Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Manifesto: Is It Science?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 14 (119541)
06-28-2004 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
06-28-2004 10:22 AM


quote:
Science serves a purpose, religion serves a purpose, secular awareness serves a purpose, social responsibility serves a purpose, but all must acknowledge their limitations and learn to work within their own framework. None, in and of itself, will ever be sufficient enough to reveal all of the unknowns. Society is better served by the integration of these individual concepts.
  —Darkstar
So what we have are tools that are meant to answer separate questions. Science is the tool used to explain the physical, natural world. Philosophy/religion is a tool used to explain the metaphysical, moral, and spiritual questions that man asks. They are mutually exclusive. I would argue that society should use all of the tools, but they can not be combined into one.
For example, if we want to make a new pesticide to kill off a mosquito outbreak, do we meditate or apply empirical science? If we want to judge someone's actions, do we use science or socieatl/moral standards steeped in philosophy and religion? If we want to calculate the orbit of a satellite, do we pray about it and hope for a vision, or do we use mathematical formula derived from scientific theories devoid of religious content?
The question is this. What separates evolution and the origin of life from the rest of the sciences? We can reconstruct a crime from the evidence left behind, yet we are supposed to read the bible for reconstructing biological evidence left in the rocks. We can use DNA to determine paternity, but we can't use DNA to determine common ancestory. It seems that creationists and flavors thereof want to reap the benefits of keeping religion out of science unless it disagrees with their religion. Science is good enough to double their lifespan, make non-stick pots, make non-religious theories about orbiting planets, but not good enough to describe species diversity.
Science has never been improved, and very possibly ruined, by the inclusion of religious precepts. It wasn't until society decided to separate religion and science that we finally saw the heights to which human invention could reach. I would argue that the last 100 years has seen the removal of religion from science, and at the same time we also observe the greatest increase in technological discoveries and the greatest increase in solid theories that have withstood prolonged testing. Darkstar argues that science would benefit, but the data argues otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 06-28-2004 10:22 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by MrHambre, posted 06-28-2004 5:40 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2004 3:25 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 14 (119989)
06-29-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
06-29-2004 3:25 AM


quote:
religion is a tool for answering questions about made-up stuff.
But that "made-up stuff" is more important than science to some people. Whether or not I agree with their philosophy, I can't ignore the importance of religion in the lives of a large section of society. I am an agnostic, so to me it seems foolish, but that is a judgement that I make for myself and not for other people (I know you feel the same way, but for the sake of the debate). Just because we might find something unimportant doesn't mean that it shouldn't be important to other people.
quote:
Getting back to DS's manifesto, what on Earth would be the utility of trying to synthesize science and made-up stuff?
Absolutely none. The only synthesis I see within science now is ethics. There are certain ethics that scientists follow when doing human or animal experimentation. I would classify them as areligious, but concern for animal suffering and human consent are often thought of as christian or religious precepts. I think that society and religion has a place in science, not in methodology but rather in the ethical practice of science. There are huge grey areas, and I tend towards a more a more "liberal" practice of science, but I fully realize that we should also consider the feelings of the society that is both benefitting and financially supporting the research. Secular as well as religious voices should be heard, so I support studies on homosexuallity, embryonic stem cell research (I actually use fetal cell lines in my work), and I also support animal studies that include subject euthanasia. However, everything we do has to be passed by an animal protocol board that includes both PhD's and laypeople from the community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2004 3:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 14 (120219)
06-30-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Reina
06-29-2004 8:48 PM


Re: Acknowledging Design
quote:
To me, this is awesome (the amazing amounts of perfectly-detailed information contained in so tiny a space).
The only problem is that you must first believe that there is a designer before you can conclude that there is a designer. There are physical laws that allow the accumulation of information in the DNA molecule that are observable and measurable, no faith needed. These physical laws are natural selection and mutation. IOW, a designer is neither been evidenced nor is one necessary.
This is why there shouldn't be a mix between religion (design inferrence) and science. If religion is allowed to enter, then every kind of non-evidenced mechanism can be inserted that doesn't require evidence, only faith. This is why science was created, to get rid of "snake-oil salesmen" who try to sell their cause using unsubstantiated claims, or even worse unsubstantiatable claims.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-30-2004 12:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Reina, posted 06-29-2004 8:48 PM Reina 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