It may be true that scientists study phenomona, but that doesn’t make science “phenomenological,” which doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Describing what exists is ontology, by definition. Developing rules for understanding phenomena is what epistemology. Science is first and foremost an epistemology – a methodology for acquiring knowledge. It is least of all phenomenology, which is a specialized domain of philosophy and psychology.
I have no objection to myths being taught as myths ( or fiction or allegory or parables or whatever term people want to use ). I simple say it’s worthless as a factual description of the world’s origin.
That it is possible to be religious and believe in evolution is not the question. The question is why those do reject evolution do so. It is absolutely, undeniably, and publicly because of their religious faith.
The poll helps propogate the problem. They encourage people to think that evolution is a public opinion, not an established scientific fact. They think that scientific theories are to be rejected or accepted on personal preference, rather than determined through scientific rigor. They are ignorant of what evolution posits, what the evidence is for it, and how scientists come to conclusions.
Walter, welcome, love the name, do stick around. I can see you’re going to fit in just fine. Be prepared for some lovely argumentation… I think you have the chops for it.
Firstly, I would never use the word ‘epistemology’ in polite company. Secondly, I don’t think I’ve argued anywhere in this thread that anything in particular is worthless if it has no scientific value. Worthless to science, maybe but not necessarily worthless in general.
Your original argument, as I recall, is that religion (specifically evangelical Christianity?) and science should not be in opposition to each other, since they don’t intersect to begin with. On this I agree completely. You seem to feel that both ‘sides’ are equally guilty of bringing about what conflict exists. On this I disagree completely.
I am unaware of any supporters of science lobbying for discussions of evolution to be added to the Bible, or for church sermons to include information about evolutionary processes. OTOH, we hear constantly from evangelical Christians who insist that (choose your preferred term) superstition, folklore, myth, or matters of faith MUST be included in high-school science curricula. Why? Apparently, solely because one particular study area of science (evolution) causes an annoying rattle in their belief system. Seems to me the majority of the conflict is coming from one side of the issue.
Welcome aboard. However, the problem goes deeper than just their “faith”. The other part of the problem is, they try to force their “teachings” on students who may very well belong to some other religion that rejects creationism, young earth, and intelligent design. Creationism and intelligent design etc are not science. They are not religion either, as I see it. Many of us are not fundamentalists, and would have a huge problem being required to accept, learn, or feign respect for something our own churches have officially rejected, and which we see no reaon to accept or respect.
Examples are as follows. I am Catholic. My church says the Bible is not literal. It is not scientific. It is parables, allegories, illustrations and “life lessons”. It doesn’t talk about evolution or the fossil record, because that is not the message.
Therefore, I again would have big issues with someone using the school system or the courts, to force something on me that runs counter to what my church teaches .
It doesn’t matter if an individual rejects evolution or geology or anything else. It DOES matter when they try to push their “idea” on others. What they are saying is, “You must respect and accept my so-called religion, but I do not have to respect yours”.
Speaking of metaphysical impossibilities, if I may just pull together the points I’ve been making with Dio, Tom, Trihs, Tevildo, John, Kabong, and now Gorsnak — forgive me if I’ve missed anyone — the points I’m making are:
In order for science and religion to conflict, a contradiction must be introduced, since the two disciplines do not overlap. Science and religion cannot conflict anymore than quilt making and tree surgery can.
Something may be true irrespective of science. A -> B <-> ~B -> ~A is true, for example, despite that it is not a falsifiable proposition.
Science is not the source of any mystical objective truth. If science claims otherwise, then it cannot be distinguished from religion.
Scientists would do well to relate to the public without unnecessary jabs at people’s religious faith. While it is true that religious people have been enemies of science, it does not follow that a religious person must be an enemy of science.
I do not understand how any of the above might be controversial.
As tomndebb has said, most eloquently, many of our differences could be overcome if we all had the same definitions for every word we used. 
I think the issue with this particular point is the word “religion”. I agree that, if we restrict “religion” to mean “the study of purely religious topics”, then your statement is correct. However, many people would use it to mean “A doctrine advocated by a religious organization”, or something of the sort - in which case, the two disciplines do overlap whenever a religious organization says something about the natural world, the area in which science operates.
Perhaps we should characterize the struggle as being between science and dogmatism, rather than between science and religion.
Yes, indeed. You and I have agreed on the inability of science to produce absolute truth before now.
The word in question here is “objective”. Rather than speculate, I’d be interested to hear your definition of this term.
I agree again. However, if a religious person feels that his faith requires him to make statements that are in contradiction to the statements of scientists, then I feel that he is legitimately described as “an enemy of science”.
We also have the word “unnecessary”. If someone’s faith leads him to adopt an anti-scientific position, then I would argue that it is necessary for science to “jab at” those views.
Tom is often the astute facilitator. It is not surprising that he would cut to the heart of a misunderstanding. Perhaps it is the case that we agree on what to say, but not on how to say it. With respect to our apparent remaining point of contention, yes, I am using the term “religious” to mean having to do with the supernatural — a topic that is by definition outside the purview of science. As I said before, a religious statement about science is no more valid than a scientific statement about religion.
Liberal: I didn’t see anyone argue that religious people <i>must</i> reject evolution, just that some do so.
As for the falisfiability of logical propositions, I don’t think there’s a scientist who would suggest that all statements must be falisifiable to be meaningful or useful.
Perhaps this discussion might be facilitated by taking an objective, stereotypical situation, and seeing where Liberal’s points fit to it.
A school board dictates that, not Intelligent Design, but Creationism, must be taught in place of evolution.
The reason for this is that of the eight members, five, who belong to the same church, have followed their beliefs and the teaching of their minister, who, while charismatic, is not a scientist in any way, shape or form. These teachings of the minister contain the premise that the bible is literally true. Therefore, evolution is false. Furthermore, if you put a speckled stick in front of a sheep, its children will be speckled.
Go!
If the quilt makers insist on trying to make a quilt out of a tree, they can. Religion and science overlap because religion keeps making pronouncements about the real world which contradict science.
Genesis 30:41-42. “And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s.”
If that isn’t a statement of the principle of Natural (or perhaps artificial, but still) Selection, I don’t know what is.
That’s a relief to hear.
Like I said, when religious people do that, they are introducing a contradiction. It is likewise true that when scientists (or people who speak for them) make pronouncements about God, they are doing the same.
Scientists may speak about God, but that doesn’t mean they are speak **as **scientists. If they start publishing papers about God in peer review journals, you’d have a point. That would be the equivalent of a fundamentalist preacher giving a sermon saying God created Man and that humans did not evolve from non-human apes.
But a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered a scientific hypothesis.
See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330058
I believe that what you say is the situation in the US is because many people refuse to accept the idea that we are the result of chance happenings. And I think it is the “we” that is crucial. Most would probably not give a damn if Darwin had restricted his ideas to wood lice or dogs and cats. However “we” are the result of God’s action, made in His image and given domination over “all the earth.” and they have the Word of God on that.
To review: Darwin’s basic idea is descent with modification with those modifications being acted upon by natural selection to filter out those that are inimical to successful reproduction.
Offspring are neither exactly like their parents nor their siblings and natural selection siezes on the differences to determine what characteristics are most likely to be passed on most often. Those differences are the result of chance combinations of inheritable characteristics with an occasional accidental mutation thrown in to stir the pot. That is a proposition that many simply refuse to accept and so they don’t want it taught to their children in school.
In terms of the public perception, however, we have scientists on both sides engaging in polemics. Dembski (who purports to be a scientist) and Behe (who is one, if of uncertain calibre) have both made claims regarding the overlap of science and the divine. On the other side, Sagan and Dawkins have made claims based on their views of science that purported to diminish the possibility of the divine.
Of course, all these guys are popularizers with agendas. Actual working scientists by the tens of thousands avoid such discussions with an aversion that is quite visceral. The claims of a now absent poster that “science” was trying to debunk god were always ludicrous, but there are certainly a few humans in various philosophical camps that are interested in using their scientific backgrounds as a bolster to their personal views of life.