Not going to argue with you, but most scientists of all fields could continue to conduct their work without particular reference to evolutionary ideas, except in evolutionary biology itself.

________________
"I'll shut your mouth~~~~~ with mine~~~"

二息歩行

It wholly is, if you don't interpret the texts literally, the entire idea that it's not is a huge misconception because it makes certain traditional readings of the text have a slightly different connotation. The belief system can completely function within the confines of a world which functions under evolution. Just like it can survive the universe not revolving around the earth, the core beliefs don't change, some interpretations of the text just have to be shifted slightly. With so many translations from the original, though (Islam aside) it's hard to say whether that really wasn't the original point.

The issue is that people don't like believing new things. New information can cause them to re-evaluate some of their own thoughts and ideas, and there's always, always resistance to that, even within scientific theories (I suspect presenting string theory to a room of 19th century scientists would probably end badly). The system is compatible, it's human nature that isn't.

________________

Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

no because you learn it and then you believe it. faith is believing first and then learning it later. sound bullshitty, but this keeps me praying every night even though i am too wasted to keep my eyes open.

________________
oh please do click this!
The sweeter the apple, the higher the branch. The quieter the fart, the nastier the smell.
GUESS WHO??

You clearly don't understand the scientific use of the word "theory." Here's a definition for you from http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html.



No idea in science gets beyond being a theory in the scientific use of that word. For a concept to attain the label of "theory" it holds a lot of weight and has been well-tested and challenged by the scientific community. The reason, so far as I understand, that a concept never gets beyond "theory" is because rather than being a rigid concept it is something that can be changed as our understanding advances and we make new discoveries.

(If anyone who is more well-versed in this stuff wants to jump in, you're welcome to expand on my short explanation.)

Basically, I agree with everything you guys are saying about theories. I also want to add that I think some people are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". They're very different, but sometimes are used almost interchangeably in non-scientific speech.

Evolution is a fact unless proven otherwise, as is the case with all scientific theories.

Humans evolved from a mono cellular organism just like the rest of life on earth. The fact that our mitochondrial DNA is different from the DNA in the rest of our body cells supports the view that our ancestors were at some point a cluster of mono cellular organisms. Mitochondria are in fact mono cellular organisms which could survive on their own, but at some point in history they were absorbed by a cluster of cells (our ancestor) and formed a symbiotic relationship; the cluster of cells in a symbiotic relationship at some point became so dependent on each other that they became a single organism.

And let me just point out that "Intelligent Design" is a sorry excuse for a scientific theory, because the Bible and evolutionary theory really aren't compatible; a key feature of evolutionary theory is that it happens spontaniously, and so it excludes the possibility of divine intervention. But if they wish to willfully decieve themselves that's their problem, and I wish they would stop trying to make it everyone else's problem too.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but this is my view on the matter.

________________

Bravo, well said. Though whether it is faith or fact will still be argued, reminds me of the one of the pictures I have in relation to this topic.


Last edited by Maxieflame at 3:09 am, Dec 18 2011

LOL. Usually people say "the Bible and science aren't compatible". If you didn't know, "Intelligent Design" isn't trying to connect evolution and the Bible.

________________
"I'll shut your mouth~~~~~ with mine~~~"

二息歩行

Definition of "intelligent design" taken from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes".

Although the "designer" isn't specified, many, if not most of the supporters of this "theory" believe the designer to be the Christian God; therefore the people who adhere ID are trying to create compromise between evolution and the Christian faith.

________________

Actually, this is incorrect. Evolution is not a 'fact', it is what it implies which is a theory. A theory is not a fact. A theory by definition is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

It is only after a long time that a theory hasn't been disproved that it becomes a law (such as the law of gravity). In this case if evolution isn't disproved it will then become a law in return could then be regarded as fact.



Just pointing out that by your standards Intelligent Design is a fact because it's a theory and hasn't been disproved. As you can see this doesn't make sense...

Sorry, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything nor am I taking sides. I just thought you should know...

Actually, Intelligent Design doesn't qualifiy as a scientific theory since it cannot be attested or refuted on the basis of scientific experiments. It is a system of unattestable thoughts only; therefore, it is more like a philosophy than a theory.

________________

Oh, I see. Thanks for enlightening me. I thought only Christians were against the entire evolution thing. Never knew Judaism and Islam were in it too.

Faith is defined as belief in something without evidence.
There is evidence for evolution. Objectively, evolution is not faith.

Also, Intelligent Design is not a theory close to challenging evolution, any more than my theory of invisible tentacles being the reason we're attached to the earth is competition for gravity. It has no foundation or reason behind it, and literally relies soley on faith. Give proof of an intelligent designer and then it can be counted as a legitimate theory. Until then, it's just a terrible mash up of religion and science, and it doesn't even have cool space marines to make it attractive.


You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is. While it is called a "theory", it actually a fact. For example, the theory of gravity is confirmed. It is absolute fact that it exists. It's not a thought experiment or an idea. It's confirmed to the truest definition of the word.
Evolution is the same. It is accepted as truth.

Does it matter, if you believe something, there is a reason to believe it, people who believe in evolution want to believe they are created in the image of god. If they want to believe it, hard facts wont change a thing, and frankly, since people have been bickering about this since Darwin suggested the idea of evolution, I think we will be bickering for allot longer. But really why do we care, god can't be proven or unproven, neither can any of his so called miracles, so what is the point of this debate. I think we did evolve, but if god comes down one day and says no, your wrong, then cool beans, wether I evolved from an ape or not or was created in the image of god doesn't change a thing, even my religious views. I don't think they will ever change, like with the evolution, I don't care wether god exists or not, I will try to be the best person I can be and to live life the best I can, god or no god, that just doesn't change.

________________
We work in the dark, we do what we can, we give what we have, out doubt is our passion and our passion is our task, the rest is the madness of art. Henry james

Yes, but because science is build up from observations and is based on logic, that does not make it true. I can throw a coin a million times, always yielding heads, and even if you only observed heads, and hence might conclude that tails is not an option, it is only because we were in that unprobably case with probability 2^(-1000000). You cannot say it is true just because all observation up till now hint towards it being true, because you cannot exclude the possibility of a counterexample showing up at sometime in the future.