Science - What is it? Can it be trusted?

[Amaris]

^ I agree, but I'll point out that natural selection is science, too.

The thing that people call 'natural selection' is just a huge collection of random, unrelated events.

The name is a misnomer really because 'selection' implies direction or purpose, where in reality there is none. The bird eats the poisonous worm, the bird dies. There is no meaning in that event until a human comes along and observes it.

Science is science, natural selection is a collection of events.

Natural selection is not a random process.

 

[RAMA]

^ I agree, but I'll point out that natural selection is science, too.

The thing that people call 'natural selection' is just a huge collection of random, unrelated events.

The name is a misnomer really because 'selection' implies direction or purpose, where in reality there is none. The bird eats the poisonous worm, the bird dies. There is no meaning in that event until a human comes along and observes it.

Science is science, natural selection is a collection of events.

Darwin regretted using the term natural "selection", and felt natural "preservation" was a more accurate term in later years.

I wouldn't call it "random" or unrelated, it takes consistent effects of environment to create an adaptive evolution. Its still the most important component, along with the later- discovered genetic heredity in the fact of evolution. Discovered with the tried and true process of science.

RAMA

 

[Lindley]

The thing that people call 'natural selection' is just a huge collection of random, unrelated events.

The name is a misnomer really because 'selection' implies direction or purpose, where in reality there is none. The bird eats the poisonous worm, the bird dies. There is no meaning in that event until a human comes along and observes it.

Science is science, natural selection is a collection of events.

Not really----Natural Selection is a theory describing the way in which that collection of events occurs.

Every scientific theory could be called a "collection of events" using your definition.

 

[Captain_Nick]

Not really----Natural Selection is a theory describing the way in which that collection of events occurs.

If Natural Selection is the name of the theory, what is the name of the process itself?

Every scientific theory could be called a "collection of events" using your definition.

Pointless and true. I used this definition specifically to combat the crazy notion that evolution is somehow 'directed' when it really totally isn't.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Here is a nice example of the kind of misinformation this 'museum' tries to spread:



From their Online Newsroom site.

Just read a bit from their home page. Talking about "Jesus Christ, the creator of the universe."

Yeah, I would not want taxpayer dollars to in any way contribute to the Noah's Ark theme park, either. These foaming-at-the-mouth Christians are nothing more than a widespread cult. I was baptized Catholic, but I got away from that crap when I was 10 years old. I may read about unexplained phenomena to a certain extent, but not to the point of this brainwashing insanity.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But even Dawkins said to Bill'O (I'm paraphrasing) that if religion is something that brings you comfort, that's your own business and all well and good.

Dawkins said that? Wow. I admit I am (pleasantly) surprised.

 

[Amaris]

But even Dawkins said to Bill'O (I'm paraphrasing) that if religion is something that brings you comfort, that's your own business and all well and good.

Dawkins said that? Wow. I admit I am (pleasantly) surprised.

He's been saying it for years.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Really? Hmm. I did not know (and certainly did not expect) that.

 

[Lindley]

If Natural Selection is the name of the theory, what is the name of the process itself?

Nature. Scientific theories are nothing more than a way of describing (and by extension, predicting) events in nature.

I used this definition specifically to combat the crazy notion that evolution is somehow 'directed' when it really totally isn't.

I didn't disagree with that part of your statement.

 

[ST-One]

Really? Hmm. I did not know (and certainly did not expect) that.

That's because people don't listen to him but rather to others talk about him.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I used this definition specifically to combat the crazy notion that evolution is somehow 'directed' when it really totally isn't.

That would be encomiable if someone described that notion here. But I think we are all pretty aware of how it works. I surely am.

Really? Hmm. I did not know (and certainly did not expect) that.

That's because people don't listen to him but rather to others talk about him.

I was going to say the same exact thing. He's been pictures by the media and religious fundamentalists as a frothing madman, when he's the opposite of it. Disagreeing with the influence of religions in science and politics is not the same as gleefully insulting people's beliefs just for the sake of it.

 

[Jadzia]

^ I agree, but I'll point out that natural selection is science, too.

The thing that people call 'natural selection' is just a huge collection of random, unrelated events.

The name is a misnomer really because 'selection' implies direction or purpose, where in reality there is none. The bird eats the poisonous worm, the bird dies. There is no meaning in that event until a human comes along and observes it.

Science is science, natural selection is a collection of events.

In some sense events do happen randomly, but the consequences of those events are asymmetric, and have a feedback effect. Some events are more likely to happen again and some events less likely to happen again.

To put it rather more poetically, we could say that natural selection is the process by which chaos becomes order.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Disagreeing with the influence of religions in science and politics is not the same as gleefully insulting people's beliefs just for the sake of it.

I see. And writing books with names like "The God Delusion" is not an insult to my beliefs? Nor is this? And of course that thing with the bus campaign? I must have missed the memo on those.

 

[Deckerd]

It's not an insult to your religion specifically.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I see. And writing books with names like "The God Delusion" is not an insult to my beliefs? I must have missed the memo on that one.

It's a detailed, well-reasoned analysis how beliefs in a personal god who interfere in human affairs could qualify as a delusion, i.e. a persistent belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Disagree as you wish with the conclusion, or disagree with the methodology if you think that religion should not be analysed rationally, but insult was not the purpose of the book. Obviously, you wouldn't know that if you limited yourself to read the title before passing judgement on the entire book. On related news, "To Kill a Mockingbird" was not really about bird hunting either.

 

[Amaris]

Disagreeing with the influence of religions in science and politics is not the same as gleefully insulting people's beliefs just for the sake of it.

I see. And writing books with names like "The God Delusion" is not an insult to my beliefs? I must have missed the memo on that one.

You feel insulted because your beliefs aren't just beliefs to you, they're as real as it gets. However, it is entirely contained within your mind. There is no physical evidence, and those who claim as such fall under the definition of a hallucination:

–noun 1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.

2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.

3. a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; delusion.

Note that one definition uses the term "delusion". In other words, what you're seeing is a product of your own mind. You may disagree with this strongly, but that does not change the total lack of external evidence to the contrary. If a man insisted he saw aliens land in his front yard, steal his soul, and warp off into space, we'd consider him to be experiencing some form of hallucination.

Just because you hold the belief to be true does not make it true, neither does it require others to believe it to be true. That's not an insult, it's the definition of delusion. The reason you feel insulted is because that Christianity is so ingrained in our culture (along with other religions), that the prospect of it all being something solely in your head is a foreign concept.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Just because you hold the belief to be true does not make it true, neither does it require others to believe it to be true.

I never said it did. But the mere use of words like "delusion" is in itself an insult. How could it not be? That's a very loaded word right there. Wouldn't you be offended if somebody called your atheism a delusion? How might Dawkins himself feel?

And also, your definition equally applies to him as well. Just because you and he are atheists does not PROVE there is no god, nor does it require me to believe that.

You feel insulted because your beliefs aren't just beliefs to you, they're as real as it gets.

I also feel insulted when people start linking my faith to hallucinations. I'm funny that way.

Look, guys, I know you don't want people like me in a thread like this, but I can't deny what *I* feel.

 

[Amaris]

I never said it did. But the mere use of words like "delusion" is in itself an insult. How could it not be? That's a very loaded word right there. Wouldn't you be offended if somebody called your atheism a delusion? How might Dawkins himself feel?

And also, your definition equally applies to him as well. Just because you and he are atheists does not PROVE there is no god, nor does it require me to believe that.

The burden of proof, however, is on you.

I also feel insulted when people start linking my faith to hallucinations. I'm funny that way.

Look, guys, I know you don't want people like me in a thread like this, but I can't deny what *I* feel.

See, no one here is insulting you, but because your beliefs are so dearly held and unassailable in your own heart, you feel like you are being berated and mocked when you're not. No one here is insulting you, and I don't think anyone has given any indication they don't want you here. I certainly haven't. If anything, you were the one that broached the subject on Dawkins and your feelings toward his books.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Just because you hold the belief to be true does not make it true, neither does it require others to believe it to be true.

I never said it did. But the mere use of words like "delusion" is in itself an insult. How could it not be? That's a very loaded word right there. Wouldn't you be offended if somebody called your atheism a delusion? How might Dawkins himself feel?

And also, your definition equally applies to him as well. Just because you and he are atheists does not PROVE there is no god, nor does it require me to believe that.

You feel insulted because your beliefs aren't just beliefs to you, they're as real as it gets.

I also feel insulted when people start linking my faith to hallucinations. I'm funny that way.

Look, guys, I know you don't want people like me in a thread like this, but I can't deny what *I* feel.

Why is it not sufficient for religious people just to believe and not worry about what everyone else thinks of it?

Yeah, I think belief in God (any god) is a delusion. So what? What's it to you?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Why is it not sufficient for religious people just to believe and not worry about what everyone else thinks of it?

We'd sort of like to be able to *continue* to believe, that's why.

Yeah, I think belief in God (any god) is a delusion. So what? What's it to you?

I might ask you the same question about me.

The burden of proof, however, is on you.

Well, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. The very essence of faith is belief in things NOT seen. I'm sorry that's not enough for you all. But it's the best I can do.

See, no one here is insulting you, but because your beliefs are so dearly held and unassailable in your own heart, you feel like you are being berated and mocked when you're not. No one here is insulting you, and I don't think anyone has given any indication they don't want you here. I certainly haven't.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.