Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Paleobabe]

Conversation I had today:

"Why do people get so upset over evolution? It's just a theory."

"A scientific theory is basically equivalent to fact."

"No a theory is when you say 'I think this happens because...'"

"No that's a hypothesis."

"what? No that's a theory."

"No a scientific theory is an idea that can be tested in multiple ways and the results always jive with the idea."

"I don't believe you. I've never heard that before."

"Well why don't you look up 'scientific theory' and then get back to me."

"I'm not going to look in YOUR book!

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher

If that's the case, why the continued argument on this subject. Probably because others have different views......

People hold different views because they were making it up as they went along. At least with science everyone should end up on the same page, or at least in the same book.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

People hold different views because they were making it up as they went along. At least with science everyone should end up on the same page, or at least in the same book.

I agree. With science we should be in the same book. However, in my opinion no one will ever be on the same page. I still do not think you can equate philosophy with science. Over the ages, philiosopy has been an opposite of science. The closest philosophy comes to science is when talking about the mathmatical equations of logic, which in my opinion is subjective. If you look carefully, I think you will find scientific minds will differ quite often on what some would say is a objective scientific fact. I do not believe that makes most scientific platitudes as non-factual. However, in most situations, I believe you wil find both deductive as well as inductive arguments; in most every statement made concerning science as it relates to philosophy......l

[Troubleshooter]

Philosophy is necessary. I'd rather that there were exploration into the why's and how's of man's existance than just leaving it unstudied.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Philosophy is necessary. I'd rather that there were exploration into the why's and how's of man's existance than just leaving it unstudied.

Science is necessay. No doubt. I'ts been around just as long as other areas of thought. I have no doubt exploration will continue, but I'm sure there will never be a definitive answer; that society as a whole will agree upon........

[Troubleshooter]

As the cognitive, neurological, neurochemical, etc, sciences evolve and improve, the window of necessity that philosphy looks into will narrow, or maybe more accurately its focus will narrow.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

As the cognitive, neurological, neurochemical, etc, sciences evolve and improve, the window of necessity that philosphy looks into will narrow, or maybe more accurately its focus will narrow.

I disagree. I think there has been a great deal of progress made in the areas you describe already. However, philosophy will continue, just as religion and science will continue to argue until the end of time. In my opinion, philosophical thought will continue to be as important as religious dogma and scientific theories for there will always be debate over the most basic questions.

[Lady Sidhe]

This was the thread I was looking for when I posted the "Something from the SAB" thread....couldn't find it, though, so I started a new one. Sorry if it caused a repeat-thread inconvenience.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher

I disagree. I think there has been a great deal of progress made in the areas you describe already. However, philosophy will continue, just as religion and science will continue to argue until the end of time. In my opinion, philosophical thought will continue to be as important as religious dogma and scientific theories for there will always be debate over the most basic questions.

While I agree that there will always be a debate over the most basic questions, I don't think that philosophy will be able to "answer" those questions, due to it's basic nature, which is argumentative and subjective.


Science, on the other hand, is objective, and MAY be able to answer some of those basic questions, eventually, or at least put forth logical theories.

For instance, anthropology used to be an area of philosophy (Poor Jean-Jacques!); the philosophical arguments concerning anthropology (like Rousseau's "Noble Savage") turned out to be way off the mark.

Ideas of good and evil are subjective and change over time, so there will probably never be a consensus on it.

So I'd have to say that I'd tend to agree with TS in that I believe that philosophical questions will become more focused as science discovers more and more.

[wolf]

4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.

Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?

[Lady Sidhe]

If there's a way for UT to delete the post I made: "Something from the SAB," I would ask that he do so, since this really belongs here. Thanks

Sidhe


Does the bible teach evolution?
It appears that way...


And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24

(1:11-13) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly.

Gen.1:20-21
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."



God lets "the earth (and waters) bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong.



But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."


We should take parts of the bible that attempt to explain scientific concepts allegorically because these people were trying to explain scientific concepts in and to a scientifically ignorant world. Plato used allegory in his cave story, and he wasn't talking about allegorical things.--Sidhe


Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment."


Man invented the 24-hour day, and the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. (1:3-5, 14-19) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?. Also, didn't God say that a day to Him was as a thousand years--or something to that effect? And new species appear all the time....Then, according to info in the Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe, the Universe is much older than Creationists claim it to be. --Sidhe


Then, of course, we have Gen.1:1 - 2:3. According to the SAB:

The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

Not to mention different parts of Genesis that have man being created BEFORE plants and animals, conflicting with parts of Genesis that have man being created AFTER plants and animals (Animals--Gen.1:25-27 v. Gen.2:18-19; plants--Gen.1:11-13, 27-31 v. Gen.2:4-7)

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.

Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?

Neither of those is actually implied. Science can find it's soul if it actually exists and philosophy is about defining or refining reason.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by wolf

4000 years or so ago, science and philosophy were the same thing.

Does the separation show that science lost it's soul, or philosophy divested itself of reason?

Maybe it just means that they each found their niche.

Philosophy is subjective. Science is objective. Trying to explain scientific phenomena using philosophy isn't really workable. Likewise, science doesn't really have a place in debating subjective realities and changing beliefs in morality and such.

Some might say that philosophy has divested itself of reason--but that's assuming that an individual's subjective take on reality and the argument they put forth is based on reason to begin with, if, by reason, you mean logic rather than emotion or faith. Emotion and faith really don't have much of a place in science, since they would tend to get in the way of necessary objectivity.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher

Pretty strong words. "When a speculative philosopher believes he has comprehended the world once and for all in his system, he is deceiving himself, he has merely comprehended himself and then naively projected that view upon the world." C.G. Jung
I can't believe that statement about religion being so intoverted as to not advance itself. ...
However, the argument you presented is of shallow thought in my opinion.

The statement - that religion does not advance itself - is based on upon extensive reasoning AND is well based upon current examples. Concepts were posted earlier, in this and in following discussions. With many examples, religion is what happens when the status quo and dictatorial commandments only from learned people thousands of years ago have credibility. All good philosophies and science never stop advancing. Religion does just the opposite. Religion is based upon a concept that demands only prophets thousands of years ago had sufficient knowledge. Religion is ripe to be perverted by those whose 'charisma' becomes god's laws. Charisma as even Hitler used to blame the Jews. Charisma: propaganda to pervert those who don't use their brain and therefore blindly follow.
From Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism
Posted 22 Dec 2004 in the Philosophy section:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

... Evolution is science, whether you choose to understand it or not. Creationism is religion, whatever pseudoscientific trappings they try to dress it in. Science has a place in science classes, and religion does not.

Originally Posted by tw

Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science. Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools. Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. ...
The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.

If you assume that posted paragraph was based upon shallow thinking, then you have well over "three thousand, five hundred and twenty eight words" of reading to do.

I stand by my premise with vigor. Concepts based upon too many examples in history, current events, and logical thinking. Current religions are just another version of pagan religions promoted by the Greeks and Romans - with all the same philosophies based in human wants and desires. Any god that has human traits is nothing more than a human's own self serving creation - much like an invisible friend or the Oracle of Delphi. Religion not based upon the realities of our universe and what a real and powerful god must be. Religion is a classic example of what is created when mankind stops advancing - when man stops innovating - when people blindly worship some flawed text books. When the prophets decree everything only from what they knew at that time.

It cannot be said strong enough because religious extremism is a threat to the advancement of mankind. Religious extremism is about worshipping your fears (an emotion) rather than thinking logically (an essential factor in mankind's advancement).

Posted here is the respect that religion deserves.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Paleobabe

Conversation I had today:
"Why do people get so upset over evolution? It's just a theory."
"A scientific theory is basically equivalent to fact."
"No a theory is when you say 'I think this happens because...'"
"No that's a hypothesis."
"what? No that's a theory."
"No a scientific theory is an idea that can be tested in multiple ways and the results always jive with the idea."
"I don't believe you. I've never heard that before."
"Well why don't you look up 'scientific theory' and then get back to me."
"I'm not going to look in YOUR book!

You have demonstrated why people waste good money on Listerene. Simple principles were taught in junior high school science. To have a fact, both underlying concepts AND experimental evidence are required. Without both, then one only has, at best, a theory. Without both concepts, then they have wild speculation, urban myth, or political rhetoric. To have both science concepts and experimental confirmation, then proven principles of science and the *numbers* are required.

Blind worshippers *feel* Listerene working in their mouth AND therefore *know* it must be doing something. If Listerene does anything effective, then a quarter teaspoon of Vodka does as much.

Religion is best described as wild speculation - or what mankind did many thousands of years ago when philosophy was the only science. When tools of science did not exist. To deny this, others must obfuscate, pervert, confuse, or use Rush Limbaugh propaganda techniques to promote religious rhetoric over logical thought. And yes, so many are so easily perverted by emotion - deny the facts - that 70% of us believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This is when those with numbers and experience were ignored as they reported contrarian facts - ie no uranium from Niger. Mythical weapons that just made no sense once we applied numbers to wild speculation.

One factor consistent among those who believe - facts be damned - is they avoid all numbers. Same applies to religious extremists, 'Harry Potter' witchcraft, teachings of the KKK, or "Psychic friends".

Rather surprising how many 20 year olds cannot read a map, believe the first thing they are told, AND still don't understand basic science concepts. It does not end with Listerene or worshipers of the Pond's Institute for 'age defying cream'. It is how Joseph Goebels could so easily promote Hitler's agenda. Get them to assume emotionally rather than think logically.

Paleobabe has simply posted another example of those who even deny what was demonstrated in junior high school science. These are people most easily recruited for tasks such as suicide bombers or cannon fodder for the military's front line.