How to argue with a Creationist

[Capricorn]

Science requires a dogma/ritual called the scientific method.

Nope.

[Malcolm Wright]

I don't know about all of science but certainly Evolution is a religion. What is Religion but a belief system as is Evolution.

There are fundamental differences between a theory and a belief system. Yes sometimes people don't respect those differences - on both sides: proponents of certain theories can sometimes forget they are theories and treat them as belief systems. And critics of a theory (such as yourself in this example, I imagine) tend to make the same mistake.

Evolution is a theory. One that remains remarkably useful in the way we understand the natural world. Certainly more useful than the claim that God made the world in 7 days.

M.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Science requires a dogma/ritual called the scientific method. It also requires ethical/moral behavior and a desire to help mankind. Other than the absence of a deity, what's the difference?

There is no set scientific method. Schools pretend that there is but scientists just use whatever works. There is no dogma.

[Mrmint]

My question is why can't we just get along regardless of religion.

[SivVulk]

I've always found it tragically ironic that the father of evolutionary theory was a very religious man.

Anyways...

I think one of the reasons people are drawn to religion is that it offers a simplistic account of the world. One that is governed by simple rules and is close minded in that all the basic tenants that govern our lives are timeless and do not change. Furthermore, religious beliefs add a sense of purpose to our lives and a sense of superiority over the natural world. As far as religious doctrine is concerned we humans are the marvel of the universe (that is excluding omnipotent beings)

Science on the other hand paints humanity in a totally different light. In contrast to religion our existence is very inconsequential, gradual and not as meaningful. In addition, science necessitates open mindedness, endless critiquing and reinterpretations. While we continually learn new things from science we also learn that truths that we once held as close to absolute were flawed or just plain wrong.

However, science is generally optimistic in the belief that the world is ordered, comprehensible and can be explained by us humans almost entirely through meticulous observation and logical reasoning. So science does require a certain degree of "faith".

There are certain aspects of science that seem hard to come to grips with. For example, in order for the universe to be "flat", scientists have calculated that less than 1% of the universe's energy is in all that is perceivable to us (planets, stars, etc..), 30% of energy is found in dark matter and close to 70% in "empty space".

And now for some comedic relief:

[jwreck]

To say science is the scientific method is like saying that carpentry is a hammer.

[jwreck]

Science requires a dogma/ritual called the scientific method. It also requires ethical/moral behavior and a desire to help mankind. Other than the absence of a deity, what's the difference?

Again, Um...NO. Didn't you ever take a science class in school?

[hadit]

Many who profess to revere science and disdain religion do not realize that their belief in science is as faith based as the religious is. They do not understand science, they merely take on faith what scientists tell them. How much less faith based is it to believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson than in the hand of God? You can't see the Higgs, they haven't been able to prove it exists. Yet they believe it MUST exist because there are results that indicate something is there. The hand of God? You can't see it, you can't prove it exists, yet there are results that indicate something is there. Science's very nature forbids belief in anything that cannot be replicated in a lab. Therefore, the scientist is handicapped before he even begins, because he cannot accept even the possibility of a superior being who exists outside of the 3 spatial dimensions and time that we are familiar with, and can enter and leave our universe at his own discretion.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I welcome you to challenge electrical theory. Here's a fork, and there's a wall socket.

[Freedom&Liberty]

There is no set scientific method. Schools pretend that there is but scientists just use whatever works. There is no dogma.

Hmmm. Where I work the scientists have specific methods and rules that must be followed. Massive numbers of tests and associated data are required to document discoveries. Patents have to be filed correctly and all their ducks had better be in a row or people with PhD's get fired. Corporate demands these things to reduce liability. The science you speak of sounds unruly and not science like at all. Almost like another denomination of science.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

I've always found it tragically ironic that the father of evolutionary theory was a very religious man.

Which father? Evolutionary Theory has a number of fathers going back to ancient Greece if not further.

[jwreck]

Many who profess to revere science and disdain religion do not realize that their belief in science is as faith based as the religious is. They do not understand science, they merely take on faith what scientists tell them. How much less faith based is it to believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson than in the hand of God? You can't see the Higgs, they haven't been able to prove it exists. Yet they believe it MUST exist because there are results that indicate something is there. The hand of God? You can't see it, you can't prove it exists, yet there are results that indicate something is there. Science's very nature forbids belief in anything that cannot be replicated in a lab. Therefore, the scientist is handicapped before he even begins, because he cannot accept even the possibility of a superior being who exists outside of the 3 spatial dimensions and time that we are familiar with, and can enter and leave our universe at his own discretion.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have a very strong grasp on science, much less scientists.

[SivVulk]

Which father? Evolutionary Theory has a number of fathers going back to ancient Greece if not further.

sorry I was being very vague... I was referring to Darwin.

Furthermore the pursuit of science has only recently become overly concerned with ethics.

Indeed both science and religion have been used as tools of oppression to justify social hierarchies, sexism, racism and what have you. In this regard the line between science and religion is rather blurry. One could draw many parallels between The Spanish Inquisition and the NAZIs

[jwreck]

Hmmm. Where I work the scientists have specific methods and rules that must be followed. Massive numbers of tests and associated data are required to document discoveries. Patents have to be filed correctly and all their ducks had better be in a row or people with PhD's get fired. Corporate demands these things to reduce liability. The science you speak of sounds unruly and not science like at all. Almost like another denomination of science.

"Corporate" does not define science.

[Capricorn]

Many who profess to revere science and disdain religion do not realize that their belief in science is as faith based as the religious is. They do not understand science, they merely take on faith what scientists tell them. How much less faith based is it to believe in the existence of the Higgs Boson than in the hand of God? You can't see the Higgs, they haven't been able to prove it exists. Yet they believe it MUST exist because there are results that indicate something is there. The hand of God? You can't see it, you can't prove it exists, yet there are results that indicate something is there. Science's very nature forbids belief in anything that cannot be replicated in a lab. Therefore, the scientist is handicapped before he even begins, because he cannot accept even the possibility of a superior being who exists outside of the 3 spatial dimensions and time that we are familiar with, and can enter and leave our universe at his own discretion.

Science is not a belief. Science is knowledge which is based on observable phenomenon or knowledge based on evidence.

There are three basic concepts to science:

Hypothesis:
A hypothesis is a best effort guess, based on observation. A hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not yet proven to be true.

Scientific Theory:
A scientific theory is a summary of hypotheses or collection of hypotheses that have come true with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to refute it. Theories can be disproven or some aspects of the theory can be contested or disproven.

Law
A law is generalization of observations that have no exceptions.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

sorry I was being very vague... I was referring to Darwin.

Furthermore the pursuit of science has only recently become overly concerned with ethics.

Indeed both science and religion have been used as tools of oppression to justify social hierarchies, sexism, racism and what have you. In this regard the line between science and religion is rather blurry. One could draw many parallels between The Spanish Inquisition and the NAZIs

Darwin lost his faith. He was not very religious.

[Freedom&Liberty]

"Corporate" does not define science.

Corporate defines who does science, and where, why and how they they do it. Based on what you're telling me, science can't be defined. Outside the corporate environment science sounds like a big mess. Kind of like religion.

[jwreck]

Corporate defines who does science, and where, why and how they they do it. Based on what you're telling me, science can't be defined. Outside the corporate environment science sounds like a big mess. Kind of like religion.

No they don't. Maybe in your company, they may define who does science professionally. Anyone with a thirst for knowledge can do science. Science is a systematic search for knowledge.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Science is a systematic search for knowledge.

To some who shall remain nameless, it's the Devil Incarnate.

[Freedom&Liberty]

No they don't. Maybe in your company, they may define who does science professionally. Anyone with a thirst for knowledge can do science. Science is a systematic search for knowledge.

There is no set scientific method

Doesn't sound very systematic.