EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

THAT is the truly NEUTRAL view that is antagonistic to the NOT-NEUTRAL view that Nature is separate. Since the terms Nature and God are not scientifically differentiable . . . the terms Nature and natural are NOT philosophically neutral terms phenomenologically . . . especially in the relatively ignorant minds of the general public. Pragmatically they are unavoidable in science . . . but ignoring their culpability in the current controversy is just insensitive (or obtuse).

Great. Now can you actually respond to what Jose said?

I wish I had a sociologically workable answer for the conundrum of human ignorance that drives so many controversies. But what Dawkins, et al. are engaged in (under the IMPLIED imprimatur of science) as noted scientists is unconscionable. They are undifferentiable from the Fundamentalist nutjobs they denigrate and seek to wage holy war with. The bulk of moderate and reasonable scientists . . . like the bulk of moderate and reasonable Muslims . . . tolerate and do nothing to mitigate the damage done by radicals. The apologetic cries of "But that's NOT Islam" . . .or "But that's NOT science" seem faint comfort.

Again, it seems your real problem lies with Dawkins and others, not with science. So, why generalize it to all of science? Just because "they tolerate and do nothing to mitigate the damage done" by Dawkins? Why should they have to defend anything. Again, it seems that what would satisfy you is better education in schools. That would satisfy me, too. I'm just not sure how you go from this to "science tries to deny God".

 

[Autodidact]

Since the terms Nature and God are not scientifically differentiable . . .

Assuming what you're trying to prove. This is your belief; it has not been established, and science may not accept it. Furthermore, it contradicts the common definition of God. Then again, I remember that you're anti-definition. Science does not teach that nature is different than God, or identical. It just studies nature. If you believe that nature is God, you should celebrate this. Why don't you?

 

[Jose Fly]

MysticPhD,

the terms Nature and natural are NOT philosophically neutral terms phenomenologically

So your issue here is not scientific, but philosophical. Therefore, you need to stop complaining about and objecting to the work of science. You could have avoided a lot of the problems in this thread by simply stating up front, "My issues are philosophical, not scientific".

Pragmatically they are unavoidable in science . . . but ignoring their culpability in the current controversy is just insensitive (or obtuse)

What controversy are you talking about? Be specific.

I wish I had a sociologically workable answer for the conundrum of human ignorance that drives so many controversies

So you have no objections to or suggestions for the actual work of science. Again, you could have avoided a lot of needless arguing had you made this clear at the very beginnning.

But what Dawkins, et al. are engaged in (under the IMPLIED imprimatur of science) as noted scientists is unconscionable

So your issue here--philosophically--is with Richard Dawkins and other atheists who cite the results of science as justifying (at least in part) their atheism? If so, why aren't you over at Richard Dawkins' forum expressing your thoughts? Further, Richard Dawkins is merely expressing his personal views on religion, gods, and such. Apparently you disagree. That's all well and good, but honestly....so what?

This whole thing seems to boil down to "Richard Dawkins is an atheist; MysticPhD disagrees strongly and believes in God".

The bulk of moderate and reasonable scientists . . . like the bulk of moderate and reasonable Muslims . . . tolerate and do nothing to mitigate the damage done by radicals

What damage are you referring to? And what exactly would you have us "moderare scientists" do? How should we go about stoping Richard Dawkins from expressing his personal views about gods and religion?

In sum, it looks very much to me like Doppleganger has been pretty spot on in his observations. You've had a personal revelation that was spiritual in nature. Great...good for you. But you've taken a personal experience and are demanding that everyone else acknowledge it and adopt their views to accomodate it. For me, that begs an obvious question: What makes your personal spiritual revelations any more valid or noteworthy than the millions of revelations others have had throughout history? IOW, what's so special about your beliefs?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Since the terms Nature and God are not scientifically differentiable . . .

Woof.

 

[Autodidact]

mystic: Let's say I'm a Geologist and I study say plate tectonics or something. And I research what's going on with the plate, and come to some conclusions, and publish my results tot he effect that the whatever plate is moving northeast at a rate of 3" a year, or whatever. Please explain exactly what your objection to that is. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

MysticPhD,


So your issue here is not scientific, but philosophical. Therefore, you need to stop complaining about and objecting to the work of science. You could have avoided a lot of the problems in this thread by simply stating up front, "My issues are philosophical, not scientific".


What controversy are you talking about? Be specific.


So you have no objections to or suggestions for the actual work of science. Again, you could have avoided a lot of needless arguing had you made this clear at the very beginnning.


So your issue here--philosophically--is with Richard Dawkins and other atheists who cite the results of science as justifying (at least in part) their atheism? If so, why aren't you over at Richard Dawkins' forum expressing your thoughts? Further, Richard Dawkins is merely expressing his personal views on religion, gods, and such. Apparently you disagree. That's all well and good, but honestly....so what?

This whole thing seems to boil down to "Richard Dawkins is an atheist; MysticPhD disagrees strongly and believes in God".


What damage are you referring to? And what exactly would you have us "moderare scientists" do? How should we go about stoping Richard Dawkins from expressing his personal views about gods and religion?

In sum, it looks very much to me like Doppleganger has been pretty spot on in his observations. You've had a personal revelation that was spiritual in nature. Great...good for you. But you've taken a personal experience and are demanding that everyone else acknowledge it and adopt their views to accomodate it. For me, that begs an obvious question: What makes your personal spiritual revelations any more valid or noteworthy than the millions of revelations others have had throughout history? IOW, what's so special about your beliefs?

Especially mine! Don't forget mine. I had a personal revelation that there is no God, and that nature is purposeless. Why is Mystic's more valuable or reliable than mine?

 

[Jose Fly]

Good question! Perhaps MysticPhD can answer. What about people who have revelations that God is not nature and is a seperate entity who takes an intimate interest in their daily lives?

 

[fantome profane]

There are only two ways human beings deal with things . . . approach or avoidance. We approach the positive (pleasurable and rewarding) and we avoid the negative (unpleasant or punishing). Science chose the latter with regard to God.That has IMPLICATIONS . . . whether one chooses to see them or not.

That is an interesting statement. What would you make of this (slightly altered) statement.

There are only two ways human beings deal with things . . . approach or avoidance. We approach the positive (pleasurable and rewarding) and we avoid the negative (unpleasant or punishing). Science chooses the latter with regard to the non-existence of “God”. That has IMPLICATIONS . . . or does it?.



Actually I think the idea that science “avoids” making statements about “God” makes about as much sense as saying Penguins avoid flying. Science cannot make such statements, it is simply something that is not possible for science to do. Now if you want to talk about statements made by scientists, or about the misconceptions of the general public, that is another matter entirely.


I think a large part of the problem you are having communicating in this thread stems from the tendency to refer to “science” as if it were a personal entity, rather than a method of research. It is an understandable shorthand, but in this context it tends to obfuscate your point.

 

[MysticPhD]

So your issue here is not scientific, but philosophical. Therefore, you need to stop complaining about and objecting to the work of science. You could have avoided a lot of the problems in this thread by simply stating up front, "My issues are philosophical, not scientific".

Only a superficial understanding of science could see them as exclusive concerns.

What controversy are you talking about? Be specific.

The philosophical one that lies at the heart of the absurd need to make the statement that is the title of the OP.

So you have no objections to or suggestions for the actual work of science. Again, you could have avoided a lot of needless arguing had you made this clear at the very beginnning.

Forgive my presumptuousness at NOT expecting a thread in the Science and Religion forum . . . (that is devoted to "how science and religion could get along") . . . to automatically assume antagonism to science itself when addressing the issues that cause the failure to get along.

So your issue here--philosophically--is with Richard Dawkins and other atheists who cite the results of science as justifying (at least in part) their atheism? If so, why aren't you over at Richard Dawkins' forum expressing your thoughts? Further, Richard Dawkins is merely expressing his personal views on religion, gods, and such. Apparently you disagree. That's all well and good, but honestly....so what?

The title of the thread caught my attention because it is the central arena (Evolution) where science has failed to address the "get along" aspect adequately . . . by assuming they have no role or culpability (even inadvertently).

This whole thing seems to boil down to "Richard Dawkins is an atheist; MysticPhD disagrees strongly and believes in God".

What damage are you referring to? And what exactly would you have us "moderare scientists" do? How should we go about stoping Richard Dawkins from expressing his personal views about gods and religion?

In sum, it looks very much to me like Doppleganger has been pretty spot on in his observations. You've had a personal revelation that was spiritual in nature. Great...good for you. But you've taken a personal experience and are demanding that everyone else acknowledge it and adopt their views to accomodate it. For me, that begs an obvious question: What makes your personal spiritual revelations any more valid or noteworthy than the millions of revelations others have had throughout history? IOW, what's so special about your beliefs?

This is the lack of discernment of issues and dismissiveness that only serves to antagonize.

 

[painted wolf]

Nature and God are not scientifically differentiable

Only if you believe they are utterly the same thing.... otherwise yes, they are.
You can test nature, you can put it under a microscope and dissect it... you can't do that with god. If you could, it would be a very sorry god indeed.

the terms Nature and natural are NOT philosophically neutral terms phenomenologically .

Again, in your opinion.

I wish I had a sociologically workable answer for the conundrum of human ignorance that drives so many controversies. But what Dawkins, et al. are engaged in (under the IMPLIED imprimatur of science) as noted scientists is unconscionable. They are undifferentiable from the Fundamentalist nutjobs they denigrate and seek to wage holy war with. The bulk of moderate and reasonable scientists . . . like the bulk of moderate and reasonable Muslims . . . tolerate and do nothing to mitigate the damage done by radicals. The apologetic cries of "But that's NOT Islam" . . .or "But that's NOT science" seem faint comfort.

Perhaps you should look into what scientific organizations have to say, rather than focusing on a few individuals?
NCSE (National Center for Science Education)
Science and Religion | NCSE
AAAS (the largest american scientific association)
AAAS - AAAS News Release

These are just two examples... I'm sure if you looked into the issue you could find a lot more.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

MysticPhD,

Only a superficial understanding of science could see them as exclusive concerns

You have yet to point to any specific scientific piece of work and note any perceived flaws or offer any suggestions. And when pressed, you couch your objections in philosophical terms. Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that your issue here is philosophical.

The philosophical one that lies at the heart of the absurd need to make the statement that is the title of the OP.

Well that's pretty easy to understand. Certain religions teach that the universe, life, and mankind originated in a very specific way. Science reaches a very different conclusion. This leaves adherents to these religions with a dilemma; either change their religious beliefs or reject science.

The title of the thread caught my attention because it is the central arena (Evolution) where science has failed to address the "get along" aspect adequately . . . by assuming they have no role or culpability (even inadvertently).

See, now you're back to acting as if your issue is scientific. This begs the question: What specifically would you have science do differently? (And when I say "specifically", I mean point to a specific finding, paper, or other product of the scientific method, specify your objection, and explain what you would do differently)

This is the lack of discernment of issues and dismissiveness that only serves to antagonize

You didn't answer the following questions...

1) Since much of your disagreement is with the likes of Richard Dawkins, why aren't you over at Richard Dawkins' forum expressing your thoughts?

2) What damage are you referring to, when you said, "the damage done by radicals"?

3) What exactly would you have us "moderate scientists" do?

4) How should we go about stoping Richard Dawkins from expressing his personal views about gods and religion?

5) What makes your personal spiritual revelations any more valid or noteworthy than the millions of revelations others have had throughout history? IOW, what's so special about your beliefs?

 

[lunamoth]

Perhaps you should look into what scientific organizations have to say, rather than focusing on a few individuals?
NCSE (National Center for Science Education)
Science and Religion | NCSE
AAAS (the largest american scientific association)
AAAS - AAAS News Release

These are just two examples... I'm sure if you looked into the issue you could find a lot more.

wa:do

This is a good point PW. The most prestigious science organizations have adopted an intentionally neutral attitude toward religion (much to the chagrin of some vocal atheists). I have noticed that Scientific American and other science magazines for the lay public have taken a slightly less neutral approach and will feature editorials/opinion pieces that are more biased.

There is another point worth mentioning. We have found that the prevailing culture in which science is conducted can influence the direction of science, what questions get asked, how the research is framed, and the language in which it is expressed. As dopp often points out, language has a huge impact on how we think about things. When women started to enter science certain biases in the way science was done were found, especially in fields like anthropology and sociology. It's harder to say if such biases affected biology, chemistry or physics. Do you know of any research on this?

As someone who worked in science for many years, I can't say that I ever saw a bias against religious belief. I knew scientists who were atheists and scientists who were Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is...pretty much every religion. However, that does not mean that there might not be some bias to science that we don't notice just because we are immersed in it. Undoubtably the religious aspects of our culture influences the questions we ask and the language we use, just as it did for gender bias.

2c

 

[painted wolf]

This is a good point PW. The most prestigious science organizations have adopted an intentionally neutral attitude toward religion (much to the chagrin of some vocal atheists). I have noticed that Scientific American and other science magazines for the lay public have taken a slightly less neutral approach and will feature editorials/opinion pieces that are more biased.

But then those are labeled as editorials and opinion pieces. I've seen nearly as many reminding of the neutral nature of science and it's ability to co-exist with faith.
Often what is being attacked in said articles isn't faith itself... but rather dogmatic insistence that a particular interpretation of scripture is the only source of truth. IMHO this is a very valid target and needs to be hammered whenever possible.

There is another point worth mentioning. We have found that the prevailing culture in which science is conducted can influence the direction of science, what questions get asked, how the research is framed, and the language in which it is expressed. As dopp often points out, language has a huge impact on how we think about things. When women started to enter science certain biases in the way science was done were found, especially in fields like anthropology and sociology. It's harder to say if such biases affected biology, chemistry or physics. Do you know of any research on this?

I'm not sure there is much room for such biases to operate in the more data heavy areas of science. Perhaps a tad in some fields of biology, but these areas have been/are still being turned over to rid them of old biases... such as the idea that horns are automatically for fighting predators rather than as ornamentation to look sexy. But then, that has been debated since Darwin's time... indeed he proposed the idea of sexual selection and traits being chosen, for their good looks rather than their efficacy in combat.

As someone who worked in science for many years, I can't say that I ever saw a bias against religious belief. I knew scientists who were atheists and scientists who were Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is...pretty much every religion. However, that does not mean that there might not be some bias to science that we don't notice just because we are immersed in it. Undoubtably the religious aspects of our culture influences the questions we ask and the language we use, just as it did for gender bias.

Which is why the dogma neutral status of Science is so important... it lets people of all beliefs come together to hash out issues together... without the fear of dogmatic attack, but with the anti-bias checking of having so many others looking over your shoulder.

2c

Quite a bit more valuable than that I should think...

 

[JamBar85]

i hope we all learn something (evolution is not real, what a releife :beach.

Oh . . . and I trusted those science people. After all they proved that space is a vacum that contains nothing. There was me all convinced that we weren't ever able to breath in space. Pfft. Idiots.

 

[Diederick]

Oh . . . and I trusted those science people. After all they proved that space is a vacum that contains nothing. There was me all convinced that we weren't ever able to breath in space. Pfft. Idiots.

Heheh. I mean, the title of this thread is so preposterous that it's hard to remain focused. I understand. I have trouble staying sharp as well when I feel like I'm telling a stubborn adult that the world has to be round, naturally.

If evolution is a lie, then so is gravity.

 

[SYNICtheAtheist]

Evolution is just a theory. Same as gravity and germs. They are all just theories. Now you need to do some research and learn what constitutes a theory and how a simple thought cannot be purposed as a theory.

 

[rageoftyrael]

you know what i like? The humbleness inherent in science. They call things basically proven theories. And yet in religion everything in their little black book is FACT, and they don't even have any reasonable proof.

 

[ladyace]

evalution is not fake it may not be right on the nose but it does show that way things were formed and if u believe in christ then he started the hole earth or where did monkeys evolve and the other animals before human s so evalution is true just maybe not they way it was stated

 

[Diederick]

evalution is not fake it may not be right on the nose but it does show that way things were formed and if u believe in christ then he started the hole earth or where did monkeys evolve and the other animals before human s so evalution is true just maybe not they way it was stated

In God's name, woman!
Please consider how fortunate we, mere primates, are that we discovered a way to communicate with each other universally! However if we start ignoring the rules we agreed upon years ago, to keep things understandable and logical, we might be lost in a downward spiral! Apocalypse! Judgement day! The End of the World!

So please, if you will, consider things like spelling, grammar & punctuation. You would be doing the world a favour, God included, after all, He is a great novelist.

 

[DarkSun]

Oh . . . and I trusted those science people. After all they proved that space is a vacum that contains nothing. There was me all convinced that we weren't ever able to breath in space. Pfft. Idiots.

... Except... space is not a vacuum. And the reason we can't breath there is because the concentration of O2 in any one place is extremely low when you're in space.

But besides that, I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Denying evolution is like denying that the sky is blue. It's silly.