Science Is/As A Religion

[geauxtohell]

The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.

Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.

Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.

Most people in the the scientific field are more than happy to admit they don't have all the answers. The second we have "all the answers" then scientists are out of work.

I agree on Dawkins, and if you care to do a search with my name and "Dawkins" you will find that I find him to be a pompous asshole.. He is the exception and not the rule. His OPED works (not exactly peer-reviewed material) that make larger inferences about the existence of God (or non-existence) step outside the scope of science as well.

I am not terribly concerned with people who want to "treat evolution like a religion". Their presence is over-stated by over-reactive minds. Again, I would use Ken Miller as my model on the matter. Either way, most people in science are concerned with terribly nuanced issues that are far removed from the larger philosophical questions. Things like examining how certain proteins facilitate cell function. These are the "grunts" of the scientific field and the people that really make the venture work. The prima donnas and talking heads on the matter, people like Dawkins, Ben Stein, or Ann Coulter are really just selling books.

Good post.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What do you feel I generalized?

The part where you assume that everyone who believes in creation believes that the universe was created as is. I posted the whole definition from Wikipedia to point out the part where it says that the general usage, which I bolded above, has deviated from the proper definition and usage.

Except I've never assumed that. People have a variety of beliefs regarding creation. HOWEVER, the term CREATIONISM, as the Wikipedia article that you yourself cited states, specifically refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." Did you not read your own source which you copied and pasted? Creationists, being people who subscribe to creationism, by the very meaning of those terms refute evolution. That is not to say that it is impossible to hold a differing idea of creation that allows for evolution, but the Christian version deemed creationism does not.

Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others.

Really? And what new knowledge is gained from a doctorate in English literature? Don't confuse personal interpretation with novel findings. Even if you were to point to writers creating new material, I'm sure you see how it is not actually new factual knowledge about the world. That's not to devalue studies in non-scientific fields. They can be exceptionally valuable. But they are not of the standards, caliber, and goals of science. Apples and oranges. And should not be compared as congruent.

A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth.

OR, you just made that up and it's completely false.

I'm wondering from where you could have possibly heard that idea, let alone believed it to be true.

Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?

Why don't you design some experiment to figure that one out. You know, investigate the world to discover evidence that God is still interacting with things. We can gather data on particles which barely exist, and the effects of energies millions of miles away in space, so surely you'd find some new evidence in this world to support what you say, right?

The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything.

Well, no. The standards of science DEMAND that lack of information is acknowledged. Anyone who is "too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything" is not a scientist. Only religion claims to have all the answers, regardless of how inane they may sound at times. Science has no problem with "I don't know."

 

[rdean]

Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.

Oh no. Now you went and did it. Did you read those stories?

This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a circumcisionbanned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.

Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm sorry I was a skeptic. Thanks for the link. These are truly hilarious. I'm going to read some more.

Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.

Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?

An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.

You asked for flood stories. You got them. You didn't specify they had to mirror the Noah's Ark story, so don't move the goalposts now, Skippy.

I'm not. I appreciate them. Believe me I do. They're hilarious and I respect them exactly the same as I respect the magical story of "Noah's Ark".

 

[rdean]

Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics. That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.

So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.



I do. As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites. I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Are you serious?

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

Oh please, at least the site from Daveman seemed real. Aztecs had a "Noah's Ark" legend? How convenient.

Then you go to a non right wing site and the story is much different.

Aztec Mythology - Myth Encyclopedia - god, story, legend, names, ancient, animal, snake, war, world, creation, life, king, people, children, culture, fire, Origins and Influences, Major Themes and Deities, Major Myths

Tezcatlipoca created the first sun, known as Nahui-Ocelotl, or Four-Jaguar. It came to an end when Quetzalcoatl struck down Tezcatlipoca, who became a jaguar and destroyed all the people. Quetzalcoatl was the ruler of the second sun, Nahui-Ehécatl, or Four-Wind. However, Tezcatlipoca threw Quetzalcoatl off his throne, and together the fallen god and the sun were carried off by a hurricane of wind. People turned into monkeys and fled into the forest.

The third sun, Nahuiquiahuitl or Four-Rain, belonged to the rain god Tlaloc. Quetzalcoatl destroyed it with fire that fell from the heavens. The water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue ruled the fourth sun, called Nahui-Atl or Four-Water. A 52-year flood destroyed that sun, and the people turned into fish.

--------------------------------------

Hey, maybe you're right. But maybe it's the Aztec's who have it right and everyone else in the West was wrong. Maybe people did turn into "fish" and "monkeys". Maybe it's another way of saying "evolution". We could call it, "Intelligent transmorphiguarion". I dare anyone to "reFudiate" that!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except I've never assumed that. People have a variety of beliefs regarding creation. HOWEVER, the term CREATIONISM, as the Wikipedia article that you yourself cited states, specifically refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." Did you not read your own source which you copied and pasted? Creationists, being people who subscribe to creationism, by the very meaning of those terms refute evolution. That is not to say that it is impossible to hold a differing idea of creation that allows for evolution, but the Christian version deemed creationism does not.

What "Christian fundamentalist" version of creationism? The intelligent Design version, the Old Earth Creationism, or the Young Earth group. Even among fundamentalist Christians there are various versions of creationism, including those who believe that God used evolution to get what he planned. You are still making assumptions and trying to fit everyone into the same box simply because it is easier.

Really? And what new knowledge is gained from a doctorate in English literature? Don't confuse personal interpretation with novel findings. Even if you were to point to writers creating new material, I'm sure you see how it is not actually new factual knowledge about the world. That's not to devalue studies in non-scientific fields. They can be exceptionally valuable. But they are not of the standards, caliber, and goals of science. Apples and oranges. And should not be compared as congruent.

Beats the fuck out of me, but that does not change the fact that the goal of doctoral dissertations. Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though. I think that proves something about you here.

OR, you just made that up and it's completely false.

I'm wondering from where you could have possibly heard that idea, let alone believed it to be true.

I didn't though. Can't find it on Google, but some of the old books I read spoke of how some scientists actually believed it. I will keep looking around to see if I can find a reference for you.

Why don't you design some experiment to figure that one out. You know, investigate the world to discover evidence that God is still interacting with things. We can gather data on particles which barely exist, and the effects of energies millions of miles away in space, so surely you'd find some new evidence in this world to support what you say, right?

I don't have to, somebody is already doing it.

Large Hadron Collider to search for God Particle using 7 TeV proton collisions, via live webcast (update: first collisions, video!) -- Engadget

Well, no. The standards of science DEMAND that lack of information is acknowledged. Anyone who is "too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything" is not a scientist. Only religion claims to have all the answers, regardless of how inane they may sound at times. Science has no problem with "I don't know."

What religion claims to have all the answers? Some people who are religious do, just as some people who believe in science do, like, for example, Richard Dawkins.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Are you serious?

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

Oh please, at least the site from Daveman seemed real. Aztecs had a "Noah's Ark" legend? How convenient.

Then you go to a non right wing site and the story is much different.

Aztec Mythology - Myth Encyclopedia - god, story, legend, names, ancient, animal, snake, war, world, creation, life, king, people, children, culture, fire, Origins and Influences, Major Themes and Deities, Major Myths

Tezcatlipoca created the first sun, known as Nahui-Ocelotl, or Four-Jaguar. It came to an end when Quetzalcoatl struck down Tezcatlipoca, who became a jaguar and destroyed all the people. Quetzalcoatl was the ruler of the second sun, Nahui-Ehécatl, or Four-Wind. However, Tezcatlipoca threw Quetzalcoatl off his throne, and together the fallen god and the sun were carried off by a hurricane of wind. People turned into monkeys and fled into the forest.

The third sun, Nahuiquiahuitl or Four-Rain, belonged to the rain god Tlaloc. Quetzalcoatl destroyed it with fire that fell from the heavens. The water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue ruled the fourth sun, called Nahui-Atl or Four-Water. A 52-year flood destroyed that sun, and the people turned into fish.

--------------------------------------

Hey, maybe you're right. But maybe it's the Aztec's who have it right and everyone else in the West was wrong. Maybe people did turn into "fish" and "monkeys". Maybe it's another way of saying "evolution". We could call it, "Intelligent transmorphiguarion". I dare anyone to "reFudiate" that!

Don't come whining to me if the world ends in 2012.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Except I've never assumed that. People have a variety of beliefs regarding creation. HOWEVER, the term CREATIONISM, as the Wikipedia article that you yourself cited states, specifically refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." Did you not read your own source which you copied and pasted? Creationists, being people who subscribe to creationism, by the very meaning of those terms refute evolution. That is not to say that it is impossible to hold a differing idea of creation that allows for evolution, but the Christian version deemed creationism does not.

What "Christian fundamentalist" version of creationism? The intelligent Design version, the Old Earth Creationism, or the Young Earth group. Even among fundamentalist Christians there are various versions of creationism, including those who believe that God used evolution to get what he planned. You are still making assumptions and trying to fit everyone into the same box simply because it is easier.

Which version of "Christian fundamentalist?" The "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth" version. Or did you not read the whole sentence of your own source still? Now one could make the argument that since there are many beliefs in creation, each person believing such is a "creationist." However you and I both know that it is NOT what is being referenced in topics like this that refer to creationism. There's another thread in this forum entitled "What if evolution was part of creationism?" Note how this author used the word "creationISM" and not "creation."

If you'd really like to split hairs regarding the rare and otherwise unused meaning of a word instead of the common vernacular use and meaning, I have no interest in arguing semantics. The point remains that the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." It is not a minority being generalized and projected onto a majority. It IS the majority.

Beats the fuck out of me, but that does not change the fact that the goal of doctoral dissertations. Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though. I think that proves something about you here.

Yes. It proves that I know more about higher education that you do. If you'd like to make a point, be sure to back it. No, your claim that non-scientific fields such as literature review can produce new information is not well supported by "beats the fuck out of me."

I didn't though. Can't find it on Google, but some of the old books I read spoke of how some scientists actually believed it. I will keep looking around to see if I can find a reference for you.

"some of the old books I read" which you can't find anywhere on the entire internet. ok. This seems like a good place to reference my idea of being able to support what you say or don't bother saying it.

Why don't you design some experiment to figure that one out. You know, investigate the world to discover evidence that God is still interacting with things. We can gather data on particles which barely exist, and the effects of energies millions of miles away in space, so surely you'd find some new evidence in this world to support what you say, right?

I don't have to, somebody is already doing it.

Large Hadron Collider to search for God Particle using 7 TeV proton collisions, via live webcast (update: first collisions, video!) -- Engadget

No. Somebody is NOT already doing it. You have a bad habit of blindly copying and pasting things without actually understanding them, and then looking rather foolish later. Perhaps you should read up on the actual goals of the research instead of being so easily confused by the shiny name: Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, no. The standards of science DEMAND that lack of information is acknowledged. Anyone who is "too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything" is not a scientist. Only religion claims to have all the answers, regardless of how inane they may sound at times. Science has no problem with "I don't know."

What religion claims to have all the answers?

Name for me a single religion which does not have an answer for the following questions regardless of verifiable evidence:

• Where did life come from?
• Why do we exist?
• Where did the universe come from?
• What happens when we die?
• Do souls exist?
• How does one lead a good life?
• What if we are wicked in life?
• What is wicked anyway?
• Is there a God?

For most of these questions, there is ZERO evidence in this universe, and yet religions tend to find the answers anyway. Interesting. Btw, there are actually a few religions out there that don't address some of those questions. I'll be impressed if you can name them.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others. A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth. I don't know about you, but I am pretty happy no one payed attention to the pundits back then. Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?

What senile old hack stated that? Link?

And why the implied denigration of scientists linked to your concept of a Diety?

 

[Old Rocks]

The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.

Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.

Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.

Most people in the the scientific field are more than happy to admit they don't have all the answers. The second we have "all the answers" then scientists are out of work.

I agree on Dawkins, and if you care to do a search with my name and "Dawkins" you will find that I find him to be a pompous asshole.. He is the exception and not the rule. His OPED works (not exactly peer-reviewed material) that make larger inferences about the existence of God (or non-existence) step outside the scope of science as well.

I am not terribly concerned with people who want to "treat evolution like a religion". Their presence is over-stated by over-reactive minds. Again, I would use Ken Miller as my model on the matter. Either way, most people in science are concerned with terribly nuanced issues that are far removed from the larger philosophical questions. Things like examining how certain proteins facilitate cell function. These are the "grunts" of the scientific field and the people that really make the venture work. The prima donnas and talking heads on the matter, people like Dawkins, Ben Stein, or Ann Coulter are really just selling books.

Good post.

The grand old man of evolutionary biology is Earnst Mayr. Another excellant read is the many books of Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins biology is good, but he percieves the fight with the creationists as more important that the research that is ongoing into paths of evolution.

 

[daveman]

Oh no. Now you went and did it. Did you read those stories?

This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a circumcisionbanned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.

Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm sorry I was a skeptic. Thanks for the link. These are truly hilarious. I'm going to read some more.

Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.

Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?

An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.

You asked for flood stories. You got them. You didn't specify they had to mirror the Noah's Ark story, so don't move the goalposts now, Skippy.

I'm not. I appreciate them. Believe me I do. They're hilarious and I respect them exactly the same as I respect the magical story of "Noah's Ark".

Like I said: An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.

 

[geauxtohell]

The grand old man of evolutionary biology is Earnst Mayr. Another excellant read is the many books of Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins biology is good, but he percieves the fight with the creationists as more important that the research that is ongoing into paths of evolution.

And that is where I part ways with Dawkins. I liked him a lot more when he was just a biologist and not a zealot preoccupied with trying to convince people that their issues of faith are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which version of "Christian fundamentalist?" The "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth" version. Or did you not read the whole sentence of your own source still? Now one could make the argument that since there are many beliefs in creation, each person believing such is a "creationist." However you and I both know that it is NOT what is being referenced in topics like this that refer to creationism. There's another thread in this forum entitled "What if evolution was part of creationism?" Note how this author used the word "creationISM" and not "creation."

If you'd really like to split hairs regarding the rare and otherwise unused meaning of a word instead of the common vernacular use and meaning, I have no interest in arguing semantics. The point remains that the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." It is not a minority being generalized and projected onto a majority. It IS the majority.

I am not the one splitting hairs, you are the one insisting that the only possible valid definition is the one that allows you to make your point. The fact is that creationists are a very diverse group encompassing many beliefs, and that only a very small percent fit into the definition you insist on using. Your bias and lack of research skills is showing. Fundamentalism is not the problem here, it is the people who treat science as a religion.

CSC - Don't Blame Fundamentalists for Evolution Controversies

Yes. It proves that I know more about higher education that you do. If you'd like to make a point, be sure to back it. No, your claim that non-scientific fields such as literature review can produce new information is not well supported by "beats the fuck out of me."

No, it proves your bias against soft subjects and for hard science. I happen to share it myself, I am also smart enough to remember that I am often wrong, especially when it comes to something I have little, or no, personal knowledge of. Just because I do not know what new knowledge a person who writes a doctoral dissertation on Chaucer has managed to contributed to the world does not mean it does not exist.

I do not have to back any claim because I did not make one, I simply asked a question. I am not going to go back and look to make sure I word it exactly, but it was asking if the idea behind any doctoral dissertation and award being a requirement that it advance human knowledge. That actually places the burden of proof on you if you want to claim that English Literature doctorals do not meet that standard.

"some of the old books I read" which you can't find anywhere on the entire internet. ok. This seems like a good place to reference my idea of being able to support what you say or don't bother saying it.

Can you find a copy of every single book ever written on the internet? I seriosly doubt you can, even though Google is currently striving to make it possible. The fact that they are still actively scanning proves that they still have work to do. Believe it or not there are a lot of things that exist in the real world that cannot be found on the internet.

No. Somebody is NOT already doing it. You have a bad habit of blindly copying and pasting things without actually understanding them, and then looking rather foolish later. Perhaps you should read up on the actual goals of the research instead of being so easily confused by the shiny name: Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science? Your challenge was not for me to prove God exists, just that He is still revealing Himself. Perhaps you should take your own advice about looking foolish.

Name for me a single religion which does not have an answer for the following questions regardless of verifiable evidence:

• Where did life come from?
• Why do we exist?
• Where did the universe come from?
• What happens when we die?
• Do souls exist?
• How does one lead a good life?
• What if we are wicked in life?
• What is wicked anyway?
• Is there a God?

For most of these questions, there is ZERO evidence in this universe, and yet religions tend to find the answers anyway. Interesting. Btw, there are actually a few religions out there that don't address some of those questions. I'll be impressed if you can name them.

Scientology

See, that wasn't even hard. If you really want to discuss theology in depth I could explain to you how Christianity, being a collections of sects and beliefs, doesn't even have an answer to all of those questions. Judaism doesn't even have all the answers to the questions you asked, and they have been working on them longer than any Christian sect. Theology is not so much about having the answers as asking the questions. It is not unusual for people who don't understand it to think that it assumes things just because the basic belief is outside their comprehension.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others. A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth. I don't know about you, but I am pretty happy no one payed attention to the pundits back then. Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?

What senile old hack stated that? Link?

And why the implied denigration of scientists linked to your concept of a Diety?

Where did I denigrate anyone? Is the problem here not my concept of God, but yours, and your refusal to admit you have no idea what I believe?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.

Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.

Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.

Most people in the the scientific field are more than happy to admit they don't have all the answers. The second we have "all the answers" then scientists are out of work.

I agree on Dawkins, and if you care to do a search with my name and "Dawkins" you will find that I find him to be a pompous asshole.. He is the exception and not the rule. His OPED works (not exactly peer-reviewed material) that make larger inferences about the existence of God (or non-existence) step outside the scope of science as well.

I am not terribly concerned with people who want to "treat evolution like a religion". Their presence is over-stated by over-reactive minds. Again, I would use Ken Miller as my model on the matter. Either way, most people in science are concerned with terribly nuanced issues that are far removed from the larger philosophical questions. Things like examining how certain proteins facilitate cell function. These are the "grunts" of the scientific field and the people that really make the venture work. The prima donnas and talking heads on the matter, people like Dawkins, Ben Stein, or Ann Coulter are really just selling books.

Good post.

The grand old man of evolutionary biology is Earnst Mayr. Another excellant read is the many books of Stephen Jay Gould. Dawkins biology is good, but he percieves the fight with the creationists as more important that the research that is ongoing into paths of evolution.

Funny, most biologists I know think Dawkins biology is atrocious. Something about him being a zoologists and not a real scientist.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I am not the one splitting hairs, you are the one insisting that the only possible valid definition is the one that allows you to make your point.

Is that so? Could you be a dear and quote me saying it is the only possible valid definition, or better yet how it being the only valid definition would allow me to make my point? Do you even know my point? Here I'll make it really simple for you: my point is that when people commonly refer to creationism, it is the common meaning of the word, and THAT meaning is not compatible with evolution. Notice how the point is still preserved regardless of other meanings that aren't commonly used. Notice how you were the one who is harping on minority uses of the word that didn't originally apply in this thread. Notice how YOU were the one who brought up a source that directly contradicted you and supported me. Notice how you are sidetracking the actual point, being that the common meaning of the word that was being referenced at the time is still not compatible with evolution.

No, it proves your bias against soft subjects and for hard science. I happen to share it myself, I am also smart enough to remember that I am often wrong, especially when it comes to something I have little, or no, personal knowledge of. Just because I do not know what new knowledge a person who writes a doctoral dissertation on Chaucer has managed to contributed to the world does not mean it does not exist.

You seem to let your emotions twist the points being made instead of reading what's actually being said. I have no bias again the subjects that YOU reference as "soft." They are simply not comparable to science or it's standards in seeking new information regarding the universe. If you disagree with that point, simply show where English literature accomplishes that as well. I won't eagerly await your great rebuttal seeing as you haven't provided one yet and at best supported your point with "beats the fuck out of me."

Doctoral dissertations in non-scientific fields can be insightful contributions to their respective fields, but do not produce NEW information about the universe by examining it. They either rehash old information, or produce new interpretations of old information. If you are still interpreting that as if I'm saying they're less valuable, I suggest you read it again.

I do not have to back any claim because I did not make one, I simply asked a question. I am not going to go back and look to make sure I word it exactly

No, you didn't ask a question. But you're right in that you didn't make a point either. What you said was "Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though." NOT being an expert you're NOT going to claim it's NOT possible. Triple negative? Well, when you've figured out what you're NOT going to be claiming, and decide to make a point, let me know.

Can you find a copy of every single book ever written on the internet? I seriosly doubt you can, even though Google is currently striving to make it possible. The fact that they are still actively scanning proves that they still have work to do. Believe it or not there are a lot of things that exist in the real world that cannot be found on the internet.

You can't even name the book you read it in. So let's drop the facade. You fabricated some garbage you were silly enough to believe was true, and can't find a source anywhere on the ENTIRE INTERNET that supports it. Remember what I said about not typing if you can't back it? It applies here.

Can you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science? Your challenge was not for me to prove God exists, just that He is still revealing Himself. Perhaps you should take your own advice about looking foolish.

I love this argument. "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist!" This argument is like a bulls-eye for ignorance. I can't believe you actually just used it. Fact is, you can't prove ANYTHING doesn't exist. You can't prove unicorns and the tooth fairy don't reveal themselves through science. In fact, you can't prove a negative. See the following if you need help with this concept:
You can't prove God doesn't exist - Iron Chariots Wiki

Meanwhile, my "challenge" was based on your assertion that the bible does not state "God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation" so therefore it's possible. My "challenge" was for you to show how that is still happening, which you can't, because there's ZERO evidence. In response, you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.

Cute!

Want to try again? Your struggling is amusing me.

Name for me a single religion which does not have an answer for the following questions regardless of verifiable evidence:

• Where did life come from?
• Why do we exist?
• Where did the universe come from?
• What happens when we die?
• Do souls exist?
• How does one lead a good life?
• What if we are wicked in life?
• What is wicked anyway?
• Is there a God?

For most of these questions, there is ZERO evidence in this universe, and yet religions tend to find the answers anyway. Interesting. Btw, there are actually a few religions out there that don't address some of those questions. I'll be impressed if you can name them.

Scientology

Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?

 

[geauxtohell]

Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?

I am curious too. Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions.

I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.

I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.

Someone had donated them.

 

[asterism]

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

You mean like the IPCC report that contains fiction written by an activist? That sort of higher standard?

Asterism, are you annoyed that some people do not think religion can be researched? If so, why?

No I am not annoyed at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is that so? Could you be a dear and quote me saying it is the only possible valid definition, or better yet how it being the only valid definition would allow me to make my point? Do you even know my point? Here I'll make it really simple for you: my point is that when people commonly refer to creationism, it is the common meaning of the word, and THAT meaning is not compatible with evolution. Notice how the point is still preserved regardless of other meanings that aren't commonly used. Notice how you were the one who is harping on minority uses of the word that didn't originally apply in this thread. Notice how YOU were the one who brought up a source that directly contradicted you and supported me. Notice how you are sidetracking the actual point, being that the common meaning of the word that was being referenced at the time is still not compatible with evolution.

Are you willing to admit that creationism is not the belief that life was created as is? If not you are still trying to parse the definition in order to make your point that creationism is that belief.

You seem to let your emotions twist the points being made instead of reading what's actually being said. I have no bias again the subjects that YOU reference as "soft." They are simply not comparable to science or it's standards in seeking new information regarding the universe. If you disagree with that point, simply show where English literature accomplishes that as well. I won't eagerly await your great rebuttal seeing as you haven't provided one yet and at best supported your point with "beats the fuck out of me."

I already told you I agree with it, I just understand that doctorates are about proving to a committee that you have contributed something to wealth of knowledge in some field. I asked you if that was the case, and you retorted by asking me what knowledge a English literature major could contribute.

Believe it or not, it still beats the fuck out of me. Since I am not defending that position, I don't have to prove it. You can throw up that strawman as much as you want and claim it proves something, and I do not care, because you are not scroing points off of me.

My point still stands unchallenged. What proof have you even attempted to provide that shows that the standards for doctorates in English Literature are looser than those of, say, transdimensional physics? Other than your personal bias that is?

Doctoral dissertations in non-scientific fields can be insightful contributions to their respective fields, but do not produce NEW information about the universe by examining it. They either rehash old information, or produce new interpretations of old information. If you are still interpreting that as if I'm saying they're less valuable, I suggest you read it again.

I am gald you are an expert on that and can insure me that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to provide new information about an old field of study. Can you also tell me what the lottery numbers are for this weekend?

No, you didn't ask a question. But you're right in that you didn't make a point either. What you said was "Not being an expert in English literature I am not going to claim that it is impossible that it can happen though." NOT being an expert you're NOT going to claim it's NOT possible. Triple negative? Well, when you've figured out what you're NOT going to be claiming, and decide to make a point, let me know.

I didn't ask a question, or make a point. Hmmm

Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others.

Like I said earlier, I did not want to make a direct quote because I do not remember what I said, but if this interrogatory statement was incorrect all you had to do was inform me that doctorates are about something other than contributing new knowledge to the field or to the world. Instead you challenged me to show what English Literature doctoral candidates are contributing in the way of knowledge.

I might not have made any point, but you sure are making one for me.

You can't even name the book you read it in. So let's drop the facade. You fabricated some garbage you were silly enough to believe was true, and can't find a source anywhere on the ENTIRE INTERNET that supports it. Remember what I said about not typing if you can't back it? It applies here.

I am sorry I do not have an eidetic memory. I realize that puts me at a disadvantage in debating experts who know, and remember, everything, but I will make do. I kind of prefer being human and forgetful myself.

I love this argument. "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist!" This argument is like a bulls-eye for ignorance. I can't believe you actually just used it. Fact is, you can't prove ANYTHING doesn't exist. You can't prove unicorns and the tooth fairy don't reveal themselves through science. In fact, you can't prove a negative. See the following if you need help with this concept:
You can't prove God doesn't exist - Iron Chariots Wiki

Another strawman. I did not claim you cannot prove God does not exist. I would also like to point out that it is quite easy to prove many things are impossible. I asked if you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science. That is not a demand for proof, but for evidence. The fact that you had to resort to a strawman tells me that the answer is no.

Meanwhile, my "challenge" was based on your assertion that the bible does not state "God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation" so therefore it's possible. My "challenge" was for you to show how that is still happening, which you can't, because there's ZERO evidence. In response, you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.

No, your challenge was to design an experiment to prove it.

Cute!

I deliberately choose the Higgs Boson because it actually proves how little we actually know about the universe, which is why it has earned the nickname of the God Particle. Everything we know tells us that no particle has any mass, yet we can clearly demonstrate that they do. The Higgs Boson, if it exists, would explain this problem and help us to have a more fundamental understanding of the universe in more ways than one. It could possibly lead to developing the Unified Field Theory and even the Theory of Everything.

Yet you dismiss it because it has a shiny name.

Want to try again? Your struggling is amusing me.

Not nearly as much as yours is amusing me.

Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?

Good and evil for one.

What Scientologists Believe- Beliefnet.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?

I am curious too. Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions.

I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.

I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.

Someone had donated them.

Scientology was made up by a hack SF author from the Golden Age and really doesn't answer anything, but the most singular lack is its addressing good v evil dichotomy. It is a bit like Buddhism, except you have to achieve enlightenment through self awareness instead of giving up self.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Are you willing to admit that creationism is not the belief that life was created as is? If not you are still trying to parse the definition in order to make your point that creationism is that belief.

Are you really that dense? See that first sentence there? It's a generalization. You're trying to pin a concept which is most largely consistent and used in the definition I have provided, but has other minor meanings generally not used in language and DEFINITELY not used here, and claim it is definitely not the most frequently used definition. It's absurd.

Creationism is, for the large majority of uses, including the one used here, the definition I provided, being "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." This is also the definition you provided, which you seem to be arguing against now.

Nonetheless the point still remains: the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth," that this was the exact meaning it was used here, and is therefore incompatible with evolution. What part of that do you feel is incorrect? That's the point you continue to bicker about to save face. You can't even say what part of that is wrong. You just go off on semantic garbage again and again, which only makes your failed efforts more absurd. Quit while you're behind.

I already told you I agree with it, I just understand that doctorates are about proving to a committee that you have contributed something to wealth of knowledge in some field. I asked you if that was the case, and you retorted by asking me what knowledge a English literature major could contribute.

Did I now? Where did I say that? Perhaps you should quote me saying that. Then reference the part where I say your emotional outbursts tend to misinterpret things people say, including your own sources.

My point still stands unchallenged. What proof have you even attempted to provide that shows that the standards for doctorates in English Literature are looser than those of, say, transdimensional physics?

Here's another thing which I never said but you managed to read somewhere anyway. But I'll entertain the idea anyway, if you first just tell me what standard of evaluation English literature has that is congruent to the scientific method. I'll look forward to your answer.

I am gald you are an expert on that and can insure me that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to provide new information about an old field of study. Can you also tell me what the lottery numbers are for this weekend?

Instead of a dumb passive aggressive retort, perhaps you'd like to point out what non-scientific field provides truly new information about the universe. Even a rigorous historical study is still just uncovering and compiling previously established knowledge. Again, that is quite valuable, but it's still not a novel discovery in the world.

I didn't ask a question, or make a point. Hmmm

I do not have to back any claim because I did not make one

Glad you were able to support the fact that you made no claim.

I am sorry I do not have an eidetic memory. I realize that puts me at a disadvantage in debating experts who know, and remember, everything, but I will make do. I kind of prefer being human and forgetful myself.

It seems you don't have any memory at all. Making claims that are completely false and supported no where while referencing some book you conveniently can't remember and can't find online. If you can't remember it, why did you first say you couldn't find it online? How would you have even been able to search for it and conclude it wasn't on the internet if you couldn't even remember the name?

Again, just drop the facade: you made crap up, and someone called you on it. Quit while you're behind.

Another strawman. I did not claim you cannot prove God does not exist. I would also like to point out that it is quite easy to prove many things are impossible. I asked if you provide evidence that God is not revealing Himself through science. That is not a demand for proof, but for evidence. The fact that you had to resort to a strawman tells me that the answer is no.

It's actually not a straw man. You made the claim that I could not prove something doesn't exist, which is ridiculous for the reasons I pointed out. In your example, that something was God still revealing itself within creation. Doesn't matter WHAT that something is, you still fell for that "you can't prove something doesn't exist" ignorance. You try to distinguish this by saying one is proof and one is evidence. With regard to the point being made: what's the difference? Do you think proof does not consist of evidence? Doesn't matter whether it's "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist!" or "You can't prove God DOESN'T reveal himself!" or "You can't show evidence that God doesn't reveal himself." All of these are the exact same ridiculous lack of logic.

No one has made any mention of proving things are impossible. I don't know why you bring that up here.

Meanwhile, my "challenge" was based on your assertion that the bible does not state "God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation" so therefore it's possible. My "challenge" was for you to show how that is still happening, which you can't, because there's ZERO evidence. In response, you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite.

No, your challenge was to design an experiment to prove it.

Again you split hairs to save face. OK. Have you designed such an experiment? Shall I rewrite the exact idea in that above paragraph to get at the exact same point in your new hair-splitting remarks? Here you go: Have you designed such an experiment to prove it? No, of course not. Because you can't. In response you posted an unrelated physics experiment that had nothing to do with it because you were easily distracted by the shiny name, in your usual fashion of not actually reading the sources you cite. Then you went on to make some useless semantic game which still shows you to be wrong.

I deliberately choose the Higgs Boson because it actually proves how little we actually know about the universe, which is why it has earned the nickname of the God Particle. Everything we know tells us that no particle has any mass, yet we can clearly demonstrate that they do. The Higgs Boson, if it exists, would explain this problem and help us to have a more fundamental understanding of the universe in more ways than one. It could possibly lead to developing the Unified Field Theory and even the Theory of Everything.

Yet you dismiss it because it has a shiny name.

No, you chose the Higgs Boson particle because you didn't know better. The article you cited didn't even have the words Higgs Boson in it, nor did the video. Nor did the page you cited have ANYTHING to do with what we know about the universe. Nor did you state the reason you selected that page had anything to do with Higgs Boson OR how little we knew about the universe. You posted it in direct response to one of my posts asking you to show an experiment that attempts to provide evidence that God is still interacting with the universe. It was wrong in response to that post, and now you're just backpedaling, which is just getting pathetic.

Going on a long rant about its implications for physics still has nothing to do with showing evidence of God interacting with the universe, not ANYTHING in this thread for that matter. It wasn't even a decent attempt at back-pedaling. Seriously, quit while you're behind.

Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?

Good and evil for one.

What Scientologists Believe- Beliefnet.com

Do you really not read your own sources ever? This is getting laughable and ridiculous. It's like you set yourself up to have me shoot you down. Perhaps before asserting that scientology doesn't address good and evil, you should have read the paragraphs of your own source under the large headers "WHY EVIL" and "SALVATION."