Evolution Theory is Error

ChocolateSauce

Further to that, I'd like to say: The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance.
-- Richard Dawkins,

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm gonna give my token "why we fight" speech.

It promotes the perception that science is built on unfounded assumptions, that it is arbitrary, spurious. Creationists use the language of science to make their position seem more complex, as complex as possible really, to deflect casual investigation.

I do agree with you - Creationists create confusion in religious discussion too-with the same technique.

They use less well known passages to make arguments sound a lot more sophisticated.

Galvasean

We should form a society; Scientists And* Religious Folk Against Creationism (SARFAC)


*Please note SARFAC acknowledges that religious folk can be scientists too.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

We should form a society; Scientists And* Religious Folk Against Creationism (SARFAC)


*Please note SARFAC acknowledges that religious folk can be scientists too.

Make it for the defence of science rather than against creationism specifically!

Scientists And/Or Religious Folks For Science

SA/ORFFS

Catchy, yes?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Make it for the defence of science rather than against creationism specifically!

Scientists And/Or Religious Folks For Science

SA/ORFFS

Catchy, yes?

You'll have to battle with the Scientific Theologians Upholding the Principles of Intelligent Design.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

You'll have to battle with the Scientific Theologians Upholding the Principles of Intelligent Design.

Theres an Oxymoron in there somewhere

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CDfm wrote: »

Theres an Oxymoron in there somewhere

There might be an acronym in there as well

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Scientists And/Or Religious Folks For Science

Science for some. And small American Flags for others.

UU

Dades wrote: »

Welcome back, UU. It's been a while!

btw - Gareth37 is banned for a while so don't expect a response.

I should really lock this thread or something...

No problem at all. Been busy with stuff had to go to a Catholic funeral of my grandfather this week was a bit awkward since I haven't been in a church in years sorta just went along with the dance moves all that kneeling and sitting and standing. haha

Oh what a shame really was hoping to have an intellectual discussion with him about Evolution but intellectual probably doesn't qualify in his terms if he's talking about things he doesn't understand in the first place anyway!

UU

CDfm wrote: »

Your views on evolution are very Catholic - that it isnt clearcut but is accepted and may never be fully proven or disproven because of the lack of physical evidence.The Catholic Church and Church of England and many other mainstream churches accept evolution and have done for a very long time.

A bit harsh trying to foist a scientist back on us ODCs - we are all about morality, spirituality morality and all that.

Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

I do beseech your pardon but I never said that and you're totally taking words about of my mouth and warping them! Please if you wish to give an intellectual discussion, those sort of things are not accepted. I said that not everything is clear-cut in Evolution and ask any proper biologist and they will agree because there are gaps in the fossil record for example. There are more fossils available for certain species such as man and less for some others. It makes it harder for some branches of species to trace back the ancestral record which is not surprising because one must consider that it is hard for fossils to survive most species that died, the fossils have not been preserved so one must be grateful for what we do in fact have. By saying that, I am not implying there is a lack of evidence for Evolution but if you understood fossil records and in relation to Evolution, there are gaps in the fossil record, but perhaps these gaps will be uncovered in the future!

My views are not Catholic at all and I am very insulted that you suggested that they are! The Catholic Church doesn't embrace Evolution fully but Intelligent Design they know very well as many other religious groups do that Evolution pushes God's role back and put's his very function in jeopardy. In fact, the Church's position on Evolution is still today very unclear. All we do know is that if they do accept it, then what about Genesis? It totally contradicts that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

I dare say there is no lack of evidence at all for Evolution, there's fossil records, proteins in the blood, genealogy, just to name a few. There is no denying that evidence may come along to disprove but none has arisen so far so there is no reason to speculate and therefore I accept Evolution as a scientific theory.

you said "that it isnt clearcut but is accepted and may never be fully proven or disproven". Remember in science proof or evidence does not equal truth. You can't ever FULLY prove anything in science (i.e. say that it is the truth 100%). This is due to the fact that new evidence may come along and disprove an accepted theory such as the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If new evidence came along tomorrow and disproved it, then we would have to create a new explanation based on that available evidence. Proving is convincing others that an explanation is good based on available evidence. Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence and has nothing to do whatsoever with being right or wrong or true or false. Evolution is an accepted scientific theory because there is a vast amount of physical (or other) evidence supporting its explanation. And it is a good explanation indeed! But it is not true in the scientific sense because nothing can ever be fully proven to be true!

I am not trying foist anything upon anyone. I'm simply pointing out the evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution. It is that the evidence against it, is not very strong. Likewise the evidence for Intelligent Design is a lot weaker and the explanation is thus a lot weaker than that for Evolution. I could talk about the evidence for and against both here if I wanted to but I may require many other long posts. please let me know if you'd like that! Well many things can be scientific theories such as the God Hypothesis!

I find it strange why you seem to think that you're all about morality. I dare say I don't think religious people are any more qualified to speak about morality than scientists, or anthropologists or doctors. Besides, morality does not come from religion. There is much evidence to suggest that that isn't so. Also biologists are now studying morality and evolution the relationship between them. It's very interesting!

CDfm

UU wrote: »

My views are not Catholic at all and I am very insulted that you suggested that they are! The Catholic Church doesn't embrace Evolution fully but Intelligent Design they know very well as many other religious groups do that Evolution pushes God's role back and put's his very function in jeopardy. In fact, the Church's position on Evolution is still today very unclear.


Also biologists are now studying morality and evolution .....

Hi UU.

I am not a creationist. My understanding of Catholic Docterine is that Evolutiion is generally accepted and not rejected and no-one says its inconcistant with faith.Its science and you wouldnt expect the Church to come out and comment on planes flying.

Thats what I meant by Catholic as opposed to someone who is creationist- accepting what is plain to see.

I dont think the Church should go out on a limb and endorce any scientific theory- its not church business to do that.

While enthusiasism for science is great. Science often strays into unethical areas. When you get scientists criticising the church for being opposed to the harvesting of stem cells from aborted foetuses that really annoys me.

CD

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

When you get scientists criticising the church for being opposed to the harvesting of stem cells from aborted foetuses that really annoys me.

From the perspective of non-believers in holy books and such, what authority does the church have to throw their weight about?

There is a bigger picture that needs to be addressed that cannot be seen in the dim light of scriptures written before modern medicine was even thought of.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

From the perspective of non-believers in holy books and such, what authority does the church have to throw their weight about?

In a democracy? The weight = their authority. If a majority of people don't think the views of the Church are important then they don't have any weight - just an opinion that people can ignore as freely as they ignore the opinions of Jehovahs Witnesses when it comes to blood transfusions.

If a majority of people in a democracy agree with the Church about harvesting stem cells from aborted foetus then that adds authority, or weight, to the Church's opinion.

If that majority is also expected to stump up the taxes to finance those who harvest the stem cells then the situation becomes even more complicated.

Zillah

Yes but it's rather unfortunate that a few bishops in California can decide they're against something and find that they can compel millions of people to vote to, say, remove the rights of homosexuals to get married.

I was thinking of starting a thread on proposition 8 later today actually.

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

Yes but it's rather unfortunate that a few bishops in California can decide they're against something and find that they can compel millions of people to vote to, say, remove the rights of homosexuals to get married.

I was thinking of starting a thread on proposition 8 later today actually.

In the end of the day people typically vote as they themselves see fit aligning themselves with church teachings when it suits themselves and going against it equally easily.

If gay rights campaigners can compel people to vote for a proposition then those opposed have an equal 'right' to compel people to vote against it.

Your beef is not so much with religion and religious people as with democracy in general

Mena

Unfortunately just because the "majority" feel something to be "true", does not make it so. Ah the times we live in.

Rev Hellfire

Mena wrote: »

Unfortunately just because the "majority" feel something to be "true", does not make it so. Ah the times we live in.

People don't typically get to vote on scientific facts, at least where I'm from.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

From the perspective of non-believers in holy books and such, what authority does the church have to throw their weight about?

There is a bigger picture that needs to be addressed that cannot be seen in the dim light of scriptures written before modern medicine was even thought of.

Wow Dades that is a sweeping generalisation.

Its not just believers that have issues with medical research- you have anti-vivesection campaigners too.Medical research is usually funded by drug companies for potential commnercial applications -so its not solely about academia - its about money and profit- but like any snakeoil salesman they sell hope.

The churchs contribution is on ethical matters. So it isnt the research itself that is the issue but the source of the cells. And there are other options to get stem cells.

We dont harvest organs from dead bodies without consent.We rightly complained when organs were taken from the bodies of children in this way.

Equally should medical research be licenced and regulated -of course it needs to be. Peer review on matters of a wider interest is not enough.Should medical research methods and ethics be open to review - I think so.

Do we regulate the way experiments are made on people -we do. You recently did have a very public case in the UK where people died and were disfigured when they were part of an experiment. Medical research in the US used to be conducted on the military or on mental patients.This was unethical. These things were done in an unregulated way to evalute commercial potential.

I dont see why because someone is a member of a church should disenfranchise them from having a view.

It seems to me that medical researchers would like to operate in a totally unregulated environment and that experience has taught us that this shouldnt be so.

Its easy to pick on believers as a soft target -but there are many other critics.

aidan24326

PDN wrote: »

If a majority of people in a democracy agree with the Church about harvesting stem cells from aborted foetus then that adds authority, or weight, to the Church's opinion.

Which is why democracy is a far from perfect political system. You must remember that 'the majority' in this case probably haven't a frickin clue about stem cell research, what it is, the science behind it, what a stem cell even is, why an embryo is automatically entitled to life while other perhaps more deserving specimens (an adult chimp, for example) aren't necessarily in their view. I don't think your average Sunday morning bible clubber is much qualified to make decisions about something like stem cell research, to be honest. Leave that to the scientific and medical experts who know what they're talking about.

aidan24326

kelly1 wrote: »

What gave you the idea that I don't accept evolution? I certainly don't reject it, I believe man could have evolved from apes but I'm not totally convinced

Not evolved from, we are apes, along with gorillas, chimps and orangutans. And the truth of why that is and how it came to be is actually vastly more spectacular and fascinating than any explanation* offered up by religion.

*invariably 'god did it'.

You have a lot of faith in science!

People in here have alot of faith in science because it works. Nobody has ever claimed that science can answer absolutely everything, but it has been hugely successful so far in allowing us to understand the world we live in. To say that religion has not would be an understatement.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CDfm wrote: »

but like any snakeoil salesman they sell hope.

Do you know who else sells hope?

CDfm

aidan24326 wrote: »

Which is why democracy is a far from perfect political system. You must remember that 'the majority' in this case probably haven't a frickin clue about stem cell research, what it is, the science behind it, what a stem cell even is, why an embryo is automatically entitled to life while other perhaps more deserving specimens (an adult chimp, for example) aren't necessarily in their view. I don't think your average Sunday morning bible clubber is much qualified to make decisions about something like stem cell research, to be honest. Leave that to the scientific and medical experts who know what they're talking about.

I dont think the women who suffered at the hands of Dr Michael Neary in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital Drogheda and got unnesscessary hysterectomies or the parents of children whose organs were put in cupboards or given to drug companies in Holles Street Hospital would agree with you.

Funny that they are so unreasonable.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

Do you know who else sells hope?

the Lotto

PDN

aidan24326 wrote: »

Leave that to the scientific and medical experts who know what they're talking about.

So what else do we leave to the experts?

Most people don't have a clue about what it takes to run a country. So the answer should be to cancel all elections and let "the experts" choose the government.

In fact, why not just let the experts run everything, since the rest of us are too dumb to be allowed an opinion? After all, our job is simply to pony up the taxes that pay "the experts". And why should stupid people like us dare to think we should have any say in that?

The experts can sit in their Vatican or Kremlin and make decisions that determine the lives of the rest of us plebs. Wonderful idea!

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

So what else do we leave to the experts?

The experts can sit in their Vatican or Kremlin and make decisions that determine the lives of the rest of us plebs. Wonderful idea!

PDN - I was with you there until the Vatican comment - I dont understand it. CD

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The experts can sit in their Vatican or Kremlin and make decisions that determine the lives of the rest of us plebs. Wonderful idea!

And leaving decisions -- say like the Lisbon Treaty -- to a public which remains willfully uninformed about the topic is a good idea?

The issue is more subtle than you're making out, as you're well aware.

Good decisions in public policy are made when people make an effort to inform their opinions on the basis of reliable evidence and do not choose the easy way out, by outsourcing their opinions to third parties like Ken Ham, Libertas or the Vatican who -- despite expending vast efforts in seeming to -- do not operate in an evidence-based reality.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

PDN - I was with you there until the Vatican comment - I dont understand it. CD

I think he is saying the Vatican is akin to the Kremlin or the Whitehouse in that they believe they deserve respect as experts.

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

PDN - I was with you there until the Vatican comment - I dont understand it. CD

At one time the Vatican claimed complete authority over everybody. If you opted out then you were tortured and killed. At a later period the Kremlin operated on the same principle.

Today the Catholic Church is governed by the purest democracy of all - people voting with their feet. If you don't like what the Church is saying or doing then you can withdraw yourself from services, withdraw your money from the offering basket, and the Church changes faster than a hundred Martin Luthers could ever have achieved.

That is why I am a secularist. I do not think the State should give the Church any artificial aid (eg using my taxes to fund Catholic schools) or any veto over any State policy.

However, as a secularist I also believe that the Church has the same right as any other non-governmental body to lobby and to protest.

If the government wanted to build a new motorway that involved demolishing Croke Park then the GAA would mobilise its members to oppose such a scheme. That is their democratic right. The Church, in a secular State, should have the same rights to lobby etc as the GAA - no more and no less. If they can convince enough people to support them then both the Church and the GAA (or the Humanist Society) have the right in a democratic society to throw their weight around.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And leaving decisions -- say like the Lisbon Treaty -- to a public which remains willfully uninformed about the topic is a good idea?

The issue is more subtle than you're making out, as you're well aware.

Good decisions in public policy are made when people make an effort to inform their opinions on the basis of reliable evidence and do not choose the easy way out, by outsourcing their opinions to third parties like Ken Ham, Libertas or the Vatican who -- despite expending vast efforts in seeming to -- do not operate in an evidence-based reality.

It's a case of winning hearts and minds, Robin.

This "leave it to us because we are the experts" crap makes me sick.

I refuse to do it in my church. I spend hours every day carefully explaining stuff, reasoning with people, because I know that every doctrine or policy in our church will work only insofar as people catch the vision for themselves. I have no right to say "I am the clergyman and the theologian, so trust me because I'm an expert". If I want people in our church to believe good doctrine and support our policies then I need to win their hearts and minds.

The same is true of Lisbon. It did not fall because of Libertas. It fell because a complacent bunch of establishment politicians refused to explain it properly and expected us to trust them because they are experts. The problem was, of course, that we don't trust Cowen et al because they've proven themselves unworthy of our trust in so many other areas.

The same goes for Ken Ham et al. If they are wrong then convince people of that by winning hearts and minds. I believe that is the point of Dawkins holding a chair for the Public Understanding of Science - but I also believe he undermines that by going on his antitheist crusades. The two issues then become conflated in people's minds and it makes the Creationists' job easier. They just point and say, "Look, one of the main spokesmen for evolution hates Christianity" which makes it easier for them to paint evolution as a biased ideology rather than as impartial science.

Leaving it to the experts is IMHO dangerous.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Wow Dades that is a sweeping generalisation.

Really? Which bit? I try to avoid them!