If religion is a belief system

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

I keep seeing features on the news that very vaguely report things like chocolate milk being the better drink to have while exercising, and dark chocolate actually being good for your teeth. I've seen loud mouths on TV going on about the "let them cry" method of raising children. Never mind if this stuff fits your specific definition of science. The fact is that people hear this stuff and they make a leap of faith regarding it. And what do the gullible masses call this wonderful source of information? Why, Science, of course.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I keep seeing features on the news that very vaguely report things like chocolate milk being the better drink to have while exercising, and dark chocolate actually being good for your teeth. I've seen loud mouths on TV going on about the "let them cry" method of raising children. Never mind if this stuff fits your specific definition of science. The ...[text shortened]... t do the gullible masses call this wonderful source of information? Why, Science, of course.

Ah, so you're bagging stupid people rather than science?? On THAT we can agree at least!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, so you're bagging stupid people rather than science?? On THAT we can agree at least!

I am suggesting that there are two perspectives of "science." One is the pure method of ferreting out information, and the other is faith-based almost religious aspect, where the ignorant general public are the worshippers (there sure are a lot of 'em) and anyone wearing a white coat and hopefully goggles (safty first!) is a priest, and all he has to say, right or wrong, is the magic words "science" and "experiments seem to show ...."

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I keep seeing features on the news that very vaguely report things like chocolate milk being the better drink to have while exercising, and dark chocolate actually being good for your teeth. I've seen loud mouths on TV going on about the "let them cry" method of raising children. Never mind if this stuff fits your specific definition of science. The ...[text shortened]... t do the gullible masses call this wonderful source of information? Why, Science, of course.

You are confusing science with marketing.

You are a poor, confused dear, aren't you?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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.
...[text shortened]... untains of evidence do not point toward evolution, but away, toward intelligent design.

The head of the Vatican science commitee (or something of that description) denounced the Discovery Institute as misleading and agenda-driven. He believes that the Discovery Institutre extorted an article out of a prominent cardinal asserting that evolution is a baseless theory.

The Discovery Institute is well known for its tactics. I am not aware (and you can prove me wrong - though I doubt you will) of the Discovery Institute releasing any of its "findings" or its [as you say] "mountains of evidence" to the scientific community. It is also popularly known for promulgating its Intelligent Design theory to children and church-goers.

Now which 500 credible scientists are we talking about? And were they biologists? I'm sure the Discovery Institute only questioned biologists with their PHD's 😉 No?

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

Maybe I missed something in the link you provided. This refutes DI how exactly?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Maybe I missed something in the link you provided. This refutes DI how exactly?

The link refutes any claim that DI is interested in honest scientific exploration. The motivation behind their work is not to enhance, increase, or expand on scientific understanding. Unfortunately this type of foundation for research obliterates any semblance of honesty or accuracy.

To be clear, this works both ways. If I find an organization whose stated goal was:

"Generic Science Institute seeks nothing less than the overthrow of religious influence and its cultural legacies."

I'm afraid I would have a very hard time trusting anything found on that website.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
The link refutes any claim that DI is interested in honest scientific exploration. The motivation behind their work is not to enhance, increase, or expand on scientific understanding. Unfortunately this type of foundation for research obliterates any semblance of honesty or accuracy.

To be clear, this works both ways. If I find an organization whose sta ...[text shortened]... "

I'm afraid I would have a very hard time trusting anything found on that website.

-JC

That being said, apparently you are in a position to denounce everything which issues forth from AAAP. Their 'resolution' against intelligent design was decided upon by a small panel of members, none of which could/would cite even one ID paper/study/publication read in making their 'scientific' determination. Can someone say agenda?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That being said, apparently you are in a position to denounce everything which issues forth from AAAP. Their 'resolution' against intelligent design was decided upon by a small panel of members, none of which could/would cite even one ID paper/study/publication read in making their 'scientific' determination. Can someone say agenda?

I don't suppose you could provide a link for the resolution? At the moment I'm not exactly sure of what the 'AAAP' is. The only organization I know that fits is the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, which doesn't seem to relate.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I don't suppose you could provide a link for the resolution? At the moment I'm not exactly sure of what the 'AAAP' is. The only organization I know that fits is the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, which doesn't seem to relate.

-JC

AAAP? Now why would you know what that stands for? In my idiocy, I kept typing 'P' when I meant to be typing 'S.' My bad. American Association for Advancement of Science, is what AAAS stands for. Sheesh!

Information is on the link at DI, as well.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That being said, apparently you are in a position to denounce everything which issues forth from AAAP. Their 'resolution' against intelligent design was decided upon by a small panel of members, none of which could/would cite even one ID paper/study/publication read in making their 'scientific' determination. Can someone say agenda?

Well, I for one would trust the AAAS more than the discovery institute. Unless we are to denounce every scientific organisation since none of them have every scientist in the world in them. What about the Royal Society? Should it's opinion be castigated simply because it's a hard to become a fellow? Personally, I don't know one single biologist who doesn't think that evolution is correct.

For some, yes, science is the same as religion (but don't ask them to admit that 😀)

Formost, let us define science. For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about natural science. Natural science is a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. It ascertains its "truths" through use of the scientific method. The scientific method are a set of principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

There exists a simple, humble, and fatal flaw to this. Everything hinges upon the empirical. Certainly, this is no flaw of the system, it is the only way in which we can gather data. It is our limitations as physical beings, first hand observers. This, inherantly, poses a problem, being that we lack the capacity to observe everything. Science itself has uncovered a vast myriad of things which we had no idea existed before, purely due to our inablity to observe them. Cellular structure, atomic structure, sub-atomic structure, all systems far to small for us to observe naturally. To the converse, how about our understanding of the universe beyond our solar system? Our galaxy? Indeed, science itself has uncoverd a great many things we had no capacity to observe, let alone understand, and it continues to do so.

This being the case, this is also the problem with science, most specifically and especially when it attempts to theorize on something of vast scale which is unobservable first hand. The fallacy is only exacerbated when we theorize about things over vast spans of time and space. That which limits our ability to perceive limits the plausability of our theory. Science attempts to theorize about items of great question and wonder which we can only surmise through a complex system of assumption. Logically, this limits the ability of a theory to maneuver into the realms of fact and truth.

On another level, science is plagued with a similar quandry as your typical large scale religion.

Personal agendas of the agents of the system.

Indeed, numerous are the examples of scientists fabricating results to further their ambitions. A great scientific find published on the cover of a major publication may turn out to be a fraud. Now, I do not mean to infer that one should be overtly suspicious of every scientific find they read about, but such things can and do occur, and should be weighed. If anything, I would say I am more prone to take a finding as scientific fact if/when it has been carefully reviewed by a number of independant peers in the field, and has withstood some time of scrutiny.

The scientific purpose is intended to be pure; The best system we have to understand our world and the universe it is in. However, if we are earnest pursuers of truth, we will understand the limitations of the system and give evidence its proper weighting and not jump to conclusions. Alas, there are quite a number of people in this world who are all too happy to gobble up anything the scientific community throws at them like it was gospel (pardon the ironic comparison). Science and religion share more than many people who have chosen a side of the fence to sit on would like to admit. Like many a religion, science is pure in purpose, it's the human operation of it which contradicts its original intent.

Originally posted by Omnislash
For some, yes, science is the same as religion (but don't ask them to admit that 😀)

Formost, let us define science. For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about natural science. Natural science is a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. It ascertains its "truths" through use of the scientific method. The ...[text shortened]... ce is pure in purpose, it's the human operation of it which contradicts its original intent.

Indeed, good!

Sorry, had a couple of glasses of vino rouge, but again Omni you have summed it up admirably. The major flaw in the system, all systems, are human. People willing to believe everything or anything. I love science because it's remit is to question everything. but of course, you can only do that one bit at a time, and sometimes you have to trust the results of others, but only if they fit with the data. Always question, that's what everyone should do.

If we ask just one question in all our lives about how and why the world works the way it does then we are a scientist ourselves. If we choose to deny the results we get back then we are an idiot, whether theist or atheist.

religion is pure fiction ! dont waste your time following schyzophrenic leaders !