Drug resistance is an example of Natural selection… not of evolution… related, but not the same thing
HeLa cells are not spontanious… therefore not germain to a conversation on evolution (a spontanious process)… all that proves is that new species can be created… the irony being, by an intelligent designer…
There is no PROOF of evolution, as we can not test it… we do not have enough time nor historical evidence (to show the changes)… we have EVIDENCE that gives it credance, much like we have evidence for Newtonian Physics… but as we saw that was an imperfect model as well…
I would say the existance of HeLa cells actually gives EVIDENCE that Intelligent Design is possible (as does cross breeding, and sub-speices specialization)
There is a large measure between proof and evidence… evidence may support something, but does not PROVE it…
You can not TEST evolution… as the ‘test’ would be long term observation, which we have not had sufficent length from the time of the development of the theory…
Joey Jo Jo, as you’ve already seen Der Trihs is our resident extremist fundamentalist of atheism. He makes wild unfounded unproven statements while criticizing believers for doing that same thing. It’s an odd mix of annoying and entertaining.
I appreciate your posts here. I agree there is no necessecary conflict between science and religious belief. While some find it illogical to believe without objective evidence I see subjective evidence just as valid in ih the area of personal belief. IMHO when it comes to moral decisions and personal growth I think all people operate on a certain faith on their own subjective evidence.
I do think there are areas where academic evidence conflicts with tradtional beliefs. It’s reasonable for some things to be a matter of faith and personal choice when the evidence leaves the options open. When the evidence weighs heavily against I think it’s a disservice to the commitment to truth to cling to tradition. In the same way when scientists place personal glory and money above strict honest inquiry they betray scientific principles.
You know, EEMan, if you want to debate whether evolution has been well established by science, you might want to start a separate thread. That’s quite a different thing than what this thread is discussing. It’s really worthy of a separate thread.
I’m sorry… I let a comment hijack the thread itself…
My point initially (it really was… I swear) was that science is the new ‘religion’… where the ‘priests’ are scientists… you are no more allowed to put forward ideas and ideals that are outside their realm, than you could in the 15th century…
MOST of the Scientists prior to 1860 were also religious people… and many sense… I have never understood why one believes there is any kind of active supression of science by religion…
That’s incorrect. These experiments are done starting with one bacteria, which is pure and which does not have resistance. The resistance comes from a mutation, which then dominates through natural selection. If the experiment were done with a heterogenous population, some of which had the immune gene and some not, then you would be correct.
(sorry for the continued hijack, but I don’t want these statements to go unchallenged.)
Sorry, evolution is tested every time we find a fossil, and every time we do an experiment. Testing can just falsify evolution, never prove it, so you are correct that there is no proof - but then there isn’t proof for just about any scientific theory. That’s not how science works.
Intelligent design in principle is not impossible. We just have never seen any evidence of it, and don’t need it to explain anything, so it is pointless to consider it.
I read an interesting book (which I think was a dissertation) on the rise of disbelief in the US in the 19th Century. One of its points was that in the early 19th century there was support of science by many religious leaders, on the grounds that they expected science to provide support for the Bible. The discovery of the ruins of the cities mentioned in the Bible helped this. There was resistance to this trend by the more fundamentalist types.
The discovery of the age of the earth was no big problem, since it did not fundamentally change anything about Genesis, and could be easily explained away. The main thing they cared about was mankind’s special position as in the image of god.
Darwin blew that away, since it was clear, even if he didn’t explicitly state it in the Origin, that man was not specially created but a product of evolution. The science loving faction was terribly embarrassed, and the science rejecting faction felt vindicated.
That split lasts to this day, but imagine how religion and science would cooperate if science had confirmed religion.
This comes back to the word “Faith”, and I’m sure we’re both familiar with the controversies surrounding it. Using less ambiguous language, I would say something like, “Knowledge is the enemy of dogma, but this does not imply that science is the enemy of religion.”
This isn’t true. Anyone is free to put forward whatever ridiculous ideas that they like, without any risk of persecution (as opposed to ridicule) from the scientific community. The problems arise when political power is used to support ideas which are in conflict with science; the blame for any conflict lies with the politicians, not the scientists.
I gather from what you’ve said already that you’d describe yourself as a creationist. Isn’t your goal, or the goal of the organizations that represent your viewpoint (the Discovery Institute, the ICR, etc) exactly that - the supression one particular branch of science (evolutionary biology) by one particular religion (fundamentalist Christianity)?
But that is exactly what happens … those too far outside the realm (those who say there are no angels… instead of arguing how many on the head of a pin), DO get persecuted… to the point of losing tenure in some examples… but I was actually speaking about the ‘educated’ at large…
You would be wrong… I just believe there is room for scientific study of the emergance of life, outside of evolution…
I personally believe evolution is the most likely model we have (currently)… but is far from perfect… in fact so far, in some situations, that it might describe only an approixmation of what happens (newtonian physics example… and why I used it)
As stated, it is not MY viewpoint… however, I believe the exclusion of a possibly, because it does not conform to our current viewpoint, is no different than what happened early in the 20th century (scopes trial anyone?) … or even the 15th…
Bolding mine. Yeah right, because having strong opinions is the same as wanting to install a theocracy. The atheism vrs religion double standard. “Militant atheist” yes, but I’m hardly a one man Al Quaeda.
I’ve heard that another problem was the cruelty they found in nature. IIRC it was called “natural theology”; the idea was to understand the mind of God by studying nature. The more they looked, the more nastiness they found, and the worse it made God look - the believers didn’t like that, either.
You mean like the Book of Genesis ? The religious attachment to the nonmaterial nature of the Sun ( Sunspots ?! Impossible ! The Sun is perfect, not mere earthly matter ! ), circular planetary orbits, the created nature of humans, the divine direction of lightning ( using a lightning rod is a sin, you know ), and so on ? We practice cultural amnesia on this subject because it’s so embarrassing for religion, but that doesn’t change history.
Of course not, nor do I need to. It’s the burden of believers to prove themselves right, not for me to prove a negative.
Because we actually exist.
Do you actually read what I say ? In the very quote you dislike, I say ( bolded ) :
Like I said, do you actually read what I say ? The whole point was that science can only speak of the results of your actions, and religion can’t even do that.
So you think all of psychology is not a science ?
I didn’t say commended, nor is it faith. That’s the point; science actually works, so you don’t need faith.
“Faith” with evidence ( like the fact that science actually works ) is not at all the same as faith without or against evidence. The latter two are what religion uses.
As long as they kept their faith out of their science. If they let the two mix, they stopped being able to do science, like Einstein’s scientific crippling due to his religious objections to quantum mechanics, or Newton’s alchemical preoccupation.
Besides, many of your “people of faith” were likely lying about how religious they were, in order to stay alive.
The fact that European countries were large enough to support luxuries like science and art, but disunited so that no one ruler could suppress a particular line of inquiry is enough explanation.
They were not only spontaneous, but also went rogue and escaped all over.
Losing tenure or never getting it? If the former, cite? If the latter, I believe it, since scientists working on wacky things have a hard time publishing in respectable journals, and publishing is a big part of getting tenure.
Nothing wrong with that - if one wants to go off the deep end at some point in his career, he needs to demonstrate he was on the deep end at some point.
Just to stir the pot, there is the case of Richard Sternberg. He was a scientist respected by the scientific community who by his own description is someone who remains skeptical of all viwepoints (creationism, intelligent design and evolution). All he did was as editor agree to publish a peer reviewed article that was critical of evolution. For daring to question evolution he was then blackballed from his workplace, and a quite definite campaign of misinformation was started about him.
Of course none of this gives any evidence of the truth or falseness of evolution. However you have to wonder at groups that proclaim to be all about empirically discovering the truth, and yet act in this sort of way towards people who refuse to toe the party line. Whatever you believe I think you have to acknowledge that there is more going on than just dispassionate investigation going on from all sides.
When a child is blessed after being baptized in the Episcopal Church, the prayer reads, in part “give him an inquiring and discerning heart.” In the Gospels, Christ says the greatest commandment is to love God with all one’s hear and with all one’s soul and with all one’s mind (emphasis mine). I’m not a scientist; I’m a curious programmer who was raised by an agnostic engineer. Still, I see scientific research and religion as being perfectly compatible. Seeing the way the world works, whether it’s the fascinating process of evolution and microevolution, or the way physics could be used to deduct the existence of Pluto and, I think, Neptune, before they were actually seen enhances my faith rather than destroys it. To me, the universe is a marvelous puzzle and we are supposed to ask questions and figure it out. Not doing so would be like getting a jigsaw puzzle from a friend and then not doing it because one assumes that “If my friend had wanted me to have the completed puzzle, he would have given it to me that way.”
By the way, I’m with Tomndebb. When it comes to music, Blind Faith is definitely good!
Sorry I’ve been flat out like a lizard drinking and haven’t had time to make any substantial posts.
What you are highlighting here is that science is on a never ending quest to find (as Popper would put it) ever more “fit” theories.
Religion does not have any such goal.
That never ending quest is not an easy fit with the religious viewpoint which accepts certain things without question, and in fact regards such acceptance as a virtue.
You will note that never have I said that religion and science are necessarily philisophically incompatible, but rather that the tendencies of the scientific mindset (to question and to falsify and to look for ever fitter theories) is not a comfortable fit with the tendencies of the religious mindset to accept.
No it is not unknown. It has no truth. It also has no falsity. It has nothing.
Beauty is just the reaction of an organism to certain sorts of stimuli. There is no reason to believe beauty has any other non-falsifiable existence.
Most people in the past were devoutly religious. As I’ve said, the only relevant consideration would be whether less were devoutly religious than average.
Why are you skeptical? Why not just accept it? You accept other things which can’t be falsified, why not accept things that can be but haven’t been?
Because an unsupported assumption is, to a scientist, an unsatisfactory but unfortunately sometimes unavoidable thing. Faith in an unsupported assumption of religious dogma is a virtue to a religious person.
One man crosses a shaky dangerous bridge because he has no choice. He dislikes having to do so, and aims to fix the bridge if he is ever able. One man crosses a shaky dangerous bridge and thinks that’s a good thing, and his intention never to question the state of the bridge is a virtue.
If these two men were the same man, one would have cognitive dissonance.
You seem comfortable with at times taking a scientific approach, determining the fitness of theories by the inability to disprove them (a rational position), but at the same time in other areas of your life, being prepared to accept certain unfalsifiable things as true even though there are an infinite number of such thing and you don’t accept the truth of them all (a non rational approach).
I think that shows a schism in your thinking. By that I don’t mean your thinking is broken, but it is disjointed. I think that many would not accept that schism, and that having adopted a rational approach to one part of their life, they are less likely to adopt a non rational approach to another part of their life. Which is why I think that religion is more likely to flourish in an absence of scientific thinking.
No, you are adopting a non-empirical worldview in relation to biblical stories. If I showed you a book that said that long ago a genie popped out of a bottle you wouldn’t consider that to be empirical evidence of anything at all other than the existence of the book. Furthermore, it is blatantly irrational to say that “the Christian view of reality best explains” Jesus rising from the dead, even assuming that he did so. That’s like saying because I found a rock in the middle of my living room floor when I woke up this morning, that is best explained by my theory that there are rock dropping monsters named Jim who have green ears and mothers named Mandy who do lawn bowling on Tuesday afternoons: you are extrapolating way, way, way beyond what is needed to explain the facts at hand.
Frankly, when it comes to religion, you throw empiricism and the virtue of falsification and fitness of theories out the window.
Whatever, really, the choice is yours. But I can see how many other people, having adopted science as a way of thinking, wouldn’t then find religion sitting comfortably.
We discussed this incident a while back. Contrary to your “respected by the community” assertion, and your “skeptical of all viewpoints” assertion (bolding mine), a review of the actual issue revealed that Sternberg has been an open opponent of Evolutionary Theory, being a member of several organizations that promote Creationism and oppose Darwin without ever actually participating in scientific discourse on the topic. His “peer review” was done outside normal channels (indicating that he appeared to have stacked the deck in favor of the ID authors) and in violation of his own magazine’s protocols. The articles he published were not topics generally addressed by that magazine, so they appear to have been wedged in for the purpose of proselytizing. The Bush administration-appointed “investigator” quoted in the article, McKay, was acting outside his area of authority, so the Smithsonian did not respond to his inappropriate questioning, and he then used their (legitimate) silence to condemn them.
Now, I agree that the human reaction of the scientific community was over the top and did nothing to bring credit to the notion of “dispassionate scientists.” Sternberg’s actions did not justify the personal attacks or the level of vitriol cast at him. However, the evidence indicates pretty clearly that Sternberg did not act in an honest manner and used his position as a shill for the Creationist camp.
