What price religion?

axe,

i am not questioning dawkins or sagans intellect or ability. however, do either one admit ever that they simply DO NOT KNOW or do they attack belief in a creator with a RELIGIOUS zeal ??

best,

surfer
 
Surfer:
>however his bias is overwhelmingly evident in the
>"blind watch maker"

And here somehow I had gotten the impression that you hadn't read it.

JB
 
jem, your post lost me. It may be because I'm unsure where your writing and comments begin/end and other writers begin/end.


>Such "evidence"--no matter how important the
>dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling.
>Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to
>reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical
>data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so
>many apparently sane and sober people share the same
>strange delusion.

Oh, we are so together here.

>Now is this how things really work in the scientific world.

Is that a question relating to the quote above or the following snippets? ( It's in it's own paragraph so I'm unsure.)

String Theory -- <snip>
Big Bang -- <snip>
evolution -- <snip>

If your question is related to the first paragraph I would have to say that the scientific method would dictate precisely what you described. If the question related to the snippets I don't understand it.


>So the way I read it as far as science goes we have no
>proof of evolution, we will never have it because the
>generational cycles are too long, but since we have
>an understanding of heredity, and mutations we are
>willing to make the great leap of faith to evolution.

>Now is that what should be considered sufficient
>scientific evidence for the existence of God. If it is
>the case would already be half way done.


Here is where you REALLY lose me. How does the immediately above paragraph relate the previous paragraph or does it?


>(I just wanted to point out how disingenuous
>Carl Sagan and his argument is.)

And I am just as lost here. How is the dragon analogy disingenuous?

Thanks
JB
 
book Cosmos, Sagan asserts that "the world was not made by the gods, but instead was the work of material forces interacting in nature" (p. 177

He made statements all the time about how science knows universe was created independent of a watcher or God.

Where is the proof?

Sagan said "Evolution is a fact not a theory." But then at other times he freely admitted that science has become a type of religion.


If you knew that Carl Sagan was a big proponent of teaching evolution as fact-- and you understand that evolution is far from being a fact ---you know why I questioned his standing to apply that dragon analogy.

Turok.

I someone posted a link to a Carl Sagan story about a Dragon in a garage. He explained that every time he wanted to see the dragon the people would say it cant be seen. Then he said well how about checking for foot prints by throwing down powder etc.


His point in the end is we will remain opened minded looking for proof but in the mean time we will reject the theory.

My point was where in the heck does this guy get off rejecting anyone elses unproven theory when just about everything he argued for is unproven science theory? Smart guy, great communicator, I was indoctrinated into his theories growing up and I believed them as they were not in conflict with my religious beliefs and those theories really are not still.

It is just that I think guys like him should have stated that they are teaching theory not fact to school kids. I mean I went to the New York natural history museum on numerous field trips and I remember being taught all this stuff as fact. They had glass enclosures and said this is what people looked like millions of years ago. And hear are our ancestors. And here is this chart. And here is the missiing link and all this stuff. That I later learned all this was pure conjecture. From the theory to the very paintings and exhibits all speculation. It was just made up art. Why was it taught as fact?




 
jem:
>So the way I read it as far as science goes we have no
>proof of evolution, we will never have it because the
>generational cycles are too long, but since we have
>an understanding of heredity, and mutations we are
>willing to make the great leap of faith to evolution

Well, any "leap" must be looked upon with an eye toward the risk/reward ratio.(we're all traders right?) The "the great leap of faith" to evolution as the origin of the species (which I haven't made btw) sure comes with a lot less risk then the leap to the dragon(creator) as the origin. I haven't recently heard of people killing people over big bang disagreements while EVERYDAY we have people killing each other over religious differences.

Currently I treat evolution simply as a benign dragon --I play around with the concept now and then just for fun. I don't find it perfectly compelling yet is doesn't ask for much in return.

I consider the creator dragon to be extremely dangerous and pretty much keep my fingers to myself these days. I find it far less compelling than the evolution dragon and on top of that it's nasty and demanding.

JB
 
>If you knew that Carl Sagan was a big proponent
>of teaching evolution as fact-- and you understand
>that evolution is far from being a fact ---you know
>why I questioned his standing to apply that dragon
>analogy.

Got it...thanks

>Sagan said "Evolution is a fact not a theory."

If that is as far as he took it the I would agree with him.

If he said "Evolution as the orgin of the species is fact and not theory" then I would consider this bit of a dragon.

I'd be interested to know which he stated.

JB
 
A German scientist at the time of Darwin, Professor Ernst Haeckel, said that when an embryo develops, it passes through the various evolutionary stages that reflect its evolutionary history. As the embryo develops, it supposedly goes through a worm-like state, then a fish stage with gill slits, then an amphibian stage, and so on, until it becomes human. This view once was prevalent in biology textbooks in schools and colleges around the world. Many students became convinced of evolution because of this idea—an idea that was even illustrated with diagrams to "prove" that it was true.

Sagan wrote articles endorsing the idea that embryos develop the way humans evolved. I was taught this absolute junk and really believed it. I remember looking at the pictures and having a visceral reation to it. Not really wanting to believe it but it was fact.

This was the crap in my testbooks in school. This was the junk science that Sagan supported and endorsed. He got nobel prizes for a book about the development of the brain and yet he endorsed evolutionary psuedo garbage science.
 
More evidence confirming my practice of "value the result and not the man" (meaning nobody is perfect).

I find real value in the dragon analogy. I have seen no equal in describing my feelings regarding a supernatural being.

JB
 
The problem Jem, is your not being specific enough.

Biological evolution is considered FACT as much as gravity.
It's been OBSERVED. Its totally proven that viruses mutate.

If Sagan stated evolution is FACT, then he is correct. *In general*.

But evolution is a very fuzzy word that spans a very LARGE
set of theories and facts. It is NOT a single theory or fact.

What has NOT been proven is that species evolve
into other species, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although its not much of a leap to make, in my opinion, unless
you have some religious dogma in the way.

That is where all this friction comes from.
This kind of evolution is still properly labeled a theory.
A theory being a hypothesis with very STRONG supporting evidence.


Point #2. Of course we were taught things that were
incorrect back in school. Science is not perfect.
It has a history of mistakes. Further.... I think teachers are simply
LAX and just say its fact because its easier than getting into
a huge philosophical discussion over every fricken little tiny
point science makes :D Its not productive.
These things can be further reviewed as the child gets older
and has the capacity to examine it more critically.

But UNLIKE many religions which are not falsifiable, who believe
they are right, no matter what, science FREELY can admit its
errors and FIXES them. It has a built in mechanism for doing this.
It is not a CLOSED system like religion. It is open to change
and being proven FALSE.

I hope your not saying that Sagan and science should be
rejected simply because they have been wrong in the past.


If this is the case, then you must reject ALL MODERN KNOWLEDGE.

Scientific knowledge evolves and has the best track record of
any system of discovery that I am aware of. Any.

Compared to religion...well...there really is no comparison.
Religion is a bunch of empty assertions. It barely even
qualifies as a hypothesis.

peace

axeman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top