What do you object to about science?

[Rubycon]

You mean the petrified trees signified the existence of basiliks?

standing in the sun, idiot savant
something like a monument...

 

[NinjaTech]

I'd like to address this head on. No doubt, there are elitist asshats. I'm not going to argue that, conversely, there are just as many wacky fundamentalists. The idea here is that there is a fundamental clash of worldviews and neither side is taking any time to try and "get" why the other side is acting the way they do. Obviously, you aren't going to get any sympathy from ATOT either...but Id suggest that most people, IRL, arent as abrasive as those found here

For the sake of discussion, I'll zoom in on the evolution idea because that's the typical hot-button issue around the conflict between science and xtian worldviews. Obviously, we're not just limited to evolution though.

From your point of view, you're right. You do see scientists and atheist type folk, looking down on Christians because they deny evolution. Scientists say, "evolution's a fact" and if you don't accept it you're just dumb. Some of them are very brash and just say that (people like coyne or hitchens <-- although hitchens is just a writer) others, end up being insensitive and inadvertently come off as elitist.

What I'd like to try to tell you now is the perspective of these elitist scientists. There are several different angles that I can take to try and describe this... so ill list them out.

• From their perspective, there is factual evidence for evolution
• Saying their life's work is a huge lie can be taken personally --- just as personal as the evolution's perceived attack on the christian worldview
• it's a matter of fact that many people in opposition to some of these theories frankly don't know what they're talking about. A common example of this is the idea that evolution breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
• Accepting evolution as a theory is not mutually exclusive to having faith. More fundamentally, believing the results of methodological science does not at all imply you must accept a naturalistic (secular/humanistic) worldview

So now I'll add a bit more explanation to each point.

On Evidence (for evolution or other controversial topic)
First define "evidence" or "fact"... another poster in this thread did a fine job of that on a pragmatic level. (the post with the explanation between the difference between the fact of a ball dropping and the theory of gravity)

Now a lot could fall into here.. but lets just look at evolution. A common assertion by the christian folk is that there is no fossil evidence, dna disproves evolution and any number of other claims. That there are no facts that can be seen with your eyes or tested, thus evolution requires a step of faith.

The scientist disagrees with that statement... I'll give a simple example here. It's just one piece of evidence that doesn't at all prove the theory as a whole --- but clearly demonstrates the style of factual evidence and logic the scientist claims he is using when developing the theory from the evidence.

Now evolution predicts a common ancestor... as such, it would not make any sense at all to find dinosaur fossils with modern bird fossils (since supposedly birds evolved from dinosaurs). Similarly, you shouldn't find horse fossils mixed in with whatever the horse's long distant grandfather was and so on. Simply put, if a bunch of fossils were found and dated in such a way that the modern animal's ancestor was found side by side with the modern animal itself, you would have a HUGE case of factual evidence against the theory of evolution. That said, no such evidence has been found and instead affirm the theory of evolution.

Note how simple and testable that piece of evidence was. The theory of evolution made a prediction --- common ancestor --- and you could easily test that. No faith involved, and my assertion is that there is a lot of other "factual evidence" just like this that supports the idea of a common ancestor. Now I mean this brings up a lot of other issues, a good counter point is that you're almost putting on blinders and looking for evidence that fits and stuff like that. But as I said, the fossils themselves speak for the truth. Archeologists don't know which fossils go where etc.

To this end -- I've probably gone into too much detail and my hope isn't to delve into a debate on the technical terms of evolution. Rather, I'm just trying to show you this idea that evolution is a grand conspiracy cooked up by atheists to remove God from society isn't quite true... unfortunately, I also understand that for you to even acknowledge that there may be some truth to the theory would be for you to compromise your belief that the bible is God's word on earth. So iono... food for thought. I'd recommend you take a look at Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God"... he's catholic and an evolutionary biologist.

On the insult
Really isn't much for me to say to explain the point here. Ultimately, just trying to get you to see why these dern scientists get their panties in a twist when creationists come in and charge that evolution's a huge lie. You don't have to believe it, but I think it'll help all if we all do have some idea of what the other guy's thinking.

On poor arguments against evolution
I tread lightly here. This isn't at all about whether or not you accept the theory of evolution... instead, basing their rejection of evolution on self-inflected ignorance.

I'll swap around terms here... say instead that I chose to reject Christianity because I thought Jesus Christ was a heinous murderer who called for the murder of all Jews and molestation of all black boys. Also qualify this scenario with the fact that I honestly did not know any better -- I was honestly ignorant of what Jesus Christ was really about. Now wouldn't you, as a Christ lover, feel the need to correct the error in my ways? I mean, it's not even about trying to convert me, it's just getting your facts straight!

In the same way... when creationists say evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (more detail on rebutting this fallacious argument is long... so id google it ) or that the theory of evolution says that life originated from nothing by chance (theory of evolution says NOTHING about lifes origins --- that's a completely seperate topic -- and no that isn't a cop out answer, if you need confirmation just read darwin's origin of species to find he never postulated on the actual origin of life). Obviously those aren't the only examples -- but the point is that it clearly demonstrates to the scientists that the creationist types have frankly never critically looked at their beliefs.

So really, we are back to the point where scientists are calling people out on their ignorance. But note the difference... often times the average creationist has a completely wrong notion about evolution in the first place --- in the same style of error as illustrated in my Jesus example above.

The Religious
Meh... I'm not touching this topic here... this post is already too long and too few will read it. Instead, I'll defer to Ken Miller's book again.

I would also take some time to figure out the difference between methodological science and secularism as a 'religion'. I think the key issue in these debates is that for the scientist, the discussion is really only around a discussion of methodological facts. For the creationist, it's much more than that and a matter of worldview and religion.

That difference in assumption when going into debate is fucking huge and should be clearly articulated to all parties in the beginning of conversation.

Impressive post. Clearly articulated and well thought out. The assumption in most cases is that Christians do not believe in evolution and that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. I can only speak to my own beliefs, but I believe evolution to a certain extent. I believe evolution to the extent a species can evolve but not into an entirely different species. In other words, I do not believe a fish is going to grow wings and turn into a bird. Though a fish may develop characteristics of a bird such as a flying fish they are still a different species. In the same way I do not think that humans evolved from monkeys though monkeys have similar characteristics to humans. I know you can go into the argument that monkeys have similar DNA to humans but there is no direct link (missing link) that humans evolved from monkeys.

(Additionally, I am familiar with the Second law of thermodynamics and I have read Darwin, The Origin of the Species. Another false assumption that a lot of scientists believe creationists to be uneducated.)