Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
Morte
Member (Idle past 6093 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 19 of 212 (108553)
05-16-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


Everything's a religion?
quote:
A religion does not have to be something related to God or morals. It can be anything thats a belief system.
Then, out of curiosity, would you call adherence to the theory of gravity a religion? Copernicus's heliocentric theory? Perhaps the idea that the earth is round? Or, to move from scientific realms, adherence to the old "cult of domesticity"? Support of, say, mercantilism, or Marxism, under the belief that it is the best system? Pacifism? Insanity, even (or at least a form which causes someone to believe they see/hear things that aren't there)?
quote:
Since evolutionists do not accept creation evidence (Not because its not evidence they found the same evidence remember just interpreted differently) but because it does not fit there ideology.
Without going to much into the inbalance of evidence as I am limited on time and want to avoid going off-topic (there are plenty of topics on the subject anyway)... It's not simply that scientists don't accept creationist "evidence" - it's also that even with all the evidence in the world creationism still wouldn't fit the basic requirement of scientific theory that it be falsifiable.
The simplest way to explain falsification (the way that made most sense to me, at least, when I first learned about it), is the example provided by Douglas Theobald here. Search for "solipsism" on the page to find what I'm talking about. Basically, solipsism is the idea that reality is the product of one's mind and that the self is the only truly existent thing. While it could be true, form-fitting all evidence no matter what, it would not be considered scientific because no evidence that anyone could ever find would be capable of disproving it.
By the way, I don't think that it's the theory of evolution that requires that something arose from nothing - it simply explains how, once something was there, it became another something.
{Edit: Was busy in another window, didn't even think to check if anyone else had posted yet... Bah, you see what happens when you type slow? }
This message has been edited by Morte, 05-16-2004 01:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024