• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science?

gnostic

The Lost One
I think the character of the faith that is given to science is important to the question. If tomorrow evidence were to turn up that disproved the theory of evolution then the theory of evolution would need to change or be completely abandoned.

Its like any theory or even scientific law. The nature of which we adhere and have faith to science is one in which we critically evaluate it. We are forever examining and restating theory in manners designed to allow them to be proven false.

Evolution has been challenged and new discoveries were made, Senentia.

Darwin's theory on evolution was Natural Selection.

New discoveries have been found in the 20th century, but what were discovered didn't replace Natural Selection. Instead, each new discovery was either to complement Natural Selection, like with Mutation, or that other evolutionary mechanisms are possible, like Gene Flow, Genetic Hitchhiking or Genetic Drift.

Meaning that it is possible Natural Selection to occur and some places, while in another place in another situation, Gene Flow could happen.

Basically, evolution occurred by natural selection because some external forces encourage changes. These forces could be climate, the terrains, the availability or scarcity of certain types of food (in another change in diet), etc. and in order for the survival of future generations, they must learn to adapt to new changes. And these changes occurred at genetic levels.

Take the bears for instance. All the southern bears, like brown bears, black bears and grizzly bears, are different species or subspecies, but nevertheless they share many things in common. For instance, they all hibernate during the winter season, and they each have same diet. Although a large parts of their diets are protein, like fishes are other animals that they can catch, they also can eat fruits that they find (which make them omnivorous bears).

But what if we move some of these bears into the colder harsher Arctic region? Will they adapt and survive? Or will they maintain the same way of life as they did in the south?

The polar bears have learned to survive in the polar regions. Their bodies have changed, and passed down genes to generation of polar bears that best fit the colder terrain and different diets. They are actually related to the brown bears, but they don't hibernate and they don't eat any fruit, and their main diets are meats, like seals, but can eat fishes. Unlike their brown bear cousin, they can swim in icy open water.

The bear example is one of natural selection.

Another great example of natural selection, are the tortoises on Galápagos Islands.

One group of tortoises were the smaller tortoises with short necks and legs, and domed shells. These tortoises can easily find vegetation that are not high off the ground.

In a nearby island, the terrain was more barren, food harder to reach, so tortoises must find mates that had longer necks and legs, with different shape shells (known as the saddleback shells). The saddleback shells allowed the tortoises to stretch their legs and craned their necks upright to reach their food. In fact this she'll shape can even allow them to stand up on their hind legs.

Both tortoises are originally the same, but different conditions had changed the giant tortoises that they have become physically different to their smaller cousin species.

In another mechanism, like Gene Flow for examples, the changes occurred, not because of changes in terrains or climates or food sources, but because of different population of species have migrated into the region and breed with the native population, thereby producing mixed species. If the mixed species become the dominant species, then the two original species may either die out or become less populous than what they originally were.

Both natural selection and gene flow are possible, so the older theory (natural selection) haven't been replaced by the newer theory. Evolution now encompassed 5 different mechanisms.

I don't think we will ever replace natural selection, but it doesn't mean that new theories on other evolutionary mechanisms cannot be found...or the natural selection be updated. In fact, natural selection has already been updated, because of advancing technology and our knowledge on DNA.
 
Last edited:

cambridge79

Active Member
Just something that's been in the back of my mind lately....

I don't mean to disparage science itself, but I'm wondering if we're over-confident regarding our current theories. While we have inarguably made great leaps of progress in understanding this magnificent world, I can't help but think how, once upon a time, geocentrism was obvious in its logic.

We never see the major paradigm shifts coming, we always think that our current understanding is correct. Yet, time and time again, we discover something that requires us to abandon what we "know."

Anyway, I'm just rambling. What do you think?

i think fields like subatomic physics, astronomy and the study of brain will eventually bring us to interesting surprises.
But i don't know if it's the kind of surprises you're looking for.

For example the study of brain will may end up in us rethinking the very concept of conscience, of what it means to be alive, and what it means to be in first place. imagine you find yourself in front of a fully 100% computer simulated yourself, that knows everything about you can predict your answers and what you are going to do. wouldn't it be scary?

And subatomic physic is so crazy that it looks like you're watching a completely different reality than the one you live in.

but still i don't know if what we'll eventually going to find is the kind of surprises you're referring to.
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Science works equally well among those who place faith in it and those who place no faith in it. Since it works perfectly without faith, most people choose to not place any faith in it. It's superfluous.
 

ebgebg

Member
Just something that's been in the back of my mind lately....

I don't mean to disparage science itself, but I'm wondering if we're over-confident regarding our current theories. While we have inarguably made great leaps of progress in understanding this magnificent world, I can't help but think how, once upon a time, geocentrism was obvious in its logic.

We never see the major paradigm shifts coming, we always think that our current understanding is correct. Yet, time and time again, we discover something that requires us to abandon what we "know."

Anyway, I'm just rambling. What do you think?
There are no truth in Science...just answers agreed upon to be the best solution for the moment. You would think the people commentating their views based on Science were all Mister Spocks. 75% of them couldn't tell you the first thing about the Philosophy of Science or Crunch any real numbers in Time-space physics, or do any real analysis of any chemical compositions. Basically, they blindly take the word of their professors without ever thinking about it themselves.
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Science really isn't all that big of a deal. Of course it's how we have computers and sell phones and the Internet and MRI machines in medical school equipment and electric power and all that, but it's really not that big of a deal.

In fact I wonder if it would be a lot better if we just went back to days when mysticism and spirituality was the most important thing you know we were using bronze tools and sticks and mud for houses and no refrigeration or any sort of hospital with sterile rooms to work in or anything like that.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
In fact I wonder if it would be a lot better if we just went back to days when mysticism and spirituality was the most important thing you know we were using bronze tools and sticks and mud for houses and no refrigeration or any sort of hospital with sterile rooms to work in or anything like that.

Only if you like death and disease, suffering and despair :rolleyes:
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
In fact I wonder if it would be a lot better if we just went back to days when mysticism and spirituality was the most important thing you know we were using bronze tools and sticks and mud for houses and no refrigeration or any sort of hospital with sterile rooms to work in or anything like that.
Odds are you would've died shortly after birth. Infant mortality used to be so high that it was considered absolutely normal. Assuming you beat the odds and lived, you would probably not live to see 30. A natural disaster, famine, war or disease would've killed you. And that's just assuming you don't starve or get a moderately-bad cut which would then become infected and if you were lucky, you'd just lose the limb. Which would be taken off with the only anesthetic being Old-Timey Jack Daniels, or if you were stupidly lucky, morphine. Even the surgery has a good chance of killing you.

In fact, it would be easier to list the ways you wouldn't die in the past.
 
Top