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

[jacknife]

You understood sort of. Jim Jones wasn't trying to purposely scam anyone, he just twisted the truth, but believed in what he was doing, and every twist he dreamed up, as did his followers, right to the end.

Come to think of it, that was a much better comparison then even I first thought.

Jim jones also never produced any useful results, yet evolution has given an understanding thats lead to advancments in medicine, embryology (i probably spelled that wrong too) it predicted the nested hiarichy, if its just a scam how did it produce all these results?

 

[Shemjaza]

You understood sort of. Jim Jones wasn't trying to purposely scam anyone, he just twisted the truth, but believed in what he was doing, and every twist he dreamed up, as did his followers, right to the end.

Come to think of it, that was a much better comparison then even I first thought.

And I'm sure if we went over his apocalyptic teachings together we would probably be able to discern those twisted points and agree why they were wrong, or just from his imaginings...

If you are accusing biologists of doing the same, and associating them with murdering cult leaders at the same time I think you should back up your insinuations, or retract them.

(It's odd for someone defending creationism to be using devout belief in spite of evidence and opposition as a bad thing.)

 

[Shemjaza]

I am not trying to give a rigorous definition to "human", and my goal is only to tell "human" from non-human, which I collectively call it "animal". This line of argument can easily defeat the shameless claim made by many evolutionists that human is only another animal. Indeed, only judged by genetics and morphology, it could be a very reasonable claim. And that is the most serious problem to me about evolution.

That's the problem with a non-rigorous definition of "human" it isn't reliable as a tell of human from "animal". How do you deal with the very young, the very sick and the very injured? No longer human?

And what about the extinct species who only loosely resemble modern humans and have technology vastly inferior to the least developed modern human cultures, but more sophisticated then any modern animal?

And the caviar is: The Bible has answered the hardest part of this unanswered scientific problem right in the Genesis 2. Like it or not, this is simply miraculous.

But why should I assume your interpretation of that book as superior to consistent, useful tools that come from studying genetics and morphology?

 

[juvenissun]

But why should I assume your interpretation of that book as superior to consistent, useful tools that come from studying genetics and morphology?

Simple. Because by all means you have, you can not give an answer to the question. But the Bible CAN give one sentence, and it answers, no matter you accept it or not.

 

[Brightmoon]

Simple. Because by all means you have, you can not give an answer to the question. But the Bible CAN give one sentence, and it answers, no matter you accept it or not.

. Science only deals with natural phenomena. If you don’t understand that then you simply don’t understand science! So what the Bible says or any other religious tome says is simply irrelevant to understanding science.

ID and other forms of creationism are pseudoscience and have as much relevance to real science as astrology or phrenology does. And I’m a theist!

 

[durangodawood]

You understood sort of. Jim Jones wasn't trying to purposely scam anyone, he just twisted the truth, but believed in what he was doing, and every twist he dreamed up, as did his followers, right to the end.

Come to think of it, that was a much better comparison then even I first thought.

Except Jim Jones was totally wrong and mainly self-aggrandizing, while biologists are mostly right and interested in truth rather than ego.

 

[pitabread]

I see, we're now skipping the preliminaries and jumping right to "You don't understand"?

That is correct.

 

[pitabread]

Another catch all cop out comment that's not proven to mean a thing....one of your greatest strengths.

Consider it a conclusion derived from past experimentation and observation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've never heard of Ken Miller before. Francis Collins, yes, though I don't think he has quite the same profile that someone like Dawkins has.

Yes, one is a devout christian and the other is a somewhat bitter atheist. Funny and witty though.

As far as the science goes, they are / were both excellent who made a name for themselves as a direct result.

I could give you a list of Catholic scientists (not including Ken Miller, apparently ), but again, none of them are really household names in the same way.

The thing is though, most people who know Dawkins, know him as an atheistic ranter and / or science popularizer. Both of which are like a second carreer for him. If he would have truelly retired after his work as a biologist, you likely wouldn't know him, just like you don't know who Miller is.

So the point is: Dawkins isn't exactly a celebrity because of his work in biology - not directly, anyway.

Well, no. When a scientist makes claims about how favorable or hostile the modern state of science is to religion, they are stepping outside of their field and commenting on theology instead.

Again, people like Krauss and Dawkins are just responding to creationist movements. If it weren't for such movements, they'ld feel no need to do such things.
For example, you don't have any scientists doing tours and debates about how we weren't genetically engineered by the ancient alien reptilians known as the Annunaki, because nobody takes them seriously, nore do they have a large following or influence of any kind in politics / policies etc.

They are motivated because of the disturbing amount of people, particularly in the US, who believe abrahamic mythology to being literal history, and who are rather active in their fight against scientific inquiry and progress.

If anything, they are marking/protecting the territory of science from theology, rather then tresspassing into theology, while giving their opinion about said theology.

If their goal is to promote atheism rather than science, then they don't have to be cautious about this, but if they hope to improve trust in science, it's a problem they ought to keep in mind.

What they try to promote, is rationality and intellectual scepticism. It seems you're saying that their strategy might be wrong. Perhaps.

I don't.

Then I guess, you're not one of those people who will turn on science because of the "attacks" on religious fundamentalism these science popularizers engage in.

But the topic of this thread revolves around why people fail to accept evolution, and I think this is a factor.

Disagree. They rejected evolution already before they heared atheistic science rants.

I am bemused that multiple atheists here have taken me for a raving Creationist for criticizing Dawkins, though.

Do you think that's what I did?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I, a creationist, define human according to properties given by God. For a living human: a life who can tell good from evil. For a dead human: those who are able to link to human-level intelligence.

This definition is much better, more clear and more useful than those used by evolutionist.

So, a psychopath is not human?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is a good question. I can not give an inclusive definition. But I can give many examples, such as raise fire, wear clothes, drill holes, etc.

So really, you classify by ability, not by property?

 

[DogmaHunter]

How exactly does this happen? There are no 'holes' in the theory but plenty in the math.

A drop in selection pressure to continue having functional eyes.
When you become less dependend on sight, the selection pressure drops.

If then mutations happen that damage sight, it will be less and less of a problem.

Look at moles. They actually have eyes. They don't work. In, fact, they can't even open them. They are covered by a layer of skin. And that's selection pressure too...

A non-working eye, is still prone to infection. If you live underground, dirt is gonna get stuck in eyes and it can kill you through infection. With a layer of skin, that will not happen.

Why does a species like that, have non-functioning eyeballs hidden away behind a layer of skin, if not through evolutionary processes and ever-changing selection pressures?

 

[jacknife]

I believe they still can tell good from evil to a certain degree.

I work with people who will literally stuff so much food in thier mouth, they will suffocate and die if unsupervised while eating. And out in the world these people are abused beacuse they dont know. Trust me the musing of good and evil are lost on them.

 

[juvenissun]

I work with people who will literally stuff so much food in thier mouth, they will suffocate and die if unsupervised while eating. And out in the world these people are abused beacuse they dont know. Trust me the musing of good and evil are lost on them.

Try to ask them whether we should murder.
Then, if we could, ask a chimp the same question (I don't think a chimp could understand the question).

 

[DennisTate]

Maybe im out of the loop but who are all these major scientist that are anti-theistic? I can only think of one and im not sure i even classify him as antithestic.

I have came to believe that G-d in a sense "evolved" in that G-d got better and better and better at creating universe and a myriad of life forms over infinite time in the past and then Adam and Eve were created six or seven millennia ago, (linear time).

Before the Creation of Adam and Eve Lucifer led a third of the angels into a rebellion and I believe that the story in the Garden is the beginning of the bringing back of the creations that fell.



Mellen-Thomas Benedict's Near-Death Experience

I was in pre creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time / the First Word/the First vibration. I was in the Eye of Creation. I felt as if I was touching the Face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply I was at one with Absolute Life and Consciousness. When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That’s a mind-expanding thought, isn’t it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event that created the Universe. I saw during my life after death experience that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating Universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by super computers using fractal geometry equations.

 

[Silmarien]

The thing is though, most people who know Dawkins, know him as an atheistic ranter and / or science popularizer. Both of which are like a second carreer for him. If he would have truelly retired after his work as a biologist, you likely wouldn't know him, just like you don't know who Miller is.

So the point is: Dawkins isn't exactly a celebrity because of his work in biology - not directly, anyway.

How is this relevant to my point? I have never said that Dawkins is a celebrity because of his work in biology. When scientists who would like to be celebrities decide that the best way to do so is to go into atheistic polemicism and try to leverage their scientific knowledge for anti-religious purposes, that is dangerous. It contributes to the idea that science is the enemy of religion.

It also might land the theory of evolution in some legal trouble one of these days, if the courts decide that the atheistic polemicism attached to it constitutes a violation of the proscription against teaching religion in schools.

Again, people like Krauss and Dawkins are just responding to creationist movements. If it weren't for such movements, they'ld feel no need to do such things.

Krauss certainly is not, since he is a physicist, not a biologist. He's in the business of trying to take down Cosmological Arguments, which has literally nothing to do with Creationism.

He's welcome to do so, of course, but again, it's not the best hobby for a scientist to engage in if they're trying to promote public trust in science.

What they try to promote, is rationality and intellectual scepticism. It seems you're saying that their strategy might be wrong. Perhaps.

Eh, I think they are simultaneously trying to promote trust in science and trying to be celebrities for the atheistic community. This actually involves a slide towards dogma rather than intellectual scepticism, since now they have followers to appease. It's a bad situation all around. (Or at least it was. As a fad, I think it's mostly died out now.)

Then I guess, you're not one of those people who will turn on science because of the "attacks" on religious fundamentalism these science popularizers engage in.

Depends on what you mean by "turn on science." Too much bad philosophy from scientists has made me pretty cynical about them.

Disagree. They rejected evolution already before they heared atheistic science rants.

And hearing the atheistic rants will only make them more convinced that they were correct to do so.

Do you think that's what I did?

Eh, as far as I can tell, you think everyone is a fundamentalist.

 

[jacknife]

Try to ask them whether we should murder.
Then, if we could, ask a chimp the same question (I don't think a chimp could understand the question).

They wouldnt understand that question.

 

[juvenissun]

They wouldnt understand that question.

No animal can understand. But human can. So human is not animal and evolution is wrong.

 

[jacknife]

No animal can understand. But human can. So human is not animal and evolution is wrong.

But thier are humans who wouldnt understand that question, are they animals now?

 

[tas8831]

Oh that's right. I keep forgetting how virulently anti-Christian he is.

He is also a bit of a jerk. I was banned from his site years ago for daring to question one of his claims.