Atheism

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@kprasad

Again, with all due deference, your basic premise here misstates and misunderstands the fundamental nature of science. To say “evolutionist” implies that there is a contradictory scientific theory! That is completely wrong! Biologists in Pakistan, in Israel, in India, in Iran, in the US, in China, in Russia, and everywhere else, take evolution to be a fact! The argument they have is the manner in which it happened, the mechanics of it. Whereas there are numerous and conflicting creation stories, science agrees on evolution. So when you say evolutionist, lets be clear…you mean scientist.

Peace kprasad

I don’t consider evolution as science and hence give the proponents of this theory another name - evolutionist … Who I have been trying to argue are following a dogma that they claim is science. Instead of correcting me all the time you should ask me “why” I call evolution a belief system and not a science, rather than trying to strong arm your perception of evolution as a science on to me. Now you are obviously convinced that evolution is science. I am not. That may be because my idea of evolution is flawed or because you have not given enough thought whether the theory stands up to being a valid theory of science.

@kprasad

Second, the entire notion of “Darwinian evolution” is something conjured by creationists. There is no scientist that would refer to himself, or herself, as a “Darwinian evolutionist”. Just as there is no scientist that would refer to himself as a “Newtonian physicist”. This has several implications, the biggest of which implies that there have been no advances in the science for 150 years! Again, a very wrong, though I believe conscious, misrepresentation.

This what you say is totally true … but some terms need to be conjured up in order for discourse to be specific. For conversation to be meaningful I will refer to the people who pioneer evolution theory as evolutionists and scientists who agree with them as pro-evolution scientists. It is not misrepresentation at all though … these terms have real meanings even if they are completely made up.

@kprasad

I think your above quote is a perfect example of misunderstanding the scientific process and what bring scientific consensus about.

No one is being asked to take anything as fact. That’s the beauty of science, versus religion. Religion requires you to have faith, in the absence of evidence. Science asks you to be a skeptic in the face of evidence. Science says: Do not believe what someone else says! Science asks for critical thinking, examination, and reason with data.

Funny … it is you who have brought back faith into this discussion. I’m going to ignore that … If you are true with science allowing critical thinking and examination then allow me to subject “evolution” to that scrutiny … Or do you simply want me to accept evolution like as you say “religion requires you to have faith” ???

@kprasad

Seeing something happen can be very misleading. For centuries we had a geocentric notion of the universe, because of what we observed.

Again, many people seeing something happen does not add to it’s veracity. The fundamental question is, can I duplicate what happened? Or, if I examine the data will I reach the same conclusion?

To your last point…the beauty of science is that…your ‘base theory’ can always be modified, if you can find evidence for it. Newton’s theories of motion had to be modified when Einstein found a better explanation, backed with data, for the motion of very small objects and very fast speeds…

Science isn’t bound by dogma.

No … Newton’s theories were replaced with other theories … If a theory needs to be modified more than three times then the chances are the core of the theory is false and incorrect it should be replaced with a new concept and a new theory entirely - as an empirical rule.

The pattern of how the evolution theory evolved is that there was this theory, then new data shunned it … to preserve the core concept modifications to the theory were put in place … then new data shunned that … then again to preserve the core concept more modifications were applied and the patterns continued …

The core concept of evolution is “Organised Mass and Energy and specifically life forms do not occur or take place through conscious processes” …

Now with the amount of changes that evolution theory has gone through don’t you think it is time for the core concept to be discarded and for us to accept that life did come from conscious processing?

[SUP]**(Inevitably you are going to say that my understanding of science is wrong again … please read this:

[/SUP][SUP]First you must understand what makes a theory, before you can know what causes it to be revised or discarded. All theories are designed with the possibility to be falsified later.
A theory is a set of logically consistent statements about some phenomenon, that best summarizes existing empirical knowledge of the phenomenon, organizes this knowledge in the form of precise statements of relationships among variables, provides a tentative explanation for the phenomenon, and serves as the basis for making predictions about behavior.
Theories are determined through abductive reasoning, and while theories are not 100% likely to be true, it is highly probable that the information is true.
Good theories are productive, and produce a great deal of research. They should be explained in the most simple of terms. Theories shouldn’t force the acceptance of other assumptions in providing explanations of certain phenomena.

Many times theories are revised, because they can be stated in far simpler terms, while others are revised because new data has proven that more than one explanation can be provided for a specific phenomenon. Usually, a theory will be revised if most of the theory still holds true, and it only requires small revisions to include information that may not have been known before. Theories are thrown out when they are proven wrong, or when similar, more correct theories are created. Most theories are discarded when multiple experiments are conducted and [/SUP]
[SUP]results[/SUP][SUP] disprove an outdated theory.[/SUP]
[SUP]

Read more: What may cause a theory to be revised or discarded**

)[/SUP]