lua, I have no problem at all with ‘faith’ being the activating component of Al-Islam. The issue isn’t with me, it is with the hypocrisy oft demonstrated in my ideological enemy. With enthusiastic glee I mock and abuse him for it. I’m currently waiting on an opponent less respectful than yourself to heap this upon, since you’ve really proven not to deserve the full force of it, though bogart seems to have vanished. A pity.
Are you in the UK? Isn't it very late there? I don't know where bogart lives, but as many people are from the UK here, he may very well be sleeping.
Scientists have faith that the facts to support their theories are out there to find. In the case of evolutionary theory, with decades of research, billions in grants & funding, and yet not a single fact to support it, it has now quite obviously a doctrinal belief system and not of science at all. This is what all of that research has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to all but the most earnest true believers.
Responsible research does mean verifying your sources and examining their methodologies, and, when at all possible, attempting to reproduce their results by conducting the identical experiment. In fact, a great deal of graduate work comes down to this. I do agree that, unfortunately, some researchers may not be as thorough, which is why peer review is critical. I have realized that, perhaps, we are not talking about precisely the same thing.
Let me know if this is any more illuminating as to the point I'm trying to make: a large part of what we do in my particular lab is compile DNA libraries. It's an unimpressive and mundane task, we usually do it over the summer when there's not a lot else to be done, but hey, someone has to do it. Right now, I'm working with prokaryotes, and my first love might have been microbiology, where you can observe significant changes to the population very easily, as they reproduce so quickly and you can monitor the changes over many generations. Sometimes, I'll be able to do this in less than a day, depending on the bacteria. My observations fall in line without issue with my understanding of evolution as a practical concept (random mutations, environmental pressures and good old fashioned reproduction altering a population over generations). I don't see a problem here. And, in fact, I see a lot of what, in my opinion, supports the idea that many of the bacteria that I've worked with arose from older ancestors, evidence very easy to obtain with simple blots and gels a great deal of the time. Similarly, for some of our more eukaryotic victims, we've been great fans of mtDNA.
Since this is awfully easy to observe even in entry-level biology lab courses, and because who cares about germs, anyway, a lot of theists nowadays accept "microevolution" and evolution in molecular biology, but tend to abandon ship as it sails towards the conclusion of all life arising from a common ancestor, because that conflicts with the religious account.
Now, regardless of whether or not you and I are going to stay on this ship the full way through, I hope you understand what I mean now when I say that I've found no contradictions or problems with conducting my research and interpreting our data with evolution in mind. In fact, a great deal of this is in keeping with the evolutionary model and what we would expect should evolution be true. So when I say that I've operated quite happily under this assumption, it's not to say that I've assumed archaeologists or whoever else has done the proper science and that it's all worked out for me, but that I have always gotten results consistent with my understanding of evolution. Until another model is offered to me to explain the results I'm getting, I have no qualms with this one.
I'm pretty sure I at least speak for the scientists that I work with, because we've talked about this quite often: if we could figure out another model more appropriate than evolution, we would be elated. Also, we'd be rich. I'm not that good, though.
There are two aspects to religion:
1.) Belief in the unseen
2.) The scholarship around the actual scientifically measurable physical pages of text and the relics of the belief system.
With the latter, there is actually quite a bit we can do, prove, and substantiate. Let me assure you the Qur’an is exactly what it claims to be: revealed scripture sent down to you as a mercy and a guide from the Supreme Creator of reality.
Well...unfortunately, I'm not assured, but I appreciate your convictions. Who knows, maybe you'll get a good laugh at me on the last day. Did you know that Dawahman is also going to fight the man who insulted his wife on the day of resurrection? It will surely be a day to remember if it occurs.
I would like to think that a major part of your work actually involves creating experiments, identifying and documenting new facts as they come to light, and not in trying to somehow create a new species, or disprove God. The former would certainly be activities that would “serve you well,” while the latter would only be a colossal waste of time.
I do agree trying to disprove God is a huge waste of time.
By definition this is true. If there are no facts to support the theory as true, then the level-headed need to stop calling it a theory and start work on something else.
Well...no. This is not true when using the word "theory" in the context of science, nor is it true just using the definition of theory. The ability for a theory or a framework to exist harmoniously with the phenomena you are examining absolutely allows for it to continue to be called a theory. In fact, it's the only qualifying factor, if you're using theory as it's defined. How useful a theory will be beyond that varies, but, regardless, a theory simply in line with the observations you have already collected is very much a valid one.
Did you really type “substantial and significant” to describe decades of experiments that haven’t uncovered a single fact to support this theory? Really? Truly it’s comments just like that which add to the pot of the conspiracy you deny.
I wonder again if you misunderstood me. I said--or at least I thought I was saying--that in order to consider the theory "disproved," you would need to provide substantial and significant evidence to show that the theory is simply not compatible with reality.
You seem to be mistaking not obtaining a result after any number of experiments (and let me remind you that I still do not agree that there is no evidence for evolution) for that result not being possible. This simply is not how we conduct scientific experiments. The absence of particular results may push the likelihood of an idea down the totem pole a bit, but this alone is not enough to obliterate it, and to suggest otherwise is to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process and the scientific method.
Do you hear yourself? Are you suggesting that we uphold a LIE until the truth comes along? I would much prefer to scrap the lie and actively search for the truth. My time would be much more well spent.
You'd actually be quite surprised with how many scientific theories were at the forefront of then-current thought and believed to be inviolate for a great deal of time, and then replaced by a better model. Since I mentioned Galileo last, I may as well point out heliocentrism as a good example of this. To have a model accepted by the majority of the scientific community as the best current model to explain physical observations is not a lie, no more than it was a lie for the greatest minds who were simply mistaken with the geocentric model to have been champions of geocentrism. Eventually, however, a great deal of evidence--not a lack of evidence for geocentrism, this is not the same thing--had to come along to demonstrate that this theory is simply not compatible with nature, and at this point the heliocentric model replaced it in the minds of (most) modern scientists.
Edit: Asbie was kind enough to warn me that I had carelessly mixed the two up, which I swear has happened before.
If you are correct, and if there is a better model than evolution, it will need to undergo this same process. Just because evolution is such a highly politicized issue due to religious conflicts doesn't mean that it deserves to be obliterated in a way that no other such model with the capacity to exist alongside our observations ever was in scientific history. Again, to demand that it is is evidence of a severe misunderstanding of the scientific process. Barring this huge conspiracy to keep any whispers of viable competing theories silenced, trust that, if there is a better model, it will emerge, and if it ever does I hope we're both alive to see it!
The difference, which should be obvious, is that the scientific discoveries I benefit from are actually real and supported by facts, while evolution is a fiction that is supported by blind faith and wishes. Please don’t force me to repeat that. It’s starting to get embarrassing even to me.
Yes, I'm aware that this is your contention, and trust me, I am no more eager to hear you say it than you are to repeat it, but I will ask again that you provide some kind of actual argument with points that we can discuss. Vaguely accusing it of being a fiction is not something we can discuss. What precisely about the claims of evolution do you think are unsubstantiated? Besides, of course, your distrust of the scientists' reasons for not performing radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones which I will ask you more questions about further along.
What do you mean? Like flight? Of course flight was achieved by discarding failed models that came before. Are you kidding?
...Flight? Like the airplane? I'd consider that more in the realm of technology, and not exactly what I was thinking. I'm thinking cell theory, the atomic model, the shapes and structure of DNA, so on and so forth. The final answer was not obtained by going back to the drawing board each and every time, but by adding, modifying, reshaping the original theories until they got the working answer. Are you familiar with the history behind these discoveries that I just mentioned? They're interesting stories, are they not?
You know why? Because there were actually some facts that supported the parts of the theory worth salvaging. Need I say more? I really don’t have a problem kicking evolution theory while it is down…
I am certain that, if you are sincere about having done your research on evolution, you are familiar with the claims that are presented as evidence for the theory. So if you wish to tell me that all of these pieces of evidence are not accurate, which is what you are claiming, it is on you to show me the opposing evidence for each and every claim that seems to support the theory of evolution in order for me to agree that the claims of evolutionists are fabricated. How much time do you have, my friend?
Thanks, but I will be quite satisfied with the reward offered by my Lord for speaking His truth.
That's too bad, you would make out like a bandit.
Well, for one, evolution is pushed in the mainstream as “not just a theory,” and any and everyone are publicly shamed is they speak against it as anything other than true. In academia, people literally lose their jobs if they dare to question it. Many scientific institutions refuse to conduct certain experiments if there is a real danger of word getting out that the theory isn’t what it is purported to be.
Can you show me some examples of this? Credible news stories? Anything?
For example, dinosaur bone fossils often have soft material within them… red blood cells, collagen, veins… yet carbon dating centers will REFUSE to date them because of a hard stance against carbon dating dinosaur fossils because they are “too old.” Obviously this would conflict with common sense, and yet, they refuse to carbon date anything except the layers of sediment surrounding where the fossil once lay. In cases where the origins of the samples were deliberately hidden so that that they would be dated anyway, once the dates are shown to reflect data at odd with the evolutionary model of life on earth, an immediate smear campaign with character defamation, etc., are used to squash the findings. NONE of this is ‘science,’ and pretending these people are genuine truth seekers is an insult to both science & truth.
Interesting. My understanding of evolution is largely in molecular biology and the biology to the extent of my research and experiments, so I will not pretend to be an expert in whatever is going on with dinosaur bones and radiocarbon dating. Since you are more familiar, would you mind showing me a credible resource from which you took your information? I tried searching for it just now, and I was unable to find any original source work not originating from creationist websites. Where did you find them?