The Religion of Science (Evolution as Faith!)

CHJ ^ | Jan 14, 2006 | Nathan Tabor

[WatchYourself]

How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?

A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.

It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.

[uptoolate]

If I see a painting but not the painter am I to assume that the painter never existed and that the painting always was there and had no beginning?

[shuckmaster]

So on Noah's Ark there were kinds, and in the post-flood world

What ark? Where is the evidence for your magical flood?

[Right Wing Professor]

Your mistake is you think every synapse in the brain is encoded. It isn't. In fact, the brain has to be active and receving information in order to develop properly. If you isolate an organism from sensory input, or suppres the firing of neurons with drugs during the people of brain development, the brain's 'complexity' never develops.

[ChessExpert]

How about offering alternatives (evolution, criticism of evolution, intelligent design, etc.) as electives? Let the parents and students decide. Ultimately, we should voucher education and take all this stuff out of politics and put it in the free marketplace.

My own view is that evolution is not good science. Alternatives have their own weaknesses. There is good scientific criticism of evolution (Wells and others). Valid criticism is fine and definitely part of science, but it's no theory. Intelligent design as advanced by Dembski and Behe is suggestive, but it is still a little early and incomplete. Yet more people should take this seriously.

One of my hangups with evolution is that neither Darwin, Gould, nor I, believe that it is supported by fossil evidence. Without the facts, it's more dogma than theory.

[carl in alaska]

I doubt that it's possible to store the complete design for a human being in 12 gigabytes of data. Even if somehow this could be done through a very complex algorithm, there's no evidence of any biochemical mechanism that can decode all this data and use it in the structural development and growth of a human being. Clearly, there is a mechanism for decoding DNA and using that information to build proteins and the enzymes that run the chemical reactions in our bodies. But once you get beyond proteins and simple biomolecules, there's little evidence of an actual decoding mechanism that can decode and utilize any complex structural information in DNA. You would need some incredible kind of biochemical computer and software to decode all that DNA and somehow use those "blueprints" in the structural development of a human and manage that development process. There's no evidence that this kind of biochemical computer and software exists and nobody knows how these processes actually work.

I didn't read your other long, insult-riddled post. I scanned it briefly, but it was so arrogant, so pompous, so ignorant, and so lacking in respect for other people on this website, that I'm not going to bother reading it. When you issue a full apology for your arrogance and insolent attitude to everyone involved, then I might give it a read. In the meantime, you need to start thinking longer and harder because you are making lots of assumptions about biochemistry and evolution. You just have your blinders firmly attached so that you never see your own assumptions. Have a nice day and don't bother replying to me until we receive your apology. In the future, I will not read any of your posts to me until I receive your apology.

[shuckmaster]

I have this thing called consciousness. It makes me aware that I am a alive. Things that are dead do not have it. Machines do not have it. Chemicals do not have it. Where does it come from? How did it evolve?

Dead things are well, dead. Machines are intelligently designed artificial devices which like all intelligently designed devices are incapable of the 3 criteria for evolution. Chemicals are well, chemicals. Humans however, like all other living things, are individuals within interbreeding populations and as such meet the three criteria for evolution. Replication, heritable difference, and natural selection. Hope this helps.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" One of my hangups with evolution is that neither Darwin, Gould, nor I, believe that it is supported by fossil evidence."

Both Darwin and Gould believed that the fossil record supported evolution. Especially Gould, who was around after a lot more fossils were discovered.

[shuckmaster]

NO TRANSITIONAL speices exist. Period, you can lie about it, fake it, claim it, but in the end none exist.

Wrong. All existing species are transitional. Period, you can lie about it, fake it, claim it, but in the end all existing species are transitional.

[shuckmaster]

So when the Bible says the heavens and earth were created in 7 days. could be interpreted 6 X(times) hundreds of millions of years to rotate once(Which could constitute a day)

I'm looking forward to my day of rest...

[jec41]

Scientists deal in EVIDENCE.

And that evidence can be emperical, matimatical, observation or duplication.

[bobdsmith]

I doubt that it's possible to store the complete design for a human being in 12 gigabytes of data The entire human genome can be stored in three gigabytes, and a lot of that is redundant and there is no compression involved. So I reckon it would be quite possible to store the complete design for a human being in less than 1 gigabyte.

[bobdsmith]

Actually I made an error in my calculation. Uncompressed and without removal of redundancy the human genome can still be stored in just 750 megabytes.

[jec41]

And your evidence for "false fossils"? Perhaps you could take a moment and explain why every single fossil in the Natural History Museum in London is false, and what qualifies you to say they are false?

I don't know where you became confused but you are. I have never uttered the words false fossils. One would have to possess some traits of insanity to make such a statement. The evidence provided by fossils is very strong evidence. I think perhaps you have me mixed up with connectthedots

[defenderSD]

"So I reckon it would be quite possible to store the complete design for a human being in less than 1 gigabyte."

You have no idea what you're talking about. There are 15 billion brain cells in the human brain, all with specific connections to hundreds or thousands of other brain cells. (If they're not connected correctly you can end up with a disfunctional schirzophrenic person.) I'll esimate very low and say that it takes 1 kb of data to store the correct connections for each cell. That's 15 gigabytes of data required just to store information on how brain cells connect to each other, not to mention the design of the brain cells themselves.

[jec41]

Evolution most definitely is testable. And so far it has passed every single test thrown at it. From predicting the behaviour of bacteria in agar gel, to predicting that we would find whale like fossils with rudimentary legs.

Thats my own position and as far as I have investigated you are correct.

[wyattearp]

Read it again. There are no contradictions.

I've listed some of them. Got anything rational to say about that, or are you just in denial?

[defenderSD]

Your argument is hopelessly flawed. You're assuming that the complete design for a human is in fact in the genome. So you're assuming that the very fact you're debating is true before you state your argument! Then you work back from that assumption to say that you only need three gigabytes of data. The argument I'm making is that the complete design for a human is not in the human genome. I will not theorize where the complete design exists, but only argue that it is not in the genome; it resides somewhere else. We do not know the answer to this question yet.

[shuckmaster]

The way that science is being taught in the U.S. (and indeed, in much of the West) is abysmal.

That's a blanket statement and as such is demostratibly false. There are many fine institutions in the U.S. that are teaching advanced cutting edge science and producing many brilliant new scientists in their wake. It's true that many of the lower educational institutions including both private and public school systems are in the hands of agenda driven school boards who are trying hard to destroy the advancement of science by inserting their own biased supernatural beliefs into the curriculum. Scientists and science teachers are being forced to go to the court system to fight for education but, the recent results have been very encouraging. Don't give up on our countries science education so easily. Truth and logic will eventually win out over superstition and backward religious ignorance.

[defenderSD]

My calculation was incorrect. IIRC, a gigabyte is a billion bytes. So at 1 kb per brain cell you would need 15,000 gigabytes of data just to store all the connections between brain cells. If you could compress this data down to 100 bytes per cell through some kind of algorithm, then you'd need 1,500 gigabytes of data to store brain cell connections.

[jec41]

Definitions (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.



Thank you, some sanity has arrived although the definitions will be ignored by most and their own opinion of a definition substituted to support their random opinionated thoughts.