Since it was my post that apparently set off this storm, I feel compelled to reply. I apologize in advance for furthering this debate.
Doug, I mean you no malice or ill will in my replies. I do NOT mean to offend you. You asked questions and I am simply trying to answer from the perspective of one who believes differently than you to, hopefully, help you understand why evolution is allowed and why we believe the things we do.
now that i think about it, yes, evolution is a form of Religion, and as stated, Religion is not to be talked about...... so why DOES evolution get talked about but bringing up Religion in itself is not? anyone care to explain?
Simple, evolution is based in science, religion is based in philosophy. Evolution is not a religion; the only people who feel it is a religion are those who do not understand it or subscribe to its belief structure and view it as a competitive religion.
no i do believe in early humans/civilization, but nowhere near related to the ape family.....
This is akin to saying that an armatus is unrelated to a Cynodon gibbus because they're in a different genus. This is akin to saying that a dovii is unrelated to a jag because they're different species. One cannot simply choose to apply these principles to, say, fish but not apes. Current scientific understanding is not that humans are evolved from apes or related to apes; current scientific understanding is that humans ARE apes.
evolution is a branch off of Religion, which alot say evolution is science, how can evolution be science when in fact they say we *evolved*, being evolved from something is in fact some form of Religion...... while science has now adopted the word *evolution* to make it none Religion, so then when folks bring it up, they think its science, when its really NOT science, its a branch off of Religion ( like you guys say we are a branch off from ape ancestry )
The difference here is that the
Theory of Evolution (more on the loaded word 'theory' in my reply to Warborg below) is based on available evidence. Evolution does NOT say God or gods cannot exist, what it states is that there is no
tangible evidence for their existence. With no tangible proof to support the
hypothesis (see Warborg reply, below) that there is a God or gods, the idea can not pass the scientific method. Again, this doesn't mean that God or gods don't exist, it just means there isn't (yet) any proof.
In science, ideas change with evidence. If by some chance tomorrow there was to be irrefutable proof of the existence of a God or gods, science would accept it and it would be included in all scientific texts.
Science doesn't attempt to disprove God. Science only studies what can be proven. The burden of proof for the existence of a God or gods lies with those who believe in it. If one wishes for the belief in God or gods to be accepted by the scientific community, they must prove that God exists with proof that can be independently verified elsewhere. This is part of the scientific method.
Because it's based off of theories(Which continues to change everyday(If it was fact it would not change))
Warborg, your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method. That is not intended as an insult or a jab, it is simply an observation.
The scientific method is as follows:
First, formulate a question. (Why are some chimps hairless?)
Second, hypothesize. This is where you think up why the thing you're investigating is the way it is. (Is it because of Alopecia?)
Third, make a prediction. ("Yes, I believe this is Alopecia" or "No, I don't think this is Alopecia because of [fill in the blank])
Fourth, test. (Start with rats (or monkeys, or dogs or whatever or even chimps if you have good funding), test the affects of Alopecia on the test group while a control group which has all of the same conditions but NO Alopecia.
Fifth, Analyze. This is where you look at the results of the test and ask more questions (taking you back to step one). Until you have explored all possible avenues of investigation, you don't have a result. The question of hairless chimps can NOT be answered
just on the Alopecia test.
Of course this is quite simplified, but it is a valid example.
Once all avenues of investigation have been explored, one would publish the results of the testing for peer review. Peer review is the most important step in the scientific method. If others can't repeat your experiments, a reviewer would call you out and unless you can address their questions, it's likely that your paper would be rejected.
If on the other hand, your work is found to be sound and is published, there are three things that it could be considered.
As to the changing nature of the term 'theory'. The confusion here is in the meaning of what makes a theory and what makes a scientific theory. They are two completely different unrelated things.
Brittanica defines a
scientific theory as-
scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
A theory, on the other hand, is an abstract though or idea.
sorry, one last time..
Religion is believing in something that is not there but yet you know its real.
evolution is believing we or something evolved from something else..
evolution is in fact evolved from Religion, something you (believe) is real, but cant prove, something you cant see but know its to be true.....
end of rant.. i am done derailing
I agre with you completely here; religious beliefs and scientific beliefs show that people have a fundamentally different way of looking at things. A religious person is a person who accepts things on faith and does not need proof. A scientifically minded person is one who possesses a pragmatic view of the world and demands proof.
Now of course, as with so many other things in life, this is not a black and white situation. People can have faith and believe in science (most religious folk happily take themselves to the doctor after all, and medicine is as pure of a science as one can hope to achieve), and some very influential scientists can believe in a God or gods.
I wish to clarify right now however, in direct reply to the NG post earlier which seemed to insinuate that Einstein believed in God:
Einstein called the belief in a God in the manner of Christianity, Islam or (pick your religion) to be childish. He was spiritual in his own way, but he did NOT believe in God.
Anyway, I hope I answered the questions posed in a manner that doesn't offend.
I felt compelled to reply to this as my explanation on Neanderthals seems to have been what caused this. As I'm quite aware that I'm pushing the boundaries of the TOS by answering these questions, I am now leaving this discussion unless my fellow staff members OK further discussion.
If they do, I'll be happy to address any questions or links in a calm, intelligent manner.
Peace my friends. No offense intended to anyone.
