De-Evolution | 40 comments (40 topical, 0 hidden)
Missed the point (none / 0)
There is no confusion because their is no conflict. The only conflict is for those who simply want to create one for their own ends

by LORD FOUL on 03/22/2008 02:51:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I got the point (none / 0)
To me there is a conflict

Science has to meet certain critera

Logical Criteria

A scientific theory must be:

  1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary ("Occam's Razor")
  2. logically consistent
  3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid)
  4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

The above logical criteria are among the most cited when it comes to discussions about the nature of scientific theories and how science differs from nonscience or pseudoscience. When a theory includes unnecessary ideas or is inconsistent, it becomes difficult to see how it actually explains anything. When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. Finally, when there aren't any clear boundaries, we'll never know if particular observations count for or against it.

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must:

  1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
  2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
  3. involve reproducible results
  4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

Religion is a belief. Trying to use science to prove or disprove a religious belief is an exercise in futility in my opinion. There are different religions with different beliefs and science is not going to prove or disprove any of them.

Its easier to use science to disprove a religious belief.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/22/2008 03:24:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oops (none / 0)
I forgot the "  "  so Ill ad them now

The explanations of Scientific theory are from About. com  

why the hell cant you edit your own posts on this thing

by Chinese Democracy on 03/22/2008 04:23:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not trying to be argumentative here DC (none / 0)
BUT.....you say "Religion is a belief."

I hate to break it to you but so is a theory.

While a Scientific Theory is a little more complicated than the common "idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture" it is none the less still a belief.

I am a science guy. I believe in science and I find it humorous when people trash religion while worshiping at the alter of "Science".

Anyone who has paid attention to science over the last several years knows that Scientific Theories change all the time, and like religion in quantum and your more advanced sciences there is as much dispute among scholars about certain "theories " as there is among the various Christian churches on what it take to get into heaven.

Among physicist there are almost as many "theories" as there are churches. Okay that's one of those exaggerations, but you get my point.

Remember Science is not foolproof and opinion changes everyday as more and more speculation about the universe is studied. All of these people have FAITH in what they believe, and like some people of Faith understand they don't know everything and never will, but it's the search that makes it interesting.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/22/2008 06:20:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I find it humorous (none / 0)

People try to use Sceince to prove something that by its nature cant be

by Chinese Democracy on 03/23/2008 02:17:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Belief (none / 0)

A scientific theory might be called a "belief" only insofar as we also "believe" that 1+1=2 in any number system base 3 or above.  But belittling the theorem that supports that statement by calling it a "belief" would also logically weaken your claim that you exist.

Such are the consequences of ignoring logic.

Scientific theories have proofs.  There is logic behind them.  Religious beliefs do not have proofs.  They are based on faith, and to maintain them logic is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Far too many people do not know what science is and are unable to appreciate its rigorous procedures for separating fact from fiction.  We do not even teach how to think in our schools, much less how to distinguish science from conjecture.  This results in conversations like this one where we attempt to find similarit ies between science and religion, one of the dumber things that we do.  And as this discussion shows, we don't even do very well at comparing science and religion.

There are no similarities between science and religion other than that they are both sets of ideas that are carried in peoples' minds.  One requires rigorous thinking and skepticism, the other requires faith and a willingness to suspend disbelief.

Regrettably, many people believe that religion is necessary as a limiter of science.  That foolish idea, founded not only on an irrational fear of learning but also on a more rational fear of what we might do with our learning, has saddled us with such handicaps as the current pseudo-debate about evolution.

Fortunately, however, religion is unnecessary if we need to know what is morally/ethically right and wrong.  Most people do not need a fear of eternal damnation to keep from killing someone else.  It is probably true that religion does keep some people in line, but Darwin is probably taking care of them.

This discussion shows that a better educational system is imperative.

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 04:26:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]

De-Evolution | 40 comments (40 topical, 0 hidden)