-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Evolution and Science Acceptance
- Thread starter lati0s
- Start date
- Status
Uh so what are we going to do? Invent a time machine to go back and erase all religion from existence? I've never understood these "quests" of eradicating religion or proving it wrong, since it's pretty much impossible to due. I actually agree with you about wanting these outdated beliefs to go away, but I don't think attacking a religion is the solution. I personally think attacking the belief is what we should be doing.
I have a strange view of evolution vs. creationism since, well, it's not really a versus. I believe in both, to be more specific, I think they're the same thing. I believe evolution is just a scientific interpretation of creationism or you could say creationism is a religious and metaphoric interpretation of evolution, which ever you prefer. I could go into more detail if someone really wants me to.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wanted to "attack" religion, whatever that means. What you quoted was just me saying why I thought absurd beliefs were given credit in today's society. I agree that challenging beliefs is the best way to go about it, and that's always been my position. Religious beliefs are the only types of beliefs that are allowed to be justified with faith instead of reason and evidence, and that's ridiculous.
Hmm... I guess this would count as "witnessing evolution":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenski's_experiment
Bacteria because those reproduce quickly enough, and can be frozen down and revived at a later date, plus the fact that they are relatively easy to "maintain". Trying to do the same with, say, cats, would be an incredibly tedious affair and there would be years instead of hours between each new generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenski's_experiment
Bacteria because those reproduce quickly enough, and can be frozen down and revived at a later date, plus the fact that they are relatively easy to "maintain". Trying to do the same with, say, cats, would be an incredibly tedious affair and there would be years instead of hours between each new generation.
lol I love the direction this thread has taken, omg
a.k.a. lol, if you want to single out evolution as "just a theory", well, technically, everything's "just a theory" (or worse). We don't "know" anything. Happy now?
a.k.a. lol, if you want to single out evolution as "just a theory", well, technically, everything's "just a theory" (or worse). We don't "know" anything. Happy now?
The central tenet of creationism is that evolution is false.
I'm not sure how you're rationalizing this unless by creationism you mean something other than the fundamentalist Christian attempt at explaining the origins of life that has come up in the last 50-60 years.
this is not true
evolution isn't necessarily false in creationism, but anything that happened was because of god
which unfortunately isn't provable or disprovable so it's not even worth saying
which unfortunately isn't provable or disprovable so it's not even worth saying
Just like how evolution is "just a theory"
What I'm trying to say is that this argument between religion and science is kind of pointless. It's like one side arguing that cheese is green and the other side arguing that cheese is brown.
It matters when people want to teach that cheese is green, or any color not brown, in a class specifically made for the study and knowledge of brown cheese.
I just don't see the harm in teaching religious studies in public schools as long as secular studies are equally emphasized.
Accepting religion is just as important as accepting science. Especially since religion has been the core of our society for thousands of years...
Science deals with testable, observable, and natural phenomena.
God doesn't fit the criteria for science.
Teaching bible studies in a public school is a clear cut violation of the line between Church and State. The state is secular, and so are the schools, to teach Christianity defies that so clearly.
To teach all tax exempt religions with equal fervor does not.
Why don't you think science should follow these rules as well? Isn't indoctrinating students into believing scientific theories are pure fact just as bad as indoctrinating students into believing religion is pure fact? Isn't forcing students to study science just as bad as forcing students to study religion?
Religion's arguments are just as credible as scientific ones when one takes into account what makes a science "credible"
Not really. Science deals with creating a hypothesis and observing evidence in what is believed to be a neutral worldly medium perceived to be universally fact (the universe) that is found by the scientific community to support or contradict the hypothesis. When something comes around that contradicts scientific theory, rational people adapt what they believe to be true to explain the changes. Religion deals with creating a hypothesis and observing evidence that is believed to be a worldly medium perceived to be universally fact (the religious texts) that is found by the religious community to support or contradict the hypothesis. When something comes around that contradicts religious theory, rational people adapt what they believe to be true to explain the changes. If one considers natural sciences and religious sciences are both technically sciences in their own right, god is totally provable by science.
itt religious heads twiddle around with the definition of the word theory based on the fact they were raised to believe theories are not true, when in fact, when the word is used scientifically it means that ""a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." . So when a scientist says evolution is a theory, it doesnt mean they think it is a hypothesis, they have evidence to back up their claims.
""""This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]"""""
confusing scientific terms with common use terms is hard!!!
edit: yes i copy pasted from wikipedia, deal with it nerds
""""This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]"""""
confusing scientific terms with common use terms is hard!!!
edit: yes i copy pasted from wikipedia, deal with it nerds
I'm not religious. I'm an atheist. But thank you for bringing up a definition that backs up my point! A "well-substantiated explanation" is a fancy word for a speculative opinion that is supported by a body of evidence that is believed to be fact which is a fancy phrase that one might say describes the word "theory" in the common usage.
EDIT: but the fact that pwnemon agrees with me does make me question my theory...
Also, before you say that the universe is a undeniable fact, quantum physics says no.
iDunno said:
Give me one instance in which theology involved taking precise measurements complete with carefully determined margins of error, or questioning and reorganizing a model until it fits an aesthetic of minimal, "obvious" assumptions. Until then, you cannot seriously tell me that religion questions reality in the same way that science does. In that respect, it is more similar to rabid anime / comic book fanboy/fangirl speculation based on obsessive readings of the source material.
a) separation of church and state
b) teaching something that has no basis in fact or reality would be detrimental to other areas of education, both in wasted time and wasted materials, among other things.
uh no. if we just take things from the past for granted, there's no way we can move forward as a society. let go of archaic beliefs with no evidence to support them and move forward with what is factual and has real world application.
you must be joking me, right?
congrats on being completely wrong, I guess?
- Status