News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
so, you are always saying that creationists must necessarily identify the origin of the creator.... why does evolution get a pass in this regard? where did all the matter that makes up the universe come from? and before you say that evolution does not deal in origins.... science MUST NECESSARILY identify the origin if science is to explain the existence of everything by natural processes.....
I am not the one asserting that everything has to have a creator and making an exception that makes the assertion worthless. And there is nothing about ideas of the origin of the universe that has scientific consensus, much less the dogmatic certainty that you seem to expect science to exhibit on that front. What there is, is a consensus that saying "God did it" is no explanation at all.
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
You obviously don't get what science is about, which is offering sensible explanations for observed phenomena, with constant revision as knowledge and understanding improves, NOT proving historical facts, disproving fantasy, or presenting made-up non-explanations as explanations.
no, i get what science is about... i also recognize its deficiencies.... you seem to be under the impression that it has none..... thus my statement about GW ;)
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
I think you're missing the key difference between science and religion. The first revises itself when new evidence is presented. The latter considers this heresy.
yeah, it revises itself, generally after ridiculing the discoverer of the new idea for a hundred years or so......
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
then how can we have a conversation? if the crux of your argument is that the flying spaghetti monster will reveal things to us when he wants, then what is there to discuss? why even formulate and test a hypothesis if fsm will only reveal it as he chooses? your basic premise makes a conversation impossible to have. science doesn't acknowledge faith as a viable argument.
You are right. It is difficult. Some people act unreasonably due to their convictions.

Let’s leave calling God a flying spaghetti monster comment aside for a moment. Discounting what you would call non-scientific evidence that God exists leaves you at a disadvantage when trying to argue your point. People who believe in some kind of creator like you do not believe in coincidences. Some of the experiences and what would be called ‘faith building’ experiences simply are not provable scientifically.

Granted, we humans have a history of getting this wrong too. What I would call an inaccurate correlation between action and result often lead to a belief in a deity who had specific control of a specific natural event.

Now back to the comment. If you really want to have the conversation, comments like these are what stop them flat. At this point you simply appear to be playing to your side of the argument and no longer attempting to be convincing. Maybe this is the same result my comment about the flat earth conclusion had with you. If so that was not the intent. I will not take your comment to be that either.

However, this goes back to the core discussion in the thread: the lack of trust developing in the scientific community. If there is a perceived built in bias (such as believing in God is the same as believing in a spaghetti monster) no matter how sound your scientific approach is at finding the truth (or more accurately the most viable conclusion given the evidence at hand) of a matter is not going to be trusted by a lot of people.
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
I am not the one asserting that everything has to have a creator and making an exception that makes the assertion worthless. And there is nothing about ideas of the origin of the universe that has scientific consensus, much less the dogmatic certainty that you seem to expect science to exhibit on that front. What there is, is a consensus that saying "God did it" is no explanation at all.
who's talking in circles now? you say that if one is to believe creation, then they must be able to explain the origin of the creator. why does science not need to explain the origin of all matter in the universe? if the matter "just was", it is absolutely the same leap to say the creator "just was". you have to start with something.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
For fun, I just looked up "dinosaurs" on Conservapedia, and here's what I found:

I love the "citation needed" after the third paragraph.
I really don't think you want to go pointing to the fringes. There are a lot of easily laughed at conclusions (some of which turned out to be accepted) over history from both sides of this.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
who's talking in circles now? you say that if one is to believe creation, then they must be able to explain the origin of the creator. why does science not need to explain the origin of all matter in the universe? if the matter "just was", it is absolutely the same leap to say the creator "just was". you have to start with something.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

However, this goes back to the core discussion in the thread: the lack of trust developing in the scientific community. If there is a perceived built in bias (such as believing in God is the same as believing in a spaghetti monster) no matter how sound your scientific approach is at finding the truth (or more accurately the most viable conclusion given the evidence at hand) of a matter is not going to be trusted by a lot of people.
Much the worse for the credibility of "a lot of people"
 
Last edited:

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
sounds good! so, you claim that everything has resulted from a natural process..... what natural process produced the matter in the beginning? and where did it get the "material" to produce the matter?

your belief in natural processes requires just as much faith as my belief in a creator.... in fact, i would dare say yours requires more
 
Last edited:

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Much the worse for the credibility of "a lot of people"
The credibility to whom? I hold that the vast majority believe that there is a God. Those that are asking for funding with a percieved attempt to prove otherwise will need the credibility.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
sounds good! so, you claim that everything has resulted from a natural process..... what natural process produced the matter in the beginning? and where did it get the "material" to produce the matter?

your belief in natural processes requires just as much faith as my belief in a creator.... in fact, i would dare say yours requires more
My claim is that God is not an explanation of anything because it makes no falsifiable predictions.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
My claim is that God is not an explanation of anything because it makes no falsifiable predictions.
Which gets us to the old 'prove a negative' argument. Just because you can't prove a negative, does not mean the negative statement is false. That is an unreasonable assumption if you are really trying to get at the truth.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
so what are the falsifiable predictions made by those who are explaining the origins of the universe?
It depends on what explanation you are asking about.

Which gets us to the old 'prove a negative' argument. Just because you can't prove a negative, does not mean the negative statement is false. That is an unreasonable assumption if you are really trying to get at the truth.
The whole 'prove a negative' argument is one attributed to science by theists who believe science is TRYING to disprove God, which of course, they are not, since it is known to be non-falsifiable, and thus nonscientific.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
yeah, it revises itself, generally after ridiculing the discoverer of the new idea for a hundred years or so......
That seems like a misreading of history. While there have certainly been squabbles between scientists, the real conflict has been between scientists and the church.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
The whole 'prove a negative' argument is one attributed to science by theists who believe science is TRYING to disprove God, which of course, they are not, since it is known to be non-falsifiable, and thus nonscientific.
You need to look up ontology. You may be correct that some theists may have latched on to the argument, but it is older than that. That said, this area of metaphysics makes my head hurt. EVERYONE seems to go in circles. In any event you were the one who used the argument.

To say that there is not an active effort in the scientific community to disprove the existance of God requires a head fully buried in the sand.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
That isn't what I said.

Two points:

1) whether thousands or millions or billons - it makes no difference at all. All we have are estimates.

Do I think the earth is more than 6500 years old? Yes. I don't hold to Ussher's chronology. Nothing mandates I do so.

I also think it's probably much older than (pick a number) ten thousand years - so what? Such neither proves nor disproves
the Creation account. It does to people who have latched onto the erroneous chronology.

2) My point is that ALL we have are ESTIMATES. Scientists - even with all their science - can't sit down and say "On August 23,
6 billion years ago, this happened."

That was all I was saying.

My evangelicalism does not mandate that I accept any particular date of Creation.
The fact that you're uncomfortable answering this question any more specifically than "much older than ten thousand years" should tell you that, yes, in fact, the age of the Earth is relevant. Both to the validity of your personal mythology and to the accuracy of the scientific methods/concepts we use to understand fields like geology, astronomy, archaeology, etc.

This thread is doing everything it can to confirm that the distrust conservatives have with science is religious.
 
Last edited:

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Is Conservapedia a fringe site? According to Alexa, it's the 37th most visited conservative web site, ranking just behind Bill O'Reilly and Redstate and just ahead of Powerline.

http://rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/the-50-most-popular-conservative-websites/
Point taken. Yes I would categorize it as fringe. I would probably be categorized as conservative and have never visited the site. In fact I have never visited rightwingnews.com, and it looks pretty far out there to me too.

I think that is a common issue when viewing the other side of our current political landscape. I know a lot progressives who consider MoveOn.org a fringe group, but a lot of conservatives think it is fully representative of the other side.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
You need to look up ontology. You may be correct that some theists may have latched on to the argument, but it is older than that. That said, this area of metaphysics makes my head hurt. EVERYONE seems to go in circles. In any event you were the one who used the argument.

To say that there is not an active effort in the scientific community to disprove the existance of God requires a head fully buried in the sand.
Not even sure what argument you are talking about here, but scientists simply don't go about trying to disprove nonscientific concepts. Sure, there are outspoken atheist scientists who deride religiosity as a mental defect, but even that is not "disproving God"
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.