RE: Atheism Talk: The Myth of Intelligent Design
"I understand it IS difficult to scientifically demonstrate evidence of God with the tools we may have at present."
Try impossible. Science works with things that are real. While fantasy does have its place, it does not come into scientific discussion unless we are studying the effects of said fairytales on human mind and behaviour e.g. psychology.
"The problem comes when the Bible and the Koran and the Vedas say one thing, but scientific theories come in to threaten that."
Said books all contradict one another, why is it even remotely surprising they'd contradict with science as well? After all they are all fantasy books, unlike science, which is not a book, dogma or credo based in beliefs or faith of the imaginary, but simply a method of discovery into the very real world we live in.
"Ideally, there COULD be a way to introduce "controversial" scientific concepts in a way that helps assuage people of faith who may have an issue with it."
Science isn't controversial, it is merely the means of learning about the nature of things that we can actually observe and study. One of the fundamental principles of a scientist must always be willingness to correct their theories and/or opinions if contradicting evidence is found. This is something "people of faith" definitely seem incapable of doing, and this is the fundamental reason they call many scientific theories "controversial", or "just a theory".
Even the theory of gravity is "just a theory". The religious seem to lack the ability to understand that in science, a theory is not just an any old idea, it is the defining idea, the idea that is the reality, a fact, until there is contradicting evidence, which calls for a correction or nullification of the said theory.
In case of the theories of evolution or gravity, there are no compelling contradicting evidence that have yet been found. And since all the evidence we have found till now all seem to back the theories up, they can pretty safely be called facts.
"Science can only, by definition, report things that it can observably measure."
Yes, and that is exactly why there is the distinction between reality and fantasy.
"Do I "believe" in evolution? You betcha! I'd be an idiot not to. But it's still a theory by definition."
There's nothing to "believe" in evolution, it is an observable fact. We can either accept it or be willfully ignorant. Also, like I said before, there is a distinction between a scientific theory and a layman's theory. The scientific theory is one that is continually tested and observed, and will be revised or corrected when contradicting evidence is found, otherwise it will be regarded as a fact. A layman's theory is just an idea or a plan that isn't or hasn't been tested.
"Do I think we evolved from amoebas. No. Nope. Apes maybe. Amoebas. No."
What contradicting evidence have you found that disproves evolution from microbial life to larger organisms and more? I'd say the fossil record is clearly indicative this has really happened.
Oh, and we didn't evolve from apes, we and the modern apes share a common ancestor about 13 million years back. There is some discrepancy on the information on how long the transition period was though. There may have been some interbreeding between Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee like homini) until 4 million years ago.
The one clearest indication of evolution and especially speciation can be observed from ring species where the members of a species interrelate between their closest neighbours but not the farthest, and where in the farthest ends of the chains the species evolve to the point they can no longer interbreed with the specimens of the other end of the chain (or in this case ring). e.g. larus gull or the ensatina salamander.
Evolution can also be observed on microbial scale, like on bacteria, and even amoebas. And scaling up, banana fly has actively been the study of evolutionary sciences since it has such a short life cycle it is easy to observe many generations within a reasonable time frame.
Research bias, also called experimenter bias, is a process where the scientists performing the research influence the results, in order to portray a certain outcome.
Im stupider for having read this.
There are countless scientists who reject the THEORY of evolution, and/or contend with the scientific approach applied to how evolution has been determined both broadly and specifically.
Most scientists would agree the theory of evolution is a theory. A great theory, but a theory. Science by definition must be observable, measurable data. Although fossils are great, and carbon dating is fabulous, and we love ourselves a good trilobite, there is far too much information missing between each time period, each species, and each soil sample to conclude anything absolutely.
We can observe the color mutations and song pitch changes in a canary due to a deadly worm that kills off certain babies and not others, causing only the remaining adults to cross breed to preserve the species, when otherwise this would never have been possible.
We can observe how the emergent years of a cicada only occur on prime number years because of natural selection (avoiding certain predators and climates, etc.).
But over thousands and millions of years, we might get a cicada family that emerges on a staggering prime number year from its root family.
We might end up with fish that breathe and walk on land. Lizards that develop a special tint to protect themselves from the environment. Ants that know how to avoid the cordyceps fungus.
This is evolution, folks. Observable evolution. We can make a lot of conclusions and extrapolations from this, especially if we have transitions in fossil record.
What I am saying is, many scientists refute how many of these fossil records were established and notated, many more point out several holes in Darwin's philosophies, and more still contend with extrapolations drawn from information that is woefully lacking in the kind of detail ordinarily required to bolster a proper scientific investigation.
The current argument is not that evolutionists are wrong. It is that the theory of evolution cannot pass the stringent scientific markers that make it science. Meaning, it has to remain a theory until someone develops a time machine. Any other modern, peer-reviewed research article would be required to pass the same criteria if it were to receive accreditation on any level.
It doesn't mean we can't draw really logical, educated conclusions. It just means there may be a "Copernicus" aspect to it that we have yet to find out. I like to think we don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about how the world began, evolved, and was populated.