If religion is a belief system

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

"Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 500 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution.".

I could find you far more than 500 people who believe the Moon landings were fabricated. Some of them have relatively impressive credentials and present interesting "proof" to support their claims.

Human beings can twist the world into whatever they wish to see. It is blind faith which allows them to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I could find you far more than 500 people who believe the Moon landings were fabricated. Some of them have relatively impressive credentials and present interesting "proof" to support their claims.

Human beings can twist the world into whatever they wish to see. It is blind faith which allows them to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary.

-JC

So.............to get to the point science has its blind followers just as religion does...and some people make those blind leaps of faith without examining their beliefs...in that sense science is the new religion

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
So.............to get to the point science has its blind followers just as religion does...and some people make those blind leaps of faith without examining their beliefs...in that sense science is the new religion

Except for the fact that science isn't new and it isn't even remotely comparable to religion, sure.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Except for the fact that science isn't new and it isn't even remotely comparable to religion, sure.

-JC

They're both world views and there are many many similarities that I'm sure an investigation on your point would point out,,,,And the semanticsof the phrase, science the new religion, shouldn't be taken as pedantically as you have taken it

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
They're both world views and there are many many similarities that I'm sure an investigation on your point would point out,,,,And the semanticsof the phrase, science the new religion, shouldn't be taken as pedantically as you have taken it

Science seeks to explain an observed phenomena through use of the scientific method.

Religion seeks to explain an observed phenomena through faith - period.

The two are rarely compatible. The phrase "science is the new religion" runs a high risk of being oxymoronic. I'm afraid I simply can't agree this concept is viable considering the very wide, and very numerous differences between the two terms.

The irony of making mention of my "pedantic" viewpoint concerning a process by which narrow sets of rules are necessarily enforced (science) is not lost on you, I hope.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Science seeks to explain an observed phenomena through use of the scientific method.

Religion seeks to explain an observed phenomena through faith - period.

The two are rarely compatible. The phrase "science is the new religion" runs a high risk of being oxymoronic. I'm afraid I simply can't agree this concept is viable considering the very wide, and ...[text shortened]... narrow sets of rules are necessarily enforced (science) is not lost on you, I hope.

-JC

Nor I hop the morphemes in oxymoronic for you

Originally posted by Churlant
I could find you far more than 500 people who believe the Moon landings were fabricated. Some of them have relatively impressive credentials and present interesting "proof" to support their claims.

Human beings can twist the world into whatever they wish to see. It is blind faith which allows them to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary.

-JC

Finding people with "relatively impressive credentials" who doubt the lunar landings does not speak to this argument. The point is that evolution proseltyzers continually prop up their viewpoint with unsupportable claims--- "most scientists," "widely accepted fact," etc., etc.--- hoping to have the supposed sheer volume of support be the deciding vote.

The crux of the matter is, it ain't a vote. That's why the 500+ scientists have added their names to the growing list of dissenters. They're tired of the fringe elements within such groups as AAAP (of which most of the dissenters are part) taking over the conversation and characterizing themselves as speaking for the whole.

In their opinion, the mountains of evidence do not point toward evolution, but away, toward intelligent design.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
On The Simpson's last night, the voice of reason, Lisa, found herself in a struggle against "the myth of creationism." Exasperated at the ignorance of the myth propogators, she offers as proof of evolution's veracity, the so-called consensual opinion of the scientific field.

Everytime the issue is raised, the same argument is made, lending it an aut ...[text shortened]... n who follows (either way) based on the numbers game truly lives by faith. Blind faith.

How many of these "brave scientists" actually were trained biologists who actually understand the theory properly? Most scientists who resist evolutionary theory are physicists, who don't actually understand it properly. It's been said that evolution is one of those theories that everyone *thinks* they understand, but few actually do.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
How many of these "brave scientists" actually were trained biologists who actually understand the theory properly? Most scientists who resist evolutionary theory are physicists, who don't actually understand it properly. It's been said that evolution is one of those theories that everyone *thinks* they understand, but few actually do.

Here's their website. Take a look around.

http://www.discovery.org/

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
So.............to get to the point science has its blind followers just as religion does...and some people make those blind leaps of faith without examining their beliefs...in that sense science is the new religion

I think you need to differentiate between people and human psychology (which is what your thread is actually about) and the merits or demerits of the scientific method. People need explanations. We evolved in a universe where effect follows cause, and we like to know what caused any given effect - that's part of our psyche. Of course there will be some people who blindly follow whatever is the dish of the day - there are a huge number of very silly people out there. That's not, however, a failing of science. Perhaps the biggest failing of science really is that people feel it's unaccessable. Some excellent initiatives exist though to try and break that mentality, however it all takes time and learning.

As far as the Discovery Institute goes, all one really needs to do is read what is known as the Wedge Document. Any measure of trust for the group's "scientific" explorations evaporates readily a few paragraphs into the read.

I'm going to post a link from Discovery.org (only fair) which includes the document itself - after some 11 pages of justifications. Skip to page 12, then read 1-11.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349


-JC

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's their website. Take a look around.

http://www.discovery.org/

About 10%. So that's around 50. Worldwide.

Mostly they are biochemists and molecular biologists, who tend to be that way inclined, probably because they work with complicated systems, and they are unable to rationalise how it would have evolved, typically not having had a great deal of educating on the subject.

You see, in a typical biology degree, during the first year we all learn things like biochem and genetics, but evolutionary biology tends to be relegated to the elective courses in the 3rd and 4th years, when those guys are off specialising in biochem. Interestingly, I don't see many whole organism biologists, but I do see a good number of signatories from, for example, Texas A & M. I'm not judging these people based solely upon that, but it is a very religious area. It wouldn't be naive to believe that some of these people don't reject evolution because it conflicts with their belief system.

I do wonder though, how does having a PhD in Astrophysics give you any credentials to talk about evolution? The last time I looked evolution had no stance on the formation of stars, which one assumes these people accept can and do form naturally.

Originally posted by Churlant
As far as the Discovery Institute goes, all one really needs to do is read what is known as the Wedge Document. Any measure of trust for the group's "scientific" explorations evaporates readily a few paragraphs into the read.

I'm going to post a link from Discovery.org (only fair) which includes the document itself - after some 11 pages of justifications ...[text shortened]... n read 1-11.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349


-JC

It's interesting that they seem not to attack Darwinism because they feel it's wrong, only because they don't like it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's interesting that they seem not to attack Darwinism because they feel it's wrong, only because they don't like it.

Keep in mind that both concepts are more or less equal to the individuals in question. They attack "scientific materialism" (how is that for a sound-bite?) as both morally wrong (ie "we feel it is wrong" ), which also translates into "we don't like it" - in a manner of speaking.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
As far as the Discovery Institute goes, all one really needs to do is read what is known as the Wedge Document. Any measure of trust for the group's "scientific" explorations evaporates readily a few paragraphs into the read.

I'm going to post a link from Discovery.org (only fair) which includes the document itself - after some 11 pages of justifications ...[text shortened]... n read 1-11.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349


-JC

They should rename themselves as the "Ignore all Discovery Institute"
Or better still; "Ignore all Discovery Institute Of Time".

I.D.I.O.T. in short.

No wonder people like FreakingIdiot adhere to their views and hold them up as shining beacons to us all.