DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> just another scientific debate
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 131, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/21/2007 10:41:46 PM · #1
Ok before I start. I have nothing against anyone's opinion. This is more a commentary on how it is pushed upon others.

So here goes.

FACT: Numerous scientific discoveries were made by Christians who believed they were seeking to understand God's creation.

knowing this fact... why do so many atheists feel the need to constantly attack religion and to try to create a false barrier precluding anyone with religious beliefs from science.

example... "if you believe that all the complexities show elements of possible design then we can't have you participate in science"

another question. Why is it such a bad thing to question the possibility that these complexities of the world we live in, the amazing delicate balances of life - might not be the result of design?

07/21/2007 10:45:33 PM · #2
Accepted - Numerous scientific discoveries were made by Christians.

No one, atheist or otherwise, has a problem with people of any religion discovering things through science.

Many people, atheist and otherwise, have a problem with people of any religion making things up and offering them as pseudo-scientific alternatives.

It's either science or its not. It's either faith or its not. The two can not be mixed.
07/21/2007 11:15:47 PM · #3
"It's either science or its not."

WRONG

Science is a means of observation and discovery. Our understanding is constantly changing. There are many gaps in our knowledge. We utilize scientific method to endeavor to fill those gaps. But in many things those gaps remain unknowable at this time with our level of knowledge and technology.

But there is a sad state in science at present. Where they do not even want people to research or consider various ideas. Not without merit, though surely not proven. But so much in science is unproven - that is the beauty of science.

Science does not dictate that one is wrong to search for intelligent design nor to note the similarities in our programming code to genetic code - and to consider if there may be likewise designers of both codes.

No ideology, politics, and dogmatic faith is what dictates that such can't be researched or considered.

I always find it ironic that those who claim to hold freedom and free thought so dear are so intent on refusing such to be considered. That which is wrong, will eventually prove itself out to be wrong. That which is indeterminable is neither right nor wrong.... it is merely at present, unknowable and awaiting further development in knowledge and technology.

In a thousand years from now, scientists will laugh at a great number of things we take and hold granted as "scientific fact". Just as we now understand that many things that a mere 100 yrs ago were considered scientific are incorrect. Tons of things taught in science classes just 25 yrs ago are now wrong.

But that is the beauty of science. It's in the discovery. Our knowledge changes. Sometimes radically....who'd have believed that one could get light to travel faster than it does in a vacuum? If you said that 50 yrs ago....would you not have been laughed at and and told you were totally crazy and unscientific? How many scientists were vindicated long after their deaths?

So let us both study science. You believe all that you are observing occurred by random chance and I believe it came by design - we can still choose to make observations using the scientific method and to achieve discovery together.

- Saj

07/22/2007 12:33:14 AM · #4
Originally posted by theSaj:


So let us both study science...- Saj


Sadly, there are some whose religious convictions are such that, they would prefer that science would not form part of the curriculum in some realms of academic study.

Ray
07/22/2007 12:46:16 AM · #5
Originally posted by theSaj:

... How many scientists were vindicated long after their deaths?...

- Saj


I wonder how many of those scientists that needed vindication were considered heretic and had their study, research, and even lives stifled by the religious powers of the time.
07/22/2007 12:53:07 AM · #6
It's either science or it's not, as I said. One of the basic tenants of the scientific method is that a theory must be able to be proved or disproved. A theory of "I don't know the answer, therefore the answer is God" is not science, it is faith.

I find your arguments to be poor and bordering on incoherent. Despite that, I will be the first to point out that "science's" Achilles' Heel would appear to be a problem of explaining how everything sprang from nothing at all.

However for everything short of that grand question, science does seem to be doing a fair job of explaining things and certainly brings more benefits to life on earth than religion (curing disease, increasing food production, better standards of living). Even an icon of faith like Mother Teresa could do nothing more than make sure a small group of people had some basic needs met while they continued to spend their lives living in shit.

Keep faith in the churches.

Message edited by author 2007-07-22 00:55:26.
07/25/2007 09:38:35 PM · #7
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by theSaj:

... How many scientists were vindicated long after their deaths?...

- Saj


I wonder how many of those scientists that needed vindication were considered heretic and had their study, research, and even lives stifled by the religious powers of the time.


Actually, more often than not...it was the other scientists doing the stifling.

(Go study how many scientists Galileo tried to stifle and criticized. Why was Galileo in heated water? because he repeatedly insulted his peers and supporters and was unable to prove his stances mainly because he disavowed his fellow scientists works as false. The very same which could have proved him true.)

BTW...he was put under house arrest (in a very nice house I might add) which essentially equated to a life long endowment.

One of the basic tenants of the scientific method is that a theory must be able to be proved or disproved.

No, when a theory is proved it becomes a law. The truth is that in science we have thousands of theories - which don't happen to be provable. At least at this time with our knowledge and technology.

;)

"I find your arguments to be poor and bordering on incoherent. "

So, I find your responses to be contradictory to reality and illogical. Your point?

"science does seem to be doing a fair job of explaining things"
Doesn't mean it's always right. And doesn't mean what scientists tell us today will be right tomorrow. More often than not - it's not.

"certainly brings more benefits to life on earth than religion"
Of course, that's discounting how much science was done for religious purposes.

(curing disease, increasing food production, better standards of living)

(ie: medical, food production, and more....many of these fields which you so casually would claim the benefit of science were launched by those of religious conviction, monks, etc.)

Sorry you're so ignorant...
07/25/2007 09:50:18 PM · #8
Originally posted by theSaj:

FACT: Numerous scientific discoveries were made by Christians who believed they were seeking to understand God's creation.


while it may be true that some scientists have "christian" written in the religion box of their job application, i seriously doubt that they go to work in the morning thinking, "i'm researching science to understand god". and i also dont think they see all their research specimen as "god's creation" before they start dissecting it (or whatever they may do).
07/25/2007 10:41:34 PM · #9
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by theSaj:

... How many scientists were vindicated long after their deaths?...

- Saj


I wonder how many of those scientists that needed vindication were considered heretic and had their study, research, and even lives stifled by the religious powers of the time.

Giordano Bruno (a fully-ordained priest) comes to mind ... Galileo's years under house arrest (under Papal, not judicial decree) seem positively tame punishment for being right about so many things.
07/25/2007 11:14:46 PM · #10
Originally posted by theSaj:

Ok before I start. I have nothing against anyone's opinion. This is more a commentary on how it is pushed upon others.

So here goes.

FACT: Numerous scientific discoveries were made by Christians who believed they were seeking to understand God's creation.

knowing this fact... why do so many atheists feel the need to constantly attack religion and to try to create a false barrier precluding anyone with religious beliefs from science.

example... "if you believe that all the complexities show elements of possible design then we can't have you participate in science"

another question. Why is it such a bad thing to question the possibility that these complexities of the world we live in, the amazing delicate balances of life - might not be the result of design?


You are hysterical. Really. I'm the attacking one when you start a new thread mimicing mine.

On to your questions which I sure have been answered by now. I do NOT try to exclude anyone religious from science. But when religion with NO scientific backing is being taught along with science in a SCIENCE class, that is rediculous.

Do we barg into religious classes and try and teach science? Petition to the government to teach evolution with intelligent design in a religion class? No.

I have no problem with people finding a belief in god. I have a problem when it clouds judgement, finds its way into politics and into my face on the street with people calling others "sinners"

My last thread was NOT posed at religious folk. It was posed at the extremists and those unwilling to see the merit in science if it goes against their beliefs.
07/25/2007 11:20:30 PM · #11
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by theSaj:

... How many scientists were vindicated long after their deaths?...

- Saj


I wonder how many of those scientists that needed vindication were considered heretic and had their study, research, and even lives stifled by the religious powers of the time.


Actually, more often than not...it was the other scientists doing the stifling.

(Go study how many scientists Galileo tried to stifle and criticized. Why was Galileo in heated water? because he repeatedly insulted his peers and supporters and was unable to prove his stances mainly because he disavowed his fellow scientists works as false. The very same which could have proved him true.)

BTW...he was put under house arrest (in a very nice house I might add) which essentially equated to a life long endowment.

One of the basic tenants of the scientific method is that a theory must be able to be proved or disproved.


Where are you studying Galileo? Because in my studies the church was trying him as a heritic. A lot of fellow scientists works WERE false. They believed the universe revolved around the earth. Why was he in heated water? Because they thought if the earth wasn't the center, we weren't the most important thing as deemed by god and that would mean the bible was wrong. (much like religious fanatics like to think that evolution means we aren't speacial)

I think you are reading the wrong books. And who cares if he had "attitude." He was right. They were wrong.
07/25/2007 11:21:20 PM · #12
At this point I can only assume you're trolling for fun or just batshit insane. Either way, I'm out. Have fun.
07/25/2007 11:22:52 PM · #13
Originally posted by theSaj:



Sorry you're so ignorant...


Your blatant disregard for respect still astounds me. Though it should not, you have called me far worse.

You aren't making many friends around here. Perhaps that is your goal.

Message edited by author 2007-07-25 23:23:31.
07/25/2007 11:42:57 PM · #14
I recommend the book "Galileo's Daughter" for a reasoned and balanced acount of Galileo's persecution by the Church. To call his imprisonment an "endowment" shows a lack of understanding of the whole situation.
07/26/2007 12:47:36 AM · #15
Originally posted by routerguy666:

At this point I can only assume you're trolling for fun or just batshit insane. Either way, I'm out. Have fun.


Curt, Terse, adroit... and ever so funny. :O)

Ray
07/26/2007 12:55:24 AM · #16
Drugs are bad, mmmkay?!?
07/26/2007 10:13:27 AM · #17
I would make a few observations responding to Jason’s general theme – though I fear that by responding I give his post more credence than it deserves. Apologies now for a long post.

Originally posted by theSaj:

why do so many atheists feel the need to constantly attack religion and to try to create a false barrier precluding anyone with religious beliefs from science

Science is not synonymous with atheism. However, atheists tend to rely on scientific explanations of the universe rather than fantastical ones.

Intelligent design is not criticised and ridiculed because it is a different idea, or because it is propagated by religiously oriented people, but because it is very, very bad science.

ID makes one prediction: that there will be species in existence that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Of the billions of species available for study, it has failed to demonstrate this once. This makes it all the more laughable that it proposes a single incredibly unlikely hypothesis for the (so far unidentified) gaps: an intergalactic designer of the conscious, omniscient/omnipotent god-type. In short, even if evolutionary theory could not fully explain the development of life, it is absurd to jump to the immediate conclusion that there is an almost infinitely complex, but completely undetectable, designer involved. It creates a question so much bigger than the one it tries to solve.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But there is a sad state in science at present. Where they do not even want people to research or consider various ideas.

There is no cabal of scientists trying to prevent others from scientifically examining ID. There are a number of reasons why ID is not studied with more vigour.

1. If ID were a natural theory arising out of study of biology and paleo-science, then scientists would be proposing it. It is not that they won’t, but rather that there is no reason to rely on something fantastical as there are perfectly workable theories for which there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence.

Indeed, there is evidence that ID is not the case (though by its nature it is of the same non-scientific type as that for ID): over-complex structures (eg inner ear), diversity of structures between species at different levels of sophistication rather than replication of perfect structures (eg the eye), vestigial structures (eg appendix, junk dna) etc.

2. Unlike evolutionary theory, it provides no useful information about biology. Indeed, it seeks to detract from the sum of human knowledge by relegating all information about our origins to “unknowable” status. Accordingly, it explains nothing and has no economic benefits other than the sale of books to gullible people. People do not have the resources to research with equal vigour every whacko theory, so they concentrate their resources in areas most likely to be fruitful, and so unprofitable, unhelpful, unscientific and unlikely theories such as ID do not attract funding.

3. The theory is intended to fulfil a non-scientific purpose: it is a tool intended to persuade people that there are rational grounds for a belief in a supernatural god creator. It is not a serious attempt to deepen our understanding of the natural world – though it dresses itself up in this way so that people who do not understand how it is in fact diametrically opposed to science will be fooled.

Originally posted by theSaj:

You believe all that you are observing occurred by random chance and I believe it came by design - we can still choose to make observations using the scientific method and to achieve discovery together


I cannot stress strongly enough that you are fundamentally, wholly and completely misunderstanding evolutionary theory here – perhaps this is the entire basis of your misplaced trust. Evolution does not depend on random chance. It relies on probable things happening in a very large, increasingly sophisticated, unstable and reactionary environment – ie the very opposite of random chance.

Originally posted by theSaj:

the similarities in our programming code to genetic code

You have referenced this before. One way that code is developed and refined is through hybridisation – using evolutionary principles.

07/26/2007 10:29:53 AM · #18
And theres Matthew with the walk off homerun to win the game.
07/26/2007 12:45:55 PM · #19
Originally posted by ajdelaware:

And theres Matthew with the walk off homerun to win the game.


lol, as per usual. Matthew is one smart cookie! (And has a lot more patience than I)
07/26/2007 12:48:03 PM · #20
The "grays" did it.
07/26/2007 12:49:54 PM · #21
Pope Benedict says there is substantial proof of evolution.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
07/26/2007 05:39:58 PM · #22
Originally posted by Matthew:

…though I fear that by responding I give his post more credence than it deserves.

Can I get an Amen?!

Originally posted by Matthew:

ID makes one prediction: that there will be species in existence that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Of the billions of species available for study, it has failed to demonstrate this once. (…) It creates a question so much bigger than the one it tries to solve.

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.
, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), p. 78

Originally posted by Matthew:

3. The theory is intended to fulfil a non-scientific purpose: it is a tool intended to persuade people that there are rational grounds for a belief in a supernatural god creator. It is not a serious attempt to deepen our understanding of the natural world – though it dresses itself up in this way so that people who do not understand how it is in fact diametrically opposed to science will be fooled.

"Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [the main organization promoting Intelligent Design] seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

The Wedge Document, Discovery Institute, 1999.

"The objective of the Wedge Strategy is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

Phillip Johnson quoted. Missionary man, Rob Boston. Church & State, April 1999.
07/26/2007 11:28:07 PM · #23
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by theSaj:

... How many scientists were vindicated long after their deaths?...

- Saj


I wonder how many of those scientists that needed vindication were considered heretic and had their study, research, and even lives stifled by the religious powers of the time.


Actually, more often than not...it was the other scientists doing the stifling.

(Go study how many scientists Galileo tried to stifle and criticized. Why was Galileo in heated water? because he repeatedly insulted his peers and supporters and was unable to prove his stances mainly because he disavowed his fellow scientists works as false. The very same which could have proved him true.)

One of the basic tenants of the scientific method is that a theory must be able to be proved or disproved.

No, when a theory is proved it becomes a law. The truth is that in science we have thousands of theories - which don't happen to be provable. At least at this time with our knowledge and technology.

;)

"I find your arguments to be poor and bordering on incoherent. "

So, I find your responses to be contradictory to reality and illogical. Your point?

"science does seem to be doing a fair job of explaining things"
Doesn't mean it's always right. And doesn't mean what scientists tell us today will be right tomorrow. More often than not - it's not.

"certainly brings more benefits to life on earth than religion"
Of course, that's discounting how much science was done for religious purposes.

(curing disease, increasing food production, better standards of living)

(ie: medical, food production, and more....many of these fields which you so casually would claim the benefit of science were launched by those of religious conviction, monks, etc.)

Sorry you're so ignorant...


Today we'd call that "peer review" and it's a democratic and healthy process that makes science stronger and more able to stand up to the test of time. It's also a means for communication among scientists that compels additional inquiry and research. Hopefully, science is self correcting when it is wrong, especially in the absence of politics and economics. This is one of the strengths of science, however, the same can't be said for much of fundamentalist movements, or any orthodoxy, who thrive on authoritarianism and who prohibit and stifle free thought and the questioning of power and authority.

Surely you wouldn't deny the history of the Church in persecuting millions of people as heretics for opposing Church doctrine, or even for just reading the Bible! The Bishops and Popes of the day teamed with rulers of the land to suppress and extinguish what they felt were threats to their power. They did not permit diversity of opinion and thought. The same is being attempted today as witnessed by Christian fundamentalist movements trying to team with and overtake the machinery of government.

Why is science so threatening to fundamentalists? Because it puts knowledge and power in the hands of the people who might just see the "wizard" behind the curtain for what he really is, a charlatan. Intelligent Design is just a means for dumming-down the people who would prefer easy answers to complex questions and would like "authorities" to make those decisions for them.

YOu can believe whatever, and however you want (it's guaranteed to all in the US Constitution), just don't push those "hypotheses" on me. YOu could be sure, though, that there are fundamentalist leaders trying to deny me those same rights.
10/05/2007 02:25:25 AM · #24
Originally posted by theSaj:



One of the basic tenants of the scientific method is that a theory must be able to be proved or disproved.

No, when a theory is proved it becomes a law. The truth is that in science we have thousands of theories - which don't happen to be provable. At least at this time with our knowledge and technology.


This is not true, Saj. When enough hypotheses have been proven or disproven, a Theory is put forth. Theories are constantly being tested. Through experiments utilizing the Scientific Method.

For example - gravity is still a Theory. Microbial infection is still a Theory.

Notice that the word "theory" is capitalized when we refer to a scientific Theory. This is to distinguish the idea from everyday theories, which tend to be mere suppositions, like "My theory is that the Celtics are going to stink this year even worse than they stunk last year".

Theories are never said to be "proved". Which does NOT mean that they are not accepted as valid - "unprovable" using your term, above.

The Theory of gravity is pretty well established as valid. The best available evidence is that the predictions about gravity that are promoted by the Theory of gravity are extremely likely.

This is why ID is, to put it in scientific terms, a crock of shit. There is never any scientific method applied to the investigation of ID, which is clearly nothing more than creationism's polished turd. There has never, to my knowledge, been a single study on ID published in a true peer-reviewed scientific journal. The only articles have been published in "fake" journals put out by religious groups.

Message edited by author 2007-10-05 02:25:51.
10/05/2007 02:49:01 AM · #25
I feel if some one wants to study ID, he/she could do it with all the freedom he/she wants. Just do not call it science and just do not teach it in science class.
Why?
Because ID is very much against the essence of science. Teaching it in science class gives it much crediblity (because science is based on testing and experimenting process and has a very credible base).

Other than science class one should be free to study whatever he/she wants. There are many madrasas (region schools) in pakistan and no one has any objection to them.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 09:21:30 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 09:21:30 PM EDT.