Science-Religion. Which wins?

[dylandlima]

<p>Science wins.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>Science FAILS, because my Bible told me so! And the Earth is flat and Darwin was part of a big Nazi conspiracy and the government knows where I live so I will cling to my guns and religion until they pry them out of my cold, stiff fingers!!!1!!111!!!1!</p>

<p>/strawman</p>

<p>Sorry y’all, but this thread is taxing my sanity…</p>

[AvidStudent]

<p>I’m a realist well I’m agnostic. I believe there is a God out there, but I don’t believe in any manmade religions since all of them taint the morality of the concept. I believe in the advancement of science to prove the unexplainable. Until science can prove God does not exist I’ll remain agnostic.</p>

<p>At the end of the day I think science will persevere over any manmade religion. Will we ever be able to explain everything in this universe? Who knows and then again who cares. Religion instills morals and ethics in people that keep this world somewhat sane.</p>

<p>Think about; how many people would commit a crime if there was no God “watching” over them? </p>

<p>Science advances society while religion controls the masses.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ That’s a view I can respect. I hope you may someday come to see Christianity as I see it, as being the closest thing we have to what God truly is.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

I think that asking schools to discuss creationism in parallel with evolution is one thing, but I think that it is unreasonable to ask that only creationism be taught. I think that having both described is the best compromise between views.

</p>

<p>This is where I disagree. Evolution is well established. Creationism is not. Creationism is not a science because science is validated by experimentation. </p>

<p>You can’t clump Creationism into a science course because it is not a scientifically validated theory. If you choose to teach it as a religion, that’s morally fine by me. The constitution makes it clear, however, that advancing a particular religion in public education is illegal. </p>

<p>Just because we can all agree that experimentation cannot prove scientific theories that have an unlimited scope (like Evolution) doesn’t mean we can classify anything we want as science. If you believe that Creationism should be taught, you should be disputing the court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. It is an irrelevant topic in science education.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>Where did I say that creation should be advanced as a scientific theory? I don’t see how it is even possible for creationism to be discussed in terms of it being a scientific theory. I am referring more to it being discussed in some sort of sociohistorical/philosophical context. I think that this is important in some ways, because a lot of the time science courses focus solely on how to do X and omits the implications/meanings behind some scientific discoveries. This leaves us with students-even at the graduate level-who are really incapable of inquiry into the deeper meaning of scientific discoveries. What topics are relevant/not relevant is of course decided by whoever establishes the curriculum/teaches the course. Also, I think that science education, at least at the pre-college level, should be focused on making students skeptical and critical thinkers rather than making them memorize the “facts” of science.</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>They can both win at the same time :O</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ In that case what are they beating? How does this sound:</p>

<p>Science > Ignorance</p>

<p>Religion > Amoralism</p>

<p>Anyone want to take the opposition here?</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>I would posit that</p>

<p>Science > Apathy - in that science is a means of understanding the observed world around us</p>

<p>Religion > Confusion - and religion is a means of understanding the world that we can not observe directly. </p>

<p>ergo, I, albeit a Romantic and an Averroist, suggest that science is a means of understanding the world empirically, and religion is a means of doing it rationally in the most basic sense of the words, and that as thinking human beings, we are capable of understanding both positions and oughtn’t forsake either without careful consideration</p>

<p>EDIT: and MM, I would be quite pleased if you wouldn’t mind posting up another riddle on which we can continue to waste our time as we do here on HSL:b</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Another riddle… Oh, I did post a lateral puzzle a while back didn’t I? Is that what you mean? Refresh my memory, what was the one I posted before?</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>It was the one with the cubic room with no doors or windows and that one had to find a way out, and the result was that the doors were missing from the frames</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Ah, yes, that one… I made some people rather mad at me with that at summer camp a few weeks ago… I have some other good ones, maybe I’ll start a thread for them.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>

Fundamentalism has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof.

</p>

<p>Yes it doesn’t have a thing to do with evidence other than a rigid literal interpretation of the bible. But I was making the statement that its unfair to label someone a fundamentalist who bases their outlook on evidence rather than the literal reading of holy books.</p>

<p>

They don’t have to give in; they can weigh your theory against others and make a choice. You seem to want to take that choice out of people’s hands and force them to believe in something from the outset. You can argue that religious fundamentalists try to do the same thing, but don’t pretend that you are better than them.

</p>

<p>I simply don’t believe in implanting false ideas in other people. And I do have a problem with creationism trying to take advantage of learning about actual science. It isn’t science (thats been decided by multiple courts) and if it is to be taught why is it always creationism based on Christian beliefs? Why not the creation tales of American Indians, Hindus, Raelists (as someone brought up before), Pastafarianism and other cultures?</p>

<p>About your last comment, so religious fundamentalists have the same authority on what is actually science as scientists who actually study it? You can’t show me one creationist, anti-evolution paper from any scientific publication. It doesn’t have any scientific merit so I don’t see why half of an evolution unit in a biology class should be wasted to discuss that nonsense.</p>

<p>

Well then the earth orbiting the sun is just as suspect as evolution. See: Astronomy: The earth revolves around the sun, earth revolves around the sun, independent reality
Note the way in which the scientist responds in reference to proof, etc. We were speaking of theories determining truths though, not theories describing observations or becoming observable phenomena; I don’t think electrons can even be observed by powerful microscopes, we mainly observe their interactions;

</p>

<p>An electron looks sort of like this with the technology we have: [#70:</a> A Single Electron Is Caught on Film | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine](<a href=“http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/070]#70:”>http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/070)</p>

<p>

I would say that atomic theory is much more well supported than Evolution in any case given that Evolution is so grand and macroscopic.

</p>

<p>I think they’re both evidenced to the point where debating their basic premise becomes unsupportable (“atoms exist, composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons” vs. “life has evolved”). I think an overwhelming number of scientists would agree that humans have a common ancestor with chimpanzee is just as factual as the “basic premise” of atomic theory. </p>

<p>

Is it? Prove this. Even if we assume that objective facts exist, how do we know we actually perceive them?

</p>

<p>There are certain things where there is no gray area. Going back to the same example, whether electrons exist isn’t a matter of opinion. </p>

<p>

Why do people always whine about semantics?

</p>

<p>Arguments over a certain word usually just waste time, aren’t very informative and don’t contribute to the main discussion.</p>

<p>

Wait, so finches are as fundamental and universal as attractive forces?

</p>

<p>No, thats not my point. It was an example of a greater confirmed phenomenon.</p>

<p>

Annoyance is an emotional response and therefor irrational. You can argue that there is “warranted” and “unwarranted” annoyance, but that is subjective in any case.

</p>

<p>Why are emotional responses “irrational”? Laughter comes from emotion. Is that irrational too?</p>

<p>

The video doesn’t seem to be detailed enough, I am no convinced that it is telling the whole story. It doesn’t make sense for the administration to fire her purely because she doesn’t give time to creationism; it would make more sense for them to tell her to alter her curriculum first. If she refused to, she was fired for being insubordinate, not “because of creationism.”

</p>

<p>She wanted to teach science, not fairy tales that preserve ignorance. She recognized the fact that evolution is science, not political, while creationism is a radical political movement with no fact supporting it. The administration apparently had a problem with that so she was fired. </p>

<p>

Having creationism taught in parallel to the conclusions of scientific theory might even be a good thing from your perspective, because then students can actually see the Scientific Method vs. “God did it”.

</p>

<p>Keep science to a science class and teach religious gobbledygook in a history, philosophy, or religion class. </p>

<p>

I am not sure that’s legal, but if the school accepted the money on the stipulation that such a theory be taught, then yes. You are confusing private donations with public taxpayer money, though.

</p>

<p>Thats why I said it was hypothetical. Pretend the entire community doesn’t believe in the atom. Should they then teach the pseudoscience of matter not being composed of any fundamental unit? The problem is that once you start teaching anti-science, non-evidential beliefs in the school system it sets a terrible precedent. America is slipping in terms of scientific education with the rest of the world and with all this confusion about what should be taught in a science class, its not hard to see why. </p>

<p>

What other places? If people are paying school taxes and want creationism taught in schools, I don’t see why they shouldn’t campaign for it.

</p>

<p>Teach science in science class. Nothing else.</p>

<p>

Should “anti-science” be taught at home, then?

</p>

<p>There’s church, Sunday school, etc. Should those who accept the evidence for evolution campaign to have evolution taught there too? Should we dedicate half the time to teaching religion and half the time to teaching evolution? I’d doubt that you’d support that but its the same thing you’re arguing for in the science classroom.</p>

<p>

Why shouldn’t they? Have you heard of the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution? It makes no exception to “Unscientific speech.”

</p>

<p>It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It’s about teaching the appropriate things -teaching science in science class, math in math class, etc. Keep fundamentalist religion out of the scientific picture.</p>

<p>

Scientists want beliefs to be supported by scientific evidence, want the scientific method taught in schools, etc. Something is not exempt from being characterized as an agenda simply because it relies on objective evidence.

</p>

<p>Because they have the evidence to support whats taught in the science curriculum. Creationist fundamentalists don’t.</p>

<p>

Why wouldn’t they? Science is impersonal and doesn’t care about what people want. So, why should people care about science?

</p>

<p>Thats the truth. Religion and gods ruling the sky is much more emotionally fulfilling and attractive to the human mind than objective evidence. But of course, and I think youll agree with me, that doesn’t make what they think right.</p>

<p>

Oh, I think evolution is a lovely scientific theory that is more valid than creationism purported as a scientific theory; it is your scientific absolutism that I disagree with.

</p>

<p>Its not “absolutism.” Theres a difference between realizing that life evolves (which is fact) and saying that all the details are figured out or that there aren’t any topics of research left in evolution. </p>

<p>

Then, it’s meaningless. I don’t think we really need to get into a discussion on historical certainty. Arbitrarily comparing the validity of evolution to the validity of the Revolutionary War does no benefit to evolution, and is utterly unscientific.

</p>

<p>How do we know that the Revolutionary War occurred? Because of the available evidence. How do we know evolution occurred/occurs? Because of the available evidence. Evolution, like the Revolutionary War, is a “historical certainty.” Its biology within its historical context. </p>

<p>

So everyone who disputes evolution is a religious fundamentalist? I don’t think I need to respond to that. “Evolution sucks rhetoric”? Haha.

</p>

<p>First of all, thats not what I said at all but I’ll respond to it anyway. Those who completely reject the idea that life has evolved over time (assuming that they are aware of it and have established a personal outlook) after looking at the available evidence obviously implies that they believe life is static.</p>

<p>MM likes to say that he doesnt accept evolution objectively but you can’t trust that claim when he declared himself to be a creationist and a fundamentalist. Plus you can’t objectively look at the evidence and say it isn’t true. Both sides can’t claim to look at a dichotomy objectively and reach opposite conclusions when there is no middle ground. And I can assure you that the tens of thousands of evolutionary scientists aren’t the ones who are deluded in this case.</p>

<p>

So absolute belief without evidence runs contrary to absolute belief with evidence? Riveting. What a groundbreaking epistemological assertion.

</p>

<p>Again, theres no real need to get sarcastic about any of this. And if you choose to use sarcasm to get a point across the computer isn’t the best place. </p>

<p>I don’t think you can give two sides equal credibility if one side has objective evidence while the other side doesn’t. If a murderer is on trial and there is overwhelming evidence to convict him, should the jury just declare it a draw because the convict said that he didn’t do it even though all the evidence is against him? It can get quite dangerous if you apply your reasoning to other situations that might not be obvious in the case of evolution vs. religious zeal.</p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

However, I AM UNCONVINCED BY THE EVIDENCE.

</p>

<p>You’re biased against it. You don’t look at things objectively, you slant things and make non-factual remarks. You claim that there is no such thing as evolution by beneficial mutation or that transitional fossils are missing from place X when they arent. People have shown you otherwise, but you just ignore it. People have been way too patient and respectful of your pseudoscience and blockheaded claims. But they aren’t going to be that patient with you in the real world and its better that you learn that now rather than later.</p>

<p>

I can restae the reasons why, but if you’re just going to ignore them and continue beating straw men then I might as well not bother.

</p>

<p>I think its ironic how you are so willing to accuse others of strawman arguments when those seem to be your favorite strategy. Throughout this thread you’ve made comments about how naturalism say this and that evolution is really (blahblahblah) even though it reflects nothing about what the evidence shows. </p>

<p>I started this thread agnostic but your arguments and ignorant interpretations showed me how much nonsense all of this really was. After 100 pages of this thread you nor any other religious person has shown one piece of evidence for a certain god or anything supernatural.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I think its ironic how you are so willing to accuse others of strawman arguments when those seem to be your favorite strategy. Throughout this thread you’ve made comments about how naturalism say this and that evolution is really (blahblahblah) even though it reflects nothing about what the evidence shows.

</p>

<p>Let me get this straight:</p>

<p>Naturalism: The belief that nothing “supernatural” (not bound by natural laws) exists, and that all things are explainable by natural cause and effect.</p>

<p>My statement: I do not believe anyone actually believes this, as their actions (like making moral arguments) are inconsistent with this belief. Yet some people reject the idea of a God because it is “supernatural” and therefore supposedly against science.</p>

<p>Evolution: The belief that all variation seen in life is the result of chance mutations perpetuated by natural selection.</p>

<p>My statement: I do not believe that this theory is not supported by the evidence. Other people are free to take a different opinion. While some evidence exists in its favor, much evidence also exists against it, and none of this evidence is conclusive. It is therefore not right to claim that Evolution is “irrefutable” and “scientific fact just as much as Gravity is scientifc fact”.</p>

<p>What part of this is a straw man argument?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

You’re biased against it. You don’t look at things objectively, you slant things and make non-factual remarks. You claim that there is no such thing as evolution by beneficial mutation or that transitional fossils are missing from place X when they arent.

</p>

<p>You can claim that, but what are some examples?</p>

<p>No such thing as upwards evolution by mutation: the examples given me, such as the unicorn deer, the “superbugs” and Darwin’s Finches are all examples of existing genes being damaged or existing traits being shuffled through natural selection. None of these cases are an example of the species gaining the code for structures they did not have before.</p>

<p>You can claim that evolution occurs by these damaged genes being copied a la Down’s syndrome, but in real life the effects of this kind of change are disaterous more often than not.</p>

<p>Lack of Transitional Fossils: When I asked for examples I was given links to the wikipedia lists. When I objected that these do not show simple stages but complete creatures that supposedly have many transitions between them, and compared it to the “sports equipment analogy” (that just because you can arrange a set of objects so that they show a trend from one end to the other does not mean that one descended from the other), I was told to look at “human evolution, the most well-documented evolutionary progression”.</p>

<p>I did, and I have posted the results.</p>

<p>Someone inclined to believe in evolution is free to have faith that future discoveries will fill in the holes, just as I have faith that future discoveries will make new ones. But I believe the historical trend supports my point of view.</p>

<p>Evolution was very reasonable when Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species. It is much less so now.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

But I was making the statement that its unfair to label someone a fundamentalist who bases their outlook on evidence rather than the literal reading of holy books.

It is compleyely fair. Fundamentalism applies to more than just religion.</p>

<p>

I simply don’t believe in implanting false ideas in other people. And I do have a problem with creationism trying to take advantage of learning about actual science.

It just seems that you want to take any form of choice a way. You wish to present people only with what the scientific community sees as True. What does this leave us with? Sheep who can’t think critically and just accept information because it is presented as true by a group of experts or an expert. I think I have misrepresented myself, though. I don’t really believe that creationism definitely ought to be taught in schools (though it can be a good point of comparison), but I can understand the motivations of those who do certainly wish it to be taught there.</p>

<p>

About your last comment, so religious fundamentalists have the same authority on what is actually science as scientists who actually study it? You can’t show me one creationist, anti-evolution paper from any scientific publication. It doesn’t have any scientific merit so I don’t see why half of an evolution unit in a biology class should be wasted to discuss that nonsense.

No, they do not. I think you are investing too much in the value of Bio class. ;)</p>

<p>

An electron looks sort of like this with the technology we have: #70: A Single Electron Is Caught on Film | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine

Ok, but I’m not sure that a quantum stroboscope is exactly a microscope, though.</p>

<p>I like how you completely ignore it every time I reference an external source about science and certainty, science and truth, science and proving things, etc.</p>

<p>

I think an overwhelming number of scientists would agree that humans have a common ancestor with chimpanzee is just as factual as the “basic premise” of atomic theory.

So? An overwhelming number of scientists once agreed that light only acted as a wave and nothing else.</p>

<p>

There are certain things where there is no gray area.

Oh, if only such were so.</p>

<p>

Arguments over a certain word usually just waste time, aren’t very informative and don’t contribute to the main discussion.

Sometimes, but not always.</p>

<p>

Why are emotional responses “irrational”? Laughter comes from emotion. Is that irrational too?

Rational things are reasoned, logical, mechanical, unaffected by emotons. Yes, laughter is “irrational.”</p>

<p>

Keep science to a science class and teach religious gobbledygook in a history, philosophy, or religion class.

Well that pretty much leaves history class, where some religion is reflected upon anyway. You seem to be making this into a simple discussion of “Science class teaches science,” “History class teaches history,” etc. In High School a lot of times my teachers went off on anecdotal tangents and such. I suppose I should complain about this and feel that my time was wasted? I think we are taking HS too seriously here. In my opionion, most HS classes don’t do a good enough job of teaching the subject matter, but that has nothing to do with religious bias.</p>

<p>

The problem is that once you start teaching anti-science, non-evidential beliefs in the school system it sets a terrible precedent. America is slipping in terms of scientific education with the rest of the world and with all this confusion about what should be taught in a science class, its not hard to see why.

Why should democractic principles be subservient to international competition? Again, I don’t think religion is the source of the problem with poor math&science performance.</p>

<p>

There’s church, Sunday school, etc. Should those who accept the evidence for evolution campaign to have evolution taught there too? Should we dedicate half the time to teaching religion and half the time to teaching evolution? I’d doubt that you’d support that but its the same thing you’re arguing for in the science classroom.

Then we’ll just have “What Tommy learned at Church” vs. “What Tommy learned at secular school.” Some parents don’t want that, so they have reason to campaign for creationism. More time should be spent teaching evolution as it is a scientific theory and more involved than creationism. I think you could “teach” creationism in less than 30 minutes if such was desired. If scientists wish to campaign for evolution-teaching in churches because they think the churches will heed them, they may do so. Understand though, that many churches are not exactly democratic in nature.</p>

<p>

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It’s about teaching the appropriate things -teaching science in science class, math in math class, etc. Keep fundamentalist religion out of the scientific picture.

You seem to be making it about repressing unscientific speech and mitigating its effects on a fundamental level, though.</p>

<p>

Because they have the evidence to support whats taught in the science curriculum. Creationist fundamentalists don’t.

Great, you basically just read what I said and directly contradicted it with no explanation.</p>

<p>

Thats the truth. Religion and gods ruling the sky is much more emotionally fulfilling and attractive to the human mind than objective evidence. But of course, and I think youll agree with me, that doesn’t make what they think right.

No, it certainly doesn’t. The law of induction and empirical evidence are certainly more attractive to the scientific mind, but that doesn’t make what such a mind thinks right.
Making a statement such as “perceived objective truths ought to take precedence over subjective biases” is an ETHICAL statement, so if we want to go there we must have a philosophical discussion about ethics.</p>

<p>

Its not “absolutism.” Theres a difference between realizing that life evolves (which is fact) and saying that all the details are figured out or that there aren’t any topics of research left in evolution.

It is complete absolutism. You are positing “life evolves” as an absolute fact.</p>

<p>

How do we know that the Revolutionary War occurred? Because of the available evidence. How do we know evolution occurred/occurs? Because of the available evidence.

Yes.

Evolution, like the Revolutionary War, is a “historical certainty.”

No. Historical evolution as posited has occured over a much vaster time span than the USRW, and thus requires far more evidence. It is far more difficult to deny that the RW occured. One could in theory argue that there is no such thing as historical certainty at all, in any case.</p>

<p>

First of all, thats not what I said at all but I’ll respond to it anyway.

That’s what it came across as.</p>

<p>

Those who completely reject the idea that life has evolved over time (assuming that they are aware of it and have established a personal outlook) after looking at the available evidence obviously implies that they believe life is static.

Well, I suppose if we simplify evolutionary theory to “life evolves over time.” But what does that mean? I will probably get wrinkles and gray hair one day…am I evolving? I think this is a false dichotomy.</p>

<p>

MM likes to say that he doesnt accept evolution objectively but you can’t trust that claim when he declared himself to be a creationist and a fundamentalist.

Did he? You need to look at a person’s arguments, not make a psychological assessment of their character, in any case.</p>

<p>

Plus you can’t objectively look at the evidence and say it isn’t true.

No, but you can look at a theory objectively and say it isn’t adequate</p>

<p>

Again, theres no real need to get sarcastic about any of this. And if you choose to use sarcasm to get a point across the computer isn’t the best place.

Sarcasm is lovely and usually works quite adequately on the computer.</p>

<p>

I don’t think you can give two sides equal credibility if one side has objective evidence while the other side doesn’t.

Oh, I don’t give them equal scientific credibility.</p>

<p>

If a murderer is on trial and there is overwhelming evidence to convict him, should the jury just declare it a draw because the convict said that he didn’t do it even though all the evidence is against him? It can get quite dangerous if you apply your reasoning to other situations that might not be obvious in the case of evolution vs. religious zeal.

This comparison makes no sense in the context of this argument.</p>

[Jorghi]

<p>You people are making trouble over nothing.</p>

<p>Science & Religion. Believe both, or one.</p>

<p>Because in the end, one of them will be proven right.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>^Science is “proven right” (this is a somewhat vacuous phrase) every day. I don’t think you understand this discussion.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>Watch out: mifune’s a comin’.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ I can’t wait… This means we will get to go back about 30 pages to where he left off and restart from there.</p>