# Past scientific theories rejected because of religous reason? (like evolution) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369 "2005-03-26T16:38:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/61 "2005-04-05T13:05:00Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Regarding the question of whether scientific theories are just “guesses”: > > I think the key thing to understand about scientific theories is that they are testable. You don’t just come up with a hypothesis to explain the data and then stop there. (That _would_ be just an “educated guess”.) What you do is you propose your hypothesis and then _conduct experiments_ that either gather evidence in favor of your theory, or against it. If the data keeps coming out in favor of your theory, then you have reason to think it’s a good one. > > My problem with people presenting things like “intelligent design” as scientific theories is that they really don’t seem to be experimentally verifiable. How would you conduct an experiment to test whether an intelligence designed the universe? I don’t really think you can. In contrast, there’s lots of empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution. Every time a new strain of bacteria shows up with just the right properties to make it resistant to our antibiotics, that’s more corroborating evidence for natural selection. > > I’m not rejecting the possibility that God had a hand in the development of species, but calling it a scientific theory in the absence of any possible experimental test is only going to mislead students about what a “scientific theory” really is. If we put science with its methods of measuring materialistic things on one side and Intelligent Design with its methods of measuring spiritual things on the other side, we in fact split the human condition into two pieces. Neither side is greater than the other in reality, but past teachings have led the materialistic side to believe in their superiority, which doesn’t exist save in the minds of materialists. Incidentally, research results on the spiritual side of man keep coming in more and more positive. I could offer many links to this but will refrain. If you are really interested read my site. This post will answer other posters in this thread also. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/62 "2005-04-05T14:49:52Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > If we put science with its methods of measuring materialistic things on one side and Intelligent Design with its methods of measuring spiritual things on the other side, we in fact split the human condition into two pieces. Neither side is greater than the other in reality, but past teachings have led the materialistic side to believe in their superiority, which doesn’t exist save in the minds of materialists. Please provide some details on these methods of measuring spiritual things that are apparently implemented in ID; what exactly do they comprise? I’ve never even heard of them before. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/63 "2005-04-05T15:15:22Z")
**Lekatt** , here is an example of demonstrating ignorance that does not help one’s argument: > [@](#): > > Intelligent Design with its methods of measuring spiritual things on the other side Intelligent Design does not have any method of “measuring spiritual things.” Intelligent Design does not even attempt to “measure” anything of the “spiritual.” Intelligent Design is simply belief dressed up to pretend that it is science that still attempts to measure _physical_ things while pretending that real science cannot measure physical things. Intelligent Design is not simply a belief in a Creator; it is the name of an actual set of opinions by purported scientists who claim to examine physical reality and then cry “God did it” whenever their imagination is too weak (and their studies too shoddy) to discover how something actually happened. Nearly all the early examples of “Intelligent Design” put forth by its purveyors have been demonstrated to be in error by later scientific research. There is always something new where they can cry “God did it,” but science keeps pushing back their ignorance (and their dishonesty–a trait that should be inimcal to a believer in a Just God). This is not to say that one cannot believe in an ultimate Creator who authored all things, imposing order on the cosmos. One can believe that and still accept the discoveries of genuine science. Pretending that Intelligent Design (which is an actual example of bad science, badly argued), measures anything but the gullibility of the scientifically ignorant is, itself, either dishonest or ignorant. Now, why anyone would perpetuate this hijack when several years of your posts have demonstrated that you really do not understand science is a true Mystery. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/64 "2005-04-05T16:03:36Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Please provide some details on these methods of measuring spiritual things that are apparently implemented in ID; what exactly do they comprise? I’ve never even heard of them before. As you might suspect, you measure these spiritual things through feelings, emotions, and intuitions. The most common thing is to feel the life energy that comes from the Higher Intelligence of ID. It is very easy to feel when you are quiet and focused. As you progress through spiritual growth, or emotional growth if you like, you will be able to feel other things. Our emotions can measure our inner growth, and intuitions are well known and documented. People who suddenly felt they should not take the Titanic to America. It is very common. Now I realized how badly this post can be destroyed by those who have been taught to believe nothing exists but materialism. I post it only for those interested. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/65 "2005-04-05T16:24:07Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The evidence for Intelligent Design is very strong. Obviously the universe could not exit without it. Intelligence equals order, and order is apparent everywhere one looks. Intelligent design, as commonly used, means the meddling of an intelligent designer in evolution. I don’t believe it says anything about the creation of the universe, anymore than evolution does. Intelligent design does not require anything spiritual - the Raelians believe space aliens did it. That’s more plausible than god doing it. Pity there is no evidence. You might use another term to avoid confusing things. Your evidence is no evidence - it is just your lack of understanding of physics. All the structures we see in the universe can be explained by simple natural laws. Physical constants are a bit trickier - they might be set by laws we don’t understand yet, or we might be here to ask about them only because they are set in a way to allow stars to form. What exactly in the universe can’t be explained by the laws of physics, in your opinion? And don’t say love, since love is a function of living beings, and we can be explained. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/66 "2005-04-05T17:54:19Z")
> [@](#): > > As you might suspect, you measure these spiritual things through feelings, emotions, and intuitions. The most common thing is to feel the life energy that comes from the Higher Intelligence of ID. You might want to write to Demby, Behe, and the other proponents of “Intelligent Design” to explain that they are doing it all wrong, since none of them say _anything_ resembling the stuff you are posting, here, under the name of their “theory.” ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/67 "2005-04-05T19:27:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Intelligent design, as commonly used, means the meddling of an intelligent designer in evolution. I don’t believe it says anything about the creation of the universe, anymore than evolution does. Intelligent design does not require anything spiritual - the Raelians believe space aliens did it. That’s more plausible than god doing it. Pity there is no evidence. You might use another term to avoid confusing things. > > Your evidence is no evidence - it is just your lack of understanding of physics. All the structures we see in the universe can be explained by simple natural laws. Physical constants are a bit trickier - they might be set by laws we don’t understand yet, or we might be here to ask about them only because they are set in a way to allow stars to form. What exactly in the universe can’t be explained by the laws of physics, in your opinion? And don’t say love, since love is a function of living beings, and we can be explained. I understand physics, but the laws of physics don’t apply to spiritual events. It is understandable that you believe solidly, completely in the materialist world of science. So we live in different realities. Yours is material, and mine is a syncretistic reality of spirit and material. If you turn on the TV you will see millions of people expressing their spiritual nature for Pope John Paul II. I don’t know how to answer you otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/68 "2005-04-05T22:07:07Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > As you might suspect, you measure these spiritual things through feelings, emotions, and intuitions. The most common thing is to feel the life energy that comes from the Higher Intelligence of ID. It is very easy to feel when you are quiet and focused. As you progress through spiritual growth, or emotional growth if you like, you will be able to feel other things. Our emotions can measure our inner growth, and intuitions are well known and documented. People who suddenly felt they should not take the Titanic to America. It is very common. > > Now I realized how badly this post can be destroyed by those who have been taught to believe nothing exists but materialism. I post it only for those interested. well, that’s really nice, but why even bother to mention this methodology (if it can be called that) in the same breath as the scientific one? - they are so widely dissimilar that there’s no point at all pretending they are peers, or that the scale of certainty achieved by one is in any way similar to that of the other. By this and your response to **Voyager** above, where you’re now insisting that your world is so grossly different to the materialistic world of science, you’ve just demolished your own argument; your ‘educated guesses’ are just that; scinetific theories are falsifiable and supported by evidence that can be objectively examined; you’ve just been trying to equate the two in the hope that some of the credibility would rub off. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/69 "2005-04-05T22:55:22Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I understand physics, but the laws of physics don’t apply to spiritual events. > It is understandable that you believe solidly, completely in the materialist world of science. So we live in different realities. Yours is material, and mine is a syncretistic reality of spirit and material. If you turn on the TV you will see millions of people expressing their spiritual nature for Pope John Paul II. > > I don’t know how to answer you otherwise. No science I ever learned in any way states that people don’t have emotional reactions to events. True, you don’t use physics to understand them, and you don’t use biology to understand fusion either. There is nothing in my materialist worldview that makes me surprised by the reaction of people, or surprised by feeling love for my children, or anything else like that. Now speaking to the dead would surprise me, esp would surprise me, but grief and love? Nope. I think your view of scientists must be based on Mr. Spock or something. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/70 "2005-04-06T00:29:21Z")
It’s sort of funny that lekatt demonstrably doesn’t even know what the Intelligent Design movement claims or says, yet he defends it. Does he even know what he’s defending? Spiritual measurements? Hunh? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/71 "2005-04-06T01:31:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No science I ever learned in any way states that people don’t have emotional reactions to events. True, you don’t use physics to understand them, and you don’t use biology to understand fusion either. There is nothing in my materialist worldview that makes me surprised by the reaction of people, or surprised by feeling love for my children, or anything else like that. Now speaking to the dead would surprise me, esp would surprise me, but grief and love? Nope. > > I think your view of scientists must be based on Mr. Spock or something. What I am speaking of is not science. I thought that was clear. There is more to this world than just science. A great deal more. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/72 "2005-04-06T01:44:31Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > well, that’s really nice, but why even bother to mention this methodology (if it can be called that) in the same breath as the scientific one? - they are so widely dissimilar that there’s no point at all pretending they are peers, or that the scale of certainty achieved by one is in any way similar to that of the other. > > By this and your response to **Voyager** above, where you’re now insisting that your world is so grossly different to the materialistic world of science, you’ve just demolished your own argument; your ‘educated guesses’ are just that; scinetific theories are falsifiable and supported by evidence that can be objectively examined; you’ve just been trying to equate the two in the hope that some of the credibility would rub off. I mention it because it is a valid way to gather information about the world we live in. Their similarity rests within you. You are both. Educated guesses are always just that. Finally, spiritual events need no credibility from you or anyone, their credibility is self-evident. I see no reason to post further in this thread, no serious questions asked, and the usual attitude of superiority in knowledge of all things, present. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/73 "2005-04-06T07:33:58Z")
Sure; “They’re the same! they’re the same!” when your argument needs it then “but they’re different! they’re different!” when you’re pressed to show the similarities. Nobody is picking fault with your spirituality; they’re picking fault with the bullshit claims you’re making about how you think _science_ works. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/74 "2005-04-06T14:40:22Z")
“While I stood there, I saw more than I can tell, and understood more than I saw; for I was seeing in a sacred manner…the shape of all shapes as they must live together like one being.” Black Elk ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/75 "2005-04-06T16:26:15Z")
I thought this could have been an interesting thread. Too bad someone who understands neither the terminology nor methodology of science had to come in here and hijack it to fantasy land. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/76 "2005-04-06T16:54:10Z")
Hijacks only occur when people insist on responding to posts that are clearly off topic. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/77 "2005-04-06T17:06:17Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I mention it because it is a valid way to gather information about the world we live in. Their similarity rests within you. You are both. Educated guesses are always just that. Finally, spiritual events need no credibility from you or anyone, their credibility is self-evident. > > I see no reason to post further in this thread, no serious questions asked, and the usual attitude of superiority in knowledge of all things, present. Some questions: - When are you going to make an effort to learn how science works? Would be bloody useful in threads about science. - What does intelligent design measure, are the measurements repeatable, and where are they published? - Who or what is the designer and what did he do? Can we distinguish this from what science nicely explains. Saying “it is all too complex for science” says something about your understanding, not what really could have happened. I’m sure there are other questions I’ve asked back there that you have ignored also. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/78 "2005-04-06T17:28:56Z")
One of many reasons I am agnostic is that scientists who are also spiritualists(Xtian, et al) did not reject discoveries which were counter to their belief system. Carbon dating, evolution to name a few. They were compelled to accept the writing on the wall. A more recent example would be research regarding homosexuality. Sorry to un-hijack the thread. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/79 "2005-04-06T18:51:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Some questions: > > - When are you going to make an effort to learn how science works? Would be bloody useful in threads about science. > > - What does intelligent design measure, are the measurements repeatable, and where are they published? > > - Who or what is the designer and what did he do? Can we distinguish this from what science nicely explains. Saying “it is all too complex for science” says something about your understanding, not what really could have happened. > > I’m sure there are other questions I’ve asked back there that you have ignored also. When I read the title of the thread I see both religion and science in it. I do know how science works, but I am not posting about science, I am posting about spirituality. Spiritually deals with the feelings, emotions, intuition, sometimes called the sixth sense. All those things that science ignores or believes unimportant. Science can’t measure these things, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I can’t figure out if my posts are not read, or they are not understood, or what. It may be what I say is not understandable, although I haven’t had that problem before. As for the Designer, I don’t know, certainly a Higher Intelligence (God). I have left this open for other debate. I have my beliefs based on my experience, but would like to hear the imput of others. I do realize that scientists sometimes assume these spiritual things to be a product of brain biology, this has never been proven, the spirit is separate from the body. This is provable. But not in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369/80 "2005-04-06T18:58:58Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > One of many reasons I am agnostic is that scientists who are also spiritualists(Xtian, et al) did not reject discoveries which were counter to their belief system. Carbon dating, evolution to name a few. They were compelled to accept the writing on the wall. A more recent example would be research regarding homosexuality. > > Sorry to un-hijack the thread. It is perfectly normal for people to go to church on Sunday and believe what they do there is right, then go back to work in their lab on Monday and believe what they do there is right also. Seldom do people actually sort out their beliefs to see if they have conflicts, but if they did, everyone would find them. Some would rationalize them, others deny them. Only a scant few would do the research necessary to resolve them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/past-scientific-theories-rejected-because-of-religous-reason-like-evolution/296369.md?page=5)