Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

[DogmaHunter]

In my opinion String Theory, The Anthropic Principle, The Cyclic Model of the Universe, The Law of Probability all prove that the first Intelligent life form would originate in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy....... .not in four dimensional space time where electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force are all separated from each other.

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

This literally has nothing to do with biology either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of the evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins is the big one. Jerry Coyne is another. Those are the only two names that spring to mind at the moment, though I don't know any evolutionary biologist who is as large a name as Dawkins. (Daniel Dennett, while not a biologist himself, could count as another who likes to use evolutionary theory to argue for atheistic conclusions.)

Ken Miller is a rather famous one.
Francis Collins (who lead the human genome project) is another.

But both are devout christians.

In physics, things get wild as well. Laurence Krauss is the most radical anti-theistic polemicist I can think of, but Sean Carroll tends in a similar direction. Then there are figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Stephen Hawking who are not quite anti-theists but should probably be a bit more cautious about mixing science and anti-religion in the public sphere.

Why would they need to be cautious? They are just responding to creationist claims butting into their scientific work.

I would definitely consider Dawkins an anti-theist rather than an atheist. His agenda is very obvious, since he's basically built a career out of it.

So what?

Do you think Dawkins' opinions on religion, or indeed anyone's opinions, have any kind of relevancy to the science of biology?

 

[juvenissun]

If evolution is as false as creationists claim it is, wouldn't understanding it lead to its rejection, not its acceptance?

Ref: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tand-evolution-are-more-likely-to-accept-it1/

Not at all. It is not that simple.
Evolution is a scientific conclusion. All its studies are scientific. So, only look at these studies, no one would reject anything.
The problem lies on the larger part of evolution, which is NOT addressed by science. There are too many of them. If the question on evolution is black, and the science of evolution is white, then the color of evolution is deep gray.

 

[sfs]

OK that makes 2 biologists.

Dawkins, Coyne, and Myers are all biologists, at least by training. Coyne is easily the most significant of the three as a working biologist. Dawkins hasn't been a working scientist for decades -- he's been a popularizer of science -- and Myers is well known because he's a blogger, not because he does much (or any, these days) research in evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem lies on the larger part of evolution, which is NOT addressed by science. There are too many of them.

Can you name the best example of these?

 

[Job 33:6]

Ken Miller is a rather famous one.
Francis Collins (who lead the human genome project) is another.

But both are devout christians.



Why would they need to be cautious? They are just responding to creationist claims butting into their scientific work.



So what?

Do you think Dawkins' opinions on religion, or indeed anyone's opinions, have any kind of relevancy to the science of biology?

Dawkins is definetly more in the public eye than someone like say...Ken Miller. Dawkins has a larger selection of more popular books. He's probably been on more TV programs as well.

The atheist movement is without question, more vocal than Christian's are in the scientific realm. While science is not atheistic, most popular scientists are atheists. Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkins, Neil Tyson etc.

It just so happens that both Christian and atheist scientists support the theory of evolution, so when one party is more vocal, it gives Christian's who aren't familiar with scientists like those of biologos, the impression that evolution is an atheistic concept.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dawkins is definetly more in the public eye than someone like say...Ken Miller. Dawkins has a larger selection of more popular books. He's probably been on more TV programs as well.

True. Likely, I only know about Miller because I actually enjoy science and actively seek information. That's how I ended up finding him.

While indeed, Dawkins is much more thrown in your face. In the sense that you'll likely hear about him, even if biology doesn't even interest you.

It just so happens that both Christian and atheist scientists support the theory of evolution, so when one party is more vocal, it gives Christian's who aren't familiar with scientists like those of biologos, the impression that evolution is an atheistic concept.

I get that. At the same time, I don't, considering the Vatican's stance on mainstream biology - and they are supposed to represent the bigger bulk of christians as well.

That's something I've always found to be quite curious. The pope himself is an "evolutionist". How are so little christians aware of this?

At the same time off course.... the most vocal / fundamentalist creationists, aren't catholics and in my experience, usually their opinion on catholics and the pope is.... well.... let's just say that they don't regard them as True Scottsmen. ;-)


O well....

In any case, I think the biggest point to be made here, is that science is not driven by opinions. So it doesn't matter what scientist's opinions are about religion and whatnot. What matters is the science, which doesn't care about opinions.

 

[juvenissun]

Can you name the best example of these?

What is human?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is human?

That's a question.

I asked for an example.

Anyway: a human is a primate and mammal belonging to the species of homo sapiens.

What is a cat?

Now what?

 

[Tolworth John]

If evolution is as false as creationists claim it is, wouldn't understanding it lead to its rejection, not its acceptance?

Ref: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tand-evolution-are-more-likely-to-accept-it1/

It is simple a question of authority.

Is mans ideas etc the final authority or is the bible.
If it is the later then one cannot believe in evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is simple a question of authority.

Is mans ideas etc the final authority or is the bible.
If it is the later then one cannot believe in evolution.

The "authority" in science, is the data. Not the scientist.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's just it^

Nobody ever woke up in the morning with random ideas of us evolving from fish. Rather the conclusion was derived from data.

For example, nobody just had a random idea about fish to tetrapod transitional fossils in the mid devonian. Rather, they simply exist. No opinion or random ideas of mankind can change what physically exists.

@Tolworth John @DogmaHunter

 

[Job 33:6]

Unfortunately for young earthers though, there is nothing in objective reality which verifies their young earth ideas. Their conclusions truly are, only existant in their imaginations.

 

[pitabread]

If it is the later then one cannot believe in evolution.

A lot of Christians disagree with you on that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And that has what to do with the theory of evolution?

He was just following the turtles.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not at all. It is not that simple.
Evolution is a scientific conclusion. All its studies are scientific. So, only look at these studies, no one would reject anything.
The problem lies on the larger part of evolution, which is NOT addressed by science. There are too many of them. If the question on evolution is black, and the science of evolution is white, then the color of evolution is deep gray.

I agree. The big question for evolution is how it is even possible?

 

[juvenissun]

That's a question.

I asked for an example.

Anyway: a human is a primate and mammal belonging to the species of homo sapiens.

What is a cat?

Now what?

don't know. I don't have a goal in this argument.
Quit.

 

[pitabread]

I agree. The big question for evolution is how it is even possible?

Er, that's not really a big question is it? We already know how it's possible.

 

[juvenissun]

I agree. The big question for evolution is how it is even possible?

Evolution is a monster. It attracts so many excellent scientists to study it. Yet there are tons of questions remain to be answered. In the field of science, it is not so bad. But for a great many of people who are not in the field of sciences, the consequence is disastrous. Evolution is the best deceiving scam I can ever see.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Er, that's not really a big question is it? We already know how it's possible.

It's difficult to correlate the finished product with the theoretical process, when you think about it.