Why science and religion are not compatible

[Patrick1000]

My point is there is not one way but many ways to falsify Darwinism

Darwinism is falsifiable. I gave you a way to falsify it above.

I think you are confusing its wide reaching explanatory power, a sign that it is a strong theory, with it being unfalsifiable.

There are ways to falsify it. The problem is that the ways to falsify it haven't been found and are unlikely to be found.

My point is there is not one way, but many ways to falsify Darwinism Ichneumonwasp. And every time someone falsifies it, some evolutionary biologists says, "Oh yes that is true, but that doesn't count".

In science, most of us call this cheating. It doesn't mean Darwinism isn't useful, or doesn't have valuable explanatory power. But we have to be realistic and accept facts as they are and not as we hope them to be, or as evolutionary biologists like to pretend the facts of life to be.

Freud is a flat out genius, his stuff is great. So is Darwin's, over the top imaginative, insanely important work . Doesn't make it science though. Not good science. Not in my book.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My point is there is not one way, but many ways to falsify Darwinism Ichneumonwasp. And every time someone falsifies it, some evolutionary biologists says, "Oh yes that is true, but that doesn't count".

In science, most of us call this cheating. It doesn't mean Darwinism isn't useful or doesn't have explanatory power. But we have to be realistic and accept facts as they are and not as we hope them to be or evolutionary biologists pretend them to be.

Freud is a flat out genius, his stuff is great. So is Darwin's, over the top imaginative, insanely important work . Doesn't make it science though. Not good science. Not in my book.

I don't understand your point. How has anyone proved Darwinism false and then someone changed the rules? You certainly cannot claim issues with cytochrome oxidase c, since the only 'disproof of Darwinism' there is based on complete misunderstanding of the theory and protein composition, structure and function.

If you have an actual disproof of Darwin's thought that someone changed the rules of the game to save I would be very interested to read it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to make it plain - my assertion is not "God exists". Or even "God is a well-formed concept". My assertion is that science should not be and is not concerning itself with the God hypothesis.

I can imagine certain tentative research taking place - on the anthropic principle, say - but I cannot see how, in principle, any proposition could be put forward on the existence or non-existence of God. There is no test for omnipotence, and there is no test for whether an omnipotent being is hiding or not.

First, from an earlier comment you made, I'm not insulting you (arguing with ad homs) to say your god beliefs are a problem here. I'm merely pointing out what we know about god beliefs, they are most often the result of indoctrination and as such seriously interfere with one's objectivity to look at the evidence said beliefs include many false conclusions.

As for 'science should not be interested', that's shockingly ludicrous. God beliefs are a major component of anthropology, sociology, and psychology. And it's very likely there is a biological component that differs from one human to the next. Science has a critical interest in something that is such a large part of the human psyche.

 

[citizenzen]

Darwinism ... is not falsifiable

... there is not one way, but many ways to falsify Darwinism

My lawyer will be in contact with you.

Whiplash.

 

[Craig B]

Find rabbit bones with dinosaurs bones for one.

Paul

Or rabbits in the Precambrian, as JBS Haldane suggested.

 

[citizenzen]

There's a significant difference between something that isn't falsifiable vs. something that isn't accepted.

 

[Patrick1000]

RAF was asking about falsifiability in general, whether it was my idea

Darwinism is falsifiable. I gave you a way to falsify it above.

I think you are confusing its wide reaching explanatory power, a sign that it is a strong theory, with it being unfalsifiable.

There are ways to falsify it. The problem is that the ways to falsify it haven't been found and are unlikely to be found.

RAF was asking about falsifiability in general, whether it was my idea.

With regard to your point, if you are now claiming the ways of falsifying Darwinism have not been found and are unlikely to be found, then this is equivalent to saying it is a theory which has placed itself outside of vulnerability's reach, outside of risk of inauthentication. As such, if methods of falsifiability are unlikely to ever be found, then we must all reconcile ourselves to accepting the notion that this is NOT SCIENCE. DARWINISM IS NOT SCIENCE IF A METHOD FOR ITS INAUTHENTICATION IS NOT AVAILABLE.

What good is a method of inauthentication, a method of falsifiablity, if that method can never be found to test the theory? This is Marxism, Freudian Psychology and the Pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Biology.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm specifically referring to scientific proof here. It's simply not possible to take such an analysis dealing with one aspect of science, and use it to draw conclusions about something else altogether.

There's nothing to stop anyone drawing whatever conclusions they want from this data. They simply can't claim it forms scientific proof.

Even if nobody in the world had ever considered the possibility of an omnipotent being, scientists could not a priori rule it out.

The scientific process does not deal in "proofs" except in mathematics. I very carefully said "overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion" and it does. At the same time there is NO evidence gods are NOT fiction.

 

[Patrick1000]

RAF was asking essentially who came up with the notion of science as falsifiable

There's a significant difference between something that isn't falsifiable vs. something that isn't accepted.

RAF was asking essentially who came up with the notion of science as falsifiable, hence the specifics of my presentation above.

Acceptability is irrelevant here. The majority of Americans are Christians. I don't accept those myths as true just because everyone else does. Ditto for Darwinism.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

RAF was asking about falsifiability in general, whether it was my idea.

With regard to your point, if you are now claiming the ways of falsifying Darwinism have not been found and are unlikely to be found, then this is equivalent to saying it is a theory which has placed itself outside of vulnerability's reach, outside of risk of inauthentication. As such, if methods of falsifiability are unlikely to ever be found, then we must all reconcile ourselves to accepting the notion that this NOT SCIENCE.

What good is a method of inauthentication, of falsifiablity, if that method can never be found to test the theory. This is Marxism, Freudian Psychology and the Pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Biology.

I'm sorry, but that statement is laughable.

I did not say that methods of unfalsifiability are unlikely ever to be found. I said that we are unlikely to find actual evidence that falsifies the theory. If you don't understand the difference in those two statements, then we have a big problem.


You also need to understand that my statement that I think the theory is unlikely to be falsified is my opinion and nothing else.

Many of us have given you definite, unqualified, no-question-about-it methods in the right-here-and-now how to falsify Darwin's theory.

There is no ad-hoc explanation that could save Darwinism from mammal bones actually dated to the pre-Cambrian.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would be a very, very bad thing if science were to concern itself with the possible social consequences of scientific facts. Are scientists really to say "I will slacken the burden of disproof on this topic because I think it will make the world a better place"? That would end up unravelling science altogether....

This is a false dichotomy. Why would a scientific investigation of possible social consequences of scientific facts result in slackening the burden of disproof? In fact, not only is it a false dichotomy, as you've worded it here it is an illogical conclusion. You are claiming that science would want to claim an unsupportable conclusion and that would somehow result in a better world. Dishonest science is not science. It is the opposite of how scientists would deal with a social consequence. You can't lie and change the evidence by it.

 

[citizenzen]

And every time someone falsifies it, some evolutionary biologists says, "Oh yes that is true, but that doesn't count".

Acceptability is irrelevant here.

Again ... whiplash.

From here on out I'll have to rely solely on peripheral vision.

 

[Patrick1000]

This is what you wrote

I'm sorry, but that statement is laughable.

I did not say that methods of unfalsifiability are unlikely ever to be found. I said that we are unlikely to find actual evidence that falsifies the theory. If you don't understand the difference in those two statements, then we have a big problem.


You also need to understand that my statement that I think the theory is unlikely to be falsified is my opinion and nothing else.

Many of us have given you definite, unqualified, no-question-about-it methods in the right-here-and-now how to falsify Darwin's theory.

There is no ad-hoc explanation that could save Darwinism from mammal bones actually dated to the pre-Cambrian.

This is what you wrote;

"There are ways to falsify it. The problem is that the ways to falsify it haven't been found and are unlikely to be found."

I take that to mean you believe a method for the falsification of Darwinism is not available and most likely never will be. If that is the case, Darwinism is not science. Not in any modern sense anyway.

 

[Patrick1000]

what does "whiplash" mean?

Again ... whiplash.

From here on out I'll have to rely solely on peripheral vision.

What does "whiplash" mean? Forgive me for being obtuse.

 

[citizenzen]

"There are ways to falsify it. The problem is that the ways evidence to falsify it haven't hasn't been found and are unlikely to be found."

Does that help?

What does "whiplash" mean? Forgive me for being obtuse.

Your flip-flops make my head spin?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is what you wrote;

"There are ways to falsify it. The problem is that the ways to falsify it haven't been found and are unlikely to be found."

I take that to mean you believe a method for the falsification of Darwinism is not available and most likely never will be. If that is the case, Darwinism is not science. Not in any modern sense anyway.

No. You need to see the distinction.

There are ways to falsify Darwin's theory. I gave you one initially when this part of the discussion began -- mammal bones dated to the pre-Cambrian.

Then there is the issue that the way of physically falsifying Darwin's theory -- actually finding those mammal bones dated to the pre-Cambrian -- has not occurred. I think it is very unlikely that it ever will occur.

You will have to please excuse my poor use of the English language and the ambiguities inherent to it as evidence of a problem in Darwinian theory.


ETA:

Or, what citizenzen said.

 

[Patrick1000]

Kimura changed the rules

I don't understand your point. How has anyone proved Darwinism false and then someone changed the rules? You certainly cannot claim issues with cytochrome oxidase c, since the only 'disproof of Darwinism' there is based on complete misunderstanding of the theory and protein composition, structure and function.

If you have an actual disproof of Darwin's thought that someone changed the rules of the game to save I would be very interested to read it.

Kimura changed the rules. He said biologic information changes over time independent of environmental pressure, independent of natural selection.

So is that like a switch, Darwinism, Natural Selection, sometimes its on, sometimes its off, depending on the particular embarrassing situation the evolutionary biologist is trying to explain his/her way out of?

 

[Egg]

First, from an earlier comment you made, I'm not insulting you (arguing with ad homs) to say your god beliefs are a problem here. I'm merely pointing out what we know about god beliefs, they are most often the result of indoctrination and as such seriously interfere with one's objectivity to look at the evidence said beliefs include many false conclusions.

He wasn't claiming insult, he was claiming you were aiming your argument at the poster instead of the argument. The old "you're only saying that because..." is a form of ad hom fallacy (motivation fallacy). Any arguer can level it at another since we all usually come to the table with prejudice one way or another. There's always a cause behind whatever beliefs or conclusion you might be arguing for. Better to stick to reason.

Oddly enough, now you are insulting Westprog by attacking his ability to be objective.

As for 'science should not be interested', that's shockingly ludicrous. God beliefs are a major component of anthropology, sociology, and psychology. And it's very likely there is a biological component that differs from one human to the next. Science has a critical interest in something that is such a large part of the human psyche.

Misquoted and misrepresented. Not concerned with God hypothesis is a different concept from not interested in god beliefs.

 

[Tricky]

I take that to mean you believe a method for the falsification of Darwinism is not available and most likely never will be. If that is the case, Darwinism is not science. Not in any modern sense anyway.

Darwinism is a strawman created by the religious right to try to discredit evolution. Naturally, Darwin didn't have everything right. He lived over a century ago and he didn't know anything about genetics. But he had a good idea, much of which, but not all, has been incorporated into the modern theory of evolution. If you want to discuss evolution, don't bother attacking "Darwinism" because it's like attacking "Pasteurism". They were brilliant scientists who were limited by the knowledge and tools of their age. No modern scientist works on "Darwinsim". They work on "evolution".

So if you're going to contest evolution, contest the modern theories. Perhaps you might want to study a little before you do, though, because you appear to be extremely ignorant of the modern theory.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Kimura changed the rules. He said biologic information changes over time independent of environmental pressure, independent of natural selection.

So is that like a switch, Darwinism, Natural Selection, sometimes its on, sometimes its off, depending on the particular embarrassing situation the evolutionary biologist is trying to explain his/her way out of?

He didn't change any rule. Darwinism has always held that natural selection works on phenotypic change. That we can define informational change in more than one way just confuses the issue. The cytochrome c oxidase changes to which you referred did not involve any phenotypic change in the organism. There are plenty of cytochrome c oxidase changes that do cause phenotypic change. We call them mitochondrial diseases, of which Leigh's disease is one example.