February 2, 1809. Both Lincoln and Darwin were born. Who was the greater emancipator?

Alric, you realize that we are breaking the mold here ... not flinging indignant remarks, etc. Now if we can just get another 2 or 3 billion on board, things wouldn't be so bad!

Here's one of my favorite illustrations of molecular mechanisms:

[attachmentid=12156]

Yes, in theory, molecules can assemble in such a miraculous pattern. Similarly, the statues on Easter Island can be caused by wind / water / erosion, rather than design. I struggle with science not being able to duplicate evolutionary aspects. Oh, wait, that's creating life . Thus evolutionary theory remains safe, because we can't easily duplicate huge amounts of time. What's more problematic is when public schools indignantly cry 'heretic' at those who'd see a need to teach both sides. That happens, and it's troublesome.

 

The problem isn't in having the other side taught. It's in what forum to teach it in. Shakespheare isn't taught in a math class. Religion shouldn't be taught in a science class.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ 2007 10 22 08:55) [snapback]528859[/snapback]</div>

Religious beliefs should not dictate what is taught in any classroom, especially science.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Oct 22 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]528859[/snapback]</div>

Religion in its broad sense is any belief system you choose, which can't be absolutely proven up, to explain the origins . . . whether you believe you came from nothing and return to nothing or whether you believe youi DID come from something and continue on ... or don't continue on. And just because 'experts' feel they poke holes in the other side's view, doesn't mean you have to follow the alternative religion. It simply means you poked holes in the other side's religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 22 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]528921[/snapback]</div>

well, there goes darwinism . . . or did youi mean neither side's religion should be taught. There goes the stimulation of independent thinking.

Put in a lighter sense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwk8I1ou9k&NR=1

ya gota laugh

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ 2007 10 23 18:17) [snapback]529492[/snapback]</div>

No, that wasn't what I meant at all. Science is not a religion.

The video wasn't funny, either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 23 2007, 10:40 PM) [snapback]529511[/snapback]</div>

True, just as not all science is correct, and not all aspects of science are 'faith' free. Determining origin is only one aspect of the bigger circle, science, and since the jury's still out regarding which side is right, the views may very well be inextricably linked to science, at least at that point . . . beyond that, folks enter into a ping pong match (or put another way, a lively debate).

 

as you progress in your scientific career, you become more and more of a scientific bullsh** filter. evidenced by my boss, who came flying into the lab in an absolute RAGE yesterday over a recent grant application she was reviewing, ranting about how the cited papers were unrelated to the topic at hand. i wouldn't have gone into her office after that for a million dollars OR a free pass to graduation.

science is far more than reading a book and believing what it tells you. that's what you think it is in high school, but as you go through college and learn how to DO research, you learn that all that information THEORY came from elegantly designed EXPERIMENTS.

as a graduate student, i'm at the stage where i'm learning how to design said elegant experiments. i'm learning to be critical. i'm learning to go back and double check everything. but something does not become doctrine until it is widely accepted by the field. my recent result that i presented at a meeting was met with great skepticism and it kinda pissed me off, but i also understood their skepticism. i needed to do a reverse-engineered experiment to prove my result before they'd believe it. my preliminary exam committee's final comment to me is that the field is like swimming with sharks and i'd better learn to be one myself.

basically, scientific knowledge is not faith when there is evidence to back it up. it's not something you just 'believe'... it's a logical conclusion based upon analysis of data. with each experiment we are improving the data available and using it to refine our conclusions about the world. the universe. whatever.

religious folks are proud to proclaim they believe without seeing. scientists see, contest, argue viciously, repeat experiments, increase number of data points, see again, tear hair out, and develop a conclusion based upon what the data says even if it proves the last year of work useless.

i don't understand where science=faith.