"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
I love the way the religious folks were first all "What? The Earth goes around the sun? Ridiculous! What? There were stuff around before people? No way. Those twinkly things in the sky aren't angels, but rather other suns? Blasphemer! That goes against our Bible here"..and then now they're all "Oh yes, sure the sun is the center, and their were dinosaurs and galaxies. Oh, and God put them there and it goes against our Bible here and don't think otherwise."
- TheBlueOne0
Passed along without comment.
- mikotondria30
There are many many things in this world, which at one time had only a religious explaination, but that now - thanks to the hardwork, talent and dedication of people creating and implementing the scientific method, have a better scientific explaination.
There are no things that once had a scientific explaination, but that now have a religious explaination.
Not one.
- TheBlueOne0
I guess we all carry unspoken baggage around with us when we get into these conversations. I am definitely on the science side of this debate if it's "intelligent design" sitting across the table. But I'm not necessarily anti-religion or anti-spirituality or whatever. But then again, my definition of religion/spirituality isn't Christian fundamentalism either. In fact, it's not really biblical based per se. See, where ukit says "Religion on the other hand, doesn't seem to feel any need to back up its claims about faith healing, resurrection, seas parting etc. I'd be a lot more impressed with religion if I could actually say cast a spell a la Final Fantasy and shoot a lightening bolt at someone or heal myself." well NONE of that is religious to me. That's just parlor tricks for the easily impressionable rubes. All that supernatural stuff is just rank BS to me. I think there's plenty of strangeness and wonder in the natural order of things to drop some sublime shit on our heads. I think there's plenty of space for a religious/spiritual mindset to operate in - the mysteries of life/death, ethics, despair, joy, peace/war..that to try and have it serve principally as some sort of theory of causation in natural phenomenon as the base explanatory rule set is just utilizing it for what it's good for .
IMHO, teleos is either being entirely disingenuous (thus pulling a fast one on the rubes) or he's really THAT clueless (he is a rube) when he claims he doesn't see how assuming from the start there is a God at the start of all things and saying that science points to a supreme God because we need to "look at all the evidence". Science and religion shouldn't be at war with each other, and those that promote it do so for a reason that is helpful to neither, but primarily themselves. I also find it very interesting that those on the creationist..oops, I mean Intelligent Design...side of the debate like to frame science as "just another religion" as some sort of justification for what they're doing, when in fact science is simply not a religion, nor could it be. If there are people who operate under that mindset they are just as misled and equally a bunch of rubes as those who think that Jesus rode a dinosaur.
Just calling it as I see it t-man. But what the hell do I know, I'm just a puny human.
- "...what it's NOT good for" end of first paragraph.TheBlueOne
- Thanks for the response TBO. I think we agree on a lot here. The main thing I was getting at is "understanding we don't understand everything" not through science and not through religion.designbot
- not through science and not through religion.designbot
- ..ooops got cut off "understanding that we don't understand everything".designbot
- TBO, with you on most points there. Science / faith are not mutually exclusive.sublocked
- teleos0
Nobody is hating on science. The point is that certain theories have glaring deficiencies.
- "God did this or that", isn't a theory.mikotondria3
- I don't claim that it is.teleos
- I mean, it IS YOUR theory. Your only, untestable, unfalsifiable, version of a theory.mikotondria3
- yeah, you kind of do. i by kind of, i mean yes, you do.spifflink
- I claim that biology shows evidence of a designer. And that we should investigate. That is all.teleos
- your claim is in error then. please look at ALL the evidence.spifflink
- please consider 'illusion of a designer'ribit
- ukit0
Notice that despite all this hating on science, at least it works as advertised. Thank science next time you hop behind the wheel of your car, fire up your computer, or take a plane somewhere.
Religion on the other hand, doesn't seem to feel any need to back up its claims about faith healing, resurrection, seas parting etc. I'd be a lot more impressed with religion if I could actually say cast a spell a la Final Fantasy and shoot a lightening bolt at someone or heal myself.
- I think all you like to do is argue, personally.designbot
- *shoots lightening bolt*ukit
- haha, I don't mean to be harsh, you just strike me as someone who is more interested in debating than having a conversation.designbot
- conversation.designbot
- Look if I argue with you I must take a contrary position...ribit
- Yes but an argument is more than saying 'no it isn't'ribit
- Yes it isribit
- No it isn'tribit
- er... dang thats not right is it..ribit
- You are wrong about me designbot. WRONG!ukit
- designbot0
Well from a Christian perspective TBO
determinism = predestination, ultimately these words have the same meaning. But I suppose you are right, I do believe in free will and think every human being is capable of choosing their own fate. So you could argue my problem is really the thought that our human existence has no purpose or meaning. But it is also with human experiences, and what is considered truth. If I have an experience that does not fit within the walls of science as "truth", does that make it false? Or could it be that what I experienced is indeed as real as gravity, and simply cannot be quantified by science? I agree there is no way on either side to prove or disprove the existence of God. Just like science cannot prove or disprove love or hate. I have always had the view that humans are simply limited in their understanding, so whether it be the unknown things of the universe or the things of God, we are ultimately trying to understand and explain things as we see/experience within the confines of our limited minds. We all have faith one way or the other, in something....in that OUR view is the correct one when we cannot be 100% certain. This is where our experiences can take us in one direction or the other. Science is a great thing, and has evolved so much even over the last 50 years it's pretty staggering. I just squirm at the thought of putting 100% of my faith in science and only natural known occurrences, when again, there are things it (science) cannot explain but for all intents and purposes could be stated as fact.thanks for the link btw, I'll check it out.
- ukit0
Science is just a fancy word for what we all do every day. If you were trying to debug a Flash movie or a web app what would you do, pray that God would fix it? Of course not, you would run some tests, identify the problem and fix it. That's science.
- Is the problem x? Lets try...
No, it can't be x, because y is true. Is the problem xx ? etc..
You do it without thinking.mikotondria3
- Is the problem x? Lets try...
- teleos0
Dawkins et. al have their own religion: scientism.
- no
they
fucking
don't. You still don't get it.
mikotondria3 - Religion is a collection of statements.
Science is a collection of processes designed to assess statements about truth.mikotondria3 - statements about the world and.mikotondria3
- Wrong. Dawkins and Co.'s commitment to materialistic reductionism is faith-based. And he knows it.teleos
- Piffle, sir.mikotondria3
- that's what you'd called a 'naked assertion' teleos. finally its correctly used! huzzah!spifflink
- no
- TheBlueOne0
I think designbot, your issue (and the problem fundamentalist religon types) is in fact with determinism, and not that "that EVERYTHING can be explained through natural processes". It's in actuality a serious problem confronted by scientific philosophers for quite a while. It does seem that the thinking going on in Emergence studies and Complexity Theory are starting to point to a universe that isn't in fact based on Newtonian deterministic, reductionist principles - thus it cannot explain all things. There is, in fact, space for creativity and choice within the All. Despite the press that Dawkins, et. all. seem to get, Science doesn't really care about God, proving or disproving him. It's not at heart a scientific question, because you can neither prove or disprove such a thing.
- designbot0
The main problem I have with some of the more hardcore believers in evolution (or science in general) is the thought that EVERYTHING can be explained through natural processes. That idea seems kind of insane to me. What about human experiences, do they mean nothing? Can everything be explained through some formula or are there some things (supernatural or other) that simply fall outside the realm of what science is capable of understanding. When I use the word "understanding" I am really talking about reproducing a thing/event so it can be studied and made into a law/theory. I think we can all agree there are lots of things ( love, hate, a mothers instinct, etc.) that cannot be quantified by science but we can know through our own experiences or other people experiences that these things are indeed real. At the end of the day I think this debate of "evolution vs. creation" or whatever name you want to give it is really just a hindrance that is tiny, and maybe even slightly insignificant, in comparison to our human experiences and the life we live. I have often heard people state "give science time and it will be able to explain all things" that is, all things through natural occurrences. I know lots (and respect) people who hold to this view. But this truly boils down to a FAITH issue on their behalf.
- I guess what I am getting at is if you hold to this strict scientific view of "truth" I think you will miss out on life and what is possible.designbot
- possible.designbot
- well, no - scientists can be happily married, love their children, etc - but when they do science, they are scientistsmikotondria3
- You might find this interesting designbot:
http://www.ottawacit…TheBlueOne - that's a pretty short sighted view of science. how can you be 'hardcore' into facts and reason?spifflink
- ceiling_cat0
they say this fossil can rewrite the books of science.........
how stable is science, will it change in 20 years too with another discovery?
man is a fool, they use to believe the earth is flat
the truth be here
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index…- Science isn't supposed to be stable. All it is is a method of disproving things. It's unstable by it's very definition.TheBlueOne
- Khurram0
When i said i fucked your mother, in the ass! this does not necessarily mean i penetrated her with my penis.
We really need to get our definitions right, otherwise there'll be no end of confusion. God!
- teleos0
of course horses zebra speciation occurred. But who said it was a Darwinian process?
- Khurram0
Yes yes! We must define terms! So the cognitive dissonance caused by what teleos said before and what he says now and his obstinance with his views can be recognised without causing some sort of identity crisis!
From here on, teleos has defined these terms for us*
*Subject to a five-yearly review of each definition depending on the opinions teleos holds at that time. Whut.
- ukit0
So the nearly exact identical anatomy between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs is just a coincidence, huh? God works in mysterious ways!
- teleos0
We have to define terms...
Evolution - meaning change over time, is demonstrated by science.
Evolution - meaning the Darwinian synthesis of natural selection acting upon random variation/mutation is not supported by scientific evidence.
