Some scientist try to oust the theory of ID because they claim that it is based on religion... So I have a question and, if the answers prove to be what I suspect them to be, I have another *gasp* question that has to be answered on thew bases of the first one.
My question is: Should anything and I mean ANYTHING based on a religious view be considered "scientific"?
Based on Religion = Bad Science?
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
Based on Religion = Bad Science?
If you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
You're testing my patience. What a horrible question. At least rephrase it to reflect whether you mean "Is it possible that anything that related or based on a religious teaching be scientifically sound?" or the totally different "Should EVERY such thing be considered scientific?"
Be clear with your question. It sounds like a stupid question regardless of how clear it may be, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you just did a poor job at communicating your query.
Be clear with your question. It sounds like a stupid question regardless of how clear it may be, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you just did a poor job at communicating your query.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
The problem is that it is not a theory in that it cannot be tested in any way. It is a hypothesis. If there are geologic records of a large flood that covered the entire Earth at a point about 5k years ago or so, sure, teach it in class.
Basically, if it can be tested and reproduced (ID can't) then it can be taught in science class as a theory. Most scientists that I know don't oppose ID just because it is religious (though some do), they oppose it being taught because it is not good science. There is no scientific method to it. It is only a suggestion as to what happened with no tests that can back it up. And there are tests to back up at least parts of Darwinian evolution. The biggest problem that Darwinan evolution has is the jump from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms.
Basically, if it can be tested and reproduced (ID can't) then it can be taught in science class as a theory. Most scientists that I know don't oppose ID just because it is religious (though some do), they oppose it being taught because it is not good science. There is no scientific method to it. It is only a suggestion as to what happened with no tests that can back it up. And there are tests to back up at least parts of Darwinian evolution. The biggest problem that Darwinan evolution has is the jump from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms.
Father of 3
-
adciv
- Redshirt
- Posts: 11723
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:20 am
- Real Name: Lord Al-Briaca
- Location: Middle of Nowhere, MD
Re: Based on Religion = Bad Science?
[quote="Mac3";p="560620"]Some scientist try to oust the theory of ID because they claim that it is based on religion... So I have a question and, if the answers prove to be what I suspect them to be, I have another *gasp* question that has to be answered on thew bases of the first one.
My question is: Should anything and I mean ANYTHING based on a religious view be considered "scientific"?[/quote]
Ever read leviticus? There's a lot of stuff in there that makes perfect sense from a bilogical, genetic and personal health point of view. Not bad for something that was writen ~ 6,000 years ago.
My question is: Should anything and I mean ANYTHING based on a religious view be considered "scientific"?[/quote]
Ever read leviticus? There's a lot of stuff in there that makes perfect sense from a bilogical, genetic and personal health point of view. Not bad for something that was writen ~ 6,000 years ago.
Repensum Est Canicula
The most dangerous words from an Engineer: "I have an idea."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
The most dangerous words from an Engineer: "I have an idea."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Seraphim
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 5:36 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, Michigan
That's not even quite the jump most people think it is. It's a very logical progression. Single celled organisms ---> colonies of single celled organisms that function as one entity ---> those cells actually becoming one entity.The biggest problem that Darwinan evolution has is the jump from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms.
Animals evolved from a multicellular protist, and multicellular protists took the evolutionary path described above.
The question was clear enough... But you rephrased it nicely:
Is it possible that anything that is related or based on a religious teaching be scientifically sound?
Reason why I asked my question is that I had gotten into a debate with my PLS teacher, who is a Yale graduate and former defense attorney, about whether scientist (particularly those dealing with physics) are turning a blind eye to the fact that science is a mixture of logic and philosophy.
So I present my question before you all again.
Is it possible that anything that is related or based on a religious teaching be scientifically sound?
Reason why I asked my question is that I had gotten into a debate with my PLS teacher, who is a Yale graduate and former defense attorney, about whether scientist (particularly those dealing with physics) are turning a blind eye to the fact that science is a mixture of logic and philosophy.
So I present my question before you all again.
Last edited by Mac3 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
I'm not saying it isn't a hard jump to make in the mind, but we have not yet been able to see it reproduced in a lab or have any sort of data to imply that it has happened other than "Oh look, our DNA looks a lot like that of a yeast cell". Remember, it has to be able to be tested or shown. That jump has not yet been shown in verifiable history or in a lab.
In my mind science is not so much a mixture of logic and philosophy, but rather a goal to explain the natural world through verifiable and testable theories. If a hypothesis cannot be tested or or verified, it does not belong in science. If it can be tested or verified, and subsequently is tested and verified, no matter where it came from, it can belong in science.
In my mind science is not so much a mixture of logic and philosophy, but rather a goal to explain the natural world through verifiable and testable theories. If a hypothesis cannot be tested or or verified, it does not belong in science. If it can be tested or verified, and subsequently is tested and verified, no matter where it came from, it can belong in science.
Last edited by Dr. Tower on Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Father of 3
-
Seraphim
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 5:36 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, Michigan
Is it possible? Of course. Perhaps we'll make a scientific discovery that will parallel something for a religous text and the discovery will hold up as a sound theory. The likelyhood not well. The key parts of a religion such as heaven, hell, god, can't be scientifically tested. Were we all created, or did we evolve naturally... if you're right, we'll never know. If I'm right, we'll know you're wrong at some point.
In conclusion: Shut the hell up.
In conclusion: Shut the hell up.
Im going to get banned from this site before long
Your conclusion is weak... Maybe thats why your breath smells of breast milk.
The point I was trying to make with this thread is that Einstein based his famous theories on Pantheism. Making them, in essence, religious based teachings. Should they be taught in public schools?
Many of his theories are unproveable but could be true. Maybe like ID?
If you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="Tower";p="560633"]I'm not saying it isn't a hard jump to make in the mind[/quote]
It certainly is if you take it at face value the way it was explained here. I mean, come on, a bunch of single-cell organisms magically pulling some sort of Voltron to form a single, multi-cell organism? Give me a break.
[quote="Seraphim";p="560636"]The likelyhood not well.[/quote]
It certainly is if you take it at face value the way it was explained here. I mean, come on, a bunch of single-cell organisms magically pulling some sort of Voltron to form a single, multi-cell organism? Give me a break.
What about things like The Big Bang that are neither testable nor verifiable?If a hypothesis cannot be tested or or verified, it does not belong in science.
[quote="Seraphim";p="560636"]The likelyhood not well.[/quote]
Last edited by Deacon on Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
[quote="adciv";p="560644"]Mind pointing out which theories?[/quote]
If your talking about Einstein, the answer is that he was greatly influnced by panteism on many of his theries. If your talking about something else, I don't understand you.
I also want to point out that Einstein believed his theories to be purely scientific and not religious...
Also, his belief in pantheism lead to what he later called his biggest blunder.
If your talking about Einstein, the answer is that he was greatly influnced by panteism on many of his theries. If your talking about something else, I don't understand you.
I also want to point out that Einstein believed his theories to be purely scientific and not religious...
Also, his belief in pantheism lead to what he later called his biggest blunder.
Last edited by Mac3 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest