Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 28
Send Topic Print
EVOLUTION VS RELIGION (Read 33925 times)
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Jan 5th, 2007 at 3:03pm
 
Hi FreeDiver;

You wrote;

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html
_________________________________________________________

The same can be said for religion can it not?

Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 25th, 2007 at 5:05pm by ozadmin »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26260
I like fish
Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #1 - Jan 5th, 2007 at 3:07pm
 
original article: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Yes, you are right. The same is true of creationism. Even the catholic church acknowldges that it is not scientific.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26260
I like fish
hey Ludwig
Reply #2 - Jan 7th, 2007 at 5:12pm
 
From onlineoipinion - Ludwig I have exceeded my quota again there, so I will respond here:

You don’t believe that evolution is real? Or perhaps you do, but that it is just not scientifically proven and therefore not technically fact, despite overwhelming evidence?

It is not scientific. That is all I am arguing. See the 4th paragraph:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

You’ve got me stumped with your differentiation between evolution and natural selection.

Some people refer to them as macro and micro evolution.

Botany and geology are fields of study and they are very much sciences.

This terminology came about because some fields of study use the scientific method almost exclusively. But if you used mysticism as a tool for understanding geological formations you might be studying geology, but you wouldn't be doing science.

This is pure science, but it doesn’t directly involve hypotheses, although they can be developed around the data.

That is the whole point. If all you ended up with was pages of data, your research would be of little value. It is the conclusions (theories) you draw from those observations that have the value. But they are only valuable from a scientific perspective if they can be tested somehow.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #3 - Jan 7th, 2007 at 5:40pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2007 at 3:07pm:
original article: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Yes, you are right. The same is true of creationism. Even the catholic church acknowldges that it is not scientific.


Thanks FreeDiver I modified the original link. It works now.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Phil(Guest)
Guest


Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #4 - Jan 14th, 2007 at 7:30am
 
I'm not sure what's being argued here.  Neither evolution or intelligent design can be proven-- the arguments seem pointless.  Evolutionary theory has become dogma.  Similarly in more recent times has the global warming theory become dogma despite evidence to the contrary.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26260
I like fish
Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #5 - Jan 14th, 2007 at 5:02pm
 
This is more of a philosophical argument. It's not like global warming where it will affect what we actually do. However it should have an impact on how it is taught in high school, and how much credibility people assign to it who aren't familiar with the details.

The article basically argues that the theory of evolution, where it goes beyond natural selection, is not what is traditionally regarded as science and cannot be viewed in the same context as theories that have been rigourously tested by repeatable experiment. The techniques involved in studying and 'verifying' the theory are not the same techniques that have given us modern technology and our powerful understanding of the natural world. It is a theory that has survived the test of time because of it's infinite flexibility and the lack of competing theories, not because it has been subject to the same testing you would normally apply to scientific theories.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
phil(Guest)
Guest


Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #6 - Jan 20th, 2007 at 5:31am
 
I agree with what you have explained.
For a good treatment of the problems with Darwinism read "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E Johnson (ISBN 0-8038-1234-1).
I found it most helpful.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26260
I like fish
UK moving evolution debate out of science class
Reply #7 - Feb 1st, 2007 at 1:20pm
 
The UK is moving evolution out of the science classroom and teaching it in religion classes where it will be given equal time with creationism. The move is designed to equip children with the knowledge needed to understand the broader public debate. They claim it will help diffuse the bitter battles like thsoe that have arisen in the US, though it may overemphasise the conflict between the two beliefs.

more details in the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16791773/

LONDON - British teenagers may soon be debating creationism and intelligent design in religion classes that give equal time to the Darwinists and atheists who reject these views of the world’s origins.

The guidelines, issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, place the issue firmly in religious education class, rather than the science classes where American intelligent-design proponents want it to be handled.

By placing creationist views with those of their critics in religion classes, the curriculum authority could head off the divisive debates that have pitted religion against science in the United States.

“This is a clever way of defusing the issue,” Clifford Longley, a religious affairs commentator, told Reuters.

While endorsing neither side of the science and religion debate, the authority made clear it sees creationism and intelligent design as part of a wider public debate that pupils should be able to understand.

Among the guidelines, applying to children up to the age of 14, is a suggestion that pupils act out the debate by playing the roles of Galileo, Charles Darwin and the current best-selling atheist author Richard Dawkins.

“None of this is compulsory,” the spokesman said. “It is entirely optional and offered as guidance. Our position is that it should be discussed in religious education and not in science.”

State schools in Britain teach religion because Britain has an established Christian church, Anglicanism. Prime Minister Tony Blair has joined religious and scientific leaders in resisting calls for creationism to be taught by itself.

“I can see no reason why we have to regard Darwinism as a holy text that cannot be questioned,” he said. “It is a very good idea to challenge that in religious education. Just teaching children Darwinism doesn’t stretch their minds and give them intellectual hurdles to jump over. There should be lively debate.”
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #8 - Feb 1st, 2007 at 2:07pm
 
Interesting article freediver. I can see where they are coming from and it may be a way to break down the anti unchristian barrier of the next generation. Allowing people to understand that there are many different beliefs that need to be considered before becoming adamant that your belief is the only one that exists.

Cool
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest


Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #9 - Feb 20th, 2007 at 1:28pm
 
The statements in the article are nonsense. Evolution IS taken by science as a FACT and does have predictive value. The argument about falsification, which is irrelevant to this anyway, harks back to a discredited Karl Popper idea of the 1930s. It was not even accepted then.
Looks to me like the purpose of your site is to sell religion and all things green.
The following link explains it quite well, but Stephen Jay Gould and all the other biologists have also explained it.
.....talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26260
I like fish
Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #10 - Feb 20th, 2007 at 1:43pm
 
I was wondering when you'd show up. Welcome to OzPolitic.

The argument about falsification, which is irrelevant to this anyway, harks back to a discredited Karl Popper idea of the 1930s.

Even wikipedia defines the modern scientific method as having a foundation in experimentation, which evolution does not. If it was discredited, you would be able to discredit it right now.

That talkorigins link comes up all the time, but doesn't address my argument. It talks about how creationists misunderstand evolution. My article is about how some evolutionists misunderstand science (it's usually the ones who see everything from a perspective of evolution vs creationism, rather than from a philosophy of science perspective). If you understood my argument you wouldn't be bringing up creationism at all.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest


Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #11 - Feb 20th, 2007 at 2:22pm
 
Evolution is science and has been verified. See the main wikipaedia article or any reputable book on the subject. You seem to be trying to use slight of hand. No theory can be 100% verified because all theories are based on past events and the future may be different. Induction cannot prove anything but within the meaning of the word verify, evolution is verified. Even falsification can never be 100%.
You evade the creation issue but I'm sure you are aware that your assertions provide an opportunity for this dangerous notion to enter and I suspect you are happy with this. An earlier post of yours addressed this issue in the context of the teaching of evolution in UK schools. Your post has COMPLETELY misrepresented the issue there. You state "The UK is moving evolution out of the science classroom and teaching it in religion classes where it will be given equal time with creationism". This is absolutely false. The teaching of evolution is staying firmly within the science classes, with the science teachers, and there is no time to be given to creation in the science classes. The issue you mention recognises that the evolution/creation debate is one which children should be aware of. Accordingly the evolution/creation debate is to be handled within religion classes (which are compulsory in the UK). You are clearly a creationist, whatever you say, but are too feeble to profess it and prefer to attempt to delude the gullible.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26260
I like fish
Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #12 - Feb 20th, 2007 at 2:32pm
 
No theory can be 100% verified because all theories are based on past events and the future may be different.

Falsification and 100% verifiability are not the same thing. Science is not based on past events. History is. Science is based on repeatable experiments, which is the ultimate test of a theory because anyone can test a theory for themselves at any time.

Even falsification can never be 100%.

Does that even mean anything?

You evade the creation issue but I'm sure you are aware that your assertions provide an opportunity for this dangerous notion to enter

So you are motivated by fear of someone else's opinion rather than an interest in the truth? Labelling an idea as dangerous is the first tool of censorship and is antithetical to science.

and I suspect you are happy with this

Actually no, this would be a lot simpler if people could drop all the creationism baggage.

and there is no time to be given to creation in the science classes

I didn't say there was, nor would I, as you imply, support such a move.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sense(Guest)
Guest


Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #13 - Feb 20th, 2007 at 2:50pm
 
fd - you say - " Science is not based on past events" - but it is. Yes it is based on repeatable experiments - therefore it is based on the past. There can be no guarantee of repetition - hence you cannot rely on induction. Just check any Scientific philosophy text - eg Ayer, Carnap, Reichenbach etc. But this is a bit academic and getting away from the point.

No I am not fearful of others opinions and I'm 100% for science not metaphysics. The teaching of creationism really is dangerous - children are susceptable. Creationism comes out of religion and all religious teaching is dangerous - it is pure mumbo jumbo.

And I repeat that your article suggesting that evolution is to be taken out of science teaching in the UK is wrong. You clearly invented this to lend credence to your false assertion about evolution not being science.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 26260
I like fish
Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #14 - Feb 20th, 2007 at 3:15pm
 
I didn't invent it I got it from msn.com

Yes it is based on repeatable experiments - therefore it is based on the past.

Repeatable experiments done in the past yes, but not on evidence dug out of the ground that must be pieced together using the tools of historians.

There can be no guarantee of repetition - hence you cannot rely on induction.

If the nature of the universe changed and the outcome of experiments changed, then science would handle that OK. True, it does not rely on an experiment to continue giving the same results, but it does rely on an ability to repeat an experiment at a later date. Otherwise science would turn into dogma, just like evolution has.

No I am not fearful of others opinions

If you are not fearful, why do you keep saying it is dangerous and using it to sidetrack the discussion? Surely if my argument somehow supported creationism, then that is beside the point and is not evidence that my argument is wrong. You are appealing to fear of consequences, which is a logical fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20conse...
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 28
Send Topic Print