That post is full of bad science.
:
|
It has a valid place. Evolution theory leaves a nice blank space about how the protocell developed; essentialy how life began, what the first cells evolved FROM.
|
This is not surprising, since the theory of evolution is NOT, I repeat NOT about how life began in ANY way.
:
|
Well, we don't have any proof that the protocell existed, so it's as valid a theory as any other.
|
I refer you to the definition of
scientific theory. Abiogenesis is a
hypothesis.
:
|
Belief is not science. Science is theory, where the theory is accepted until either disproved (which won't happen until we find out where the protcell came from) or another theory that better fits the evidence is found (evolution has done this in the opinion of most scientists).
|
This is good. Except for the "protocell" thing, which is a hypothesis.
:
|
It is one theory present in biology on how life began.
|
It is nothing like a theory.
:
|
However, the idea of a "Creator" or "Designor" does not mean "God" (i.e. Jehovah, Jesus' father, Allah). It could have been someone else.
|
But they're not fooling anyone. ID is creationism repackaged to exclude direct Biblical references, because they failed to get creationism taught. Case in point: The textbook proposed by ID supporters,
Of Pandas and People was shown to be a reprint of a book of the same name, with the words "creationism" and "God" replaced by "Intelligent Design" and "the designer" respectively. Nothing else had been altered. Oops.
:
|
+ You CANNOT force a group of scientists to accept one theory. Theories are only based on observable evidence, or assumptions based on observations. Saying "This is the truth" is not science, unless it can be proved without the observer or assumption being required.
|
Nothing can be proven, since proof exists only in mathematics.
:
|
+ You CANNOT rule all other theories false unless you find a far better theory that can be backed up and that explains the faults in the older theories. This is why E = mc^2 is still accepted even though it is inacurate.
|
Theories are only considered false if they have been falsified. Until then, Occam's Razor is employed, in that the simplest explanation that takes into account all of the observed facts is considered to be the best one. There are hardly any such examples of such competing theories currently in modern science (at least, none that many people will have heard of).
:
|
+ You cannot allow religious belief to affect science. This, however, swings both ways. religion and science are 2 different things, but both require belief. I follow the belief that, for example, electrons are wave particals. This could easily be wrong. I follow the belief that a piece of quartz in my pocket benifits me in some way. This could easily be wrong.
|
Science cannot require belief. The moment you invoke anything that requires anything more than observation, you have left science. That electrons are considered to have wave-particle duality is purely a product of their observed behaviour, and is part of quantum physics. I do not recommend tackling anything with the word "quantum" in it. It's weird, but since when was it selectively advantageous to have brains that can easily comprehend non-determinability?
:
|
Final word: Science should not attack religious beliefs and religion should not attack scientific theory.
|
QTF
:
|
Just because you can't be sure it's there does not make it blind belief.
|
We cannot be absolutely sure of anything. Technically. But if it is not based upon observation and is a testable principle then it is faith.
:
|
There's a piece of quartz in my pocket...etcetera...my quartz makes me feel better.
|
That is classic psychosomatic medicine. You perceive an effect that you
assume to be the quartz, but that does not make it so. Quartz is piezoelectric, yes, but so is bone (due to the presence of apatite crystals) but leaning on my arm doesn't make me feel better. Though there is a hypothesis (that word again!) that these electromagnetic fields stimulate bone growth. The electromagnetic field generated by quartz is minuscule, and far from your brain. Any energy carried by the field is lost exponentially. You don't have anything to back up your particular explanation for the effect experienced, and you can devise no test that will test only your hypothesis, not the simpler one (psychosomatic) which Occam's Razor dictates we use for now. I'm not saying that your explanation is impossible, but when there has been no further investigation your preference for your hypothesis is indeed faith.
*spanked by the off-topic fairy*