Forums | MacLife

Nag: astronomy, geology, chem is what these monsters force me to take. I understand what science is supposed to be, my problem is that science has deviated from its original course and has become a faith based waste of time.  If I need logic classes, I'll take logic classes.

I'm sorry that you have to take rel. classes.  Just curious, what kind of religious classes are they?--prop or history.

Secondly, Tycho?: My point is that going on a popular belief or notion is not acceptable.  This is what science has become.  Go along with the popular thought of the day, and teach it as fact to poor students like me, untill *boom* some study proves the thought irrelavant.  The result: everything I learned was a freaking waste of my time--I lost Jap vocab because I had to study for that test!! aaaaarrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!

Indeed. I find most of the attacks come from wacko religious fundamentalists that want science to die.

NOT QUITE.  There are numerous scientific/skeptic journals out there that are filled with articles attacking Christianity and other faiths as well.  There scholarship is shoddy, and definitely carrying an agenda.

I'd love to see a poorly written science journal "attacking" Christianity.

I'd love to see a poorly written science journal "attacking" Christianity.

I was standing at Chapters (your Barnes and Noble) laughing my ass off at a pitiful article attemptinig  to explain away the ressurection of Jesus passing out and waking up from a powerful narcotic.  scientists, philosophers, psychiatrists have all taken a crack at the gospels.

Your logic is flawed. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it can never be proved or disproved. It is just another example of "God in the Gaps." (I we can't explain it right now, God is the answer.) It is flawed logic that satisfies those seeking instant gratification. This is not science. Can you observe God? No. Can you talk to God? No. I have stated this before so you may look at my previous post for more detail.

Oh, yes, they do seek to destroy science. Ex: Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. All of modern biology makes no sense without this well proven theory. Yet, some wish to ban it, and therefore, destroy biology.

Yes, science is open to logical theories backed by much evidence. Common sense and credibility does pay a role though. Do you see people suggesting we put warning labels in physics books about the theory of gravity? I think we should teach the alternative to gravity call Intelligent Stickiness. Yup, God is holding us to the earth with invisible strings. (The theory before our modern understanding of gravity.)

Intelligent design is not as different from my proposal as you may think.

I am sorry that you take scientific developments as an insult to your personal belief system. It is not intended as such.

I too am growing weary of trying to explain the same thing over and over again.

What is TOE anyway?

If it is evolution please inform me of such before you start using an acronym.

Anyway, one last try. Evolution, in my words, basically means that all things change.

Our modern knowledge of biological systems requires that change occurs. Ex: Genetics (mutations and all that jazz).

Scientists have witnessed countless examples of evolution, not just Darwin's finches. Ex: (Real, check Scientific American) There is a species of spider in the process of becoming two. One spider lives in the desert, it is vicious because of the harsh conditions. Then there are spiders of the same species that lives near a river but is more passive because of the easy conditions. When these spiders mate, they produce super aggressive spiders. These spiders eventually get killed because they take on an ant colony or something else stupid. This is a reproductive barrier. Eventually, all spiders of the desert that want to mate with the river spiders, will die and vis versa because it is not reproductively favorable. This will separate the species in two.

There are many other examples. Evolution is not just a "theory." Not only that but it is the foundation of biology because of the very basic nature of the concept--everything changes.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/allimits.htm


"What science is, is a slippery topic, as the science wars show. According to some, it is a religion, ripe for deconstruction as a myth-making cultural activity. Well, fine. That strikes a chord with anyone familiar with the way scientists operate in real life, and as even the clear headed Karl Popper remarked, "science must begin with myth, and with the criticism of myths." Others say that, on the contrary, science is an internal process insulated, if done well, from social and even psychological influence, and therefore from such analysis. That argument, too, seems undeniable.

Perhaps it simply boils down to which science, and which scientist, one is talking about. Sciences vary. As do scientists, a species that includes, as Peter Medawar observed, "collectors, classifiers, and compulsive tidiers up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers, some are artists and other artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few MYSTICS [emphasis mine]."

The practice of science varies according to which community one is considering. At one end, there is mathematics, clean and tidy and a law unto itself, its results immune to culture, unaffected by human foibles and prejudice. Then there is the rest of science, in various degrees hypothetical, uncertain, and open to interpretation, and thus influenced by human psychology, sociology, politics, and other corruptions. "All the sciences aspire to the condition of mathematics," as Santayana observed, but they rarely make it. Personally, I love the scientific ideal, and wish all scientist were pure as mathematicians. But since they aren't, I welcome the attention of science studies professors....

What this all means is that overturning the orthodoxy is no easier in science than other disciplines, despite the professed open-mindedness of science as a vocation. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, updating the received wisdom in a science is typically a no holds barred struggle where all the forces of bias and entrenched interest are brought to bear against the challenger, at least until the weight of logic and evidence becomes overwhelming, and perhaps even beyond that point. "

Your logic is flawed. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it can never be proved or disproved. It is just another example of "God in the Gaps." (I we can't explain it right now, God is the answer.) It is flawed logic that satisfies those seeking instant gratification. This is not science. Can you observe God? No. Can you talk to God? No. I have stated this before so you may look at my previous post for more detail.

Oh, yes, they do seek to destroy science. Ex: Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. All of modern biology makes no sense without this well proven theory. Yet, some wish to ban it, and therefore, destroy biology.

Yes, science is open to logical theories backed by much evidence. Common sense and credibility does pay a role though. Do you see people suggesting we put warning labels in physics books about the theory of gravity? I think we should teach the alternative to gravity call Intelligent Stickiness. Yup, God is holding us to the earth with invisible strings. (The theory before our modern understanding of gravity.)

Intelligent design is not as different from my proposal as you may think.

Your paragraph shows your wariness in discussing the nature the philosophical "whys" of how things came to be, which all good science must lead to. I believe it quite doubtful that the this world, with all its complexity, and all these different systems working with each other so harmoniously could be developed purely by random chance. It defies reason. IMO, to believe that is to believe in fairy tales. Science has limits, the scientifice method has limits, and to say nothing exists outside our capacity to discover it is arrogant.

THAT BEING SAID, I am not going to defend the gamut of arguments that fall under the umbrella of creationism, because some of them are quite silly. 

I do not wish to be argumentative.  However your assertion that evolution is the cornerstone of biology leaves me wondering what was the cornerstone of biology before the TOE was developed? Scientific discoveries were still happening pre TOE. IMO, what drives scientists to embrace evolution is the fact that all scientific inquiry beforehand had to go through Church approval, or be summarily rejected (and executed). Evolution as it is treated today in relation to Religion is the is the great "F-U" to the Church and authorian ways.  It is a relatively new and exciting way of explaining how the world works.

Actually, have you read some of the biology texts from before that time? They were geared more toward the anatomy aspect. At the beginning of anatomy, the church didn't like it because some of them supposed that the heart was the seat of the mind, not the brain. Do you think that's right? No, but if you went back in time you'd be excommunicated for your views.

As for your last paragraph, you're starting to get hysterical.  Like I said, I find many people adamant about evolution as a way to shut out reasonable arguements for the possible existance of a creator, as do I find fundies who want to ban the TOE beacause it denies the possibility of God, not because the scientific body rejects good scientific rebuttals that some creationism arguements offer.  For example, evolutionists still try and fail to explain away the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the fact that 99% of all mutations, unless directed by intelligence, will naturally be harmful,fatal to the animal.  I heard all the responses the evolutionists give to these to examples and IMHEstimation, they fail to adequately explain it. So don't bother.

<M.C. Hawking>The second law is quite precise about where it applies, only in closed systems must the entropy count rise; the earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun</M.C. Hawking>

Or conversely, if you take a random selection of potato chips of a range of sizes and put them into a big jar and shake it up, the small ones will settle to the bottom and the large ones will be at the top. Now, this is more "ordered" than having all sizes evenly distributed, right? But they are settling randomly, which they are presupposed to do. I like to think that chemistry and physics (for anyone who knows this) are presupposed to support life. For example, a 1% difference either way in the charge of an electron, and the reactions that make life happen would be impossible. Creator, maybe. Luck, maybe. We don't know, but it is that way, and the math works.

In case you didn't know, we as a species have been using artificial selection to breed dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, cats, mice, and horses for thousands of years. Evolution is no different, except the selection is natural through things like climate change and diseases.

Secondly, yes, mutations are bad for animals, but not all evolution is driven by mutations. For example, almost all basketball players are tall. Did God select them to be tall so they could be basketball players? Did they mutate in the womb to become giants? No, the combination of their mother's and father's DNA made them tall and talented in basketball. Sexual reproduction causes changes in species much faster than random mutation because the resulting offspring are almost guaranteed to be at least moderately successful.

For example, if a wolf has puppies, and those puppies are a range of sizes, speeds, intelligences, and strengths, the one with the best combination, the one that is best suited to survival will persist and breed while the others may not. Over thousands of years, this will cause the best attributes of a species in that environment to come out.

I think the problem that creationists have with evolution is that it happens over such a hugely long period of time and they have trouble with anything over 6000 years.

As for the Big Bang theory, quantum mechanics, and particle physics, saying those are wrong is like saying 1+1 does not equal 2. They've been proven with MATH. Yes, we don't know what happened at the very, very beginning of the univerese, but we do know what happened 1x10^-31 seconds after that! No, we haven't seen gluons, but we have equations proving that they MUST exist!

What I find most disturbing about creationists is that they tell scientists to keep an open mind, but when the holes in they theories are pointed out, they close their minds and just say "You're wrong."

P.S. I've had creationists ask me how I can believe in evolution and the big bang theory. I tell them that I don't have to believe in it, that's how I know they exist.