Blowing Up Darwin

[Hollie]

Does one need to believe anything in order to undertake scientific investigations?

That has no bearing on the role played by beliefs when studying nature.

A cowardly sidestep. Religious faith precludes evidence or reason and rationality. Faith requires no corroboration because questioning the faith is thought to be losing one’s faith.

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion such as the comical “creation ministries” is unethical and announces a bias.

We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones, between objective truth vs. fear and superstition. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse.

 

[Hollie]

Does one need to believe anything in order to undertake scientific investigations?

That has no bearing on the role played by beliefs when studying nature, it's a strawman argument.

Another cowardly sidestep.

Preconceived beliefs hinder scientific investigation. Religious beliefs, replete with fears and superstitions, do not enable objective truths.

The preference for objectivity and ethics is on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between your pisition of succumbing to fear and superstitions vs. accepting objective facts. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A cowardly sidestep. Religious faith precludes evidence or reason and rationality. Faith requires no corroboration because questioning the faith is thought to be losing one’s faith.

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion such as the comical “creation ministries” is unethical and announces a bias.

We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones, between objective truth vs. fear and superstition. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse.

One must believe that the same experiment will always yield the same results, one cannot prove that it does we simply believe it to be true.

This is why science is said to rely on inductive reasoning rather than a more rigorous deductive reasoning.

A belief that some unproven propositions is always true is an act of faith.

I'm no stranger to this by the way, I studied general relativity for example and have had a life long love for the natural sciences.

 

[Leo123]

Another cowardly sidestep.

Preconceived beliefs hinder scientific investigation. Religious beliefs, replete with fears and superstitions, do not enable objective truths.

The preference for objectivity and ethics is on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between your pisition of succumbing to fear and superstitions vs. accepting objective facts. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

Show the experiment that creates a living cell from elements only.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Another cowardly sidestep.

Preconceived beliefs hinder scientific investigation. Religious beliefs, replete with fears and superstitions, do not enable objective truths.

Does the preconceived belief that the universe conforms to laws, hinder science in your view?

The preference for objectivity and ethics is on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between your pisition of succumbing to fear and superstitions vs. accepting objective facts. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

 

[Hollie]

One must believe that the same experiment will always yield the same results, one cannot prove that it does we simply believe it to be true.

This is why science is said to rely on inductive reasoning rather than a more rigorous deductive reasoning.

A belief that some unproven propositions is always true is an act of faith.

I'm no stranger to this by the way, I studied general relativity for example and have had a life long love for the natural sciences.

What nonsense. You don’t understand the concept of peer review or the underlying principle of the Scientific Method.

You belittle peer review because by even the most generous of considerations, the peer-reviewed scientific review from ID’iot creationer hacks is virtually non-existent. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers regarding evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationer peer-review.

What truly discredits ID’iot creationerism is not just that it has so little peer-reviewed papers, but that begs the obvious question; why there are so few. ID’iot creationer’ists obviously have no interest in performing original research. Research and publication is what drives peer-reviewed experiments for publication in journals. It’s painfully obvious that researchers see nothing in ID’iot creationer’ism or religious claims to angels dancing on the heads of pins worth paying attention to. Despite false claims that ID’iot creationer’ism is a serious challenge to biological evolution, nobody takes ID’iot creationer’ism seriously as a science, so nobody reviews it in professional literature.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What nonsense. You don’t understand the concept of peer review or the underlying principle of the Scientific Method.

You belittle peer review because by even the most generous of considerations, the peer-reviewed scientific review from ID’iot creationer hacks is virtually non-existent. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers regarding evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationer peer-review.

What truly discredits ID’iot creationerism is not just that it has so little peer-reviewed papers, but that begs the obvious question; why there are so few. ID’iot creationer’ists obviously have no interest in performing original research. Research and publication is what drives peer-reviewed experiments for publication in journals. It’s painfully obvious that researchers see nothing in ID’iot creationer’ism or religious claims to angels dancing on the heads of pins worth paying attention to. Despite false claims that ID’iot creationer’ism is a serious challenge to biological evolution, nobody takes ID’iot creationer’ism seriously as a science, so nobody reviews it in professional literature.

Hold on please, where did you read me "belittling" the idea of peer review? which post of mine did you see this in?

 

[Hollie]

Show the experiment that creates a living cell from elements only

Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction​

'There's never been a better time to be a biologist,' says scientist who worked on simple cell​

CBC Radio · Posted: Apr 09, 2021 5:21 PM EDT | Last Updated: April 9, 2021

Biologists have created a synthetic cell with only the bare minimum number of genes it needs to live and reproduce in a lab.

"What we have is an organism that is right now as simple as anything that can live on the planet," said John Glass, a professor of synthetic biology at the J. Craig Venter Institute in California. Glass led the study, which was published in the journal Cell.



This would be a good time to show us the data where your gods “poofed” into existence by magic.

 

[Leo123]

Does the preconceived belief that the universe conforms to laws, hinder science in your view?

Science requires questioning but these so called ‘scientists’ reject questions that make them feel uncomfortable and SOME even denigrate those asking questions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hollie

Do you believe that the same experiment performed under the same conditions will always yield the same results?

These are not trick questions, they simply demonstrate that belief is not only present in "religions" but in everything we do.

Claiming that science does not require belief is a terrible abuse of science, it misrepresents it and replaces it with dogma and dogma in science is just as damaging as dogma in theology.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie

Do you believe that the same experiment performed under the same conditions will always yield the same results?

The scientific method is basically a rigorous application of theories, examinations and decisions that we make every day in navigating through our rational, physical world. The fact that scientists from every possible background and bias generally come to the same consensus conclusions about the majority of scientific matters is not surprising. Peer review is the mechanism that weeds out claims to magic and supernaturslism.

The hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism, faith, and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.

Pass that on to the folks at the Jiimmy Swaggert madrassah

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The scientific method is basically a rigorous application of theories, examinations and decisions that we make every day in navigating through our rational, physical world. The fact that scientists from every possible background and bias generally come to the same consensus conclusions about the majority of scientific matters is not surprising. Peer review is the mechanism that weeds out claims to magic and supernaturslism.

The hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism, faith, and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.

Pass that on to the folks at the Jiimmy Swaggert madrassah

Why the reluctance to answer my question?

 

[Leo123]

Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction​

'There's never been a better time to be a biologist,' says scientist who worked on simple cell​

CBC Radio · Posted: Apr 09, 2021 5:21 PM EDT | Last Updated: April 9, 2021

Biologists have created a synthetic cell with only the bare minimum number of genes it needs to live and reproduce in a lab.

"What we have is an organism that is right now as simple as anything that can live on the planet," said John Glass, a professor of synthetic biology at the J. Craig Venter Institute in California. Glass led the study, which was published in the journal Cell.



This would be a good time to show us the data where your gods “poofed” into existence by magic.

I am familiar with that, they used genes. No one has created a living cell from only elements. Maybe they will but not yet.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie

Do you believe that the same experiment performed under the same conditions will always yield the same results?

These are not trick questions, they simply demonstrate that belief is not only present in "religions" but in everything we do.

Claiming that science does not require belief is a terrible abuse of science, it misrepresents it and replaces it with dogma and dogma in science is just as damaging as dogma in theology.

Nonsense. 7
There is no requirement for “belief” in biological evolution as there is no requirement for “belief” that the planet is far older than 6,000 years. As the facts of evolution are demonstrated, there's no requirement for belief. I have trust that facts and evidence, repeatable and demonstrable experimentation has no requirement for supernaturalism.

"Beliebers" on the other hand are a different matter. Belief / faith is a relgious requirement. theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of various divine, supernatural beings who via supernatural means established all of reality including the laws of nature.

Demonstrable your various gods. When others demonstrate theirs, you Beliebers can thrash out which group and which gods are left standing

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nonsense. 7
There is no requirement for “belief” in biological evolution as there is no requirement for “belief” that the planet is far older than 6,000 years. As the facts of evolution are demonstrated, there's no requirement for belief. I have trust that facts and evidence, repeatable and demonstrable experimentation has no requirement for supernaturalism.

"Beliebers" on the other hand are a different matter. Belief / faith is a relgious requirement. theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of various divine, supernatural beings who via supernatural means established all of reality including the laws of nature.

Demonstrable your various gods. When others demonstrate theirs, you Beliebers can thrash out which group and which gods are left standing

I want to extract this sentence from your post above:

I have trust that facts and evidence, repeatable and demonstrable experimentation has no requirement for supernaturalism.

That's my answer, you do believe those things, you trust in that belief.

 

[Hollie]

Science requires questioning but these so called ‘scientists’ reject questions that make them feel uncomfortable and SOME even denigrate those asking questions.

Who are these scientists you refer to? Did you hear about them at your madrassah?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now Hollie can you explain the origin of the laws of nature? the conservation laws and so on, what gave rise to these?

 

[Leo123]

The scientific method is basically a rigorous application of theories, examinations and decisions that we make every day in navigating through our rational, physical world. The fact that scientists from every possible background and bias generally come to the same consensus conclusions about the majority of scientific matters is not surprising. Peer review is the mechanism that weeds out claims to magic and supernaturslism.

The hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism, faith, and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.

Pass that on to the folks at the Jiimmy Swaggert madrassah

Who are these scientists you refer to? Did you hear about them at your madrassah?

You for one, insulting others when they question you.

 

[Hollie]

I want to extract this sentence from your post above:

That's my answer, you do believe those things, you trust in that belief.

That was a poor sidestep. I can have trust that repeated experimentation during peer review can objectively demonstrate the veracity of a scientific theory.

What experimentation can be done to objectively assess the veracity of your supernatural gods?

 

[Hollie]

You for one, insulting others when they question you.

It’s not an insult to require you to support your argument.