Furthermore, even if it were proven that evolution were 100% true, that still does nothing to disprove God or religious beliefs. God could just have easily created man by creating evolution and allowing the process to work as He envisioned.
I created my daughter in a day, and then I rested!
Maybe God is just some alien, or ancient humanoids, that seeded the planets a la Gene Roddenberry. And no, I’m not a Trekkie
Take a look into convergent evolution, it probably puts a little more weight into the topic of evolution than just the general divergent evolution most people know about. It definitely adds a bit more validity to pointing back to common ancestry among seemily unrelated species.
Evolution still just seems more logical to me than some anthropomorphic deity. Even chaos theory seems more logical to me than that.
I know a lot of scientists. I know of none that believe in God. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist; but it should tell you something.
[quote]The existence of a higher being isn’t currently answerable by science and its (primarily) deductive methodology. The problem are the “scientists” who attest that because there is no scientific proof of a higher being, there is no higher being.
Scientific proof of a higher being is not a necessary condition of the existence of a higher being.
[/quote]
Nevertheless, if this all-powerful higher being decides to do 90% of his business based on a couple of mathematical principles the bible needs a bit of revision.
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
But I bet most scientists believe in God. I doubt they’re all atheists.
I know a lot of scientists. I know of none that believe in God. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist; but it should tell you something.[/quote]
I’m a scientist. I believe in God. I know a lot of scientists. The vaaaaast majority of them believe in God.
Who is a scientist? Is a doctor a scientist? Is an engineer a scientist?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. [/quote]
Evolution is a fact.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Who is a scientist? Is a doctor a scientist? Is an engineer a scientist?[/quote]
I would say a scientist is anyone who studies a topic academically and empirically, for the purpose of furthering the public’s understanding of that topic.
The scientists I referred to though, had “scientist” as part of their job description.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
I love when people start an argument out by calling the believers in the opposing view morons. I am sure there is a latin word for this kind of argument, but I don’t know it.
[/quote]
When the subject it evolution, I believe it it called an ‘ad hominid’ attack. For example, see
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/640/christians-attack-hominids-kenya-museum
This is a generalization of the better known ‘ad hominem’ attack, which is limited to personal attacks against people. The ad hominid attack allows the attacker to insult creatures going back as far as Lucy.
[quote]borrek wrote:
I would say a scientist is anyone who studies a topic academically and empirically, for the purpose of furthering the public’s understanding of that topic.
[/quote]
A scientist must seek to reconcile observations of the natural world with a logically consistent theory. This requires that the scientist produce testable hypotheses in order to advance understanding.
I would argue that the scientist must make experiments, observations and theories public: otherwise, this is ‘mental masturbation’ (which may be quite pleasant, but is ultimately fruitless). Scientists should be seeking to advance the frontiers of knowledge.
Where are the testable hypotheses of Intelligent Design? I tried to produce one, but was told (probably correctly) that most ID followers do not try to follow the rules of science.
I would like to give ID more credit, so please, where are the testable hypotheses of this theory? I am assuming that anyone that tried to call ID an scientific theory will be an ‘old earth creationist’ in which god is something like a guiding hand that ‘directs’ evolution to the goal of finally creating a man who is ‘in god’s image’.
If that is the case, is there a bright line in evolution that separates man from beast?
The other ‘evidence’ for ID is that the fundamental rules that organize the universe are so ‘fine tuned’ to support life that is is impossible to view the rules as being the results of luck.
But in this view, god is more like the Greek ‘unmoved mover’ that sets everything into motion while remaining completely detached. This is a ‘metaphysics’ that is literally beyond physics and is quite untestable in a scientific theory.
I have no trouble with someone believing in the supernatural. It seems to me that that if these beliefs are in conflict with science, the holder of the belief must either wrestle to resolve the conflict using the classic dialectic process ( thesis conflicts with antithesis, and resolving the conflict results in a synthesis).
Or, you give up on science or belief in the supernatural. I see people who are in all three groups. I like to think that ID is an attempt at a synthesis, but I fear it is usually a rejection of science.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
Science by nature speaks in absolutes.
BS. Science is best expressed by probabilities. Bayesian statistics is the natural language to express confidence in a scientific theory.
It is religions that deal with absolutes. When a statement is accepted without evidence, you can only handle contradictions to your belief by ignoring the evidence.
True science must be falsifiable, in Bayesian terms this means that the probability that any statement is neither 0 nor 1. There is NEVER an assumption of absolutes.
The probability that special relativity is false is tiny, easily less that 1 in a trillion. There is always an small chance that any statement is false. But as the evidence that supports a statement grows, it is only reasonable that the amount of evidence to falsify the statement must also grow.
[/quote]
You are trying entirely too hard. I was just busting on his post.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
borrek wrote:
I would say a scientist is anyone who studies a topic academically and empirically, for the purpose of furthering the public’s understanding of that topic.
A scientist must seek to reconcile observations of the natural world with a logically consistent theory. This requires that the scientist produce testable hypotheses in order to advance understanding.
I would argue that the scientist must make experiments, observations and theories public: otherwise, this is ‘mental masturbation’ (which may be quite pleasant, but is ultimately fruitless). Scientists should be seeking to advance the frontiers of knowledge.
Where are the testable hypotheses of Intelligent Design? I tried to produce one, but was told (probably correctly) that most ID followers do not try to follow the rules of science.
I would like to give ID more credit, so please, where are the testable hypotheses of this theory? I am assuming that anyone that tried to call ID an scientific theory will be an ‘old earth creationist’ in which god is something like a guiding hand that ‘directs’ evolution to the goal of finally creating a man who is ‘in god’s image’.
If that is the case, is there a bright line in evolution that separates man from beast?
The other ‘evidence’ for ID is that the fundamental rules that organize the universe are so ‘fine tuned’ to support life that is is impossible to view the rules as being the results of luck.
But in this view, god is more like the Greek ‘unmoved mover’ that sets everything into motion while remaining completely detached. This is a ‘metaphysics’ that is literally beyond physics and is quite untestable in a scientific theory.
I have no trouble with someone believing in the supernatural. It seems to me that that if these beliefs are in conflict with science, the holder of the belief must either wrestle to resolve the conflict using the classic dialectic process ( thesis conflicts with antithesis, and resolving the conflict results in a synthesis).
Or, you give up on science or belief in the supernatural. I see people who are in all three groups. I like to think that ID is an attempt at a synthesis, but I fear it is usually a rejection of science.[/quote]
To summarise… a scientist is someone who uses a scientific method.
[quote]I know a lot of scientists. I know of none that believe in God. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist; but it should tell you something.
I’m a scientist. I believe in God. I know a lot of scientists. The vaaaaast majority of them believe in God.[/quote]
Perhaps it is location specific.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Honestly, there is zilch for evidence of macro evolution. It’s a pipe dream at this point. Creationism is actually viable to some extent, and IMO the best theory we have.
I’m always trying to learn more about religion but like everyone else don’t know anything really. Hence my agnosticism.
A pipe dream? Look, microevolution is FACT. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence that points toward macroevolution. As Beowulf said, biology makes virtually no sense without it.
Why is it such a huge leap to assume that hey, if we KNOw this happens over 50 or 100 years, why wouldn’t it happen to a much greater extent over 10 million years?
No matter how much Christians will try to tell you otherwise, it’s just not very much of a leap at all.
[/quote]
Micro evolution is a fact. species will change slightly over time, but they are still that same species. Macro evolution is something becoming something else totally different over time. We’ve NEVER seen this happen, and there is NO evidence for it other then shady man made lineages of animal species.
I’m not even religious. I’m just willing to recognize we’re being taught that evolution is a fact, when it is most likely not.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Makavali wrote:
And am I just rambling?
Yes. Most certainly.[/quote]
Call it old age. Yes, I’m only 21 but still.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
All we have is logic, and most rational people draw their conclusions from logic.
Why do we have logic - specifically, the laws of logic - and where does it come from?[/quote]
Good question.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
The theory of evolution causes so much controversy in the religious fundamentalist circles because it strikes at the very heart of their beliefs, that mankind was created by god. To believe otherwise is a challenge to their entire faith system.
If god didn’t interact with man at his creation, than perhaps he didn’t interact with man at all. Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile those opposing views of science and religion.
Intelligent design is not a theory, it is an idea or at best a hypothesis. Intelligence design is ultimately not testable and not adaptable because at the root of the argument you run into “GOD”.
GOD requires faith, faith is not measureable. The theory of evolution is a testable, measureable, adaptable theory that doesn’t claim to answer every question about the origin of man. It is simply the best explanation so far that has stood up to testing, measuring, and adapting to new findings.
Will the theory of evolution be the same in 50 years, absolutely not, new findings will create change in the theory, or create the need for a whole new theory. Intelligent design however will be the same, because of the “God” issue, it will not be able to accomodate new findings.[/quote]
You almost want to ask them if evolution could in fact be God, or at least the will of.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
borrek wrote:
I would say a scientist is anyone who studies a topic academically and empirically, for the purpose of furthering the public’s understanding of that topic.
A scientist must seek to reconcile observations of the natural world with a logically consistent theory. This requires that the scientist produce testable hypotheses in order to advance understanding.
I would argue that the scientist must make experiments, observations and theories public: otherwise, this is ‘mental masturbation’ (which may be quite pleasant, but is ultimately fruitless). Scientists should be seeking to advance the frontiers of knowledge.
[/quote]
That’s the same thing I just said, just more windbaggy
Talk about mental masturbation
Find me a testable hypothesis of a spontaneous creation of the Universe. Not possible.
Where in the world did you draw that conclusion?
Your problem is that you got yourself too caught up in semantics. You’re trying to fit ID into a pigeonhole of your own choosing.
[quote]
I have no trouble with someone believing in the supernatural. It seems to me that that if these beliefs are in conflict with science, the holder of the belief must either wrestle to resolve the conflict using the classic dialectic process ( thesis conflicts with antithesis, and resolving the conflict results in a synthesis).
Or, you give up on science or belief in the supernatural. I see people who are in all three groups. I like to think that ID is an attempt at a synthesis, but I fear it is usually a rejection of science.[/quote]
you like to hear yourself speak don’t you?
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
I know a lot of scientists. I know of none that believe in God. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist; but it should tell you something.
I’m a scientist. I believe in God. I know a lot of scientists. The vaaaaast majority of them believe in God.
Perhaps it is location specific. [/quote]
It’s possible. I’m talking about the Midwestern US, which is not exactly known as the Bible Belt, but at the same time is not as Liberal as the west coast.
An interesting point though is that most of these scientists were holders of Doctorates. People like to sometimes say that more educated people are less religious, but I personally think that is just a cognitive heuristic, and an attempt to call the religious “ignorant”.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Honestly, there is zilch for evidence of macro evolution. It’s a pipe dream at this point. Creationism is actually viable to some extent, and IMO the best theory we have.
I’m always trying to learn more about religion but like everyone else don’t know anything really. Hence my agnosticism.
A pipe dream? Look, microevolution is FACT. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence that points toward macroevolution. As Beowulf said, biology makes virtually no sense without it.
Why is it such a huge leap to assume that hey, if we KNOw this happens over 50 or 100 years, why wouldn’t it happen to a much greater extent over 10 million years?
No matter how much Christians will try to tell you otherwise, it’s just not very much of a leap at all.
Micro evolution is a fact. species will change slightly over time, but they are still that same species. Macro evolution is something becoming something else totally different over time. We’ve NEVER seen this happen, and there is NO evidence for it other then shady man made lineages of animal species.
I’m not even religious. I’m just willing to recognize we’re being taught that evolution is a fact, when it is most likely not.[/quote]
I don’t agree with the “most likely” part. It surely isn’t fact, but neither is a lot of other things we’re taught.
I just don’t understand why most creationists take such issue with evolution. Evolution could just as easily be a tool of God.