RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Arpig -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 4:35:24 PM)

quote:

by "they" i meant the original writers, Arpig, you are nit picking. And, yes, every society, even lose ones, had a "belief" or theory about the beginning of life.

That is one of the definitions of a theory, yes? A belief?
No tazzy, I'm not nit picking at all. When it was originally told, it was told as a myth. I'm not going to get into the definition of what constitutes a myth and its functions in a primitive society...read Campbell.

And no, a theory is not a belief. A theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by repeatable experimentation.




vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 4:58:11 PM)

quote:

I dont know, vincent. Though I do not believe in "God" I can see the point in that argument. Darwin gave his theory. And his theory has extreme merits. But something causes changes. I wouldnt say the "Gods created us by guiding the hand of evolution", but I can see the plausibility of using that idea.

Its definitely not what the Bible teaches... but... As we should all know, the Bible taught what was acceptable at that time, through limited knowledge of science and evolution.


Well yes, tazzygirl, oft times something does cause change. Occasionally change occurs randomly and by accident. But that is not what Darwin said. He published in 1859 (?) a very pointed mechanism for changes in species. Well described earlier in this thread. Variation in the individuals of a population, a change in their environment either by natural forces or by migration, isolation of some individuals who were best suited for the new environment leading to the development of a breed distinct from the original population.

As you said, tazzygirl, something causes changes. You would get no argument from Darwin on that until you step outside of Nature for the change agent. That is where religion and Darwinian Evolution part company. Darwin's mechanism for change challenges the concept of a supernatural change agent. Blatantly. Consequently, it has been a challenge to theologians who have either railed against his model or tried to reconcile their religious vision to it. But, it seems awfully hard to join the Naturalism of Darwin with the Supernaturalism of Religion.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 4:58:33 PM)

Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

I dunno Arpig, thats not what it says here.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 5:00:49 PM)

quote:

As you said, tazzygirl, something causes changes. You would get no argument from Darwin on that until you step outside of Nature for the change agent. That is where religion and Darwinian Evolution part company. Darwin's mechanism for change challenges the concept of a supernatural change agent. Blatantly. Consequently, it has been a challenge to theologians who have either railed against his model or tried to reconcile their religious vision to it. But, it seems awfully hard to join the Naturalism of Darwin with the Supernaturalism of Religion.


Nor would I argue with Darwin... definitely smarter than I am.

However, I tend to view it as a slow acceptance of religion to accept something has changed in their theories, and I embrace the acceptance, regardless of how slow. Sorta like the Pope finally accepting condoms.




gungadin09 -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 5:19:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
For my part, the "angst" and the anger I feel regarding this issue derives from the fact that the religious right is constantly trying to pass laws forcing me to live my life in accordance with their religious beliefs. And I refuse to tolerate it. They can believe anything they like, but they need to keep it out of my life. If they refuse to do that, they're going to get a reaction out of me, and it's not going to be a courteous one. And they have nobody to blame for that but themselves.


All right, all right. i always forget that i have a tendency to be oversensitive. Fire away.

pam




CrookedStaff -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 5:38:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

I dunno Arpig, thats not what it says here.


Are those your bolds? Arpig is correct, in that, in biology, a theory is none of the items listed in webster's dictionary. A theory is the culmination of hypothesis, experiment, and the rigorous use of the scientific method. It is the highest stance a biologist will ever take. To view it as a belief, which is the basis of the religious argument is to ignore the three books Darwin wrote on the subject. Just read them. (If we were talking about physics, then theory is definition 5. They call views they view as unarguable as laws. Biology stops at theory.)




eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 6:03:01 PM)

I believe that evolution is considered a scientific theory, no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: "Scientific theory," Wikipedia
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.  A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. (Merriam-Webster.com: Theory in Science)

[...]

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions.  The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is.








eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 6:36:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

I dont know, vincent. Though I do not believe in "God" I can see the point in that argument. Darwin gave his theory. And his theory has extreme merits. But something causes changes. I wouldnt say the "Gods created us by guiding the hand of evolution", but I can see the plausibility of using that idea...

[...]

As you said, tazzygirl, something causes changes. You would get no argument from Darwin on that until you step outside of Nature for the change agent. That is where religion and Darwinian Evolution part company. Darwin's mechanism for change challenges the concept of a supernatural change agent. Blatantly. Consequently, it has been a challenge to theologians who have either railed against his model or tried to reconcile their religious vision to it. But, it seems awfully hard to join the Naturalism of Darwin with the Supernaturalism of Religion.

To say that belief in a God which created the physical universe (including evolution) and the theory of evolution are compatible is not to say that one necessarily depends on, or has anything to do with, the other.  Epistemologically, the two are independent:  As is true for all science, evolution doesn't require God (or any supernatural agency) nor does belief in God require evolution.  But neither do they necessarily conflict.  As I said in my initial response, one of the objections some religionists have had to evolution is that it (as is true of all science) has no teleology (ultimate purpose).  Subscribing to Darwinian evolution entails acceptance of random variability and natural selection as mechanisms of evolutionary change.  Whether God as creator informs evolutionary change via those mechanisms is simply not a scientific question.






tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 6:48:24 PM)

quote:

Are those your bolds? Arpig is correct, in that, in biology, a theory is none of the items listed in webster's dictionary. A theory is the culmination of hypothesis, experiment, and the rigorous use of the scientific method. It is the highest stance a biologist will ever take. To view it as a belief, which is the basis of the religious argument is to ignore the three books Darwin wrote on the subject. Just read them. (If we were talking about physics, then theory is definition 5. They call views they view as unarguable as laws. Biology stops at theory.)


You are referring to a scientific theory

quote:

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.


You need to read my post in regards to that question...

quote:

And, yes, every society, even lose ones, had a "belief" or theory about the beginning of life.

That is one of the definitions of a theory, yes? A belief?


As I have posted, it is one of the definitions. I never claimed...

1) that Darwin was wrong
2) that I was speaking of a scientific theory.




NihilusZero -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 6:53:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I dunno Arpig, thats not what it says here.

That definition is not at all what is meant when the word is used in a strictly scientific construct. You're having a completely different conversation altogether if you are intentionally switching back and forth between the colloquial term and a scientific theory.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528971/scientific-theory




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 6:55:59 PM)

Im not, in any way, using theory in a scientific method.

How many times do I have to point that out?

Its theory... like.. "I have my own theory on that subject".




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 6:58:03 PM)

Oh wait, I get it, you are all getting your nuts in a bind because I used the word.. belief. [8|] Get over it. I dont mean religious belief. I mean belief as in.. "I believe I left my keys at home"




NihilusZero -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:00:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

I believe that evolution is considered a scientific theory, no?

Yes, but the adjective is typically superfluous when it is assumed that the conversation taking place is one where that definition is expected.

It's like that blasted "energy" word. If you're taking with a physicist or chemist about "energy", having some new age hippy march in talking Jungian nonsense about "collective energy/collective consciousness", you're not even having the same conversation anymore, regardless of whether the term exists to convey entirely different things.





NihilusZero -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:01:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im not, in any way, using theory in a scientific method.

How many times do I have to point that out?

Its theory... like.. "I have my own theory on that subject".

Then we're not even talking about the same thing. I covered this with my "gay" post earlier.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:02:14 PM)

Damn atheists are so freakin touchy.




NihilusZero -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:04:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Oh wait, I get it, you are all getting your nuts in a bind because I used the word.. belief. [8|] Get over it. I dont mean religious belief. I mean belief as in.. "I believe I left my keys at home"

Actually, "belief" in any context is a relatively flaccid position. People don't use the word "believe" when something is factual. If you were sure you'd left your keys at home, you'd have just said: "Crap! I left my keys at home."

People use the term "believe" when they are guessing about something the result of which they are unsure of or do not have enough insight or information about. There's no need for it otherwise, unless you're talking about completely subjective and otherwise banal things (e.g. "I believe the Phillies will win the World Series this year.").




vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:04:41 PM)

quote:

Nor would I argue with Darwin... definitely smarter than I am.

However, I tend to view it as a slow acceptance of religion to accept something has changed in their theories, and I embrace the acceptance, regardless of how slow. Sorta like the Pope finally accepting condoms.


Ahhh, now I understand your point and think you make sense. Are we on the same page here then? There are religionist who accept Natural Selection as a highly probably mechanism for change in life forms and are nevertheless quite comfortable with their belief in the existence of the supernatural. Their god is sorta like the god of the deists. He/She got it going and then let it work out in the most likely process?

Unfortunately, the Biblical literalist are not so accommodating and pursue the attempt to silence the teaching of Evolution or at least to have Intelligent Design taught as a viable alternative in science classes.




NihilusZero -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:06:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Damn atheists are so freakin touchy.

I'm not touchy! Well...depends on what kind of "touchy" we're talking about!

And surely me being a pedant is no surprise.




HannahLynHeather -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:10:19 PM)

quote:

Damn atheists are so freakin touchy.
and you are so inconsistent as to be incomprehensible. we can never figure out what you mean because you change the parameters by which you are discussing things with every post. myself, i suspect that most of the time even you don't know what you mean.

you are bitching about atheists, yet a few posts ago you proclaimed yourself an atheist (though you may be right as you are overly touchy about nearly everything).

hannah lynn




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/20/2011 7:10:56 PM)

quote:

Their god is sorta like the god of the deists. He/She got it going and then let it work out in the most likely process?



Exactly. More like they planted life.. and settled back to watch it grow in the "garden of eden". lol... and dont landblast me for the biblical references, I couldnt resist. [:D]

quote:



Unfortunately, the Biblical literalist are not so accommodating and pursue the attempt to silence the teaching of Evolution or at least to have Intelligent Design taught as a viable alternative in science classes.


My thinking... Bible is for upper class studies and Sunday (or whatever your holey day may be). I dont believe it belongs in the classroom, except as maybe an introduction to the possibility of them being taught differently in sunday school.

Know what I mean?




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375