Herschel Walker Skeptical Of Evolution: 'Why Are There Still Apes? Think About It'

[Gordy327]

Exactly. Science is a methodology of understanding natural phenomena through observation and measurement. Science is the antithesis of faith, and they only overlap on the outer edges of a credible argument.

I have 'faith' in science like I have 'faith' that we don't like in the ****ing Matrix, under the theory that 'well, anything is possible...'.

Even if you to apply faith to science, it would only be to the findings of science, not the method. It's a ridiculous argument from someone looking to falsely equate religion and science. They are not remotely similar.

That sums it up nicely. We'll said.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No, science USES the scientific process and it only does that because the process provides useful accurate results.

Look - if science didn't believe the scientific process would provide "useful accurate results" - then why would science use it?

-----------------------

You guys are tap-dancing around your own perceived fairy tale, literally scared to death of two innocuous words (belief and faith) - afraid that their use might actually draw a parallel between religion and science...

...when NO ONE IS CLAIMING ANY SUCH PARALLEL.

The definitions of faith and belief are easily looked up - BOTH have religious AND purely secular uses. But the use of one in a secular sense does not imply a correlation in the religious sense, ok? Both are often equated, confused as the same thing, when they're not. Even the religious confuse them, sometimes even to the point of creating errors in their own doctrines.

My background, my degree is engineering. I'm no layperson (I trust using the word "lay" is acceptable here and won't further anyone's anxiety?). So I'm not entirely ignorant when it comes to science or the scientific method, science's goals, processes, procedures, etc. And I'm particularly anal when it comes to defining things precisely myself, getting to the point if you will. Certainly not perfect, but definitely anal.

One would think that those defending science so adamantly would have an equally intense appreciation for the accurate definition and use of words - given how dependent, and critical precision is to science and the scientific process.

But as with anything, there are always exceptions.

 

[Questerr]

Look - if science didn't believe the scientific process would provide "useful accurate results" - then why would science use it?

-----------------------

You guys are tap-dancing around your own perceived fairy tale, literally scared to death of two innocuous words (belief and faith) - afraid that their use might actually draw a parallel between religion and science...

...when NO ONE IS CLAIMING ANY SUCH PARALLEL.

The definitions of faith and belief are easily looked up - BOTH have religious AND purely secular uses. But the use of one in a secular sense does not imply a correlation in the religious sense, ok? Both are often equated, confused as the same thing, when they're not. Even the religious confuse them, sometimes even to the point of creating errors in their own doctrines.

My background, my degree is engineering. I'm no layperson (I trust using the word "lay" is acceptable here and won't further anyone's anxiety?). So I'm not entirely ignorant when it comes to science or the scientific method, science's goals, processes, procedures, etc. And I'm particularly anal when it comes to defining things precisely myself, getting to the point if you will. Certainly not perfect, but definitely anal.

One would think that those defending science so adamantly would have an equally intense appreciation for the accurate definition and use of words - given how dependent, and critical precision is to science and the scientific process.

But as with anything, there are always exceptions.

If scientists found the scientific process no longer provided useful accurate results, they would stop using it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Look - if science didn't believe the scientific process would provide "useful accurate results" - then why would science use it?

Science IS the process.

 

[Gordy327]

Look - if science didn't believe the scientific process would provide "useful accurate results" - then why would science use it?

-----------------------

You guys are tap-dancing around your own perceived fairy tale, literally scared to death of two innocuous words (belief and faith) - afraid that their use might actually draw a parallel between religion and science...

...when NO ONE IS CLAIMING ANY SUCH PARALLEL.

The definitions of faith and belief are easily looked up - BOTH have religious AND purely secular uses. But the use of one in a secular sense does not imply a correlation in the religious sense, ok? Both are often equated, confused as the same thing, when they're not. Even the religious confuse them, sometimes even to the point of creating errors in their own doctrines.

My background, my degree is engineering. I'm no layperson (I trust using the word "lay" is acceptable here and won't further anyone's anxiety?). So I'm not entirely ignorant when it comes to science or the scientific method, science's goals, processes, procedures, etc. And I'm particularly anal when it comes to defining things precisely myself, getting to the point if you will. Certainly not perfect, but definitely anal.

One would think that those defending science so adamantly would have an equally intense appreciation for the accurate definition and use of words - given how dependent, and critical precision is to science and the scientific process.

But as with anything, there are always exceptions.

The scientific process produces results with the best possible degree of objective validity and reliability. That's why it's used. No belief or faith required. As far as words themselves go, faith and belief are most strongly tied to religion, or at the very least, personal opinion or desire. That is also how the general layman likely views it as well. To use terms like belief or faith within a scientific context is rather disingenuous and can lead to misunderstanding, especially from nonscientific minded individuals.

 

[Luckyone]

"Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker cast doubt on the theory of evolution in recent remarks, saying the fact that apes and humans coexist disproves accepted science.

“At one time, science said man came from apes, did it not? ... If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it,” Herschel said in an appearance at Sugar Hill Church in Georgia on Sunday.

“Now you’re getting too smart for us, Herschel,” lead pastor Chuck Allen responded.

Walker is currently the front-runner in the GOP contest to challenge Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) in November. He’s a former NFL star who has the endorsement of former President Donald Trump, and he’s outspoken about his Christian faith."

Link

If Walker win, Blackburn, Tuberville and Johnson can add a new voice to the Dummy Caucus.

This is what happened.