Thread: Religion in the way of science?

Originally Posted by Expat Canuck

You always have a way to break something complicated down into a short statement that gets your message across.


Nice one.

He's a colonel and an engineer. They tend to keep the information entropy minimal.

Originally Posted by Ryan Bailey

For reference about my unchallenged assertions:

Of all the types of "evolution" I agree that only adaptation is scientifically proveable....
If you categorise this as one of the types of evolution, then I am an evolutionist. below I cite two of my fellow ID Truth-seekers. Stein & Hovind who categorise the subject into three and six subdivisions respectively, thus:

Ben Stein:
"Darwin’s theory isn’t a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically “settled.”

Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species – changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time.
Evolution #2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that “somehow” materialized.
Evolution #3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo – Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts."

Kent Hovind:
"Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word �evolution� as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer�s expense"

Hope this helps some of you fellow men of the scientific method who like me seek to avoid prejudice on this issue.

Still waiting for someone to offer a "proof" of evolution so I can disprove it.

And waiting...And waiting...

Jeez, you're basing your case on these guys?. Neither are scientists. Neither understand evolution.

Note evolution is a biological science and should be judged as such. In the range of "hardness" the theory of evolution is harder than most accepted "facts" in the medical sciences. In fact the cumulative evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The genetic evidence alone brings the certainty to well above 90%, and for common descent close to 100%. To bring evolution to a level of certainty equal to creation you'd have to argue that a creator deliberately designed a hugely complex false trail in order to deceive, in which case -I take my hat off, he certainly fooled me.

To see evolution in action you only need to look at River Guppies: proof in front of our eyes. Note that evolution can occur relatively rapidly, as many expressed genes often have multiple unexpressed alternatives in an individual. With a change in enviroment or availability of a new niche a species is able to immediately respond by favouring individuals that are expressing adaptive alternative genes.

Is the proof complete. Not yet. But what field of science is a finished work. Whilst creationists work very hard to expose gaps (often where there are none, -as in many or most instances of irreducible complexity) it is very weak to hold those gaps as proof of creation. That's just Gappism.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

But when you see a puppy jumping for joy for a little stick and a little girl laughing her head off, it's hard not to appreciate such wondrous beauty and appreciate that there is more than a little coicidence in these matters.

That's very poetic but if you are using it to prop up creationism lets first examine it. Wonderous beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. a sentimental human being. It could be that these sentiments evolved because they have survival value for the species. We perceive young active things as cute for very good reasons.

Whilst I agree that religion is in the way of science, it is also true that science is in the way of religion.

Originally Posted by bandwagon

That's very poetic but if you are using it to prop up creationism lets first examine it. Wonderous beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. a sentimental human being. It could be that these sentiments evolved because they have survival value for the species. We perceive young active things as cute for very good reasons.

And in the end, that is all science is, perception. Einstein, himself, describe relativity as a manner between a boy bored out of his skull and his heart beating near his girlfriend. No matter how we describe the universe, the universe don't care.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And in the end, that is all science is, perception. Einstein, himself, describe relativity as a manner between a boy bored out of his skull and his heart beating near his girlfriend. No matter how we describe the universe, the universe don't care.

But what is our best chance of getting at the truth. Perception and indulgent sentiment, perception and belief, or perception and science?