[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Okay, so you see similar features that occur in a pattern. If that is your definition of "testing", let's go with it:

It's called correlation, and it's a mainstay of scientific experiment.

A women prays to God to have her cancer cured and the next day all evidence of cancer has left her body. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME believe it or not.

I'm going with not. Can you document this, or is it all anecdotal oral history, like the bible?

Not that I'm convinced that one is the cause of the other, since it could be some kind of placebo effect or simply a very odd natural response that circumstantially occurs after the prayer. She could have also been misdiagnosed.

In science, these possibilities would be ruled out using large sample numbers and proper controls. If indeed this happens ALL THE TIME, this should be no problem.

One is considered "evidence" apparently, the other is not despite the fact that both could very well be circumstantial observations.

One is considered evidence because it actually is evidence. It's reproducible and has statistical relevance. The other is not because it's uncontrolled anecdotal noise. If controlled experimentation actually showed the power of prayer, then you'd have something.

Science doesn't deny the existence of God or anything else. But it doesn't rely on God when there's no evidence that he would help us if he could, or that he exists at all. When the medical cure for cancer is discovered, with or without God's interference, would you accept the cure or would you opt out in favor of trusting God to cure your cancer?

This is why I don't buy the "testing" gambit.

Why, because you don't believe in the scientific method? Fine, but when you reject the basis of the discipline, you have no basis for complaining about how the discipline is taught or conducted.

I'm suggesting that the search for answers is being stymied by the idea that there can be no intelligent energy sources ("God" or otherwise)

Wrong, there is no idea that there can be no intelligent energy sources. There is simply no evidence suggesting that there are intelligent energy sources, and until that evidence arrives there's no point in pursuing it.

there is no scientific law that states that an energy field which does not conform to current theories involving physics is an impossibility.

So what? There's no scientific law ruling out the possibility of Flying Spaghetti Monsters either, but until there's the slightest bit of empirical evidence that there are such things, science doesn't waste its time pursuing them. Go get that evidence and come back, then we'll talk.

Originally Posted by Oreo Cookie

There is also no religious bias in there other than that you cannot include anything you cannot test. Since you cannot (and shouldn't) test faith (it's like being in love, either you are or you aren't), it's not part of any well-defined theories.

Actually, some scientists do investigate the neurochemical basis of love. Since "either you are or you aren't," you can just ask your subjects to be honest and tell you if they are, then compare results between groups. If faith could be shown objectively to cure disease, as stupendousman suggests, then science and medicine would embrace faith. But unfortunately, it can't (or hasn't at least).

[ink]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I guess we need to "KNOW" whether

"God" is an active participant in the Universe,

or if

God created the universe, but Thats it, he no longer influences what goes on in here..

or

There is no God.

I fhe IS active in here, then he may be able to alter life forms as he sees fit.

If he only created the universe, and the only effect inside was Jesus, then the changes we see in life would be through evolution, and chaos,

Or we have no idea how it all started, and all the religious blather is wrong.

Let us know when you find the answer.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

A women prays to God to have her cancer cured and the next day all evidence of cancer has left her body. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME believe it or not. Not that I'm convinced that one is the cause of the other, since it could be some kind of placebo effect or simply a very odd natural response that circumstantially occurs after the prayer. She could have also been misdiagnosed.

Yes, and a scientific examination would try to see which of these explanations best fits the facts in a logical manner. It would also take into account that this fails even more often. Then we could determine if there's a positive correlation between any of the factors involved (e.g. if Baptists have a better chance of being spontaneously healed, whether generally gullible people are the ones healed, whatever), and then we would have to see if any of the hypotheses fit all the facts we've discovered well.

See, the scientific method sounds pretty stupid when you take a tiny sliver of it and act as though that's the sum total of what goes on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I'm guessing it's because you don't want evolution taught as fact in science classes, and creationists (under their new name "intelligent design advocates") are pretty much the only people who actually object to that. Much like if you had objected to somebody saying the Holocaust happened, you would be branded a Holocaust denier.

No, this is where you're wrong. I have no problem with evolution being taught. the TOE is a complicated principle with many debatable facets. It should be taught if for nothing more than its usefulness in employing methodology and critical reasoning. You generally won't hear a scientist make the claim that the TOE is "fact" unless they're trying to refute a Creationist claiming it's only a theory. i.e. they usually don't have to. When someone pops into a discussion, offers absolutely nothing to the conversation and states meerly; "evolution is fact", they are a zealot and I'm indeed glad they are not teaching highschool. Some of you others however, I might be less skeptical.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, I did understand the context, but I find the term rather odd. It singles out scientists who are religious from those who are not. I can tell you from personal experience that you don't see or feel the difference in my field. It doesn't matter.

I wouldn't expect it to generally. I'd also be very surprised if your field of study actually involved the development of multicellular organisms and determining its evolutionary pathway. What exactly is your field of study Oreo?

Well, yes and no. You are right that a `pick and choose' attitude. On the other hand, some posters (stupendousman) asked what they were supposed to do when their faith teaches a `different story', citing Catholicism in particular. That's why I quoted the `official word' on this from the Vatican. I don't pick and choose here, but I'm simply saying that this is what is/might be relevant to a faithful Catholic.

The Catholic Church has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread as if it were the authority on reconciling science with faith when indeed, there are a great many views held by the Catholic Church that would seem archaic to several here. I suspect they would include the Church's stance on when life begins and homosexuality. I just find it ironic.

On a practical level, a new theory can only successfully replace another one if (i) it is simpler than the existing theory with at least the same range of validity and testable, or (ii) generalizes theory to a broader class of problems and remains testable.

I've already stated that for ID proponents to expect a place at the table of ideals, they've got a long way to go. I have no problem with this. I simply have not decided that I wholly reject their work. I see nothing nefarious in the Wedge Document nor do I see anything destructive by what the non-vocal majority of proponents are doing. I don't care if they get their funding from 'Jesus is God Science Center'.

So far, even if I were new to this planet and were to compare both theories, I fail to see any appeal of ID and Creationism.

I disagree. I think any time we're dealving into chemical and biological machinery, we find value if for nothing more than engineering. I'm fascinated by several aspects of the their work. If they believe truly they're involved in some "war" for ideals, perhaps they'll be more motivated and driven in their work. I'm really not all that scared of it, but then I have a propensity to appreciate their work. An atheist for example, may not.

You forget that the vast majority of theistic scientists (to use your words) agrees as well.

Not any more than you've forgotten that the desire for affluence and notariety are not somehow exclusive to Creationists.

Again, I don't see any religious motivation for the majority of the supporters of Evolution (whereas most of the supporters of ID and Creationism as you've said are very religious).

I would argue that "supporting evolution" and "working within the framework of evolution" are two different things. If I'm from Germany, I may not "support" the unit inch here in the States, but it'd behoove me to be prepared to work within the framework of this custom.

However, I think fringe of the religious spectrum which likes to portray itself as `in the middle' is making most of the noise. On the other hand, I don't think there are any proponents of Evolution that are only `convinced' of Evolution to bash religious Christians.

Maybe not, but I'd certainly argue that many proponents of it here seem more interested in its philosophical implications than its scientific ones. With no less tenacity than they are quick to attribute to "Creationists" or even people who don't wholly reject the work of ID proponents.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, this is where you're wrong. I have no problem with evolution being taught. the TOE is a complicated principle with many debatable facets. It should be taught if for nothing more than its usefulness in employing methodology and critical reasoning. You generally won't hear a scientist make the claim that the TOE is "fact" unless they're trying to refute a Creationist claiming it's only a theory. i.e. they usually don't have to. When someone pops into a discussion, offers absolutely nothing to the conversation and states meerly; "evolution is fact", they are a zealot and I'm indeed glad they are not teaching highschool. Some of you others however, I might be less skeptical.

If I stepped in here and stated "The earth is round", would that make me an anti-Flat Earth Society zealot?

Or would I just be stating a well-known fact?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Ok, so when you state "there are" what you really mean is "I can only assume there are." That's good to know.

Am I to understand this to mean that you believe all those working within the framework of evolution are atheist or agnostic??? Dishonest indeed!

Meanwhile, there was a perfect counterexample just 5 posts above yours:

I read that account as well. What was it a counter to that I'd be particularly concerned with???

So in short, you're either not reading the thread, or you're a liar.

I'm not exactly sure where any of this is coming from to be quite frank with you. I suspect it has something to do with you having absolutely nothing to say, but because you can't squelch the desire to be argumentative you're going to say absolutely nothing anyway.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

If I stepped in here and stated "The earth is round", would that make me an anti-Flat Earth Society zealot?

It might date you a little. Had you said this in 360 BC it might've made you an anti flat-earth zealot. It depends on the context I suppose.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Am I to understand this to mean that you believe all those working within the framework of evolution are atheist or agnostic??? Dishonest indeed!

No, you're to understand that the majority of your vacuous musings in this thread are based solely on your own assumptions, and many of them are false. "As you know there are theistic scientists working within the framework of evolution" becomes "I can only assume there are..." when you're asked to be specific. Then there's "views held by the Catholic Church that would seem archaic to several here. I suspect they would include the Church's stance on when life begins and homosexuality." A straw man. If those views were actually expressed here, you'd have responded to them directly. But they weren't; they were fabricated from inside your delightful noggin.

Same story with the origin of this remark:

"I read that account as well. What was it a counter to that I'd be particularly concerned with???"

Namely, you had said "Some claim they need to refute Evolution to make a case all the while I see nothing, but refutations of ID and Creationism here," which is clearly untrue, but wholely understandable within the framework of you wandering in here and only reading the phrases here and there which corroborate the expectations you had before entering.

You seem to have a prepared argument and you inted to post it, regardless of whether it's relevant to what's actually said or merely in response to some imaginary friend of yours.

I'm not exactly sure where any of this is coming from to be quite frank with you. blah blah blah argumentative

Actually I also had a certain empty feeling after re-reading my post this morning, but it's not because it was out of place. You've had a habbit in the last few days of spouting vague platitudes denouncing evolution, and they've been based on outright falsehoods (such as "I see nothing but refutations of ID here"). It's about time someone stops letting you get away with the lies, that's all.

Here's a perfect reason for it:
"I'd certainly argue that many proponents of it here seem more interested in its philosophical implications than its scientific ones."
The reason people argue against you is because you come into the discussion stating things that are false. If you went into a thread and said "freedom is slavery" or "2 + 2 = 5," people would argue against you there, too. I know you like to spin that as them having an agenda, or one of your other favorite ploys, them just being argumentative. But it's really just as simple as them being correct and you being stubborn.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It might date you a little. Had you said this in 360 BC it might've made you an anti flat-earth zealot. It depends on the context I suppose.

Ah, so by that same logic, if I said evolution was a fact in 1859 it would make me a zealot, but if I said it now, it would just be dated a bit since that's been accepted for over a century. Thanks for clearing that up!

[Kevin]

Evolution isn't a fact unless you spin it. Get over it.

And I am not even anti-evolution. As I don't see how it disproves God started it all in the first place.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Evolution isn't a fact unless you spin it. Get over it.

The people who like to say "Evolution is not a fact" usually say that because it is a theory, and because they don't understand what a scientific theory is. They think that a theory means just a guess. In fact, the very words they usually use are "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." Well, as I have explained over and over in this thread, that is wrong, and being a theory does not make something not a fact.

Do you think electricity is not a fact? Do you think atoms are not a fact? Do you think the round Earth is not a fact? Those things are all theory.

We evolved, and that's a fact. Shouting over and over that it's not isn't going to change that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The people who like to say "Evolution is not a fact" usually say that because it is a theory, and because they don't understand what a scientific theory is. They think that a theory means just a guess. In fact, the very words they usually use are "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." Well, as I have explained over and over in this thread, that is wrong, and being a theory does not make something not a fact.

Thanks for just proving my point. I keep up on evolution science. I read a lot about it. Facts one day, are not facts the next. So Science does a lot of "This is a FACT, till we find something that disproves it, the THAT is the NEW Fact.

It goes on like that over and over.

It has nothing to do with me not "understanding"

That is just a really condescending and crappy argument.

"Oh you are just not smart enough to understand"

You've been doing this the whole thread.

Do you think electricity is not a fact? Do you think atoms are not a fact? Do you think the round Earth is not a fact? Those things are all theory.

No, I can see the Earth. I can stand on it.

We evolved, and that's a fact. Shouting over and over that it's not isn't going to change that.

I am not saying that we evolving is a lie. I am talking about the big picture.

You Evolution zealots always take a small truth about evolution and project it as if that is all evolution is about in attempt to again belittle anyone going against your religion.

And I wasn't shouting.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Thanks for just proving my point. I keep up on evolution science. I read a lot about it. Facts one day, are not facts the next. So Science does a lot of "This is a FACT, till we find something that disproves it, the THAT is the NEW Fact.

Right, until something shows up that can disprove evolution (unlikely), it is a fact.

It has nothing to do with me not "understanding"

That is just a really condescending and crappy argument.

"Oh you are just not smart enough to understand"

Actually, if you look at what you quoted, I am talking about those who claim evolution isn't a fact because it's a theory, and something can't be a fact if it's "just a theory." This viewpoint does come from a lack of understanding of what a theory is.

I didn't use the second person in there, so you don't need to read any personal affront in there, unless you'd like to align yourself with the ignoramuses claiming that evolution is no better than creationism because it's "just a theory."

Another thing - I don't recall any place where I said anyone was "not smart enough to understand." I'm sure that most of these people have enough brainpower to understand this very simple concept, if they would just use it. Whether it's through willful ignorance, lack of paying attention or just plain dishonesty or what, I don't know, but people keep making the same fallacious argument, even after being corrected time and time again.

You've been doing this the whole thread.

That's because some people still don't seem to get it.

When people keep repeating crap like "Evolution is not a fact" or "evolution is an unproven theory" or whatnot for the whole thread, am I supposed to just start letting them get away with it all of a sudden?

But I'll tell you what - I'll make you a deal ("you" in this case refers to the entire thread, not to one person specifically). Quit abusing the word "theory," claiming evolution isn't a fact or that it's "unproven" or whatever, and I'll stop correcting you. I see this deal as being greatly mutually advantageous to both parties.

No, I can see the Earth. I can stand on it.

You can't see that it's round from standing on it. You can't also see that it goes around the sun. You can't see atoms, and you can't see electricity.

Answer my question - are those things not facts, because they are theories?

You Evolution zealots always take a small truth about evolution and project it as if that is all evolution is about in attempt to again belittle anyone going against your religion.

"Religion" - now there's something that's been sorely overused in all the MacNN threads about evolution. Evolution is a theory supported by tons of evidence and the scientific consensus. Because of all the evidence, it does not require faith, and is not a religion.

If I tried to argue that the earth was flat, and said that the round earth is "just a theory" and therefore "flat earth theory" was just as valid, and should be taught alongside the round earth in the classrooms, and you argued against this, would this make you a "round earth zealot" whose "religion" was the round earth?!

Come on, really.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And I am not even anti-evolution. As I don't see how it disproves God started it all in the first place.

You are right it doesn't, but then why do YOU argue that it isn't fact? Have ye no faith?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

If I tried to argue that the earth was flat, and said that the round earth is "just a theory" and therefore "flat earth theory" was just as valid, and should be taught alongside the round earth in the classrooms, and you argued against this, would this make you a "round earth zealot" whose "religion" was the round earth?!

That the earth is round has been already proven by airplanes that started into the west and came back from the east, successfully flying around the earth, which wouldn't have been possible with a flat earth, as there would be an edge from where the airplane would ...

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Right, until something shows up that can disprove evolution (unlikely), it is a fact.

No, that isn't what I said. I am speaking about the internals of Evolution. That get changed all the time. Definite facts no longer are facts.

Facts in science are subjective depending on what Scientist you ask, and what he believes in. That isn't a solid ground.

Actually, if you look at what you quoted, I am talking about those who claim evolution isn't a fact because it's a theory, and something can't be a fact if it's "just a theory." This viewpoint does come from a lack of understanding of what a theory is.

No, because those that aren't attempting to spin it as FACT as we know it aren't buying the spin. They are using the TRUE definition of FACT. Not the make believe Scientific one were something is usually only a temporary fact.

I didn't use the second person in there, so you don't need to read any personal affront in there, unless you'd like to align yourself with the ignoramuses claiming that evolution is no better than creationism because it's "just a theory."

I don't think anyone has a monopoly on the truth either way. I would say to think we do is a bit egotistical and pretentious.

Another thing - I don't recall any place where I said anyone was "not smart enough to understand." I'm sure that most of these people have enough brainpower to understand this very simple concept, if they would just use it. Whether it's through willful ignorance, lack of paying attention or just plain dishonesty or what, I don't know, but people keep making the same fallacious argument, even after being corrected time and time again.

Naw just more of "Since you don't agree with me, you HAVE to be ignorant" condescending banter.

That's because some people still don't seem to get it.

No, they just don't agree with you. They understand how Science works. They also know that the word "Fact' gets thrown around a lot in Science.

But I'll tell you what - I'll make you a deal ("you" in this case refers to the entire thread, not to one person specifically). Quit abusing the word "theory," claiming evolution isn't a fact or that it's "unproven" or whatever, and I'll stop correcting you. I see this deal as being greatly mutually advantageous to both parties.

Does it make you feel insecure when people do this?

You can't see that it's round from standing on it.

No, but I can from looking at pictures of it in space

You can't also see that it goes around the sun.

Actually you can view it doing so by the seasons.

You can't see atoms, and you can't see electricity.

Microscope and a voltmeter.

Answer my question - are those things not facts, because they are theories?

Aren't the same.

"Religion" - now there's something that's been sorely overused in all the MacNN threads about evolution. Evolution is a theory supported by tons of evidence and the scientific consensus. Because of all the evidence, it does not require faith, and is not a religion.

Depends on what you mean by Evolution. There are parts of Evolution that does indeed require a HUGE leap of faith that such a thing happened.

If I tried to argue that the earth was flat, and said that the round earth is "just a theory" and therefore "flat earth theory" was just as valid, and should be taught alongside the round earth in the classrooms, and you argued against this, would this make you a "round earth zealot" whose "religion" was the round earth?!

Come on, really.

Hyperbole.

FACTS are, Science's use of the word FACT is to be taken lightly. As we have SEEN their "Facts" today aren't always "FACTS" tomorrow.

The only thing that MAKES them facts is, they simply haven't though of anything else better.

Your belief that Evolution is fact, is one based on faith that nothing "better" will show up to disprove it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You are right it doesn't, but then why do YOU argue that it isn't fact? Have ye no faith?

I am arguing it's not fact in the true sense of the word. It's only a "fact' because they haven't thought of anything else better.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Ah, so by that same logic, if I said evolution was a fact in 1859 it would make me a zealot, but if I said it now, it would just be dated a bit since that's been accepted for over a century. Thanks for clearing that up!

Today, with research and discovery, the evolution discussion is where the shape of the earth discussion was in 360 BC.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I wouldn't expect it to generally. I'd also be very surprised if your field of study actually involved the development of multicellular organisms and determining its evolutionary pathway. What exactly is your field of study Oreo?

I'm a physicist. Physicists (especially theoretical physicists like I am) are very interested in philosophical aspects. Quite a few of them are religious, some of the agnostic. So the question of Gods involvement in all this are rather clear. All of the religious physicists I have met over the years are of the opinion that God `chose the initial conditions' and gave us suitable laws of physics as well as constants of nature.

The `theistic' physicists are amazed that God has adjusted the natural constants in such a way that the universe could evolve in the first place. Physicists don't see a need in a further involvement, because once initial conditions are set, the system runs on its own, like a giant spinning top.

To physicists its well-known that simple systems can exhibit complex phenomena, even some you wouldn't expect.

However, we (= in our group) have discussed quite a bit on the topic of evolution, including some of its problems. We have also found some explanations for the `irreducible complexity' problem which is one of the main points of ID and Creationism.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The Catholic Church has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread as if it were the authority on reconciling science with faith when indeed, there are a great many views held by the Catholic Church that would seem archaic to several here. I suspect they would include the Church's stance on when life begins and homosexuality. I just find it ironic.

Again, at least in my case, the topic was brought up by proponents of ID and Creationism.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Not any more than you've forgotten that the desire for affluence and notariety are not somehow exclusive to Creationists.

I haven't forgotten anything. It just doesn't change that ID and Creationism have negligible following in the scientific community as well as countries other than the US.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I would argue that "supporting evolution" and "working within the framework of evolution" are two different things. If I'm from Germany, I may not "support" the unit inch here in the States, but it'd behoove me to be prepared to work within the framework of this custom.

For me, not really. If you are not convinced that evolution is the right framework, you shouldn't use it. The example you quote is very different. You can obviously (at least in everyday-life) use either the `standard system' or the metric system. The metric system is arguably easier to use, because you don't have to memorize that 1 mile are 5280 feet, but other than perhaps cumbersome converstions, they are equivalent.

The same cannot be said about Evolution and ID/Creationism.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Maybe not, but I'd certainly argue that many proponents of it here seem more interested in its philosophical implications than its scientific ones. With no less tenacity than they are quick to attribute to "Creationists" or even people who don't wholly reject the work of ID proponents.

I'd say it's the exact opposite. The fundamental disagreement is that ID and Creationism aren't scientific theories; to decide whether a theory is scientific or contains elements that go beyond science (e. g. God), is based on Western/Christian philosophy that has been around for a few hundred years now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

No, you're to understand that the majority of your vacuous musings in this thread are based solely on your own assumptions, and many of them are false. "As you know there are theistic scientists working within the framework of evolution" becomes "I can only assume there are..." when you're asked to be specific.

I clarified; "semantics" and qualified my use of the term. This did not suffice for you. Perhaps because your musings are based also on your own assumptions? Ken Miller, ardent proponent of evolution and theist. WOW! It seems my "assumption" is not just an hypothesis, but a valid theory. Funny you should refer to theory now as "vacuous musing based on assumptions." Oh well, not everyone is made of the kind of stuff that would understand what a theory is.

Then there's "views held by the Catholic Church that would seem archaic to several here. I suspect they would include the Church's stance on when life begins and homosexuality." A straw man. If those views were actually expressed here, you'd have responded to them directly. But they weren't; they were fabricated from inside your delightful noggin.

While I'm glad you find my noggin delightful, you failed to ackowledge the argument. Why the Vatican would be used in any context whatsoever as being an authority on reconciling faith with science while denying the advancement of thought on subjects such as when life begins and homosexuality, confounds me. This was the point. It's not a strawman, it was what you call a damn good argument. One you obviously couldn't address.

Same story with the origin of this remark:

"I read that account as well. What was it a counter to that I'd be particularly concerned with???"
Namely, you had said "Some claim they need to refute Evolution to make a case all the while I see nothing, but refutations of ID and Creationism here," which is clearly untrue, but wholely understandable within the framework of you wandering in here and only reading the phrases here and there which corroborate the expectations you had before entering.

Iindeed, it seems I was caught generalizing. I don't agree with the way you've framed it here, but fair enough. I should not have used "nothing, but", I should've used "all too often". I've not seen the refutation of specific aspects of ID. I see "all too often" the attack on who they are, where their funding comes from, and the alleged history behind their agenda. You should be able to support evolution without attacking Creationism. I've heard people claim that ID is not science, but I've not heard them claim why. I've seen links to Ken Miller and the Daily Show, but I'm not seeing them make any points of their own.

You seem to have a prepared argument and you inted to post it, regardless of whether it's relevant to what's actually said or merely in response to some imaginary friend of yours.

You're only partially correct here. My first statement was indeed prepared. My original statement in this thread neither supported ID nor critiqued evolution, but it was entertaining to watch the hand-cymbal crashing monkeys start bashing their hands together.

Actually I also had a certain empty feeling after re-reading my post this morning, but it's not because it was out of place. You've had a habbit in the last few days of spouting vague platitudes denouncing evolution, and they've been based on outright falsehoods (such as "I see nothing but refutations of ID here"). It's about time someone stops letting you get away with the lies, that's all.

Well, they're not lies so... good luck?

Here's a perfect reason for it:
"I'd certainly argue that many proponents of it here seem more interested in its philosophical implications than its scientific ones."
The reason people argue against you is because you come into the discussion stating things that are false. If you went into a thread and said "freedom is slavery" or "2 + 2 = 5," people would argue against you there, too. I know you like to spin that as them having an agenda, or one of your other favorite ploys, them just being argumentative. But it's really just as simple as them being correct and you being stubborn.

Aside from the statement on Sir Arthur Keith (which I'm still working on), what have I said that was false???

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I'm a physicist. Physicists (especially theoretical physicists like I am) are very interested in philosophical aspects. Quite a few of them are religious, some of the agnostic. So the question of Gods involvement in all this are rather clear. All of the religious physicists I have met over the years are of the opinion that God `chose the initial conditions' and gave us suitable laws of physics as well as constants of nature.

Interesting. I would particularly appreciate your feedback OreoCookie. Let me ask, are you involved in calculating rates of divergence or examining the mechanisms of speciation? Assuming your expertise spands a broad range of physics, what is your primary focus; quantum physics, nuclear physics, plasma physics, molecular physics, geophysics, fluid dynamics, mathematical, chemical, acoustics? Would it be construed as fringe in any way? For example, you're currently working on...

The `theistic' physicists are amazed that God has adjusted the natural constants in such a way that the universe could evolve in the first place. Physicists don't see a need in a further involvement, because once initial conditions are set, the system runs on its own, like a giant spinning top.

If there were a supernatural agency and this supernatural agency was employing some semblance of "involvement" as you say; it would only appear linear to us correct? If you're acting in "fringe" or even simply "proposed" theory, why would the possibility of "involvement" not be included? If you're not acting in these ways, disregard the question.

To physicists its well-known that simple systems can exhibit complex phenomena, even some you wouldn't expect.

like the snowflake for example? What do you mean?

However, we (= in our group) have discussed quite a bit on the topic of evolution, including some of its problems. We have also found some explanations for the `irreducible complexity' problem which is one of the main points of ID and Creationism.

So... by discussing aspects of ID and having proposed some explanations for one of it's predictions; "irreducible complexity" you are in fact attempting to falsify the notion correct?

Again, at least in my case, the topic was brought up by proponents of ID and Creationism.

fair enough.

I haven't forgotten anything. It just doesn't change that ID and Creationism have negligible following in the scientific community as well as countries other than the US.

I completely agree with this and in fact would add that they shouldn't expect a noteworthy following at present. The vocal minority is doing the work a great disservice IMO.

For me, not really. If you are not convinced that evolution is the right framework, you shouldn't use it.

... or how about even discussing it. You'd be hardpressed in discussing evolution if you weren't familiar with it. You'd be even more hardpressed (as I'm sure you'd agree from reading this thread) in challenging aspects of it if you lacked experience working within its framework.

The example you quote is very different. You can obviously (at least in everyday-life) use either the `standard system' or the metric system. The metric system is arguably easier to use, because you don't have to memorize that 1 mile are 5280 feet, but other than perhaps cumbersome converstions, they are equivalent.

Fair enough though I might add for clarification; you'd be hard pressed in discussing evolution without any practical application or formal education on it. You'd be even more hard pressed in challenging the mechanisms of the theory without the above. i.e. regardless of whether or not you "support" the ideal, you'd better be prepared to work within it's guidelines if this opportunity intriques you. Otherwise, you'll not be getting much practical application. I've always thought evolution was useful for employing methodology as well as critical reasoning, in addition to giving us the best known scientific explanation of what we see.

The same cannot be said about Evolution and ID/Creationism.

Fair enough.

I'd say it's the exact opposite. The fundamental disagreement is that ID and Creationism aren't scientific theories; to decide whether a theory is scientific or contains elements that go beyond science (e. g. God), is based on Western/Christian philosophy that has been around for a few hundred years now.

I'll give you that also, but would qualify with; so what? The work of ID is not destructive or nefarious in the least bit. ID is merely an hypothesis, but not a destructive one. There is however, an agenda-driven sect that I believe does the work a great disservice. This is the difference between the study of "why" (non-scientific) and the principles of "what" and "how". (scientific)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Interesting. I would particularly appreciate your feedback OreoCookie. Let me ask, are you involved in calculating rates of divergence or examining the mechanisms of speciation? Assuming your expertise spands a broad range of physics, what is your primary focus; quantum physics, nuclear physics, plasma physics, molecular physics, geophysics, fluid dynamics, mathematical, chemical, acoustics? Would it be construed as fringe in any way? For example, you're currently working on...

I'm a mathematical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics. My professor, however, has done research in pretty much every area of mathematical physics. We haven't discussed any mathematical models, the most interesting discussion we've had was about ways to reconcile what IDers usually call `irreducibly complex systems'.
[QUOTE=ebuddy]If there were a supernatural agency and this supernatural agency was employing some semblance of "involvement" as you say; it would only appear linear to us correct? If you're acting in "fringe" or even simply "proposed" theory, why would the possibility of "involvement" not be included? If you're not acting in these ways, disregard the question.
See for my last paragraph.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

like the snowflake for example? What do you mean?

For instance. Or patterns in sand in shallow water. Things like this. In particular the fact that from very chaotic systems, order may arise spontaneously.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

So... by discussing aspects of ID and having proposed some explanations for one of it's predictions; "irreducible complexity" you are in fact attempting to falsify the notion correct?

No, we haven't discussed ID. We (= the people I have discussed Evolution with) were just focussing on Evolution.

Two of us have done research in these and read several books and mathematical studies on this topic. One of the proposed mechanisms concerning the sudden appearance of complex structures which aren't found in lower species is the following: although the probability that the genes which are responsible for this additional structure (say a third arm or more sophisticated eyes) are `switched on' by chance (cosmic rays, errors in duplicating the DNA, etc.) is miniscule, it is argued that there are `master switches' that switch on/off whole branches of genes. The dormant genes are inherited by future generations and only if this master switch is switched on, the genes become active.

In this way, you don't need to activate all these genes at once, but only one after the other. I'm not arguing that this is proven to be correct, but it seems (to the laymen) a plausible explanation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I completely agree with this and in fact would add that they shouldn't expect a noteworthy following at present. The vocal minority is doing the work a great disservice IMO.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... or how about even discussing it. You'd be hardpressed in discussing evolution if you weren't familiar with it. You'd be even more hardpressed (as I'm sure you'd agree from reading this thread) in challenging aspects of it if you lacked experience working within its framework.

An external agent is the first thing to exclude from any theory in physics in order to have a well-defined and testable theory. Even though I'm a laymen in the field of genetics and evolution, I know what a scientific theory should look like. It always excludes external agents which are beyond comprehension.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'll give you that also, but would qualify with; so what? The work of ID is not destructive or nefarious in the least bit. ID is merely an hypothesis, but not a destructive one. There is however, an agenda-driven sect that I believe does the work a great disservice. This is the difference between the study of "why" (non-scientific) and the principles of "what" and "how". (scientific)

Well, it is destructive for the following reason: it is obvious that -- say -- 100 years ago, we did not know how to describe the Hydrogen atom properly. For one reason or another, it had discrete spectral lines and there was no way to describe it using classical mechanics.

So an ID/Creationism-type of argument invokes a higher power which is supposedly responsible for this miracle in science.

A decades years later, this `miracle' could be explained using the brand new theory of quantum mechanics. In the same manner, there might be developments in biology that Creationists/IDer might attribute to workings of this higher power. Then, a few years later, this may be explained by some new findings.

So ID/Creationism is a step backwards and hinders scientific progress.

As you rightfully put it, science doesn't cover the `why', religion does. So there is no destructive interference if you say that God/a higher is responsible for this extreme diversity in biology, physics, geology. However, if you add elements of `why' to `how', you mix water and oil. Most scientists, religious or not, are aware of this distinction.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, that isn't what I said. I am speaking about the internals of Evolution. That get changed all the time. Definite facts no longer are facts.

Um, duh? Of course the mechanisms of evolution are subject to refinement. That's true of everything in science. That doesn't change the fact that we evolved.

If our understanding of how we evolved changes slightly, the fact that we did evolve remains unchanged.

We actually know a lot less about the mechanisms of gravity than we do about evolution. Does that make gravity not a fact?

Does it make you feel insecure when people do this?

No, but it does get pretty frustrating after a while.

No, but I can from looking at pictures of it in space

"It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye." - Samuel Shenton, founder of the Flat Earth Society

As for the airplane thing, the FES actually has some crazy explanation for how you could fly around the world - I think it has something to do with the world being a flat disc and the airplanes are flying around in circles, or something like that. Of course they're completely nutso, but hey.

Actually you can view it doing so by the seasons.

The ancients had plenty of explanations for the seasons that didn't involve the earth revolving around the sun.

Microscope and a voltmeter.

How do you know that it's electricity that's making that voltmeter do what it does? Maybe it's something else. Maybe it's God making that voltmeter do its thing.

The STM wasn't invented until 1981. Does this mean that during the whole time from 1805 and 1981 you wouldn't have believed in atoms?

Plus, you can't see any of the atomic structure of an atom using a microscope - you won't see any protons or neutrons, much less even smaller things such as quarks. So do you believe in those?

Aren't the same.

Okay, what makes them different?

For the record, evolution has:

- The fossil record.
- Radiometric dating (not just carbon dating, either, before someone starts whining about that)
- Commonalities in DNA (we have what, 98.5% of the same DNA as chimps? And then someone pointed out that we share some DNA even with bacteria)
- Geographic distribution of lifeforms
- Actual observed examples of speciation in our own time (yes, folks, we've actually seen it happen)

It's not just some guess that someone made up. It's a theory, backed by evidence, and it's on the exact same ground as those other theories I mentioned. If you're going to insist it's not, then you should give some sort of reason.

Depends on what you mean by Evolution. There are parts of Evolution that does indeed require a HUGE leap of faith that such a thing happened.

Uh huh.

FACTS are, Science's use of the word FACT is to be taken lightly. As we have SEEN their "Facts" today aren't always "FACTS" tomorrow.

Let me guess, you're going to reference ancient Aristotelian beliefs held by the Church before Galileo (the father of modern science) showed up?

The only thing that MAKES them facts is, they simply haven't though of anything else better.

And being backed up by all the available evidence.

Your belief that Evolution is fact, is one based on faith that nothing "better" will show up to disprove it.

Well, hey, in the very unlikely event that something better comes along that fits the evidence more accurately (creationism doesn't even come close to this, BTW), then great. Nothing about evolution makes it special in this regard - that's true of all science. Just like with electricity, gravity, Copernicus' theory, etc., all science is falsifiable. That's just part of the rules of the game. If you want absolute Truth with a capital T that can never be overturned, then science isn't for you.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Today, with research and discovery, the evolution discussion is where the shape of the earth discussion was in 360 BC.

You know the difference between that and what I said? I actually give reasons why what I say is true. You, on the other hand, seem to be using the "So there" method of argument.

1. Evolution has been around for over 100 years

2. Evolution is fully supported by all the evidence we have and the scientific method

3. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports evolution

Now, explain how that's equivalent to the time when a bunch of philosophers were just beginning to write about something without the benefit of much evidence or the scientific method (which didn't come until much later).

[ApeInTheShell]

God created man, man creates science, science becomes a religion, people believe in 'laws' that are proven by mortal men with finite minds.

[CharlesS]

^ Again, just an absolute statement with no reasoning to back it up.

You haven't made a point yet.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

You know the difference between that and what I said? I actually give reasons why what I say is true. You, on the other hand, seem to be using the "So there" method of argument.

1. Evolution has been around for over 100 years

2. Evolution is fully supported by all the evidence we have and the scientific method

3. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports evolution

Now, explain how that's equivalent to the time when a bunch of philosophers were just beginning to write about something without the benefit of much evidence or the scientific method (which didn't come until much later).

Actually the ancient greeks had many ingenious ways of discovering that the earth was round by roundabout empirical evidence, even without air travel. The wikipedia article on it was very entertaining.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell

God created man, man creates science, science becomes a religion, people believe in 'laws' that are proven by mortal men with finite minds.

Why do religious people want so desperately to believe science is a religion?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Actually the ancient greeks had many ingenious ways of discovering that the earth was round by roundabout empirical evidence, even without air travel. The wikipedia article on it was very entertaining.

Ah, I didn't know about that. I had mostly known about Pythagoras and Plato, who basically chose a round earth model because it was more aesthetically pleasing than a flat one.

Even so, the Wikipedia article mentions that most of the empirical evidence they found was by Aristotle, who would have still been writing that stuff, or perhaps might not have even written it yet in 350 BC since he lived until 322 BC.

And of course, the Greeks still did not have access to the modern scientific method.

[Uncle Skeleton]

My take is that they just can't imagine someone would "believe" in something (like Reason) without that something including an all-powerful father figure who can answer questions and bail you out of trouble.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

WOW! It seems my "assumption" is not just an hypothesis, but a valid theory.

When you guess enough times, you're bound to get one right now and then. The problem wasn't that you turned out to not be wrong once, the problem is that you come to your conclusions based on evidence that all starts with "I assume."

While I'm glad you find my noggin delightful, you failed to ackowledge the argument. Why the Vatican would be used in any context whatsoever as being an authority on reconciling faith with science

That's easy. It wasn't (except in your own head).

You should be able to support evolution without attacking Creationism.

We can. The entire body of scientific literature (journals, not letters to the editor) does. Nowhere does it ever mention Creation once. If you're saying that one should be able to refute Creationism without mentioning Creationism, you're, well, a liar.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am arguing it's not fact in the true sense of the word. It's only a "fact' because they haven't thought of anything else better.

You said in another thread:

I think Creation was a simplistic way of explaining evolution.

Does this not mean that you believe that evolution is in fact real and that God created it? If you believe this and yet say it is not a fact then that to me shows an incredible lack of faith on your part.

Or are you saying that Creation is also crap because it is a simplistic way of explaining a made up crap theory like evolution?

Do YOU believe that God created evolution as a part of his plan or not?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Why do religious people want so desperately to believe science is a religion?

Good question. Not only do they like to call science a religion, they call atheism a religion, and some will even call liberalism a religion.

[Gossamer]

religion |riˈlijən| noun
1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
2) details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
3) a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.
4) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.

They could fit by definitions 2 or 4, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Why do religious people want so desperately to believe science is a religion?

Fear. Thats it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

religion |riˈlijən| noun
1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
2) details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
3) a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.
4) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.

I don't think a dictionary definition is appropriate here, MY dictionary specifically mentions divine being(s) and such in each of the definitions.

I am a little curious why some of you seem to be so offended by calling science a religion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smactintush

I don't think a dictionary definition is appropriate here, MY dictionary specifically mentions divine being(s) and such in each of the definitions.

So Buddhism ain't a religion?

Originally Posted by smacintush

I am a little curious why some of you seem to be so offended by calling science a religion.

I find stupidity generally repulsive. I'm not sure if you were talking about me, but that's why I objected.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So Buddhism ain't a religion?

It's a philosphy.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Good question. Not only do they like to call science a religion, they call atheism a religion, and some will even call liberalism a religion.

Don't forget Apple zealotry.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So Buddhism ain't a religion?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying whose definition would we use? Which dictionary? Is your definition more correct than someone else's?

I find stupidity generally repulsive. I'm not sure if you were talking about me, but that's why I objected.

I don't see the stupidity here. If a "godless" belief system like Buddhism can be considered a religion then why can't a "godless" system like science?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's a philosphy.

I would say that it is MORE than a philosophy. Philosophy is essentially an intellectual pursuit, Buddhism is system bring one to enlightenment. I'd say it's both a religion AND a philosophy.

I would add that some sects of Buddhism do indeed have a pantheon of gods.

This from The Drepung Loseling Institute, a center for Tibetan Buddhism studies, practice and culture:

To the approximately 300 million practitioners worldwide, Buddhism is considered their religion. Like all major religions Buddhism contains an explantion of the origin of existence, a morality, and a specific set of rituals and behaviors. However, as generally Buddhists do not ascribe to the belief in a sentient, all-pervasive Creator, some claim that Buddhism fails to be a religion. However, this reflects both an extremely narrow definition of religion and fails to consider what Buddhists would regard as the "nature of god," which is extremely close to the description of God offered by many of the earlier "Fathers" of Christianity. Nevertheless, like the other major religions, Buddhism presents a transformational goal, a desire to improve one's situation, and a distinct moral code.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's a philosphy.

It's a religion. Just go to a real temple once and you'll understand.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's a religion. Just go to a real temple once and you'll understand.

It's both, to be fair.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I would add that some sects of Buddhism do indeed have a pantheon of gods.

Yes, but it's not a core component of the religion. Some cultures kept many elements of their old religions after they adopted Buddhism, but Buddhism itself is a religion without a god.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

It's both, to be fair.

Christianity is also both, a philosophy and a religion (as a religion always has an underlying philosophy).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yes, but it's not a core component of the religion. Some cultures kept many elements of their old religions after they adopted Buddhism, but Buddhism itself is a religion without a god.

Unlike the three religions that originated from the Middle East, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Asian belief systems/religions are usually not exclusive. In Japan, people go to shrines and temples. Some of them are even built right next to each other.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I'm not saying that. I'm saying whose definition would we use? Which dictionary? Is your definition more correct than someone else's?

"My" definition is irrelevant. It does not fit with how the word is commonly used. If you want to redefine "religion" to mean "delicious cake," you can do that, but it becomes rhetorically useless.

Originally Posted by smacintush

I don't see the stupidity here. If a "godless" belief system like Buddhism can be considered a religion then why can't a "godless" system like science?

If a living creature like a kangaroo can be considered a marsupial, why can't a living creature like a bacterium?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Unlike the three religions that originated from the Middle East, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Asian belief systems/religions are usually not exclusive. In Japan, people go to shrines and temples. Some of them are even built right next to each other.

Erm…yes.

[evfish84]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's a religion. Just go to a real temple once and you'll understand.

I worked at a Buddhist temple for a while, and it is not necesssarily a religion. Additionally, I went to a martial arts school run by Buddhist monks for nearly ten years, and still, more of a philosophy than a religion. I believe that most of the monks were in fact Catholic as well. It seems that viewing it as a philosophy or a religion depends on what type of Buddhist you are discussing and how you see religion.