creation and evolution
why are so many people choosing between creation and evolution? firstly evolution is not creation. maybe it's been created to evolve.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
because science itself is somewhat like religious dogma. strictly science believers 'I believe in science' to shame red state folks. this shows that they are willing to accept the mainstream science theories with little question. for now it's the Big Bang/Big Crunch, let's say. that could change, when the science establishment changes it. there is little room for compromise in their belief system. in that regard it isn't much different than religion.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@lumberjackslam What is the dogma in science?
All scientific Theories are constantly and fiercely questioned. Science [i]never[/i] tries to prove its Theories... on the contrary, enormous scientific effort is devoted to falsifying Theories.
The dream of every scientist is to falsify a Theory, but as long as the Theory completely, consistently, and coherently, explains the evidence, then it stands.
All scientific Theories are constantly and fiercely questioned. Science [i]never[/i] tries to prove its Theories... on the contrary, enormous scientific effort is devoted to falsifying Theories.
The dream of every scientist is to falsify a Theory, but as long as the Theory completely, consistently, and coherently, explains the evidence, then it stands.
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 the dogma is right here on this forum. also there are the flat earthers, who seem to be trying to prank us that there are people actually stuck in the 15th century. *hilarious* yawn
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@lumberjackslam Do you have an example of that dogma?
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 yes for example, if I said evolution is wrong. I would never hear the end of it. in fact I think this board will implode right now.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@lumberjackslam Not in the least... I’d merely ask you why you make that claim, and sit here calmly sipping my (rather pleasant) cup of tea.
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 let me put it this way. because science doesn't accept miracles from God, alien interventions, or similar it only will accept purely scientific explanations. even when a theory doesn't work out that well, there must always be another completely rational explanation. anyone who doesn't think along exactly those lines is a crackpot.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@lumberjackslam You’ve no doubt seen this snippet of Richard Feynman before... and I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s the antithesis of dogmatic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@lumberjackslam You seen to be ignoring the role of evidence.
Any Theory must completely, consistently, and coherently explain the evidence. As new evidence is gathered, the Theory is adjusted, yielding a better Theory.
The scientist Bill Nye and the creationist (or whatever he is) Ken Ham were once both asked what, if anything, would make them change their mind.
Ken Ham: “Nothing"
Bill Nye: “Evidence"
Any Theory must completely, consistently, and coherently explain the evidence. As new evidence is gathered, the Theory is adjusted, yielding a better Theory.
The scientist Bill Nye and the creationist (or whatever he is) Ken Ham were once both asked what, if anything, would make them change their mind.
Ken Ham: “Nothing"
Bill Nye: “Evidence"
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 well I don't know Bill Nye but the average person never looks at evidence and just repeats what he read someplace and repeats it as if it were scripture
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@lumberjackslam Scientists, by their very nature and training, abhor such unquestioning acceptance.
The motto of the Royal Society is [i]Nullius in verba[/i] (take nobody’s word for it)
There are no authorities in science (Feynman alludes to that when he says “...or what his name is...”.
If you tell me that Einstein said it, I am unmoved.
If you tell me that the woman sitting next to you on the bus said it, I am unmoved.
If you tell me that Darwin said it, I am unmoved.
Part of what makes science so dynamic is that everything must be questioned... over and over and over again.
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
[i]Richard Feynman[/i]
The motto of the Royal Society is [i]Nullius in verba[/i] (take nobody’s word for it)
There are no authorities in science (Feynman alludes to that when he says “...or what his name is...”.
If you tell me that Einstein said it, I am unmoved.
If you tell me that the woman sitting next to you on the bus said it, I am unmoved.
If you tell me that Darwin said it, I am unmoved.
Part of what makes science so dynamic is that everything must be questioned... over and over and over again.
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
[i]Richard Feynman[/i]
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 OK then
@lumberjackslam
[quote]for example, if I said evolution is wrong. I would never hear the end of it.[/quote]
Well i think what you would hear is a challenge.
You'd be asked to make your case, present your evidence and pit it against the evidence that evolution [i]has[/i] occurred.
But that's not dogma, is it? That's just placing value on that which can be empirically determined.
Certainly people can uncritically accept the conclusions of science but that does not itself make the acceptance of scientific conclusions dogmatic.
Personally, i can give you numerous, reasoned arguments for why i accept evolution without every once referring to a dogmatic demand that you accept that which cannot be argued based on empirical evidence.
[quote]for example, if I said evolution is wrong. I would never hear the end of it.[/quote]
Well i think what you would hear is a challenge.
You'd be asked to make your case, present your evidence and pit it against the evidence that evolution [i]has[/i] occurred.
But that's not dogma, is it? That's just placing value on that which can be empirically determined.
Certainly people can uncritically accept the conclusions of science but that does not itself make the acceptance of scientific conclusions dogmatic.
Personally, i can give you numerous, reasoned arguments for why i accept evolution without every once referring to a dogmatic demand that you accept that which cannot be argued based on empirical evidence.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@lumberjackslam [quote]the average person never looks at evidence and just repeats what he read someplace and repeats it as if it were scripture[/quote]
I don't have the equipment or knowledge set to radiocarbon date archaeological artefacts, but when I heard that a researcher had changed the index scales for testing in the Levant, I didn't see that as a failure of the science. I saw it as an improvement in the technique.
One thing I won't do is refuse to accept the evidence if it doesn't fit into my religious belief. Therein lies the difference; dogmatic people refuse to accept the evidence if it disagrees with their beliefs. Those who accept science are able to adapt their beliefs to the evidence.
I don't have the equipment or knowledge set to radiocarbon date archaeological artefacts, but when I heard that a researcher had changed the index scales for testing in the Levant, I didn't see that as a failure of the science. I saw it as an improvement in the technique.
One thing I won't do is refuse to accept the evidence if it doesn't fit into my religious belief. Therein lies the difference; dogmatic people refuse to accept the evidence if it disagrees with their beliefs. Those who accept science are able to adapt their beliefs to the evidence.
Millerdog · 56-60, M
@Bushranger and for many people science is one of the path's to the Creator
DocSavage · M
@lumberjackslam
I’m curious.
[quote] but the average person never looks at evidence and just repeats what he read someplace and repeats it as if it were scripture[/quote]
Granted the average person, isn’t a scientist.
Bill Nye, is an engineer. He did in fact repeat what he read. But he repeated information that had been confirmed and validated by scientists in that field. And a consensus of others.
Ken Ham’s statements had been debunked. Because they were based on scripture. Given the source, which one do consider more reliable ?
I’m curious.
[quote] but the average person never looks at evidence and just repeats what he read someplace and repeats it as if it were scripture[/quote]
Granted the average person, isn’t a scientist.
Bill Nye, is an engineer. He did in fact repeat what he read. But he repeated information that had been confirmed and validated by scientists in that field. And a consensus of others.
Ken Ham’s statements had been debunked. Because they were based on scripture. Given the source, which one do consider more reliable ?