"Belief" is a dirty word in scientific circles.
Yes, unless it is based on fact, logic, observation, and experimentation. If it is based on thin air, then it is indeed a dirty word, just as it should be.
Yes, unless it is based on fact, logic, observation, and experimentation. If it is based on thin air, then it is indeed a dirty word, just as it should be.
Oh, well then 99% of religion isn't a dirty belief. Well that's good news.
"Belief" is a dirty word in scientific circles.
I beg to differ. I watched a program on NGC not too long ago on evolution. I counted the word "believe" 70 times in the two hours. It wasn't a preacher using it. It was a paleontologist.
Theories are NOT "proven". They are supported. Evolution is nearly as strongly supported as the theory of gravitation (not to be confused with the phenomenon known as gravity). Read a book! I suggest "the greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution"
This begs the question...
Why???
that is the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. Did you come up with it or did your pastor/priest tell you it?
Scientists don't try to disprove the muslim god, the hindu god, etc. They are unconcerned with that stuff. Scientists, such as biologists look for explanations for:
1) facts observed in nature
2) phenomenon reproducible in the lab
It just so happens that every once and awhile a scientific explanation conflicts with a particular religion's holy-book tales. Then the religious have a temper-tantrum. This has happened before: galileo and the mormons are two examples.
An understanding of evolution allows us to create flu vaccines, grow more efficient and plentiful crops, and breed animals for desirable traits (for food or affection). These are just SOME applications that probably wouldn't be possible without the theory of evolution.
The scientist speaking was usually referring to something which current science or technology is incapable of proving or in some instances defining. So they have to believe it to be so.
I meant why you would be counting how many times it was said, lol.
Oh well. My lame attempt at humor was utter fail.
So you go from the claim that scientists are determined to disprove religions to scientists are all (or mostly) producing fraudulent works to get money. What's next? That the scientists are involved in a big conspiracy? Where are you getting these ideas?Perhaps it was an overstatement. Scientists involved in evolutionary studies are usually more concerned with when their next government grant is coming, since that is how they get paid.
There isn't a field of study known as "evolutionology". Many branches of biology such as genetics, paleontology, and microbiology, heavily rely on the theory of evolution. Its similar to how mechanical engineers and aeronautical engineers are heavily reliant on the theory of gravitation.I think you are confusing evolution and genetics. While the two are linked, they are not the same thing.
So you go from the claim that scientists are determined to disprove religions to scientists are all (or mostly) producing fraudulent works to get money. What's next? That the scientists are involved in a big conspiracy? Where are you getting these ideas?
I agree that scientists are human and thus are prone to greed and other less an reputable actions. But
its almost impossible to produce lasting but fraudulent work in science because other people have to verify your work. They have to independently produce your results in their own labs or witness the same phenomenon. There is also peer review where anonymous scientists in the field are PAID to find every little problem they can find and report back on it.
Is it absolutely perfect? No. For example, pilt down man, cold fusion, and the cloning fiasco with Hwang Woo-suk.
The problem with fraudulent scientific work is that it all deals with the real world. If people can't verify your work in the real world then your work is discredited until someone can. This is exactly how all the above hoaxes and frauds were caught. No scientific claim is taken on faith.
There isn't a field of study known as "evolutionology". Many branches of biology such as genetics, paleontology, and microbiology, heavily rely on the theory of evolution. Its similar to how mechanical engineers and aeronautical engineers are heavily reliant on the theory of gravitation.
Its possible that evolution or the theory of gravitation could be wrong. But its unlikely given the enormous amount of evidence in support of them. Minor revisions and changes are possible and expected (such as the effects of relativity) but massive paradigm shifts are unlikely. After all, if we had already figured everything out in these fields then we wouldn't need biologists and physicists, we'd only need engineers.
On a side note, I'm not a biologist. I'm an computer engineer. So I don't know all the nitty-gritty details of evolution nor can I defend evolution for very specific and narrow criticisms. I don't spend much time discussing evolution beyond the basics nor do I care to. There are a few biologists on this board who can address those or I'm sure there are plenty of books that can as well such as the book I mentioned earlier. Talkorigins.org is also very well known and reputable resource.
So you go from the claim that scientists are determined to disprove religions to scientists are all (or mostly) producing fraudulent works to get money. What's next? That the scientists are involved in a big conspiracy? Where are you getting these ideas?
Yes, unless it is based on fact, logic, observation, and experimentation. If it is based on thin air, then it is indeed a dirty word, just as it should be.
Its almost impossible to produce lasting but fraudulent work in science because other people have to verify your work. They have to independently produce your results in their own labs or witness the same phenomenon.
Oftentimes knowledge about our world provides the support in which future technologies, research, and other endeavors are born from. How much time and effort have you put into investigating the "market value" of paleontology or paleobotany? Or is this merely an arm-chair analysis from you that we should take on "faith"?I never said anyone was producing fraudulent work for monetary gain. My point was paleontology or paleobotany or large chunks of archeology have no market value beyond government sponsored research.
Apparently you have the ability to generate a limitless supply of silly theories.As far as the conspiracy theory, well, all I can say is unless there was this ongoing "Scopes Trial", evolution wouldn't be very sexy.
Another perfect example of what I am talking about. You are a conspiracy theoriest, just of a different breed than 9/11 truthers and UFO'ers.In order to gain the greater share of government dollars, evolution has to remain sexy and at least on one of the forward burners.
If that were true, then global warming would have been put to bed 30 years ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?