Anti-Science Bullshit

[Trajanus]

I was talking with a friend in my battalion the other day and the issues of theology and science came up. Basically, his main argument was that evolution, the big bang, and an old earth are all false because science corrects itself. In his own words, "but science always changes, so evolution will eventually be replaced." Of course, he didn't realize that had mankind had this attitude throughout the ages, we'd still be in the Stone Age.

I also asked him to point out what was wrong with these theories. He couldn't do that, so he asked me to prove that science was perfect and if I couldn't do that, evolution was wrong.

Now, my friend is a smart guy and one of the best soldiers I've ever worked with. But what I don't get is how he, and many others, can be so intelligent and logical in certain areas of life but so incredibly ignorant and irrational when it comes to religion.

[Darth Wong]

They really want to believe in it, so they will make up any argument they need in order to support it, even if they know it's bullshit. I mentioned this in my "Arguments of Convenience" thread elsewhere in this forum.

This idea that science is in constant flux is retarded; that only happens when a science is immature. As it matures, the rate of substantial change decreases dramatically, until you are left looking at very small incremental changes over time. Evolution has been around since the mid-19th century, with no serious challenges from the scientific (as opposed to political) forum. That's because there is no other theory that can remotely attempt to explain the original problem that led to the development of the theory in the first place.

[Justforfun000]

In his own words, "but science always changes, so evolution will eventually be replaced."

Is he serious? He obviously has no fucking clue what 'science' is. It never CHANGES, it simply correct itself by revealing more of the truth. It's impossible for it to change in the sense he is implying. It's a discovery of objective truth. How can that "change"?

He's insinuating that what we have as current theories will change just because some things have been shown to be incorrect, but this is not true for the majority of fields.

Bottom line, he's an idiot.

I also asked him to point out what was wrong with these theories. He couldn't do that, so he asked me to prove that science was perfect and if I couldn't do that, evolution was wrong.

What the hell does science being "perfect" have to do with Evolution being wrong or right? Ask HIM to explain that?

Actually in one sense of the word, you CAN prove that science is perfect. It's a perfect method for deriving objective truth. There is no better way that we know of.

[Trajanus]

What the hell does science being "perfect" have to do with Evolution being wrong or right? Ask HIM to explain that?

Actually in one sense of the word, you CAN prove that science is perfect. It's a perfect method for deriving objective truth. There is no better way that we know of.

Basically, it's my hypothesis that it's simply a smoke screen to hide his ignorance. Besides, even if I could explain that science was perfect, he would just say that it didn't meet his criteria. Will he ever explain what these criteria are? Probably not, because then I could actually prove him wrong.

[Justforfun000]

Besides, even if I could explain that science was perfect, he would just say that it didn't meet his criteria. Will he ever explain what these criteria are? Probably not, because then I could actually prove him wrong.

Yes because HIS criteria is so important to evaluate truthful world views, that we have newspapers lining up outside his door to get his latest opinion on what is fact.

If he's a friend, I'd just let it be. You don't want to go down that road because you're likely to end up calling him a moron.

[K. A. Pital]

There's a well-known fact that when it comes to religion, many people prefer to hamper down their own sense of logic.

The best you can do is try to explain why logic and science are the best tools we have to get to know this world, and why a theory that is robustly supported by evidence is unlikely to be corrected - show him that people believed the Earth is flat only because science was immature and they did not have evidence - likewise they believed Earth is in the center of the Solar system/universe because of religious dogma and lack of knowledge.

With the introduction of scientific knowledge, the well-laid out theories (round earth, geliocentrism) became facts of science and are not corrected for centuries (most likely will never be corrected since they are right).

Evolution is the same.

[General Soontir Fel]

Isaac Asimov had a perfect reply to this sort of thing.

When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking it is flat, then you're wronger than both of them put together.

The rest here.

[CJvR]

Point out that despite Einstein we still teach Newtons stuff in school. Even revolutions in science does not mean all the old stuff gets thrown out. If Einstein and Newton had been into religion instead of physics then their followers would have burned eachother for heresy.
Naturally the religous knowledge of the ultimate truth doesn't mix well with the scientific curiosity and admittance of how little we really know.

[metavac]

Well, it also helps that Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation are recoverable from relativity in the weak field limit. An Einsteinian fanatic would be in the odd position of correctly insisting on this point through unsavory means.

[Darth Servo]

Now, my friend is a smart guy and one of the best soldiers I've ever worked with. But what I don't get is how he, and many others, can be so intelligent and logical in certain areas of life but so incredibly ignorant and irrational when it comes to religion.

Its called a "blind spot". My own father has a PhD in electrical engineering from Purdue University. Yet he is a fanatical Young Earth Creationist. He fully realizes that the reasoning YECs use is completely bogus and never holds any weight in his field yet turns around and uses the same arguments concerning biology, geology, and every other field that proves creationism is bullshit. He rants at length against people using "because I said so" reasoning yet it doesn't even occur to him that creationism is 100% "because someone said so".

[Singular Intellect]

Tell him to jump off a cliff, and test his assertion science is "always changing". Before he does it however, point out simple scientific understanding dictates that he'll hit the ground every time. If he still insists science always changes, tell him to get back to you on the jumping off the cliff validation method.

[Hillary]

If Einstein and Newton had been into religion instead of physics then their followers would have burned each other for heresy.

A bit OT, but Newton WAS seriously into religion as a point of fact. He believed his theories were simply describing the works of God. He and his followers were almost as bad as fundies as well - their treatment of Leibniz (not the biscuits), who they claimed had plagarised Newton's calculus works, is a good example. Also, when he fell out with John Flamsteed, Newton erased Flamsteed's name from all future editions of the Principia, despite the fact they had worked on it together.

A genius, but a nasty piece of work was Newton.

[Darth Wong]

That's the key difference between science and religion. In science, it doesn't matter what kind of person came up with the idea. Newton was a huge asshole and everyone knows it, but his theories were still sound and are still used, at least in the regimes where they are still most appropriate. In religion, on the other hand, truth flows from the authority of the prophet. You judge the message by the messenger: a clear logic fallacy. The entire religion is based upon that fallacy.

[Hillary]

That's the key difference between science and religion. In science, it doesn't matter what kind of person came up with the idea. Newton was a huge asshole and everyone knows it, but his theories were still sound and are still used, at least in the regimes where they are still most appropriate. In religion, on the other hand, truth flows from the authority of the prophet. You judge the message by the messenger: a clear logic fallacy. The entire religion is based upon that fallacy.

Unfortunately, the media encourages this. The winner of a debate is not necessarily deemed to be the one with the best ideas or arguments. It is the one who has the best presentation and the cleverest comebacks. Of course, this is usually the one who most effectively uses logical fallacies such as appeals to emotion and black/white fallacies.

No wonder religion continues to thrive.

[Trajanus]

That's the key difference between science and religion. In science, it doesn't matter what kind of person came up with the idea. Newton was a huge asshole and everyone knows it, but his theories were still sound and are still used, at least in the regimes where they are still most appropriate. In religion, on the other hand, truth flows from the authority of the prophet. You judge the message by the messenger: a clear logic fallacy. The entire religion is based upon that fallacy.

Yeah, and let's think about which one has done more for the benefit of humanity and which one brings about death and destruction.

[wolveraptor]

In religion, on the other hand, truth flows from the authority of the prophet. You judge the message by the messenger: a clear logic fallacy. The entire religion is based upon that fallacy.

So is all of American politics, apparently. That's how Bush, a guy who felt it appropriate to give a massage to the German chancellor at G8, got to be our president: the fucking face of America overseas. God damnit.

Seriously, I just heard about that through an oblique allusion in Newsweek. I cannot believe that happened. Look at her expression in the picture in the link.