[karajorma]

There's also plenty of idiots who think religion is against science.

The stance of the Church is just as it should be.

So because there are idiots on the science side that allows Catholics to be idiots too?

Is that really the argument you want to justify?

So why would the Church, especially in the 21st Century, take a hard stand on any recent issues in science? Odds are that everyone has it's wrong; the most accepted hypothesis or theory is going to need significant revision and possibly multiple replacements before moving to become a more established theory or maybe, just maybe, a law.

I'm saying they shouldn't take any stance on matters like evolution beyond saying "If you want an answer to this, don't look in the bible. Ask a scientist."

Their current stance is "We're not saying anything. Believe what you will." Which is wrong. And which your argument didn't address.

[Bob-san]

And by taking their hands off of science, they allow it to advance now that scientific method is well-established. To be honest, until a theory becomes a scientifically-proven law, it's not a sure thing. Evolution is a great theory. The issue is that the supporting evidence hasn't been ironed out completely. There are great ideas from idiots and stupid ideas from geniuses. Just because you have the right idea doesn't mean the process to get there is right, and it's that process that makes it science.

Fact: The speed of light is a lot of miles per hour.

While this has a kernel of truth in it, it's not science. I understand that the speed of light is a big number, but there's no rhyme or rhythm to the idea. It's a true statement but so vague and unsupported that it's little more than a statement.

Fact: The speed of light is about 300,000 kilometers per second.

That's more true than the first fact, but still not exact. Were I to do a quick Fermi calculation on how fast it'd take to get from the Earth to our Moon, I'd say that the Moon is about 385.000 km away, and thus would take about 1.3 seconds to reach were I to travel at the speed of light. That demonstrates an understanding of what the speed of light actually is; it's a "speed limit" that we don't have the ability or knowledge to exceed. However, even with my quick Fermi estimation, I'm still quite a bit off from the ACTUAL distance to the moon and the ACTUAL speed of light. We may, one day, find that the "speed of light" is a load of bull**** and find a quick way around it. When that day comes, the number will still have a valid meaning but will lose some of its significance.

To go back to the real point, let's think of the theory of continental drift; the predecessor of the theory of plate tectonics. The idea was excellent; he nailed the issue on the head. The continents HAD changed positions over thousands of years. His original theory had  the same idea, but the distance postulated was entirely wrong. Through various revisions, his idea that the continents moved was great, but he still didn't know WHY they moved. Around fifty years ago, the theory of plate tectonics was well and truly born. That theory grew and was revised to now include WHY the tectonic plates (not just the continents) were moving and would explain various phenomenon not prior explained. We began to understand where they moved, how they moved, at what rate they moved, and what happens when they moved. Et cetera. Were the Church to go along and say that "the Theory of Continental Drift is 100% correct", they'd look like fools come the 1960s. The idea was great but the theory had to discarded.





Oh, and to the trolls who were asking about the "Church", it's usually used to refer to the (Roman) Catholic (or "universal") Church. It's, by far, the largest Christian sect (with about 1-1.1 billion people, about half of all Christians in total).

[General Battuta]

And by taking their hands off of science, they allow it to advance now that scientific method is well-established. To be honest, until a theory becomes a scientifically-proven law, it's not a sure thing.

There is no such thing as a scientifically proven law, nor a proven theory. Science can never 'prove' anything, by its nature - nor can any other technique. It can only consistently fail to disprove.

Evolution is a great theory. The issue is that the supporting evidence hasn't been ironed out completely.

Evolution as a process is actually an incontrovertible fact. No one can argue with it, and it can be demonstrated in just a few days.

Now the theory of evolution, all the window dressing surrounding the process of evolution, might have been what you meant. Yet it's an odd choice of example, because it's one of the best-supported and most complete theories we have, and there's nothing better than a theory.

[karajorma]

[SNIP]

And yet again you miss my point completely.

Let's take plate tectonics. You've got them the wrong way round BTW, plate tectonics is the more modern theory, not continental drift.

I'm not saying the Church should have said "Continental drift is correct!" I'm saying that they should say "Ask a scientist what is correct. Don't go to Genesis and decide that because it says that God made the dry earth, Africa's coast looks like South America's because God carved them that way" What the Church did say however is "If you want to believe God did it, go ahead."

See the problem is that plate tectonics and continental drift help us understand the world better. "God did it" does not. Even if the older theory was wrong it did help make sense of certain evidence and it did help plate tectonics gain acceptance much more quickly. Now if half the world had vehemently believed that "God did it" it would take longer and this would stand in the way of scientific progress. 


And this is my problem with the Church's stance on evolution. Instead of saying "You won't find the answer in the bible. Ask a scientist and you'll get the best explanation mankind currently has" they say nothing. They teach evolution in schools but they never make it clear that there really isn't any sensible alternative to it.

That makes most of your argument moot. The Church wouldn't look stupid when science refines the theory later to continental drift. If anything they'd look smart because they trusted science to refine the theory into one with a proper explanation for the evidence seen.

EDIT : Google Ads is linking me here!

[Liberator]

There is no such thing as a scientifically proven law, nor a proven theory. Science can never 'prove' anything, by its nature - nor can any other technique. It can only consistently fail to disprove.

Evolution as a process is actually an incontrovertible fact. No one can argue with it, and it can be demonstrated in just a few days.

Now the theory of evolution, all the window dressing surrounding the process of evolution, might have been what you meant. Yet it's an odd choice of example, because it's one of the best-supported and most complete theories we have, and there's nothing better than a theory.

Which is it?  Either it can't prove anything or it can.  You can't say science can only fail to disprove something and then turn right around and say something is an incontrovertible fact.  I'm not calling you on anything you said, other than your break in logic.

[Qent]

That's because evolution is more like an observation: "That population evolved," like "I dropped this and it fell down." Natural selection is the theory for how evolution happens. You can't prove natural selection with science, but it doesn't take science to look at a population at two different times and notice it changed.

[Liberator]

That's something I've never understood, adaptation and mutation can explain why you have a bird with certain beak shape on this island and a different beak shape on that island.  But it's the same species of bird.  It can't explain, even over geologic time how you get from iguanas to chimpanzees.

[bobbtmann]

Sure it can! For an imaginary scenario, an early reptile that is born with a slightly raised metabolism will be able to warm up faster than the other reptiles of the time. That would be an advantage because it could probably catch more food or run away faster than its counterparts could. It would be the first step towards being warmblooded. Its all baby steps, small changes here, small changes there. Maybe its thumb starts drifting because its easier to grasp prey or climb trees. Eventually you get apposable thumbs. Organs or features don't just appear, its true. But that isn't an argument against evolution, because these organs or features come together simultaneously, not in bits and peices.

You have to remember that evolution doesn't "go" anywhere. There is no destination for evolution, it just happens. Its not like an iguana is the first step to a chimpanzee, or that chimpanzees will eventually become humans. Or that humans are the end all be all.

[mister J]

That's something I've never understood, adaptation and mutation can explain why you have a bird with certain beak shape on this island and a different beak shape on that island.  But it's the same species of bird.  It can't explain, even over geologic time how you get from iguanas to chimpanzees.

But it does, it's called speciation.

Iguanas and Chimpanzees had a common ancestor once. Different groups got exposed to different selective pressures (different environments, predators, etc etc) and eventually, through this process and through genetic drift, they became two distinct species. I don't think it's correct to make some sort of evolutionary straight line from Iguanas to Chimps, as that would be comparing two current "endpoints*" of the evolutionary tree - branches, not stems.

le edit: that doesn't mean they aren't completely genetically dissimilar, however, as the posts below me state. They are still quite similar genetically despite being in different branches in the evolutionary tree.

Remember, geologic time is a huge timescale for biological organisms. Countless numbers of generations makes mutations more likely to be produced, and more suitable species to be created, eventually making them the dominant species.  

* and I loosely use the term endpoint to refer to this point in time as even now these species are undergoing the process of evolution.

[General Battuta]

That's something I've never understood, adaptation and mutation can explain why you have a bird with certain beak shape on this island and a different beak shape on that island.  But it's the same species of bird.  It can't explain, even over geologic time how you get from iguanas to chimpanzees.

Au contraire, it certainly can. Isolated pockets of the same species, for example, will experience different selective pressures, diverge, and speciate. Repeat ad nauseam.

There is no such thing as a scientifically proven law, nor a proven theory. Science can never 'prove' anything, by its nature - nor can any other technique. It can only consistently fail to disprove.

Evolution as a process is actually an incontrovertible fact. No one can argue with it, and it can be demonstrated in just a few days.

Now the theory of evolution, all the window dressing surrounding the process of evolution, might have been what you meant. Yet it's an odd choice of example, because it's one of the best-supported and most complete theories we have, and there's nothing better than a theory.

Which is it?  Either it can't prove anything or it can.  You can't say science can only fail to disprove something and then turn right around and say something is an incontrovertible fact.  I'm not calling you on anything you said, other than your break in logic.

I never claimed that evolution as a process had been proven. I claimed it was an incontrovertible fact.

Evolution is an incontrovertible fact on the same level as gravity is an incontrovertible fact. Neither can be proven to hold everywhere forever, but no fact can be.

The theory of evolution, which is broader and far more complex than simple evolution as a process, is a very different affair. It's the difference between gravity and the theory of gravity.

[Qent]

Chimpanzees and iguanas are pretty similar. For example the chance that the same DNA sequences encode the same amino acids would be pretty tiny if they weren't related.

[General Battuta]

Chimpanzees and iguanas are pretty similar. For example the chance that the same DNA sequences encode the same amino acids would be pretty tiny if they weren't related.

That's true. There's barely a difference between the two species on the genetic level.

[bobbtmann]

Ah, the just a theory argument. I think my favorite example was my science teacher taking it out on a student:

student: Evolution is just a theory.

teacher: Do you believe in gravity?

student: Yes.

teacher: (drops biology textbook on the students desk) Gravity's just a theory too.

[jdjtcagle]

When determining a theories validity or comparing it to another let's say creationism and evolution it's put through the criteria of adequacy. And evolution come out on top on every field. Does that mean that it's absolutely correct? On some levels it could be (ie, natural selection is observable and changes within the species occurs all the time) but for the most part its just a superior theory than creation.

The criteria of adequacy are testability, scope, fruitfulness, conservatism, simplicity, I found a good example of evolution and creation being judged by both.

Testability

A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is, only if it predicts something more than what is predicted by the background theory alone.

Evolution: Testable claims, about the fossil record of change in earlier species
Creation: Testable claims, About the fossil record

Scope

Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that has the greatest scope, that is, that explains and predicts successfully the most diverse phenomena.

Evolution: Explains diverse phenomena, The fossil record of change in earlier species and the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms.
Creation: None. Creationism’s explanations are either failed explanations or pseudo-explanations.

Fruitfulness

Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most fruitful, that is, makes the most successful novel predictions.

Evolution: Has predicted novel facts, Organisms should adapt to changing environments. Mechanisms for modifying features and passing them from generation to generation – genes and mutation.
Creation: Has makes mostly non-conservative novel claims, about buoyancy. Most adopt evolutions mechanisms to explain different traits in kinds of animals

Conservatism

Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most conservative, that is, the one that fits best with established beliefs.

Evolution: Fits well with current established beliefs, such as the Earth’s history is much longer than several thousands years.
Creationism: Conflicts with well-established beliefs, Age of the universe, Buoyancy of earlier species, Types of fossils, Noah’s Ark and the great flood

Simplicity

Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the simplest one.

Evolution: Without postulating a supernatural being with supernatural powers, but natural mechanisms involved.
Creation: Postulating a supernatural being with supernatural powers, but less natural mechanisms involved.

So you can easily see that evolution is a superior theory.

But to me it's about faith. But I really don't want to get into a huge debate whether I'm right or wrong about this aspect of my life. So please no attacks. I accept my position is less than favorable without the assumption of a all-powerful God but I respect atheist and agnostics.

Sometimes I wonder if faith is what separates me from almost being agnostic myself, since I don't belief either can be proven beyond a doubt and I believe that God wanted it that way.

[Bob-san]

[SNIP]

And yet again you miss my point completely.

Let's take plate tectonics. You've got them the wrong way round BTW, plate tectonics is the more modern theory, not continental drift.

I'm not saying the Church should have said "Continental drift is correct!" I'm saying that they should say "Ask a scientist what is correct. Don't go to Genesis and decide that because it says that God made the dry earth, Africa's coast looks like South America's because God carved them that way" What the Church did say however is "If you want to believe God did it, go ahead."

See the problem is that plate tectonics and continental drift help us understand the world better. "God did it" does not. Even if the older theory was wrong it did help make sense of certain evidence and it did help plate tectonics gain acceptance much more quickly. Now if half the world had vehemently believed that "God did it" it would take longer and this would stand in the way of scientific progress. 


And this is my problem with the Church's stance on evolution. Instead of saying "You won't find the answer in the bible. Ask a scientist and you'll get the best explanation mankind currently has" they say nothing. They teach evolution in schools but they never make it clear that there really isn't any sensible alternative to it.

That makes most of your argument moot. The Church wouldn't look stupid when science refines the theory later to continental drift. If anything they'd look smart because they trusted science to refine the theory into one with a proper explanation for the evidence seen.

EDIT : Google Ads is linking me here!

Actually, you must have misread part of my reply. I indeed said (though not directly) that the Theory of Continental Drift was a more antiquated theory which has since evolved into the Theory of Plate Tectonics. However, for the Church to say "go to SCIENCE!!!!" about everything, then POPULAR theory (the theory gobbled up in magazines like 'Discovery') will reign and perception of high-level scientific theories may well be skewered. There are something like 7 billion people on this planet. Relatively speaking, very few of them have the equivalent of a Doctorate, and fewer still in a scientific field. The majority of the world doesn't have access to basic education, much less higher educational institutes. Make SCIENCE! available to the "other" billions of people and it'll work a good bit better.

By teaching what's in the bible and explaining the cultural and political influences of the day, you advance beyond the text. However, the bible and religion is, in whole, not science. Going from its ancient roots of "we're right; admit it or die" to the current position "we don't know; we'll continue teaching what we feel is important so feel free to come to mass every Saturday evening or Sunday", the Church is having a larger impact. Creationalism is a nice idea to have and makes life easier; you can understand that everything's here for a reason and live your life. That's the Church not ramming its beliefs (to any pro/antiscientific camp) down our collective throats. The only thing that the Church REALLY takes a stand on is ethics and morals, and for good reason.

[karajorma]

I'd rather have a situation where the popular theory was the accepted one to the current situation where people believe any old claptrap.

Creationism is NOT a nice idea. Belief in creationism holds back research in many fields. You can't do certain kinds of scientific work in biology, genetics or virology if you refuse to accept that evolution is real due to foolish religious beliefs you basically made up yourself. More importantly though if you insist that you are correct you make it more likely that no one else can do that work either.