Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:43 AM
20 online now:
Heathen, Pressie (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science or Religion?
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 41 (46499)
07-19-2003 11:13 AM


People have all too easily forgotten that the whole concept of evolution was initially introduced by mystics, not scientists. The first actual use I have found of the term dates back to the German Romantics, long before Darwin. Of note here are Meister Eckhart and, later, Jacob Boehme. They, through personal revelatory experience, came to see God himself as evolving. ( Evolution Is Spiritual )

Nothing like that old time evolution religion!

Let's not forget that in order for a theroy to fall into the category of a Scientific Fact, it must be observable and proven to be true.
No one has ever observed an "ape" evolving into a Man, nor has Evolution been proven to be true, nor has the missing link ever been found.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 07-19-2003 11:16 AM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 07-19-2003 2:19 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded
 Message 17 by doctrbill, posted 07-19-2003 11:53 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3367 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 41 (46500)
07-19-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 11:13 AM


Endo,

Before we begin, please define religion & science. Once we've thrashed out what these things actually are, the answer becomes clear.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-19-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 11:13 AM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

    
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 3 of 41 (46501)
07-19-2003 11:31 AM


Science = 1)Proven Facts 2)Observable Data 3)Theroems proven to be true through experiments and overservations 4) 100% fool proof data which isn't biased towards one person's personal beliefs or prejudices. 4) Cannot detirmine value judgements 5) Cannot retain biased material towards one individual or group or idea which cannot be proven to be true in the scientific realm.

Religion = 1)One's beliefs about the Origins of life and the universe 2) One's beliefs in a supreme creator or ruler of the Universe 3) Usually retains zealots, and other members who are willing to defend their "ideas" 4) Doesn't have to be proven to be 100% accurate 5) Doesn't have to be observed 6) Allots some area of the ideas to be held by Faith, because it cannot be totally proven in the scientific realm. 7) Does not have to include precepts on morality, self-awareness, responsibility or accountability to be considered a religion.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 07-19-2003 12:56 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 41 (46502)
07-19-2003 12:35 PM


Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.
    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3367 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 41 (46503)
07-19-2003 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 11:31 AM


Endo,

Science: 1) Does not contain 100% proven facts. It contains observations that lead to a tentative conclusion. 3) Theorems do not have to be a/ proven, or b/ require experiments.

Science is a process that inductively creates a hypothesis, & then sets about deductively testing that hypothesis. As such, a theory can be very poorly supported indeed to begin with, yet still be scientific.

Religion: 1 & 2 are OK, everything after that seems unnecessary to me. One quibble, though. Events do not need to be observed in science, either. The difference is, that to be scientific an event must have supporting evidence that such an event took place. Kind of like reconstructing a crime scene. With religion, no such standard is applied.

I would add, religion requires no observations whatsoever for it's beliefs. Events in a religion are not required to be tested, nor can they necessarily be falsified.

Agreed?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 11:31 AM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

    
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 41 (46509)
07-19-2003 1:57 PM


What about the Supreme Court's Ruling on Creationism in Schools:
They said that 1. The science must be observable and 2. Must be scientifically proven. If a scientific fact isn't proven, then its not a 100% assured truth. If it's not, which Evolution isn't, then It's not the scientific fact proven to be true which so many claim it to be.
Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 07-19-2003 2:22 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 07-19-2003 3:05 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 7 of 41 (46511)
07-19-2003 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 11:13 AM


Guideline Warning
Hi, EndocytosisSynthesis! Welcome aboard!

During the registration process new members are asked to agree to follow the forum guidelines. These guidelines, state, in part:

  1. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

In light of this, perhaps you could explain why your post begins with a verbatim cut-n-paste from http://www.godandscience.org/discussions/viewtopic.php?t=2436&start=0?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 11:13 AM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 07-19-2003 2:24 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3367 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 41 (46512)
07-19-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 1:57 PM


Endo,

What about the Supreme Court's Ruling on Creationism in Schools:
They said that 1. The science must be observable and 2. Must be scientifically proven.

Cite pls. I seriously doubt they were the exact words or intended meaning.

If a scientific fact isn't proven, then its not a 100% assured truth. If it's not, which Evolution isn't, then It's not the scientific fact proven to be true which so many claim it to be.

This is fairly easily demonstrated. Have you ever seen an electron? No? Are electrons not scientific, then?

The center of the sun is calculated in the order 20 million K. Do you think it has been measured directly (observed)?

No. Both of the above are inferences made from other observations, predictions were made that have been tested.

I repeat. There is no such thing as a 100% scientific fact. All science can do is reduce the tentativity of a hypothesis/theory to an insignificant amount. It was once thought that atoms were solid & had charge carrying particulates embedded in them (plum pudding theory of the atom), it was then realised that atoms are mostly space & that electron particles orbited the nucleus. It was then realised that there are many layers of electons, & then that they aren't necessarily particles at all. All of the above are scientific explanations that best fit the observations at the time. Are you really arrogant enough to assume that particle physics, & quantum theory as it stands today is going to be the last word? If not, according to you they can't be science then, can they?

You put yourself in an untenable position, on the one hand it has to be 100% science fact in order to be science. On the other, the hundreds of thousands of scientists can't be doing science if they are trying to find things out, by definition. If it isn't already known to a 100% accuracy, then anything associated with it can't be science, right? Wrong, utterly & completely wrong.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 1:57 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 5:22 PM mark24 has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3367 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 41 (46513)
07-19-2003 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Admin
07-19-2003 2:19 PM


Re: Guideline Warning
Good grief! Percy, you have to get up early in the morning to catch you out, mate.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 07-19-2003 2:19 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 10 of 41 (46514)
07-19-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 1:57 PM


Hi, Endo!

There were a few misstatements in your post.

Endo writes:

What about the Supreme Court's Ruling on Creationism in Schools:
They said that 1. The science must be observable and 2. Must be scientifically proven.

The word "observable" does not appear in the Supreme Court ruling on Edwards vs. Aguillard, the only time the high court has had an opportunity to rule on this issue. While the Supreme court made no statement about observability, you are otherwise correct in saying that evidence is that which is in some way apparent to the five senses, in other words, observable.

The word "proven" only appears in excerpts from the original Louisiana statute, revealing that that legislature had little understanding of the nature of science. Science is not about proving things. In fact, nothing in science is ever proven. Even more, it is a fundamental requirement of science that its findings be held tentatively, always open to change in light of new information or improved understanding. Your phrase "scientifically proven" is a contradiction in terms.

So any time you see someone saying that evolution isn't science because evolution hasn't been proven, then you know they don't know what science is.

Science is the building of frameworks of understanding (theories) around bodies of evidence (data collected from observations). New data usually fits within the framework of existing theories, but when new observations are inconsistent with existing theory then for a while the new observations will be questioned, but if the observations are repeated and verified sufficient times then it is the theory itself that comes into question and is changed. That's why theories are tentative. After all, you couldn't change a theory that was already "100% assured truth."

By the way, the Supreme Court did not attempt to define the nature of science in their ruling. You may be thinking of the federal court ruling in the case of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education where Judge Overton included a characterization of science. Quoting from the ruling:

Judge Overton writes:

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Moving on:

If a scientific fact isn't proven, then its not a 100% assured truth.

Science is not about truth, but about understanding the world and universe around us as best we can. Nothing in science is "100% assured truth." We become more and more certain with more and more data, but that certainty never reaches 100%.

If it's not, which Evolution isn't, then It's not the scientific fact proven to be true which so many claim it to be.

This is pretty much the same statement I earlier said indicates when you know someone doesn't know what science is.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 1:57 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 5:28 PM Percy has responded

    
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 11 of 41 (46517)
07-19-2003 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
07-19-2003 2:22 PM


No I haven't seen an electron with my own eyes, but I have seen photographs of them by electron microscopes and I know that scientists have seen electrons before.
Science isn't about Truth? So I guess that means that Science could be false and not truthful and in other words it's irrelevant because It's not the actual truth its just our best understanding which has been wrong before and will be in the future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 07-19-2003 2:22 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2003 6:32 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 07-19-2003 6:35 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Kapyong, posted 01-21-2004 7:16 AM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
EndocytosisSynthesis 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 12 of 41 (46518)
07-19-2003 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
07-19-2003 3:05 PM


If science is not 100% assured truth than that means Evolution isn't 100% assured to be true, so that means that all those at put faith into to be 100% true are nothing more than religious zealots, because by science Evolution hasn't been proven to 100% true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 07-19-2003 3:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by dinoflagulates, posted 07-19-2003 5:58 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 07-19-2003 6:01 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
dinoflagulates
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 41 (46522)
07-19-2003 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 5:28 PM


The theory of evolution is indeed not 100% assured to be true. Just like the theory of gravity isnt. Science is tentative, there are no absolutes. That doesnt mean u have to have faith in evolution, just like u dont have to have faith in the theory of gravity. Instead of faith we accept the theory that currently descibes the observed events best. If tomorrow apples start falling up the theory of gravity has been falsified and a new theory will be developed that fits the observed phenomenon best. If tomorrow we discover things that falsify the theory of evolution we will have to think of a new theory that fits the evidence. Currently everything has evolution screaming all over it and there is nothing that points to a young earth, a creator or to the account of Genesis, so therefor there can be no other sensible thing to do than accept evolution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 5:28 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-20-2003 12:50 PM dinoflagulates has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 14 of 41 (46523)
07-19-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 5:28 PM


Endo writes:

If science is not 100% assured truth than that means Evolution isn't 100% assured to be true, so that means that all those at put faith into to be 100% true are nothing more than religious zealots, because by science Evolution hasn't been proven to 100% true.

Think about it for a minute. If science isn't "100% assured truth", then not only is evolution not "100% assured truth", neither is physics, cosmology, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, thermodynamics, relativity, field theory, plate tectonics, gravity, light, all the physical laws that make possible the computer you're using, and all the rest of science. So if you want to toss out evolution for this reason, you have to toss out everything else, too.

If I may slip into Admin mode for a minute, I'm not going to let an uninformed conversation go on for too long where one side accurately describes science while the other side just rejects all explanation. You don't have to accept the explanation. In fact, you can dispute it all you like, but you have to do it within the confines of the Forum Guidelines. If you'd like to have a discussion about the nature of science before launching into the specifics of evolution as a science, then by all means let's get started. But if you choose to continue in your current vein, which so far has included violations of rules 2, 4 and 6 of the Forum Guidelines, then we have a serious problem that will have to be dealt with. You might want to review the section on enforcement.

--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 5:28 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 41 (46526)
07-19-2003 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by EndocytosisSynthesis
07-19-2003 5:22 PM


It's not the actual truth its just our best understanding which has been wrong before and will be in the future.

No, science is a process of continually getting less wrong. Wouldn't you rather be close to the truth, and getting continually closer; than eternally, unchangingly wrong?

That's what religion offers, basically. Eternal error. I'll take science any day. Being wrong for now - but assured of greater correctness in the future - is much more attractive to me than continual error.

As for observing evolution, we observe the mechanisms of evolution every day. We even use them to design microchips and jet airplanes. What more observation do you require? The actual history itself? If so, why do you accept that the Civil War happened, and not evolution? There's as much evidence for both.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by EndocytosisSynthesis, posted 07-19-2003 5:22 PM EndocytosisSynthesis has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019