Is Science Better Than Religion?

[DoubtingNate]

Actually that is partly a myth. Mariners have understood for millennia (by common-sense observation of ships and other large objects that appear and disappear on the horizon) that the earth is not flat.

Maybe instead of the term common sense I should say "our innate capacity for inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning". Look, I realize that evolution is the next best thing to having no theory of the origin of life at all. But it really is becoming sillier and sillier by the day. Epigenetics is ever becoming the correct explanation for things our brilliant scientists have long been calling micro-evolution.

Those sailors had a better understanding of the earth's shape for precisely this reason; because they knew how to read the stars. My point is, common sense does not tell us what is and isn't true about the universe. Most breakthrough discovers are completely counterintuitive and can only be found by scientific inquiry, not solely 'reasoning.' For example, we could not have reasoned our way into discovering that all matter is made of atoms, which are made of protons and electrons and quantum particles. The same atoms that stars are made of have the same structure and properties as the atoms that make up our bodies. It took a long time to figure this out, and again, not by 'reasoning.'

When will atheistic and agnostic scientists peer at that beautiful double-helix mysteriously engineered out of 3,164,700,000 nucleotide bases and then, using a little common sense, conclude that complexity must be the product of design, and hence a designer? When will they ponder the human genetic code and then, in a eureka moment of common sense, inquire wisely: "If we call this code, should we not be asking who wrote it?"

it is badly written and inefficient 'code' since it contains mostly junk data and genes that never get activated.

 

[McBell]

it is badly written and inefficient 'code' since it contains mostly junk data and genes that never get activated.

This is the thing that I find most interesting when people present arguments without thinking them through.

 

[outhouse]

, I realize that evolution is the next best thing

Your a little late to the party, its been around for over 100 years.


It is now fact, something you have no argument against.

 

[RossRonin]

It is now fact, something you have no argument against.

C'mon, let's be reasonable. No one can produce a single example of evolution in progress; so atheists make up something called "microevolution" and excitedly point to that as evidence, when really it's nothing but epigenetic mechanisms doing what they were designed to do: help offspring adapt to their environment.

Sorry, did I say "what they were designed to do"? Why is common sense lost on scientists, who love to personify nature with all sorts of anthropomorphic terms ("nature's design" is nonsense: common sense tells you that Mother Nature did not go to MIT, does not have a PhD in engineering) and then mock anybody who notices that the Emperor's New Clothes are not really clothes at all, but an imaginary thing made real by popular consensus?

Evolution is not a fact: if random genetic mutations are still able to engineer organelles into existence, provide just one example of the smallest organelle in the smallest unicellular bacterium that is in the midst of any "evolutionary" stage of progress. Not a new species, not a new set of wings, not an new brain lobe, just a microscopic organelle that gives the cell some additional advantage.

So what if "natural selection" leads to changes in gene frequency? Where is the design capability? Natural selection never "designed" the minutest organelle, random mutations were never guided by nature's mysterious and invisible hand to "design" the minutest organelle, and even the process of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance never results in anything new being "designed" because biosystems engineering is a product of ingenuity, and there is nothing "ingenious" about nature (nature being a virtually meaningless word, because its textbook definition encompasses everything on earth). "Nature" boasts no ingenuity, no creativity, no imagination to design or engineer even the smallest new organelle.

Evolution is the next best thing to "belief in a Creator." But that's not saying much. Evolutionary processes exist only in the minds of believers. If evolution truly were a process of some sort, then stages of that process should be observable everywhere: but no, there is no observable organelle-designing in progress, anywhere.

To explain that flaw, the theory of evolution is followed by the fairy tale of multidimensional evolutionary landscapes replete with peaks and valleys, phenotypic plasticity and morphospaces. But still, not a single new organelle in sight.

 

[metis]

C'mon, let's be reasonable. No one can produce a single example of evolution in progress; so atheists make up something called "microevolution" and excitedly point to that as evidence, when really it's nothing but epigenetic mechanisms doing what they were designed to do: help offspring adapt to their environment.

Sorry, did I say "what they were designed to do"? Why is common sense lost on scientists, who love to personify nature with all sorts of anthropomorphic terms ("nature's design" is nonsense: common sense tells you that Mother Nature did not go to MIT, does not have a PhD in engineering) and then mock anybody who notices that the Emperor's New Clothes are not clothes at all?

Evolution is not a fact: if random genetic mutations are still able to engineer organelles into existence, provide just one example of the smallest organelle in the smallest unicellular bacterium that is in the midst of any "evolutionary" stage of progress. Not a new species, not a pair of wings, not an extra lung, just a microscopic organelle that gives the cell some additional advantage.

So what if "natural selection" leads to changes in gene frequency? Where is the design capability? Natural selection never "designed" the minutest organelle, random mutations were never guided by nature's mysterious and invisible hand to "design" the minutest organelle, and even the process of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance does not result in anything new being "designed" because biosystems engineering is a product of ingenuity, and there is nothing "ingenious" about nature (nature being a virtually meaningless word, because its textbook definition encompasses everything on earth). "Nature" boasts no ingenuity, no creativity, no imagination to design or engineer even the smallest new organelle.

Evolution is the next best thing to "belief in a Creator." But that's not saying much. Evolutionary processes exist only in the minds of believers. If evolution truly were a process of some sort, then stages of that process should be observable everywhere: but no, there is no observable organelle-designing in progress.

To explain that flaw, the theory of evolution is followed by the fairy tale of multidimensional evolutionary landscapes, phenotypic plasticity, and morphospaces. But still, not a single new organelle in progress.

You might consider Googling "speciation" to see just how wrong you are.

Like so many others here, you seem to accept your blind belief in an "uncaused cause", even though you cannot produce one single piece of evidence for that, and then ignore the overwhelming evidence, and even using basic logic, that there's been an evolutionary process.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

C'mon, let's be reasonable. No one can produce a single example of evolution in progress; so atheists make up something called "microevolution" and excitedly point to that as evidence, when really it's nothing but epigenetic mechanisms doing what they were designed to do: help offspring adapt to their environment.

I have previously asked you to provide an example of scientists who believe epigenetics is solely responsible for the sum total of observed evolution. Can you name one?

Evolution is not a fact: if random genetic mutations are still able to engineer organelles into existence, provide just one example of the smallest organelle in the smallest unicellular bacterium that is in the midst of any "evolutionary" stage of progress. Not a new species, not a new set of wings, not an new brain lobe, just a microscopic organelle that gives the cell some additional advantage.

Observed Instances of Speciation

So what if "natural selection" leads to changes in gene frequency? Where is the design capability? Natural selection never "designed" the minutest organelle, random mutations were never guided by nature's mysterious and invisible hand to "design" the minutest organelle, and even the process of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance never results in anything new being "designed" because biosystems engineering is a product of ingenuity, and there is nothing "ingenious" about nature (nature being a virtually meaningless word, because its textbook definition encompasses everything on earth). "Nature" boasts no ingenuity, no creativity, no imagination to design or engineer even the smallest new organelle.

A sieve also has no ingenuity, and yet it is able to "select out" grains of flour that are over a certain size. Natural selection works in just as simple a way: those organisms more likely to survive and produce offspring will be more likely to survive and produce offspring. It is that simple. Unless you want to argue that no mutations have ever produced even the slightest benefit to any organism in the entire history of reproduction, your argument here is nothing but an argument from ignorance. Natural selection does't need ingenuity - it is merely any selective pressure produced by a given environment or situation on the populations of living organisms and how successfully they reproduce.

Evolution is the next best thing to "belief in a Creator." But that's not saying much. Evolutionary processes exist only in the minds of believers. If evolution truly were a process of some sort, then stages of that process should be observable everywhere: but no, there is no observable organelle-designing in progress, anywhere.

We have repeatedly observed speciation in action, and can predict evolutionary changes with such accuracy that we are successfully able to anticipate the evolution of the flu virus year after year and locate the fossils of supposed evolutionary ancestors, their location and their age before finding the fossils.

To explain that flaw, the theory of evolution is followed by the fairy tale of multidimensional evolutionary landscapes replete with peaks and valleys, phenotypic plasticity and morphospaces. But still, not a single new organelle in sight.

Try looking.

 

[outhouse]

let's be reasonable

Yes lets be, when will you start brother?


Evolution is now fact, there is no debate. There is only refusal due to willful ignorance, fanaticism and fundamentalism.

 

[McBell]

C'mon, let's be reasonable. No one can produce a single example of evolution in progress; so atheists make up something called "microevolution" and excitedly point to that as evidence, when really it's nothing but epigenetic mechanisms doing what they were designed to do: help offspring adapt to their environment.

Sorry, did I say "what they were designed to do"? Why is common sense lost on scientists, who love to personify nature with all sorts of anthropomorphic terms ("nature's design" is nonsense: common sense tells you that Mother Nature did not go to MIT, does not have a PhD in engineering) and then mock anybody who notices that the Emperor's New Clothes are not really clothes at all, but an imaginary thing made real by popular consensus?

Evolution is not a fact: if random genetic mutations are still able to engineer organelles into existence, provide just one example of the smallest organelle in the smallest unicellular bacterium that is in the midst of any "evolutionary" stage of progress. Not a new species, not a new set of wings, not an new brain lobe, just a microscopic organelle that gives the cell some additional advantage.

So what if "natural selection" leads to changes in gene frequency? Where is the design capability? Natural selection never "designed" the minutest organelle, random mutations were never guided by nature's mysterious and invisible hand to "design" the minutest organelle, and even the process of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance never results in anything new being "designed" because biosystems engineering is a product of ingenuity, and there is nothing "ingenious" about nature (nature being a virtually meaningless word, because its textbook definition encompasses everything on earth). "Nature" boasts no ingenuity, no creativity, no imagination to design or engineer even the smallest new organelle.

Evolution is the next best thing to "belief in a Creator." But that's not saying much. Evolutionary processes exist only in the minds of believers. If evolution truly were a process of some sort, then stages of that process should be observable everywhere: but no, there is no observable organelle-designing in progress, anywhere.

To explain that flaw, the theory of evolution is followed by the fairy tale of multidimensional evolutionary landscapes replete with peaks and valleys, phenotypic plasticity and morphospaces. But still, not a single new organelle in sight.

Ignoring the facts that evidence evolution does not make evolution go away.

Though I do you an "A+" on the bull **** shoveling.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes I think science on the whole is better than religion, if we never had science we would be in a bad way today, science helped to bring us out of the so called dark-ages when religion ruled, so hooray for science.

 

[Willamena]

Yes I think science on the whole is better than religion, if we never had science we would be in a bad way today, science helped to bring us out of the so called dark-ages when religion ruled, so hooray for science.

You know, there was a time before the dark ages.

 

[Bunyip]

You know, there was a time before the dark ages.

Yes, like ancient Greece, where astonishing scientific discoveries were made.

 

[psychoslice]

You know, there was a time before the dark ages.

Yes and it wasn't ruled by the church, most people were free to believe in what they wanted to, but of course it was all perfect.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Science is absolutely better than religion at the things science was developed to do. When it comes to developing working theories about the natural world and how it works, there's no contest. Religion has no business pissing in that pool. However, science was not developed to be a replacement for religion and therefore does not serve all of its functions. Science does not bind cultures and communities together, it will not tell you how to live or why to live. It will not provide methods for dealing with your existential crises. It will not transform you.

 

[outhouse]

Science keeps you alive and cures you from disease.


Religion is what comforts your family when science cannot save you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science keeps you alive and cures you from disease.

Conspicuous by its absence is the claim that science gave ouhouse his life......nor that despite science....outhouse is doomed to die....lol

 

[outhouse]

Conspicuous by its absence is the claim that science gave ouhouse his life......nor that despite science....outhouse is doomed to die....lol

That is nature.

It has nothing to do with religion or science.


But I like your personal attack, its a sign of weakness.

 

[dust1n]

C'mon, let's be reasonable. No one can produce a single example of evolution in progress; so atheists make up something called "microevolution" and excitedly point to that as evidence, when really it's nothing but epigenetic mechanisms doing what they were designed to do: help offspring adapt to their environment.

Lmao... epigenetic mechanisms don't dictate what mutations occur between generations. Also, the fact that you claim atheists "made up something called 'microevolution'" is beyond hilarious. The term was coined by a botanist named Robert Leavitt, who.... you guessed it, spent the later portions of his life a Congregationalist preacher, being so devoutly atheist and all.

Try being less dishonest. You might earn your divine favor.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is nature.

It has nothing to do with religion or science.


But I like your personal attack, its a sign of weakness.

....and nature comes from where?

...and don't take it so personal pal....that wasn't an attack...just showing your blind spot..

 

[dust1n]

You know, there was a time before the dark ages.

Life before the Dark Ages was still, comparatively dark. Unless you're a fan of slavery, short light spans, and brute force as a mode of political operation.

 

[Looncall]

Science is absolutely better than religion at the things science was developed to do. When it comes to developing working theories about the natural world and how it works, there's no contest. Religion has no business pissing in that pool. However, science was not developed to be a replacement for religion and therefore does not serve all of its functions. Science does not bind cultures and communities together, it will not tell you how to live or why to live. It will not provide methods for dealing with your existential crises. It will not transform you.

However, science can provide the information needed to do those things successfully. How could one do them without an understanding of human nature (psychology)?

I think that the ability of religion to do those things is overestimated, and its attempts sometimes turn out badly (ISIS anyone?).