Sometimes people confuse "knowing" with strong belief and vis versa.
Both sides should take a break and replace their "knowledge" with
beliefs. Even scientific "knowledge" is really a belief system. You can
tell because their knowledge and theories of the Univers, evolution, atoms (ie
things they can't see) keep changing.People of faith
"know" the same things that people of science "know", people of
faith just "know" more. And in the end, there is nothing wrong with
knowing more unless it serves you wrong. Believing in God and/or creationism
never served anyone wrong.
Here is an interesting case study. minininjatriforceman wrote:"Any scientist would agree with me that we don't know everything and
we know it is reckless to assume we know everything."Of course,
any true Scotsman would agree that, for a comment that insists "we
don't know", it sure is filled with a lot of "knowing":- "I don't know how god created man but I KNOW that he did and
we were never apes.""People believed in all seriousness that
the sun revolved around the sun." ??"I KNOW that if science
is to be perfect then it will match with what god has said because he is perfect
and teaches and is a supporter and always will support truth.""Truth never changes because it is true." (Now that we have that
settled...)It was either Artemus Ward or Mark Twain who said "It
ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble.
It's the things we know that ain't so."I KNOW beyond a
shadow of a doubt that Nagel's arguments against reductionism are
"true"... and that they do nothing to favor theistic belief.Strange bedfellows indeed...
I don't see myself as desperate. I am a studen in biotechnology at uvu I
have a biology professor that believes in both god and evolution. I personally
don't believe in evolution yet I study it. I don't know how god
created man but I know that he did and we were never apes. Science changes
constantly. People believed in all seriousness that the sun revolved around the
sun. They rejected the idea of an atom. Eventually I know that if science is to
be perfect then it will match with what god has said because he is perfect and
teaches and is a supporter and always will support truth. Truth never changes
because it is true. Science changes because it is imperfect.I am not saying
science is bad though by all means it is wonderful I love science but it is
imperfect. Any scientist would agree with me that we don't know everything
and we know it is reckless to assume we know everything.
@the truth why do you fight against something even most religions
acknowledge as fact? Is it really that scary to think that maybe we are not all
that much more special then other animals? That heaven forbid God used the rules
of science to create the universe?
You know believers are getting desperate when they unwittingly embrace the
arguments of someone like Nagel, a philosopher whom most believers completely
misunderstand (and have probably never read).Knowing Nagel's
mentor, it is not surprising Nagel's critiques of reductionist explanations
are attractive to believers. But they embrace Nagel's arguments at their
@RickK@Sensible ScientistThere has been no observable
evolution, regardless of claims,unless you want to suppose and
assume, they're just observable adaptations within a creatures own sphere,
minor environmental adaptations that never progress beyond it's own sphere,
a fish is still a fish, a bird is still a bird, and a flu virus is still flu
virus, and so forth.We have never observed, even by trying to force
it in laboratories, a species become something else entirely.DNA
does not prove anything, it just suggest possibilities, it is assuming and
supposing, may haves, might haves, could haves,Trying to base things
on common genetic traits is just plain bad science, all based on assuming and
supposing relationships,Fossils are whatever you want to make of
them, again you can assume and suppose anything about them, and invent imaginary
relationships, and makeup any story you want about them,again
assumings and supposings.Nothing in the so-called theory is an
actual scientific fact.Now if don't stop science from critical
questioning, and not create dogma like evolution, and try out different
theories, maybe we can actually come to some actual truth and fact.
Evolution is one of the most well-supported, thoroughly tested, useful
scientific theories in the history of mankind. The mountains of evidence are
overwhelming. You may as well deny gravity -- you're free to do so, but
you'd be just plain wrong.Some of you misunderstand what
"evolution" means. It means that life forms change through time, that
life forms have common ancestors. That is simple fact, observable in the fossil
record. Details of how and why changes take place are where investigations
continue.So NO, there is no room for creationist and young-earth
ideas in education or science. No evidence supports them, only religious and
philosophical ideas, and that means they are NOT science.
unfortunately Nagel seems to have fallen into the creationist thinking of the
probability of step one leading to step 100 is astronomical therefore could not
be true. there are 99 steps along the way that lead to 100, it was neither
inevitable or created out of thin air.
"Truth" said: "Unfortunately, the theory of evolution is built on
neither scientific investigation or data."That's
fundamentally dishonest. The same evidence-based approach that we use to
determine any other answers in science (or in a courtroom for that matter) are
used to validate and expand evolutionary theory. We've SEEN species evolve
- fundamental organ changes, changes in size, shape, metabolism. There's
more DNA evidence for Common Descent than all the DNA evidence used in every
criminal trial and every paternity test combined. The fossil record confirms
the DNA confirms the biogeography confirms the cladistic tree confirms
morphology all confirmed by multiple dating methods and all in sync with
biology, chemistry and physics. Whatever the implications to your
worldview, whatever the implications to your moral foundations, whatever the
implications to society, the simple fact is that species evolve and we are the
product of evolution.I don't like the implications of nuclear
weapons - is the right response to deny Atomic Theory and declare Einstein
wasn't doing real science?
Creationists praise atheist philosopher who attacks science. Sheesh, you just
can't make these things up. Strange bedfellows, but I suppose the enemy of
my enemy is my friend -- though I suspect the philosopher is equally willing to
target the creationists. Someone like me who is a theist *and* believes in
evolution must really drive him nuts!
Atl134 - That's true that evolution does not attempt to explain the
universe. However, the larger idea that things just happen to happen in a way
that evolved into the life we know can still fall into the categories of
intelligent design or a chance combination over time.
@Sensible ScientistUnfortunately, the theory of evolution is built
on neither scientific investigation or data.The only fact that can
found in evolution is that it is built entirely on assumings and supposings.That is obvious to anybody who has studied carefully the theory of
evolution and the language it is written in.may haves, might haves,
possibly could haves, and so forth.It is the Sergeant Schultz of
theories, it actually knows nothing!With that kind of science
anything is possible!And without serious questioning of it it is not
worth anything scientifically.
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe.
I am most certainly a darwinist and certainly philosophy is not a substitution
for scientific observation, however i will very likely be reading this book as
it sounds like Hagel has taken on a very on interesting philosophical exercise
that could provide insight into how the human mind perceives and makes sense of
It is interesting what current scientific investigation and data ARE
discovering.- the long list of elements that would each have to be perfectly
aligned for our universe to exist and for there to be an earth with life on it,
the possibility that given enough time a race of beings could evolve that was
capable of controlling elements in the universe as if it were a garden. There is room for Creationists theories and room for questioning
Darwinian beliefs. It seems that any science worth it's salt was first
vehemently rejected when first proposed. Good for this guy. Rock the boat.
@Hutterite,No, creationism can't, but common sense and moral
can. And yes, that can be leglislated. Common sense and morals say that drugs
are bad and therefore we've made them illegal, even if you want to eat or
drink them.Similarly, common sense and morals say that I shouldnt
marry my sister, a pineapple, or another man. And in most places with common
sense and morals those things are illegal too.So no, Creationism
shouldnt have rule over you. But common sense and morals should rule over those
without common sense and morals.
Creationism does not validate anyone telling me what I can eat or drink.
A philosopher cannot trump scientific investigation and data.