http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_am erican.asp
Surprisingly honest and scientific, for a group which is forever being derided as useless idiots.
One day a wandering ant reports back to the colony that he experienced "God" (you) and that there is always food on your kitchen countertop. Upon investigation by the colony, the food is definitely there, but there remains speculation about "God" (you) because you are remarkably difficult for the ants to experiment upon: they can't get your attention. You do seemingly random things. And then when you go on vacation... it just about kills the "God" theory outright. Until you come back.
The body of knowledge the ants build up about you (e.g. eating patterns etc.) is not "science" per se, because it isn't controllable. It's much more like religion--vague but important. Some ants believe in you, some don't... but the religion--the accumulated experience of some ants--is important, and effects the survival of the colony.
Which is how science and religion are the same. Neither are absolute. Both are based on experience. And in the end, the only way to determine which theories are adaptive is to observe them over time... and even then realize that one doesn't actually "know"--only that for the time being one theory seems to work better.
If only the ants could see this, they would be kinder to each other, and pay more attention to each other's experiences and reasons for believing what they do.
Early on in this discussion, an "atheist" was belittling a Creationist boss. It should be observed that atheism, the belief that Deity doesn't exist, is a pure-faith belief system. Any superintelligence could evade detection indefinitely. Therefore, no evidence can ever be provided which will support the "Diety Doesn't Exist" theory, because by definition any such evidence could be contrived by Deity. The only meaningful statement would be "I personally don't think it is adaptive to explain X in terms of a superintelligence." And even then, the other party may have had different experiences which lead them, with good reason, to conclusions which are far more religious than yours.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_am erican.asp
Surprisingly honest and scientific, for a group which is forever being derided as useless idiots.
One day a wandering ant reports back to the colony that he experienced "God" (you) and that there is always food on your kitchen countertop. Upon investigation by the colony, the food is definitely there, but there remains speculation about "God" (you) because you are remarkably difficult for the ants to experiment upon: they can't get your attention. You do seemingly random things. And then when you go on vacation... it just about kills the "God" theory outright. Until you come back. The body of knowledge the ants build up about you (e.g. eating patterns etc.) is not "science" per se, because it isn't controllable. It's much more like religion--vague but important. Some ants believe in you, some don't... but the religion--the accumulated experience of some ants--is important, and effects the survival of the colony. Which is how science and religion are the same. Neither are absolute. Both are based on experience. And in the end, the only way to determine which theories are adaptive is to observe them over time... and even then realize that one doesn't actually "know"--only that for the time being one theory seems to work better. If only the ants could see this, they would be kinder to each other, and pay more attention to each other's experiences and reasons for believing what they do. Early on in this discussion, an "atheist" was belittling a Creationist boss. It should be observed that atheism, the belief that Deity doesn't exist, is a pure-faith belief system. Any superintelligence could evade detection indefinitely. Therefore, no evidence can ever be provided which will support the "Diety Doesn't Exist" theory, because by definition any such evidence could be contrived by Deity. The only meaningful statement would be "I personally don't think it is adaptive to explain X in terms of a superintelligence." And even then, the other party may have had different experiences which lead them, with good reason, to conclusions which are far more religious than yours.