I agree with you.  I was not rejecting science as a whole, I was writing about some people I've seen trying to do it without understanding the implications of this.  I can't possibly reject science since the last couple of years that's all I've been learning: Calculus, Physics, Materials Science, Circuit Analysis, Programming, etc... Thats why I wrote twice about it being possible to just reject a theory or ideology (or group of them).  About evolution, in my first post I stated that I do not think it would conflict with my christian beliefs, I also wrote that I don't have a set position (creationism, ID, theist evolution) because I don't have the requiered knowledge in the field to defend a position.  So, I also don't have a problem with the ID movement.

The problem with Natural Selection is that by default it is a wide net. You can't basically reject it, because of all the cross discipline issues that arise. That is something that usually goes ignored. It isn't just a amorphous concept out on the edge. No its right in the center casting forth tendrils into hundreds of fields. It just isn't something that can be removed from the equations. Without Natural Selection in the mix the results aren't forthcoming. The theory is a fundamental keystone. You can't toss it out, anymore then you can toss out Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics, Gravity, or General Relativity. Without Natural Selection entire fields just collapse.

Without Natural Selection you have no genetics, epidemiology, botany, pharmacology, animal husbandry, agricultural science, environmentalism, zoology, marine biology, meteorology, paleontology, archaeology, sociology, biology, geology, anatomy, psychology, and well the list is ridiculously long. Natural Selection is the bed rock in so many disciplines you just can't cut it out. The theory is systemic, and it isn't even done infiltrating other sciences yet. The theory is being applied all over the damn place. It is even making it into software applications.

Basically by default rejecting natural selection, and believing in most of science isn't even an option. Natural Selection is hard at work bringing you most of what you need. The theory isn't seperate it is all encompassing. The term theory is often being misused. The idea is that it is just an idea. Well it isn't this is an applied science.

My point wasn't that rejecting itself was a wide net, but in the case of Natural Selection it is a very wide net. You really can't seperate it from the scientific enterprise as a whole. Just doesn't work that way. Too ingrained, too widespread, and far too critical to understanding. Which is what results in concrete application.

Oh by the way off on a tandem. The Amish don't dismiss science, and technology out right. They merely have very rigid rules in regards to its use. So yes they do use science and modern technology. Though honestly I wouldn't see them as hypocritical, because they think of themselves as seperate, and thus feel no need to denounce anything not within their sphere. I see dozens of members of the Amish community on a nearly daily basis.

-

I've always wondered similar things. Somebody at some point has to have tried to explain away Radio Carbon Dating, the verifiable proof that the world is over 5,000 years old.

I suppose the easy counter-argument would be that the world was created with certain things with varyingly lower levels of Carbon 14 that created the illusion of older creation, but it's still a neat thought.

This thread has reminded me of the often cited example of a creationist preacher on TV telling of how the Universe did not start with a big bang by using technology that can be used to prove the big bang.

First off, geology, meteorology, archaeology, anatomy, psychology, and sociology don't really have anything to do with natural selection because the study of rock formations, weather, artefacts from earlier civilizations, the current formation of the human body, the study of the human psyche, and the study of human society have nothing to do with how the diversity of species happened on this planet.

The other disciplines do heavily use evolution, but in most cases it is used as a blanket explanation of how things came to be, while these fields are mostly focused on the current state of things. If people believed that the current world was 45 years old and created by Zork (the Destroyer) and he willed things to be the way they are it would have a very minor impact to how these fields operated.

Basically, while I believe that creationism is foolish, how you believe the world came to be in no way impacts the observations of how it currently operates.

Actually HappySqurriel your demonstrating my point quite nicely in that you think these subjects aren't interconnected. Which is usually the last desperate hope or outright denial I hear when I bring up this point. Basically the people who go off on their tantrums do actually know that they don't know. Somewhere in their head the also know that they never wanted to know all along. They have no argument and they have no defense. That is why it seems to hurt them so much. You can almost always keep your cool when you think your in control, but when you find that you are helpless thats when you usually go off the rails.

You need to brush up on geology, because life is a expert rock builder. Be it Limestone, coal, petroleum, and a plethora of crystals. Natural Selection is at the heart of why it happens, and where it happens, and where things can be found. To be blunt understanding the evolution of life on this planet is as fundamental to understanding geology as Volcanism, Plate tectonics, and erosion. Without life you don't get a state like Florida which is built of limestone. Basically the carcasses of dead sea creatures. We can readily see this, but Natural Selection tells us why this habitat allowed for this to occur. Further more Natural Selection can look at the planets record, and say look for this biproduct of biology here, because swamps don't grow in places that were mountains, and oil doesn't form in places that were never oceans. Any prospector looking for oil or coal in virgen territory isn't going to be long for a career without a rudimentary knowledge of paleogeology.

Archaeology has more to do with Natural Selection then you think, because human beings aren't seperate from the forces of natural selection. Alterations in the biosphere has had profound impact upon the culture and the very survival of past cultures. Without understanding the connection between a ever changing environment, and the people that live there your missing something incredibly critical. Look to late Ice Age settlements many of which can now be found under water, and see how the change in environment altered the flora and fauna, and see how the human population was forces to respond. Look to Meso America and the Mayans. Many leading theories ascribe the fall of the civilization to ecological catastrophe, and then compare that to the modern populations in the region.

Going onto psychology I can't believe you are unaware of this. Natural Selection has been applied to the human condition almost since its inception. There is a reason we look to our primate cousins to understand the origins of our own behavior. Why do our brains function in certain ways while not functioning in other ways. That might on the face of it seem more beneficial.  Why do we share similar psychological phenomena like common dreams. This field even has a name Evolutionary Psychology. Go and look it up.

Anatomy I swear this one really fucking shocks me. Anatomy is the study of the structure of living things. Quite frankly it has been said that there is no understanding of Anatomy without a understanding of Natural Selection. Living things are riddled with illogical contradictions. From difficulty in child berth for humans, to hiccups, to gill slits in fetuses, to the propensity to herniate. I could just rattle these babies off all day, and Natural Selection is that explanation it isn't even optional. Ask any reputable Anatomist.

Meteorology this is the one we are bombarded with every day. Plant life is an extreme arbiter of this planets atmosphere. Just going beyond the fact that it pumps millions of tons of Oxygen into the atmosphere every day it also sequesters water, alters the thermal signature of the ground, and removes kinetic energy from the wind. Understanding how a bioshpere is going to change in response to a changing environment is crucial to understanding future weather patterns. High end computer models have to take these effects into account. The weather isn't just up in the sky its at ground level.

Sociology, you actually said Sociology? Eugenics, and Social Darwinism don't ring a bell. Hold up I just got a call yeah this is the holocaust calling, and saying what the fuck. You have to be shitting me Sociology and Natural Selection have been dancing together since day one of print. Usually giving people bad ideas, and weak justifications to do some pretty evil shit. That said respectable Sociology incorporates no value base when it comes to Natural Selection. It is used pretty effectively to understand group behavior like the mob mentality, and frankly without Natural Selection it would be a complete mystery. The behavior is basically logically in the past sense, but not in the present sense. 

You really need to read up on the subject, because your just not tying everything together.

I think you need to look up what Natural Selection and Evolution is all about before you talk about how interconnected it is with all these fields. Someone can easily agree with the premise that rock formations were built from the remains of dead animals, but that this is not a demonstration of evolution; and they would do this by pointing out that all things die and return to the earth and you don’t require evolution for this to happen.

Archaeology has little to do with evolution either because it is focused on the technological and cultural adaptations throughout history; and only a very small portion of archaeology deals with the biological adaptation of humans. The reason for this is heavily pragmatic as relics and archaeological sites that are older than (about) 2000 years old are amazingly rare, and we may decades (or centuries) where no significant sites are uncovered.

The fact that life has an impact on our environment and weather doesn’t mean that the theory of how life came to be on this planet impacts the study of how life on the planet today impacts the weather.

Much like how studying physics in a friction free environment doesn’t mean that a friction free environment exists, studying a field using evolutionary models does not mean that evolution exists; and the use of the model does not become invalid as a study point because it doesn’t reflect reality.

Anatomy is easy, because the study of the human (or animal) form today has very little to do with whether (or how) that form came to be. Regardless of whether humans evolved to have two lungs or we were created with two lungs, we have two lungs and they operate in a particular way.

Basically, while I fully support evolution, your argument is trying to create a false equivalency. Even though modern theoretical physics is centered around string theory doesn’t mean that someone who thinks string theory is intellectual masturbation is denying the existence of electricity; or that someone who doubts the big bang as a theory for the creation of the universe is denying the existence of planets in our solar system.

Lol, there are actually people that denounce science? What? XD

@HappySqurriel

God damn it all the forum ate my post again. I am going to need to learn to copy paste my entire response before I hit reply. Anyway I have to head off to work, but I will rewrite my response tomorrow, and we can continue this discussion then.