nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 25:
Line 25: + + + + + + + + Line 31:
Line 39: +
Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God? (view source)
Revision as of 23:14, February 28, 2008
, 23:14, February 28, 2008Replies to Raggs and Humblpi
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::::: "''Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available.''" and "''Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.''": True, they did gain more knowledge, but you've already claimed that this is not about their ''expertise'' in the subject, but their ''intelligence''. This argument about having more knowledge is a reversion to the "scientists as an authority" argument that I rejected and which you said was not your point.
::::: "''Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes.''": No, "deep time" was not based on the evidence, but on the ''assumption'' of uniformitarianism.
::::: Newton actually spent ''most'' of his time on theology. But yes, I think you are correct in saying that he did spend time with alchemy as well.
::::: "''I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much.''": Which misses the point that you said that your argument was about their ''intelligence'', not their knowledge of the subject.
::::: "''Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible?''": Yes. Faith is trust ''based on evidence''. If they have supporting evidence, then the trust may be warranted.
::::: "''...how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?''": Some of the main proponents of evolution were ardent atheists, and not necessarily scientists, and in any case scientists are fallible human beings who have their own beliefs, and are not always following the scientific method. To be more specific, this issue, unlike most other disputes in science, goes to the core of what people believe about who they are and whether or not they are answerable to their Creator. Obviously they are not answerable if there is no creator, and this is what many people, including scientists, ''want''. The pseudo-scientific theory of evolution appears to give them justification for rejecting God, and this is a large part of the reason why evolution came to be accepted.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)
The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)
The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't see where the "assertion" is. I'm probably wrong about "quickly", I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::I don't see where the "assertion" is. I'm probably wrong about "quickly", I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your first four sentences are nothing but assertion. And how are fossils evidence in support of evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)