Can evolution be proven?.

[Belize]

Guys, I heard the sun and all of the othe plantes revolved around the Earth too...

[Dendrek]

I disagree. Science is quite literally the anti-religion. See, here is the thing: Religion and Science share the exact same goal: To explain things we dont understand. The problem is that they have 100% opposing origins for the explanation at the base level.

Science explains stuff by understanding how it works. By actually exlaining it. When science proves something conclusively, it is practically impossible to disprove it, and if you DO manage to disprove it, you are rewarded for doing so, because you have esssentially disccovered a new facet of the dicipline, and expanded our knowledge.

Religion explains stuff by saying "Insert magical thing did it", be that zeuss, god, spirits, demons, or what have you. By literally handwaving away any need for "proof", in favour of literal blind faith: "dont question, just believe". And when someone does manage to disprove a tenant of the dogma, they are usually branded a heretic, and put through hell. Untill of course, the proof becomes so widespread that the dogma can no longer handwave it away, and so it absorbs it, pretends that it was all "part of the plan", and continues on "dont question, just believe, ignore the man behind the curtain re-aranging the solar model so the sun no longer revolves around the earth".

religious "scientists" are basically just people still in denial, hoping that there are still some things out there that science wont eventually be able to explain. Of course, this is a battle they will never really win, since Science will happily continue expanding untill it HAS eventually explained everything.

The only major difference between ancient religion, and modern religon is that modern religion has gotten much better at coaching everything in very broad strokes, so that any time "god" is proven wrong, it is just because you arent looking in the right place, and not because god was actually proven wrong (remember, god is NEVER wrong).

I disagree with this. Many religions are based around the tenet that "God did it" explains everything. There's nothing particularly wrong with this belief. It can't be proven. It does require faith. But it's not, in itself, an anti-science argument. Maybe what "God did" was to create the physical laws of the universe, which themselves are responsible for all matter and life in the universe. Maybe God manipulated some otherwise random events in the cosmos to insure that humans would come to be. Neither of these arguments can be proven. And they both seem absurd from a purely empirical perspective. But there's no particular harm in believing these. And again, these aren't anti-science beliefs. They are meta-science beliefs.

Where religion becomes anti-science is in the form of literalism and egotism. Literalism in the sense that "if it's written in [x book] then it MUST be true, and it must be true exactly how it's written." When you take a literal approach to religion, you become absolutely stubborn to reality. Evidence and proof are meaningless to you. And you get convenient explanations like "God is all powerful so he can do anything he wants," to explain away any evidence that is irrefutable. Egotism in the sense that "what I believe is right no matter what you say." Egotistic religious people refuse to be wrong. They consider any attempt to prove them wrong to be an insult.

Some religions demand a literal interpretation of their scripture, and in those cases they absolutely are anti-science. But even literalism tends to be a consequence of egotism: in their refusal to be wrong, many religious people (and religious leaders) demand a literal interpretation of their scripture. And many people tend to be egocentric, whether or not they're religious. If you tell them they're wrong, their first reaction will be to get mad rather than be objective. Their egotism is not a consequence of their religion, it's a consequence of ignorance, stubbornness and poor education.

The problem with religion being anti-science tends not to be religion itself; it's people. The unwillingness to be wrong drives them to ignore reason.

[Slant]

And that right there, is why you dont understand religion. Those fantasy stories ARE the core of the system. Without them, religion is not religion.

Those fantasy stories... are stories carried on verbally for centuries, before put down in a language nobody even speaks anymore, translated into another language no one speaks anymore, translated into yet another language which only the Vatican still speaks and then translated into the language of your choice.

I mean, scientifically, do you have the slightest hint of an idea how many errors happen along the way? Who's the true believer now, religion nuts or you?

[MCMLXXXII]

Actually, that's rather easy.

It is easy and although I don't agree with it, it's just human nature to take the easy way, which over centuries was religion. Hence why some scientists still believe in God.

[Noradin]

Still it's not disproven that there indeed is a God.

That is because it is not a testable hypothesis and thus can be dismissed as irrelevant just for that.

[Slant]

Sure, you could do that, but that is about as absurd as the Banana arguement made earlier in the thread, and goes right back to the whole "god is never wrong / fallible / questionable" issue I brought up only a few posts back.

Religious scientist argues that Banana was made by god to have a whole bunch of properties that make it perfect for human consumption. When it is pointed out every one of those properties was painstakingly achieved through centuries careful bananna breeding by humans, religious scientist backpedals stance to "god gave man the knowledge of plant husbandry, therefore god still created the bananna". Which is ludicrous no matter how you look at it. Again, god can not be fallible, because every time god is proven falliable, we just move the goalposts.

Arguing that science only works because we are simply "discovering" gods "rules for the universe" is likewise just more rediculous goalpost moving, especially considering that "god" didnt even exist before the christian religion created him.

Uh... god being infallible is kinda the whole point of that bit of religion. Why the fuck do you even try to argue against it? Just let it be? It has no consequences to you as long as you remember: God may be infallible, man is not. So whatever you read in the bible is probably as much fiction as The Lord of the Rings. That doesn't hurt god's infallability, but it takes into accounts that man is stupid. And was a lot more stupid 2k years ago.

Perhaps I did demand a bit of intelligence for this kind of solution. Hum. Probably that's why people don't follow it.

[Noradin]

It is easy and although I don't agree with it, it's just human nature to take the easy way, which over centuries was religion. Hence why some scientists still believe in God.

Yes, because they understand that belief and science do not overlap.

[Osmeric]

So... you mean to say, humans realised something was stupid and just stopped being stupid? How surprising.

It was a radical change in philosophy, not just people realizing they were "being stupid" (because according to that prior philosophy, they weren't being stupid). And it was a change in philosophy that gutshots religion in general, not just texts of ancient greek/roman philosophers.

[Breccia]

Best I could find on the topic.

[Slant]

That is because it is not a testable hypothesis and thus can be dismissed as irrelevant just for that.

Do you need to test logic for it to be true?

[Deleted]

"Belief" is a wide term. There are stories about angels with wings in the Bible, for example; do you seriously think that all Christians think those events actually took place in this world? No, most of them don't. They do believe in God however, but the God, also, is something different people interpret differently; few people believe that there is a guy with a beard in heavens that interacts with us through subtle actions. It is a concept, an idea, something to use as a guide in life. It is not something that replaces science.

Scientists work with truth.

Religions work with belief.

It really is as simple as that....

Ur obviously see differences within the same religion as a good thing... a scientist sees this as a problem. There can only be one truth to a scientist. It is either true or false.

- - - Updated - - -

Still it's not disproven that there indeed is a God.

Its also not disproven that Unicorns exist or the pasta-monster.

It is not a scientists duty to disprove anything... they just work with data, experiments, observations, and arrive at conclusions.... unbiased conclusions.

[MCMLXXXII]

Yes, because they understand that belief and science do not overlap.

That's exactly my point. They can co-exist. One doesn't rule out the other.

[Slant]

Scientists work with truth.

Religions work with belief.

It really is as simple as that....

Ur obviously see differences within the same religion as a good thing... a scientist sees this as a problem. There can only be one truth to a scientist. It is either true or false.

You're basing your entire argument on a rather fundamental and archaic form of religion. Most modern Christians will present to you a rather modernized and adapted form of Christianity (except in the US, of course, where fundamental Christianity still runs rampant).

[Noradin]

Do you need to test logic for it to be true?

No, a hypothesis needs to be testable to be useful in regards of science.

The existance of an "omniscient, omnipotent god" is by design untestable and thus irrelevant for science.

It can still be true, but that is a matter of belief.

- - - Updated - - -

That's exactly my point. They can co-exist. One doesn't rule out the other.

Yes, but the problem is that people who know enough of both are so rare that most think they have to decide between them.

[Slant]

No, a hypothesis needs to be testable to be useful in regards of science.

The existance of an "omniscient, omnipotent god" is by design untestable and thus irrelevant for science.

It can still be true, but that is a matter of belief.

It doesn't need to be testable if it's illogical, you just said you don't need to test logic. I can disprove the existance of an omnipotent being with one question that you cannot answer.

[Skulltaker]

I am not sure how you can not see the incompatability:
Science says: This is so, because we proved it, and here is the proof. Science requires proof before something is accepted.
Religion says: This is so, because we say it is so. Religion requires no proof, simply that you believe what it tells you without question.

Those are fundamentally opposing viewpoints. How do you prove somehing without proof?

And still, you put faith in science aswell, even though you don't understand it one bit, everyday. You blindly trust it. The matter that proof exists - or doesn't - has little significance to most people. When you get into an elevator, oyu trust the science behind the engeneering completely not to kill you, while your common sense screams "you are getting onto a small cage above a 50 meter abyss! You're insane!" You get into a car that moves at 200 kph, and still, because you put faith in it your skills as a driver, the skills of the drivers around you, the workers and machines that assembled it.

I bet you that not even 10% of the people traveling by airplane have even the slightest grasp of how aviation actually works.

As a doctor, I experience blind faith every day. I talk to a patient and say 'take these pills' and fewer then 5 percent actually ask 'what do they do?'

Science is a religion in itself. Of course there are differences, but blind faith is by far not restricted to religion. And I also cannot prove the effects of most of the drugs to patients without them swallowing them, because most of them lack the understanding of the human body and basic chemistry necessary to understand what I am talking about.

Of course, Religion, as in established Religions, is different, but as long as you're not stupid and take it literally, it's very similar to science. It offers you an understanding of the universe and guidelines on how to be nice to each other. And the effect of science IS measuable. It afflicts millions of lives everyday, be it in a good or bad way.

As with science, you can, of course, twist it to make peoples lives miserable or to explain, with science, how some people are inferior and deserve to be destroyed.

Religion and science have been perverted and distorted by mankind for ages, and both have brought equal amounts of misery to the globe, usually because you won't get one without the other.

[nacixems]

Scientists work with truth.



It is not a scientists duty to disprove anything... they just work with data, experiments, observations, and arrive at conclusions.... unbiased conclusions.

I dont think that is 100% correct, we have examples with global warming models and other cases where they are not unbiased because the 'data' has been skewed to only include that which will prove their theory.

a theory by def. is an educated guess i think. most scientists are good and follow your statement, but with any human intervention , comes the error of biases which we all interject even maybe unknowing.. just my .02

[Noradin]

It doesn't need to be testable if it's illogical, you just said you don't need to test logic. I can disprove the existane of an omnipotent being with one question that you cannot answer.

If it is illogical then it is by definition testable to be so.
And I didn't say you do not need to test logic, I didn't say either way in the post you quoted.
I corrected your misrepresentation of my previous post which never said anything about logic, and pointed out it was about hypothesises.

How can you disprove the existance of an omnipotent being with one question I cannot answer?
The two have nothing to do with each other.

[Surfd]

Uh... god being infallible is kinda the whole point of that bit of religion. Why the fuck do you even try to argue against it? Just let it be? It has no consequences to you as long as you remember: God may be infallible, man is not. So whatever you read in the bible is probably as much fiction as The Lord of the Rings. That doesn't hurt god's infallability, but it takes into accounts that man is stupid. And was a lot more stupid 2k years ago.

Perhaps I did demand a bit of intelligence for this kind of solution. Hum. Probably that's why people don't follow it.

Except that that bit right there, is the heart of what makes certain religions nothing more then a giant crutch. Why worry about anything, why question anything, when all knowing, all mighty, infallible god has everything accounted for in his mysterious plan? It is literally the biggest copout in the history of history, a monumental security blanket for the weak minded to turn to when they dont get an answer they like to the question that is life.

[Ewyndall]

Just adding my two cents.

Evolution, in my opinion, has been proven plenty of times and overall I find it a more appealing alternative to a book written some 2500-3000 years ago (cobbled together from other popular myths and stories from various Middle-Eastern nations) by some desert-dwelling shepherds.

It is a theory for a reason, with well-documented researches and plenty of physical evidence in forms of fossils, not to mention logic. Now, if you still don't believe science, believe in human nature. Scientists have a tendency to be full of hubris, pride and generally like to believe they are the smartest people around (which they often are) and just love to prove that. This is a VERY good thing. You know why? Because that's what is driving them to rip every other scientist's work to pieces.

There's glory in proving a long standing theory wrong. Hell there's even glory in just proving a somewhat plausible hypothesis wrong. It gives them a hard-on. Do you really think if there was some major issue with the theory of evolution there wouldn't be thousands of scientists shredding it to pieces? Every attempt so far has fallen flat on their faces as the theory of evolution is too well founded. There might be some holes and gaps but that doesn't render the whole theory flawed all together and definitely doesn't equate to the existence of some supernatural being, it only means we have some more research ahead of us.