Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Harris]

Let's begin at the beginning shall we? Atheism is a lack of faith in god. Evolution is not necessary to my lack of belief in god. There is no proof or even suggestive evidence for the existence of god. Period. Full stop. No big bang, evolution, or abiogenesis required.

It is exactly my point as well. If you do not want to believe in the existence of God then it’s your choice but do not try to justify your belief by means of Evolution because Theory of Evolution has flaws that will only degrade the quality of your choice.

Evolution is, however, a threat to many people's belief in god.

On the contrary, Theory of Evolution seriously lacks evidence. On the other side the belief that God does not exist is self-contradictory due to the existence intelligible universe and human conscious.

---

So to cut a long story short your alternative theory is that god said the word "be" to some dust and that's how life began?

As a replacement for “BE,” can you offer any scientific explanation how life began?

---

Winning? Morals?
Didn't think it science was a game or a race.
When you throw god as the default answer, it does make the above infinitely more feasible.
Since when are morals the work of god.

Unfortunately, there is no moral code in Atheism, which can provide moral code of conduct to the followers of Atheism. Without having a moral code, people have little or no knowledge about ethics, about right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice, etc. if they are good then it is for the fear of punishment. One essential condition for being a moral person is that the agent must have the relevant understanding (or capacity for understanding) of what the external requirements of morality are. Exactly how much understanding is required is not easy to specify if you do not have a moral code.

There's still a lot to learn from science ... We can barely make it to a rock 300,000 miles from earth.
Science is not claiming we understand how everything works.

Exactly, Science has limitations and it cannot address to the phenomenon, which transcend the material world.

I don't even necessarily believe that life on earth began exclusively on earth.

Well your belief is closer to the idea that all Semitic religions are teaching us since pre-scientific era.

But to fall back to the lazy explanation every time it's convenient, then we'd still be in the middle ages teaching the fine arts of alchemy.

Following Quran is by no means a lazy act.

---

It's a science.

Next.

Evidence please!

---

Wow. Not reading all that text but to answer your question, the theory of evolution is a body of scientific facts, not faith.

How much I know Theory of Evolution and Natural selection do not have hard scientific facts. Richard Dawkins wrote:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

I do not think above statement, by any means, a Scientific Fact.

---

We get irritated when some ill educated nonce like yourself comes along and confidently asserts incorrect things as though they were facts. Don't mistake that for some deep seated panic at your brave truth seeking pulling the rug out from under us…

You should study some of the work of Thomas Nagel. Maybe he would take you out from your Evolutionary delusions.

---

Evolution is a fact, just ask any creationist in the hospital dying from an infection caused by an EVOLVED pathogen.

If you have evolved a new type of virus from some existing virus then this is not even close to what theory of evolution is claiming.

[Esquilax]

Unfortunately, there is no moral code in Atheism, which can provide moral code of conduct to the followers of Atheism. Without having a moral code, people have little or no knowledge about ethics, about right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice, etc. if they are good then it is for the fear of punishment. One essential condition for being a moral person is that the agent must have the relevant understanding (or capacity for understanding) of what the external requirements of morality are. Exactly how much understanding is required is not easy to specify if you do not have a moral code.

Allow me to Euthyphro you real quick: is something moral to you because god says so? Could god make a currently immoral thing moral by ordering you to do it?

You should study some of the work of Thomas Nagel. Maybe he would take you out from your Evolutionary delusions.

Tell you what: I'll actually do that, the moment you admit to the dishonest quote mining you did in your last evolution thread. I believe it was the Darwin quote about the eye that I got you on most recently, I'd like you to own up and admit that you clipped the paragraph halfway through to manipulate the text into saying the opposite of what it actually said. You do that, and I'll read anything you recommend to me.

Here's the post where I called you out, for reference. It's the very last quotation there: your quote from Darwin, and then the rest of the paragraph that shows he was saying the opposite. On the next page of the thread Mister Agenda called you out on another example of quote mining too. You never responded to either of us, for some reason.

If you have evolved a new type of virus from some existing virus then this is not even close to what theory of evolution is claiming.

Just for fun, do please tell us what you think the theory of evolution is claiming. We'd love to know.

[Harris]

The problem with evolution is it isn't a thing. It's a way of interpretating the changes in properties of similar things over time.

Agreed.

It's kind of like asking if rainbows are scientific-- there's red--there's blue-- but there's no arbitrary point at which you can say, "See, red has changed into blue."

Agreed.

However, denying evolution is kind of like denying that the samples on a CD represent analog sound. They are a DESCRIPTION of the sound, and the science that goes into reading and writing CDs, making new agorithms for encoding and decoding represented waves, etc., is fine.

I completely agree with your example of new algorithms to code and decode sounds on CD. The only problem left here is that behind making a CD is the intelligent mind whereas Natural Selection is the blind and unguided force that basically work on chance and luck.

---

As for the "evolution has never been observed" trope:

http://sciencepicks.wordpress.com/2011/1...es-emerge/

http://triblive.com/usworld/world/548337...z36kjOnkNX

http://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

etc

All these links have took me to junkyard only. If you are so sure then bring live scientific evidence that apes transformed into humans.

---

Humiliation? The word you are looking for is annoyed. Annoyed in the same manner as an adult confronted by a four year old's reason for staying up late to watch R rated movies while gorging on ice cream and coffee.

You are annoyed because you are not in position to refute by using scientific argument.

---

To answer your thread, I must remind everyone I don't know much about physics, chemistry, cosmology or any other exact sciences, just the basis. I can tell you that a theory is an attempt to explain reality trough sustainable evidence, we could argue no theory is 100% true and all facts can be proven wrong with time. Indeed, I've heard the saying that all scientific facts are true unless they are proven wrong in the future. Correct me if I'm wrong but there is not 100% certainty about evolution, however evolution is a lot more likely to be true than any other theory or orientation to explain our species current stage and past development. Evolution can be proven wrong in the future, but this possibility is highly unlikely to happen, a physicist friend of mine told me evolution is not 100% true but it's near perfection.

As for your question 'Is evolution a science or a faith', I'd say it's science (duh)... Not only it was discovered using the scientific method but it relies mostly on inductive evidence to support it's claims. We could talk about faith considering the 1% chance of evolution being wrong, but that's just a minimal faith with little possibility of being right, most 'belief' in evolution is based on proof and doesn't rely on believing what you want... The nice thing about science is that it's true, whether you like it or not.

You are living with a misbelief. I recommend you to read the book,

MIND AND COSMOS
Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception
of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
by Thomas Nagel (an atheist)

[The Grand Nudger]

Modern Synthesis is the unifying theory of biology, it is a theory which has more evidence in it's favor than the theory of gravity. Let that sink in. This is the situation, regardless of whether or not there is a god. God is entirely irrelevant to this position.

In response to your questions, yes, Modern Synthesis is a thoroughly scientific theory, and no - atheism does not assume that "god" can be disproven with it's leverage. Of course, certain stories -about gods- most certainly can be. That's what science is good for, providing good explanations and disproving poor ones. I suppose, that if a person is unwilling to let go of one of those stories, they have consigned their god to irrelevance and inexistence...but it isn't science or atheism doing anything in that case. It's the believer who insists that their god is not real. Why they would wish to do so is, frankly, beyond me.

Perhaps you'll be able to explain?

[Harris]

He seems to be neglecting those of faith, including Christians, who believe in God and evolution.
And also those who are atheists and don't believe in evolution. Although, those are a whole other ball game of crazy.

Whether someone believe or not that is not the point of my argument. I have simply submitted few facts which prove that Theory of Evolution is not a science it is a faith. If you disagree with those facts, then put forward your evidences. No big deal here.

---

How can someone misunderstand something so much??!!!??

Your deep desire to refuse existence of God, brought you to the false believes in the Theory of Evolution.

---

Because he copy pasted Ken Ham.

Essentially the entire argument is just rehashing ken ham arguments. It's creating a straw man of what evolution is and disregarding all evidence and arguments about what evolution actually is.

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”


Above statement is not made by Ken Ham. It is made by Richard Dawkins.
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

Did you See how good I am in copying and pasting!

---

I've noted in other fora members of the 'woo' community rarely, if ever, criticize each other. Christians who believe in evolution too aren't going to make waves in their churches for their pew mates that don't.

However, both those stripes of Christians in that church might come after the gays, or the pro choicers, or some undocumented immigrants, regardless of some of them being in a state of apostasy on Darwinism.

Who thinks what is not the issue here. Darwinism is not science but a faith. I had given plenty of arguments in my post, if you believe I am wrong then bring your counter scientific argument proving Darwinism as true science and not a Faith. No big Deal here.

[SteelCurtain]

Harris is like a Rev Jr.

Pretends Esquilax is not there, responds to figurative examples only, quote mines, completely misrepresents facts....


Wait... Is Harris.... Rev?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Harris
"Darwinism" is not Modern Synthesis - but by all means, argue against "darwinism" all you like. Eventually you might reach the same conclusions that scientific inquiry did. Good luck with the catchup.

@Steel
If you think you've identified a sock, then report it as such and it will be looked into.

[Harris]

We do not have to directly observe Evolution to establish it as a viable theory, although if we use species with a short life span such as bacteria or fruit flies we can observe evolution in action in these species. We use this data to create theories about dinosaurs or early hominids and we compare.

Problem here is that fruit flies have not shown any beneficial traits in the laboratory experiments.

The other problem in your post is you seem to have reduced the Theory of Evolution down to a few concepts that you think by 'disproving' you destroy the whole theory, well that's just not so. The theory of evolution is the convergence of many different theories that supports a bigger overall picture. This is a very common mistake made by religious debaters, by seemingly challenging one aspect of evolution you destroy the entire theory, well you don't. Science challenges itself everyday, how else would we improve.

Every scientific theory is a 'work in progress' and the sooner religious people grasp that concept and stop trying to disprove them on a whim - plus half an hour with Wiki - the better we will all be.

I agree “Science challenges itself every day,” but Theory of evolution is not a science it’s a postulate and a political dictum. Second point you made here that religious people undermine the scientific facts however, Thomas Nagel is not a religious person. He is an atheist. Read his book:

MIND AND COSMOS:
Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

Oh, and as a footnote, the Oxford English dictionary is for finding explanation of words, it's not a definition of scientific theory or scientific method. Here's a much better use for your Oxford English Dictionary, look up 'banausic prolixity'.

It seems you have not read my post further than the meaning of science as given in Oxford Dictionary!

[SteelCurtain]

If you think you've identified a sock, then report it as such and it will be looked into.

I don't actually think he's a sock. I was just juxtaposing their styles and saw the similarity.

[Harris]

I'm interested what else isn't a science.

My bet is on chemistry. Those chemists are going to be shocked when they find out.

Thanks for pointing to that Chemical Evolution. Another gibberish.

---

atomic theory is only a theory after all...

Yes! But no one is claiming that atomic theory in responsible for life on earth.

---

Gravity is only a theory! Wake up America!

Indeed we don’t know what gravity is and indeed we don’t think that gravity is responsible for life on earth.

---

He's like a little boy that likes sticking a stick in the bee hive and then running away like hell.

Let's see if we can answer the little boy's question. Evolution is studied in life science courses at the university level where as creationism is taught in Sunday school. I hope that cleared it up for you.

Theory of Evolution is the asset of secular state who dictates the rules.