What make you feel strong about BIOLOGY?

[Eclogite]

Not necessarily. There are many things we do that are not merely biological, because we choose to do them. My going to work is not a biological function.

That seems at odds with my perspective. If your motives are like the majority of the population then I think your response to these questions would be something like this.

Why do you go to work?

Largely because I need the money.

Why do you need the money?

Well, I have to live. I have to pay for food and my house.

Why do you need food?

Don't be silly. If I didn't have food I would starve to death.

Why do you need a house?

That's a dumb question. I need shelter from the elements. It gets cold in Toronto in the winter. If I was out on the street I would freeze to death.

So you need to work in order to provide food and shelter, so that you can survive. Have you heard the idea that biology is very much an investigation of how life survives?

[Ganoderma]

This would be all well and good IF

1) You could provide a clear picture of the evolutionary history and be able to call if fact

2) You could show with that clear picture of evolutionary history what it means for the future.

 

This is why I am saying it is important to study it.

 

If creationism is right we should still find out its right. Grade schools seem like more of a taste of everything when it comes to science. You take astronomy, physics, biology, ecology, chemistry etc and generally, in the last couple years, you pick a couple to refine what interests you. I think evolution should definitely be there for people to taste and see if it interests them. When I went to school the teacher told us in Bio 11/12 that she cannot teach evolution because the school board said there were too many religious conflicts and they did not want parents complaining.

 

Whether it, evolution, is or isn't fact, it will certainly help us once we know. Much like we can learn from a past war to help prevent (or win) another.

 

Learning from our past (wars, empires etc) I take with a grain of salt, like everything. With the amount of lies and trickery (especially in wars) it’s hard to believe 100% anything.

[InfiniteNow]

I hate the phrase "just theory." In science "theory" means roughly the same thing as "fact" does in colloquial conversation.

For clarity's sake, it might be more appropriate to say "established" or "verified" theory is roughly the same as fact. I can think of numerous theories which are FOS. <-- (saturated w/fecal matter)

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[cwes99_03]

Gand, I'm not saying you are wrong in thinking it still needs to be studied. While I have no doubts (due to my faith in God) that the universe did not come about by chance, I won't stop someone from studying evolution.

What you said earlier was that you felt it was important, and I revised that to say that I didn't feel it important for everyone to understand until it was actually proven one way or another.

I do feel it is important for any religious person to understand the claims of evolution (micro and macro) so they might see how it is flawed and nothing more than a theory.

Rask, check out the other threads here on hypography. You will note that there is a major number of very informed and intelligent minds that do not feel the same way you do. Your wanting to say it is established and fact does not make it so.

The truth is 50-80% of individuals who have heard of evolution do not believe it to be more than a theory. Som 50% of scientists from all walks of life do not believe evolution to be more believable than an account of creation found in the book of Genesis.

There are in fact many reasons for thinking this way, and if you would like I could discuss these again on another thread.

This thread asked

why you feel strong about biology and feel that everyone should know general facts (e.g. digestive system) about it?

[HydrogenBond]

I feel strongly about biology because it tells us about how the living state works. Unfortuneately, it still is , in many ways, stuck at observational science and black box empiricism. This is how the alchemists did chemistry for many centuries. In biology one waits for the data to tell them what to think, since one is often not allowed to think outside the blackbox of statistics. Try to use logic and common sense, and most biologists will think you are speaking in an alien language.

 

One may notice that religion usually dumps on physics and biology. They both use black box approaches (statistical). This make them vulnerable to scientific subjectivity allowing interpretation to change and even reverse over time. One may notice that chemistry is never attacked because it is hard to attack logic and common sense.

 

I going to start another post to show how alien logic is to biology. This will be something that common sense will be able to see, but will lack blackbox data to think for the biologists. The result from the biology commnunity should be very predicatable. If one spends too much time in the blackbox, you lose your ability to reason. The topic will be nervous tissue and cellular control.

[InfiniteNow]

In biology one waits for the data to tell them what to think, since one is often not allowed to think outside the blackbox of statistics. Try to use logic and common sense, and most biologists will think you are speaking in an alien language.

 

That's a pretty bold statement with which I disagree HB. Ever heard of a biologist who had an empiphany and THEN decided to test it? If not, I suggest you hang out with more biologists, because it happens all of the time.

 

 

Cheers. :shocked:

[cwes99_03]

One may notice that religion usually dumps on physics and biology. They both use black box approaches (statistical). This make them vulnerable to scientific subjectivity allowing interpretation to change and even reverse over time. One may notice that chemistry is never attacked because it is hard to attack logic and common sense.

 

This is also pretty bold. Some of particular religious fervor, and political aspirations may "dump" on these subjects, if you mean disagree with their conclusions strictly due to their own interpretation of the Bible. Others look at the Bible for what it actually does say and compare this with what is known in the science world to see where the differences lie.

The Bible has no problem with physics, and as far as Biology, only with the idea that all life happened by chance from nothing.

 

That being said is my final defense of why I chose not to include evolution, but agree wholeheartedly with nutrition, ecology, and physiology. We need to know how to keep our bodies healthy, how to live in a sustainable habitat, and how to take care of our bodies when things do go wrong.

[Raskolnikov]

InfiniteNow,

For clarity's sake, it might be more appropriate to say "established" or "verified" theory is roughly the same as fact. I can think of numerous theories which are FOS. <-- (saturated w/fecal matter)

I think that theories are verified by definition--unverified statements are hypotheses or conjectures. Granted that this is all just a matter of semantics. My point is that the Theory of Evolution is factually correct.

 

cwes,

Rask, check out the other threads here on hypography. You will note that there is a major number of very informed and intelligent minds that do not feel the same way you do. Your wanting to say it is established and fact does not make it so.

The truth is 50-80% of individuals who have heard of evolution do not believe it to be more than a theory. Som 50% of scientists from all walks of life do not believe evolution to be more believable than an account of creation found in the book of Genesis.

I'm not asking you to take my word for it--I'm saying that the evidence obviously points to evolution. Just because lots of forum posters or scientists don't believe in evolution doesn't change this fact. Moreover, it's worth pointing out that smart people are wrong all the time (e.g., Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics), and that a scientist's opinion has no bearing in a field in which he isn't an expert.

There are in fact many reasons for thinking this way, and if you would like I could discuss these again on another thread.

Sure. I'm game. You want to start the thread, or shall I?

 

Hydrogen,

Unfortuneately, it still is , in many ways, stuck at observational science and black box empiricism. This is how the alchemists did chemistry for many centuries. In biology one waits for the data to tell them what to think, since one is often not allowed to think outside the blackbox of statistics. Try to use logic and common sense, and most biologists will think you are speaking in an alien language.

I'd argue that all science is fundamentally black box empiricism. Saying otherwise is a refutation of the Quine-Duhem thesis. :)

One may notice that religion usually dumps on physics and biology. They both use black box approaches (statistical). This make them vulnerable to scientific subjectivity allowing interpretation to change and even reverse over time. One may notice that chemistry is never attacked because it is hard to attack logic and common sense.

What? Physics is full of statistical black box empiricism? How specifically is this so?

[cwes99_03]

Perhaps we should first clarify the definition of the word theory. Please if you will join me here so that we do not drag this thread further off topic.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/8173-definitions.html

 

Once that is done, perhaps another thread that discusses what has already been discussed on this site (evolution vs. design) will emerge.

[somebody]

Hey, i did not get time to read all those comments but if Darwin though it was important about 100 yrs ago or so, then there is a good possibility that is it important.

[cwes99_03]

Darwin thought it was important because it was the central work of his entire life. By that definition, God is important to me, therefore it should be important to all of you (or God was important to early man, thus all men should be religious.)

[Eclogite]

I have been reciting a little mantra to myself, something along these lines.

 

Respect the other forum members.

Do not insult them.

Do not condemn them for their ignorance.

Do not become enraged by their inability to grasp simple principles.

Do not allow anything that smacks of contrived, intellectual dishonesty sway you from this stance.

Respect the other forum members.

 

I thought it was quite satisfying in its own way.

 

Could I mention in passing that within science there is nothing that is more solid than a theory. Theory is as good as it gets. Full stop. Period. End of story. Game, set and match.

 

As I say, just a passing thought.

[cwes99_03]

Excellent thought, perhaps you would care to say that over in the Definitions of post that is discussing that very thing. I and many others seem to have differing opinion of the meaning of the word "theory" and how it can or should be used.

 

Seriously, check it out. Otherwise I'll just have to ignore the above comment.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/8173-definitions.html

[pmaust]

hey, guys just need a survey on why you feel strong about biology and feel that everyone should know general facts (e.g. digestive system) about it?

 

Biology was one of my favorite subjects in school. I am not too interestested in highly specialized things such as the digestive system but, I think a good general understanding of the subject is very helpful in life. It is like having basic math skills and such. Although I wound up specializing in computer science, I am very greatful for the general ed classes I was required to take. It is extremely rewarding to be able to come to a site like this and browse the different special interest forums and at least have a clue of what they are talking about.

 

My purpose for coming here is to read up, to keep abrest of what is going on in the world of science, philosophy, and religion.

 

I don't post very much, but I visit Hypography often. :D

[somebody]

Darwin thought it was important because it was the central work of his entire life. By that definition, God is important to me, therefore it should be important to all of you (or God was important to early man, thus all men should be religious.)

 

 

YOu have a good argument there, but only reason i said that evolution is important because darwin had theories supporting his idea. I understand that there are many alternative theories including creationism but evolution is widely excepted by people who study SCIENCE (does not matter if you are religious or not). If you believe that your believe is true then you should try to prove it instead of making a false comparison.

 

No hard feelings! :hihi:

[cwes99_03]

Ah, somebody, nice to see you call it a false comparison after you say I have a good argument. Well at least I see that if it is excepted then it must be true, but I will accept only what can be proven instead of what is widely believed.

[somebody]

but I will accept only what can be proven instead of what is widely believed.

 

 

well, i guess that is the difference between you and me :eek_big: . Plus i don't expect to understand all the complicated yet controversial subjects so i simply go with the belief (at this age in life) :shrug:

 

 

Also, for some arguments you can not always prove your theory off hand but you can prove it by eliminating alternative theory. So that is one of the method which biologist use to make evolutionary theory stand out. ( This is the old Sherlock Holmes reasoning :shrug: )