So Darwin was wrong after all

[choccy]

Well, I stole this idea from scigirl at the Internet Infidels forums. Here's the abstract from a Pub Med article (it's all I have access to, those with a subscription can enjoy the whole thing):

1: Nature 2002 Jun 6;417(6889):608-9 Ecology: Darwin's naturalization hypothesis challenged. Duncan RP, Williams PA. Ecology and Entomology Group, Soil, Plant and Ecological Sciences Division, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. duncanr@lincoln.ac.nz Naturalized plants can have a significant ecological and economic impact, yet they comprise only a fraction ot the plant species introduced by humans. Darwin proposed that introduced plant species will be less likely to establish a self-sustaining wild population in places with congeneric native species because the introduced plants have to compete with their close relatives, or are more likely to be attacked by native herbivores or pathogens, a theory known as Darwin's naturalization hypothesis. Here we analyze a complete list of seed-plant species that have been introduced to New Zealand and find that those with congeneric relatives are significantly more, not less, likely to naturalize--perhaps because they share with their native relatives traits that pre-adapt them to their new environment. PMID: 12050652 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

So, did I have a point here? Well, yeah I did actually. We often here from creationists that scientists (or at least the evil ones who believe in evolution) are so dogmatic that they cannot allow themself to doubt a single thing Darwin ever said. Here's proof that they do. And when the data shows that Darwin was wrong, scientists conclude that Darwin was wrong. Does anyone really think they wouldn't do the same with the teory of evolution if the data showed it to be wrong?

Choccy

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Does anyone really think they wouldn't do the same with the teory of evolution if the data showed it to be wrong?

Not unless they are predisposed to using science to disprove the creator of science.

 

[choccy]

Originally posted by s0uljah


Not unless they are predisposed to using science to disprove the creator of science.

Some of them might be, but definately not all of them.

Choccy

 

[Jerry Smith]

Not unless they are predisposed to using science to disprove the creator of science.

I don't think any of the scientists that work on evolution have any intention of doing this. I think most of them are smart enough to realize that no amount of science can prove or disprove the supernatural.

I think that those who are non- or anti- religious may make scientific arguments against certain religious arguments that seek to prove God by inserting Him into gaps in scientific knowledge - but that is not the same as trying to disprove God.

Many scientists, regardless of their religion, are irked by religiously-motivated efforts to dismantle science - and no doubt much of the polemic from scientists against those who make those efforts is motivated by defensive instincts rather than a desire to "disprove" God.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

But so many of the atheists here bring up science as a weapon against our beliefs. That is a fact.

And I don't want to dismantle science...it is beatiful!

 

[Stormy]

Does anyone really think they wouldn't do the same with the theory of evolution if the data showed it to be wrong?

I am sure that they will. Science is about truth. But what harm will it cause before the truth is found. People push others to believe as fact that which is not fact. A world that is capable of originating out of nothing and producing itself is being taught to our children. This is a lie... with no basis in fact.

 

[sampo]

Dang stormy! Where is your basis in fact for teaching creation in schools?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Stormy


I am sure that they will. Science is about truth. But what harm will it cause before the truth is found. People push others to believe as fact that which is not fact. A world that is capable of originating out of nothing and producing itself is being taught to our children. This is a lie... with no basis in fact.

AMEN!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Stormy
People push others to believe as fact that which is not fact.

Seems so me you could just as well be talking about Christianity here.

Given that we cannot establish unequivocally that it is a fact that God exists, does that mean your religion is a lie, too?

 

[Jerry Smith]

But so many of the atheists here bring up science as a weapon against our beliefs. That is a fact.

An atheist who uses science to attempt to disprove God is silly. That is like using a microscope to disprove an elephant. Science is a fine tool, but it is mis-used by atheists and believers quite a lot in religious discussions. How many Christians have you seen denying science, misrepresenting science, and sometimes using science to try to add weight to their religious views?

And I don't want to dismantle science...it is beatiful!

I'm glad to hear that!

I think the big issue between the scientific perspective and religious beliefs involves the attempts to cram God into the gaps in scientific knowledge. Wise believers tend to argue against this too. The "science will one day show the truth that we already know" argument is bad for Christianity and it is bad for science. Science is not a tool for discovering religious truths. It is the best and only tool for understanding natural truths about the natural world. It doesn't yield proven facts. It yields increasingly accurate understanding of the things we observe.

Science will never prove God. Science will never disprove God. Those who worship a God of the scientific Gaps will find their God shrinking, or will be force to abandon the scientific method when it becomes too inconvenient.

 

[Stormy]

Science will never prove God.

I am not sure. I know, it has not the ability to understand all of God, but at some point it may come to the logical conclusion that God is needed.

Those who worship a God of the scientific Gaps will find their God shrinking.

Those who worship the theories that fill the gaps may find it true that they do not have God.

will be force to abandon the scientific method when it becomes too inconvenient.

I would abandon any method that declares there is no God... or no need for God.


But God and Science are not at odds. Surely science in and of it self is not a villain. God would want his children to grow in knowledge but hopefully also in wisdom.

 

[Stormy]

Dang stormy! Where is your basis in fact for teaching creation in schools?

When did I say that I would want creation taught in schools?

 

[Jerry Smith]

I would abandon any method that declares there is no God... or no need for God.

The scientific method does not declare whether there is a God, or whether there is a need for one. People who worship a God of the Gaps sometimes pretend that the gaps in scientific understanding represent a need for God. That God shrinks. People who worship God because of faith and who understand science do not attempt to use God as part of a scientific explanation.

 

[Stormy]

People who worship God because of faith and who understand science do not attempt to use God as part of a scientific explanation.

But tell me now... of people who do not worship God, that try to use Scientific theories to destroy faith... that falsely commit theory to Fact.

 

[Jerry Smith]

'No one ever went broke underestimating American intelligence' - anon

It wouldn't surprise me if there were some people like that...

But tell me now... of people who do not worship God, that try to use Scientific theories to destroy faith... that falsely commit theory to Fact.

 

[Stormy]

Jerry while your here... can you help me understand. I just finished reading a naptime story to the children. "Duck Don't Get Wet"

I could not answer all their questions. They want to know why all birds do not like the water. I told them that only the duck has an oil gland that gives him oil to rub upon his feather so that he is waterproof. The other birds are not. But when they continued to ask where he got it and why... my answer was "God did it".

So how did the duck acquire what was needed. I have been told that desire plays no part. What then?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Since we are talking about children, and advanced research on the evolution of modified cebaceous glands in birds is probably not something that can be done at their grade level, the answer most compatible with science, yet understandable to them, would probably be that they got them from their "mommies & daddies". And so on.. If they ask where their mommies & daddies got them, you can refer them to grandparents.

If you want to get more specific, you can tell them that the gggggggg(etc)grandparent duckies that didn't have the waterproofing glands didn't get in the water as much, and their gggggggg(etc)grandducklings (if they left any) do not live in the water now..

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Science will never prove God. Science will never disprove God. Those who worship a God of the scientific Gaps will find their God shrinking, or will be force to abandon the scientific method when it becomes too inconvenient.

No, actually science proves God to some people, like myself.  But anyway, there are no gaps to fill when you realize that God is outside of everything we see and created it all.  So, in other words, science will explain natural phenomenon, but science doesn't cause it...God does.

 

[Morat]

  Who said it was needed? The more waterproof the ducks feathers, the more rainy and wet activities it could pursue.

   It wasn't needed. It was useful. After all, most birds don't have them. If it was needed for avian survival, they'd all have them. Or vestigal remnents of them.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

No, actually science proves God to some people, like myself.

If it is proving God (or any other supernatural idea), then it is not Science doing it. It is something else. Unless the thing under consideration is itself subject to the laws of nature, science cannot "prove" it. That is because science relies on the predictability of nature in order to test the hypothesis. If the thing under consideration is not subject to that predictability the tests become meaningless (either answer, yes or no, will be a possible outcome of any given test).

Something may prove God to you, but it is not the same thing that they write about in the scientific journals.