are more likely to become scientists. The next dogma they challenge could be that of their faith.
All of this uproar is part of a healthy society, as frustrating as dealing with tunnel-visioned fundamentalists is and has always been.
So in fact, the percentage of the public that adheres to belief in recent creation of humankind without evolution was not significantly larger twenty years ago than it is today. Actually, that percentage now appears to be slightly increasing.
Evolution is a fact proven as well as anything in science. The scientific arguements over evolution are about the details of how it works, not over it’s existence. It’s the core of modern biology, and important in medicine as well. Majority opinion means nothing in science.
Religion is “protrayed as ignorance, and superstitution” because that is all it is. It is an empty shell of feel good delusions and excuses for tyranny. Science is in a position to ridicule religion, because it is right and religion is wrong. Not to mention, science is useful, and religion is parasitic and destructive.
lekatt, please note that this is the opinion of one individual. Note also, that his opinion does not rely on science for its conclusions. He makes assertions, just as you do. At this point, one significant difference between his opinion and your is that Der Trihs has not interrupted a theological discussion to assert as fact false statements regarding actual religious beliefs.
This is the difference between his post and yours. His opinion is expressed as opinion (however tightly he holds it) and he has posted only opinion, not claimed error as fact.
I will note that when he claims that " Science is in a position to ridicule religion," he is overstepping the bounds of science, which is not, in fact, as a discipline in any such position.
What I am trying to show you is the way religionists look at the theory of evolution, nothing more.
You will notice no “fact” is mentioned. Light is also explained by the pulse theory.
Religionists ask why their explanation can’t be considered as well. Since we really don’t know the truth of the matter. Religionists did not feel strongly about this until evolution was called fact and taught as fact in science classes. That is why they are objecting.
Science needs to address themselves to the real reasons instead of just calling creation nonsense. This superiority attitude does not work.
Disappointing, but it appears you’re right. The Harris Poll seems to bear this out, too.
On the other hand, the Harris Poll seems to support my larger point, which is that the younger generation is more accepting of evolution. (I would argue that this is a result of TV and internet exposure to the evidence.)
Among all adults, only 38% believe that humans evolved from an earlier species. However, among 18-34-year-olds, 46% believe it.
Among all adults, only 46% believe apes and man have common ancestry. But among 18-34-year-olds, 57% believe it.
Among all adults, only 46% believe evolution is proven by the fossil record. But among 18-34-year-olds, 57% believe it.
Call me an optimist, but I say evolution is winning the debate, over time. Just give it another generation or two.
Your treatment of creationists is guaranteed to widen the conflict of beliefs. However, it is a typical example of how creationists are treated in America. I am a believer in Intelligent Design because it makes sense and is logical, so I would get a polite brush-off. Well I guess that’s better than being kicked out the door.
They don’t use the word “fact” because that’s just the language scientists use.
Are you referring to the very archaic theory proposed by Christiaan Huygens ? That’s what I got when I googled, and I serious doubt a theory from the 1600s qualifies as a good rival to modern theories.
The religious explanations are not worth consideration. They explain nothing and have zero evidence; thay are simply not worthy contenders.
ID is just standard creationism without the guts to admit it. It explains nothing and is scientifically sterile. It doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory, much less a worthy rival. It has no evidence, and can be neither proven nor falsified.
I am not speaking for anyone but myself. I speak with such firmness on this subject because ID/creationism is so far away from scientifically respectable it’s a joke. We are not talking about an argument over the flatness of the universe or whether or not “memes” are a useful metaphor or whether or not homo sapians exterminated the Neaderthals; we’re talking about a position that was completely discredited decades before I was born. Believing in creationism is about as silly as believing in phlogiston or epicycles or perpetual motion.
You can’t see why anyone would agree with me because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even someone with a casual knowledge of the subject should know that the scientifc debate over the existence of evolution is dead, dead, dead and evolution won.
However, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, there are two aspects to this discussion.
The FACT is that evolution has occurred. There is no “theory” regarding whether it has occurred. The evidence all points to it happening and we have witnessed it occurring.
The THEORY addresses how that FACT occurred. The currently accepted theory of evolution is the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection. That is the scientific theory–the HOW.
It is a standard Creationist stunt (which you have bought into, despite repeated correction) that since scientists use the word THEORY when discussing HOW something happened, it must be “only” a theory THAT it happened. This is false. It is a misunderstanding of science and an abuse of language.
I will disagree with you here. The debate has only begun, and the more you try to bully, ridicule, and belittle people who hold religion sacred, the more they will vote against everything you believe in. Good Luck.
There is no proof of the evolution of man from the start to the present and never will be. You are taking a small part of knowledge and expanding it to cover things unknown to science. No one knows how man came into being, no one was there to witness it, and even if there were, science would label the testimony anecdotal, and tell the experiencer they were mistaken, lying, or hallucinating. You can’t find the truth by bully the opposition into believing as you do. Truth will always surface, truth will always win.
I said “scientific debate”, not “popular debate”. Thanks to America’s combination of religious zealotry and poor scientific education the popular debate is still going.
Reality, however, is not a popularity contest; neither is science. You and those like you are wrong; from a rational, factual viewpoint there is only one side to this arguement.
I fully expect the religious to disagree with me; judging from history it is the nature of religion to be on the wrong side of the facts. You people were wrong about geocentrism, and none of your censorship, threats, torture and murder made you right. Creationism is the same; you are wrong, and nothing you will change that. Your opinion doesn’t matter, because this is not a matter of opinion.
There is an enormous amount of proof, ranging from fossils to genetics to anatomy. Science has not labeled the evidence “ancedotal”; it put it in museums. Are you really asking tomndebb to cite an entire science ? There is no proof for creationism; science has not “dismissed” the evidence because none exists to dismiss.
lekatt, you are the one making wild, unsubstantiated claims, not us. If you want to be taken seriously, produce some evidence you are right.
And here, you change the subject–another dishonest move.
Throughout the last dozens of months, you have constantly claimed that evolution was a “theory” not a fact and that no one had ever seen evolution occurring, despite the fact that you have been provided ample evidence that it has been observed and that it has been proven.
Now, you suddenly change the topic to claim that no one has “proven” that man has evolved.
Regardless whether we have “proof” that man has evolved, your earlier claims were untrue. Now, you are simply changing the topic to shift the argument away from your previous falsehoods.
Actually, we have more than ample evidence that man has evolved, but none of those pieces of evidence will fit your unscientific notion of “proof” that requires the testimony of a witness. If your only real claim is that we have not witnessed the evolution of humanity, then why did you not say that instead of the lies you have continued to post over the course of the last couple of years?
You are right that no one finds the truth by bullying anyone–which is why I treat believers in Creationism with respect–as long as they do not lie during the discussions.
It is also the true that truth will eventually win out, which is why the Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection has slowly gained the consensus of the overwhelming majority of biological scientists, despite constant attempts to overthrow it in its first 80 years and periodic challenges since that time. It is why scientists from every culture and society have come to accept its validity, despite the efforts of a few people among some religions to deny the evidence.
Your treatment of science is guaranteed to perpetuate scientific ignorance among Christians. However, it is a typical example of how creationists are treating others in America.
I have no problem, a priori, with creationism (Old-Earth, Young-Earth) or Intelligent Design. The reason I have no problems with those is because they are religious beliefs.
However, just because they may be true does not mean they belong in a science museum. Religious truths are not subject to scientific explanation - science is based on observation (you provide instructions to repeat the experiment and your peers judge the validity of your claims), while religion is based in revelation (the Bible is not repeated, nor is anyone God’s equal to judge the validity of his claims).
I do not reject creationism or ID on the basis of its religious claims - as a matter of fact, I’m a theist and believe God had some hand (active or inactive) in bringing us here. I reject creationism or ID in a scientific setting because quite simply, there is not a shred of evidence to support them scientifically – nor should there be.
Like most creationists, you misinterpret “creation has no place in the science classroom” for some vitriolic attack on creationism itself. In reality, I am doing nothing of the sort (although I’m sure some people are).
The dictionary definition of theory is as follows:
To your credit, you have selected the explanation that best fits with scientific usage (as opposed to many others who choose definition #2).
However, you notice that the reason why this general principle is offered is to explain phenomena - e.g. facts. A scientific theory is not a fact because a scientific theory encompasses many facts.
The theory of evolution does not rely on one piece of evidence. As a matter of fact, people have put together lists of Evidences of Macroevolution. Evolution is most certainly not a fact – evolution is a scientific theory that pulls together many different facts.
Again, a fundamental misunderstand of evolution comes through. The concept of evolution is different from the concept of abiogenesis. Likewise (even though you didn’t mention it), Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution, either.
The link I provided in my last paragraph includes 29 evidences (note the plural – these are independent pieces of evidence) that life on Earth came from a common ancestor.
