Is misapplication of a science evidence against it?

[KingsGambit]

The underlying distinction being that science is based on the real, and religion is based on the imaginary. So the only valid way to do science is to investigate reality, while the only way to do religion is to either accept or reject the figments of someone's imagination. Reality doesn't usually care what people think of it, while what people think of it is all religion consists of.

And so through religious eyes, it's not necessary even to know what the theory of evolution says, much less what it's based on. All that's necessary is to SAY that it's a source of evil and have people believe you. SAYING things are true is the ONLY way religious truths arise and propagate. BEING true really doesn't signify.

No, I don't think this line of argumentation necessitates an a priori belief that all of the supernatural is fraudulent. Rather, I see it as attempting to demonstrate what is/isn't likely based on probability. This is of course hardly watertight but it is not possible to use the scientific method to examine religious claims so it's understandable that a different line of attack would be used.

[Method]

At most, it could be used to demonstrate that teaching evolution is dangerous, which is not the same as refuting it of course.

How is it any more dangerous than teaching chemistry or nuclear physics. Just like evolution, chemistry and nuclear physics can be used for evil or good. All scientific theories can do is tell us what the outcome of a specific action will be. The theories don't tell us which actions we should take.

[klaus54]

A few quick hits:

"Fundamentalist" should not be used as an insult. It very literally refers to Christians who want to focus on the fundamentals of the faith. There are many, many people in fundamentalist churches who love the Lord with their heart, their mind (yes, their mind), and their soul. And yes, I think that means that "fundy atheist" should not be used as an insult either.

Cerebrum is not anywhere close to Jorge. He is a reasonable user who engages with evidence, asks and answers questions, and does not resort to slanderous accusations of drunkenness if cornered. Jorge behaves boorishly, Cerebrum does not. So let's dispense with that ridiculousness right now.

So how should be classified re the origins issue?

My use of "Fundy" is "I know I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me must be wrong -- REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCES AND LOGICAL FALLACIES." I added that last bolded part since he likely would turn the first two back round on me and rwatts, HMS_B, Method, Rogue, usw.

"Recalcitrant YEC" perhaps?

Problem is I don't how tightly YEC/anti-evolutionism ideology is wound into his Christian faith. If it turns out to be conditio sine qua non, then he has REAL problems.

That fact that he agrees (an vehemently so) with Jorge on his category error is, to say the least, disturbing.

K54

[phank]

No, I don't think this line of argumentation necessitates an a priori belief that all of the supernatural is fraudulent. Rather, I see it as attempting to demonstrate what is/isn't likely based on probability. This is of course hardly watertight but it is not possible to use the scientific method to examine religious claims so it's understandable that a different line of attack would be used.

But the "different line of attack" as far as I can tell consists entirely of untestable assertions. Consider: when scientists disagree (which happens a lot), they isolate the points of disagreement, and construct focused tests to determine the facts. Eventually, they agree. When religious people disagree, there is no arbiter, no evidence, no possible test, nothing objective to turn to. So in religion we see schisms, and tens of thousands of Christian sects with no hope of reconciliation. This is the inevitable result of incompatible untestable assertions.

So all religious claims boil down to "I'm right because I THINK I'm right" or because I SAID I'm right, or because holy person X said it, or because it's written in a book I regard as infallible (according to my interpretations, since all other interpretations are wrong. Because I SAY they're wrong).

So it is quintessentially religious to dispute the theory of evolution no on any biological evidence (religions don't deal in evidence), but rather by attacking the holy founder of the order.

(And incidentally, I would not consider "imaginary" to be a synonym with "fraudulent." Novels are not fraud, they are fiction.)

[KingsGambit]

How is it any more dangerous than teaching chemistry or nuclear physics. Just like evolution, chemistry and nuclear physics can be used for evil or good. All scientific theories can do is tell us what the outcome of a specific action will be. The theories don't tell us which actions we should take.

I'm not actually arguing anything along those lines. I'm simply pointing out that pursuing moral lines of argumentation to elicit scientific data is a category mistake.

[Roy]

yes.

Thank you

Roy

[rwatts]

Like I said, those who would be the closest to even being considered "Godly" would know better than try and make themselves into that kind of authority. Even Paul would delineate that which he was certain was a message from God, from his own thoughts on the matter.



So you are insinuating that if a person does believe the Bible then they can never claim an action of theirs to be "Godly" or "inspired by God", because if they really did believe the Bible, then they would know that they are sinners?

How does that logic follow in practice C123? I meet lots of folk in these kinds of forums who claim the most intimate of relationships with God, and to be guided by the Holy Spirit on the one hand, but have no qualms about misrepresenting the ideas of others on the other hand. And they also claim to be "born again" and "Bible believers".

Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, agnositcs, Buddhists - could not make those claims, could they C123. Only folk who claim to believe the Bible could make them.

Except for atheists and agnostics I have met others who claim to believe the Bible in those other categories. Again, the people you are talking about sound far more like the Pharisees* of Jesus' day.

So what?

No, those deaths were not "entailed" by Newton's theories.

A lot like eugenics is not entailed by Darwin’s theory, but rather ...

Human nature applied to them is what caused that.




Human nature applied to Darwin’s theory is was brought about eugenics.



There is nothing inherent in Newton's theories that says we should be killing the less "fit" because otherwise we will degenerate.

But there is everything inherent in Newton’s theory that allows us to kill others with more efficiency if we so desire it, just at there is everything inherent in Darwin’s theory that allows us to view others as less fit, if we so desire it.

Yes, that is what Darwin said, yes he did deny it. Same as Marc Antony denied wanting to upset people


?



Everyone here defending him is ignoring what he said, and what is clear he wanted done. They are defending him in spite of this being shown to their faces, because they have a little bit of plausible deniability to hide behind.

Same data, different interpretation I guess?

No you are not. You are defending a bad philosophy, along with a cowardly, two-faced politician who wanted people to take his "science" seriously. Darwin mostly supported his theory not with facts or evidence, but by arguing against straw men, and ignoring evidence. Seems that much of the same has been going on the same ever since. The "evidence" that is used to support it today seems to be more flimsy every day to me. I'll admit right now that I could be wrong, but that's what I see when I read articles, or posts in support of Evolution(yeah, and stop blaming Jorge for making up the definition he uses, one of your own, Gerald Kerkut).



You could actually read the articles I post describing how the theory is often demonstrated and tested. However both Jorge and you are conspicuous by your absence.

... or posts in support of Evolution(yeah, and stop blaming Jorge for making up the definition he uses, one of your own, Gerald Kerkut).

I don't ever see Jorge making that attribution. Besides, if Jorge is serious about his two evolutions, then I must do a thread starter about the two meteorologies, one scientific and the other science falsely called. Let's see if both you and Jorge can participate, the latter without ranting.

The "prescientific" thing is simply your way of trying to paint them as ignorant.

That’s a silly thing to say.



Are you suggesting that every culture that’s ever existed is a scientific one - and hence they understood about genes, atoms, thermodynamics, chromosomes, mutations etc?

I've never had a problem with it, neither did Dee Dee Warren, or JP Holding. You think maybe your samples are a bit biased?

I don’t remember implying that the three of you make up the majority of YECs on these forums. Surely there’s more than 3 YECs on the planet?

I've read quite a bit of it actually. And every single one of them has a basis in what Charles Darwin and his colleagues, whom he stated emphatic agreement with. Ernst Haeckel being the most notorious. Stephen Jay Gould even has him as a leading influence for Nazism. Hmm, who was Ernst Haeckel influenced, and encouraged by?



Then I was correct with my quip after all, wasn’t I. Many YECs do see Darwin as the new Satan, and you appear to be one of them.





Given that you understand the theory so darn well, I’m sure I will see you in my threads explaining why those experiments on evolution are not, in fact, good science?



And I don't think I'm far wrong in claiming that for many YECs, Darwin is the new Satan. An example from here, which I see often made by creationists:-

“.... "survival of the fittest" - that remains every bit as valid today as it did in 1859, has been and continues to be used as "scientific" justification for eugenics (as well as euthanasia, abortion, genocide, and a host of other social atrocities). “

[jordanriver]

Confusing.

Are you being facetious or just going over my head again?

Just to clarify for a dunce like me, are you saying that the Genesis stories are not scientifically accurate?

I thought you said they were history? History necessarily exists in a physical universe. Earth's and the Cosmo's histories are decoded by scientific method.

So are you a YEC/anti-evolutionist or an OEC or a TE or what?

Confused...

K54

P.S. " ................really???" WHAT?

context, klause54, context.


when a reply includes the quote that one is replying to, it should mean the reply is relevant.


tabibito remarked that there is not very much information in the Bible about origins details, here is the quote again that I replied to:

Posted by tabibito

Not to mention that all of pre-history is wrapped up in something less than 30 pages. Even on the Biblical chronology, that's barely enough for a preamble to a potted history.

my reply did not say Genesis is inaccurate or accurate.


In the CONTEXT, neither did tabibto's post indicate whether or not Genesis is inaccurate or inaccurate.


In the CONTEXT, it appeared (TO ME) that tabibito merely commented on how how little information there was.
(that means probably not enough information for people who are interested in ORIGINS NATURAL HISTORY)


My reply meant there does not need to be more information vis-a-vis ORIGINS NATURAL HISTORY,
...... not in The Bible


and at the end , the way I typed 'really???'

I didn't know there was anybody left who does not know that that is the same as saying: "what, are you kidding?"

or

"what? are you joking?"

or

"are you serious"

OK, like THIS

[klaus54]

context, klause54, context.


when a reply includes the quote that one is replying to, it should mean the reply is relevant.


tabibito remarked that there is not very much information in the Bible about origins details, here is the quote again that I replied to:


my reply did not say Genesis is inaccurate or accurate.


In the CONTEXT, neither did tabibto's post indicate whether or not Genesis is inaccurate or inaccurate.


In the CONTEXT, it appeared (TO ME) that tabibito merely commented on how how little information there was.
(that means probably not enough information for people who are interested in ORIGINS NATURAL HISTORY)


My reply meant there does not need to be more information vis-a-vis ORIGINS NATURAL HISTORY,
...... not in The Bible


and at the end , the way I typed 'really???'

I didn't know there was anybody left who does not know that that is the same as saying: "what, are you kidding?"

or

"what? are you joking?"

or

"are you serious"

OK, like THIS

If I understand you correctly, which is unlikely because my lower intellect, you're implying that there should be little or no conflict between the historical sciences (astronomy, geology, paleontology, ...) and the creation stories in Genesis since the latter has little details (a potted history as Tabitito sez.)

Is that correct?

So you shouldn't have a problem with the scientific record of astronomical and geological history as it is also a study of creation, and a very detailed and consilient study involving volumes of data.

The Bible says "who" and "why" and the study of nature says "how".

Is that correct?

K54

[jordanriver]

The Bible says "who" and "why" and the study of nature says "how".

Is that correct?

K54

sometimes.

...sometimes science is self-correcting...