[_ Old Earth _] Is evolution based on racism?

[Brokendoll]

We could narrow down the odds a bit by considering Christ's miracle of feeding the multitudes. Twice.
We don't understand the mechanics of bringing back to life a dead body after three days. Paul was able to bring back a young fellow from the dead. And Lazarus was dead long enough that his body was rotting but that was no problem for Christ to bring him back to life.
Christ didn't consider whether people understood what He did or not. He willed it to be and through HIS understanding His will was done.
There is a limit to how much man can understand. And the rules developed by man as he sees his surroundings are just that, rules developed only within the creation he finds himself.

The rules man develops himself are the only rules he has the capacity to understand. Period.
Christ doesn't limit himself only to the rules of man. And neither does the Father.

All of this is well and good from a religious perspective, but when looking at the world from a scientific perspective there are other concepts you need to take into account. In a scientific context you would first have to scientifically prove that any of those miracles actually took place before they could be included into a probability matrix of any kind. And, once again, witness accounts, especially 2000 year old witness accounts, won't cut it.

Whether people like it or not, religion and science works from two completely different precepts, which is the basis for Stephen J. Gould's view of Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). In science you have to provide evidence and verifiable data for each and every part of your Theory, whereas in religion it is a matter of faith. The notion that both attempt to describe the world in which we find ourselves in does not change the fact that they approach the problem with completely different methodologies.

Mixing the two will always lead to trouble.

 

[Rick W]

Whether people like it or not, religion and science works from two completely different precepts...

Mixing the two will always lead to trouble.

Science does nothing but generate data. That's all. Science is not an entity of it's own. How that data is interpreted is up the the person making a conclusion based on that data.

It's the differing conclusions drawn that leads to conflict between those opposing interpretations/conclusions.

 

[lordkalvan]

Science does nothing but generate data. That's all. Science is not an entity of it's own. How that data is interpreted is up the the person making a conclusion based on that data.

It's the differing conclusions drawn that leads to conflict between those opposing interpretations/conclusions.

Science does more than generate data - it offers a methodology for interpreting and understanding that data in ways that can be repeated and verified by other researchers. It is the case that none of the examples you have provided as casting doubt on such scientifically-derived understandings of the natural world provide either verifiable data or any confidence in how even the sparse information that is provided can in any way be considered to stand comparison with the scientific conclusions that it is supposed to cast doubt on.

 

[Ramsey]

Whether people like it or not, religion and science works from two completely different precepts, which is the basis for Stephen J. Gould's view of Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). In science you have to provide evidence and verifiable data for each and every part of your Theory, whereas in religion it is a matter of faith.

Depends on what type of faith you are talking about. Some people rely on blind faith, but that really isn't what the bible teaches. Faith is a knowlable dependance on God.

I think faith is best described with a chair metaphor. When you find a chair and want to sit down you applied logic, knowledge and experience to make an informed intellectual decision. You believe that chair is going to support your wieght, and your experience tells you it will.

You sit in the chair. That is an act of faith. Faith is putting your belief into action. You believed that chair would support your wieght, so you sat the chair having knowledgable dependance on that chair knowing that it was going to support you.

Jesus did some increadible things, and he gave us a message. I believe in the things Jesus did, and his message, and because of this I try to live my life in a way that Jesus would approve. That is faith. It is not blind, and it has reason. Everything I do through acts of faith I see reason in, and I can see Gods workings in.

Science is not even on the same level as faith. Science is a tool. Faith is action. If my faith is wrong, my experience and reason will tell me. My experience and reason tell me my faith is well placed.

 

[VenomFangX]

The issue is one of deep philosophical perspective. Can any truths be known by thinking about it?
We all know that some things are true by their definition eg "all circles are round" and mathematics fits into that realm. Other examples are "All bachelors are unmarried." "All triangles have three sides."This is known as analytic a priori.. However, science is empirical in that scientists generally hold the philosophical view that truths about reality cannot be known by thought alone but must be verified through sense experience eg experimentation, so the philosophical view here is synthetic a posteriori. Analytic propositions are those which are true simply by virtue of their meaning while synthetic propositions are not.
a priori proposition: a proposition whose justification does not rely upon experience
a posteriori proposition: a proposition whose justification does rely upon experience

The analytic/synthetic distinction and the a priori/a posteriori distinction together yield four types of propositions:
1..analytic a priori
2..synthetic a priori
3..analytic a posteriori..this is self contradictory and is not really considered
4..synthetic a posteriori
Now what is often claimed here and else where is that some truths about the universe or reality can be known by mere thought: this is proposition 2: synthetic a priori. To think and belief on synthetic a priori example to be true that would make one a rationalist to believe that all knowledge is via sense experience eg synthetic a posteriori you are an empiricist.
To talk of speculative metaphysics, Faith and so one means that you are a rationalist. However, one would need more concrete examples than mere speculation or faith to justify their philosophical position.
yours
??????????

 

[Rick W]

Science does nothing but generate data. That's all. Science is not an entity of it's own. How that data is interpreted is up the the person making a conclusion based on that data.

It's the differing conclusions drawn that leads to conflict between those opposing interpretations/conclusions.

Science does more than generate data - it offers a methodology for interpreting and understanding that data in ways that can be repeated and verified by other researchers.

It still boils down to interpretation though and the chosen method to come to a conclusion. If I can repeat an experiment to generate the same data it's still by interpretation of the verifiable data. The data doesn't change. The conclusion does depending on that interpretation.

One can view the sky and by measurement of visible light conclude the sky is blue. Another can get data to show the sky has no color through another means of detection. One detects visible light to conclude the color blue and the other looks at another spectrum to conclude it really isn't.
Depends on what you're looking for and the evidence you'll ACCEPT by the assumption first made by the motivation to collect the data.

 

[VenomFangX]

Depends on whether you are looking at the wavelength the frequency or both. However, despite the empirical data there is the qualitative sense experience which is individual to all of us. I have no way of knowing that was you see as blue due to common language is what I see as red.
VFX

 

[Rick W]

Thing is, I got that from an actual debate on a secular forum some years ago. One fellow was arguing something about appearance as reality that was meaningful while the other was arguing blue was only a very small slice of what could be detected... therefore the majority of data holds that the sky is more black than blue.


I should have copied that debate because a while later I came to think of it as a classic. :D

Another one we're all familiar with is that of man-made global warming. Science is providing the data.
However...

One side doesn't accept the evidence presented by another as evidence or one side presents data as evidence that there is global warming while the other side presents data that there isn't or one side presents data as evidence that there it's man-made while the other side presents data that there isn't and just about everything in between. And each side claims science as their reason for their conclusions.

The science of forensics is a very good example I think. The prosecutor looks for and presents data to convict while the defense looks for and presents data to acquit. At the end it's a judgment call by the jury. And that certainly doesn't mean everybody is convinced or happy with the verdict. Yet, it is through science all the data was collected. But again, science did not make the conclusion, people did by interpretation of the data presented.

And isn't "man-made global warming" an exercise in forensics? Some play the role of the prosecutor and others the role of the defense attorney.

Research or debate or in a court of law an assumption must first be made. Nobody looks for something when they don't know why or what they are looking for. Next science is used to gather the data. Then interpretation follows and lastly a conclusion is made.

And of course there's the issue of money. I think we can say that in many cases the side with the most money has the advantage to prove their case, support their assumption and publicize their conclusions.

 

[lordkalvan]

It still boils down to interpretation though and the chosen method to come to a conclusion. If I can repeat an experiment to generate the same data it's still by interpretation of the verifiable data. The data doesn't change. The conclusion does depending on that interpretation.

Except that data can be repeatedly observed and measured to verify whether or not a particular interpretation is valid or not.

One can view the sky and by measurement of visible light conclude the sky is blue. Another can get data to show the sky has no color through another means of detection.

One detects visible light to conclude the color blue and the other looks at another spectrum to conclude it really isn't.

This sounds interesting, but without more information it does not sound convincing. Rayleigh scattering as short wave-length light is absorbed by gas molecules and radiated leads us to see the sky as blue. THis is a phenomenon that can be both observed and measured. That the light that passes through the atmosphere radiates in many other wavelengths also does not alter this observable, measurable fact.

Depends on what you're looking for and the evidence you'll ACCEPT by the assumption first made by the motivation to collect the data.

And again, the point is that whatever the assumption and whatever the data, other researchers can independently verify the data and determine whether or not the assumption is correct. Again, your examples offered as casting doubt on scientifically-derived understandings of the natural world provide neither verifiable data nor any confidence in how even the sparse information that is provided can be considered to stand comparison with the scientific conclusions that it is supposed to cast doubt on.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thing is, I got that from an actual debate on a secular forum some years ago. One fellow was arguing something about appearance as reality that was meaningful while the other was arguing blue was only a very small slice of what could be detected... therefore the majority of data holds that the sky is more black than blue.....

While there is undoubted merit in your arguments and you make good points, although data can drive different interpretations and debate in both the scientific and lay communities, this is not a priori a reason to suppose that all interpretations have equal merit or are equally valid.

 

[Brokendoll]

Nobody is claiming that scientists are infallible, and yes, of course they can be individually biased, and thus their conclusions can be wrong. But the thing to remember is that Science is not an ideology, nor a collection of facts. Science is a method of inquiry.

And as such, the Scientific Method is the most effective and powerful concept we humans have come up with so far. I'm not sure if everyone reading this tread are fully aware of exactly how the Scientific Method works, so here is a short rundown, just so we can all agree on what we are talking about:

1. Ask a question: That is to say, find a natural phenomenon and ask yourself, why does this happen and how.

2. Do some research: This includes studying the avaliable data already collected, as well as the collection of new data. Data comes in many forms, depending on the subject being studied and the discipline of science. For instance, the Theory of Evolution is supported by evidence from genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.

3. Construct a hypothesis: Here it might be useful to define exactly what a hypothesis is. Put plainly a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. A simple hypothesis could state something like: If I do A, then B should happen. (This is a gross simplification thought. Proper scientific hypothesis often include vast amouts of conditions and potential results, among other things).
It is important to note that the hypothesis must be both falsifiable (that is, it should make predictions that, if shown to be wrong, will invalidate the hypothesis) as well as testable (that is, one should through experimentation or observation be able to determine if the predictions made by the hypothesis are correct or not). A hypothesis is still a far cry away from what we consider a Scientific Theory.

4. Test the hypothesis: Again, how a hypothesis is tested can vary a lot depending on the phenomenon being studied and the discipline of science, but it usually boils down to either performing experiments and observing the results, or by making independent observations of the phenomenon itself.

5. Analyze the results and draw a conclusion: If the hypothesis was constructed properly one should now, through experiment and observation be able to determine whether the hypothesis was right or wrong. If the hypothesis was right, that's great, but if the hypothesis was wrong, then it's back to the drawing board. And even if the conclusion was that the hypothesis was correct the scientists might want to go back to test it again in a different way. More information is always better than less.
The conclusion is valuable in either case. Edison supposedly said that he had not so much invented the lightbulb, as he had invented 10.000 ways of -not- making a lightbulb. This gives some idea of how scientists work; through careful and tedious testing and re-testing until they are sure their results are correct. The individual scientists could still be wrong though, which leads us to the next step...

6. Report the results: There are Scientific Journals covering every discipline of science in which scientists continually publish reports of their findings. These journals are usually not intended for the layman (although plenty of laymen read them too) but rather so that other scientists working within the same discipline can go over the data and look for faults and mistakes, as well as recreating the experiments to see if they get the same results. This is commonly called "Peer Review". Repeatable experiments and observations is essential to the scientific process, because as has been mentioned, individual witness reports and personal annecdotes do -not- count as evidence.

This last step is put in place to avoid biased results and to ensure that the hypotheses that eventually become Theories are supported by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. This will to a large degree eliminate the problem of "humans making the conclusions" and replacing it with "lots of experts in that particular field of science agreeing on a conclusion".

Science is not dogmatic and scientists don't present their results as absolute everlasting truths. They are well aware that future technology and developements in science can, in time, produce evidence that show their results to be inaccurate, or even wrong. But the point is that the Scientific Method produces practical results, results that we see around us every day, and it is, thus far, the best and most efficient way we have of investigating nature and the world around us.

 

[Ramsey]

This last step is put in place to avoid biased results and to ensure that the hypotheses that eventually become Theories are supported by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. This will to a large degree eliminate the problem of "humans making the conclusions" and replacing it with "lots of experts in that particular field of science agreeing on a conclusion".

Science is not dogmatic and scientists don't present their results as absolute everlasting truths. They are well aware that future technology and developements in science can, in time, produce evidence that show their results to be inaccurate, or even wrong. But the point is that the Scientific Method produces practical results, results that we see around us every day, and it is, thus far, the best and most efficient way we have of investigating nature and the world around us.

Unfortunatly, this last step is usually overlooked, or ignored by the general public, the media, and even some scientists. The result is a lot of misinformation, confusion, etc.

 

[Brokendoll]

Unfortunatly, this last step is usually overlooked, or ignored by the general public, the media, and even some scientists. The result is a lot of misinformation, confusion, etc

Really? It's USUALLY overlooked? Peer Review, one of the most important parts of the scientific method is normally, that is, more often than not, overlooked?

I suppose you can support this claim with verifiable data and sources.


Look, there are several reasons why scientists -want- to publish their data, even if it can be an arduous process.

Publication is vital to a scientist's career for two reasons:
first, when Universities are looking for new professors, they base their decision on the amount of important papers the candidates have published;
and second, research costs money, and the people who give a scientist the money to do his or her work rely on their publications as a measure of how much they have accomplished with the money they've been given (this is especially important if you want to continue to be funded by the same people year after year).

Publication is also vital to science as a whole. The free exchange of information is one of the cornerstones of the scientific process. When everyone publishes their results, Science progresses foreward: if someone publishes a new finding, other scientists can use that information to expand their own work and build upon the new findings, rather than having every scientist do every experiment independently. Similarly, publication is essential for each scientist, because the review process gives the researcher a broader view of the work, and often suggests fruitful paths that the scientist may not have otherwise taken.

 

[Ramsey]

Really? It's USUALLY overlooked? Peer Review, one of the most important parts of the scientific method is normally, that is, more often than not, overlooked?

I suppose you can support this claim with verifiable data and sources.


Look, there are several reasons why scientists -want- to publish their data, even if it can be an arduous process.

Publication is vital to a scientist's career for two reasons:
first, when Universities are looking for new professors, they base their decision on the amount of important papers the candidates have published;
and second, research costs money, and the people who give a scientist the money to do his or her work rely on their publications as a measure of how much they have accomplished with the money they've been given (this is especially important if you want to continue to be funded by the same people year after year).

Publication is also vital to science as a whole. The free exchange of information is one of the cornerstones of the scientific process. When everyone publishes their results, Science progresses foreward: if someone publishes a new finding, other scientists can use that information to expand their own work and build upon the new findings, rather than having every scientist do every experiment independently. Similarly, publication is essential for each scientist, because the review process gives the researcher a broader view of the work, and often suggests fruitful paths that the scientist may not have otherwise taken.

When scientists publish something, a lot of people, sometimes including scientists, take the results as fact.

One month egg yoke is good for me. The next month egg yoke is bad for me. A couple months later the egg white is bad for me. Human beings are impatient and often want things now. For these reasons one scientist results are good enough.

The whole homosexuality through genetics or by enviroment is another good example. Many people want to believe one way or another, and will take one scientists results as fact even though those results may be found to be wrong a few month later. Some people do not care. That is what I was getting at.

 

[Brokendoll]

When scientists publish something, a lot of people, sometimes including scientists, take the results as fact.

The review process of the high end journals is quite harsh, so generally you can count on what they publish, at the very least as a conditional fact. Still, when there are conflicting results, which happens from time to time, meta research is usually set in motion.

One month egg yoke is good for me. The next month egg yoke is bad for me. A couple months later the egg white is bad for me.

Yeah, well, mostly nutritionists and nutrition experts are more often than not blowing air through their..erm...ears. The vast majority of them don't come close to being scientists. The title "nutritionist" isn't even a protected title in most countries, which means that you, I, or the neighbours dog could call themselves nutritionists if we felt like it. I'd take anything those guys say with a bucketload of salt (although, as most of them will tell you, salt is bad for you...) ;)

Human beings are impatient and often want things now. For these reasons one scientist results are good enough.

And this is a very annoying feature with the public. They want 100% certain answers, made simple in black and white, and, as you say, they want them now. Science is a lot of things, but it is -not- simple, and as mentioned earlier, you will be hard pressed to find a scientist who will commit to a statement of 100% truth. This is blindingly obvious in the global climate change discussion in which the majority of the scientific community (of the relevant disciplines) make predictions with perhaps 70-80% certainty, while some pundits keep yelling "let's wait until they are 100% sure!!!" Something which will never happen. Nothing is 100% certain. I cannot claim with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that's where the smart money is nontheless...

The whole homosexuality through genetics or by enviroment is another good example. Many people want to believe one way or another, and will take one scientists results as fact even though those results may be found to be wrong a few month later. Some people do not care. That is what I was getting at.

Fair enough. I will admit though that the scientific community could improve the way they communicate with the public, and thus also the media. On the other hand, people need to wake up to the fact that science is hard, you will never understand all of it, and some of it you can only understand after years of study. Quantum physics is generally considered one of the most difficult disciplines to understand, and even Richard Feinman stated that "If you claim to know quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics". That still doesn't make it not true.