• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?


  • Total voters
    60
"Belief" is a dirty word in scientific circles.

Yes, unless it is based on fact, logic, observation, and experimentation. If it is based on thin air, then it is indeed a dirty word, just as it should be.
 
Yes, unless it is based on fact, logic, observation, and experimentation. If it is based on thin air, then it is indeed a dirty word, just as it should be.

Oh, well then 99% of religion isn't a dirty belief. Well that's good news.
 
Yes, unless it is based on fact, logic, observation, and experimentation. If it is based on thin air, then it is indeed a dirty word, just as it should be.
Oh, well then 99% of religion isn't a dirty belief. Well that's good news.

Please inform inform us which of the following are based on facts, logic, observation, and experimentation:
1) Unverifiable claims made in holy book tales
2) Unverifiable claims made by purported "prophets"
3) Hear-say
4) Unverifiable personal experiences claimed by another person.
 
Last edited:
"Belief" is a dirty word in scientific circles.

I beg to differ. I watched a program on NGC not too long ago on evolution. I counted the word "believe" 70 times in the two hours. It wasn't a preacher using it. It was a paleontologist.
 
I beg to differ. I watched a program on NGC not too long ago on evolution. I counted the word "believe" 70 times in the two hours. It wasn't a preacher using it. It was a paleontologist.

This begs the question...

Why???
 
Theories are NOT "proven". They are supported. Evolution is nearly as strongly supported as the theory of gravitation (not to be confused with the phenomenon known as gravity). Read a book! I suggest "the greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution"

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

Thanks for the admonition to read. I can offer you the same advise. The book you suggest is tantamount to the bible. So I'll pass.
 
This begs the question...

Why???

The scientist speaking was usually referring to something which current science or technology is incapable of proving or in some instances defining. So they have to believe it to be so.
 
that is the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. Did you come up with it or did your pastor/priest tell you it?
Scientists don't try to disprove the muslim god, the hindu god, etc. They are unconcerned with that stuff. Scientists, such as biologists look for explanations for:
1) facts observed in nature
2) phenomenon reproducible in the lab

It just so happens that every once and awhile a scientific explanation conflicts with a particular religion's holy-book tales. Then the religious have a temper-tantrum. This has happened before: galileo and the mormons are two examples.

Perhaps it was an overstatement. Scientists involved in evolutionary studies are usually more concerned with when their next government grant is coming, since that is how they get paid.



An understanding of evolution allows us to create flu vaccines, grow more efficient and plentiful crops, and breed animals for desirable traits (for food or affection). These are just SOME applications that probably wouldn't be possible without the theory of evolution.

I think you are confusing evolution and genetics. While the two are linked, they are not the same thing.
 
The scientist speaking was usually referring to something which current science or technology is incapable of proving or in some instances defining. So they have to believe it to be so.

I meant why you would be counting how many times it was said, lol.

Oh well. My lame attempt at humor was utter fail.
 
Last edited:
I meant why you would be counting how many times it was said, lol.

Oh well. My lame attempt at humor was utter fail.

To answer your question, boredom probably.

Other than that I found it fascinating that a scientist was using such verbiage in relation to a subject that is supposed to have such concrete fact. A fact is a fact. It doesn't require belief.

If your doctor tells you that you have cancer. You have cancer. Whether or not you believe is irrelevant.
 
Perhaps it was an overstatement. Scientists involved in evolutionary studies are usually more concerned with when their next government grant is coming, since that is how they get paid.
So you go from the claim that scientists are determined to disprove religions to scientists are all (or mostly) producing fraudulent works to get money. What's next? That the scientists are involved in a big conspiracy? Where are you getting these ideas?

I agree that scientists are human and thus are prone to greed and other less an reputable actions. But
its almost impossible to produce lasting but fraudulent work in science because other people have to verify your work. They have to independently produce your results in their own labs or witness the same phenomenon. There is also peer review where anonymous scientists in the field are PAID to find every little problem they can find and report back on it.

Is it absolutely perfect? No. For example, pilt down man, cold fusion, and the cloning fiasco with Hwang Woo-suk.

The problem with fraudulent scientific work is that it all deals with the real world. If people can't verify your work in the real world then your work is discredited until someone can. This is exactly how all the above hoaxes and frauds were caught. No scientific claim is taken on faith.

I think you are confusing evolution and genetics. While the two are linked, they are not the same thing.
There isn't a field of study known as "evolutionology". Many branches of biology such as genetics, paleontology, and microbiology, heavily rely on the theory of evolution. Its similar to how mechanical engineers and aeronautical engineers are heavily reliant on the theory of gravitation.

Its possible that evolution or the theory of gravitation could be wrong. But its unlikely given the enormous amount of evidence in support of them. Minor revisions and changes are possible and expected (such as the effects of relativity) but massive paradigm shifts are unlikely. After all, if we had already figured everything out in these fields then we wouldn't need biologists and physicists, we'd only need engineers.


On a side note, I'm not a biologist. I'm an computer engineer. So I don't know all the nitty-gritty details of evolution nor can I defend evolution for very specific and narrow criticisms. I don't spend much time discussing evolution beyond the basics nor do I care to. There are a few biologists on this board who can address those or I'm sure there are plenty of books that can as well such as the book I mentioned earlier. Talkorigins.org is also very well known and reputable resource.
 
So you go from the claim that scientists are determined to disprove religions to scientists are all (or mostly) producing fraudulent works to get money. What's next? That the scientists are involved in a big conspiracy? Where are you getting these ideas?

I agree that scientists are human and thus are prone to greed and other less an reputable actions. But
its almost impossible to produce lasting but fraudulent work in science because other people have to verify your work. They have to independently produce your results in their own labs or witness the same phenomenon. There is also peer review where anonymous scientists in the field are PAID to find every little problem they can find and report back on it.

Is it absolutely perfect? No. For example, pilt down man, cold fusion, and the cloning fiasco with Hwang Woo-suk.

The problem with fraudulent scientific work is that it all deals with the real world. If people can't verify your work in the real world then your work is discredited until someone can. This is exactly how all the above hoaxes and frauds were caught. No scientific claim is taken on faith.


There isn't a field of study known as "evolutionology". Many branches of biology such as genetics, paleontology, and microbiology, heavily rely on the theory of evolution. Its similar to how mechanical engineers and aeronautical engineers are heavily reliant on the theory of gravitation.

Its possible that evolution or the theory of gravitation could be wrong. But its unlikely given the enormous amount of evidence in support of them. Minor revisions and changes are possible and expected (such as the effects of relativity) but massive paradigm shifts are unlikely. After all, if we had already figured everything out in these fields then we wouldn't need biologists and physicists, we'd only need engineers.


On a side note, I'm not a biologist. I'm an computer engineer. So I don't know all the nitty-gritty details of evolution nor can I defend evolution for very specific and narrow criticisms. I don't spend much time discussing evolution beyond the basics nor do I care to. There are a few biologists on this board who can address those or I'm sure there are plenty of books that can as well such as the book I mentioned earlier. Talkorigins.org is also very well known and reputable resource.

If that were true, then global warming would have been put to bed 30 years ago.
 
So you go from the claim that scientists are determined to disprove religions to scientists are all (or mostly) producing fraudulent works to get money. What's next? That the scientists are involved in a big conspiracy? Where are you getting these ideas?

The condescension is duly noted.

I never said anyone was producing fraudulent work for monetary gain. My point was paleontology or paleobotany or large chunks of archeology have no market value beyond government sponsored research. The two former areas of study are very soft sciences. Soft sciences don't get much attention in a competitive job market, well with psychology as the exclusion. I mean you can't leave a government sponsored research project and get a job at paleotologists R US. That only happens in Hollywood movies.

Do you really think Jurassic Park happened? It was all CGI and animatronics, you know.

As far as the conspiracy theory, well, all I can say is unless there was this ongoing "Scopes Trial", evolution wouldn't be very sexy. In order to gain the greater share of government dollars, evolution has to remain sexy and at least on one of the forward burners.
 
Yes, unless it is based on fact, logic, observation, and experimentation. If it is based on thin air, then it is indeed a dirty word, just as it should be.

Believe really doesn't describe scientific functions. Better, more descriptive words and terms, are accept, accede to, comply with, agree with...

ricksfolly
 
Its almost impossible to produce lasting but fraudulent work in science because other people have to verify your work. They have to independently produce your results in their own labs or witness the same phenomenon.

True, they can verify all the present chemical results, but not the long term results.

...or the human element, or the logistics, or the reliability, or the built in tolerances and locations of their data processors, or the calculation of their yet to be determined time, and those are what the GW theories are based on.

ricksfolly
 
sciencevscreationismjd7.gif
 
I never said anyone was producing fraudulent work for monetary gain. My point was paleontology or paleobotany or large chunks of archeology have no market value beyond government sponsored research.
Oftentimes knowledge about our world provides the support in which future technologies, research, and other endeavors are born from. How much time and effort have you put into investigating the "market value" of paleontology or paleobotany? Or is this merely an arm-chair analysis from you that we should take on "faith"?

As far as the conspiracy theory, well, all I can say is unless there was this ongoing "Scopes Trial", evolution wouldn't be very sexy.
Apparently you have the ability to generate a limitless supply of silly theories.

In order to gain the greater share of government dollars, evolution has to remain sexy and at least on one of the forward burners.
Another perfect example of what I am talking about. You are a conspiracy theoriest, just of a different breed than 9/11 truthers and UFO'ers.
 
If that were true, then global warming would have been put to bed 30 years ago.

I haven't followed the global warming debate enough to know what you are talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom