Science is our friend - says Lion IRC (is not, is too, is not, is too,)

[Lion IRC]

Time for a derail to drill down into this;

Too bad for you that none of those things are true:

Science has helped the cosmological argument.

Nope: it's still special pleading.

Science has helped the cause of pro-lifers.

Nope: souls are still imaginary.

Science has helped intelligent design concepts and obliterated much of what Darwinian evolutionary theorists hoped would bury God. Darwin thought life originated from simple ingredients. The discovery of DNA (coded information) makes spontaneous abiogenesis all the more implausible.

The claim that DNA is irreducibly complex is just as groundless as every other claim of irreducible complexity.

Creationist information theory is Christian pseudoscience at its finest:

"Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as "losing information", while changes they disagree with are defined as "gaining information", which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones -- or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.


​

The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists' intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in Ken Ham's... debate with Bill Nye at the Creation Museum."​

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Information_theory#Creationist_information_theory

Irreducible complexity is a classic example of a God of the Gaps argument. Every time science exposes more of your religious bullshit to be wrong, you improvise new, ad hoc reasons why your silly claims might still be true.

Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.

That just goes to show how little you understand about quantum mechanics.

Whereas quantum mechanics is supported by a huge amount of scientific evidence, supernatural woo is not supported by any scientific evidence. Equivocating the two by quote-mining Einstein is just plain dishonest.

I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony

The irony.

And the notion that science and (Christian) religion are in opposition to one another is disproven, not only by the fact that history is full of great scientists who were biblical theists, but also the fact that religious / private schools pump out "A" grade science students every single year.

In fact, a few years ago, I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony for science students who had achieved the highest ranking in Australia and the overwhelming majority of winners were from schools named after some Saint and who were wearing school uniforms emblazoned with Christian logos.

It was actually quite funny because one of the award day sponsors was the Austalian Skeptics and they were handing out certificates one-by-one, to Christian students whose aptitude for and love of science is no doubt due (in some small part) to the underlying order and beauty of Gods amazing universe.

What makes you think those students are even Christian? I know from first hand experience, as an atheist at an Anglican school and one of the top students in each of physics, biology and chemistry, that many private school students are not Christian, let alone members of the same denomination as the school.

In fact, it's obvious that there are other reasons why private school students tend to be the highest achievers: they come from the most privileged backgrounds and have smart, educated parents who have cultivated intelligent children and can afford to send them to élite schools.

And this;

Biblical theist’s beliefs can’t survive except by defying science, and they’ve been working hard at it for centuries and still are.

You’d said before you’d like scientists to have revised the Bible, weirdly imagining that would result in a science-supported Bible. You don’t seem able to realize the things you find near and dear in the Bible would not survive the process: no special creation by a deity, no Adam and Eve, no ark and global flood, no resurrecting persons, etc, etc.

Science has helped the cosmological argument.
Science has helped the cause of pro-lifers.
Science has helped intelligent design concepts and obliterated much of what Darwinian evolutionary theorists hoped would bury God. Darwin thought life originated from simple ingredients. The discovery of DNA (coded information) makes spontaneous abiogenesis all the more implausible.
Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.

False on all counts.
The cosmological argument has the appearance of reason only to those who define God into existing. God seems necessary only because he's defined to be necessary, and the definition doesn't make the claim true.
"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" is an ethical disagreement about personhood which isn’t a scientific matter.
Even on the occasions when Intelligent Design proponents managed to make any testable claims, those claims were refuted.
Quantum mechanics has withstood an enormous number of experimental tests which supernatural woo lacks in remarkable abundance, so there’s no actual comparison other than the irrelevant impression that they’re both strange.

About schools named after saints... that Christianity is inherently anti-science in its naivety about supernaturalist presumptions doesn't mean Christians can't get A's in science classes.

And don't kid yourself thinking that atheist scientists are completely free from the allure numinous awe and existential wonder when they study at the frontiers of human discovery.

The feelings aren't religious. Presuming supernatural shit is what inspired the feelings, or getting devout and ritually celebratory over the feelings, is what would qualify any of it as religious.

I can quote mine the likes of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking and even Lawrence Krauss and come up with tons of quasi-religious dialectics along the lines of...who are we, how did we get here, where is everything leading to, what's it all about?

So you still haven't learned what quote mining is.

There's nothing inherently religious in those questions, so they don't turn "quasi-religious" when atheists ask them.

Physicist Brian Cox said our origin(s) was the most important question science seeks to answer. Why? What difference would that make?

Professor Cox also asked: "There may have been more than one Big Bang and probably, in these theories, there are an infinite number of universes being created all the time. So what does that mean? What does it mean that our existence is inevitable, that the universe may have been around forever?”

So, I wonder, what difference does it make for Christianity to ask such questions as Prof Cox asks, with open-minded scientific investigation rather than supernaturalist presumptions in mind, except that the answer probably won't lead to any sort of god?

From the same article:

"When I ask him how God fits into his understanding of the universe, Prof Cox says: 'It doesn’t at all. I honestly don’t think about religion until someone asks me about it.' And that’s because, he explains, science is not about asking grand questions but very simple ones. The way to find out answers to big questions is 'almost accidentally'."

Doesn't look like he thinks he asks religious or "quasi-religious" questions.

Quotes from this article.

... our origin(s) was the most important question science seeks to answer. Why? What difference would that make?

Maybe it seems an important question to him and others because it’d replace naive supernaturalist answers with evidence-based ones, to satisfy the natural and not-uniquely-religious desire to understand our place in nature.

And this;

Malintent, I don't claim the gaps are some sort of Zenos Paradox gotcha.
I claim that for every one gap science tries to fill, it reveals two more in the process.
The horizon keeps on getting further and further away.
Ancient caveman thought his forest was the 'universe'. But he climbs the tree and discovers a distant horizon. Then a mountain. Then a telescope. Then a spaceship. Solar system becomes Galaxy. Galaxy becomes universe. Universe becomes multiverse. It's like God keeps moving the goal posts.

"Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Isaiah 29:14

It's not that the horizon gets further and further away, it's that the more we learn, the more we realize how far it was in the first place. The goalposts aren't moving, we just didn't have the information to realize how far away they always were. The galaxy and the universe were always there, but until we had the tools to look past the sky, we didn't have the ability to know that.

Revealing new gaps means that you're moving forward. It's the path of progress where you begin to see where you need to start to look next.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'd like to see something more substantial in response to this than just gainsaying.
"You're wrong"
"False"

Well, I'm not anti-science despite your wishful thinking that I should conform to whatever strawman trope you like projecting onto "people like me".

I love science.

In fact I think we can thank science for helping causes near and dear to a good many biblical theists.

Science has helped the cosmological argument.
Science has helped the cause of pro-lifers.
Science has helped intelligent design concepts and obliterated much of what Darwinian evolutionary theorists hoped would bury God. Darwin thought life originated from simple ingredients. The discovery of DNA (coded information) makes spontaneous abiogenesis all the more implausible.
Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.

Good times! Color me happy.

And the notion that science and (Christian) religion are in opposition to one another is disproven, not only by the fact that history is full of great scientists who were biblical theists, but also the fact that religious / private schools pump out "A" grade science students every single year.

In fact, a few years ago, I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony for science students who had achieved the highest ranking in Australia and the overwhelming majority of winners were from schools named after some Saint and who were wearing school uniforms emblazoned with Christian logos.

It was actually quite funny because one of the award day sponsors was the Austalian Skeptics and they were handing out certificates one-by-one, to Christian students whose aptitude for and love of science is no doubt due (in some small part) to the underlying order and beauty of Gods amazing universe.

And don't kid yourself thinking that atheist scientists are completely free from the allure numinous awe and existential wonder when they study at the frontiers of human discovery. I can quote mine the likes of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking and even Lawrence Krauss and come up with tons of quasi-religious dialectics along the lines of...who are we, how did we get here, where is everything leading to, what's it all about?

Physicist Brian Cox said our origin(s) was the most important question science seeks to answer. Why? What difference would that make?

 

[Lion IRC]

Without science we wouldn't have images like this which have greatly helped
advance the Pro-Life cause.

 

[bigfield]

I'd like to see something more substantial in response to this than just gainsaying.
"You're wrong"
"False"

Well, I'm not anti-science despite your wishful thinking that I should conform to whatever strawman trope you like projecting onto "people like me".

I love science.

In fact I think we can thank science for helping causes near and dear to a good many biblical theists.

Science has helped the cosmological argument.
Science has helped the cause of pro-lifers.
Science has helped intelligent design concepts and obliterated much of what Darwinian evolutionary theorists hoped would bury God. Darwin thought life originated from simple ingredients. The discovery of DNA (coded information) makes spontaneous abiogenesis all the more implausible.
Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.

Good times! Color me happy.

And the notion that science and (Christian) religion are in opposition to one another is disproven, not only by the fact that history is full of great scientists who were biblical theists, but also the fact that religious / private schools pump out "A" grade science students every single year.

In fact, a few years ago, I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony for science students who had achieved the highest ranking in Australia and the overwhelming majority of winners were from schools named after some Saint and who were wearing school uniforms emblazoned with Christian logos.

It was actually quite funny because one of the award day sponsors was the Austalian Skeptics and they were handing out certificates one-by-one, to Christian students whose aptitude for and love of science is no doubt due (in some small part) to the underlying order and beauty of Gods amazing universe.

And don't kid yourself thinking that atheist scientists are completely free from the allure numinous awe and existential wonder when they study at the frontiers of human discovery. I can quote mine the likes of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking and even Lawrence Krauss and come up with tons of quasi-religious dialectics along the lines of...who are we, how did we get here, where is everything leading to, what's it all about?

Physicist Brian Cox said our origin(s) was the most important question science seeks to answer. Why? What difference would that make?

Here you go:

Too bad for you that none of those things are true:

Science has helped the cosmological argument.

Nope: it's still special pleading.

Science has helped the cause of pro-lifers.

Nope: souls are still imaginary.

Science has helped intelligent design concepts and obliterated much of what Darwinian evolutionary theorists hoped would bury God. Darwin thought life originated from simple ingredients. The discovery of DNA (coded information) makes spontaneous abiogenesis all the more implausible.

The claim that DNA is irreducibly complex is just as groundless as every other claim of irreducible complexity.

Creationist information theory is Christian pseudoscience at its finest:

"Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as "losing information", while changes they disagree with are defined as "gaining information", which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones -- or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.


​

The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists' intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in Ken Ham's... debate with Bill Nye at the Creation Museum."​

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Information_theory#Creationist_information_theory

Irreducible complexity is a classic example of a God of the Gaps argument. Every time science exposes more of your religious bullshit to be wrong, you improvise new, ad hoc reasons why your silly claims might still be true.

Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.

That just goes to show how little you understand about quantum mechanics.

Whereas quantum mechanics is supported by a huge amount of scientific evidence, supernatural woo is not supported by any scientific evidence. Equivocating the two by quote-mining Einstein is just plain dishonest.

I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony

The irony.

And the notion that science and (Christian) religion are in opposition to one another is disproven, not only by the fact that history is full of great scientists who were biblical theists, but also the fact that religious / private schools pump out "A" grade science students every single year.

In fact, a few years ago, I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony for science students who had achieved the highest ranking in Australia and the overwhelming majority of winners were from schools named after some Saint and who were wearing school uniforms emblazoned with Christian logos.

It was actually quite funny because one of the award day sponsors was the Austalian Skeptics and they were handing out certificates one-by-one, to Christian students whose aptitude for and love of science is no doubt due (in some small part) to the underlying order and beauty of Gods amazing universe.

What makes you think those students are even Christian? I know from first hand experience, as an atheist at an Anglican school and one of the top students in each of physics, biology and chemistry, that many private school students are not Christian, let alone members of the same denomination as the school.

In fact, it's obvious that there are other reasons why private school students tend to be the highest achievers: they come from the most privileged backgrounds and have smart, educated parents who have cultivated intelligent children and can afford to send them to élite schools.

 

[Infinite Monkey]

Without science we wouldn't have images like this which have greatly helped
advance the Pro-Life cause.

Helped in what way? Are you suggesting that people who support abortion rights, or women seeking abortions, were not previously aware that fetuses look like fetuses?

 

[abaddon]

I'd like to see something more substantial in response to this than just gainsaying.
"You're wrong"
"False"

You first. If you want more in-depth argument against your assertions, then make them into completed arguments.

Here, I'll help you...

Science made ultrasound images possible.
The ultrasound image of a fetus reminds some people of a baby’s face.
Therefore science advanced the pro-life cause.

So you're not anti-science because some pictures have some emotional effect on some people. Is that it? That's your argument?

 

[Lion IRC]

Without science we wouldn't have images like this which have greatly helped
advance the Pro-Life cause.

Helped in what way? Are you suggesting that people who support abortion rights, or women seeking abortions, were not previously aware that fetuses look like fetuses?

It has helped shape public opinion more broadly.
People are posting 3D ultrasound pictures of their baby on Facebook.
Companies like Elavit (Bayer) are using science to promote their product (folic acid) which improves the health of unborn babies.
Science has provided the evidence relating to FASD fetal alcohol spectrum disorder - a very serious consequence of pregnant women doing what they want with their own bodies. (Drinking while pregnant)

 

[Lion IRC]

I'd like to see something more substantial in response to this than just gainsaying.
"You're wrong"
"False"

You first. If you want more in-depth argument against your assertions, then make them into completed arguments.

Here, I'll help you...

Science made ultrasound images possible.
The ultrasound image of a fetus reminds some people of a baby’s face.
Therefore science advanced the pro-life cause.

I don't need help. Thanks anyway.

The point here is that those images typically weren't available 50 - 100 years ago.

 

[bigfield]

Without science we wouldn't have images like this which have greatly helped
advance the Pro-Life cause.

View attachment 9201

How have images like that helped the pro-life cause?

As I'm guessing you know, that particular image is from a study that was reported by the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...y-16-weeks-respond-moving-mouths-tongues.html

I'm not sure exactly how you think that supports the delusions of theists, since the researchers did not find evidence of a soul, but I can see how you and others might have been misled by reading a source as dumb as a Daily Mail or a comparably shit infotainment site.

For instance, the Daily Mail adds this commentary:

Using the device, known as a Babypod, developed for the study, mothers could begin to stimulate their unborn baby's communication skills before they are born.

In essence, it suggests babies can begin to learn before they are born.

However, that is the conclusion of the Daily Mail blogger, not the article itself. And while the Daily Fail is particularly odious as far as news sites are concerned, one should not trust the fidelity of science reporting as a general rule because reporters are perpetually prone to exaggeration.

And as the article itself declares, the lead researcher had a profit motive for promoting the Babypod IVM device as she is the inventor.

http://www.multivu.com/players/uk/7...-to-intravaginal-music-emission-660887103.pdf

 

[Infinite Monkey]

It has helped shape public opinion more broadly.
People are posting 3D ultrasound pictures of their baby on Facebook.

Yes. When they choose to keep it. A decision typically made when the fetus looks more like a Space Booger Monster, which kind of torpedoes your argument.

Companies like Elavit (Bayer) are using science to promote their product (folic acid) which improves the health of unborn babies.

They also used science to figure out what helps unborn babies. It's little weird that you're focusing on marketing.

Science has provided the evidence relating to FASD fetal alcohol spectrum disorder - a very serious consequence of pregnant women doing what they want with their own bodies. (Drinking while pregnant)

Yes. Are you trying to imply that because one thing pregnant women may do with their own bodies can have drastic negative effects, that ALL things pregnant women do with their bodies will do the same? You may note that the consequences of abortion are basically that you don't have to bear and raise a child you don't want.

 

[Lion IRC]

Scintific advances in reproductive technology have taken us to the point where the law now has to catch up and start addressing the personhood rights of the unborn with respect to knowing the identity of their parents. The law is now intervening on behalf of the unborn and even sperm in arguments over who is the legal parent.
Sperm donor?
Egg donor?
Surrogate/gestational mother?
Adoptive parent?

 

[beero1000]

Talk about an abusive 'friendship'...

 

[Lion IRC]

We have science to thank for pushing back the viable age of the unborn fetus.
Science can now preserve the life of premature babies much earlier than ever.

So abortion-on-demand arguments which relate to 'viability' are being painted into a smaller and smaller corner so to speak. And the definition of late-term abortion is being reconsidered by jurisdictions all over the world.

Science is not far off from being able to provide artificial wombs.

 

[Lion IRC]

And you think I'm anti science?
No way!

 

[Lion IRC]

Companies like Elavit (Bayer) are using science to promote their product (folic acid) which improves the health of unborn babies.

They also used science to figure out what helps unborn babies. It's little weird that you're focusing on marketing.

No. I'm focussing on the science which is being marketed and that has the effect of raising public awareness/consciousness that we are talking about ethical and therapeutic medicine being provided for unborn human lives.

Check out the Elevit ads. They look like defacto pro life commercials.

Science has provided the evidence relating to FASD fetal alcohol spectrum disorder - a very serious consequence of pregnant women doing what they want with their own bodies. (Drinking while pregnant)

Yes. Are you trying to imply that because one thing pregnant women may do with their own bodies can have drastic negative effects, that ALL things pregnant women do with their bodies will do the same?

No. Where the do you get THAT idea.
I just cited the Elevit example of beneficial things pregnant women can do for their baby.
The difference couldn't be more stark.

 

[bigfield]

It has helped shape public opinion more broadly.
People are posting 3D ultrasound pictures of their baby on Facebook.
Companies like Elavit (Bayer) are using science to promote their product (folic acid) which improves the health of unborn babies.
Science has provided the evidence relating to FASD fetal alcohol spectrum disorder - a very serious consequence of pregnant women doing what they want with their own bodies. (Drinking while pregnant)

None of which bears any relation to the pro-life movement, which is a movement to ban elective abortion as early as conception.

The vast majority of abortions are carried out in the first 13-14 weeks of gestation:

USA:

In 2013, the majority (66.0%) of abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.6%) were performed by ≤13 weeks’ gestation. Few abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks’ gestation (7.1%) or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.3%). From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of all abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently high (≥91.5%) and among those performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, the percentage performed at ≤6 weeks’ gestation increased 16%.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6208a1.htm?s_cid=ss6208a1_w

South Australia:

4,681 terminations of pregnancy were notified, 84 fewer than in 2012. The induced abortion rate was 14.4 per1,000 women aged 15-44 years, compared with 14.7 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years in 2012. It has declinedsignificantly since 2001, when it was 17.7 per 1,000 women. Approximately 97% of terminations were performedin metropolitan public hospitals, including the Pregnancy Advisory Centre, and 77% were performed by doctorsin family advisory clinics in these hospitals. Ninety-one percent of terminations were performed within the first 14weeks of pregnancy and 2.0% (94) were performed at or after 20 weeks gestation. Fifty percent of terminationsperformed at or after 20 weeks gestation were for fetal reasons. Approximately 19% of reported pregnancies endedas terminations in 2013.

https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/...ERES&CACHEID=62e89b004aca1fd38486dc0b65544981

Where the image you showed was of a fetus at somewhere between 16 and 34 weeks' gestation.If Christian anti-abortion activists think that such images support their cause then they don't even know what they are opposing.

 

[Infinite Monkey]

We have science to thank for pushing back the viable age of the unborn fetus.
Science can now preserve the life of premature babies much earlier than ever.

So abortion-on-demand arguments which relate to 'viability' are being painted into a smaller and smaller corner so to speak. And the definition of late-term abortion is being reconsidered by jurisdictions all over the world.

Science is not far off from being able to provide artificial wombs.

So, basically, the range of choices available to women, as well as the amount of information on which to base those choices on, has been drastically increased by science. I agree. Science is our friend.

 

[Lion IRC]

@bigfield re. Your post #4

I asked for something more substantive than gainsaying and all you did was repost the original gainsaying stuff all over again.

"...none of those things are true"

"...Nope: it's still special pleading"

...Souls are imaginary.

...The claim that DNA is irreducibly complex is groundless

...Creationist information theory is pseudoscience

...Irreducible complexity is God of the Gaps

...Every time science exposes your religious bullshit to be wrong

...That just goes to show how little you understand about quantum mechanics.

...I know from first hand experience, as an atheist at an Anglican school and one of the top students in each of physics, biology and chemistry. yadda yadda my anecdote proves you wrong

Can we perhaps discuss any of these in more detail?
Let's start with your theory that A Grade science students at private religiously denominated high schools are probably atheists pretending to be Christians.

 

[Lion IRC]

Claim- Science has helped the cosmological argument.

Basis of claim - have you ever seen a modern apologist present the cosmological argument WITHOUT reference to evidence made available by science?

 

[bigfield]

Let's start with your theory that A Grade science students at private religiously denominated high schools are probably atheists pretending to be Christians.

I never said that atheists pretend to be Christians. Students were free to believe whatever they wanted and aligned themselves to a variety of religious and non-religious groups; The students were a mix of Catholics, Muslims, Lutherans, agnostics and atheists, and probably others that I never heard of, in an Anglican school. There was never any need to pretend; at most students had to attend religious education classes and prayer at assembly.

And considering that scientists are much more likely to be atheists than the general population, you've got some explaining to do if you think that high-achievers in high-school science are mostly Christian. What's your theory? Do hordes of science undergrads lose their religion during university? Are there legions of Christian scientists pretending to be atheists?