The discussion centers around the proposal by Mississippi lawmakers to include a disclaimer in textbooks regarding evolution, framing it as a "controversial theory." Participants explore the implications of labeling evolution in this way, comparing it to other scientific theories and questioning the validity of such disclaimers in educational contexts.
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness of the disclaimer and the implications of labeling evolution as "just a theory." Some express agreement with the need for disclaimers, while others strongly oppose them.
Participants highlight the differences in how scientific theories are perceived and the potential confusion between colloquial and scientific definitions of "theory." There is also mention of the historical context of evolution and its acceptance within the scientific community.
This discussion may be of interest to educators, students of science, and individuals engaged in debates about science and religion, particularly in the context of educational policy and curriculum development.
I wouldn't even require anything mindblowing. Religious people say science can't explain everything, but the day that any religion can explain any natural phenomenon unknown to the people 2000 years ago, I will convert to that religion on the spot. The explanation does not need to be airtight; it does not need to withhold the scrutiny of the entire scientific community for 150 years (something which the theory of evolution has done); it does not need to explain as much about the natural world as evolution, Big Bang, relativity, quantum mechanics, and many other scientific theories have.jarednjames said:I agree, I never said that. I suppose as much of an atheist I consider myself, if something really amazing happened (a miracle basically) I may change my mind (possibly agnostic), but it would take something mindblowing.
We are within what we are trying to describe. We can never know for certain if all that could exist lies within the universe. We can only assume it on various grounds but it is by no means 100% certain and it's a severe limitation. If we don't know this, how can we know what existence really is? We can't know if we have free will, we assume we do, but that's also untestable.jarednjames said:As unlikely as it is, how do you know science can't explain everything?
Theoretically we can become what we now imagine God to be. The universe is an endless ocean of energy, there is potential, but the road is thorny. Even a teaspoon of vacuum energy is theorized to contain more energy than the most powerful nuclear bomb.If there is a creator, what would stop us learning enough to become on parr?
What religion are you referring to? When physicists are talking about god, more often than not, they don't refer to any religion.To know 'everything' if you like. If one 'being' can do it, why can't we. You see, this type of argument is continuous and open so many hypothetical scenarios, none more plausible than the other. Claim all you like about religion but claims are NOT evidence.
Is this the only thing you don't know about what you experience as reality and universe?My problem is that religious people attack science with the argument that science can't accept that there was nothing before, it can't accept infinity. Yet they then claim there is a creator, now no one has answered the question, what creates the creator?
Your random chance that can explain everything is an imaginary concept. No one, not a single person on the planet knows if randomness exists at all. It makes sense that the particles in the Standard Model have the values they do because of "Random chance"?Your paradoxical argument doesn't stand for me. Random chance does not lead to an endless chain of creators.
You are not authorised to speak on behalf of science. You are authorised to speak on behalf of yourself and your fellow atheists. Science is about explaining what is testable. This does NOT mean that everything is testable.There is evidence for science, there is no evidence for religious beliefs. If you want to believe in the great pixie in the sky go for it, but don't try and argue science unless you have facts to back it up.
You need to look in a mirror.WaveJumper said:You aren't aware of your own ignorance.
ideasrule said:I wouldn't even require anything mindblowing. Religious people say science can't explain everything, but the day that any religion can explain any natural phenomenon unknown to the people 2000 years ago, I will convert to that religion on the spot.
WaveJumper said:Existence requires an explanation.
D H said:You need to look in a mirror.
The term "god-of-the-gaps" originated with a Christian evangelical over 100 years ago. A Christian web site, http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps, says this about this style of argumentation:
God of the Gaps arguments are a discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God.
The fallacy of argument from ignorance, aka argument to ignorance, aka appeal to ignorance, aka argumentum ad ignorantiam, was known to the ancients. Arguing that because science has no hard evidence of how life arose invalidates abiogenesis or evolution is fallacious. This is an argument from ignorance. Arguing that because science cannot prove that a supreme being does not exist means that a supreme being does exist is also an argument from ignorance. In both cases, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.
WaveJumper said:I am arguing that science cannot explain existence and the existence of reality(which is just about everything that can be perceived), and all the atheists who know what reality is and what existence is, are forever ignorant of their own ignorance. Including those who raise the God of gaps argument.
Existence requires an explanation.
Emanresu56 said:No, it doesn't. Humans only desire explanations.
WaveJumper said:Sorry, i require an explanation. If i decide to join the sect, i'll keep my blinders shut to these uncomfortable questions.
WaveJumper said:Look beyond the blatantly obvious. Why is an explanation possible? What makes this possible? Why is there something to be explained? And why is there someone to explain it?
Emanresu56 said:What "sect"? And if science cannot explain the existence of reality, how are you going to come to an explanation?
I have no religion whatsoever. I also don't belong to radical groups that have explained everything about existence and reality. Or who know that there is no explanation.ideasrule said:I asked for an explanation of nature, not for more questions. You said that science can't explain everything; I say that if your religion can explain anything unknown to the ancients, I'll convert immediately. Of course, that explanation has to be backed up by objective evidence (what you called "the blatantly obvious"), not on further speculation.
WaveJumper said:The sect that has "explained" everything. I never said we can explain Everything or hinted that we can come to explanations about everything.
Agreed. Science is amazing but Full explanation of reality and existence is extremely unlikely. We don't even stand a good chance for surviving as species for thousands of years, IMO.Emanresu56 said:But you have claimed that science cannot explain everything, in which case, how are you going to come to an explanation, if you desire an explanation? I think science, if it can't explain everything now, is our best chance at explaining everything later. But, perhaps, there will always be insufficient data. I think these are very metaphysical statements in themselves, however.
WaveJumper said:We cannot explain everything, not ever.
Yes why do they?WaveJumper said:Why do people always seem to be attracted to extremes?
How? Why?WaveJumper said:Reality and existence are paradoxical, without a creator the existence of reality is even more paradoxical.
Didn't you read post 303? In case you have not, here it is pasted:bp_psy said:Yes why do they?
You seem to contradict yourself here.I don't understand how can you make that statement with absolute certainty.
Same as above. Even if we describe the visible and obvious, this is no guarantee that this is All that exists. We have to assume it and reach the conclusion that there is no creator/god. It's a large leap of faith, and i hate religious beliefs, even if they are athesistic.In the time that humans have lived on this planet, their methods of acquiring knowledge have continuously developed.In the last couple of centuries the rate of development has been so high that it has become extremely hard predict what will come next, How do you know with absolute certainty that we will never be able to explain everything we want.Also maybe some scientist think that we will never be able to explain everything, But then again some of the brightest people in physics are doing serious work on theories that are motivated partly by the belief that everything can be ultimately known and explained.
Scientific knowledge is tentative. This forum is a nice place to learn that. Scientific knowledge isn't the best argument against god and it's a misuse and abuse of science.(though science can more or less disprove certain religious types of gods - christian, islamic, etc.)I see that you are extremely certain of yourself. Can you explain some of these statements.
How? Why?