Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 4:54am:


Really?

Which scientific facts are more likely to be rejected by agnostics or the religious?
DO all religious people have the same view of science? All agnostics?


The discussion is about the use and limits of science. The discussion is about what is and isn't data, not whether mathematics is inaccurate or not. The world is coherent and 'reasonable', otherwise there could be no sceince and technology. But science and technology are not applicable to every aspect of life, notably not across fields where we recognise freedom to be operating - the inner life of human.

There are other, non-scientific ways of understanding these aspects of existence because they do not lend themselves to be turned into data without missing their very point.

Kytro wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:


Why would atheists have reasons for being atheist? Its the default position. The question is why do ppl become religious.

SOB

"at the very least it has shown a progression in complexity of life forms,.."

This has always bugged me.

According to the second law of thermodynamics (science), the universe is winding down.
According to evolutionary theory, life forms are become increasingly complex.

This strikes me as two principles going in opposite directions.

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 10:10am:


The trend is that the entropy (disorder) of the Universe is increasing. That doesn't mean that it's inevitable that entropy will increase everywhere.  It requires energy to decrease.

Soren - Biology 101:

Entropy can be reduced (Order can be produced) with an expenditure of energy, and the order associated with life on the earth is produced with the aid of energy from the sun. 

For example, plants use energy from the sun in tiny energy factories called chloroplasts. Using chlorophyll in the process called photosynthesis, they convert the sun's energy into storable form in ordered sugar molecules. In this way, carbon and water in a more disordered state are combined to form the more ordered sugar molecules.

In animal systems there are also small structures within the cells called mitochondria which use the energy stored in sugar molecules from food to form more highly ordered structures.

Be bugged no more.

Quantum wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:


Yeah i didnt start out that way but i learned what you ppl are like and have no respect for your silly lil fairies. That is you ppl here in this forum.

Atheism is the default position. That is - not believing in a deity.

SOB

Evolutionary biology is somewhat like Tolstoy.  It is a fox but is sometimes advertised as a hedgehog in the popular media.  Its theoretical apparatus is rather weak, but is sometimes presented as a strong theoretical science capable of generalizing into far-flung areas such as sociology and psychology.  Such claims, made by some evolutionist and promulgated by others, have been criticized by other evolutionists.  E.g., Richard Lewontin, a leading evolutionary biologist, is also a strong critic.

Evolutionary biology is essentially a historical science.  Its force rests on a vast amount of data, both fossil records and comparative morphology and genetics.  It chief explanatory method is narrative.  Natural selection serves as a guiding theme or a center of gravity in narration that pulls together many pieces of data, in the same capacity as the notions of revolution or industrialization in political or social histories.  It does not have the status of a theoretical concept representing an evolutionary mechanism, because the idea of such mechanism remains intuitive and controversial.  The difference between theoretical models and narrative themes is that theories support generalization to other areas while themes are tied to the particular narration.

However, it is popularly advertised as a hedgehog with a strong theory, panadaptationism, by which it tries to annex other areas, such as sociology and psychology.  The controversy over sociobiology and more recently new social Darwinism is a reaction to the theoretical claim.

Are you saying that in the final analysis, the sun makes evolution possible? The Sun's energy input into the Earth's biosphere is great enough to counter the general principle of entropy?

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 6:00pm:


Oh no.  That was just your own personal gigantic extrapolation.  I was just addressing the little nagging point you had about Entropy. "Well I'll be bugged" you said. Be bugged no more.  Pax vobiscum.