God vs Science

[cybercoma]

Bad example. In these case you have a 'intelligent designer' guiding the evolution.

In any case, the observation that species change over time is the fact. It is a fact that supports the theory of evolution. But it is NOT 'evolution' in itself.

Species changing over time is evolution artificial or otherwise. The evolution of species by natural selection is what could potentially be disproven. However, chances are it won't be, as the evidence at this point is more or less insurmountable without a dramatic paradigm shift.

If you want defend the scientific process you have to follow the rules. In this case the rules say evolution is a theory that explains the observed facts. Insisting on calling it a fact is a political exercise on your part which undermines science. You do not need to call evolution a fact in order to repudiate creationist theories. A repudiation that sticks with the rules of science is much stronger in my opinion.

There is no repudiating creationist theories. They're conjecture by definition. We're simply using two different definitions of the word theory interchangeably in these discussions, when they ought to be distinct. If creationism is being called a theory, then you may as well call evolution a fact to create distinction. Otherwise, creationism ought to be called an untestable hypothesis (which is an oxymoron anyway), while theory is used in relation to evolution.

There is agreement between us; I'm certain. There's just a lack of clarity and precision on nearly everyone's part when it comes to the words and meanings of "evolution" and "theory".

[TimG]

The evolution of species by natural selection is what could potentially be disproven.

That is what most people mean when they talk about the 'theory of evolution'.

There is agreement between us; I'm certain. There's just a lack of clarity and precision on nearly everyone's part when it comes to the words and meanings of "evolution" and "theory".

Did you read my original posts?

All theories are imperfect and could be replaced by better theories in the future. Observations, by definition, will not change in the future. Theories can be useful even when we know they are wrong. For example, the Bohr model of an atom is "wrong" but still useful. What makes a theory useful is it ability to allow predictions. Evolution is a useful theory because it allows us to make predictions about how bio-systems change over time.

Evolution is not a fact and should not be presented as a fact. It is an extremely useful theory. Creationism and/or intelligent design is also a theory but it is useless because it does not allow us to make predictions. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to a scientist because scientists need useful theories - not true ones.

I think that provides a more than adequate distinction between a theory of creationism and theory of natural selection. I also think it provides enough room to accomodate people who do believe in a creator without requiring them to see evolution as something which conflicts with their beliefs. Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Well, I'm not going to argue in circles with you about the same point. Admittedly, I didn't read your earlier posts. I will just say, and leave it at this, that evolution and creationism are not both theories by the same definition. One is conjecture, the other isn't.

[TimG]

Well, I'm not going to argue in circles with you about the same point. Admittedly, I didn't read your earlier posts. I will just say, and leave it at this, that evolution and creationism are not both theories by the same definition. One is conjecture, the other isn't.

I am trying to define terms in a way that might reduce the philosophical conflict between evolution and creationists. The debate so far has not been that successful. I have used this approach with creationists I have met personally and found they can accept evolution as a 'useful but not necessarily true' theory and agree that creationism is not a 'useful' theory for scientists. Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The utility is in its truthfulness.

[dre]

Bad example. In these case you have a 'intelligent designer' guiding the evolution.

In any case, the observation that species change over time is the fact. It is a fact that supports the theory of evolution. But it is NOT 'evolution' in itself.

If you want defend the scientific process you have to follow the rules. In this case the rules say evolution is a theory that explains the observed facts. Insisting on calling it a fact is a political exercise on your part which undermines science. You do not need to call evolution a fact in order to repudiate creationist theories. A repudiation that sticks with the rules of science is much stronger in my opinion.

In any case, the observation that species change over time is the fact. It is a fact that supports the theory of evolution. But it is NOT 'evolution' in itself.

Sorry thats just plain wrong. Change over time is all that evolution means.

Evolution is the increase over time in a population of those with differing heredetary traits. Its a well established fact. Natural selection is the theory of WHY evolution happens, and what drives it. There perhaps more room for debate here but not much.

A scientific fact is simply...

noun

an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

This is true of both evolution and natural selection. Both have been observed repeatedly and both have been accepted as scientific facts. That doesnt mean these are "final truths" though... science cant produce those.

[cybercoma]

dre, I think Tim is on the same page. He's just working out the kinks.

[TimG]

The utility is in its truthfulness.

No. Utility is in the ability to make predictions. A theory that cannot be used to make predictions is useless even if true. Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

That doesnt mean these are "final truths" though... science cant produce those.

Facts are indisputable truths. If you claim that they cannot be 'final truths' then you acknowledge that they are not facts. A fact is an observation. Something that is measured or seen. A theory is a well supported explanation for those facts that presumes relationships and processes which cannot be measured. A theory may change or be repudiated but the facts will not change. Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Facts are indisputable truths. If you claim that they cannot be 'final truths' then you acknowledge that they are not facts. A fact is an observation. Something that is measured or seen. A theory is a well supported explanation for those facts that presumes relationships and processes which cannot be measured. A theory may change or be repudiated but the facts will not change.

Facts are indisputable truths.

Not scientific facts, and those are the only facts science can produce. I assume thats what you meant since you were talking about the "rules of science". Observations arent facts btw...

[TimG]

Not scientific facts, and those are the only facts science can produce.

I don't think so.

http://www.suite101.com/content/science-fundamentals-what-is-a-fact-a102796

The first edition of The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fact as "1. Something known with certainty. 2. Something asserted as certain. 3. Something that has been objectively verified. 4. Something having real, demonstrable existence." The 3rd and 4th definitions are what scientists mean by "facts."

You cannot objectively verify the 'theory of gravity' nor can you demonstrate its existence. All you can do is point to facts that support the theory.

In the link an example of a scientific fact is:

Under normal circumstances, if a piano is dropped from a height, it will fall.

Note that the fact refers to an observable outcome. It does not refer to the theory that explains why that outcome will occur.

Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[maple_leafs182]

This is a little off topic but whatever.

Many of you see the benefit of putting your faith in science rather then blindly putting your faith into a religion.

Yet when I say we should use science to develop and guide our economy instead of the invisible hand you say that is crazy. We all blindly put our faith into the current economic system even though it creates tons of waste, poverty and pollution.

How is putting your faith in the current system any better then putting your faith in a religion.

[TimG]

We all blindly put our faith into the current economic system even though it creates tons of waste, poverty and pollution.

We don't trust because of faith - we trust it because of experience. We have had plenty of experiments over the last 100 years that allow us to evaluate the merits of different economic models. The free market model has been the most successful when it comes to improving the quality of life for everyone. Obviously, it is not perfect but it does not have to be perfect - it just has to be better than all others.

[pinko]

There is one certainty that should be beyond dispute and that is we all will die sooner or later. You can split hairs about evolution, the meaning of theory, and other minute details but the inevitability of death is beyond dispute. Perhaps the bible provides some solace to those so inclined to accept such teachings based upon the stories described in the scripture and as interpreted over the generations. I have seen nothing to date that would cause me to believe that events are other than as I have described them.

Edited February 6, 2011 by pinko

[BubberMiley]

They seem so incapable of civility....keeping their tempers in check when dealing with the topic that includes God.

Excellent work. When caught lying, play the victim card. It works every time.

[kimmy]

Excellent work. When caught lying, play the victim card. It works every time.

It's Betsy's specialty. Insult people and spew ignorance, and when they react negatively, say "So much anger! You atheists hate Christians so much!"

We don't hate Christians, Betsy, we just hate you.

-k

[Wild Bill]

We don't trust because of faith - we trust it because of experience. We have had plenty of experiments over the last 100 years that allow us to evaluate the merits of different economic models. The free market model has been the most successful when it comes to improving the quality of life for everyone. Obviously, it is not perfect but it does not have to be perfect - it just has to be better than all others.

Exactly, Tim! Some folks don't understand the difference between 'faith' and 'confidence'. 'Confidence' is a result of experience and examination. 'Faith' is simply a blind choice.

[cybercoma]

I'm really surprised people still humour betsy by replying to her. I would have thought everyone would have given up by now. You're a persistent bunch.

[betsy]

I’m thanking Kimmy for her generosity. I must say she is the gift that keeps on giving.

She is a classic example of the type of poster this particular thread is all about.

Kimmy came on the scene in the thread CREATION. Her first valuable contribution to the thread was this:

Betsy is the internet's answer to that wild-eyed dude who stands on the street corner and hands out Jack Chick tracts.

The easiest way to be left alone is to just take one, nod and smile, and move along quickly.

-k

Fair enough. Although a bit offensive, it is her opinion. However, instead of following her own advice and just “move along quickly”...this gal just keeps coming back.

Here’s my reply to her first post above. In spite of her rudeness, I tried to be civil.

I know...

And yet somehow those that you'd think would do as you suggest seem to get pulled somehow and can't resist clicking on the thread even if they totally claim to disagree. Don't get me wrong, I welcome that...whether they just came on to make their statement.

Kimmy proved my statement right. She cannot keep away. She cannot resist coming back. (Creation and God vs Science threads). Something about the topic of religion, God or faith draws like a magnet to Kimmy.

If my statement above were a “prophesy”..she surely made it come true.

Kimmy tried to ridicule my opinion to the extent of deliberately mis-quoting me. Instead of an apology or an explanation, she made another attempt. (see posts #16, 17, 48 and 53). There is no point in engaging someone in a discussion who deliberately distort and manipulate with malice.

It is also rude and self-centered to disrupt discussions like a bratty kid interrupting adults in their conversation just for attention.

Most of her contributions to my topics were nothing more than to try to smear or to try to engage other posters to a gang-mentality. In a heatedly yet jocular moment between Dre and I at CREATION, Kimmy was quick to jump in. (See CREATION posts # 81, 83, 84).

And she did the same with this post which she attached to Bubbermiley's comment:

It's Betsy's specialty. Insult people and spew ignorance, and when they react negatively, say "So much anger! You atheists hate Christians so much!"

We don't hate Christians, Betsy, we just hate you.

-k

Her usage of the word “we” indicative of her attempt at gang-mentality.

Mob mentality. Strength in numbers.

Of course Kimmy hates me. There’s no surprise there. She’s got anger issues, BIG TIME! Hate is a very strong word. Irrational. It is the views I represent. About God and faith. She hurls insults and uses dishonest methods of engagements...and she goes ballistic when she gets insulted back, or reads my analysis. Must've definitely saw herself in that profile.

I’m not concern about how she feels for me or anyone who feel the same way. If you're not mature enough to accept that there will be those who will be immovable in their views, that you don't necessarily have to agree with them (vice versa), acknowledge that we all have our own views...then I surely wouldn't even want to waste my time on you.

What's so telling for me though is her usage of the word “we.” It speaks volume about a lack of confidence. She cannot even stand up on her own to say, I HATE YOU.

Edited February 6, 2011 by betsy

[dre]

I’m thanking Kimmy for her generosity. I must say she is the gift that keeps on giving.

She is a classic example of the type of poster this particular thread is all about.

Kimmy came on the scene in the thread CREATION. Her first valuable contribution to the thread was this:

Fair enough. Although a bit offensive, it is her opinion. However, instead of following her own advice and just “move along quickly”...this gal just keeps coming back.

Here’s my reply to her first post above. In spite of her rudeness, I tried to be civil.

Kimmy proved my statement right. She cannot keep away. She cannot resist coming back. (Creation and God vs Science threads). Something about the topic of religion, God or faith draws like a magnet to Kimmy.

If my statement above were a “prophesy”..she surely made it come true.

Kimmy tried to ridicule my opinion to the extent of deliberately mis-quoting me. Instead of an apology or an explanation, she made another attempt. (see posts #16, 17, 48 and 53). There is no point in engaging someone in a discussion who deliberately distort and manipulate with malice.

It is also rude and self-centered to disrupt discussions like a bratty kid interrupting adults in their conversation just for attention.

Most of her contributions to my topics were nothing more than to try to smear or to try to engage other posters to a gang-mentality. In a heatedly yet jocular moment between Dre and I at CREATION, Kimmy was quick to jump in. (See CREATION posts # 81, 83, 84).

And she did the same with this post which she attached to Bubbermiley's comment:

Her usage of the word “we” indicative of her attempt at gang-mentality.

Mob mentality. Strength in numbers.

Of course Kimmy hates me. There’s no surprise there. She’s got anger issues, BIG TIME! Hate is a very strong word. Irrational. It is the views I represent. About God and faith. She hurls insults and uses dishonest methods of engagements...and she goes ballistic when she gets insulted back, or reads my analysis. Must've definitely saw herself in that profile.

I’m not concern about how she feels for me or anyone who feel the same way. If you're not mature enough to accept that there will be those who will be immovable in their views, that you don't necessarily have to agree with them (vice versa), acknowledge that we all have our own views...then I surely wouldn't even want to waste my time on you.

What's so telling for me though is her usage of the word “we.” It speaks volume about a lack of confidence. She cannot even stand up on her own to say, I HATE YOU.

I dont hate you. You just believe what you were told to believe by people you trusted while you were growing up, and you are bio-chemically pre-disposed to those sort of beliefs.

[Jonsa]

Ad hominem attacks contribute nothing to the topic at hand.

I think we'd all like to see a little more maturity and reasonably intelligent discussion.

I vehemently disagree with creationists, evolution deniers, bible literalists. I don't hate them and while I have little respect for their opinions, at least I respect their right to be wrong. OTOH, I DO HATE holocaust deniers, nazis and other bigots and do not respect their right to be wrong. I'm full of contradictions I guess.

[Wild Bill]

Her usage of the word “we” indicative of her attempt at gang-mentality.

Mob mentality. Strength in numbers.

What's so telling for me though is her usage of the word “we.” It speaks volume about a lack of confidence. She cannot even stand up on her own to say, I HATE YOU.

Betsy, few if any on this board 'hate' you. Still, if we set up a voting poll as to how many people would agree with Kimmy and how many would agree with you it would be no contest. I doubt if you could pull 10% as many votes!

Christian fundamentalism, creationism, Intelligent Design are all very much minority views.

Not that numbers indicate truth. There was a time when the numbers were highest for those who thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. That isn't true. Most people once thought the Earth was flat. That isn't true either.

If we went by numbers, we'd all be Buddhists or Hindus, who outnumber the Christians.

Keep in mind however that just because we don't hate you doesn't mean that we consider your views harmless. I and many other people would always fight to keep your views out of any school our children attended. Your beliefs would harm them for life in anything but a simplistic, 'Amish-style' career path. You would end all hope of new gene-therapies that could help seriously afflicted children, or new varieties of food that would keep the hungry from starving. Your beliefs would make it far more difficult if not impossible to develop the technology to get us out into Space, where there are almost infinite resources to improve the lives of everyone.

[betsy]

Thanks for the input Dre, Bill and Jonsa. Dre and I have been on this forum for so long (if Dre is who used to be Drea?)...and we've been butting heads...fiery debates and insults galore in the old days....yet at the end of the day, I respect her views and I accept that I'll never get to sway her to mine.

I know Bill that there's a minority of Christian views, and I mean the "fundamentalist-type" like mine....who tries to put up a good rebutt as best I can. Heck, I think I'm the only one in Creation! Not easy facing everybody....boy, just replying to each and everyone is impossible!

And yes Jonsa, I've taken a peek at some forums out there....Mapleleaf is the best, as far as I'm concerned. Now that MLF won't be maintained, all the more it's up to self-discipline that we try to maintain its standard as best we can.

Let me tell you guys for all our differences, I enjoy our little skirmishes. Sometimes I have this awful sense of humor. It's never personal.

[betsy]

Keep in mind however that just because we don't hate you doesn't mean that we consider your views harmless. I and many other people would always fight to keep your views out of any school our children attended. Your beliefs would harm them for life in anything but a simplistic, 'Amish-style' career path. You would end all hope of new gene-therapies that could help seriously afflicted children, or new varieties of food that would keep the hungry from starving. Your beliefs would make it far more difficult if not impossible to develop the technology to get us out into Space, where there are almost infinite resources to improve the lives of everyone.

Funny you should mention school. I understand that you would want to preserve your own values.

It was not long ago that I was musing Christians should fund their own schools and daycares (if it's not being done already with Catholic schools....I'm not sure), with clear stipulations that they would reflect Christian values/beliefs. No, it need not be "Amish-style" path....remember we've got Christians in science and in other fields who managed to do their jobs and yet adhere to beliefs.

In fact, if all Christians will follow the path of dedicating their jobs to our God....not only will you see such dedication and integrity, but you bet they'll do their very best.

Of course, with different denominations and different interpretations and takes....this is the big problem. We're divided. So I guess this is just wistful thinking.

FYI, I don't belong to any organized religion. I used to be Catholic. Now, I'm reading the Bible, and listening to Charles Price, who I feel tries not to stray from it.

Values/doctrines aside, somehow the standard of teaching in Catholic schools is high. At least that's what I was told by parents who send their children to Catholic schools.

[dre]

Thanks for the input Dre, Bill and Jonsa. Dre and I have been on this forum for so long (if Dre is who used to be Drea?)...and we've been butting heads...fiery debates and insults galore in the old days....yet at the end of the day, I respect her views and I accept that I'll never get to sway her to mine.

I know Bill that there's a minority of Christian views, and I mean the "fundamentalist-type" like mine....who tries to put up a good rebutt as best I can. Heck, I think I'm the only one in Creation! Not easy facing everybody....boy, just replying to each and everyone is impossible!

And yes Jonsa, I've taken a peek at some forums out there....Mapleleaf is the best, as far as I'm concerned. Now that MLF won't be maintained, all the more it's up to self-discipline that we try to maintain its standard as best we can.

Let me tell you guys for all our differences, I enjoy our little skirmishes. Sometimes I have this awful sense of humor. It's never personal.

. Dre and I have been on this forum for so long (if Dre is who used to be Drea?)...and we've been butting heads...fiery debates and insults galore in the old days....yet at the end of the day, I respect her views and I accept that I'll never get to sway her to mine.

Thats a case of mistaken identity. Im not Drea... Just Dre