Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Larniavc]

because it is implying that Jesus was a deluded charlatan.

It would not make him a charlatan. Just mistaken.

 

[Jimmy D]

The problem with a priori belief, as demonstrated by atheist evolutionists, is they only care about evidence which might support their case, they dont go where evidence leads.

Why are you conflating atheism with the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

For religious reasons.

But there are those who have come to realise that it has become something outside of empirical science, one that cannot be falsified and has become a dogma.

"Our theory of evolution has become, as [Karl] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets."

~Birch, Ehrlich, Nature 1967

 

[Radrook]

It would not make him a charlatan. Just mistaken.

For all practical effects on Christianity it is the same.

 

[Radrook]

For religious reasons.

In some very rare cases that might be true. But most cases I have encountered are based on solid scientific reasoning. Actually, we cannot deny an ID without resorting to convoluted unscientific, illogical reasoning. So this isn't science as opposed to non science as you are erroneously assuming it to be.

 

[Jimmy D]

In some very rare cases that might be true. But most cases I have encountered are based on solid scientific reasoning.

Such as?

 

[Larniavc]

But there are those who have come to realise that it has become something outside of empirical science, one that cannot be falsified and has become a dogma.

"Our theory of evolution has become, as [Karl] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets."

~Birch, Ehrlich, Nature 1967

A quote from 1967?

ToE can be falsified. If a mammal was found in a precambrian layer.

So Mr Birch is wrong.

 

[Larniavc]

In some very rare cases that might be true. But most cases I have encountered are based on solid scientific reasoning. Actually, we cannot deny an ID without resorting to convoluted unscientific, illogical reasoning. So this isn't science as opposed to non science as you are erroneously assuming it to be.

A nice assertion. Can you back it up?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

A quote from 1967?

ToE can be falsified. If a mammal was found in a precambrian layer.

So Mr Birch is wrong.

So is there no merit to their paper? Would you not agree with the dogmatic way in which the theory of evolution is held up, and the disdain for skepticism?

I thought quickly dismissing peer-reviewed papers from Nature no less was the business of creationists, not eminently scientifically minded persons such as yourself.

Also, would you say this casts doubt on the integrity of the peer-review process, given that they missed such a glaring error on Birch and Ehrlich's behalf? Why or why not?

 

[Jimmy D]

So is there no merit to their paper? Would you not agree with the dogmatic way in which the theory of evolution is held up, and the disdain for skepticism?

I thought quickly dismissing peer-reviewed papers from Nature no less was the business of creationists, not eminently scientifically minded persons such as yourself.

Also, would you say this casts doubt on the integrity of the peer-review process, given that they missed such a glaring error on Birch and Ehrlich's behalf? Why or why not?

Do you agree with the quote?

 

[Larniavc]

So is there no merit to their paper? Would you not agree with the dogmatic way in which the theory of evolution is held up, and the disdain for skepticism?

I thought quickly dismissing peer-reviewed papers from Nature no less was the business of creationists, not eminently scientifically minded persons such as yourself.

Also, would you say this casts doubt on the integrity of the peer-review process, given that they missed such a glaring error on Birch and Ehrlich's behalf? Why or why not?

I'm not dismissing it because it is old.

Could address my point about a mammal in the Cambrian layer?

That is why I say he is wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

And the theory of evolution, as with all scientific theories, implies nothing about any particular religious dogma...

Oh thats very incorrect.

ToE implies a literal reading of Genesis (religious dogma) is wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

If you conjecture that life is a biochemical accident likely enough to have happened at all, you cannot exclude it having happened more than once or many times. From which you can only conclude you have no idea whether there was one or many common starting points.
Therefore showing that common descent can only remain a belief. It is not a provable hypothesis.

Quite right, and no one claims otherwise. Indeed, abiogenesis may happen frequently even today--but we would not notice it, because the new proto-life forms would almost instantly become food. The scientific claim is not that abiogenesis happened only once, but that the present biosphere stems from one, or at most a few instances of it.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh thats very incorrect.

ToE implies a literal reading of Genesis (religious dogma) is wrong.

But why is the theory of evolution so important to those who do take Genesis literally?
Of all the reasons not to do so, the theory of evolution is not even at the top of the list.

 

[durangodawood]

But why is the theory of evolution so important to those who do take Genesis literally?
Of all the reasons not to do so, the theory of evolution is not even at the top of the list.

Probably because its a public policy matter and not just an inside-the-faith issue.

 

[Speedwell]

Probably because its a public policy matter and not just an inside-the-faith issue.

I suppose you are referring to the (highly abridged and inadequate) teaching of evolution in the public schools. I don't like it, either--the incompetent fashion in which evolution is usually taught does more to foster Creationism than anything the Creationists do. As evidence of that I offer the obviously misinformed opinions about evolution offered by many of our Creationist colleagues on this board.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Do you agree with the quote?

I would say it's evidence that there is a tendency within the scientific community to dogmatise their evolutionary theory and that there exist calls within the community to be more skeptical of the tenets underlying evolution, and the problem that most observations can be fit within the wider evolutionary theory.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm not dismissing it because it is old.

Could address my point about a mammal in the Cambrian layer?

That is why I say he is wrong.

As far as I know a mammal in the Cambrian layer hasn't been found. This is besides the point that there is a dogmatic adherence within the scientific community, and a lack of healthy skepticism of the key tenets underlying evolutionary theory, and the ability of the theory of evolution to fit most observations together regardless of what the observation might be.

 

[Larniavc]

I would say it's evidence that there is a tendency within the scientific community to dogmatise their evolutionary theory and that there exist calls within the community to be more skeptical of the tenets underlying evolution, and the problem that most observations can be fit within the wider evolutionary theory.

So you now understand that ToE CAN be falsified (the aforementioned mammal in Cambrian layer).

Progress!

 

[Speedwell]

As far as I know a mammal in the Cambrian layer hasn't been found. This is besides the point that there is a dogmatic adherence within the scientific community, and a lack of healthy skepticism of the key tenets underlying evolutionary theory, and the ability of the theory of evolution to fit most observations together regardless of what the observation might be.

What do you see as the "key tenets?"