Losing my religion.

[Happy Monkey]

Must have. Every textbook I've seen, as a child, and now in my children's books (if you have kids, you should read their textbooks at least once to see what's in them) present the information as fact. Not one of them said, "This is our best guess."

The state of textbooks is indeed deplorable. See Richard Feynman's autobiographies for his experiences in the approval process. But putting inaccuracies aside:
The "best guess" sentence applies to ALL of science, not just natural selection. A general science book ought to describe the scientific method, and state that all scientific statements can be divided into two piles: data and theories. Data comes from experiments. Theories provide a framework that ties together data from past experiments, in an attempt to predict the results of future experiments. No explanation is fact. there's nothing special about natural selection in this area.

Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?

Because it's a science class, not a comparative religions class. Creationism was not arrived at by the scientific method. It is not supported by any experimental data. It is, in fact, impervious to experiment. All contrary evidence is ignored as God trying to test people's faith.
It is impossible to rule out a magical being who fakes the evidence, but it is also scientifically meaningless, and therefore worthless as science. If belief in it helps you spiritually, then I have no problems with that. But it is not science.

Evolutionary Theory et al. is a religion.

No more or less than any other scientific theory. Are you advocating the removal of science classes from public schools, based on the fact that science honestly admits that it is not 100% proven? Or are you only worried about science that doesn't agree with current interpretation of your religion?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Both are a belief, and therefore require faith. See webster post by Bruce.

OK, I've pointed out the difference twice, so I'll ask instead. How would YOU phrase a position that requires no faith? Or do you deny that people without religious faith exist?

[OnyxCougar]

Again, my beliefs in which is right or wrong are not involved in this. I don't know which is right. I wasn't there. No one was. For either set of events.

I believe in science. I believe that gravity and chemistry and most of the laws of Physics and Quantum Mechanics and those other things are valid, observable theories, and as such, I will even accept them as fact. It's how we put men on the moon and satellites on asteroids. I have NO problem with science.

But just because The Theory contains elements of science, and many other theories of science (geology to name a good example) are based on The Theory, that does not make The Theory itself science. The Theory was not observed to happen, nor do we see it happen now. We see elements of The Theory in other places. One can SPECULATE that The Theory is PROBABLY correct, BASED on evidence we see. But the fact is, we simply don't know. And I have a big problem with presenting a theory that is not proven to be irrefuteably true as Science. It is not science. It is a theory within science, using science as a basis for comparison.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
OK, I've pointed out the difference twice, so I'll ask instead. How would YOU phrase a position that requires no faith? Or do you deny that people without religious faith exist?

I believe that every person has a religious faith of some kind. That can even be a faith that there is no god at all.

So would I say an Atheist has faith? Yes I would.

Do I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes I do.

The only position that requires no faith is a fact.

I believe science can show us observable, repeated experiments, and the result of them, over and over, same result, repeated every time, is a fact.

The Theory is not fact but it is presented that way. That's what I have the problem with.

[OnyxCougar]

faith n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a
person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with
one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as
secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's
will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

That would be 1, 2, and 6

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think you've got it backwards. The Theory does not contain the science, the science contains the Theory which grew out of the discoveries of science. The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. That's what science is all about, certainly not faith or religion. And science is what should be taught in schools. not faith or religion.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I think you've got it backwards. The Theory does not contain the science, the science contains the Theory which grew out of the discoveries of science. The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. That's what science is all about, certainly not faith or religion. And science is what should be taught in schools. not faith or religion.

OK, I'll bite on that.

"The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. "

Speculation is not fact.

"The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. "

Exactly. It's not fact, so the idea, The Theory is not fact.

So why present it as such?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Websters again:
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Is this a religion?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I believe that every person has a religious faith of some kind. That can even be a faith that there is no god at all.

Indeed. One can have faith that there is no god. But what if one doesn't have faith that there is or isn't a god? I can guess that a throw of a die will be more than two, but I have no faith. Likewise, I don't belive in any gods, but I have no faith.

Unless we start using some pretty broad (bordering on meaningless) definitions of faith.

The Theory is not fact but it is presented that way. That's what I have the problem with.

That is just as true (or false) of all theories in science. But natural selection is one of the few that religious people try to claim is just a guess, and separate it from other theories.

[juju]

Onyx, please, for the love of God, stop talking. Everything you've said since my last post is completely wrong. You have so many things wrong it's crazy. Let me go back and we can break it down into little pieces. Then we can evaluate the truth value of each piece individually.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar



OK, I'll bite on that.

"The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. "

Speculation is not fact.

"The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. "

Exactly. It's not fact, so the idea, The Theory is not fact.

So why present it as such?

Well like I said before, to me it was. Of course some of the "dots" I was taught have since been disproven, which is the nature of science. But, I was taught that too.
I think much of that has more to do with the teacher(s) rather than the textbook.

[juju]

Before I reply to everything else, could you tell me which parts of my "definitions" post you agree and disagree with? Can we at least define our terms?

I'd like to add a few more definitions:

<u>theory</u>: an empirically verifiable proposition that seeks to explain some portion of reality. It must be expressed in a way that can be tested. In other words, the theory must be falsifiable using data obtained during some form of observation.

This is obviously completely separate from a "guess". To 'guess' means to assume without sufficient information. If you've empirically verified something numerous times, then obviously you're basing your proposition on some information.

<u>scientific fact</u>: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

[Happy Monkey]

A misconception that OnyxCougar seems to be under is that children should only be taught proven facts in a science class. That is not true. Children should be taught science in a science class. Natural selection is science, creationism is not.

In many science books, the evolution of atomic theory is described in detail. Several different models are provided, in order, showing how the new models supplant, refute, or provide alternatives to other models. But they are all scientific models. If a supportable alternate theory of the evolutionary process were to gain currency, then it should be put alongside natural selection in the textbooks. But "it was magic and you can't prove it wasn't" is not a scientific theory.

[juju]

Originally posted by dave
Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?).

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Prove it.

You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.

This is blatantly wrong on it's face. Please peruse talkorigins.org for overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs. Also, I suspect that you might be using a definition of 'evolution' other than the one I stated.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Evolutionary Theory is a great theory, and one day we may have enough evidence to PROVE it is correct. Until that time, scientists have to qualify remarks with words like "suggests" and "may have been" and "could be caused by".

There is evidence aplenty. I shouldn't even have to link to it. All you need to do is look.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Now. If we can agree that Evolution is NOT fact, merely a good theory, why is it that most scientists take it as fact, and teach it in our schools?

My thing is this: Until it is proven as fact, I have to take that explanation on scientific guesswork. I have to take it on faith. Doesn't that make The theory of Evolution a religion?

We don't agree. In fact, nearly all scientists view evolution as a fact. That you think they think this way merely because of guesswork shows that you have a deep misunderstanding of how science works. In science, propositions must be empirically verifiable and falsifiable.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
You're asking me to believe events of billions and trillions of years ago happened in just the right way, and we were created by chance...an infinitesmally small percentage...considered to be nil by most people, evolving out of a primordial soup of nutrients. An event that we cannot recreate with all of our technology, even if we mix the right chemicals together and apply energy.

That's faith.

I will post this link again, because you obviously didn't read it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Your answer is under the sub-heading "<i>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.</i>"

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

Oooo, 'Period'! I guess that clinches it then, doesn't it?

What are you talking about? The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. It isn't in the definition I stated at all. It seems that you either didn't see my proposed definitions, or you completly ignored them. I'll state it again:<blockquote><u>evolution</u>: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas. </blockquote>That, and <i>nothing more</i> is evolution.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Not believing in any god is faith.


faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.

I stand by the statement.

I'm stunned. How can you say that "Not believing" is "Believing"?

Look at what you wrote. "Not believing" [...] "1. Confident belief". Do you see the contradiction?

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Prove it.

You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.

Okay. I haven't finished the rest of the thread, but I'm going to respond to this real quick.

I can't prove what? That I suspect that Creation is bullshit? Why yes, I can, by saying just that. So, I don't want to be mean, but why don't you read what I fucking write next time, mmmmmmkay? I didn't say it most certainly was; I said tht perhaps it is.

Do you really think I would make such an assertion if I couldn't back it up? After reading how I tear into retards like LUVBUGZ over that very same thing? My posts come under an extra amount of scrutiny because I am an asshole, and everyone loves to be an asshole to an asshole. Do you really think I don't know this, and double-check what I write? You won't ever nail me that easily. Try again.