Is evolution as crooked as Hillary?

[Valjean]

Oh, so you're saying evolution removed God out of science, lifting any moral restraints scientists might have?

God was never in science. Science can't deal with something that can't be detected, measured or tested. God is just not within the purview of science.

Science is a research modality. It discovers and tests facts.
What politicians and engineers choose to do with these facts is not up to science.

You imply God has something to do with conferring moral restraint.
I've never noticed this, and I see a great deal of news and historical examples that would militate against it.

 

[Kemosloby]

Not what I mean. Dogma is information issued from superior beings to inferior beings. Evolution can never remove preconceived ideas or dogmas, because it is unrelated. It begins as an explanation given to you by equals, not comparable with dogma which begins with a proposition or message from supposedly superior beings -- untouchably superior and not reachable by even self improvement. If you observe that animals are similar and can be arranged roughly in a tree according to similarity, Evolution is one explanation for that. That is all it is just an explanation from one human to another. If on the other hand a superior informs you that God made animals that way then you are not receiving an explanation but dogma from a superior, and acceptance of what they say comes along with acceptance of their superiority. One is not dogma. The other is dogma. The dogma uses the information as bait to trap you into acceptance of a superior. The non-dogma does not.

Dogma is stuff shoved on you by people in a position of authority.

 

[Kemosloby]

God was never in science. Science can't deal with something that can't be detected, measured or tested. God is just not within the purview of science.

Science is a research modality. It discovers and tests facts.
What politicians and engineers choose to do with these facts is not up to science.

You imply God has something to do with conferring moral restraint.
I've never noticed this, and I see a great deal of news and historical examples that would militate against it.

Then what the heck was that guy saying?

 

[McBell]

Dogma is stuff shoved on you by people in a position of authority.

Except here you are pushing your dogma without lick of authority...

 

[Kemosloby]

Except here you are pushing your dogma without lick of authority...

If someone is pushing something that actually is true, it's not dogma. So here is the definition of Dogma for you.

dogma- a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. i.e.for example Evolution theory

 

[McBell]

If someone is pushing something that actually is true, it's not dogma. So here is the definition of Dogma for you.

dogma- a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. i.e.for example Evolution theory

I see you are as impervious to truth as you are to facts.

 

[Valjean]

Then what the heck was that guy saying?

What guy? I'm not following.

If someone is pushing something that actually is true, it's not dogma. So here is the definition of Dogma for you.

Veracity has nothing to do with weather something is dogma. See the definition you cited.

dogma- a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. i.e.for example Evolution theory

The ToE is a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't dogma. They're always provisional. They invite challenges. They're constantly being modified.

 

[Kemosloby]

What guy? I'm not following.

Veracity has nothing to do with weather something is dogma. See the definition you cited.
The ToE is a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't dogma. They're always provisional. They invite challenges. They're constantly being modified.

Veracity isn't the issue. Dogma is something pushed as "incontrovertably true" by an authority. meaning you're not allowed to dispute it as truth. It's implied that the "truth" they are pushing is actually a lie...Things they attempt to not let you dispute and still be part of the world, such as Evolution theory, global warming and the official story of 9/11.

 

[Valjean]

But science BEGS for dispute. Dispute is the essence of science. Science never says a theory is writ in stone. All theories are provisional and subject to modification.
Dogma is none of this.

 

[JakofHearts]

Evolutionism is quite dogmatic.

 

[Kemosloby]

But science BEGS for dispute. Dispute is the essence of science. Science never says a theory is writ in stone. All theories are provisional and subject to modification.
Dogma is none of this.

Not on test papers. Once your thoroughly brainwashed it will beg for dispute and all you'll be able to say is 2 + 2 = 5

 

[Valjean]

Evolutionism is quite dogmatic.

What the heck is "evolutionism?"

 

[JakofHearts]

What the heck is "evolutionism?"

Spoiler

Google is quite a handy thing

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolutionism is quite dogmatic.

In what ways?

 

[JakofHearts]

In what ways?

Well, for starters, (as this is a very broad topic), I'd focus on DNA.

Now, there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. So molecules to man doesn't make any scientific sense. How can anything evolve from an amoeba to a man without adding new genetic information?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, for starters, (as this is a very broad topic), I'd focus on DNA.

Now, there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. So molecules to man doesn't make any scientific sense. How can anything evolve from an amoeba to a man without adding new genetic information?

I'm not sure how that falsehood answers my question.

 

[JakofHearts]

I'm not sure how that falsehood answers my question.

The point is, is that despite the numerous inconsistencies and holes in the theory of evolution, it is still pushed as a scientific fact, i.e dogmatic.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I mistook you for that other guy. You're the one who compared dna to language right? That was an interesting comparison.

No, that was me.

You can look at the codons as letters. Each codon produce a peptide. A series of codons is a gene and produces a polypeptide. So, in comparison, the codons are like letters and the polypeptide is like a word.

So, why are you against the idea that God is using evolution to produce life? You're saying it yourself that the genetic code is intelligent, and we know that it is changing and evolving, so God must be still "creating" by mutating the DNA in virus, potato, corn, mice, rootworm, and more.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Spoiler

Google is quite a handy thing

Weird. How'd you do dat?

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, so you're saying evolution removed God out of science, lifting any moral restraints scientists might have?

That's a very extreme view.

Evolution shouldn't remove God, but rather change the view of God. What God is. What God does. How God does it. The only time God has to be removed in exchange for evolution is when God is equated with a very specific garden of Eden, 6000 years ago, creationist view. That's not the only God concept out there.

Secondly, science never addressed morality because it's a different field of study. Morality and ethics is studied in philosophy. It's like asking if music appreciation lifted the restraints of seat belts in cars! Scientists are moral (or not) based on their personal views and ideas, not the objective concepts they're researching.