Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Silly theist, dead claims of righteousness are for religion!
Materialism is, and always has been, the realm of science because that is what can be tested. If religion had its way, 'Goddidit' would have been the answer for every question from 'why does my tooth hurt' to 'why are there earthquakes.' The body of understanding that makes up science grows and changes over time, and it's religion that claims to have the Eternal Truth.


This claim always makes me laugh. Scientists know better than anyone else just how many questions there are unanswered; usually, if someone is claiming that scientists think that they know everything, it's... a theist. Projection, much?

Anti-religious sciences? Are whitecoats invading your Sunday schools, as preachers are our science classes? Is it science that is so far out of touch with reality that they couldn't believe the polls before or after the recent elections?

Yah, Hollywood...
'Fringe'
All kinds of programs on tv and big screens out there about how dangerous and scaaaary science is.


Good thing that sane scientists never say that love doesn't exist, eh?
We just say that it isn't metaphysical. Just because a rainbow comes from light refracting through raindrops, doesn't make it any less pretty... indeed, it makes me appreciate it more to know a little bit about it.


Again, scientists don't claim to know everything; that's strictly the realm of "The Word of God," whichever god you happen to believe in. Scientist run on curiosity; there would be nothing to study if we knew it all.

What about those Creationists Scientists-? How does that fit into the equation?-( we both are christians, but hes the scientist...-)

*Very* heavy hitter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment

It is a bit of insane troll logic to claim that science can update its outlook as a proof that it is as belief based as religion.


Based on evidence.

BS.

Gradual immunity through antibodies is one thing.

Antibiotic immunity on the other hand, is utter proof of evolution: It works like this: Some bacteria due to mutation are already immune to them and it is already in their DNA. But when antibiotics are not abused, this immunity just dies out. On the other hand, if you over use antibiotics, you force the immune bacteria to become the dominant genotype. So you basically force them to become a pervasive genetic trait, eventually eliminating all non-resistant bacteria.

Another way to show your lack of understanding about the subject. Gradual change through eons is based on mutation. So you are making a false dichotomy.

For your information, you are scientifically illiterate if you think that mutation happens at any time other than during recombination of DNA.

Exactly. If there is evidence for something, then chances are that something is true. Or at least that it is not false. Science works like this: Simplest theory that fits the current evidence. At the moment evolution is the simplest theory that fits the current evidence. (And by far actually, we have a better understanding on it than gravity).

More so, you are mis-explaining science. It needs not only to be proven by an experiment. The experiment needs to be reproduce-able.

Evolution has made plenty of predictions that turned out to be correct. It is so far the best explanation we have to covers current evidence. Anyone to claim otherwise is an ignoramus. Your attempts to pose as otherwise are not impressive.

BS attempt to guilt by association.

Scientology's views are BS, because they are not based on evidence.

Unfortunately, Evolution is.


Everyone claiming there is no evidence for evolution is either being intentionally dishonest or unintentionally ignorant. The latter case is easily fixed by just getting informed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ . In regards to the dishonest ones - there's a special circle in hell for people who are intentionally anti-science to fit their agendas. They are an obstacle to mankind's progress.

The issue is that these people are a fringe minority, and strongly ideologically motivated, making it difficult to use them seriously, y'know, because out of any population a few crazy ones will exist. As well, their ideas simply cannot be made into a good scientific form, so as creation scientists they are not doing good science anyway, so they are pseudoscientists.

Even without a huge level of knowledge in biology, it can be determined by the make-up of the field of biology(the overwhelming majority of biologists, basically a consensus, consider evolution to be true) http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve and the way that creation scientists relate to that field that they are ideologically motivated, fringe, and pseudoscientists. One simply has to have a good bs detector in order to see the internal evidences in the sciences to see how they work. (And as Vex points out in another thread, many of the writings themselves are far enough off-base that they suggest they have issues)

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 24 Nov 2012, 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think they are getting off too easy .

I'm not sure how scientists coming to hold a particular metaphysical position is a sign of "dead religion". Science is still being productive. Science is still generating and processing empirical evidence. Science has only had any position because of it generating and processing empirical evidence effectively.

So, scientists holding to a materialist metaphysic isn't really in opposition to that, it's partially motivated because of scientific success(so, scientific theories basically need to be naturalistic, but if a large set of these theories are successful and a large # of our questions seem to be best solved by naturalism, then this is evidence for naturalism). Frankly, we should expect that they come to conclusions based upon their evidence. And their claims and arguments aren't weak.

I mean, I understand that as a religious person, you'd have reason to question or doubt this, but I don't think you're doing it on good grounds, and the reason why atheism often sources itself to science is because atheism is itself a product of the emergence of the sciences and the overall Enlightenment worldview that science is a part of.


I don't think that the problems you speak about exist, or at least are the only position put forward, so I'd need to know more background if you could provide it. So, a suggestion of something beyond the material is going to be looked upon negatively because it's opening the door for ad hoc hypotheses. There is also a problem in that the door openers are often going to try to take the mile after being given an inch.

However, if you're talking about Intelligent Design, for instance, that idea was rejected on very solid grounds. It's simply not science, it has no real testability, it's mostly attempted to point out failings in current understandings and even failed at that. Some of the ideas used by Intelligent Design proponents are in some sense dishonest and incompatible with working science. And it's mostly being used as an ideological tool for the agenda of the religious right, and not actually trying to enter the field in a legitimate scientific fashion. It's a manufactured controversy to protect a fundamentalist ideology from science. And frankly, there's a lot of evidence to this, a lot of these issues came out in Kitzmiller vs Dover, but other scholars have noted this in other sources.


That has some truth, however, some institutional structures are such that challengers have much greater strength than they do in religion or politics. So, scientists are given status by the strength and explanatory ability of their theories. Scientists need to be able to publish in order to keep their position and their status. Better theories are going to lend themselves to creating more studies, motivating scientists who seek to maintain their status position to adopt the better theory. Bad ideas are easily mocked as such, and the mockers maintain their status position by attacking these bad theories. Allying with a good theory is a powerful way of gaining status, as it attaches your personal brand to the success of that new theory.

Often systems that tend to become rigid also have incentive structures that enable rigidity, while a lot of systems have incentive structures to allow them to be dynamic. Science has a structure like this, which is why it has maintained dynamism and even been willing to consider extreme ideas(like that Einstein's theories were wrong). Capitalism also tends to have a structure like this, so while there are big business figures, the overall system is willing to put major players, like Hostess, out of business if they don't produce enough.


As for the question of religion, it's technically outside of science, but it's also not as if scientists are the only intellectual group that comes to the conclusion of atheism. A majority of philosophers are atheists. http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl It's also not as if the scientists who come to this conclusion have put no thought in the matter. So, despite any and all flaws of "The God Delusion" by Dawkins, it's still very thoughtful relative to the average population and uses some arguments that are good. This piece by Sean Carroll, a physicist, is also a thoughtful piece of writing and a good argument for his position based upon reasoning that he would tend to use as a scientist: http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

The question isn't "what if?" nobody gives a damn about "what if?", the question is always "what best explains the evidence we have?". I don't care IF religion could be true, I only care IF I have good reason to think it is truer than what I currently believe. Religions basically add a lot of ontological complexity, but they don't actually add a lot more explanatory power, which... y'know by Occam's razor should discredit them.


The fact it wouldn't fly well with the masses isn't proof of anything.

Also, the arrogance of science is justified, as "what we have not discovered" is increasingly driven off to the edges, but the central pieces, the pieces most relevant to our understanding are within our knowledge. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... nderstood/ So, if the laws of our everyday lives and the areas we're concerned about are understood, then... your point about all of the things we don't know is really rather pointless. Either it's false, or you're only talking about the edges of our knowledge.

Even further, scientists can usually justify what they say in light of some studies, empirical evidences and all the rest. So, it's not arrogant to speak from knowledge. If you have some reason to think a scientist is speaking too far beyond any empirical evidence, then that's relevant, but many scientists have pushed very deep. Many experiments are deep threats to a traditional worldview. So, take the Libet Experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscien ... experiment One of the conclusions of the Libet experiment is that we do not have the notion of free will that most people take for granted, and that many theologies tend to require, in that our conscious brain is not making the decision in the experiment. Now, it's true that technically one could practice free will under some very limited conditions, but it's also true that this would be an ad hoc notion, and less of a reasoned response to evidence as it is an immunizing method. One could dispute gravity in a similar way. So, because of it, this experiment really is a challenge to the traditional world view and to various varieties of religion.

Science doesn't frame things in a materialist way.

Whenever something outside the bounds of empiricism comes up, the good scientist shrugs his shoulders and says "well, we can't use science to find out if that is true". To say that the scientist denounces anything non-material is to lie. There are SOME scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, who choose not to believe that anything is true unless it can be proven true using science or is self evident, but even Dawkins admits that he cannot disprove theism and that believing in a greater entity lacking the contradictions of the Christian God is valid, if unsupported by science.

Science today is not anti-religious. You just think that because science disproves much of the religion you believe in. However, again, most scientists would say that they cannot possibly disprove a passive deity, or the existence of an immaterial soul, or reincarnation without memories, or anything that does not affect the material world. These are unfalsifiable statements. Read about Karl Popper, who made arguably the biggest developments in the scientific method since Bacon.
Similarly, it is impossible to say whether Jesus was the son of God, or could heal the lame, or whether Guru Nanak held his breath for three days due to divine intervention (though we can prove that he didn't do it without divine intervention). Science also can't tell us whether, for example, Nero existed- we cannot prove Nero existed by doing experiments, instead we need to use historical evidence.

Only one thing matters in the natural sciences: are the predictions made by the theories right or not.

Science is about the real, hard physical world. It is ultimately based on observable fact.

ruveyn

'Creation Scientists,' 'Scientologists,' 'Christian Scientists,' et. all do not actually have anything to do with science; they've just appropriated the name in an attempt to appear more credit-worthy. None of them follow the evidence where it leads; they start with their own metaphysical answers, and then look for any shred of confirmation that will butress their mental construct and call the process 'science.'

String Theory is no longer consider avant guard and stylish. Why. Because it has failed to produce testable predictions. There are a lot of other things going on in physics now. You are behind the times.

As long as physical science is based on testable predictions it is preferable to religion which is based on fond hopes and hot air.,

ruveyn

Ok after doing some more research I have come to a conclusion that Christians dont like Macro Darwin Evolution. The Christian Scientists usually believe in MicroEvolution.
As usual feel free to correct/teach me?

For one thing, the border between the two is fuzzy. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution over time: many small changes adding up to significant change. At what point do you consider something a new species? Or, as the creationists would have it, a new "baramin"?

One prediction of evolution is that the lines between species, and even between higher clades, will become less distinct the more you know, and indeed that has been the case; the old paradigm of kingdom>phylum>class>order>family>genus>species has become almost meaningless, with supspecies, superclasses, suborders, superinfraclasses, etc.

Are horses and donkeys the same "baramin"? They can reproduce, but the offspring aren't fertile - usually. Very rarely, a hinny has been known to throw a foal, meaning that there can be long-lasting gene exchange between the two species.

In addition to all of that, this is where the rich fossil record comes in: we can see, in great detail, the evolution of many mammalian clades from one organism to another - macroevolution in action. Mammals are relatively recent on the scene, so there's pretty good preservation of a lot of lines.

Dont small changes usually end up being big changes anyways?

My main fond hope is for a better battery, and my main fear that CERN will end the world or bankrupt it.

I like overhead valves, and do not tell me Einstien predicted that using math.

As systematic thought applied to our current state, Science is great, being used to disprove free will, is useless anti religion. Just because I do not side with religion, no battery there, I am not buying a bunch of Social Science BS, which like Psychology is based on propaganda.

Those methods could prove there are no Inventors, which as 1 in 10,000 are a subject of my interest. Something about Certified Original Thought.

I am behind in Physics, last I heard someone lost the Higgs Boson, or stole it, it has been very quite. With no evidence, excessive claims, it hardly seems a reason to spend so much on what is not even a cold trail.

I lost interest in Science that is chasing rainbows, or defending excuses. While nothing but chemical reactions in a meat bag does cover most, 1 in 10,000 will look at the same thing and see something else. Same facts, same evidence, and most of the 10,000 will come to agree.

Nothing was ever invented, it was always there, just no one noticed.

Lately it has been facts in Paleoclimate, some sound work opening the past. Prior work does seem to fit the ape brain of the time, they were nothing, we are great. More recent work shows they were great, and we are a devolved result of overpopulation.

The thing I study, advances in technology, seem to have happened more often, with less people, in the past. Even educated, working in groups, universities, the discoveries seem less important.

For one, most of the worlds food was domesticated long ago, We have mechanized and chemicalized the process, and now produce grains with less food value. This year genetically modified drought resistant corn died. Native Americans grew four varities, for in any year, some did better, some did worse, and together, it was a dependable food supply. We grow a Mono Culture of One.

So Science, like Business, Politics, seems to ignor the intelligence of prior examples. We have no reserves, so seven lean years have nothing to eat.

So Science has not produced new foods, made the ones we have richer, or even produced enough to have reserves.

I have no faith in words, I look at results.

Many, many small changes put together make big changes.

@ Inventor: you make it clear that you are not, in fact, "looking at results," you are repeating fourth-hand rumors. The Higgs-Boson was "stolen"?! Dude, it only even existed (if it did, and they think that it did) for a tiny fraction of a second!