Why science and religion are not compatible

[Patrick1000]

Off topic, but your English is excellent

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.

Off topic, but your English is excellent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's certainly possible to start with the assumption that gods are delusions, and then to gather evidence as to how such an illusion might be generated. Note that I've not said that this research should not take place!

It's just that such research couldn't then claim that the empirical fact of such gods (or any others) existing had been thereby disproved. (Or some similar word substituted - I know the Wasp isn't keen on using proof and disproof as a scientific term).

Do we have overwhelming evidence Zeus and Thor do not exist, or is that too strongly worded in your opinion? Which creation myths are overwhelmingly unlikely? Can we say there is overwhelming evidence Pele' does not cause volcanic eruptions? Are we relatively certain it is not turtles all the way down?

How many god beliefs need to be shown are myths coupled with the fact there is no evidence for the truth of a single god belief before we can draw a broader conclusion that all gods are myths? Where do you see the balance of evidence potentially tipping toward a conclusion we can apply more generally to god beliefs?

You've no doubt heard the claim that an atheist merely believes in one less god than a monotheist. As a monotheist, one has drawn the conclusion that every god belief but one's own is a myth. And as a monotheist, one believes in one's own god without any demonstrable evidence.

If those same rules of analysis were applied to other fields of science, we could not draw general conclusions about anything. We could have no conclusions about gravity, evolution theory, plate tectonics, cosmology, you name it. The idea that once you see a clear and undisputed pattern you still cannot draw a general conclusion from that evidence would put an illogical burden on the scientific process. What you are suggesting is we apply a double standard to the science of god beliefs because you don't like the social consequences of applying scientific analysis to the overwhelming evidence that gods are fictional human creations.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Off topic, but your English is excellent.

Why do I get the feeling that you're just having a bit of fun with all of this?

 

[Paulhoff]

The problem with some is that they don't know what a scientific theory is, it is a working model that will change when information is updated, or completely thrown out and replaced with a better scientific theory when it is completely found to be wrong, unlike religious dogma that love to lie about science.

Paul

 

[Patrick1000]

Because you know I am far from having shown all of my cards.

Why do I get the feeling that you're just having a bit of fun with all of this?

Because you know I am far from having shown all of my cards. You are a talented and PERCEPTIVE debater Ichneumonwasp. I was about to write it is a pity we are not on the "same side", bit it really is no matter, we effectively are.

 

[Aridas]

The thread is about the compatibility of religion and science. For the most part, in the US, the "evolution debate" is indeed a debate about this compatibility. As most Americans identify themselves as Christian, and as the debate as it occurs in the main is about Christian belief vs evolutionary beliefs, I refer to Christianity as "religion" for that reason.

Practically speaking, it (Christianity) applies in the context of what goes on here in our country.

Again, presumptuous, much? The United States has no sole monopoly on religion. You're talking about a small portion of the larger question, and trying to turn it into the whole thing. Not only that, the question you're dealing with has, very simply, been confused with the question that we're dealing with out of arrogance, confusion, and propaganda.

But sure, I'll deal with this point, directly, even though it's not, in fact, the question at hand. The "Christianity vs. evolutionary theory" debate is a question that's only even brought up because of the creationism that many Christians try to teach or believe. Now, the interesting thing to look at here is the nature of the arguments. On the side of science? Incredible amounts of data specifically dealing with observations of the natural world and theories that base their evidence on the observable data. On the side of Christianity? No set consensus. Many, many Christians find no issue in believing both. So, lets move on down to Creationisms, subsets of Christianity. I can say, very simply, that despite review of many, many, many creationist claims, I have yet to find even one that holds up to real scrutiny. Many, frankly, are outright lies and deceptive packaging. Many are based on fundamental flaws of understanding. Many are logical fallacies that range across the whole spectrum of fallacies.

Add that to blatantly obvious financial, political, egotistical, and general worldly motivations by many of those those creating the claims, and the incredibly low standard of proof required to propagate the claims?

I could keep going, but I'd have to say that it's pretty clear, on examination, which is more trustworthy.

Either way, here's a large, but incomplete list.

See this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531

I saw it. I thought that I'd keep matters inside the thread, though. Patrick's already given far, far more than enough reason to distrust his credibility in just about every statement that he's argued.

But I may be picking up on something in your post (my spider-senses are tingling). I notice that you use the term "Darwinism" which seems archaic to me. So I looked it up and found this ...

The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.​

Can you explain why you use that term and what exactly you mean by it?

I noticed that immediately, actually. It's something of a buzzword for creationists. Neo-Darwinism is, too. Again, normally coupled with basic misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. That, added to everything else? I'd have to say that his credibility is really, really low.

Edit:

Because you know I am far from having shown all of my cards.

If it's more of the same, I'd suggest not bothering.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

But there are times when an inability to be objective is a valid point. It's only an ad hom when the insult is not true or not relevant.

How are we to address people when the arguments have been clearly presented and the other parties ignore the replies? This kind of confirmation bias happens very commonly around here.

In this case, Westprog keeps repeating the straw man that I've said [x] disproves gods, when I have actually said the best explanation for gods based on overwhelming evidence is that they are fiction. It would appear that Westprog is unable to recognize the difference since he has repeated the straw man several times in this discussion. I'm trying to get past the barrier by brining up the reason I think Westprog is unable to see how he is distorting what he's reading.

I can keep repeating the knowledge but the problem is not a knowledge deficit. So I need to try a different approach. I'm looking to address the confirmation bias which I think is the problem in this case.

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

Feel free to elaborate. I see only a semantic argument but I am open to a different interpretation.

 

[Patrick1000]

Why didn't they toss out Darwinism when they came across the Cytochrome c thing?

The problem with some is that they don't know what a scientific theory is, it is a working model that will change when information is updated, or completely thrown out and replaced with a better scientific theory when it is completely found to be wrong, unlike religious dogma that love to lie about science.

Paul

Why didn't they toss/completely throw out out Darwinism when they came across the Cytochrome c thing in 1963 then? Or at least in 1977 when Carl Woese "discovered" an entirely new "super kingdom" of living things, Archaebactria. Seems like they could keep the good stuff with the pseudoscience qualifier, Lord knows we do it with Freud. Why not Darwin?

 

[Patrick1000]

How about Intelligent Design?

Again, presumptuous, much? The United States has no sole monopoly on religion. You're talking about a small portion of the larger question, and trying to turn it into the whole thing. Not only that, the question you're dealing with has, very simply, been confused with the question that we're dealing with out of arrogance, confusion, and propaganda.

But sure, I'll deal with this point, directly, even though it's not, in fact, the question at hand. The "Christianity vs. evolutionary theory" debate is a question that's only even brought up because of the creationism that many Christians try to teach or believe. Now, the interesting thing to look at here is the nature of the arguments. On the side of science? Incredible amounts of data specifically dealing with observations of the natural world and theories that base their evidence on the observable data. On the side of Christianity? No set consensus. Many, many Christians find no issue in believing both. So, lets move on down to Creationisms, subsets of Christianity. I can say, very simply, that despite review of many, many, many creationist claims, I have yet to find even one that holds up to real scrutiny. Many, frankly, are outright lies and deceptive packaging. Many are based on fundamental flaws of understanding. Many are logical fallacies that range across the whole spectrum of fallacies.

Add that to blatantly obvious financial, political, egotistical, and general worldly motivations by many of those those creating the claims, and the incredibly low standard of proof required to propagate the claims?

I could keep going, but I'd have to say that it's pretty clear, on examination, which is more trustworthy.

Either way, here's a large, but incomplete list.



I saw it. I thought that I'd keep matters inside the thread, though. Patrick's already given far, far more than enough reason to distrust his credibility in just about every statement that he's argued.



I noticed that immediately, actually. It's something of a buzzword for creationists. Neo-Darwinism is, too. Again, normally coupled with basic misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. That, added to everything else? I'd have to say that his credibility is really, really low.

Edit:



If it's more of the same, I'd suggest not bothering.

How about Intelligent Design Aridas, any merit to it do you think?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why didn't they toss/completely throw out out Darwinism when they came across the Cytochrome c thing in 1963 then? Or at least in 1977 when Carl Woese "discovered" an entirely new "super kingdom" of living things, Archaebactria. Seems like they could keep the good stuff with the pseudoscience qualifier, Lord knows we do it with Freud. Why not Darwin?

Why would anyone even think of throwing out Darwin's theory in those situations? There was no reason even to consider the idea.

 

[Aridas]

Why didn't they toss/completely throw out out Darwinism when they came across the Cytochrome c thing in 1963 then? Or at least in 1977 when Carl Woese "discovered" an entirely new "super kingdom" of living things, Archaebactria. Seems like they could keep the good stuff with the pseudoscience qualifier, Lord knows we do it with Freud. Why not Darwin?

Well, let's see. Maybe you can first consider the points made in this video and the associated ones?

How about Intelligent Design Aridas, any merit to it do you think?

Depends on the form. If you're talking about the Intelligent Design movement? Bunk. Rather pathetic bunk, honestly. It is, literally, just creationism repackaged, in an attempt to produce a thin coating of respectability.

The moment you try to put purely rhetorical and ignorance-inducing arguments into a science classroom as a counterpoint to scientific theories? Bunk.

This is a completely off the top of my head example, so it's not perfect, but it's a similar principle as some of the arguments that ID put forth in their attempts to get creationism into the classroom.

I'll give a child three pictures, one of the sun, one of a lit light bulb or camp fire of about the same visual size, and one of a picture of a starry expanse, then tell the child that "scientists" say that the sun and the dots of light are more similar, but that they should look at the pictures for themselves and make their own decisions about the matter.

Frankly, if you have any difficulty at all seeing even one of the many problems of trying to use this kind of approach in a science classroom, I'd suggest taking several steps back and start re-evaluating the assumptions that you're basing your views on.

If you're talking about the possibility that life on Earth was manipulated by some intelligence? Maybe, maybe not. I, honestly, see no logical reason why it couldn't have happened, but no particular reason to believe that it did.

If you're talking about the possibility of a creator deity? Not particularly testable until you add more than that. No reason to believe in it, specifically, either, logically, philosophically, or otherwise.

 

[Paulhoff]

Why didn't they toss/completely throw out out Darwinism when they came across the Cytochrome c thing in 1963 then? Or at least in 1977 when Carl Woese "discovered" an entirely new "super kingdom" of living things, Archaebactria. Seems like they could keep the good stuff with the pseudoscience qualifier, Lord knows we do it with Freud. Why not Darwin?

Again, why do you bring up this one thing when it has been told to you why is hasn't changed much. If something works well and changing it make an organism lets likely to survive it most likely will not be passed on.


¿Also what does finding a new kingdom have to do with evolution?


Simple, what is your problem.

Paul

 

[Lowpro]

Are you saying because conservation of Cytochrome C which does not a species make is significant to Darwin's Theory of Evolution which addresses natural selection?

Relate Cytochrome C to natural selection (other than if it doesn't do its job in the ETC then you're probably dead) such that the theory is in jeopardy.

Remember when I told you that you REALLY don't have a good grasp on what evolution is, you just have these bits and pieces and you're trying to make it represent what evolution ACTUALLY is, which isn't just the theory of natural selection, though that is a mechanism. I mean really, you're arguing the Cytochrome C against evidence that is OVERWHELMING thinking that it's balanced precariously. The more likely thing is that you really don't know enough to make a conclusion.

Plus if you just don't like Darwinism, that's fine. Go with the evidence, which is overwhelming for Darwin's theories and even refined beyond his days because genetics became much more interesting.

Seriously, get Evolutionary Analysis. You really need it if you want to succeed in this discussion.

 

[Patrick1000]

I just did that, related it to natural selection

Are you saying because conservation of Cytochrome C which does not a species make is significant to Darwin's Theory of Evolution which addresses natural selection?

Relate Cytochrome C to natural selection (other than if it doesn't do its job in the ETC then you're probably dead) such that the theory is in jeopardy.

Remember when I told you that you REALLY don't have a good grasp on what evolution is, you just have these bits and pieces and you're trying to make it represent what evolution ACTUALLY is, which isn't just the theory of natural selection, though that is a mechanism. I mean really, you're arguing the Cytochrome C against evidence that is OVERWHELMING thinking that it's balanced precariously. The more likely thing is that you really don't know enough to make a conclusion.




Plus if you just don't like Darwinism, that's fine. Go with the evidence, which is overwhelming for Darwin's theories and even refined beyond his days because genetics became much more interesting.

Seriously, get Evolutionary Analysis. You really need it if you want to succeed in this discussion.

I just did that, related it to natural selection. The protein changes over time, independent of selection pressure. Biologists call this "neutral evolution". I call it CHEATING.

Again this is one example. There are many other cases where Darwinism is falsified and biologists make up some silly story to save face. Motoo Kimura's "Neutral Evolution" is one such piece of poppycock. And mind you, this is not to say the Kimura is not correct in his general assertion with regard to the cytochrome c phenotype changing over time independent of selection pressure. The point is that it has nothing to do with Darwinism, with evolution, and he should quit pretending that it does, as should the rest of the evolutionary mainstream biologist that buy in to this bull.

 

[Lowpro]

What do you mean that it's cheating?! If the code changes for Cytochrome C but it still functions then so what? If it didn't function, then the organism would probably would die, as organisms with bad mitochondria are wont to do.

And ichneumowasp ALREADY mentioned what it is (molecular clocks) because there is very little pressure for it to be modified (because the changes either do nothing or something so devastating that it dies and the changes don't get recorded in their lineage.

It's like you're saying that evolution MUST only occur absent mutation which is ridiculous, because natural selection states that the changes would indeed either have no effect and therefor be passed down with no real change to population, or have an effect for better or for worse and effect their population for better or for worse.*

How the hell can you call that cheating? With evidence other than how you feel about it, how can you call that a blow to Darwinism unless you mean DARWIN'S darwinism, because the poor schmuck had little idea of genetic sequence and mutations but we do now and have identified them and explicated them.

Are you saying it's cheating because we modified our definition because more evidence came in? And mainstream biologists are now suckers because of that? That's like equating Transposons "Jumping Genes" as devastating to the ToE just because they themselves are slave to chemistry first before natural selection while ignoring the fact that they themselves can promote or even kill an organism, therefor selecting... I guess most mathematicians should have just abandoned their careers with the advent of fractal geometry.

*notice, it's the population number that matters, not the organism in particular.

 

[Patrick1000]

The main point with arguing creationism in the classroom is Darwinism is atheistic

Well, let's see. Maybe you can first consider the points made in this video and the associated ones?



Depends on the form. If you're talking about the Intelligent Design movement? Bunk. Rather pathetic bunk, honestly. It is, literally, just creationism repackaged, in an attempt to produce a thin coating of respectability.

The moment you try to put purely rhetorical and ignorance-inducing arguments into a science classroom as a counterpoint to scientific theories? Bunk.

This is a completely off the top of my head example, so it's not perfect, but it's a similar principle as some of the arguments that ID put forth in their attempts to get creationism into the classroom.

I'll give a child three pictures, one of the sun, one of a lit light bulb or camp fire of about the same visual size, and one of a picture of a starry expanse, then tell the child that "scientists" say that the sun and the dots of light are more similar, but that they should look at the pictures for themselves and make their own decisions about the matter.

Frankly, if you have any difficulty at all seeing even one of the many problems of trying to use this kind of approach in a science classroom, I'd suggest taking several steps back and start re-evaluating the assumptions that you're basing your views on.

If you're talking about the possibility that life on Earth was manipulated by some intelligence? Maybe, maybe not. I, honestly, see no logical reason why it couldn't have happened, but no particular reason to believe that it did.

If you're talking about the possibility of a creator deity? Not particularly testable until you add more than that. No reason to believe in it, specifically, either, logically, philosophically, or otherwise.

The main argument for creationism in the classroom is that neo-Darwinism is atheistic given its mechanism being unintentional. If that is being taught, which it is, then the creationists have a very valid gripe.

 

[Patrick1000]

It's CHEATING to say evolution is one thing and then another.

What do you mean that it's cheating?! If the code changes for Cytochrome C but it still functions then so what? If it didn't function, then the organism would probably would die, as organisms with bad mitochondria are wont to do.

And ichneumowasp ALREADY mentioned what it is (molecular clocks) because there is very little pressure for it to be modified (because the changes either do nothing or something so devastating that it dies and the changes don't get recorded in their lineage.

It's like you're saying that evolution MUST only occur absent mutation which is ridiculous, because natural selection states that the changes would indeed either have no effect and therefor be passed down with no real change to population, or have an effect for better or for worse and effect their population for better or for worse.*

How the hell can you call that cheating? With evidence other than how you feel about it, how can you call that a blow to Darwinism unless you mean DARWIN'S darwinism, because the poor schmuck had little idea of genetic sequence and mutations but we do now and have identified them and explicated them.

Are you saying it's cheating because we modified our definition because more evidence came in? And mainstream biologists are now suckers because of that? That's like equating Transposons "Jumping Genes" as devastating to the ToE just because they themselves are slave to chemistry first before natural selection while ignoring the fact that they themselves can promote or even kill an organism, therefor selecting... I guess most mathematicians should have just abandoned their careers with the advent of fractal geometry.

*notice, it's the population number that matters, not the organism in particular.

It's CHEATING to say evolution's mechanism is one thing and then say it is another. It cannot be all things. In such a case, where it explains all cases, even those directly contradicting its basic early tenets, then it has taken no risks and explains nothing, says nothing.

 

[Lowpro]

The main argument for creationism in the classroom is that neo-Darwinism is atheistic given the mechanism being unintentional. If that is being taught, which it is, then the creationists have a very valid gripe.

Not quite. Creationists argue that all animals were specially created. The theory of evolution says that all animals evolved from a common ancestor, and even provides the mechanism. There is loads of evidence for this. There is NO evidence for creationism.

Evolution does not deny a creator for abiogenesis, it doesn't seem to care to as far as I can tell, though biologists are very interested in what started life.

Creationists have no valid gripe with the theory of evolution. They have no evidence against it.

Evolution is atheistic only because it doesn't give have evidence for a creator of all animals NOW for sure, and that extends all the way back to the first organism, because at that point evolution can't really say all that much as there isn't much going on for it to say anyways.

 

[Lowpro]

It's CHEATING to say evolution's mechanism is one thing and then say it is another. It cannot be all things. In such a case, where it explains all cases, even those directly contradicting its basic early tenets, then it has taken no risks and explains nothing, says nothing.

Evolution's mechanism is a matter of fitness. If genes change due to CHEMISTRY and they don't change fitness, that is STILL a part of evolution because fitness is still effected, even if it's part of the null hypothesis.

If the change FROM CHEMISTRY effected an organism's fitness, it's STILL part of evolution because fitness is still effected.*

Yes it's part of evolution, because the mechanism explains FITNESS.

Address the points I've made rather than my first sentence because you seemed to have skipped everything so I have to repeat myself. That's annoying, and unwarranted seeing as I've recommended you a VERY good book that'll teach you all this, with demonstrable evidence and statistics to boot; it's even got pretty graphs to show you.

That definitely isn't cheating, unless you consider statistics to be cheating (many people do though... )

*I clarified it once, I should again though that it's not just the organism's fitness that matters but how that fitness effects its offspring and therefor the population.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The main argument for creationism in the classroom is that neo-Darwinism is atheistic given its mechanism being unintentional. If that is being taught, which it is, then the creationists have a very valid gripe.

It is not taught as atheistic in the classroom. No mention of religion is made. There is no need to appeal to intention in Darwin's theory, but it also does not disprove intention.

And why would that matter in the first place?