Evolution As Science? Really...?

[Gracchus]

What is your source for this statistic? I'm not doubting it, but I haven't bumped into a stat on % of Christians believing in Creation/Evolution so I'm just wondering.

Christians believe weird stuff. But here are some stats: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm , http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Note that the more educated you are the more likely it is that you will accept evolution.

Note also that 95% of scientists accept evolution.

 

[Elduran]

Christians believe weird stuff. But here are some stats: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm , http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Note that the more educated you are the more likely it is that you will accept evolution.

Note also that 95% of scientists accept evolution.

A useful quote from that site which demonstrates what I was saying above:

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

 

[Pensees]

We shouldn't be mean to YEC's. After all, it isn't their fault that they've been influenced by propaganda.

 

[Gracchus]

We shouldn't be mean to YEC's. After all, it isn't their fault that they've been influenced by propaganda.

Yes it is.

 

[RouterX]

Thanks for those links.

Another thought... isn't it true that the "scientific method" requires that any hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be proven?

I believe what the Bible teaches about creation and what Bonhoeffer states, that it is beyond our comprehension, just as the creation of the "New Adam" Jesus Christ was beyond our comprehension.

My point in all of this is that I don't think creation has a place in the science classroom mainly because my beliefs cannot be falsified and therefore do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

 

[Omacron]

Thanks for those links.

Another thought... isn't it true that the "scientific method" requires that any hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be proven?

I believe what the Bible teaches about creation and what Bonhoeffer states, that it is beyond our comprehension, just as the creation of the "New Adam" Jesus Christ was beyond our comprehension.

My point in all of this is that I don't think creation has a place in the science classroom mainly because my beliefs cannot be falsified and therefore do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.Hope this helps.

God bless you all.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Thanks for those links.

Another thought... isn't it true that the "scientific method" requires that any hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be proven?

Close, it requires that any theory be falsifiable. We don’t talk of “proof” in science, proof is for maths and alcohol, science deals in evidence to support the conclusion. So other than a few cosmetic details, you are essentially correct.

To go into a little more depth for the lurkers;-
Falsificationism is an essential part of the scientific method, and if a “theory” is not falsifiable (ie there is no way to test its falseness, as in a belief in God) then its not a theory at all.

Ghost

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe what the Bible teaches about creation and what Bonhoeffer states, that it is beyond our comprehension, just as the creation of the "New Adam" Jesus Christ was beyond our comprehension.

An omnipotent, omniscient god is unfalsifiable. If something can do anything at any time, then how can we devise hypotheses? I think you see this. It doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it unscientific.

My point in all of this is that I don't think creation has a place in the science classroom mainly because my beliefs cannot be falsified and therefore do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.

At the same time, no one should devise their spiritual beliefs in science class. I am all for keeping them separate, and most christians seem to agree with this view as well.

 

[RouterX]

Updated: 5:31 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005
HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because the members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November’s elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy.


During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection.

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People.”

But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”

The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

 

[Edmond]

Christians believe weird stuff. But here are some stats: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm , http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
Note that the more educated you are the more likely it is that you will accept evolution.

That result is based on the continued intensification of exposure to only one taught concept about the origins of the universe and life...evolution. Why would you not expect such exposure to greater indoctrination result in more acceptance? .... Of course it would. The indocrination into any ideology brings the same results. ...

Note also that 95% of scientists accept evolution.

Hello...that is because 100 % of all scientists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...evolution. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.

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

 

[HairlessSimian]

Hello...that is because 100 % of all scientists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...evolution. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.

YOU ARE LYING. LYING IN THE NAME OF PRIDE.
Go to confession immediately. Do not pass GO and do not collect $200.

Don't pretend you have any idea how scientists are trained. You obviously do not. Scientists are trained to be skeptical, not obedient, rigourous, not shoddy. And, yes, intelligence is a pre-requisite. You are missing one or more of these.
Don't invent intimidation by a "scientific mafia" to support your ill-conceived thesis. Most scientists on this continent have had a Christian up-bringing and if there's been any intimidation, it's been from the non-scientific and religious communities.
Don't lie!

Hello...that is because 100 % of all creationists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...creation. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the non-scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.

 

[LogicChristian]

Hey Edmond, how old are you anyway?

 

[Edmond]

YOU ARE LYING. LYING IN THE NAME OF PRIDE.

Since you happened to asked that question Hairless, ...the direct answer is no. Have you not ever gone through a Doctoral program or known anyone who has? If you had you would not have had a question about what I have stated about the process.

Go to confession immediately. Do not pass GO and do not collect $200.
Don't pretend you have any idea how scientists are trained. You obviously do not. Scientists are trained to be skeptical, not obedient, rigourous, not shoddy. And, yes, intelligence is a pre-requisite. You are missing one or more of these.

Your conclusions about science and its formulations on evolution are the furthest from the truth that they can be. Do you mean to tell me you are ignorant enough to beleive for one second that science majors are trained to be SKEPTICS of the theory of evolution? If so, you are qualified to take -up a full-time residency in an insane assylum.

That is THE LAST thing they are ever taught. Have you not read the repeated conclusion of Gould and another scientist over and over again affirming that THEY KNOW evolution is the answer to all life...though in the same breath they admit they don't know HOW it took place. Do is not a skeptic, that is a stsyem DEVOTED to a belief based on blind faith alone.

Don't invent intimidation by a "scientific mafia" to support your ill-conceived thesis. Most scientists on this continent have had a Christian up-bringing and if there's been any intimidation, it's been from the non-scientific and religious communities.
Don't lie!

I suggest you may want to wake-up from the apparent dark hole your mind has been hidding in, stop calling the truth a lie...and start doing some thinking...in the sincere effort to stop making yourself look like a fool. ...

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

 

[ebia]

Since you happened to asked that question Hairless

What question?

"You are lying" is not a question.

(The rest isn't worth a response.)

 

[Dannager]

Edmond, what qualifications do you have to show that you've experienced this educational system firsthand? Could we please have a reference to your Ph.D.? Possibly a link to your doctoral thesis? Any of these would inject at least some accountability into your argument.

 

[RouterX]

YOU ARE LYING. LYING IN THE NAME OF PRIDE.
Go to confession immediately. Do not pass GO and do not collect $200.

Don't pretend you have any idea how scientists are trained. You obviously do not. Scientists are trained to be skeptical, not obedient, rigourous, not shoddy. And, yes, intelligence is a pre-requisite. You are missing one or more of these.
Don't invent intimidation by a "scientific mafia" to support your ill-conceived thesis. Most scientists on this continent have had a Christian up-bringing and if there's been any intimidation, it's been from the non-scientific and religious communities.
Don't lie!

It's funny. Just a few months ago I read an interview by the BBC of a well-known scientist in England. They wanted to know his thoughts of the ID debate in America. That scientist said that frankly, any person who wishes to be taken seiously within the scientific community must accept evolution (not just micro-evolution) as proven. The BBC then interviewed a student who said that they were raised a Christian but that they accept evolution because they want to become a scientist and they know that telling of their belief in creationism would limit their chances for serious work, so she was going to learn evolution inside and out. So, people in science do face a bit of pressure if they want to be taken seriously. I've spent 10 minutes looking for the article and can't find it, but if they have it in their archives, I'll post it.

That being said, what scientist, if they could PROVE that evolution is not fact, would not want to do that? Scientists want to make a name for themselves like the rest of us. It's no conspiracy. Science applauds innovative ideas and disproving evolution with hard facts would be applauded not feared.

So, ultimately, I think it balances out.

What confuses me is how passionate (see your response above) the responses get. If we are dealing with facts here, then why are you responding and acting like it's the Salem Witch trials? Those who support evolution can be just as passionate and pushy about their beliefs as the most monsterous Christians. That makes no sense to me. I would think that those who rely on logic and results would let the facts speak for themselves instead of berating those who don't agree.

Final point, this reminds me of the book "Evolution" published in joint with science community and PBS. The first 3-4 pages are dedicated to belittling those who believe in God as creator. I had to laugh at that. I realized that science books can use propoganda... so odd.. considering I sat down just to read the facts.

 

[Edmond]

What question?

"You are lying" is not a question.

(The rest isn't worth a response.)

Present the evidence that presents the information the statement you are referring to is a lie. .

--------------------
..Hello...that is because 100 % of all scientists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...evolution. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.
-----------------------

If you cannot...see if you can at least find the courage and courtesy needed to apologize for such an rude accusation. ...

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

 

[Dannager]

Present the evidence that presents the information the statement you are referring to is a lie. .

--------------------
..Hello...that is because 100 % of all scientists have been singularly trained to accept one ideology...evolution. If that is all a person is taught and trained to investigate...and told there is nothing more...that is all they will tend to believe in and investigate. Especially when intimidated by the rest of the scientific community to do so... It's not a matter of greater intellegence, it is a matter of being repeatedly and specifically being exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the same assumptions.
-----------------------

If you cannot...see if you can at least find the courage and courtesy needed to apologize for such an rude accusation. ...

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

Intimidation by the rest of the scientific community? Where? Provide evidence for this or retract your statement immediately.

 

[Dannager]

What confuses me is how passionate (see your response above) the responses get. If we are dealing with facts here, then why are you responding and acting like it's the Salem Witch trials? Those who support evolution can be just as passionate and pushy about their beliefs as the most monsterous Christians. That makes no sense to me. I would think that those who rely on logic and results would let the facts speak for themselves instead of berating those who don't agree.

RouterX, I don't think HairlessSimian was being overly passionate at all. The fact of the matter is that despite everyone's willingness to help Edmond out here, he is stonewalling and throwing out baseless accusations. We tried to let the facts speak for themselves, but Edmond either didn't respond to them or used PRATTs to defend himself. If you want to, read some of our earlier dealings with him. Civility and calm guiding failed. It is doubtful that bolding the parts he needs to pay close attention to will help either, since this appears to be a case of willful ignorance on his part. But no excess of passion was used here. We're just at our last resort stage before we give up on him completely.

 

[Edmond]

Intimidation by the rest of the scientific community? Where? Provide evidence for this or retract your statement immediately.

You need to do some serious growing-up, get around a little more and watch the roses bloom. The presssure to be conformed to the accept conclusion proposed the theory of evloution in both the present sceintifc and academic communities is enormous, clearly defined and well regimented and clearly.

As just one example, a person working on a PHD in a field cannot even go through the programming without being mentored and guided through the requirements and processes by someone already accepted as a credible authoruty in the central organizing principle propositions that support the accepted theory of that discipline. If you have no clue as to what the central organizing principle or evolution is, refer back to the bolding provided in the OP.

In addition, that person's disertation and thesis must also be directly mentored and authorized by the mentor and must be based on the conclusions of proir theses that support the theory of the central organizing prinicple of that discipline.

If that is not sufficient, after having been thoroughly indocrinated into the prinicples that dictate the central organizing principles of that discipline the graduate joint a field of colleagues who have also undergone the same indocrination before entiring into the same areas of science. Now, tell me if there is not just a slight bit of educational, institutional and professional persuasions present in such a setting that may just excude the slightest hit of intimidation to remain with the persuasions of the collective mindset in which you make your living.

Now its your turn. In your own rules....Provide evidence that refutes this information or retract your accusation that they are lies immediately. ... (Thatsound intimidating. Where did you pick that up?) You will never honestly be able to provide such evidence because the is no modern educated PHD in the field of science or elsewhere science PHd or advanced, educated scientisit that exists that has not been reqiured to be subject to these conditions in order to get where he is. ....

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