Evolution

[consol]

So sit back, relax, pop some popcorn, open a Coke, and let science discover how God created.

That's very sound advice, but we all know they won't listen,
they are too far down the road to turn back now.

 

[lucaspa]

This could very well be true that I was not dealing with paleontologists. I don't tend to ask that kind of detail. Same as if I find out that someone is an engineer. I don't pretend I'm interested enough to care what type. It may sound harsh but at least I'm being honest.

But what it means is that you don't understand the language.

However if a project loses its funding then that funding would be available to a different project. So while the decision may be independant of what others are doing there is still only a set amount available. It happens that people will miss out. They may no longer miss out if they can discredit another person and cause them to lose their funding.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Right now the funding situation is so tight that only 10% of all grant applications to NIH or NSF are funded. So discrediting someone else's work doesn't mean you will get funded. Remember that, if you are in direct competition with a group and you are sitting on a study section, you must recuse yourself from the discussion. And all the other members of the study section (who are in the same general area) will know you are in competition and thus know you must recuse yourself.

Also, it sometimes means that the person "discredited" will get more funding because people want to resolve the controversy. Let me give you an example I am very familiar with:
About 7 years ago Piero Anversa's lab published a paper in Nature claiming that adult stem cells from bone marrow regenerated heart muscle in mice. The claim was that the stem cells turned into heart cells. Two years later 2 different labs tried to duplicate Anversa's experiments and failed. They did not get heart regeneration and the stem cells did not turn into heart cells in their hands. This would seem to "discredit" Anversa. But the end result is that both Anversa and the 2 groups got continued funding so that the contradiction could be explored more.

i have worked in a place where every single day I have been in contact with scientists and researchers. This description of funding I have given is their words not mine.

Sorry, but this attempt to gain credibility is not going to work. It's too vague and there is no way to check it out. In addition, I think you have misunderstood what they have been saying.

Scientists gain fame by falsifying a major theory. Think about it. Darwin was famous for falsifying Special Creation. Einstein got famous for falsifying Newton and Hawking became famous for partly falsifying Einstein. Eldredge and Gould got so much attention because it looked like they were falsifying Darwin. So scientists are not out to discredit a scientist by any means whatsoever, but they are out to falsify a major theory. If they can. If a theory is still considered valid -- like evolution is -- it is because no one has been able to falsify it.

Thanks for the example. however it is not the first I've heard of (or maybe I keep being given the same example) My claim was that it is not the norm.

It is the norm. Let's go back in history. Rev. Adam Sedgwick was head of geology at Cambridge and President of the Royal Geological Society for over a decade. He also thought there had been a world-wide Flood. In 1831, as he stepped down from the Presidency, in his farewell address he said that Flood Geology (and thus young earth creationism) was falsified:
"Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths." (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)

Charles Lyell had separate creation of species in his book Principles of Geology published in 1830. But later he admitted that this had been falsified and became a supporter of Darwin.

In our everyday work as scientists, we have hypotheses falsified every day. For instance, in my latest project we thought we had a better system for making a non-union model in the femur of a rat. We thought we could use plates and screws from a human craniofacial kit to hold the ends of the defect apart. We were wrong. As it turns out, the screws set up what is called a "stress riser" and resulted in breaking the bone at the screws, losing fixation and ruining the model. I just had to go back to the people who provided the funding and admit that. The resident (whose idea it originally was) also immediately admitted that the hypothesis was wrong. It happens.

 

[Hespera]

I have had meaningful discussions with over two hundred scientists at the very minimum in the last ten years. I would not be able to even give you a ball park figure how many over my lifetime. While I didn't say it clearly I often see many treat science as if it has a great reputation. It doesn't for several reasons. This does not mean that I think we should ignore science. However I do get the strong impression that if it was a religion then people would be alot more cynical or sceptical about it.

If it is not too personal may i ask in what capacity you are working around scientists?

Your impressions, of course, are your impressions. But you did somehow miss that the nature, the demand, or religion is that one not be cynical or skeptical. The innermost nature of science is to be skeptical.

What might be meant by 'treat science as if it has a great reputation", I cant guess. What do you mean? Reputation for what?

 

[lucaspa]

But you did somehow miss that the nature, the demand, or religion is that one not be cynical or skeptical.

I would dispute that. Theists are skeptical. Yes, they believe, but that is because they think they have adequate evidence for their belief.

As evidence of the skepticism of theists:
1. The number of religions (versions of deity) that theists have decided are false. These number in the hundreds/thousands. The ones left are the survivors of this winnowing process. And remember, it wasn't atheists who decided that the Greek pantheon or Mithraism were wrong, but theists.
2. An example from scripture: the disciple Thomas. He was very skeptical that the being before him was the resurrected Jesus. Only after having the overwhelming evidence of putting his hands in the wounds was he convinced.

I submit that the main difference between religion and science is not the skepticism (remember that most scientists thru history have also been theists), not the "authority" (scientists accept the universe as "authority"), etc. but rather in the type of evidence allowed. Science limits itself to intersubjective personal experience while religion allows the broader set of private personal experience.

I would recommend the book Religion and Science by Ian Barbour (both a scientist and a theist) for those genuinely interested in the differences between science and religion.

 

[lucaspa]

That's very sound advice, but we all know they won't listen,
they are too far down the road to turn back now.

Perhaps. But I am still commanded to go after the lost sheep. And perhaps the advice will be heeded by those who have not gone so far down the road and can more easily turn around and come back.

 

[Naraoia]

2. An example from scripture: the disciple Thomas. He was very skeptical that the being before him was the resurrected Jesus. Only after having the overwhelming evidence of putting his hands in the wounds was he convinced.

And wasn't the message of that story that you shouldn't be skeptical like Thomas? Of course I can understand that something so dependent on subjective experience as religion would not want you to doubt and seek more solid evidence, but for me, this is still one of the more disturbing messages of the Bible (what little I know of it, anyway).

 

[TheDag]

And wasn't the message of that story that you shouldn't be skeptical like Thomas? Of course I can understand that something so dependent on subjective experience as religion would not want you to doubt and seek more solid evidence, but for me, this is still one of the more disturbing messages of the Bible (what little I know of it, anyway).

Thats not the message I get when I read the story.

 

[TheDag]

But what it means is that you don't understand the language.

I think it is clear that i have not understood various terminology in this discussion so it would not surprise me if I did not understand terminology in other discussions. Sadly most people don't have the wonderful gift that my wife has which is she can talk about her field of work in language a laymen can understand. it is a great pity more can't do this (most likely because they don't care to). If they could it may very well prevent so much misunderstanding.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Right now the funding situation is so tight that only 10% of all grant applications to NIH or NSF are funded. So discrediting someone else's work doesn't mean you will get funded. Remember that, if you are in direct competition with a group and you are sitting on a study section, you must recuse yourself from the discussion. And all the other members of the study section (who are in the same general area) will know you are in competition and thus know you must recuse yourself.

Also, it sometimes means that the person "discredited" will get more funding because people want to resolve the controversy. Let me give you an example I am very familiar with:
About 7 years ago Piero Anversa's lab published a paper in Nature claiming that adult stem cells from bone marrow regenerated heart muscle in mice. The claim was that the stem cells turned into heart cells. Two years later 2 different labs tried to duplicate Anversa's experiments and failed. They did not get heart regeneration and the stem cells did not turn into heart cells in their hands. This would seem to "discredit" Anversa. But the end result is that both Anversa and the 2 groups got continued funding so that the contradiction could be explored more.

With all due respect all you have done here is describe funding system in your country.

Sorry, but this attempt to gain credibility is not going to work. It's too vague and there is no way to check it out. In addition, I think you have misunderstood what they have been saying.

I was not trying to gain credibility at all. A person decided to be arrogant and make the claim that I have never met a scientist despite the fact that they do not know me or what I do.

 

[TheDag]

So are you saying, you were told something when you were growing up and you believe it to be true, and you will not listen to or talk about anything that could make you think that what you were told might not be true, is that about right?

Nothing like what I said at all. What I said was that the topic of the origins of the universe and life is not something i consider important. I mean't exactly what I said.

That's very sound advice, but we all know they won't listen, they are too far down the road to turn back now.

So according to you I'm too pig headed to listen. Is that about right?
I actually had this kind of attitude in mind when I made an earlier post. I was told I was paranoid as a result!

 

[TheDag]

If it is not too personal may i ask in what capacity you are working around scientists?

When I was working around them (no longer am) it was an unskilled job. I also have friends and family who I included in the figure I gave. So my involvement was certainly not one scientist to another or anything like that. I just happened to work with them.

But you did somehow miss that the nature, the demand, or religion is that one not be cynical or skeptical. The innermost nature of science is to be skeptical.

Not at all. The bible instructs in several places to check what you are taught and make sure it is true. This is something I have also heard at christian camps I have attended. I once jokingly said to the minister at my church that we follow his every word unquestiongly. The ministers response was I can't imagine anyone being less likely than you to do that. I will certainly acknowledge that there are those who do not check but there are certainly those who will never question any scientific study.

 

[Hespera]

When I was working around them (no longer am) it was an unskilled job. I also have friends and family who I included in the figure I gave. So my involvement was certainly not one scientist to another or anything like that. I just happened to work with them.


Not at all. The bible instructs in several places to check what you are taught and make sure it is true. This is something I have also heard at christian camps I have attended. I once jokingly said to the minister at my church that we follow his every word unquestiongly. The ministers response was I can't imagine anyone being less likely than you to do that. I will certainly acknowledge that there are those who do not check but there are certainly those who will never question any scientific study.

ok so you were the janitor, and resented your lower social status?
If so it is understandable that you might invent ways to criticize the scientists, tho that says more about you than about them.

Quote.."I think it is clear that i have not understood various terminology in this discussion so it would not surprise me if I did not understand terminology in other discussions."

But you did understand the inner workings of the grant processes, and how the scientists do their work?

One thing that most scientists avoid like the plague, is a creationist. So I doubt you had substantive discussions with 200 of them.


Quote: "there are certainly those who will never question any scientific study. " True. But "those" are not scientists.

Your idea of questioning religion seems to be to convince yourself THAT it is true, not whether it is true.

 

[consol]

So according to you I'm too pig headed to listen. Is that about right?

No, you're just religious, your religion dominates and clouds your thinking.

Not at all. The bible instructs in several places to check what you are taught and make sure it is true.

And as far as you are concerned the bible is true, from front to back,
although you would never let a little thing like not being unable to show how it's true stand in your way,
you believe it's true so anything that points to it not being true is dismissed out of hand,
but then again the bible is not about truth, it's about belief, you are meant to believe it not question it,
if you question the bible things start to fall apart, so it's best not to.

 

[TheDag]

ok so you were the janitor, and resented your lower social status?
If so it is understandable that you might invent ways to criticize the scientists, tho that says more about you than about them.

Nope never resented my status (and you got the job wrong too!).

But you did understand the inner workings of the grant processes, and how the scientists do their work?

As stated previously the words I used about the grant process were not my own.

One thing that most scientists avoid like the plague, is a creationist. So I doubt you had substantive discussions with 200 of them.

Guess thats why I don't bother with silly labels. Even if I did I wouldn't call myself a creationist although I wouldn't call myself an evolutionist either.

" True. But "those" are not scientists.

it does not matter if they are scientists in the context of what this bit of discussion was about which was my comment about how some people treat science compared to religion.

Your idea of questioning religion seems to be to convince yourself THAT it is true, not whether it is true.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but my reason for believing in God is because God has proven to me that he exists. I have looked at other faiths by the way also not just christianity.

 

[Naraoia]

Sadly most people don't have the wonderful gift that my wife has which is she can talk about her field of work in language a laymen can understand. it is a great pity more can't do this (most likely because they don't care to). If they could it may very well prevent so much misunderstanding.

I can't speak for others, but I find that very difficult to do (and not because I'm not trying; if I weren't trying, I wouldn't notice it's difficult ). Having spent the last few years diving deeper and deeper into certain fields of biology, I often feel I've lost track of what people outside those fields know, and that makes it hard to know where to start explanations, what I can assume my audience knows, what words (not) to use, etc.

 

[TheDag]

No, you're just religious, your religion dominates and clouds your thinking.

And as far as you are concerned the bible is true, from front to back,
although you would never let a little thing like not being unable to show how it's true stand in your way,
you believe it's true so anything that points to it not being true is dismissed out of hand,
but then again the bible is not about truth, it's about belief, you are meant to believe it not question it,
if you question the bible things start to fall apart, so it's best not to.

I pretty much assumed this would be your thinking (oh and your wrong by the way). So I should follow your example? Your example of making all kinds of assumptions about people I don't know. Not very convincing if you ask me.

 

[Naraoia]

I pretty much assumed this would be your thinking (oh and your wrong by the way). So I should follow your example? Your example of making all kinds of assumptions about people I don't know. Not very convincing if you ask me.

May I suggest that you don't waste your time on consol?

 

[consol]

May I suggest that you don't waste your time on consol?

He's right you know,
Consol is forever telling people things they do not want to know.

 

[consol]

I pretty much assumed this would be your thinking (oh and your wrong by the way). So I should follow your example? Your example of making all kinds of assumptions about people I don't know. Not very convincing if you ask me.

No I am not wrong, in fact I am completely and absolutely right, and you know it,
(here's an assumption for you) you are just like all religious people, blind and deaf to anything that might upset their beliefs,
truth is not on your agenda, all you want is to be left alone to believe in the fantasy that someone put into your head,
why? because you need to believe it.

 

[lucaspa]

you are just like all religious people, blind and deaf to anything that might upset their beliefs,
truth is not on your agenda, all you want is to be left alone to believe in the fantasy that someone put into your head,

You might want to be more careful about projecting your own feelings onto others.

Let's look at your signature: "A God most definitely did NOT do it - Case closed "

Please post the peer-reviewed scientific paper showing that "God did not do it". That's not a scientific statement; it's a statement of faith.

"both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements." Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998.

 

[consol]

You might want to be more careful about projecting your own feelings onto others.

Let's look at your signature: "A God most definitely did NOT do it - Case closed "

Please post the peer-reviewed scientific paper showing that "God did not do it". That's not a scientific statement; it's a statement of faith.

"both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements." Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998.

We have had this discussion so many times before,
are you saying that because we can not prove there is no God there may be a God?
there is no proof that there are no (put anything you like here) so must we consider they may exist,
that is just ludicrous, when do we use logic, common sense, and our normal five senses?
has anyone proved that magic is not possible? we could go on forever thinking of things that might be.