Science Babble vs Truth

[Sand Dancer]

What does science — mainstream, anyways — reject?

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

Science goes on things that can be proven, time and again, so anything that needs faith doesn't fly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was not about "to dismiss or not to dismiss"

You pointed out to @Hockeycowboy "assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

And in the same line, you did exactly that, make an "assertion without evidence"

Hence I mirrored your own words

It is always a good idea to ask a poster to support an unsupported claim. In other words give them the benefit of the doubt. Some posters are well known here and it gets tiresome to ask for support that never comes. Usually @ratiocinator can support his claims.

 

[Regiomontanus]

'Intolerance'? Were these graduate students trying to insinuate their deity into their research?

No but I was an arrogant *******, as were most of my cohort. We were ignorant too, thinking that somehow physics had all the answers. Kind of funny when I look back on it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, Dr. Feduccia isn’t denying facts. What he’s denying, is their interpretation.


To take a contrary position that is unpopular, to the point of being ridiculed as he is, damaging a reputation that took years to build.... I’d be more inclined to listen to him than to those that just toe the line.

His position on BAND is not arbitrary, it’s based on evidence!

Cool. So you buy into alchemy too? And cold fusion?

 

[stvdv]

It is always a good idea to ask a poster to support an unsupported claim. In other words give them the benefit of the doubt. Some posters are well known here and it gets tiresome to ask for support that never comes. Usually @ratiocinator can support his claims.

I agree, and I give people usually (also in this case) the benefit of the doubt (esp. because I have seen @ratiocinator giving lots of proofs here

I just gave feedback on his feedback, and my next reply was explaining that my reply was not about "to dismiss or not to dismiss"; that was all

 

[stvdv]

When babble comes up against truth, babble will remain babble, and never will it become truth.
Allow me to babble for a while in this thread.

Science Babble vs Truth

Nice and catchy title and first line. And very true of course.

Any Scientific person will confirm that "We just Babble" when it comes to the Great Universal Truth
Any Spiritual/Religious person will confirm that "We just Babble" when it comes to the Great Universal Truth

 

[tas8831]

Probably because many instances of so called design, especially in complex living beings, look totally stupid.

Ciao

- viole

What - can you NOT see the brilliant design of the female hyena pseudo-penis? Surely this screams out (in pain) CREATION by an unknown (wink wink) INTELLIGENT MIND!

 

[tas8831]

No but I was an arrogant *******, as were most of my cohort. We were ignorant too, thinking that somehow physics had all the answers. Kind of funny when I look back on it.

Not as funny, I suppose, as listening to creationists try to find a way to make things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve make sense from their 'God is perfect' perspective in medical school anatomy class.

 

[tas8831]

So, Dr. Feduccia isn’t denying facts. What he’s denying, is their interpretation.


To take a contrary position that is unpopular, to the point of being ridiculed as he is, damaging a reputation that took years to build.... I’d be more inclined to listen to him than to those that just toe the line.

His position on BAND is not arbitrary, it’s based on evidence!

You are more inclined to listen to him because you think his 'dissent' means that there is a BIG PROBLEM WITH bird EVOLUTION!

Let's apply your logic to creationism - there are young earth creationists, and old earth creationists. Their view on the creation timeline differs by something like 6 orders of magnitude - while using the same source material (though 1 side just ignores evidence).

All sensible folk should reject creationism in all its forms due to this, because that is not just a mere squabble between experts' interpretation of a particular line of evidence (Feduccia does not deny evolution, just its pathway in a particular instance), but they don't.

Creationists deny the evidence.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Not as funny, I suppose, as listening to creationists try to find a way to make things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve make sense from their 'God is perfect' perspective in medical school anatomy class.

Most Christians I know now and then were not creationists, in the sense of rejecting evolution and the fact that the universe is very old. But yeah, unfortunately there are many Christians who try to read the Bible as if it was a science textbook.

 

[tas8831]

Most Christians I know now and then were not creationists, in the sense of rejecting evolution and the fact that the universe is very old. But yeah, unfortunately there are many Christians who try to read the Bible as if it was a science textbook.

Indeed - and they were so vocal about it. Sort of annoying.

 

[metis]

Are you aware who Alan Feduccia is? Do you think he is advocating against the theory of evolution?

Is your post just an example of a scientific controversy, therefore JW's are right?

Exactly, and if the one who posted the OP had done some homework on him, here's what he would have found:
Feduccia opposes the scientific consensus that birds originated from and are deeply nested within Theropoda, and are therefore living theropod dinosaurs.[5][6][7][8] He has argued for an alternative theory in which birds share a common stem-ancestor with theropod dinosaurs among more basal archosaurian lineages, with birds originating from small arboreal archosaurs in the Triassic... -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Feduccia

 

[tas8831]

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

Yes. Science "has gives" us answers, religion gives us platitudes and slogans.

Q: Why is grass green?

Religion: Only God knows/because that is how God made it.

Science: Because grass contains a chemical called chlorophyll which reflects the wavelengths of light that we interpret as the color green.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Consensus, many times, changes.

Facts never do.

https://blog.drwile.com/riddle-of-the-feathered-dragons/

An invisible man did it.

That is not a fact. That is a claim. Some people will believe it. Some will not. Some people will reject it for lack of evidence and reasons of logic. Others will accept it and note that an invisible man cannot be proven not to exist.

The invisible man can be discussed. Discussion is not evidence for the existence of the invisible man.

Millions of people can believe with all their hearts that this invisible man exists. Those numbers mean nothing about the validity of the existence of the invisible man.

Even scientists can believe that an invisible man exists. The scientist may believe the invisible man whispered into his ear. Without objective evidence to show anyone this whisper, it is just a claim without support.

Scientist can disagree with consensus. Disagreeing with it does not make them right. Disagreeing with consensus does not mean that a particular religious view is correct or that a particular view of science has failed.

Saying that conclusions change, but facts never do does not mean that a particular religious view suddenly becomes verified.

Grasping at a lone dissenting voice in science is not evidence for the failure of evolution and the verification of religious views.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does science — mainstream, anyways — reject?

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

That is not true.

A lot of scientists believe in God. I do.

What I cannot do is claim in science that speciation in scarabs was caused by God. How could I demonstrate that? What evidence supports that conclusion? A beautiful sunset? The majestic Rockies? My particular interpretation of the Bible?

If I disagree with how Catholic Christians worship, is that evidence for a global flood? Or against the flood? Does my rejection of JW ideology make my view correct?

If I disagree with the scientific consensus on ideological grounds, how do I support that without turning to belief?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

I'd say so.

But I'd make the distinction between useful answers and useless ones. Useful answers are those that explain how observable phenomena occur, and can be used to predict future outcomes. If your answer can't do that, or even be demonstrated to correlate with reality in any way, then it doesn't matter if we call it true or false. It's what logical positivists would say isn't even wrong, because it cannot be shown to be right or wrong. They are meaningless ideas since they can't be used for anything.

Faith-based systems of thought are not empirically grounded, and thus have little practical value. They are not derived from physical reality and therefore cannot comment on it in any meaningful or useful way.

Compare the answer to the question of where the tree of life came from. Christianity, for example, says that its God created them (creationism). Science gives us the theory of evolution. The first answer wasn't derived from the study of nature, and can therefore make no predictions about it, either, nor explain how it was done. That's not a useful answer even if correct. Because the scientific answer is drawn from the consideration of physical evidence, it can unify it all in an overarching narrative that includes a mechanism (natural selection applied to spontaneous genetic variation), and accurately predicts what cannot be found in nature and what can. It also can be used in fields like agriculture and medicine to make life better.

So, yeah, creationism gives us answers, but because they are not grounded in evidence, they are not useful even if correct.

How do you know that the scientists perception about the things they infer, are reliable?

Empirically - by observation, by an idea's predictive power. What more do you need to know about the validity of the science and engineering underlying the Apollo moon missions apart from the fact that the crew got to the moon and back to know that the assumptions underlying the mission were valid?

scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

That wouldn't be science. It's the same mistake that the intelligent design people made in reverse when they assumed that there is a god, which generated pseudoscience.

Proper critical thinking evaluates evidence without preconception and goes where reason takes it. If that leads to a God, science will find it and be the first to let us know that it did.

Here you make a claim "it's obviously made up nonsense" without evidence. Applying your "rule" in the above first quote of yours. We can dismiss your claim. Right?

Yes, if by dismiss you mean fail to believe it. That is not the same as declaring that the idea is incorrect. If he can support his position and is willing to do so, we should consider the argument critically. If we find the argument and the evidence supporting it compelling, we are justified in accepting the ideas as correct (provisionally). And if he doesn't feel like doing that or can't, you are free to not accept the idea as correct. Unsupported claims can be filed under "somebody's opinion, maybe correct, maybe not."

Does science accept or even consider a Mind as a Cause for biological complexity? Or for physics?

Science doesn't exclude the possibility, but presently, there is insufficient evidence to support that belief. As others have noted, inserting a god into any scientific theory or law adds nothing to its explanatory or predictive power, so why do it, especially since there may be no such thing as a god.

Compare: E=mc2, and God ordained that E should equal MC2 and made it so. OK. Can't use that extra bit to do science, making it irrelevant at this point even if true.

post some evidence [that "the evidence for common descent via evolution is overwhelming.]

If your interest is sincere, it's your job to find it.

There are several ways that you can get up to speed on the science. I learned it from textbooks and professors taking university level courses in evolution, and then later, reading popular science books and scientific web sites like Talk Origins. Or, you can begin with a Google search and just begin reading, but be certain to visit only sites interested in teaching science rather than promoting any other agenda.

How about you explore the Talk Origins link and return here to tell what you learned - what they claimed was evidence of common descent, and offer opinions about what you find believable, and what you don't and why. That's how this material is learned.

And it's excellent training in critical thinking, an acquired skill. See the evidence available to Darwin and the argument he offered to conclude common descent. If you do it in a university, the professor won't even ask you if you believe it, just whether you understand Darwin (and the evolutionists that have come since and added to the theory, such as Gould and punctuated equilibrium - what evidence led to that conclusion).

we have a well tested theory of how biological complexity came about and no mind is indicated or needed, quite the opposite, in fact. Any mind that did things this way would be deranged and/or making an attempt to deliberately deceive.

How so?

Ask yourself what would be the result if evolutionary theory were falsified, perhaps by the discovery of a partially digested human being in a dinosaur's belly, or a dog giving birth to a cat naturally. Let's say that the consensus of scientists is that the theory has bee disproven. What now? Christian creationism? No, it's already too late for that even if the science is wrong. The mountains of evidence supporting the theory until the day it was falsified don't disappear. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find.

And that's where deliberate deception comes in. What's left but some form of creationism (not necessarily by a god) that was meant to appear like a natural, unguided process? The geographic column of successively older (radiocarbon dating), deeper, and less modern appearing forms would have to be a deception planted there to fool us. That pretty much rules out the God of the Christian Bible, who we are told wants us to know, believe, love, trust, obey, and worship Him. That god didn't do this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I hope you do not expect an answer of any substance from nPeace.

Personally, I gave up on that a long time ago.

 

[firedragon]

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

You are a theist I assume by your post. Thus, why do you give in to this newly created axiom of "religion vs science"? This is a recently created false dichotomy. I know that in history some religious institutions have worked against scientific thinkers or philosophers. But that does not mean religion and science are a true dichotomy.

 

[firedragon]

Science goes on things that can be proven, time and again, so anything that needs faith doesn't fly.

You have just made a faith statement. Only thing is in that faith statement, you have said "anything that needs faith doesnt fly". That means you have an axiom, but you breaking the law of non-contradiction.

 

[firedragon]

A lot of scientists believe in God. I do.

I didnt know you are a scientist. Honoured.