Wow, I'm back (sort of) from vacation and this is the first thing I click on!~

Science and religion should not, and cannot be compared, and here's why:

Each of the three major monotheistic religions (for simplicities sake I will not attempt to explain the nuances of the hundreds of others) each implicitely states that it is in the right. It makes no attempt to explain the actions of the other religious groups, save to lump them as non-believers and hence barbaric. Each describes a moral code and strict rules to govern the followers without room for error or change, even though such rules may be modified to include modern trivialities, the "big picture" remains the same.

Science on the other hand is not a monolith. It is not an it: there is no overarching belief that states that "this is the only right, and everything else is wrong" because there is no organized system of belief. In fact there cannot be one in the sciences. Theories change constantly and are not immutable, and most importantly, the theories only try to explain their own existence and not the existence of other theories. For example, the theory of evolution is much talked about but it is composed of a wide range of theories which are all lumped , under the public's eye, as the theory of evolution. We have darwinism, punctuated equilibrium... etc. These have all been modified to fit what is newly discovered.

Unlike religions, the sciences cannot effectively mold facts to fit a belief/theory/hypothesis. Otherwise, there would be no science as everything would constantly be scrutinized and considered false. Religions recquire leaps of faith, ironically, to function. Irregularities between authors (or the divine word) withiin and between the Talmud and New Testament recquire us to believe it is human folly throughout the millenia that has caused us to misinterpret them. Still, in the grand scheme, those followers MUST still believe in the grand precept, otherwise religions would fall apart: i.e. if humans caused such misinterpretation, who is to say that the entire religious book is not misinterpreted. In fact, this is what the three monotheistic religions say of their predescesors: muslims believe christians misunderstood the New testament, and the same christians believe that the jews misunderstood the talmud. However this is not even limited to the larger religion, but remains prevalent through each sect in each religion. Consequentially, although an overarching belief unites all Christians and all Muslims and all Jews, when confronted as a group, each will splinter when no such confrontation exists.

When we start to try and state that science is a monolith, we misconstrue, that unlike religion, there are no immutable texts, no guiding precepts other than to learn more, and no leaders which can possibly claim that their view is correct. In the sciences there is no one view as they are comprised of a myriad of theories. based on facts, and yet unproved hypothesis, which together give a more realistic understanding of the world. Only through our own knowledge of the science can we form an interepretation. For the 3 major religions this is impossible, for we are told what to believe and when to believe it: very little or no room for error or difference of opinions.

SO all you heretics out there can shut up 'cause my view is better than yours! Just Kidding, all that I ask is you read and make an informed decision, and please give me your own insight.

-nightlord out

Probably, but now that the thread has reached such and such a length, it becomes too difficult to go back to the OP and thus the first 3 pages lose all meaning... Now doesn't that make perfect sense? 

Fair enough.  However, I know some people from all political sides who say they listen, but their minds are too busy being mad to actually understand what their ear is hearing.


You cannot truly force someone to take something to heart without true mindwashing, or possibly psychic powers.  I once told someone who wouldn't shut up that I agreed with his opinion.  Did I?  Not by a long shot.  I left that room after a ten hour indoctrination seminar and my mind was set exactly the same as it entered.  On top of this, he made some very good points that I couldn't refute.  I was simply so dead-set against it that I refused to listen. 

He "forced his opinion" on me, but he did not force me to listen.  That is a choice made BY the person, and is not the fault of the person who's talking.  Neither you nor the government has any right to make him stop expressing himself to others.  That is a blatant violation of the first amendment.  Blatant.  There is no wiggle room.

Oh, and actually I've come to accept what he said as I've learned more about macroeconomics.

Telling somebody something they don't want to hear isn't a crime.  It shouldn't be a crime.  Would you like it if Christians made it "hate speech" to cuss using the terms "Jesus" or "God"?  For us, if you read the Bible, it's as bad as telling a lie... or committing a murder.  If you don't want others to raise hell over their sensitivities, don't raise hell over yours. 

Not that those of us like me will stop you from saying something we don't want to hear...


Ewm, if it was "more than clearly proven", 70% of Americans (stat might be about 2 years old, but still close enough) would not oppose it and we would understand much more of human brain development in pre-birth stages than we currently do.  Science has never conclusively proven anything about fetal inelegance capacity that can be relied upon on a consistent basis without possibility of failure.  To prevent murder, that is what we are looking for.

And have you ever heard of partial birth abortion, which I do believe is still legal?  Are you saying that killing a child halfway out of the mother is not murder?!


I can tell at this point you were probably getting tired.  First off, the relevancy of your reply is questionable at best, and secondly what you did say was mind-numbingly stupid, from a debater's angle.

First we have this 'word theory as applied to evolution'.  I have no idea where you got it from, but it wasn't my post.  I can only think that you are referring to the theory that evolution was set in motion by God, which I made no mention of or reference to.  Nice try.

Second, (again, two points!) you say something incredibly foolish about evolution... you say people should just accept it as fact, and the phrase 'in this day and age' when attached basically means you believe that everyone should accept it because it is simply the thing to do, not because of any pointed reason.

Oh, and ewm, something that has loose ends is not a fact until those loose ends are accounted for.  For a theory like evolution, that will take centuries.  So be it.  I evolution is the answer, we will not be the generation to find out, and if it's not, that future generation is bound to have another idea.  Do you think anyone who had unshakable faith in spontaneous generation 1200 years ago believed in evolution?  Doubtful.

My point is:  Shut up.  Evolution is not yet a fact.  The future will tell, and I'd rather science gets it absolutely right than they rush it and probably, over the long term, mess up big time.  Either way, our debate will accomplish nothing towards evolution's scientific veracity.  That is now found in the extremely fractured fossil record which, right here in Texas holds human and dino footprints in the same layer, and the lives of earth's animals, who, despite massive climate destruction with the power of an extinction-level event, and despite the onset of probable climate change, have yet to experience anything but microevolution.

Let time be the judge, not us.

[/quote]

I do honestly appriciate the reply.

I sympathize with your hand plight, but the discomfort I experience writing these posts often seems a waste when they are ignored by the intended recipient and more importantly never put to the test.

As a debater, it's like trying to fence someone who just walks away, and then comes up and attacks you (poorly) in a manner made illegal by the rules of the game.  I hope you understand my plight.






Now, for DN:


For science vs. religion, I quickly discovered that the best policy is not caring.





Rhaz (nice avatar, btw):


I much thank you for the complement, and I'm sure ewm and DN feel the same.

Heh... I figured breaking this up is the best way to go.

Indeed.  I didn't check the apocrypha (no offence intended in the term) for any of the comments.


No comment.



I agree.  That is quite probably the most intelligent thought I've heard on the subject.


I'm not quite sure on this one.  The downfall of our current public education system in such a manner could be very bad, unless a replacment is waiting in the wings (unlikely and currently impossible).

It is a subject I'd be more than willing to research or debate, but I feel this is neither the place nor the time.


Well put.  However, you have to consider that no matter what policy Fox has, it's still news media and partakes in sensationalist reporting.  For the record, pointing out the worst of something to represent a growing problem is a legit strategy.  If you got toys with worse and worse defects coming off the line, which one are you gonna show the boss?  The worst one at the time.  I believe your real problem is with Fox's application of this to this subject.  Regardless, I do believe that Fox can use more moderation in these reports.


I am interested in hearing assents and criticisms.


 

Allow me to clarify a few points that may or may not have been touced on with regard to how science works. I am in general agreement with the evolutionist side so it will be obvious who I side with.

A common creationist argument is that evolution is "only a theory". Well, yes, it's a theory, but erm, well, in the arena of science it is not correct to say that something is "only" a theory. In any scientific endevour, there are firstly the "facts" (data/observations in nature). When we examine the facts, we may be able to produce a "law" by way of explanation. Finally, after years of study we may be able to piece together a consistent, sensible "theory" which not only explains the original facts, but can predict new ones.

A good example is gravity. We start with planetary motions and observations ("the facts"). Then Newton came along and produced his Law of Universal Gravitation to explain this data, but he admitted that he fudged by way of true explanation. Finally Einstein produced an explanatory framework (The Theory of General Relativity) which showed how energy fields distort spacetime, explaining the apparent gravity effect. If there was a hierarchy in science, the increasing respective order of importance would be facts, law, theory (there isn't such a hierarchy). So theories, although constantly refined or replaced, occupy the highest order in science. So the creationist idea that "evolution is only a theory" is a weak argument. In everyday colloquial speech, a theory is an unproved idea. In science it has an entirely different meaning.

I should now point out that there are two broad distinctions in evolutionary science. The "facts" (the fossil record) and the "theory" (the Modern Synthesis). Darwin observed the facts, and used Natural Selection as a way of explanation. He even attempted a unified theory, but never claimed that this was the last word on the matter, and in fact it has been completely replaced. However, the "facts" have never been in dispute (that of a gradual change from simpler lifeforms to more complex ones). The theory of genetics and heredity lends support to the ensuing theories by providing a unifying mechanism in biology, a common denominator.

I realise that a common appeal by creationists is to "gaps" in the fossil record.  Firstly, a frind of Richard Dawkins wittily pointed out that if we placed a "missing link" in the middle of one gap, the creationists would now say that there are two gaps!  Like a soccer match, we only have photographs of certain intervals in time, so it is formidably unlikey we will ever see the goals. We just use our intellect to make sensible conclusions about the data.

On the point of missing links, many creationists say, "Why are chimps here if we evolved from apes? Where are the missing links?". This demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution. Both chimps and humans evolved from one common ancestor. There is no missing link between us and apes because we did not evolve from present day apes. The common ancestor that produced these two divergent paths (apes and hominids) has died out. And as I said above, if a so-called "missing link" were found, we would require two more missing links to satisfy the creationist's urge for missing links, in the two new gaps! 

My aim here is mainly to clear up some scientific terminology (facts, theories) and to correct their misuse. They are misused so often, and I hate to see it happen. 

Yeah it's damn annoying when that happens. I advise that you cut and paste into a notepad regularly as you type, especially for long posts. That way you are protected in the event on finger-slip, lightning and nuclear holocaust. 

The "first origins" thing intrigued me for a while, until I realised that introducing an Almighty Creator right at the beginning simply makes the whole Universe system more complicated (in fact, infinitely so) and also relegates the question of who started it back one step to "Who created God?". Creationists are also fond of using (abusing) the 2nd law of thermodynamics by saying that order cannot come from disorder. As a matter of fact, it can, and this happens all the time in life and in chemistry laboratories. The second law simply says that the total entropy ("disorder") of the whole Universe must increase. However, the entropy of a system may decrease considerably if there is larger increase in the entropy of the surroundings to ofset it. In fact biological systems do this all the time. That's the very definition of life: maintaining offset from equilibrium. You still lose valuable ordered energy in the process, but this is discharged into the environment, an effectively infinite void. Remember that the "closed system" of the 2nd law consists of both the system and the surroundings.

I take exception to the general idea that the universe seems ideal for supporting life; actually the universe seems to favour black holes more than life forms, and most of the universe is chronically hostile to life. Even if it were true with regard to this one planet, it would mean that "God" (however you define God) has an extreme obsession with beetles (not to mention parasitic nematodes), if you just go by numbers alone.

Also I've never been troubled by the argument "who started it all" or "where did we originate from. The bold words are time words. These words imply that the stream of time extends forever backwards into infinity; it does not. As Einstein demonstrated, space and time are inextricbly tied to each other like bad relations. Both space and time came into existence at the "instant" (pardon my language) of the big bang. Any questions of what came first or what "initiated" it are meaningless. This is like asking what is North of the North Pole. Many will try to say that "God" created time, but since "created" is a time word, this implies that God existed in the stream of time before he invented it, a logical fallacy. And since the idea of an infinitely intelligent Creator makes the universe more complex, it is more satisfying to say that the universe "just is". Note that this is precisely what creationists claim about God; he "just is" and required no "beginning". I am equally within my rights to claim the same thing about the Universe, except in my case the whole thing is simpler because it is a finite solution not an infinite one. The most scientific answer is always the one that satisfies "Occam's Razor", the solution that is simlest and has the least peripheral details of implied premises.

This does not rule out the existence of "higher beings" or aliens, robots time-lords. We tend to slap the "god" label on anything we do not understand, when this is probably far too simplistic. As we progress in knowledge, religious people always push everything that we do not understand or cannot yet do into the "God box". This means that gradually God's abilities are changing to adapt to our increasing ability!! Centuries ago, radio technology would have been a god-ability, now it's old news. As a famous researcher once said, any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. What happens when we become "gods" (whatever that means)? At least we will never become infinite (by the defintion of infinity) so we don't need to worry that we will mess up the Occam's Razor test. Phew 
Posted on: August 03, 2007, 08:53:00 pm

---

If anyone is interested, many of these points are covered at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html.

Besides the entropy argument, these FAQs may help one to see the biologist's view about the origins of life, although it mainly deals with speciation. In my opinion, the "first cause" question is far more easily answered from a physics/cosmology perspective. The question of how life arose from non-life is partly answered by the entropy idea (this is also the explanation for how non-living order, such as crystals, form), but essentially the question is a biochemical one. The explanations on TalkOrigins are usually excellent, so if you can find a section on self-replicating organic molecules, it will probably be satisfactory. I imagine that along with the physical arguments it forma a coherent whole. Nevertheless, I am not a biologist so it is best to seek expert advice somwhere. That said, from my perspective as a physical scientist it seems quite reasonable that "replication" can arise from a "chemical reaction". After all, DNA replication or the polymerisation of amino acids are chemical reactions, they're just more complex than your everyday schoolbook reaction. As long as the component elements are in existence, such as sequence of events is not as improbable as it sounds, and nobody really questions that the nucleosynthesis of the elements is impossible. Creationists say that such increasing complexity cannot arise "by chance", but evolutionists do not claim this, so this is a "straw man argument" (altering the opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down like a straw man). I advise anyone that holds this view to check out the TalkOrigins FAQ, as there is an FAQ about Evolution and Chance that explains this nicely. 

well EWM im not shure if anny one has said this but their is one slight problem with what you said.

Jesus was not around at the time of the dinos.

my aunt (in her stupidity) asked a while ago "now tell me which came first, Jesus, or the dinos?"
to witch we replyed,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, and then told her to think.
also jesus was way after the dinos,m and all of them big lizzards were dead by the time of moses.

and thats all i have to say about that.

Well I think we can all safely say that there were no dinosaurs on the ark. It's even questionable whether there was an ark. The most we can say is that there are stories of a large flood across many ancient civilisations, which is hardly a shocking idea, and does nothing to validate religion or scripture.

Frankly, any Biblical-literalist would be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to claim that any dinos were on any ark. It's greatly debatable that Noah would be able to collect at least a pair of every species anyway. And its utterly absurd to expect lions and bears to obey his command and then not eat all the other animals on the ark (believe me, the list goes on if anybody cares to debate this). In all honesty I've not heard much from creationists about Noah's ark, never mind the dino thing. 

Personally I got the point of EWM's cartoons right from the beginning. Of course Jesus wasn't around at the time of the flood, but that does not matter with regards to the joke. And if there is a museum (probably in the USA) that is claiming the dino thing, that's seriously worrying because common sense is bein attacked here. When the fundamentalist Christians try to promote the easily debunked ideas, there's nothing we can do about it because there's no getting through to them. It's like talking to a brick wall. I get bored trying to convince these guys that the Genesis account requires subsequent rapid evolution, etc, etc, etc... 


Posted on: August 16, 2007, 10:42:22 pm

---

Just found a good sum-up article about Noah's flood. As any thinking person can see, to believe the literal Genesis accountof this is to defy reason to a shocking extreme:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=390

Yes yes of course, some of you religious folk will say, "you're not meant to interpret it literally, it's only a story." Well if that's the case then what is it's value? How did you decide to centre your life around a fictional book? If the "entire" bible is "inspired of God and beneficial" (2 Tim 3:16), then at best God tells campfire stories, and at worst he is a liar. Your final argument may be that the bible is only a moral guide. This claim is even more shocking than the rest, and deserves an entire thread of its own. Suffice it to say, the bible is anything but a moral guide. Either way, it is my strongest conviction that only unthinking people can possibly base their life on a foundation of nothing. Comments, questions welcome as usual.