Science is close-minded

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

I have noticed that I can start a thread or post on an existing thread that deals with aspects evolution theory I find I am enviably and inextricably drawn into a creationist debate, and not usually by a creationists mind you. W.T.F. Science is fascinating, studying religion I also find interesting but they are two separate paradigms. The creationist debate is mental masturbation. It produces nothing and is unfulfilling futile exercise.

What aspects of evolutionary theory that you are promoting do you think might be leading the discussion toward a creationist debate?

Could it be the teleological assertion of an inherent drive toward complexity in nature?

You've brought those discussions on yourself, T-bird. But I don't think it's worth complaining about. I think they've been useful and informative discussions.

Originally Posted by Alexander

Here's my problem with this thread already. How come, every thread about science, turns into a thread where science is put up against religion. I mean honestly, i ask everyone who picks fights with religious folk, do we seriously have nothing better to do then bash religion? (and by we, i mean scientists, and i don't quite think i make the grade)

You know, this hasn't really been my experience here. It appears to me that a lot of people with religious assertions to make feel the need to come here to make them, as though they need to prove something to science oriented people. Is there anyone who is luring religious folk to come here to be drawn into a fight? How credible is the information to be found here if unsupported assertions can go unchallenged?

In the process of maintaining scientific integrity at a science website, it is necessary by default to refute unscientific notions, and to challenge philosophies that are based in superstition and myth. These refutations can become heated when people continue to dump their false assertions all over these threads after their claims have been shown to be false. I imagine that if it weren't for those who were continually willing to challenge false claims, these fora would be littered with absurdity.

Personally, I don't recommend that there be a let up on those who know no better than to promote their conjecture and faithfull thinking here at Hypography.

[Moontanman]

I'll make a deal with all the creationists and ID'ers and anyone else who has a religious axe to grind, if they will stay away from science posts I'll stay out of the theology section. I am tired of every time there is a science thread some one seems to think it a perfect time to 'educate' everyone on the merits of some BS religious idea. I hate to argue religion or politics with anyone. It a useless exercise. The religious have no desire to learn science, no idea of what science is or any desire to learn anything. All they are looking for is a platform to spew BS at anyone who will sit still for them.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by REASON

What aspects of evolutionary theory that you are promoting do you think might be leading the discussion toward a creationist debate?Could it be the teleological assertion of an inherent drive toward complexity in nature?

You've brought those discussions on yourself, T-bird. But I don't think it's worth complaining about. I think they've been useful and informative discussions.



You know, this hasn't really been my experience here. It appears to me that a lot of people with religious assertions to make feel the need to come here to make them, as though they need to prove something to science oriented people. Is there anyone who is luring religious folk to come here to be drawn into a fight? How credible is the information to be found here if unsupported assertions can go unchallenged?

In the process of maintaining scientific integrity at a science website, it is necessary by default to refute unscientific notions, and to challenge philosophies that are based in superstition and myth. These refutations can become heated when people continue to dump their false assertions all over these threads after their claims have been shown to be false. I imagine that if it weren't for those who were continually willing to challenge false claims, these fora would be littered with absurdity.

Personally, I don't recommend that there be a let up on those who know no better than to promote their conjecture and faithfull thinking here at Hypography.

None, that's always been my point. I do not have any intention of promoting I.D. Complexity is not I.D. But some in ID have used it to promote ID some on this forum do not understand that complexity is not about ID, therefore the confusion is not on my part. I was studying complexity long before ID began to be misused it as a wedge issue which is not my intent, but others. Read Stuart Kauffman he applies complexity to evolution properly.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

None, that's always been my point. I do not have any intention of promoting I.D. Complexity is not I.D. But some in ID have used it to promote ID some on this forum do not understand that complexity is not about ID, therefore the confusion is not on my part. I was studying complexity long before ID began to be misused it as a wedge issue which is not my intent, but others. Read Stuart Kauffman he applies complexity to evolution properly.

I apologize, T-bird. I don't want to appear to be implying that you have promoted I.D. I will attest that you have continually denied Intelligent Design or any other form of Creationism.

What I meant was that you have suggested, I believe, that there are inherent qualities in nature that lend themselves toward increasing complexity, which has been challenged as teleological putting you in the position of defending youself. Even Eclogite acknowledged that simply dismissing something as teleological was scientifically closed-minded, if I recall correctly.

I think in some of those discussions that you provided some very valuable information to consider. I was trying to clarify why some of the discussions you were involved in regarding evolution found their way toward a debate about creationism.

I admit that there are some itchy trigger fingers when it comes to creationists around here. I tend to think that's because of the shear number of posters over the years that have come here to proselytize.

[alexander]

Originally Posted by Reason

Is there anyone who is luring religious folk to come here to be drawn into a fight?

I think you took it a bit too literally, let me expand on the thought a little, it works both ways, and generally its the passage out of some religious tome that sparks the argument, and we've all been down this road, and the more you go, the more you realize that you are saying the same thing over and over again, and it's not getting you anywhere... Still, time and time again, proper scientific folk get drawn into these debates, that are always about the same thing, and they always end similarly, in both sides still being at square one, in disagreeance with each other.

In the process of maintaining scientific integrity at a science website, it is necessary by default to refute unscientific notions, and to challenge philosophies that are based in superstition and myth.

I'm not saying that there is no justification for doing it, i'm just tired of posts being dragged from proper discussion, into the same road we've been down a hundred times, if not more... Yes it needs to be refuted, but it almost never ends in any one being defeated, in their minds, even the folk that leave the conversation, still think that their version is right, why? They are brainwashed to do so, you are trying to convince someone who has never questioned, to follow the logic of a person who has already answered....

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Science is fascinating, studying religion I also find interesting but they are two separate paradigms.

They absolutely are, and thus they should not be mixed. I study religion, well, theology, and generally more of a historical aspect of it for me though...

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by REASON

I apologize, T-bird. I don't want to appear to be implying that you have promoted I.D. I will attest that you have continually denied Intelligent Design or any other form of Creationism.

What I meant was that you have suggested, I believe, that there are inherent qualities in nature that lend themselves toward increasing complexity, which has been challenged as teleological putting you in the position of defending youself. Even Eclogite acknowledged that simply dismissing something as teleological was scientifically closed-minded, if I recall correctly.

I think in some of those discussions that you provided some very valuable information to consider. I was trying to clarify why some of the discussions you were involved in regarding evolution found their way toward a debate about creationism.

I admit that there are some itchy trigger fingers when it comes to creationists around here. I tend to think that's because of the shear number of posters over the years that have come here to proselytize.

I very much agree. Teleological is however is real tricky to speak about given the local climate.
What I define as an inherent order that leads to more order as intelligents may get categorized into preexisting views that where never intended, that by its nature is unscientific or philosophical. To me it is simply a buy product of studying life as a quality of the universe, and not something separate from it. If we have intelligents it is something that is a quality of the world.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by alexander

I think you took it a bit too literally, let me expand on the thought a little, it works both ways, and generally its the passage out of some religious tome that sparks the argument, and we've all been down this road, and the more you go, the more you realize that you are saying the same thing over and over again, and it's not getting you anywhere... Still, time and time again, proper scientific folk get drawn into these debates, that are always about the same thing, and they always end similarly, in both sides still being at square one, in disagreeance with each other.


I'm not saying that there is no justification for doing it, i'm just tired of posts being dragged from proper discussion, into the same road we've been down a hundred times, if not more... Yes it needs to be refuted, but it almost never ends in any one being defeated, in their minds, even the folk that leave the conversation, still think that their version is right, why? They are brainwashed to do so, you are trying to convince someone who has never questioned, to follow the logic of a person who has already answered....


They absolutely are, and thus they should not be mixed. I study religion, well, theology, and generally more of a historical aspect of it for me though...

Thats it exactly! being the contrarian that I am however you have put me in the very uncomfortable position, of agreeing with a Mod. You Bastard ! Sorry I just cannot help myself.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by alexander

I'm not saying that there is no justification for doing it, i'm just tired of posts being dragged from proper discussion, into the same road we've been down a hundred times, if not more... Yes it needs to be refuted, but it almost never ends in any one being defeated, in their minds, even the folk that leave the conversation, still think that their version is right, why? They are brainwashed to do so, you are trying to convince someone who has never questioned, to follow the logic of a person who has already answered....

You make good points, alex. I understand what you are saying. I have felt the same way.

One thing I keep reminding myself though, is that these threads aren't just viewed by those that are posting to them. They are exposed to the world. And while those of us who have stuck around realize the repetitiveness of science/theology debates, new people keep coming here making the same old claims unaware of the fact that they've already been hashed out ad nauseum. So they continually have to be addressed.

One obvious alternative that I have seen used is to simply decide not to engage someone, and instead direct them to some other previous thread on the subject, or suggest that they conduct a search and get caught up first. But it never seems to fail that we are compelled to challenge some particular point.....and here we go.

Originally Posted by alexander

They absolutely are, and thus they should not be mixed.

I have rasied this point in this and other threads as well and I completely agree that distinctions should be made. I have tried to avoid sounding judgemental towards someone's faith, but sometimes that's what they hear when their deeply held beliefs are challenged or questioned.

I guess it's really the role of the Mods to recognize when discussions get off track, and and while I think the Mods here are good at that, they invariably are accused of being closed-minded for shutting the door on someone's argument or claim that is unfounded, or beside the point of the discussion at hand.

Thus the creation of this thread.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by REASON

I guess it's really the role of the Mods to recognize when discussions get off track, and and while I think the Mods here are good at that, they invariably are accused of being closed-minded for shutting the door on someone's argument or claim that is unfounded, or beside the point of the discussion at hand.

Thus the creation of this thread.

Pretty much, but there's more to it than that.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Pretty much, but there's more to it than that.

Obviously, there's 119 replies to it.