The Next Pope

[kinboshi]

Can you please give an example of how the theory of evolution (also don't misunderstand the word theory in this context, it's not the same usage as a theory in general use) can be challenged with an alternative model that makes more sense of the evidence available?

Not for me to say how it can be challenged, I don't have a scoobies. If you want to have it both ways that science always challenges, except when it doesn't, that's fine by me and prob God, Allah etc. Sounds dangerously like a dogma though

Not sure I understand your point. There's loads of evidence, the theory predicted subsequent findings accurately, and there's zero evidence to support an alternative theory.

Where's the dogma?

[thetank]

Atheists, militant or otherwise, occasionally a bit hasty to draw conclusions and report as scientific fact some things that would be inconvenient to many religious people, but that there isn't really enough evidence yet to make such a statement.

eg, Life can be generated spontaneously in the lab coz we made some amino acids in the lab. Or then there's the whole thing about extra-terrestrial life. It's out there coz it must be as space is so big.

Religious people may very well say, I'll show you God if you either make me a beastie or show me a beastie from elsewhere in the cosmos.




On nirvana's point about no scientist challenging evolution. I'm sure many put their minds to it as there is considerable profit incentive for them to do so. If they found a way of crafting a narrative within rigid and recognized scientific paramaters that called the evidence for the Theory of Evolution into serious question then, if they published at breakfast, they'd sell 100,000 copies before lunch.

[kinboshi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00jjjw4/Origins_of_Us_Bones/

Excellent programme and well worth a watch (imo). The more we learn the more we understand about how and why humans evolved as we have. Still loads of questions to answer, and the more we find out, the more questions we have.

That's the nature of science.

[thetank]

Dawkins paints a picture of religion clinging to dogma and willfully ignoring hard evidence and reason (which is fair enough as this is what happens in many many cases). Thing is he then contrasts this with the established thinking in science, which is initially sceptical about the new data, puts it to the test, and if it comes to light that their life's work is obsolete then so be it. They rejoice in the pursuit of mankinds knowledge and give the young mind that made the discovery a well earned pat on the back.

Thing is, history of science is littered with examples of paradigm shifts taking a generation to be generally accepted as the scientific consensus. The old guard get the initial scepticism bit right, but then just ignore and poo poo, marginalize and defame. Old generation has to die before the new idea gets picked up. Scientists can, and have been, just as stubborn as theists.

[thetank]

Big fan of the scientific method, don't get me wrong.

[thetank]

She got rid of Gough Whitlam as the Aussie PM as recently as 1975

Sell that she got rid of Gough Whitlam. Hadn't heard of this before, but from what I've read about it briefly it looks like the Aussie governor general got rid of Gough Whitlam. He acts on the Queens behalf perhaps, but in practice he does stuff on his own initiative and doesn't take orders from her madge. Maybe technically you could say it was the queen wot done it via her governor general, but he defp acts autonomously (he's appointed by the Queen, but by whomever the previous Aussie PM recommended her to appoint.)

Looks like an interesting spot where the PM could sack the governor general (via the Queen by recommending someone else) and the governor general could sack the PM (on behalf of the Queen) and it just so happens that the Gov moved first.

The reality is the Queen stays out of it, and like here, her power is some sort of wierd constitutional failsafe. Clegg, Cameron and Brown would have sorted out something had the coalition agreement not taken hold (minority Tory administration most likely). Keeping the Queen out of politics a big factor in their dealings.

[thetank]

and I don't know for sure, but I don't think she spends the weekly meetings lobbying the PM on behalf of the Church of Englands vested interests.

[redarmi]

and I don't know for sure, but I don't think she spends the weekly meetings lobbying the PM on behalf of the Church of Englands vested interests.

Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting that her power is used in a religious manner or that she is some kind of religious force.  My point was just that it is wrong to suggest she has no powers.  On the Gough Whitlam issue it was the Governor-general that made the decision but he has that power as the Queens proxy.  It is almost unthinkable he acted without her consent and approval on such a major issue.

[kinboshi]

Dawkins paints a picture of religion clinging to dogma and willfully ignoring hard evidence and reason (which is fair enough as this is what happens in many many cases). Thing is he then contrasts this with the established thinking in science, which is initially sceptical about the new data, puts it to the test, and if it comes to light that their life's work is obsolete then so be it. They rejoice in the pursuit of mankinds knowledge and give the young mind that made the discovery a well earned pat on the back.

Thing is, history of science is littered with examples of paradigm shifts taking a generation to be generally accepted as the scientific consensus. The old guard get the initial scepticism bit right, but then just ignore and poo poo, marginalize and defame. Old generation has to die before the new idea gets picked up. Scientists can, and have been, just as stubborn as theists.

You've described the scientific method there, and shown how human belligerence and stubborn refusal to be willing to investigate new evidence places obstacles in its path.  There are a lot of scientists who might show different levels of this, and these are human faults - not faults of the scientific method.

However, religious faith requires this refusal to look at the evidence and be open to alternative possibilities.  I'll let Dawkins put it in his words:

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."

[Jon MW]

I haven't criticised faith. I was criticising religion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is important.

As I suggested earlier and others have used as a means to undermine the argument - science relies on faith just as religion relies on faith (although perhaps not to the same extent).

Proof belongs to mathematics, science just has a weight of evidence to support or oppose certain theories - religion primarily only has faith.

[AdamM]

Isn't faith the belief in something in the absence of evidence?

I'm not sure you could ever use that word in science.

[Jon MW]

Isn't faith the belief in something in the absence of evidence?

I'm not sure you could ever use that word in science.

Or faith is the belief in something in the absence of proof  - that makes it relevant to science

[Woodsey]

Fucking hell you lot need a hobby instead of talking about this shit, why don't you take up poker or summat? 

[boldie]

Isn't faith the belief in something in the absence of evidence?

I'm not sure you could ever use that word in science.

Or faith is the belief in something in the absence of proof  - that makes it relevant to science

Meh, faith is maybe 0.0000000000000000000001% part of scientific theories like the theory of gravity etc. Obv more with regards to other theories (Evolution maybe 0.00000000000000000000005%)  but it's 100% required when it comes to believing in a higher power.

[kinboshi]

Fucking hell you lot need a hobby instead of talking about this shit, why don't you take up poker or summat? 

Tried that, but the poker gods don't like me.