Science-Religion. Which wins?

[christiansoldier]

<p>I find atheists are generally, though not always, a very arrogant and half-informed breed. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I have a lot more sympathy for agnostics, who at least appreciate the mystery of existence. </p>

<p>“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children.”
Matthew 11:25</p>

<p>To be fair, I find that some Christians or otherwise religious people are also arrogant and half-informed in believing that they are able to divine with certainty the will of God.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Lucidity, possibly, but the direct quantity of believers has little reflection upon the nature of a fundamental truth. </p>

<p>Rational argumentation should stem from self-investigation - ideally, you should believe in evolution not because leading scientists do but because it follows a certain train of logic, experience, and evidence

</p>

<p>Thank you. And yes, if I were less overwhelming convinced by everything I see, I would probably be much slower to go up against the world’s supposed best minds.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Actually, aliens can exist within the natural laws that have been observed.

</p>

<p>Thus far no credible evidence in favor of it.</p>

<p>But if you want to believe that, go ahead. People who believe in space alien origins don’t worry me as much as those who think they have it all figured naturalistically…</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

To be fair, I find that some Christians or otherwise religious people are also arrogant and half-informed in believing that they are able to divine with certainty the will of God.

</p>

<p>This is very true, and I am frustrated by those people as well as by hard-shell atheists.</p>

[christiansoldier]

<p>I also fail to see how natural selection is somehow incompatible with the original sin and the sacrifice of Jesus, or even any sort of god. I see it as no more threatening to Christianity than the Theory of Gravity.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Natural Selection, the theory that, given variation and competition, more fit individuals reproduce more and eventually replace less fit individuals, is about as well established as gravity and has no bearing on Christianity.</p>

<p>Some people consider Evolution, the theory that natural selection and random variation account for all the diversity of life, to be incompatible with the Genesis account, thus bringing the Bible’s credibility into question.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Rational argumentation should stem from self-investigation - ideally, you should believe in evolution not because leading scientists do but because it follows a certain train of logic, experience, and evidence.

</p>

<p>Exactly. And for some people, self-investigation includes things outside the scope of science. </p>

<p>We are here. Why is that? What was the first cause? etc. </p>

<p>Applying science to religion is nonsensical.</p>

[JeSuis]

<p>^^ good point.</p>

[christiansoldier]

<p>I don’t see how even evolution is incompatible with the Genesis account. Creation isn’t even the point of Genesis. Genesis is about the original sin, not about fishes and birds. </p>

<p>It is well understood in Christianity that the Pentateuch is a mixture of divine truth and Semitic folklore. When’s the last time anyone has offered a burnt sacrifice or balked at cloth made of more than one fabric? The Christians who grasp at Genesis 1 and Leviticus 18:22 are stirring up unnecessary trouble for the faith. Didn’t Jesus criticize Pharisees for interpreting the Old Testament too narrowly?</p>

<p>If the faithful would just shift the center of attention from the Pentateuch to the New Testament, the rabid assaults on religion would surely abate, and the more distasteful elements of the Church (especially you, Westboro Baptists) would be marginalized.</p>

[Relevance]

<p>

Thus far no credible evidence in favor of it.

The same can be said for young-earth creationism.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>Epistemological anarchism FTW! :P</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

The same can be said for young-earth creationism.

</p>

<p>Depending on your definition of credible, of course. But I find it far more reasonable than an alien seeding project.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I don’t see how even evolution is incompatible with the Genesis account. Creation isn’t even the point of Genesis. Genesis is about the original sin, not about fishes and birds.

</p>

<p>The problem is that not everyone agrees with that statement.</p>

<p>Personally, I think it is also describing the origin of the universe, but I have no way of proving that hunch.</p>

[Relevance]

<p>

Depending on your definition of credible, of course.

Well not my definition, but a scientific definition. Peer-reviewed, logical, testable, verifiable. </p>

<p>

But I find it far more reasonable than an alien seeding project.

</p>

<p>Well I suppose you’ll have to explain why an invisible all powerful talking man is more believable than green little martians on spaceships, but in the case of that discussion, I couldn’t really care less. As far as I’m concerned, generic God (vs. one with specific attributes) is a unfalsifiable hypothesis and thus I don’t really mind if one believes in such. Personally, Russell’s teapot is more appealing, which sets me into the realm of agnostic atheism.</p>

<p>And keep in mind - a good scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable - this does not equate being 100% provable.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Peer-reviewed, logical, testable, verifiable.

</p>

<p>Ok then, throw Evolution out the window… Or show how it isn’t an un-disprovable hypothesis.</p>

<p>Well, you don’t actually have to throw it out the window, but don’t act like it’s a ridiculous thing for me to doubt it.</p>

[thequestionmark]

<p>

Or show how it isn’t an un-disprovable hypothesis.

This should be easy for you as you’ve been trying to do it for some time - how could you falsify evolution?</p>

<ol>
<li>Prove that the earth is less than a few million years old. (would falsify the mechanism)</li>
<li>Prove that mutations do not happen (would falsify the new traits).</li>
<li>Prove that beneficial mutations cannot reproduce (would falsify that beneficial mutations cannot be propagated)</li>
<li>Prove that natural selection does not occur. (evolution is by default directional, not entirely chaotic)</li>
<li>Prove that the species that exist now have always existed (would prove that speciation does not occur)</li>
</ol>

<p>etc etc etc, you get the point. So yes, by it’s definition, evolution is certainly a falsifiable claim. It’s also important to note - just because a claim is falsifiable and it hasn’t been falsified, it doesn’t mean that the claim deserves particular merit. The reason why evolution is so highly-acclaimed to today is because of the tremendous evidence in its support. </p>

<p>

Well, you don’t actually have to throw it out the window, but don’t act like it’s a ridiculous thing for me to doubt it.

Skepticism is a fundamental nature in science. It’s not general skepticism that bothers me, it’s unfounded and illogical assertions. All your young earth creationist evidence has been thoroughly debunked in one form or another… It also seems that you don’t have strong disagreements of the mechanisms proposed by evolution, merely the probability of its occurrence. But this probability is any man’s guess, and thus it really isn’t a strong argument against it at all.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

1. Prove that the earth is less than a few million years old. (would falsify the mechanism)
2. Prove that mutations do not happen (would falsify the new traits).
3. Prove that beneficial mutations cannot reproduce (would falsify that beneficial mutations cannot be propagated)
4. Prove that natural selection does not occur. (evolution is by default directional, not entirely chaotic)
5. Prove that the species that exist now have always existed (would prove that speciation does not occur)

</p>

<p>Yet look at what happens when i try to do this:</p>

<p>If I cite the lack of observed cases of mutations producing new organs or structures, I am told “well of course! It takes way to long for humans to observe
!”</p>

<p>If I cite the lack of transitional fossils, “naturally very few organisms are fossilized, so we shouldn’t expect to find the transitional forms”.</p>

<p>If I point out things like the cleanerfish that couldn’t evolve by a series of gradual stages, I am told “we don’t understand that yet, but future research will surely find the answer”.</p>

<p>At some point, if a theory’s truth value has no expected result on what our observations are, then that theory is not falsifiable.</p>

<p>What would be different about the world if evolution were false? Those things can be considered evidence in its favor.</p>

<p>

It also seems that you don’t have strong disagreements of the mechanisms proposed by evolution, merely the probability of its occurrence.

</p>

<p>And also the evidence that it did actually occur.</p>

<p>As for the mechanisms, what is there for me to disagree with? On the one hand we have obviously true statments (fitter organisms tend to survive, children vary from their parents), and on the other hand there are statements which cannot be falsified (variation is not limited, all organisms seen today occured through a series of small stages which we have no evidence of becaue it was so long ago and fossils are so rare…).</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

@ksarmand: My analogy isn’t false - saying that evolution hasn’t occurred is just as idiotic as saying that the holocaust never occurred. Its just a slap in the face to biologists to state that evolution is untrue as to say to a family with concentration camp victims that the holocaust never occurred. You understand that right? As for “what insult I will launch” at you, you do remember that you were the one “having fun” calling everyone who didn’t agree with your asinine points (science proves gods existence) ignorant and dumbasses? Or do you need me to go dig up the quotes?

</p>

<p>First of all, equating skepticism regarding evolution with Holocaust denial is an overreach that few would agree with. Genocide is in no way equivalent with the questioning of science. Shame on you.</p>

<p>I’m disappointed in your failure to come up with yet another original insult, though. Running out of steam, are we?</p>

[christiansoldier]

<p>I concur, quite silly. A variant of Godwin’s Law, don’t you think?</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>^Reductio ad Hitlerum ftw. I believe someone else propounded the same analogy as Adenine earlier, but I was unable to point out its inherent ridiculousness at the time. </p>

<p>I wonder how soon it will be before someone makes a Hitler video spoof.</p>