Evolution and Science Acceptance

[iDunno]

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.

Theology doesn't take precise measurements because their source of evidence does not reside in the actual physical realm of the world. Their religious texts are considered to be sufficient evidence because in their mind, what is written in them is undeniable fact, just as how in our minds we consider measurements to be undeniable fact. Their scientific method is just simpler and less rigorous than that of the natural scientists because their scientific theory is much less intricate and easier to support through textual interpretations. That doesn't make it any less credible. It just makes it less believable.

@popemobile: if you were truly a man of science, you would take the time to look for evidence that contradicts my claim instead of telling me that I am flat out wrong. Religious people constantly look for evidence to contradict claims made by dissidents. For instance, they try to dig up religious texts that contradict the big bang theory all the time, and when they can't find any they change their interpretations of their texts and say that the universe wasn't actually made in seven days and that "seven days" was just a metaphor. That is totally a legitimate scientific method when one considers that natural scientists do the exact same thing with their measurements.

 

[popemobile]

changing religious texts with no evidence to support them in the first place isn't exactly scientific, especially when you consider these texts are supposed to be divinely inspired.

and I don't want to get into an argument about "burdens of proof", but the burden of proof is solely on religion to provide evidence for positive claims about reality and the universe.

 

[BlakBlastoise]

Theology doesn't take precise measurements because their source of evidence does not reside in the actual physical realm of the world.

Oh, so basically, it's not science at all.

 

[mattj]

Any religion has a burden to prove their claims, but the burden of proof most definitely does not solely fall on religion. I think this point of view is a real problem. How is "Well, I read a conclusion in a text book, therefore it must be true!", any different than "I read it in the Bible, therefore it must be true!"

 

[iDunno]

Oh, so basically, it's not science at all.

You are wrong. It isn't a "natural science", but it's still a science.

 

[popemobile]

Any religion has a burden to prove their claims, but the burden of proof most definitely does not solely fall on religion. I think this point of view is a real problem. How is "Well, I read a conclusion in a text book, therefore it must be true!", any different than "I read it in the Bible, therefore it must be true!"

I never said that it solely fell on religion. Claims in science and other areas of study absolutely have to meet a burden of proof, just like religion. The difference is that religion is the only area that routinely avoids having to meet a burden of proof, while science has very rigorous standards.

No one is saying that you should blindly make and accept scientific claims. Scientific claims are always tested and peer reviewed in order to meet their burden of proof before they are accepted. Religious claims never do this.

You are wrong. It isn't a "natural science", but it's still a science.

If it's not based in the realm of observation and testability, it's not science. Religious claims is not based in this realm. Religion is not science.

 

[mattj]

the burden of proof is solely on religion to provide evidence for positive claims about reality and the universe.

I apologize for misunderstanding...?

 

[capefeather]

Their religious texts are considered to be sufficient evidence because in their mind, what is written in them is undeniable fact, just as how in our minds we consider measurements to be undeniable fact. Their scientific method is just simpler and less rigorous than that of the natural scientists because their scientific theory is much less intricate and easier to support through textual interpretations.

But measurements aren't undeniable fact. There are even error values on them. Experiments come under intense scrutiny for many years until they can be repeated many times. This even potentially leads up to lawsuits, fraud charges, and just plain being discredited by one thing or another. The supposed connection between vaccines and autism comes to mind as something that spread like wildfire and then got discredited and a source of lingering embarrassment years later. There are also far less legitimate "scandals" perpetrated by the media and special interest groups, like "Climategate", which ruined careers on the basis of a bunch of e-mails being taken completely out of context by people who merely want certain things to be true. And that's not even getting into the social sciences...

Obviously every model and belief system has to make some assumptions somewhere down the line. But when comparing "an intelligent being created the earth and loves and cares about me" to stuff like "particles exist and follow the principle of least action", it's clear which one was just taken for granted and which one was chipped at repeatedly until it was a foundation that everyone could agree on. Saying that religion is on the same grounds as science in this regard is like saying both are on the same grounds as crackpot theories, scam artists and, like I said before, rabid fictional universe fanon.

 

[iDunno]

I never said that it solely fell on religion. Claims in science and other areas of study absolutely have to meet a burden of proof, just like religion. The difference is that religion is the only area that routinely avoids having to meet a burden of proof, while science has very rigorous standards.

No one is saying that you should blindly make and accept scientific claims. Scientific claims are always tested and peer reviewed in order to meet their burden of proof before they are accepted. Religious claims never do this.



If it's not based in the realm of observation and testability, it's not science. Religious claims is not based in this realm. Religion is not science.

They're totally based on the realm of observation and testability! One observes a problem in the outside world and tests through using religious texts to explain how and why the problem exists. Also religious claims are totally based in this realm. Religious texts are within the margin of credibility in religious sciences.

 

[popemobile]

I apologize for misunderstanding...?

in regards to religious claims. when a claim is made about the nature of the universe and reality, which is the case for religious claims, it is solely on the person or group making the claim to provide evidence to support it, not for someone else to provide evidence that it isn't true. This is the case for all claims, but religious claims are generally the only ones that aren't held to this standard.

 

[BlakBlastoise]

No one is saying that you should blindly make and accept scientific claims. Scientific claims are always tested and peer reviewed in order to meet their burden of proof before they are accepted. Religious claims never do this.

If it's not based in the realm of observation and testability, it's not science. Religious claims is not based in this realm. Religion is not science.

^ this
Richard Feynman once said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

The difference between reading scientific conclusions in a text book and reading them in a religious text is that you can recreate any of the scientific experiments that provide the evidence for these scientific conclusions. If you happen to find a different result, you are free to publish any of your work. If your new finding supports an alternate hypothesis, this will then be adopted if it holds up to other tests/experiments (and you're likely to win some science prize). You can't recreate or experiment with most of the stuff written in the religious text I'm familiar with (one of the millions of variations of "the bible"). Even if you do experiment and come up with a different conclusion, your new conclusion is more than likely not going to be adopted seeing as how most religious texts are pretty much NEVER changed, and when they are you get a brand new religion.

 

[popemobile]

They're totally based on the realm of observation and testability! One observes a problem in the outside world and tests through using religious texts to explain how and why the problem exists. Also religious claims are totally based in this realm. Religious texts are within the margin of credibility in religious sciences.

I'm definitely repeating myself at this point, but using evidence and observation to revise claims in texts that are very much not based on evidence and observation is not science. "Religious science" is at best philosophy, not actually science.

 

[iDunno]

But measurements aren't undeniable fact. There are even error values on them.

measurements are merely a measure of phenomenon as perceived by the human mind and it's emotional centers and have no real bearing in the actual material world outside our perceptions unless someone can prove and calculate whether our perceptions cannot change the original outside stimulus. Error values are only margins of acceptable error that pertain to the said human perceptions and only really matter in that realm.

Obviously every model and belief system has to make some assumptions somewhere down the line. But when comparing "an intelligent being created the earth and loves and cares about me" to stuff like "particles exist and follow the principle of least action", it's clear which one was just taken for granted and which one was chipped at repeatedly until it was a foundation that everyone could agree on. Saying that religion is on the same grounds as science in this regard is like saying both are on the same grounds as crackpot theories, scam artists and, like I said before, rabid fictional universe fanon.

Saying that none of these things share any ground at all is delusional.

I'm definitely repeating myself at this point, but using evidence and observation to revise claims in texts that are very much not based on evidence and observation is not science. "Religious science" is at best philosophy, not actually science.

Philosophy == science

All scientific theory is essentially philosophy/theory/speculation supported by a body of evidence.

Does the name Aristotle ring a bell?

 

[popemobile]

they don't share anywhere near enough of the same ground to be considered equal

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Religious science eh?

Tell me how well quintessence and celestial spheres are holding up.

I will admit, some theoretical physics gets into some wacky stuff without much proof, no scientist is shoving string theory down your throat. There is a solid mathematical basis for these theories, but one is free to challenge string theory all you want in the scientific community, I know for example one of my physics teachers called it "elegant gibberish."

The difference between string theory to evolution is evolution is a fact.

The difference between string theory and quintessence is it doesn't require magic to work.

 

[iDunno]

Religious science eh?

Tell me how well quintessence and celestial spheres are holding up.

*facepalm* just because they weren't right doesn't mean what they were doing wasn't science. A main pillar of science is argument. So you are saying that Aristotle, the father of all science, wasn't actually a scientist. "Science isn't fact", scarfwynaut. It's "theory" accepted to be true beyond a reasonable doubt because of the evidence at hand.

 

[billymills]

How about everyone here gives their interpretation of what science is, what the scientific method is, and what a theory is.

Maybe if we knew what we were arguing about, we'd be able to point out where the actual problems are.

 

[popemobile]

well either way it isn't true and it shouldn't be taught in schools

I think that's what the whole point of this was

 

[iDunno]

How about everyone here gives their interpretation of what science is, what the scientific method is, and what a theory is.

Maybe if we knew what we were arguing about, we'd be able to point out where the actual problems are.

Science is gathering a basal body of evidence widely perceived by a community to be true and using said evidence to employ scientific method to build theory on the mechanics of a medium. The scientific method is the practice of taking that body of evidence widely perceived by a community to be factual and using it as a base to measure the credibility of theories concerning the mechanics of said medium. A theory is a widely accepted speculation that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt given the perceived evidence at hand.

well either way it isn't true and it shouldn't be taught in schools

I think that's what the whole point of this was

You're starting to sound like a religious nutjob.

 

[Wikey]

Is iDunno a solipsist or something stupid like that?

 

[popemobile]

Philosophy == science

All scientific theory is essentially philosophy/theory/speculation supported by a body of evidence.

Does the name Aristotle ring a bell?

2000+ years ago, philosophy and science were pretty much synonymous, but that's not even close to being the case today. You said it yourself, philosophy is science without the testing and evidence, which literally makes it not science.

Religious claims are not testable, Religious science is not science. I don't know what else to tell you here.

 

[iDunno]

2000+ years ago, philosophy and science were pretty much synonymous, but that's not even close to being the case today. You said it yourself, philosophy is science without the testing and evidence, which literally makes it not science.

Religious claims are not testable, Religious science is not science. I don't know what else to tell you here.

Religious claims are testable to those who believe in the religious texts, therefore it is science to those who believe in the religious texts.

Is iDunno a solipsist or something stupid like that?

Why is being a solipsist stupid if it is a theory completely supported by the superposition principle.

 

[popemobile]

Religious claims are testable to those who believe in the religious texts, therefore it is science to those who believe in the religious texts.

that means nothing as far as the validity of the claims because the base material can't be proven. No field of science besides religious science would accept the religious texts in any way because it can be verified and there is no evidence supporting it. You can't just accept one area on faith in order to test it against other things. That's not how science works at all, and it's what I've been saying for probably this entire page.

 

[iDunno]

that means nothing as far as the validity of the claims because the base material can't be proven. No field of science besides religious science would accept the religious texts in any way because it can be verified and there is no evidence supporting it. You can't just accept one area on faith in order to test it against other things. That's not how science works at all, and it's what I've been saying for probably this entire page.

By that logic, do you agree that religion was a credible science at one point in time?

 

[popemobile]

By that logic, do you agree that religion was a credible science at one point in time?

No, because the base material (the texts) were never credible. They might have been given the same credence as science at some point in the past, but based on today's standards of science they are not credible. Whether or not they were accepted in the past doesn't have any meaning as far as proving its credibility today.