Is Science a Religion?

which is a total misunderstanding of just what the ToE is and says.if anything, you should realize that because humans are social animals, evolution will favor non-selfish behavior in the social groups. which is not giving you a reason to live "for you" (the implication of "selfish" by your statement "for me").besides, ToE isn't something that you accept on "faith". it's not something you can "believe" in. that you can't see the difference explains a lot.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I am afraid of nothing...I've answered all of your questions and far better than you imagined. That is why you are trying to say I didn't. Pure coverup! You're betting that no one will read the whole thread.The thread is here for all to read. I'm not ging to waste any more cyber space with you.Like I said, if you don't like the quotes, then get a life! If scientists mean nothing to you , then what am I?

You're getting ahead of yourself again...If what you said is true, then why do politicians and dictators rule and threaten the world at the expense of 'the little village people' in flyover country who are down to earth and live much more harmoniously?

The question I asked was about your understanding of the Johnson and Goober quotes. Where have you answered that?Instead of trying to divert people's attention, why not just answer the question?Edited by Ringo, : Spelling.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There is an entire forum section for this sort of discussion. We even have like three threads current on the evolution of empathy and morals. Post this in one of those.But, the answer to your question is: because they can. There is room in society for a small minority of selfish people who live off the good will of others. Social parasites if you will. But, too many of these people and they will destroy one another, and society will cease to function well.Edited by Doddy Curumehtar, : Provided answer to the question.

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

who said anything about social groups being communistic in nature, or that that's the preferred outcome? social groups tend be very heirarchical in nature. you have the strongman who runs the group.but let him ruin the group, and watch what happens. if he doesn't have enough personal power, he's going down. so the strongman is ruling the group, in the group's benefit (and his benefit).anywho, this has squat to do with the topic. if you want to discuss this at length, propose a new topic.so then, how is science a religion? you still haven't satisfactorily answered that question. All you've done is to quote a bunch of people who claim this to be so. and none of their arguments work.

Did you even read the quotes, or are you smarter than one of the worlds leading biochemical evolutionists who converted to ID in face of the evidence.Dean Kenyon - coauthor of textbook on theory of biochemical evolution ”biochemical predestination’ 1969 / professor of biology (emeritus) San Fransisco State university- Yeah Kuresu.. we need not only that to have life (as you said, DNA is not life), but all of the other tens of thousands of proteins that Kenyon spoke of. And they all have to be arranged properly. Genes must be expressed at the proper time etc...It is irreducibly complex. Mutations (as Subbie pointed out) Can only occur in an organism that is capable of self replication. So in order to get natural selection in the first place... you need an incomprehensibly complex little animal. DNA is copied with the help of the other complex organs within the cell.So you can't use natural selection to explain the orign of DNA, without assuming the existance of the very thing your trying to explain. And it doesn't do you any good by itself. You need all of the cells components in place before natural selection can begin to pass on mutations to the next generation.Hence the Id argument that natural selection is real because we can observe it. But evolution is a myth, because it cannot be observed, nor can it account for how the organism got here in the first place.Someone said that natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it can explain the arrival of the fittest.Natural selection is only part of the story. I belive in natural selection, but no longer in evolution. Don't confuse the two like I once did!

Is your name Ringo?I did answer the question. Go back and read the thread. But it is not what you want to hear.

You can run but you can't hide. Just link back to where you answered the question about the quotes. Or just repeat your answer.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You don't understand Ringo... I showed my understanding of the issue before I gave the quotes. The quotes were just supporting evidence as the EVC forum guidlines suggest we use to show precisely that! That we do understand the issues, and that their is precident and support for it other than our own proclaimation of truth.The problem is that you don't understand the issues. You're not connecting the dots dude!It is you and jar mostly, who assert things without any supporting evidence whatsoever. You just say, 'no' and 'off topic' and 'that's inane' and the like.And when I provide supporting evidence, it is ridiculed be it the Bible, scientists, authors, journalists , or evangelists.I don't want to be mean Ringo, so I won't say what I really think of your faculties...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

oh boy.look. writing 11111111111111111111000000000000000000001111111111111111111000
00000000000000000000111111111101010101010101010101010101010000
00000000000001111111111111111111111000000000000000000000 0000000000101010101010101010101000000000000000000000000000000
111111111111111111111111110000000000000000000000101010101010
10000000000000000000000000000000000001111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111110000000000000000000000001010101010
1010101010101010100011000111111100000111100000000000001111
111110000000010101010101010101010101010000000000000000000000001111 11111111001100110011001100110011010100001000100010010010010010
01001001001010111111111111111111111111111111111000000000000000
000000000000000111111111111001010101010.is that complex? no. all it is is "1" and "0". just like all DNA is is "A", "B", "C", or "D" (when it comes to determining what amino acids are going to be used in the transcription process. All that quote means in that DNA can store a hell of a lot more information than a supercomputer can. it says squat about the complexity of DNA. looks like you can't read what you posted. i'm not sure you know what this means. it means that removing one part will cause the whole thing to fall apart. bacterium are a hell of a lot simpler than animal, plant, or fungal cells. they're missing mitochondria. a true nucleus. endoplasmic reticulum. they have smaller ribosomes. they are missing many parts, and yet they still function. so life isn't exactly irreducibly complex. otherwise, bacteria couldn't exist.oh, and cells don't have organs. organs consist of different tissues, which are themselves contructed of individual cells. (as a really simplistic answer). cells have organelles. oh my god, you've figured it out! we're lying through our teeth! do you really think we're this stupid? let's look at what natural selection is, shall we?. Natural selection: organisms that have favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those that have disfavorable traits.where do you see this trying to explain the origins of a molecule!? only an idiot would try to use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA. and the ToE doesn't do this, to begin with. grow up, rob. it is not a myth. and it does not attempt to explain how life originated. it is only concerned with what happens to life, if you will. origins of life is left to abiogenesis, and is a hot topic in research.and here is evolution in action:
Observed Instances of Speciationand you know, w/o natural selection, you can't have evolution. sorry rob, but that's the way it is.Edited by AdminNosy, : To break up long strings causing wide pages.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

The question was about your understanding of the quotes.Just give us a couple of examples, in your own words, of how science is similar to religion. So far, all you've done is show us that you don't have any understanding of science.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Oh sacred cow of evolution. I am sorry for disrespecting you. Please forgive me.You are absolute oh Gog. Your priests will endure forever. Their great faith and extrapolating imaginations are higher than mine. Who am I to question the smartest people on earth?It's just a's and g's, c's, and t's. It's not complicated. abiogenesis is the mother of life. Queen of the universe. An accident waiting to happen that did.All there is is matter...Oh great material force. Give me my way. lead me into the understanding that understanding is just a random variation within my kind. What's true for you is lie to me (except evolution... no compromise there) my apologies again.Just give me the apple and let me be. I want to suck the pandas thumb. I do know Kuresu... And I understand. How complex of a creature do you need before a self replicating cycle is established?And I do not mean what scientists can imagine (faith/ extrapolate)... I mean show me the simplest living cell available in the fossil record or that is currently alive. I want verification and evidence. That's what they keep telling me science is. Then explain to me how it arose by the process of abiogenesis.No imagination necessary. Evolution makes sense because we imagine that life started out simple. Turns out not to be the case.Genetic information cannot be reproduced without cell structures (oganelles). And it has to be produced in the first place before it can be reproduced. And the specifics of the genetic information just so happen to have all of the instructions for the building of those organelles.Have I offended you and your elitist brethren? The smartest people on earth? Perhaps a man of higher learning is more credible to you than a stupid truck driver?Phillip Johnson - author ”Darwin on trial’ / Professor of law (emeritus) University of California at Berkeley-“With Darwinian evolution, we’re dealing with something that is much more than a scientific theory; it’s a creation story. In fact, it’s the creation myth of our culture. Every culture has a creation myth, which tells the people where they came from, what is ultimately ”real’, and how they relate to that, and where they should get their knowledge- their information from.Every culture has a priesthood that has custody of this creation story and that gives that knowledge. In our culture, the priesthood is not the clergy or the ministers in church, it’s the intellectual class, and especially the scientists."You can still believe in evolution and abiogenesis. Just use your imagination Kuresu! Jeremiah 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Perhaps a man of higher learning is more credible to you than a stupid truck driver?

---

Well generally not when they go outside their own narrow areas of learning - A professor of law is not the first person who springs to mind when I want to know about complex biological matters....

While doing some research on this topic, I came across a very clever proof for science being a religion. Science can be described as a monotheistic religion (yep just like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). The proof goes as follows: Without the monotheistic religions, the study of science would never have started. Science starts with a basic principle. There exists unity in the world. Without this principle science can't exist. When a scientist looks at a phenomenon in nature, he wonders how it relates to everything else. Have you ever asked yourself why scientists think that way? Maybe the world has no unity; this specific phenomenon is an entity in itself. This idea can be classified as a chaotic universe with no unity or order. If you think back long enough, this was the philosophy that was prevalent before the advent of modern science. The Greeks believed in different beings controlling different phenomenon independently of others. With the advent of monotheistic religions, people wondered if this all powerful single being may act in patterns. Scientist started to seek out pattern in the world and explain how everything is related and united. This stemmed from the monotheistic principles and is in no way an obvious assumption (consider the Greeks). Even today, scientists believe that they can come up with a unified TOE (Theory of Everything) when there is no proof that this universe is even a united entity. This principle is purely a religious one and the whole field of modern science stemmed from monotheism.