Post by terence ip on Oct 4, 2015 0:39:35 GMT
Biologist, like other scientist, need proof and hard evidence to say whether their theory is true or false. Tests need to be run in order to try to falsify the hypothesis. For a biologist to believe in creationism is to say that organisms didn’t evolve over time. For a scientist whose job is to falsify theories, how is it possible to test the theory of creationism? “To say there really is “no” evidence for evolution by natural selection (which is, lest we forget, the real import of Professor Alexander Astin’s first and second salvos concerning Frisky Dirt: Why Ken Wilber’s New Creationism is Pseudoscience) is to be completely blind to the numerous findings in the field. It is akin to suggesting that there is no evidence for gravity existing or that our planet doesn’t orbit the sun”.
Science and religion have always been disagreeing with each other. On one side of the ring stands religion to which there are set of “rules” or beliefs that cannot be questioned. On the opposite side is science in which everything is questioned. Nothing is accepted as absolute truth and that truths are just theories that scientists haven’t found evidence to falsify yet. “it may be one to thing to ask deep and skeptical questions about a well-supported theory such as evolution by natural selection, but it is quite another to infer that something as untested and as speculative as intelligent design should be given equal consideration because one personally “prefers” it. Personal preferences are one thing and science is another. To conflate the two can only lead to unnecessary confusion and may be one of the reasons why science and religion have had such warring difficulties in the past.”
How can a biologist, which studies living organisms, use creationism to produce the results and findings that the evolution through natural selection has shown? For example, “The revolution in developmental biology, and the revolution in biological sciences as a whole, has gotten us to the point where we actually can start to understand how genes make an embryo form the way it does, why a limb forms in the first place, and then why the arm is different from the leg, why the heart that starts as a tube in the middle folds up to be on the left and not the right… by tracing fossilized DNA we are now able to map the “trial and error” of how favorable and not so favorable mutations, selections, and genetic drifts occurred and locate them both temporally and spatially.” Creationism relies too much on faith to be tested. If creationism were to be tested, one wouldn’t have the faith to believe in it in the first place.
Despite the lack in evidence for intelligent design/ creationism, many people still believe in it and it is very popular. This is probably brought on by tradition of religion in one’s society. Children are raised to believe in god by their parents and so the tradition is inherited by another generation. For something that people don’t understand, it is much easier to blame it on a higher being.
Science and religion have always been disagreeing with each other. On one side of the ring stands religion to which there are set of “rules” or beliefs that cannot be questioned. On the opposite side is science in which everything is questioned. Nothing is accepted as absolute truth and that truths are just theories that scientists haven’t found evidence to falsify yet. “it may be one to thing to ask deep and skeptical questions about a well-supported theory such as evolution by natural selection, but it is quite another to infer that something as untested and as speculative as intelligent design should be given equal consideration because one personally “prefers” it. Personal preferences are one thing and science is another. To conflate the two can only lead to unnecessary confusion and may be one of the reasons why science and religion have had such warring difficulties in the past.”
How can a biologist, which studies living organisms, use creationism to produce the results and findings that the evolution through natural selection has shown? For example, “The revolution in developmental biology, and the revolution in biological sciences as a whole, has gotten us to the point where we actually can start to understand how genes make an embryo form the way it does, why a limb forms in the first place, and then why the arm is different from the leg, why the heart that starts as a tube in the middle folds up to be on the left and not the right… by tracing fossilized DNA we are now able to map the “trial and error” of how favorable and not so favorable mutations, selections, and genetic drifts occurred and locate them both temporally and spatially.” Creationism relies too much on faith to be tested. If creationism were to be tested, one wouldn’t have the faith to believe in it in the first place.
Despite the lack in evidence for intelligent design/ creationism, many people still believe in it and it is very popular. This is probably brought on by tradition of religion in one’s society. Children are raised to believe in god by their parents and so the tradition is inherited by another generation. For something that people don’t understand, it is much easier to blame it on a higher being.
