The Mystery Thread

[Rational Agnostic]

I didn't mean rationally coherent because in a debate / discussion setting that would be too relative to the reader's position and therefore subjective.

By okay I mean acceptable.

You can believe whatever you want, so of course it's "acceptable." Of course, that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

 

[Willamena]

I think going by consensus is the appeal to popularity. Its also appeal to authority when refering to scientists.

I believe in questioning everything i dont agree with. I will not agree with something if i dont understand the why behind the consensus.

Basically, i dont give a hoot about consensus, only understanding the data/evidence/logic.

Also to add further, most people, if not all, have biases, also, alot of people can be stupid. So when you mix bias, with stupid, plus the need to understand the evidence/data/logic, then consensus is utterly worthless.

It's not an appeal to popularity, just a consensus of the methodology. If someone came up with a superior method of explaining the observations, everyone would jump ship.

 

[WalterTrull]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

Whoah! You accept tenets of science?

 

[Earthling]

Is it okay to be inconsistent in the use of reason? I'd say no,it's not okay if the intent is to show integrity. I say yes, if the goal is self-deception, and you don't care if others see this double-standard as obviously hypocritical.

See, I don't like this. This sort of arrogance is what puts me off. Believe what we tell you or be cast out. Cast me out, I say. Cast me out.

 

[Earthling]

I don't understand why you're asking the question given how obvious the answer is, especially after you clarified that by "okay" you mean "acceptable." Why do you ask this question?

I don't think the answer is that obvious. It sure took me by surprise.

 

[Willamena]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

Why, of all the disciplines of science, would you reject biology?

 

[Windwalker]

See, I don't like this. This sort of arrogance is what puts me off. Believe what we tell you or be cast out. Cast me out, I say. Cast me out.

No one is saying "believe what we tell you". You however on the other hand assume you can somehow dismiss valid science because you think cynicism is a virtue. And that dismissiveness, is what is arrogance. As they say, you project on others what you yourself know deep inside, but refuse to acknowledge, what you yourself are guilty of. It's obvious to everyone else.

Brings to mind a quote, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". Bet your toes are awfully bloody by now. Can you feel them anymore?

 

[dianaiad]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

You do what you want to, sweetie. I know a lady who believes in the Young Earth and 24/7 creation bit, but teaches old earth and evolution in school. When surprised by a question regarding, oh, the scab lands in Washington (which really were caused by catastrophic flooding) or the Grand Canyon (which wasn't), she'll give the correct reason even if she isn't in front of a classroom. She just has separate rooms in her brain where she puts her pet theories, and understands the code required to get the appropriate ones out according to her audience, mood and wish to mess with people.

I like her a lot.

I never know what I'm gonna get when I ask her a question. Such people are treasures to be mined carefully.

 

[Earthling]

Why, of all the disciplines of science, would you reject biology?

I have no interest whatsoever in science. The question was intended to establish whether or no one (anyone) could reject the theory of Evolution while accepting other disciplines. In other words if you reject Evolution do you reject science? I know of respected scientists in various fields, including Biology, who reject evolution and accept the teachings of the Bible that I believe.

 

[Earthling]

I have no interest whatsoever in science. The question was intended to establish whether or no one (anyone) could reject the theory of Evolution while accepting other disciplines. In other words if you reject Evolution do you reject science? I know of respected scientists in various fields, including Biology, who reject evolution and accept the teachings of the Bible that I believe.

SO it wasn't necessary to ask the question other than to gauge the responses of believers and unbelievers, especially those who were "Christian" and accepted evolution.

 

[Earthling]

No one is saying "believe what we tell you".

Yes you are.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, you can. You don't even need an alternative to explain anything. You have an option to accept that "we don't know" what they are.

But to say that "we don't know" when we actually do is dishonest.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think the answer is that obvious. It sure took me by surprise.

Hmm. I suppose it's possible someone was never taught that "acceptable" is a human social construct and therefore entirely subjective and contextual. I find that hard to believe, especially on this question. If we were talking about an illegal activity that would be one thing, but it obviously isn't illegal (unacceptable) to accept sciences except evolution.

 

[Earthling]

Hmm. I suppose it's possible someone was never taught that "acceptable" is a human social construct and therefore entirely subjective and contextual. I find that hard to believe, especially on this question. If we were talking about an illegal activity that would be one thing, but it obviously isn't illegal (unacceptable) to accept sciences except evolution.

Don't be so naive.

 

[viole]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

It depends. If you insist in rational consistency, then no. Since the results of evolution have been obtained by using the same paradigm used for ascertain other theory of science.

So, you have no rational way to accept X and not Y, if they are the product of the same methology.

Unless you have a priori metaphysical bias, but that would be against the premise of rational consistency.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

I have no interest whatsoever in science. The question was intended to establish whether or no one (anyone) could reject the theory of Evolution while accepting other disciplines. In other words if you reject Evolution do you reject science? I know of respected scientists in various fields, including Biology, who reject evolution and accept the teachings of the Bible that I believe.

But in order to answer that, I would need to know why one would reject biology but not the other disciplines of science. If you reject evolution, you reject biology. The study of biology is basically just three related things: cells, genes, and evolution.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes you are.

No I am not. Not "just believe". That is what many in religion tell you to do, tragically in many cases asking you to deny evidence to the contrary (something you champion yourself doing as some misguided notion of being a "virtue of faith"). You don't "just believe" science. You trust the integrity of the systems of checks and balances that weed out personal opinion, and you trust the consensus of those who are experts. That is not "just believe". That's what you are doing, falsely, and project that same thing onto others, falsely.

 

[Jose Fly]

In other words if you reject Evolution do you reject science?

That would mean you reject one of the fundamental conclusions of science, no different than rejecting erosion or gravity.

I know of respected scientists in various fields, including Biology, who reject evolution and accept the teachings of the Bible that I believe.

I know of scientists who reject a moving earth that orbits the sun. Therefore........?

 

[Jose Fly]

It depends. If you insist in rational consistency, then no. Since the results of evolution have been obtained by using the same paradigm used for ascertain other theory of science.

So, you have no rational way to accept X and not Y, if they are the product of the same methology.

That's a good point and brings to mind something I figured out about creationists a long time ago.

As most of us know, in science the methodology one uses to arrive at a conclusion is of primary importance. As long as you utilize the proper method, your conclusion is typically justified. Conversely, for creationists the methodology is a distant second to the conclusion. So for them, if you reach the wrong conclusion (i.e., one that goes against non-negotiable religious beliefs), it's wrong regardless of the method you used to get there. And of course if you reach a conclusion that is consistent with the non-negotiable religious beliefs, that conclusion is correct regardless of the method used to reach it.

 

[leibowde84]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

Honesty requires that you do not discount evidence of or evolution itself simply because it doesn't sound right to you or it doesn't align with your religious beliefs, imho. It is dishonest to pick and choose what scientific evidence you accept.

 

[ChristineM]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

You can accept or reject whatever you want, it makes no difference to the evidence.