Cutting-Edge Research in Biology by ID Scientists (CC & ID Content)

[lea1]

Science is not based on opinions. It is based on an observable, quantifiable, testable, and replicable body of data. Evolution is correct because it is the best theory we have to explain the body of evidence that we have observed, quantified, tested, and replicated. No one who is proponent of evolution is wedded to the idea that our current understanding is the end. Only the creationists hold that view.

 

Evolution is taught as a fact even though it is not a fact.  You just said evolution is 'correct' because it is the 'best theory'.  Just because one group of scientists believes it is the best theory does not make it 'correct' or a 'fact' and does not even make it the best theory.....only the best theory in their opinion. 

 

Every person looking at the same data will do so with their own bias.  Everyone has a world view and they will always have some sort of bias.  Seven scientists could look at the same piece of evidence and, because of their past history, their worldview, they would come away with seven different opinions of what the evidence suggests.

 

The Big Bang and evolution are not observable, quantifiable, testable or replicable, not to the extent that it can be proven a fact.  If they were, they would be facts, just like we now know for a fact that the earth is round.  Since no one (other than God:) was around at the beginning of time when the earth and the universe and man were created, no one has observed this and no one knows exactly what happened.  Because it cannot be recreated, it can never be proven.  There are various interpretations of the evidence but everyone looking at the evidence does so through their own world view and they see it from that perspective.

 

Faith in God is not blind faith.  There is plenty of evidence for God.  The Bible is full of evidence for God.

[songsparrow]

In other words, if a universe that has a god whose character and creation is virtually indistinguishable from a universe without such a god, from where does the support of belief come?.

While I agree, I'd hate to have someone refuse to consider learning about evolution because they thought it was impossible to both accept evolutionary theory and also have any personal faith. It is not necessary to be an atheist before one can accept evolutionary theory.

 

Saddlemomma, looking at the links you provided, their common theme seems to be the discovery of mechanisms that may work outside of / independently of / in addition to / as a precursor to DNA to contribute to the growth and development of embryos and organisms. Can you explain how you understand this to support ID or refute "macro"-evolution?

[eternalsummer]

Then what's to stop us from incorporating any creation myth into our understanding? If evidence isn't valuable, why stop with creation myths?

 

The Big Bang is something of a creation myth too, if you think about it.  For one, there is no direct evidence.  Further, both intelligent design and the Big Bang are incompatible with the rest of our scientific understanding - namely the conservation of mass and energy (nothing comes from nothing) and a linear conception of time.

 

I'm not saying scientific evidence is not valuable, but it is not the be-all, end-all.  Science is a tool and tools are secondary.  Our primary understanding comes from within.  If you don't believe me, take it from Einstein;

 

"The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung [literally, empathy or 'feeling one's way in'] is developed by experience."

 

Intuition itself is not logical or scientific, and Einstein says that all of physics rests on it.

 

Opinions don't affect facts, though. Facts should affect opinions.

 

That's just your opinion.  Consider morality.  It is something deeply ingrained in us, in our subconscious and unconscious brains.  It inspires feelings and opinions in us that have nothing directly to do with science, which resides in our relatively immature cerebral cortex, our reflective part.  Our moral brains have developed over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  Human science is a few thousand years old, tops.  Reflection is after the fact.

 

Then those who make claims that directly contradict the laws of physics should be called out.

 

Why teach things that could be true just because we could imagine them to be true. Why not teach what's actually true instead?

 

Because there are multiple perspectives with which to understand the world; science is only one of them.

 

"Science investigates; religion interprets.  Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control.  Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.  The two are not rivals. They are complementary." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

albeto., on 06 Jun 2014 - 1:57 PM, said:

 

I would (and have) argue that there does exist a mutual exclusion between a religious belief and a scientific understanding.

 

 

The greatest scientists in history disagree with you.

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world" -Einstein

 

"In whatever manner God created the world, it would always have been regular and in a certain general order. God, however, has chosen the most perfect, that is to say, the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena." -Leibniz

 

"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions." -Newton

 

"the more a man possesses comprehensive perception of the world...the more perfectly he sees God in Nature" -Oersted

 

[albeto.]

While I agree, I'd hate to have someone refuse to consider learning about evolution because they thought it was impossible to both accept evolutionary theory and also have any personal faith. It is not necessary to be an atheist before one can accept evolutionary theory.

 

I'm not suggesting it is necessary to be an atheist before one can accept evolutionary theory. I'm suggesting that to hold religious beliefs is to believe science is wrong in some aspect, whether it's toe or just a vague, amorphous belief that "God is love." It is to impose a religious explanation in lieu of a scientific one somewhere down the line. 

[songsparrow]

The Big Bang is something of a creation myth too, if you think about it.  For one, there is no direct evidence.  Further, both intelligent design and the Big Bang are incompatible with the rest of our scientific understanding - namely the conservation of mass and energy (nothing comes from nothing) and a linear conception of time.

 

The Big Bang is not a creation myth and there is absolutely direct evidence observable to scientists: gravitational waves, cosmic background radiation, and the inflation of the universe.  

 

The Big Bang is not inconsistent with conservation of mass and energy; it is possible for energy to convert to mass and vice versa.  And a linear conception of time is in large part a human construct; relativity tells us that time in fact bends and distorts as one moves closer to the speed of light.  

[eternalsummer]

The Big Bang is not a creation myth and there is absolutely direct evidence observable to scientists: gravitational waves, cosmic background radiation, and the inflation of the universe.  

 

The Big Bang is not inconsistent with conservation of mass and energy; it is possible for energy to convert to mass and vice versa.  And a linear conception of time is in large part a human construct; relativity tells us that time in fact bends and distorts as one moves closer to the speed of light.  

 

Gravitational waves, cosmic background radiation, and the inflation of the universe are all indirect evidence, not direct.

 

The Big Bang is inconsistent with the conservation of mass and energy if you're saying there was nothing before it.  If you're saying the Big Bang came from nothing, then that is a violation of the law.

 

If there was something before the Big Bang that led to the Big Bang, then it's not the actual beginning.  It goes to show that the nature of our existence is greater than science has the ability to measure/explain.  Science cannot compute the idea of a cyclical, infinite universe.

[albeto.]

The Big Bang is something of a creation myth too, if you think about it.  For one, there is no direct evidence.  Further, both intelligent design and the Big Bang are incompatible with the rest of our scientific understanding - namely the conservation of mass and energy (nothing comes from nothing) and a linear conception of time.

 

Not by the standard understanding of what a creation myth is, it isn't. The "big bang" theory came about as a logical explanation for an observable phenomena when taking into consideration known information. Further information is constantly being applied to this theory, and at the same time hypotheses are being developed. This should not be confused with some kind of symbolic narrative of how the world began, and how people first came to inhabit it.

 

I'm not saying scientific evidence is not valuable, but it is not the be-all, end-all.  Science is a tool and tools are secondary.  Our primary understanding comes from within.  If you don't believe me, take it from Einstein;

 

]"The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung [literally, empathy or 'feeling one's way in'] is developed by experience."

 

So Einstein's opinion is your evidence that "intuition" is a viable methodology for accurately understanding the natural world? 

 

Intuition itself is not logical or scientific, and Einstein says that all of physics rests on it.

 

Intuition itself is a vague description of a complex human behavior mechanism in which the brain responds to external and internal stimuli. We have more understanding about what it is and how it works than we did in Einstein's day. How do you think scientists have tested his Intuition Theory?

 

That's just your opinion.

 

Is this a serious statement? I can't tell if you're using sarcasm here.

 

Consider morality.  It is something deeply ingrained in us, in our subconscious and unconscious brains.  It inspires feelings and opinions in us that have nothing directly to do with science, which resides in our relatively immature cerebral cortex, our reflective part.  Our moral brains have developed over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  Human science is a few thousand years old, tops.  Reflection is after the fact.

 

Morality can be explained by evolution, actually. Neurologist Robert Sapolsky has some utterly fascinating videos on youtube about this very thing. He's a neurologist at Stanford University and his expertise is quite remarkable in this respect. Sam Harris is another neurologist who has addressed this as well. He's got some short but dense books, but you can find him on youtube as well if you want a summary of just how morality can be explained via the scientific method.

 

Because there are multiple perspectives with which to understand the world; science is only one of them.

 

Besides intuition, which has yet to be judged credible by any learned community, what other methodology helps us accurately understand the world?

 

The greatest scientists in history disagree with you.

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world" -Einstein

 

Impossible claim to test. How do we identify God? How do we identify the parameters of this revelation? How do we identify and research "the lawful harmony of the world"? What does that mean?

 

"In whatever manner God created the world, it would always have been regular and in a certain general order. God, however, has chosen the most perfect, that is to say, the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena." -Leibniz

 

Presumes a god created the world. There exists no evidence for this presumption.

 

"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions." -Newton

 

Presumes a god created the world. There exists no evidence for this presumption.

 

"the more a man possesses comprehensive perception of the world...the more perfectly he sees God in Nature" -Oersted

 

Presumes a god exists. Which one? How is it identified? How is it researched?

 

 

Do you see, these comments, while they may sound good on the surface, cannot be trusted to offer any meaningful insight when explored in detail. That's what the scientific method does - explores details by a process of observation, data collection, critical analysis, falsification, peer review, and all kinds of things. None of these quotes here offer anything more than personal opinion, and if you think facts are just opinions, then how could you know anything to be true?

[Haiku]

Evolution is taught as a fact even though it is not a fact.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a scientist who stated that evolution is a fact. Scientists know that scientific theories are not facts.

 

Do you believe that the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium? If so, is that because your bible told you it is? Is it because you have been to the sun and tested its components? Or is it because you believe that scientists can observe phenomena, make predictions based on those phenomena, and test those predictions?

[albeto.]

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a scientist who stated that evolution is a fact. Scientists know that scientific theories are not facts.

 

Do you believe that the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium? If so, is that because your bible told you it is? Is it because you have been to the sun and tested its components? Or is it because you believe that scientists can observe phenomena, make predictions based on those phenomena, and test those predictions?

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific fact.

 

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today,

the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

 

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

[Haiku]

Well, I stand corrected. :)

[songsparrow]

The Big Bang is inconsistent with the conservation of mass and energy if you're saying there was nothing before it.  If you're saying the Big Bang came from nothing, then that is a violation of the law.

 

If there was something before the Big Bang that led to the Big Bang, then it's not the actual beginning.  It goes to show that the nature of our existence is greater than science has the ability to measure/explain.  Science cannot compute the idea of a cyclical, infinite universe.

 

The Big Bang theory is the idea that at some point all matter and energy in our universe was condensed into an infinitesimally small area and from which it expanded in a fraction of a second.   It is the prevailing model of the earliest moments of our universe because it is supported by a broad range of observable phoneomena.  

 

The Big Bang theory does not speak to what existed or did not exist before the moment when that expansion began.  There are other theories that address that topic, though, including string theory and theories of multi-dimensions.  As far as your claim that "science cannot compute the idea of a cyclical, infinite universe," there *is* a scientific hypothesis of the "Big Bounce" that does hypothesize that our universe was born from the collapse of a previous universe.  What is so far lacking for these ideas are direct or indirect evidence to support them.  Scientists must devise models and hypothesize what evidence we would be able to observe that can support or refute these ideas, and how to collect that evidence.  They are working on those models now; just because that work is not yet complete, does not mean that it cannot be done.

[Dicentra]

Gravitational waves, cosmic background radiation, and the inflation of the universe are all indirect evidence, not direct.

 

The Big Bang is inconsistent with the conservation of mass and energy if you're saying there was nothing before it.  If you're saying the Big Bang came from nothing, then that is a violation of the law.

 

If there was something before the Big Bang that led to the Big Bang, then it's not the actual beginning.  It goes to show that the nature of our existence is greater than science has the ability to measure/explain.  Science cannot compute the idea of a cyclical, infinite universe.

 

Tara's example of the composition of stars is a great example of indirect evidence helping us to understand our universe.

 

What direct evidence do I have that the wind exists?  None, really. :)  I have indirect evidence - I can see the wind's effect on the leaves of trees or the grasses in my hay field and I can feel the wind's effect on my skin.  It may be argued that one can directly "see" the wind when it's dusty outside but, again, you're seeing the effect of the wind on the dust particles.  I would call all of that indirect evidence for the existence of the wind.  Indirect evidence is a valuable part of science - other than blurry x-ray crystallography images (which simply show vague, spherical clouds), we have no direct evidence for the existence of the atom, either.  No one has "seen" an atom.  I don't think anyone questions the existence of the atom.  When scientists use the phrase "observable evidence", it doesn't just mean evidence that can be seen (or has been seen) by a human eye.  Maybe that's part of the confusion - folks arguing against evolution as being the best explanation keep saying, "We weren't there.  We can't know.  There's no direct evidence."  If we go with that type of logic, we would need to discard a fairly large chunk of modern science - pretty much all of chemistry and physics and the vast part of modern biology.  Observable evidence can be direct or indirect - both types are valid in science.

[eternalsummer]

So Einstein's opinion is your evidence that "intuition" is a viable methodology for accurately understanding the natural world?

 

Feel free to respond to it.  Einstein was a greater scientist than you or I, and he claims that intuition is the basis for scientific understanding.  I've further explained why that perspective is correct - because science is a tool of our reflective capacity, and measurement/reflection are after the fact.  When you look in the mirror that's not actually who you are; it's just an image.  See Plato's forms for the appropriate corollary.

 

Intuition itself is a vague description of a complex human behavior mechanism in which the brain responds to external and internal stimuli. We have more understanding about what it is and how it works than we did in Einstein's day. How do you think scientists have tested his Intuition Theory?

 

You missed the point.  There are certain things that entirely supersede/transcend the field of science (the practice of reflection and measurement).  Intuition is one of them.  So are morality and emotion (eg. love).

 

Morality can be explained by evolution, actually. Neurologist Robert Sapolsky has some utterly fascinating videos on youtube about this very thing. He's a neurologist at Stanford University and his expertise is quite remarkable in this respect. Sam Harris is another neurologist who has addressed this as well. He's got some short but dense books, but you can find him on youtube as well if you want a summary of just how morality can be explained via the scientific method.

 

It can be explained superficially like you can explain an ocean by looking at the surface and calling it blue; that's not how we fundamentally understand morality.  How we fundamentally understand morality is how we experience morality, and how we experience morality is subconsciously/unconsciously, not scientifically.  Again, consider the difference between a reflection and the thing in itself.

 

For some supporting science on the matter, see de Waal;

 

"We have a lot of feelings and tendencies that drive us to moral solutions, and yes, we often then later try to justify these solutions and come up with reasons for them, but that's often secondarily."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/health/lifes-work-de-waal/

 

Besides intuition, which has yet to be judged credible by any learned community,

 

So you just decided Einstein is not credible.  Cute.  I'm gonna go with Einstein on this one.  Intuition precedes scientific judgment.  You have it backwards.

 

Impossible claim to test. How do we identify God? How do we identify the parameters of this revelation? How do we identify and research "the lawful harmony of the world"? What does that mean?

 

Well again, these are limits you've placed on yourself.  Our minds are not limited by our ability to "test".  God is a metaphor in the case Einstein was referring to, and religiously as well when it comes down to it (but that's another story).  The lawful harmony of the world is exactly what it says.  If you believe that the universe is governed by the laws of physics then it shouldn't be that big a leap.

 

None of these quotes here offer anything more than personal opinion,

 

The point was to refute your claim that science and religious belief are mutually exclusive.  If the greatest scientists in history were also religious then you're plainly wrong.  One can explain it the way I already have.  The two fields are not speaking the same language, so to speak.  Science is fact-based.  Religion deals with metaphor, morality, tradition, etc.  As MLK Jr. said, they are complementary.

 

and if you think facts are just opinions, then how could you know anything to be true?

 

I never said facts are just opinions.  I said it was just your opinion that; "Opinions don't affect facts, though. Facts should affect opinions.".

[eternalsummer]

The Big Bang theory is the idea that at some point all matter and energy in our universe was condensed into an infinitesimally small area and from which it expanded in a fraction of a second.   It is the prevailing model of the earliest moments of our universe because it is supported by a broad range of observable phoneomena.  

 

The Big Bang theory does not speak to what existed or did not exist before the moment when that expansion began.  There are other theories that address that topic, though, including string theory and theories of multi-dimensions.  As far as your claim that "science cannot compute the idea of a cyclical, infinite universe," there *is* a scientific hypothesis of the "Big Bounce" that does hypothesize that our universe was born from the collapse of a previous universe.  What is so far lacking for these ideas are direct or indirect evidence to support them.  Scientists must devise models and hypothesize what evidence we would be able to observe that can support or refute these ideas, and how to collect that evidence.  They are working on those models now; just because that work is not yet complete, does not mean that it cannot be done.

 

Well, it's not the "earliest" if something came before it.  All science can attempt to offer with the Big Bang theory is how this particular iteration came into being.  It doesn't address "creation" itself.  In which case, ideas like Intelligent Design aren't actually in conflict with the Big Bang theory, because they're not attempting to describe the same thing.

 

This is similar to how Intelligent Design could be consistent with evolution.  God simply could have created the universe to evolve as it has.  The two ideas are not essentially mutually exclusive.

 

The cyclic model has been theorized by scientists and plenty of other people, but it is outside the realm of science proper, for obvious reasons you've already partially explained.  It cannot be directly proven or measured (ie. computed).  Science cannot see beyond an event horizon (eg. what would have preceded the Big Bang).

[songsparrow]

I never said facts are just opinions.  I said it was just your opinion that; "Opinions don't affect facts, though. Facts should affect opinions.".

 

Can you give some examples of how opinions can affect or change facts?

[eternalsummer]

Tara's example of the composition of stars is a great example of indirect evidence helping us to understand our universe.

 

What direct evidence do I have that the wind exists?  None, really. :)  I have indirect evidence - I can see the wind's effect on the leaves of trees or the grasses in my hay field and I can feel the wind's effect on my skin.  It may be argued that one can directly "see" the wind when it's dusty outside but, again, you're seeing the effect of the wind on the dust particles.  I would call all of that indirect evidence for the existence of the wind.  Indirect evidence is a valuable part of science - other than blurry x-ray crystallography images (which simply show vague, spherical clouds), we have no direct evidence for the existence of the atom, either.  No one has "seen" an atom.  I don't think anyone questions the existence of the atom.  When scientists use the phrase "observable evidence", it doesn't just mean evidence that can be seen (or has been seen) by a human eye.  Maybe that's part of the confusion - folks arguing against evolution as being the best explanation keep saying, "We weren't there.  We can't know.  There's no direct evidence."  If we go with that type of logic, we would need to discard a fairly large chunk of modern science - pretty much all of chemistry and physics and the vast part of modern biology.  Observable evidence can be direct or indirect - both types are valid in science.

 

For the most part I agree.  What you're responding to is a correction of another post claiming "direct" evidence of the Big Bang.  That's all.

 

 

Can you give some examples of how opinions can affect or change facts?

 

Consider the human (interpersonal) realm.  An election, for example, is decided by collective opinion.  Our relationships are moderated by the opinions we hold, and the primary source of those opinions is not science; it's our emotional/moral brain.

[eternalsummer]

Except our emotional/moral brain has a scientific explanation  too...science is everywhere...science all the things!

 

An explanation and an understanding are not necessarily the same thing.  It's like, you can explain how to ride a bike scientifically, but it's something you can only really learn (understand) by doing.  Emotion/morality are similar.

[songsparrow]

Well, it's not the "earliest" if something came before it.  All science can attempt to offer with the Big Bang theory is how this particular iteration came into being.  It doesn't address "creation" itself.  In which case, ideas like Intelligent Design aren't actually in conflict with the Big Bang theory, because they're not attempting to describe the same thing.

 

This is similar to how Intelligent Design could be consistent with evolution.  God simply could have created the universe to evolve as it has.  The two ideas are not essentially mutually exclusive.

 

The cyclic model has been theorized by scientists and plenty of other people, but it is outside the realm of science proper, for obvious reasons you've already partially explained.  It cannot be directly proven or measured (ie. computed).  Science cannot see beyond an event horizon (eg. what would have preceded the Big Bang).

 

Creationism at its simplest posits that the universe and life arose from acts of divine creation.  So yes, deists who believe that god set the "Clockwork Universe" into motion could be considered creationists, and yet they could embrace Big Bang theory, evolutionary theory and other scientific theories. Other creationists, though, such as Young Earth creationists, have radically different beliefs.  They believe that the creation story told in Genesis literally happened and they reject the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory; these are mutually exclusive.

 

ID also rejects evolution (or at least what is referred to as "macro"-evolution).  These are mutually exclusive.

 

It is premature to say that what came before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science.  Hypotheses and models are being developed and debated, and there is no reason to assume that scientists will not eventually come up with ways to test those ideas one day, even if we cannot do so today.  After all, our modern understanding of the atom has its earliest origins in philosophical discussions in Ancient Greece. 

 

 

Consider the human (interpersonal) realm.  An election, for example, is decided by collective opinion.  Our relationships are moderated by the opinions we hold, and the primary source of those opinions is not science; it's our emotional/moral brain.

 

But can you give an example of facts that these opinions change?   

[albeto.]

You missed the point.  There are certain things that entirely supersede/transcend the field of science (the practice of reflection and measurement).  Intuition is one of them.  So are morality and emotion (eg. love).

I disagree with your point. If we understand intuition to mean the feeling we know something without proof or evidence, then we can explain that through neurology. We're discovering all kinds of fascinating things about the mechanics of thought and consciousness, and one thing we're finding is that the brain works in a mechanical way. The discovery is in exploring the many minute variables that affect the mechanics of this. In essence, your brain takes in stimuli through various organs of perception, ears, eyes, skin. It also takes in stimuli by combining these stimuli through multiple sensory organs. Balance, and your awareness in space are examples of this. Additionally, your brain considers internal information as well, like blood pressure, dopamine or adrenaline. Your frontal cortex takes all this information in, actually trillions of specific data points of information, and sorts it out at such speed we feel like it takes no effort at all. We simply react much of the time (like covering our mouths to cover a sneeze).

 

Intuition simply reflects this process going on where we are not aware of certain variables, for example not being aware of specific memories, but being aware of certain emotions. Emotions and memories are "paired" if you will, in the brain, and so when one is recalled, often both are, at least to some extent. Intuition may reflect the emotional recall without direct recall of events, or maybe events without the context of other events. It also doesn't take into consideration all those times we're sure we know something, but dismiss this thought the very moment it doesn't pan out, doesn't help, and is replaced with the next thought. It's all explained through the very laws of physics you value as being reliable.

 

It can be explained superficially like you can explain an ocean by looking at the surface and calling it blue; that's not how we fundamentally understand morality.  How we fundamentally understand morality is how we experience morality, and how we experience morality is subconsciously/unconsciously, not scientifically.  Again, consider the difference between a reflection and the thing in itself.

 

For some supporting science on the matter, see de Waal;

 

We have a lot of feelings and tendencies that drive us to moral solutions, and yes, we often then later try to justify these solutions and come up with reasons for them, but that's often secondarily."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/health/lifes-work-de-waal/

This quote doesn't contradict what I'm saying. If you're interested in another short TED talk, you might enjoy this one: Science can answer moral questions

 

So you just decided Einstein is not credible.  Cute.  I'm gonna go with Einstein on this one.  Intuition precedes scientific judgment.  You have it backwards.

I asked if Einstein's opinion was your evidence. Opinions don't serve as evidence in the scientific method, so I'm wondering if there's more or if that's it.

 

Well again, these are limits you've placed on yourself.  Our minds are not limited by our ability to "test".  God is a metaphor in the case Einstein was referring to, and religiously as well when it comes down to it (but that's another story).  The lawful harmony of the world is exactly what it says.  If you believe that the universe is governed by the laws of physics then it shouldn't be that big a leap.

My questions reflect standard scientific inquiry. I didn't make up those questions. But what you say here is interesting, especially if we try to figure out what it really means.

 

The natural world limits our ability to test, which is why testing a supernatural variable is impossible.

 

God is a metaphor for what, precisely?

 

If "lawful harmony of the world" is exactly what it says, can you define it?

 

The point was to refute your claim that science and religious belief are mutually exclusive.  If the greatest scientists in history were also religious then you're plainly wrong.  One can explain it the way I already have.  The two fields are not speaking the same language, so to speak.  Science is fact-based.  Religion deals with metaphor, morality, tradition, etc.  As MLK Jr. said, they are complementary.

I understand you think they are complementary, and I'm trying to find out how. So far, religion is offered as an explanation based on faith that certain claims are credible, paired with personal experience, whereas science is offered as an explanation based on a particular methodology of exploration. The second one specifically weeds out the first, as it is subjective and therefore not consistent between individuals.

 

[songsparrow]

Gravitational waves, cosmic background radiation, and the inflation of the universe are all indirect evidence, not direct.

 

I think that cosmic background radiation, at least, is direct evidence - it is radiation that still exists in the universe from the time of the Big Bang.

 

However, whether you wish to describe it as direct or indirect, the important point is that this radiation was predicted by Big Bang theory, and when discovered it was evidence that confirmed that theory and refuted other theories (e.g., Steady State theory).

[eternalsummer]

 

 

Creationism at its simplest posits that the universe and life arose from acts of divine creation.  So yes, deists who believe that god set the "Clockwork Universe" into motion could be considered creationists, and yet they could embrace Big Bang theory, evolutionary theory and other scientific theories. Other creationists, though, such as Young Earth creationists, have radically different beliefs.  They believe that the creation story told in Genesis literally happened and they reject the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory; these are mutually exclusive.

 

ID also rejects evolution (or at least what is referred to as "macro"-evolution).  These are mutually exclusive.

 

It is premature to say that what came before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science.  Hypotheses and models are being developed and debated, and there is no reason to assume that scientists will not eventually come up with ways to test those ideas one day, even if we cannot do so today.  After all, our modern understanding of the atom has its earliest origins in philosophical discussions in Ancient Greece. 

 

 

 

But can you give an example of facts that these opinions change?   

 

 

I'm not here to speak for literal creationists.  A lot of religion is metaphor.

 

Whether it's premature or not is conjecture on your part.  What science holds currently and has always held is that one cannot see beyond an event horizon.  You may believe it will be possible some day but that's an act of faith on your part ;)

 

There are plenty of facts that change with changing opinions.  A change of opinion could result in a new president, a bank run, or make the difference between a conviction or an acquittal (for example, see the black/white split on opinions of the guilt/innocence of OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman).  A lot of "facts" we take for granted are actually dependent on human psychology/emotion.

[songsparrow]

There are plenty of facts that change with changing opinions.  A change of opinion could result in a new president, a bank run, or make the difference between a conviction or an acquittal (for example, see the black/white split on opinions of the guilt/innocence of OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman).  A lot of "facts" we take for granted are actually dependent on human psychology/emotion.

 

If a change in opinion results in a particular person being elected, what fact has changed?  There may have been projections that candidate A would be elected, and then candidate B is actually elected.  But projections are not facts; they are predictions.  The statement that candidate B was elected is a fact.  What fact changed?

 

A judgment of guilt or innocent is not a fact; judgments are often later proven to have been wrong.   You could say that it is a fact that OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman were both acquitted in a court of law.  Some people have opinions that those verdicts were wrong.  But what fact does that change? 

[Erin]

I guess that I can see that, depending upon a person's specific religious beliefs, those beliefs could preclude that person's ability to accept evolutionary theory.  But not *all* religious beliefs would lead to that result.

 

Likewise, accepting evolutionary theory may preclude one from believing certain, particular religious beliefs, but it would not preclude *all* religious belief in a diety.

 

Well, yes... 

That is precisely the point that is being made.  

[eternalsummer]

Intuition simply reflects this process going on where we are not aware of certain variables

 

Well there you go.  That lack of awareness is the key difference.  Science, by nature, is always self-aware.  Intuition is something that informs us subconsciously/unconsciously.  Our subconscious/unconscious brains have been "programmed" over millions of years of evolution; programmed before we could even think, much less think about science.

 

This quote doesn't contradict what I'm saying. If you're interested in another short TED talk, you might enjoy this one: Science can answer moral questions

 

Sam Harris is wrong for reasons I and de Waal have already explained.  The source of morality is much older and deeper than science can hope to go.

 

I asked if Einstein's opinion was your evidence. Opinions don't serve as evidence in the scientific method, so I'm wondering if there's more or if that's it.

 

It's not the only "evidence".  I've further elucidated the case.  That said, there's more to understanding than mere scientific evidence.  Einstein is also an authority on the matter of physics and scientific understanding, so his explanation is relevant here.

 

My questions reflect standard scientific inquiry.

 

The natural world limits our ability to test, which is why testing a supernatural variable is impossible.

 

Sure, and that's fine, but again, there's more to understanding than science.  For one, we can reason about more things than we can test; and then there's also intuition, etc.

God is a metaphor for what, precisely?

 

An infinite, eternal unified existence (universe).  It can be taken further to be seen as the "good" portion of that unified existence as well (note that "God" and "good", and "devil" and "evil", are only 1 letter apart).  It's a little like the concept of day; it's a period of 24 hours and also the subsection of those 24 hours that is light (opposed to night).

 

If "lawful harmony of the world" is exactly what it says, can you define it?

 

Similar to how you would define the universe governed by the laws of physics, probably.  Harmony implies intrinsic balance (see relativity).

 

I understand you think they are complementary, and I'm trying to find out how. So far, religion is offered as an explanation based on faith that certain claims are credible, paired with personal experience, whereas science is offered as an explanation based on a particular methodology of exploration. The second one specifically weeds out the first, as it is subjective and therefore not consistent between individuals.

 

Personal experience is a given in both cases.  Religion is good at conveying ideas of eternity, totality, mutuality and morality (eg. karma); a basis for maintaining tradition and social order, etc.  Science and religion simply exist for different things.

 

It is kinda weird that we need to use our brains to understand our brains...I think sometimes people misunderstand what science is...it's a method, and that method can most definitely be used to explain and understand the way we think, feel and behave...

 

Again, an explanation is not the same as an understanding.  You can explain love scientifically with this or that hormone or behavioral description, but how we experience love is how we feel it, not how we think it.  That is true for emotion and emotion is the basis of morality.

 

I think that cosmic background radiation, at least, is direct evidence - it is radiation that still exists in the universe from the time of the Big Bang.

 

However, whether you wish to describe it as direct or indirect, the important point is that this radiation was predicted by Big Bang theory, and when discovered it was evidence that confirmed that theory and refuted other theories (e.g., Steady State theory).

 

It's not direct evidence because you're not measuring/observing the thing itself.  You're measuring an after-effect.

 

But, um, there's science behind our psychology...

 

No there's not.  Science is like a mirror.  It is not the source; it is a mere reflection.

[eternalsummer]

If a change in opinion results in a particular person being elected, what fact has changed?  There may have been projections that candidate A would be elected, and then candidate B is actually elected.  But projections are not facts; they are predictions.  The statement that candidate B was elected is a fact.  What fact changed?

 

A judgment of guilt or innocent is not a fact; judgments are often later proven to have been wrong.   You could say that it is a fact that OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman were both acquitted in a court of law.  Some people have opinions that those verdicts were wrong.  But what fact does that change? 

 

The fact of who's president would have changed.  A judgment of guilt or innocence is a fact insofar as human law is concerned, and insofar as the person being judged is concerned.  The fact of George Zimmerman's freedom depended on the opinions of the jury that acquitted him.

[Barb_]

I'm not here to speak for literal creationists. A lot of religion is metaphor.

 

Whether it's premature or not is conjecture on your part. What science holds currently and has always held is that one cannot see beyond an event horizon. You may believe it will be possible some day but that's an act of faith on your part ;)

 

There are plenty of facts that change with changing opinions. A change of opinion could result in a new president, a bank run, or make the difference between a conviction or an acquittal (for example, see the black/white split on opinions of the guilt/innocence of OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman). A lot of "facts" we take for granted are actually dependent on human psychology/emotion.

Events aren't facts.

 

I may be in a bad mood and decide to cancel a picnic. I changed the course of events, but I didn't change the fact that the sun is shining or that my dress is blue or that I have chicken in my fridge I should probably make for dinner.

 

Events are not facts. By definition, a fact (bricks have more mass than cotton fluff) cannot be changed by an opinion or an emotion.

[Barb_]

The fact of who's president would have changed. A judgment of guilt or innocence is a fact insofar as human law is concerned, and insofar as the person being judged is concerned. The fact of George Zimmerman's freedom depended on the opinions of the jury that acquitted him.

George's freedom isn't a fact either. Freedom is an abstract state dependent on outside circumstances, just like guilt or innocence. Heck, the argument could be made that what exactly constitutes the idea of "freedom" is actually open to interpretation itself, so obviously freedom isn't fact either. Only george knows if he attacked that boy or acted in self defense. Opinion may put him in jail or set him free, but they cannot change the actual facts of the case. You can interpret facts through the lens of opinion, but you can't change them.

[eternalsummer]

Events aren't facts.

 

I may be in a bad mood and decide to cancel a picnic. I changed the course of events, but I didn't change the fact that the sun is shining or that my dress is blue or that I have chicken in my fridge I should probably make for dinner.

 

Events are not facts. You cannot change a fact (bricks have more mass than cotton fluff) with an opinion or an emotion.

 

You're just talking about different types of facts.  Opinions can't change all facts, of course (like whether the sun shines); but opinions can change facts that are contingent upon human interaction.

 

 

George's freedom isn't a fact either. Freedom is an abstract state dependent on outside circumstances, just like guilt or innocence. Only george knows if he attacked that boy or acted in self defense. Opinion may put him in jail or set him free, but they cannot change what actually happened.

 

His physical freedom (he's not in jail) depended on the opinion of a jury.  That freedom (not being in jail) is a physical fact.

[Barb_]

You're just talking about different types of facts. Opinions can't change all facts, of course (like whether the sun shines); but opinions can change facts that are contingent upon human interaction.

 

 

 

His physical freedom (he's not in jail) depended on the opinion of a jury. That freedom (not being in jail) is a physical fact.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what a fact actually is.

[Barb_]

Okay let me try again. George Zimmerman isn't in jail. This is true. It's a fact. Events leading to this fact were indeed caused by any number of things, human opinion being one of them. The point is, I cannot change the fact that Zimmerman is not in jail because I'm of the opinion that he is. I cannot change that fact with my opinion. Human emotion can cause events to happen, but they cannot make the indisputable suddenly open to interpretation. We can disagree on his guilt or whether he should be in jail, but we have to agree that right now at this very moment is anywhere else but jail. Regardless of individual opinion.

[eternalsummer]

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what a fact actually is.

 

Or maybe it's you?

 

": something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information"

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

 

George Zimmerman's physical presence outside of jail is something that exists.  The fact that Obama is president is a true piece of information.

[Barb_]

Okay let me try again. George Zimmerman isn't in jail. This is true. It's a fact. Events leading to this fact were indeed caused by any number of things, human opinion being one of them. The point is, I cannot change the fact that Zimmerman is not in jail because I'm of the opinion that he is. I cannot change that fact with my opinion. Human emotion can cause events to happen, but they cannot make the indisputable suddenly open to interpretation. We can disagree on his guilt or whether he should be in jail, but we have to agree that right now at this very moment is anywhere else but jail. Regardless of individual opinion.

[eternalsummer]

Okay let me try again. George Zimmerman isn't in jail. This is true. It's a fact. Events leading to this fact were indeed caused by any number of things, human opinion being one of them. The point is, I cannot change the fact that Zimmerman is not in jail because I'm of the opinion that he is. I cannot change that fact with my opinion. Human emotion can cause events to happen, but they cannot make the indisputable suddenly open to interpretation. We can disagree on his guilt or whether he should be in jail, but we have to agree that right now at this very moment is anywhere else but jail. Regardless of individual opinion.

 

No, you can't change that because you weren't on the jury.  The opinions of the jury decided his freedom; meaning, opinions still decided the fact, even if it wasn't your opinion in this case.

[Barb_]

Or maybe it's you?

 

": something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information"

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

 

George Zimmerman's physical presence outside of jail is something that exists. The fact that Obama is president is a true piece of information.

We can agree on that. Those two facts have happened. Opinion cannot change that. That is exactly my point. Facts are something that*have happened*. Opinion may have had a hand in creating the event that is now fact. Opinion can create a new event such as Obama is no longer president and now Hillary Clinton is in the White House. We changed events but we haven't changed the fact that Obama was elected in the first place.

[Barb_]

No, you can't change that because you weren't on the jury. The opinions of the jury decided his freedom; meaning, opinions still decided the fact, even if it wasn't your opinion in this case.

New events become new facts. They don't change old ones.

[eternalsummer]

We can agree on that. Those two facts have happened. Opinion cannot change that. That is exactly my point. Facts are something that*have happened*. Opinion may have had a hand in creating the event that is now fact. Opinion can create a new event such as Obama is no longer president and now Hillary Clinton is in the White House. We changed events but we haven't changed the fact that Obama was elected in the first place.

 

Opinion can change whether somebody is free if he is convicted by a jury.  That is opinion changing a fact.  The fact of who is president can be changed by opinion.  Facts aren't just something that *have happened*.  Facts are something that exist.  They aren't just events.  An election is an event.  Presidency is a fact.  An acquittal or a conviction is an event; freedom or incarceration is a fact.

 

New events become new facts. They don't change old ones.

 

Change is always in the present for the future.  Nobody's claiming the ability to time-travel here.

[songsparrow]

Saying that opinions can affect people's future behavior is different than saying that opinions can change established facts.

 

The jury's opinion of George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence affected their behavior in choosing whether to vote that he was guilty or not guilty.

His freedom from jail was not a fact unless and until the jury acquitted. 

If he had been convicted, his freedom from jail would not have been a fact. 

 

Now that the jury verdict and his freedom are facts, my opinion that the verdict was right or wrong does not change either the fact that the jury acquitted him or the fact that he is now free.  

 

If the members of the jury now changed their opinion and decided that he was guilty and not innocent, that would not change the fact that they acquitted him or the fact that he is now free.

[Barb_]

Opinion can change whether somebody is free if he is convicted by a jury. That is opinion changing a fact. The fact of who is president can be changed by opinion. Facts aren't just something that *have happened*. Facts are something that exist. They aren't just events. An election is an event. Presidency is a fact. An acquittal or a conviction is an event; freedom or incarceration is a fact.

 

 

Change is always in the present for the future. Nobody's claiming the ability to time-travel here.

Well I'm done. Nothing more to see here, folks.

[eternalsummer]

Saying that opinions can affect people's future behavior is different than saying that opinions can change established facts.

 

The jury's opinion of George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence affected their behavior in choosing whether to vote that he was guilty or not guilty.

His freedom from jail was not a fact unless and until the jury acquitted. 

If he had been convicted, his freedom from jail would not have been a fact. 

 

Now that the jury verdict and his freedom are facts, my opinion that the verdict was right or wrong does not change either the fact that the jury acquitted him or the fact that he is now free.  

 

If the members of the jury now changed their opinion and decided that he was guilty and not innocent, that would not change the fact that they acquitted him or the fact that he is now free.

 

If he had been convicted, his presence in jail would have been a fact.  That would have been opinion changing the fact of Zimmerman's freedom or not.

 

To say that opinion can change fact does not mean anyone's opinion can change any fact at any time.  I can't decide to turn the sun off, but I can decide to turn the lights off in my house.  The fact that my lights are on is a fact my opinion can change.  I can decide to cut my hair.  After I cut my hair the fact is I will have a new haircut.  I can't get that hair back, no matter my opinion, after the fact.  ~context

[Matryoshka]

New events become new facts. They don't change old ones.

 

The thing is, facts like "who is president" or "is George in jail" are not facts without a basis in time.  They are time-based.  George Washginton was alive in 1776.  Now he is dead.  The fact that he is dead now does not change the fact that he was once alive. 

 

"ThatGuy is president" as an unwavering fact unattached to a time implies that he always was and always will be, and is somehow immortal (and I guess we no longer have a term limits).  By its very nature, the fact of "who is president" includes "at a particular time". 

[Catwoman]

It is kinda weird that we need to use our brains to understand our brains...

Stop it. My head is going to explode. :D

 

Too much thinking is bad, and requires immediate cupcakes.

 

I'll be back to catch up on the thread (not that anyone cares, but I'll be back anyway) after I'm done eating. :)

[Barb_]

Stop it. My head is going to explode. :D

 

Too much thinking is bad, and requires immediate cupcakes.

 

I'll be back to catch up on the thread (not that anyone cares, but I'll be back anyway) after I'm done eating. :)

I'm having a bubble bath. Save some cake for me. I may be back later.

[livetoread]

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific fact.

 

As I understand it, both you and Tara are correct. It is considered a fact that common descent with modification happened. It is considered a fact because so much evidence supports it that it is no longer really contested. However, there is much about the TOE that is not considered a fact. For example, we know natural selection plays a large role in the fact that evolution happens, but we aren't sure how much and to what extent other factors also drive the process.

 

It is a scientific fact that bacteria can cause human diseases. But so much around that fact is being revised and clarified, because there is still much to learn about the "how". Same with evolution. Common descent with modification (including humans) happened. All life shares common ancestry. But the "how" is being worked out.

[songsparrow]

To say that opinion can change fact does not mean anyone's opinion can change any fact at any time.  I can't decide to turn the sun off, but I can decide to turn the lights off in my house.  The fact that my lights are on is a fact my opinion can change.  I can decide to cut my hair.  After I cut my hair the fact is I will have a new haircut.  I can't get that hair back, no matter my opinion, after the fact.  ~context

 

An opinion is a judgment that may or may not be based on facts.  Opinions cannot change past facts.  Using your examples:

 

The fact that your lights are currently on in your house is a fact that your action can change, not your opinion.  It may be your opinion that having the lights on is wasting electricity.  That opinion may spur you to action to turn off the lights.  But that opinion in no way changes the fact that your lights are currently on.  Even your action only creates a new and different fact going forward.  It is still an unchanged fact that your lights were on in your house until x:xx time.  After you turn off your lights, it's a new fact that your lights were off after x:xx time.

 

I agree that once you've cut your hair, that is an established fact.  Your opinion about whether it is a good or bad haircut will not change the fact that your hair was cut.   In this case, there is also no action that you can take to change the fact that your hair was cut.  

[Dicentra]

I think maybe there is a disconnect here between the philosophical definition of the word "fact" and the scientific definition.  From Wikipedia (I know - bad, bad Dicentra):

"A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments."

 

From further down the article:

"The word fact derives from the Latin factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[1] The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[2]

 

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is blue or Matter of fact,[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination." Filmmaker Werner Herzog distinguishes clearly between the two, claiming that "fact creates norms, and truth illumination".[4]

 

Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[5][6]

 

Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[7] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.[8]

 

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.[9] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").[10]

 

Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."[11]

 

Under "Fact in Science":

"In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

 

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

 

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21]"

 

Under "Fact and the Scientific Method":

"Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]"

 

The way scientists use the word "fact" differs from its use in history, law, or even every day life.  I think that's why the conversation seems to be going in circles. :)  There's a miscommunication between the parties as to the "facts" regarding the word "fact". ;) :D

 

[Haiku]

I can't decide to turn the sun off, but I can decide to turn the lights off in my house.  The fact that my lights are on is a fact my opinion can change.  

 

No, your opinion doesn't change anything. You can sit on your couch having an opinion about the lights all you want, but nothing happens until you do something about it. This is not "opinion changing fact." Facts are what they are regardless of what people think of them. The fact that people can act to change events or states of being is something entirely different.

[eternalsummer]

 

 

An opinion is a judgment that may or may not be based on facts.  Opinions cannot change past facts.  Using your examples:

 

The fact that your lights are currently on in your house is a fact that your action can change, not your opinion.  It may be your opinion that having the lights on is wasting electricity.  That opinion may spur you to action to turn off the lights.  But that opinion in no way changes the fact that your lights are currently on.  Even your action only creates a new and different fact going forward.  It is still an unchanged fact that your lights were on in your house until x:xx time.  After you turn off your lights, it's a new fact that your lights were off after x:xx time.

 

I agree that once you've cut your hair, that is an established fact.  Your opinion about whether it is a good or bad haircut will not change the fact that your hair was cut.   In this case, there is also no action that you can take to change the fact that your hair was cut.  

 

 

What an opinion is based on is irrelevant.  I've already addressed changing "past facts".  Obviously we're not talking about time-travel.  We are talking about making changes going forward.

 

Talking about action turning off the lights rather than opinion is mere semantics. My opinion changes the fact of my action.  How's that?

 

No, your opinion doesn't change anything. You can sit on your couch having an opinion about the lights all you want, but nothing happens until you do something about it. This is not "opinion changing fact." Facts are what they are regardless of what people think of them. The fact that people can act to change events or states of being is something entirely different.

 

See above.

[Erin]

I'm not suggesting it is necessary to be an atheist before one can accept evolutionary theory. I'm suggesting that to hold religious beliefs is to believe science is wrong in some aspect, whether it's toe or just a vague, amorphous belief that "God is love." It is to impose a religious explanation in lieu of a scientific one somewhere down the line. 

 

For example, what, in particular?  

 

(I always find it intriguing when people tell me what others can or can't believe...)

[songsparrow]

What an opinion is based on is irrelevant.  I've already addressed changing "past facts".  Obviously we're not talking about time-travel.  We are talking about making changes going forward.

 

OK, so we agree that opinions can not change established, past facts.

 

As I understand it, you are arguing that opinions can influence or determine actions, and thus change which future facts will come into being.  I think I understand your point.  I have a problem thinking of it as facts in the future being changed, because as I see it they don't exist yet.  The future is the realm of predictions, probabilities and potentialities, but not yet facts.  In that way, I can see that opinions can have a causal effect on whether candidate A or B is elected, but I can't think of it as changing the fact that "candidate A is elected" into "candidate B is elected" because neither of those statements are yet fact and only one of them will ever be fact.  But I can think of it as affecting which future fact comes into being, so perhaps that is mostly a semantic distinction.  Thanks for exploring the issue.

[songsparrow]

Oops, double post