Human evolution from a scientific stantpoint - Scientific debate, not a religious one

This cuts short what he was trying to say in his theory of evolution.. the survival of the fittest. Now I have argued in a somewhat objective manner because of my belief, on this topic in the past.. but I'll try and put that in check for now.... key word: for now
Anyway, Darwin here is trying to give us a fulcrum to which the present species of nowadays exist. There were those that existed in the past that had the same look, genetic code and what have you.. but due to the "natural" things that happen in this earth.. such as attack by preditors, or natural disasters, some have gone exinct.. But to those who have survive, have yielded offsprings whether plants or animals that have been well equiped to withstand the ever changing surroundings they face.. Thus, they are the fittest.. and have survived.

Yes, that's also an example of evolution. That's actually not too different from my moth example. However, in order for the surviving species to evolve, there must already be a genetic variation in the species. For example, the majority were light-colored moths, with the genetic variation being the dark-colored moths (a mutation of the color gene). Then came natural selection (the birds eating the light colored moths), which allowed the dark colored moths to multiply. It was not a gradation from light-to-dark colored moths, because the light colored moths died out. It was the success and survival of the very small group of dark colored moths.

Now to the origin of man. I really enjoyed your theory on the origin of man... Good charts too
But this is what I want to know.. According to science, there is infact no doubt that you are correct.. but tell me something.. if our brains are going to evolve further what do you see the human race turning into 2.5 million years from now... if the sun can still keep its cool till that time?

To tell you the truth, I couldn't even fathom a guess. Why?

1. Unless we develop the technology to terraform and colonize mars and other planets, we will use up all the natural resources, food, oxygen, etc on earth, and die.

2. At the rapid pace of technology, we COULD be able to populate other planets, allowing us time for our mental abilities to evolve. I don't see a PHYSICAL change in the human anatomy, but I believe that human beings will be able to perform at a mental level much more advanced than we are capable of today.

3. 2.5 million years from now, we will most likely have perfected gene therapy. Scientists would be able to alter the genes of humans before birth and be able to FORCE evolution on a controlled scale. For example, we could conaltertrol the genes that control proteins involved with muscle growth in order to breed worker humans, or we could control the genes that affect thinking and brain usage, making more intelligent humans. Either way, I believe that evolution will occur twice: once in order to allow humans a higher level of mental thinking, and second; the evolution that humans force upon themselves via gene therapy.

Call it farfetched, but it's still a guess. No one can see 2.5 million years into the future.

That was Joe's arguement about Viper's theory (or wherever he got it from) on evolution being carried by mutation.. which is in fact true.. but define what you mean by a group. If in fact a group mutates in such a way, that in fact, helps them to survive the seemingly present "forces" that cause them to adapt, where did that group come from. Thus I think Viper may be correct on the mere fact that an individual out of a group starts/mutates/gets the basic trait and then passes this to its offspring. These traits become dormant instead of staying recessive.. and thus a new species is born. Say hello to my little friend!

Evolution can be summed up in, and basically consists of, three steps: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. That is the process of Evolution.

Let's go back to the moth example. The evolution of the dark colored moth did NOT begin with just one moth, it began with a group of them. That is what I mean by a group. Let me explain, using the above three sentences as headings...

Genes Mutate
A generation, or rather, a group of moths from the overall moth population, mutates. The gene responsible for colorization mutates, creating a group of dark colored moths. We'll call this group the "mutant" group. So we have a dark-colored mutant group, consisting of the minority (only 2% when first formed), and we have the light-colored group (98% of the english moth population). Thus the first step is complete: the genes have mutated.

Individuals are selected
By this, I mean "natural selection occurs." The soot from the factories during the industrial era covers the trees that the moths frequently land on. As a result, the birds in the area can easily see the light colored moths against a dark background, while the dark colored moths are hidden. Therefore, the light colored moths are devoured, while the dark colored moths are spared. This gives the overall dark colored moth population the chance to increase their population. Thus, the second step is complete: the individuals (the dark moths) have been selected (for evolution).

Populations evolve
Because the dark colored moths have a better survivability rate than the light colored moths, they can successfully breed generation after generation of dark colored moths. Each successive generation carries on the dark-colored traits because the color is affected by the GENE, which has mutated. GENES are passed on from generation to generation. Therefore, over the years, the dark colored moths grew to dominate the population. Thus, the third step is complete: the population has evolved.

That is what I meant by how evolution starts not with an individual, but with a group. The evolution of the english moth did not start with ONE dark colored moth, but with a GROUP of dark colored moths.

[vx_unicom]

So.....u've decided to make a topic based only on science, then let the debating began.

[TarkanX]

What I meant was that as a whole, human beings are only capable of accessing 10% of the brain's POTENTIAL ability. As a whole.

The 10% thing is a myth, it doesn't exist, we aren't going to be able to use psychic powers unless the DNA is our body is mutated in some way that it doesn't kill you, or make you sick, or if we use genetic engineering (The spoon bending stuff, and tapping into the dead is fake). There is no "potential" of the brain, the reason why we advance is because we build off other things (and that's how we get smarter), and we are more aware of things now, that we can quickly find a solution to it, like you said before, we make the environment change.

I believe human beings are going to start evolving towards the latter....our brainpower will continue to evolve while our bodies physiclaly do not.

I have been pondering about this for a while, although this is strange, since humans today are stronger than humans 100 years ago (mostly due to the awareness of nutrition and growth enhancements), can you go in depth with this?

The 10% thing is a myth, it doesn't exist, we aren't going to be able to use psychic powers unless the DNA is our body is mutated in some way that it doesn't kill you, or make you sick, or if we use genetic engineering (The spoon bending stuff, and tapping into the dead is fake). There is no "potential" of the brain, the reason why we advance is because we build off other things (and that's how we get smarter), and we are more aware of things now, that we can quickly find a solution to it, like you said before, we make the environment change.

Oh, allright. I just remember hearing more than a few times that we can only use something like 10% of our brains.

Either way, I figure that in the future, we'll evolve into humans kind of like that dude from the movie Powder, with the highly evolved mental abilities.

I have been pondering about this for a while, although this is strange, since humans today are stronger than humans 100 years ago (mostly due to the awareness of nutrition and growth enhancements), can you go in depth with this?

That right there is a common misconception about evolution. That is an example of morphological change, which can occur without evolution (and vice versa). Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism's offspring. Evolution is caused first by the mutation of a gene, followed by natural selection and then growth of the population. Better diet and medicine do not affect one's genes, and therefore don't count as evolution, because they are not passed on from generation to generation.

Therefore, change caused only by environmental conditions do not count as evolution. However, environmental conditions can indeed cause a change in the genetic makeup of a group of creatures, and will THEN cause evolution. Only as long as genetic changes are involved, and not simply physiological changes.

[blanka09]

To the dude who said we don't use 10% of our brain... bravo! :biggrin:
Well, to be honest with ya, it is infact a myth that was developed by misinterpretations of well noted scientists.

"We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources" (from The Energies of Men, p. 12)

That was by William James... written sometime in the 1900s ... Now that could have been where the whole myth started from... but I for one, am not soo sure about that. However, it has been scientifically proven, that if small areas of the cerebral coretex of our brain, could lead to devastating changes in our behaviour. Even though rats could still learn to do simple tasks with that effect... However, we aren't rats! :biggrin: ... but wombats. *cough*

Thus, neurosurgeons are always careful to map out the brain before undertaken any serious operations such has those that have to do with brain tumors and the likes.

Scientists would be able to alter the genes of humans before birth and be able to FORCE evolution on a controlled scale. For example, we could conaltertrol the genes that control proteins involved with muscle growth in order to breed worker humans, or we could control the genes that affect thinking and brain usage, making more intelligent humans.

Now see.. that can't be good for it turns us to simple ants! It doesn't sound plausible or reasonable for scientist to manipulate the genetic structure of a foetus in order for it to match or step up to the needs of the community it might face. Think of it, you're gonna have child.. and some foolish doctors are trying to turn him into macho man while he's still in the womb. As, the higher animals that we are, we are supposed to determine whether or not we choose to build up on our genetic code. If the blue prints of a foetus' genetic code would prove that he'll some time grow up to be really strong and probably tall, then so be it! I don't think it's a good idea for science to try and pre- destin (so to say) the lives of mankind.

The gene responsible for colorization mutates, creating a group of dark colored moths

That's the key phrase in ur arguement about the dark colored moths.. Well.. I also enjoy your characterization of them as the *cougH* mutant group... <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Dreams Don't Die!!</span> .. forgive my memory lapse...

But if you think of mutation... as say, like that in

[SSJKarma]

if we are so advanced guys... explain me why science cannot solves all the brain problems we got if we ahave figured it out entirely ?

again... science didn't prooved anything and science is nothing more then man made theory which by any means could be as wrong as religion itself !

that is from my point of view and my point of view on this is... why would science be true if it was made by a specie that does lots of mistakes in his lifetime ?

now try and answer this question !
i'm not saying the 10% brain using thing is right... it is sure to be false, but is the human brain really used entirely by our conscious ? i say no, since by the same scientist who said they know the brain, they been saying that only 1% of ourself is our conscious part, the other 99% is our subconscious !

and that sub conscious is faq from being 100% documented !
and don't tell me these aren't facts, cause they are. i used to listen to discovery channels and other channels like that all day long !

EDIT:
EN SABAT NUR is APOCALYPSE, anyone who knows marve| knows THAT !
and also, it is said to be him who started it... but then again, it is a false god like religion on him cause many many many mutants were man made because of their genetic experiement, so there is no way APOCALYPSE could have been the mutant who started it, even tho he was around 5000 years ago !



Edited By SSJKarma on Mar. 23 2004 at 21:21

[Angel-Eyes]

"Hear one side, and you will be in the dark; hear both sides, and all will be clear"------------Haliburton




I havent read any posts opposing evolution so I think I should tell the other side of the story.



First off I would like to correct myself: I said "evolution" , but it should be called "the theory of evolution"

I will not use the Bible as a source because you will just say its not scientific, so I will use science to prove "science" wrong.


ok heres my debate, please read it all:


The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." (also known as entropy)

In other words: energy degenerates.



The theory of evolution completely contradicts the 2nd law! :laughlong:

---------------------------------------------------------
next point:

Lack of physical evidence.

all the evolutionists have is some fossils that they say are 4 billion years old. BULL CRAP!

the fossils that they have found ( no matter how old they say) are clearly separate species and not a half way monkeyman. THERE IS NO MISSING LINK.

-------------------------------------------------------
next point

Logic fallaceis


just think about it.......................ok are you done?

just as I though, LUDICROUS!


------------------------------------------------
next point

Mathmatics prove it wrong

according to the evolutionary timescale the earth is approximately eight to ten billions of years old, that is the equivalent to 1020 or one hundred quintillion seconds.

according to the same theory there are approximately 1080 atoms found in the universe. even with these astounding numbers, it is highly unlikely to achieve odds such as 1 in 103,000,000 the same odds that a scientist named Edward Huxley estimated to be the odds of a horse evolving, let alone the chances of more complex life such as humans.

---------------------------------------------------------

Verdict

just as other theories have been subject to rigorous standards in the past, evolution must also be subject to the same testing. due to the logical fallacies, mathematical impossibilities and the abundance of physical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution it cannot be either plausible, nor believable




well there you go, i didnt even have to use the Bible as a source.(dont get me started on that)



IF YOU SKIMMED MY POST, RE-READ IT NOW.
--------------------------------------------------------
bottom line


Darwin must have had malaria or somthing while he was on the Beagle :laughlong:

blanka09
Now see.. that can't be good for it turns us to simple ants! It doesn't sound plausible or reasonable for scientist to manipulate the genetic structure of a foetus in order for it to match or step up to the needs of the community it might face. Think of it, you're gonna have child.. and some foolish doctors are trying to turn him into macho man while he's still in the womb. As, the higher animals that we are, we are supposed to determine whether or not we choose to build up on our genetic code. If the blue prints of a foetus' genetic code would prove that he'll some time grow up to be really strong and probably tall, then so be it! I don't think it's a good idea for science to try and pre- destin (so to say) the lives of mankind.

I never said I liked it, i just said that was my guess.

Think about it....scientists are always trying to "play god." WHAT IF scientists could enhance the gene responsible for the body's ability to fend off disease and heal? We could be able to force-evolve humans that would be immune to the world's diseases and be able to self-heal wounds. In an instant, scientists could theoretically make evolution happen. Remember what I said: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Scientists could force-mutate the gene responsible for the body's ability to defend against diseases. They breed a new generation of humans, and presto! You have a group of individuals. Give the group time, and they can breed. The genetic changes are passed on, and eventually, once all the pre-evolution humans die off, you have a brand new species of human beings, completely impervious to any disease known to man. Evolution at its best, for its best.

So naturally, my guess is that scientists would say "why stop there?" Since I predict that our bodies will stop evolving due to laziness, scientists will most likely try to alter the genes responsible for muscle growth, etc, and therefore be able to EVOLVE a healthier race of human, capable of maintaining great physical strength without having to work out and build up muscle via physical workouts. That's just my guess though, like I said.

Anyway, let's get back to the real world. Why did the gene responsible for that mutation affect a group of moths... rather than just one moth. After all, as Darwin states, an individual mutates, bears offspring and the genes are transferred... think hereditry.. from the recessibe form to the dormant form. What if that very gene is recessive in some of the white moths... call it far fetched.. but like you say... it is after all a wild guess. But my point is, there's no particular evidence that the so-called gene that caused the mutation didn't take hold of one moth before spreading to its offspring.

I do have to admit, it is indeed a possibility, and a good one at that. The possibility is very large that the mutation could have indeed begun with just one moth, and then via breeding would have increased to many moths (the original's offspring). Let me offer my opinion on the matter (I am in no way disregarding your statement, but merely offering a different possibility that could go along with it).

Changes based solely on environmental conditions do NOT count as evolution. For example, many people believe that humans are still evolving, because humans of today are much larger and stronger than we were in the recent past....say....200 or 300 years ago. This is NOT, however, due to evolution. This was do to factors such as better medicine and a healthier diet. Such things do not affect the genes of the humans, and therefore are not hereditary traits.

It IS possible, however, that environmental changes could sometimes be the reason why the genes mutate. For example, the moths. It is indeed possible that when the dark colored moths were still the 2% minority, they may have been temporarily separated from the main group of light colored moths. This group then may have encountered situations in the environment--most likely predatorial activities--that would have forced the moths to unconsciously and unknowingly alter their own genes, changing their color to hide better. Therefore, they may all have been affected at once, forming the original mutant group.

That is just a possibility, however. Your idea does indeed make perfect sense, and I can't debate against it from a factual stantpoint.

___________

SSJ Karma: Let me briefly give my feelings on science's outlook vs religion's outlook, just so we can clarify something.

According to religion....god (or some other higher power, depending on your religion) created man. Man then created science. Science, however, is filled with much error, and is therefore less accurate than religion.

According to science....evolution/science created man. Then, man created god...or rather, the idea of god. Man has ALWAYS been a curious race, asking questions. However, before the dawn of science, such answers were not available. Therefore, man created religion in order to try and answer questions without proof. Then, when science was better developed, it became capable of answering the questions that they previously looked to religion for.

Let me use an example: According to the bible, the sun rotates around the earth, the earth is older than the sun, and the earth has only existed for about 12,000 years. According to science, the earth rotates around the sun, the sun is older than the EARTH, and the earth has existed for billions of years.

Now, science will say "religion is wrong, because science has been able to determine the age of the earth and the sun." Religion, however, has a rebuttal: "god created man, man is filled with error. Therefore, science is not accurate, because it is man-created, and therefore errored. Religion is the true answer."

However, science can also say "No...science created man, and man in turn created religion. Therefore, religion is not accurate, because it is man created, and therefore errored as well. Science is the true answer."

See what I mean? There will always be two different outlooks....one from a religious standpoint, and one from a scientific standpoint.

kester_

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." (also known as entropy)
In other words: energy degenerates.
The theory of evolution completely contradicts the 2nd law!

You completely misinterpreted the Law.

The second law of thermodynamics does NOT translate into "energy degenerates." The second law of thermodynamics translates into "if, in an energy exchange, energy enters the system, then the energy of the system will be more than the initial state. If, in an exchange, energy leaves the system, then there will be less energy than in the state."

What if no energy exchange occurs?

Evolution is NOT a theory of energy. Evolution is a theory of biology, relating to genes. A gene is mutated, it is passed on to the next generation, thus the child is an evolved form of the parent. It has nothing to do with thermodynamic energy exchanges.

So no, evolution does NOT contradict the second law.

next point:
Lack of physical evidence.
all the evolutionists have is some fossils that they say are 4 billion years old. BULL CRAP!
the fossils that they have found ( no matter how old they say) are clearly separate species and not a half way monkeyman. THERE IS NO MISSING LINK.

How would you know if it is "bull crap?" Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?

Scientists have fossils of a series of different yet alike hominid creatures that begin at a date of 5 million years ago and continue changing until 200 thousand years ago. The physical features are very much alike, the bone structures are alike, the cranial cavities are alike. The DNA strands are in the 90-99% match-up range. All we are missing is one specie of hominal creature that we have yet to find fossil remains of.

But of course, all scientists are APPARENTLY wrong, just because a forumer named "kester_" says so.

next point
Logic fallaceis
just think about it.......................ok are you done?
just as I though, LUDICROUS!

Yes, there are possible fallacies in all of our theories. There are also possible fallacies in YOUR logic when you claim that there are fallacies in SCIENTIFIC logic.

The only ludicrous aspect is your unwarranted claim that science is wrong just becuase YOU think there are fallacies in the theory of human evolution.

next point
Mathmatics prove it wrong
according to the evolutionary timescale the earth is approximately eight to ten billions of years old, that is the equivalent to 1020 or one hundred quintillion seconds.
according to the same theory there are approximately 1080 atoms found in the universe. even with these astounding numbers, it is highly unlikely to achieve odds such as 1 in 103,000,000 the same odds that a scientist named Edward Huxley estimated to be the odds of a horse evolving, let alone the chances of more complex life such as humans.

What are you talking about? Only 1080 atoms in the universe? How can that be possible, when the thickness of a single sheet of paper is the equivalent of about ten thousand atoms stringed together?

Find me a source that talks about this supposed theory of yours, because the way you put it, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

just as other theories have been subject to rigorous standards in the past, evolution must also be subject to the same testing. due to the logical fallacies, mathematical impossibilities and the abundance of physical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution it cannot be either plausible, nor believable

Ummm....

First off, no logical fallacies have yet been found in the theory of evolution. How do you know that there are no fallacies in YOUR logic? Or rather, the logic of your supposed sources?

Second off, there is no mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY. According to your post above, there is a mathematical IMPROBABILITY, but NOT impossability. And second off, I've never heard of any mathematical theory that even closely resembles your claim of a theory that states the universe only has 1020 atoms.

Third off, you COMPLETELY misinterpreted and misunderstood your first "reason" why evolution is impossible.

Show me some sources, especially concerning your "point" about how the age of the earth is a theory about 1020 atoms and a scientist talking about a horse evolving. I beg of you to find me a source stating both this theory as well as Huxley's evidence backing his claim that the evolution of a modern-day horse is a 1 in 103 million chance. I've provided sources for my information, you might want to provide sources for yours.

[SSJKarma]

How would you know if it is "bull crap?" Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?

and how do you know nantuko that those RELIGIONS are false when millions have been working on it as we speak ?

see, his point is just like mine here !

science cannot proove anything, so does RELIGIONs so again, we cannot even DEBATE this with a real proof, as there is no way for us, humans to always be right.

just a question...
who told you EINSTEIN was right in his theory of relativity ?
who told you 2+2=4 ?
right, all the humans dude, you may say you are open minded, but yet you continu to say science has answers to everything and that it is true !

i ask you one thing...
just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?
our science is based on what we created, and as far as i know, a creation is as good as its creator ! which means that if we created our own science, then how come it is suppose to always be true when we ourselves are a mistake on two legs ?

science isn't the way to go, same for religion, live the life at his present, not at the past... that's the only way to go and if you experience something, then be glad you did, that's all !

See, now this is going to turn back into a religious debate....

These religions MUST be false because not all religions in the world can be correct. When it all comes down to it, on the final day of the existence of the world, I could very well be wrong, and I could end up going to hell. Or I could end up going to Tartarus. Or I could end up going to the Celtic underworld ruled by Dis Pater. Or I could end up with Chernobog in the Slavic hell or Bolebog in the Slavic heaven. Or end up in Mictlan or one of the other eight underworlds of the Aztec beliefs. Or I could end up waking up as another human being. Or I could end up waking up as a Komodo Dragon for all I know. Or my own beliefs could be correct.

You see, people from all different areas of the world believe in different religions. The Japanese believe in Shinto, or possibly the other Japanese religion concerning all the many gods and goddesses. Romans originally believed in their Roman gods. The Chinese believe in Conflipianism, or whatever religion it is that worships and reveres the various spirits and Dragons. The indians believe in Hindu, the middle-easterns believe in Muslim and Christianity. The Irish originally believed in the Celtic ceremonies. The Egyptians worshipped their various gods, as did the South and North American indian tribes. When it comes to religion, no one can agree.

However, when it comes to science, all that goes out the window. Japanese science is the same as American science. German science is the same as English science. Chinese science is the same as African science which is the same as Russian science. Everyone can agree. At least there's a common bond and belief with science. Hell, not even Christians agree with each other...they break up into Catholic and Roman Catholic and Batists and Lutheran and Protestant and Methodist and whatever other sects they've got. So how can any one of those be correct, when they all dispute each other? Sure, millions of people believe each one, but then again, according to me, man created god, and not vice versa. (see below)

i ask you one thing...
just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?
our science is based on what we created, and as far as i know, a creation is as good as its creator ! which means that if we created our own science, then how come it is suppose to always be true when we ourselves are a mistake on two legs ?

First off, man did not "create" science. Science has been around all along, we just developed the ability to understand it.

Second off, how are we "mistakes" on two legs? A mistake is an error or fault resulting from defective judgement, deficient knowledge or carelessness. How are human beings "mistakes?" So that analogy right there of yours is completely false.

You forget, I believe that science created man, and man in turn created the concept of religion, in order to provide answers to questions that science could not yet answer at that point in time. I believe that religion was a temporary answer that was created intended to only last until science could provide us with the answers once again. The only "mistake" was that people began to take religion seriously, and instead of falling back on science that created us, began to fall back on the belief of various religions.

So you say that creations are only as good as the creator. I believe that man is the creation, and science is the creator. Therefore, man developed the ability to UNDERSTAND science....man did not create science altogether.

But I mean, note my above post. The entire world could argue about the existence of Leza, the primary god of Africa, or the One God as according to Christianity, or Quezacotl according to the Aztecs, or Dagda of the Celtics, or Yu-Huang-Shang-Ti of the Chinese, or Ra of the Egyptians, or Zeus of the Greeks, or Anshar of the Mesopotamians, or any of the thousands of other dieties of the world's religions. And the argument would go on FOREVER, because none of those sides can bring forth any actual evidence to support their claims. The argument will continue on until the very end of time, when the end of the world will show us the correct answer.

But while everyone is arguing all the religions, science is saying "look, we have the answer now, the need for religion is over." Yet the rest of the world ignores it becuase they're all caught up in religion, what THEY created.

See, it works both ways. Religious people can say "well according to us, science is just another religion. Who's to say that it's any correct?" Be that if it may, but if that's how it is, then notice that science is the only "religion" that can bring cold, hard fact to the table in order to debate its own existence. While religion says "I believe that everything around us is PROOF of the One God, or of Pachamac, or of Jupiter (the roman god), or of Atira or of Awonawilona" and still not give any true reasoning, science can say "We say that everything around us is PROOF of science, and here is why..." and then further back our cause.

THAT is why I wanted this debate to remain a scientific one, rather than a religious one. Now I can see it turning religious, and in turn being locked by mods, because we strayed off-topic.

But the fact of the matter is that science is accepted as fact, because that's what we use in the world. A man in court claims that he killed a man becuase the devil forced him to.....if it wasn't for science, we couldn't say "no, you killed a man because you're mentally a psycho because of neurological connection failures" or whatever. We use science in our courts, science in our everyday lives, because it's the closest to fact that we have.

Why do you think the teaching of religions in public schools is against the law? Because there are too many religions to be able to say "okay this is fact, let's teach this." Meanwhile, science is taught in EVERY school because it's the only constant in this world, the only "belief" that can hold its own in a debate.