Science says one thing and religion another... There are several conflicts like the theory of evolution for example. Religion needs faith in what is unseen and science needs facts, evidence and proofs. The question I'd like to ask is: Can science and religion co-exist?

Science and religion are opposites... science is rational, religion is belief(no proof required).

They can exist in the same cultlure as long as those who have belief in a religion don't confuse their belief with fact.

They're not opposites at all.

I laugh:

"Religion needs faith in what is unseen and science needs facts, evidence and proofs. "

Hmmm. Something out of nothing? That's what we're taught. Where is the evidence and/or proof of that??

Not only is there no evidence or proof, but it is a blatant contradiction of what the scientists themselves teach, which is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Admittedly, many show they are brainwashed on both sides.

It's true, as RickJ says, that there's lots of brainwashing on both sides. An awful lot of the supposed conflict between science and religion is manufactured, ginned up by people on one side or the other for polemical purposes.

I'd just like to point out that science and religion do co-exist, and have for centuries. The only real conflict that I can see is between a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, or the claim at, e.g. Psalm 104.5 that the earth does not move, and the discoveries of modern science. But--and here I'm thinking about Judaism and Christianity in particular, not all religion in general--biblical literalism is a recent fad that has been adhered to by a relatively small minority. The Bible doesn't even interpret itself literally.

Keep in mind that many crucial scientific advances have been the work of deeply religious people (Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Gassendi, Leibniz, Newton, Mendel, to name just a few). One can readily be both a thoughful and devout believer and a fan of science.

Yep.

I am a rabid Christian myself... and also a lover and firm believer in sciences.

There is no fundamental conflict between them.

a rabid Christian

That's a new one for me.

I'm stealing it.

No need to steal it. If it fits, wear it with my blessing ;)

Many thanks. But now I feel bad. I didn't get you anything.

Am a Christian too and I love science... Am a student and I prefer having direct and sharp answers than having to read book where most of what is written is 'useless'.
Progress in science has brought forward many things and has established laws, rules and concepts.. But religious bodies will never accept everything that science bring forward, for example:
-Cloning / Genetic Engineering
- Euthanasia
- Theory of Evolution
- The earth itself and the rest of the universe; were they
Created or did they evolve naturally?

Science evaluating religion:
3 examples are:
- Can one assess the will of God through prayer, or is God not
Communicating?
- Speaking in tongues; is it the language of angels, or
Meaningless gibberish?
- Can prayer cure diseases and disorders, or speed people's
Recovery?

As a Christian, I believe in God, with whom we can talk (communicate), I believe that speaking in tongue is speaking to God, and I believe in prayer and the power of the blood (healing)... BUT does science believe in the 3 example I listed above..

In religion there is science. In science, is there religion?

I don't see how Science can address or answer either of the first two...

As for the third, Science can contemplate upon it but not answer it directly.

Many doctors have witnessed "unexplainable" cures... but what the cause of the cure is cannot always be answered.

... and EVEN IF the cause was prayer, there's no proof that can be "seen"... so neither the Theist nor the Scientist can say with certainty...

Something out of nothing?

Rick, I am ashamed of you, I have rebutted this when it comes up many many times. Where in science does it teach this? It doesn't, I promise you.

I do agree that science any religion are not opposites at all, both are quests for truth.

Sorry if I've missed something, so please help and clarify:

Where did all of the stuff of our Universe come from?

Sorry if I've missed something, so please help and clarify:

Where did all of the stuff of our Universe come from?

We don't have enough (or any?) evidence to say. At some point in the past (~13 billion years ago), it was a dense point of energy.

I agree.
Should you and I not agree, then, that to theorize that a greater being put it into place is as theoretically possible as any other theory?

I agree.
Should you and I not agree that to theorize that a greater being put it into place is as theoretically possible as any other theory?

That God caused the big bang is certainly one of many valid *hypotheses*. He doesn't seem to have done anything since then, though.

All those 'scientific facts' haven't been proven their just guesses or theories... religion is just faith... and I'm more of a faith person then scientific... God has done many things since everything was created... well that's what I believe

That God caused the big bang is certainly one of many valid *hypotheses*. He doesn't seem to have done anything since then, though.

I see two opinions there. The first one goes to the initial post... and seems to agree with my position.

... and the second one is another subject altogether :)

SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE OPPOSITE. :)

Knowledge in religion comes from *revelation*. Religion is sustained by *belief* not fact.

Knowledge in science comes from testing using the *Scientific Method*. Facts are accumulated over time, knowledge grows.

Quit kidding yourselves.

Cordially, Mary Sue :)

All knowledge is belief. It is justified true belief. Facts are also beliefs: they are beliefs that are held to be true (on the strength of empirical evidence in the case of science or on the strength of reason alone in the case of facts of mathematics or logic). The belief-fact dichotomy is not dichotomy at all, and so it won't leverage any meaningful account of the difference between science and religion.

This isn't to say that there is no distinction, just that it has to be sought elsewhere.

That said, I agree that facts are accumulated over time and the knowledge grows. But this is true outside of science as well. Take mathematics and history for examples.

So then, just to clarify, would you say that any knowledge that does not come by testing using the "Scientific Method" should be considered as "opposite" of Science?

"Opposite" is not a word that can describe the relationship between Science and Religion.

I don't see it as much different than saying Apples and Oranges are opposites.

Science says one thing and religion another... There are several conflicts like the theory of evolution for example. Religion needs faith in what is unseen and science needs facts, evidence and proofs. The question I'd like to ask is: Can science and religion co-exist??

I disagree that science and religion are opposed. God created - science is the study of God's creation. Sometimes there may seem to be differences, but that is often because science is still making discoveries.

I am a Christian and I have a scientific background. I see no problem with the two co-existing at all.

Hello:

Well, I'm NOT a Christian, and I'm HAPPY with my great, great (and so on) grandfather being an APE.

I hear all you Christians kissing up to science, but you don't believe your ancestor was an APE any more than I believe that I'm going to heaven.

excon

Hello:
Well, I'm NOT a Christian, and I'm HAPPY with my great, great (and so on) grandfather being an APE.

I am sorry to hear that.

I am sorry to hear that.Hello again,

Well, there you go - perfect agreement between science and religion... Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

APE:
Associate Pastor Emeritus

I'm happy to know that you have a good background, Excon :p

I hear all you Christians kissing up to science, but you don't believe your ancestor was an APE

Oh, I think many of us are just fine with that. Although those ancestors weren't exactly apes: They were ancestors of both apes and humans, and they sure were ape-like. I'm fine with australopithecines in my family tree. They seem like a pretty cool bunch.

Oh, I think many of us are just fine with that. Although those ancestors weren't exactly apes: They were ancestors of both apes and humans, and they sure were ape-like. I'm fine with australopithecines in my family tree. They seem like a pretty cool bunch.

My ancestors are all human. Your family tree and family re-unions must be interesting.

My ancestors are all human. Your family tree and family re-unions must be interesting.

Hmm, Tom, approximately how old do you think the earth is? You can round to the nearest 100 million years, if you like.

Hmm, Tom, approximately how old do you think the earth is? You can round to the nearest 100 million years, if you like.

I'll accept the Bible's position which says that it is in the range of 6000 years.

The question I'd like to ask is: Can science and religion co-exist??

Yes. Science and religion can co-exist. They both exist in the world and have for thousands of years. They are not ends in themselves but different ways of grappling with questions and knowledge. They do, empirically, co-exist.

If you mean can they coexist in the same person's brain, the answer is also yes. They can and do.

However, some types of science and religion appear to be somewhat antithetical. For example, if you accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, that rules out considering or accepting truly vast regions of modern science, unless you are willing to accept considerable contradiction in what you choose to believe or not believe (in science).

On the other side of the aisle, biologists who study evolution and ecology are considerably less likely to be religious than other kinds of scientists. And, in every field of science, really good scientists are even less likely to believe in God and immortality than the average scientist (despite a few exceptions).

In a 1997 survey of acclaimed scientists -- members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -- 65% of biological scientists (including large numbers of biochemists and molecular biologists) did not believe in God and 69% did not believe in immortality. Among NAS physical scientists, 79.0% did not believe in God and 76.3% rejected immortality. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers.

NAS biological scientists were the least likely to believe in God or immortality (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality).
Then physicists and astronomers (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Mathematicians were most likely to believe in God (14.3% believed in God, 15.0% in immortality).

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"  July 23, 1998 (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html#394313A0r003)

So, while religion and science do co-exist as separate ways of pursuing knowledge and can co-exist in the minds of large numbers of people, being a literalist believer tends to preclude embracing science and being a really good scientist tends to preclude belief in God or immortality.

One way to understand these numbers is to consider that science is a deeply satisfying way of looking at the world and good scientists are less likely to crave another, more mystical way of viewing things.

Alternatively, perhaps people who believe in God and immortality have characteristics that make them less likely to fully commit themselves to science.

Or, possibly, it is the information in the science itself that discourages belief.

There is no way to know from these numbers WHY good scientists tend not to believe. We only know that they don't.

However, some types of science and religion appear to be somewhat antithetical. For example, if you accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, that rules out considering or accepting truly vast regions of modern science, unless you are willing to accept considerable contradiction in what you choose to believe or not believe (in science).

I am one of those people who is both a Christian and has a background in science, and I find no contradiction whatsoever between the two. I have run into people who fail to note that many conclusions that are currently held by some scientists are developed through their findings mixed with assumptions. There may be some contradictions that result from that, but more often than not, contradictions also result between those conclusions and new scientific findings as they come along.

It is important to remember that science is in the process of discovery and still learning about creation.

There is no way to know from these numbers WHY good scientists tend not to believe. We only know that they don't.

So you would say that the following are not good scientists:

- Louis Pasteur
- Wright brothers
- Sir Isaac Newton
- Michael Faraday
- Johannes Kepler
- Robert Boyle
- Werner von Braun

And many others...

So you would say that the following are not good scientists:

- Louis Pasteur
- Wright brothers
- Sir Isaac Newton
- Michael Faraday
- Johannes Kepler
- Robert Boyle
- Werner von Braun

And many others.....

I know that Newton, Kepler, and Boyle didn't believe the Bible to be literally true. Did the others?

I know that Newton, Kepler, and Boyle didn't believe the Bible to be literally true. Did the others?

Odd that when asked you never tell us what exactly you mean by "literally true". The last time that we interacted on this, you skewed the meaning considerably.

But since we are not discussing that on here, let's get right to the point - are you saying that you are denying that these men were Christians?

But since we are not discussing that on here, let's get right to the point - are you saying that you are denying that these men were Christians?How would you know if they were christians or not?

How would you know if they were christians or not?

Their testimonies.

Their testimonies.You were there? Considering that many christians attend church and rarely read the bible and so often we hear that someone isn't a "real" christian because they don't lead their life according to another christian's values it must be hard to discern who the real christians are. I don't know that many christians that adhere to the 6000 year old earth belief.

tell us what exactly you mean by "literally true".

The way you read it. E.g. the earth is six thousand years old. The creation story is a literal descriptions of the events of the creation of the universe. Noah had a boat with two of every creature aboard. That sort of thing.


But since we are not discussing that on here, let's get right to the point - are you saying that you are denying that these men were Christians?

Well, there was considerable controversy in Newton's lifetime regarding the question whether he was a Christian. That controversy continues to this day. Many people think that if he was a Christian he was a heterodox Christian (an Arian, a pantheist, etc.) Read the General Scholium to the Principia and see what you think. Clarke's lectures are also interesting. And are Boyle's.

So you would say that the following are not good scientists:

- Louis Pasteur
- Wright brothers
- Sir Isaac Newton
- Michael Faraday
- Johannes Kepler
- Robert Boyle
- Werner von Braun

And many others.....

This is not stated as a question. Nor is it an argument. So I will simply acknowledge it as an inaccurate statement about myself.

Noah had a boat with two of every creature aboard.


Don't forget all the terrestrial plants and fungi, not to mention aquatic organisms (fresh water fish, crawdads, water beetles, which would not survive sea water.

Pasteur did not go to church. He was an inveterate workoholic and I'm guessing he was in the lab on sundays. His wife helped...

I am one of those people who is both a Christian and has a background in science, and I find no contradiction whatsoever between the two. Hello again, Tj:

Hmmm. Either you don't understand science, or you don't understand religion. I'll opt for both.

excon

Don't forget all the terrestrial plants and fungi, not to mention aquatic organisms (fresh water fish, crawdads, water beetles, which would not survive sea water.

Good point. I've often wondered about all the micro-organisms that Noah couldn't see.

Good point. I've often wondered about all the micro-organisms that Noah couldn't see.

Well, at least in the case of bacteria, you'd only need one of each.

You were there?

No, and neither were you, so I have to take the word of the person who was.

This is not stated as a question. Nor is it an argument. So I will simply acknowledge it as an inaccurate statement about myself.

Well you did suggest that good scientists are by and large not Christians.

Hmmm. Either you don't understand science, or you don't understand religion. I'll opt for both.


Some people discuss the issue - others go after the people.

Well you did suggest that good scientists are by and large not Christians.

No. I cited a 1997 study that showed that most elite scientists today do not believe in God or immortality. They are not just "not Christians." They are not anything.

In particular, only 5.5% of elite biologists believe in God, and only 7.5% of elite physicists and astronomers believe in God.

No. I cited a 1997 study that showed that most elite scientists today do not believe in God or immortality. They are not just "not Christians." They are not anything.

In particular, only 5.5% of elite biologists believe in God, and only 7.5% of elite physicists and astronomers believe in God.

That is a higher percentage than many surveys have given for belief in Biblical Christianity throughout the general population.

That is a higher percentage than many surveys have given for belief in Biblical Christianity throughout the general population.

And what, precisely, is "Biblical Christianity", as opposed to, say, the non- or un-Biblical kind? I suspect you've stated it on a thread somewhere, but I forget what you said.

And what, precisely, is "Biblical Christianity", as opposed to, say, the non- or un-Biblical kind? I suspect you've stated it on a thread somewhere, but I forget what you said.

Those who believe in Christianity as defined in the 66 books of the Bible.

In particular, only 5.5% of elite biologists believe in God, and only 7.5% of elite physicists and astronomers believe in God.




That is a higher percentage than many surveys have given for belief in Biblical Christianity throughout the general population.

I have never heard that only 5.5% (or 7.5%) of the general population believes in Biblical Christianity.

How is Biblical Christianity different from regular Christianity?

Those who believe in Christianity as defined in the 66 books of the Bible.

That's not a terribly explanatory answer. What must such a person believe in order to count as an adherent of "Biblical Christianity"? I'm guessing many professing Christians would claim to believe in Christianity as defined in the Bible. But, of course, at least some of those people wouldn't count as "Biblical Christians" as you use the term. So what are the distinctive marks of someone who believes "in Christianity as defined in the 66 books of the Bible"?

Tom, by "Biblical Christianity," are you talking about biblical literalists such as yourself, as opposed to mainstream Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant Christians?

So you are saying that literalists make up 5-8% of the general population?

I have never heard that only 5.5% (or 7.5%) of the general population believes in Biblical Christianity.

How is Biblical Christianity different from regular Christianity?

There is nothing called "regular" Christianity that I am aware of. But there are many churches which to one degree or another deny parts of the Bible, or add to it. Biblical Christianity accepts what the Bible says and accepts the Biblical mandate that it is to speak for itself.

That's not a terribly explanatory answer. What must such a person believe in order to count as an adherent of "Biblical Christianity"? I'm guessing many professing Christians would claim to believe in Christianity as defined in the Bible. But, of course, at least some of those people wouldn't count as "Biblical Christians" as you use the term. So what are the distinctive marks of someone who believes "in Christianity as defined in the 66 books of the Bible"?

There is a book which would define it for you. It is called the Holy Bible. Check it out!

Tom, by "Biblical Christianity," are you talking about biblical literalists such as yourself, as opposed to mainstream Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant Christians?

I am not sure what you mean by a Bible literalists. I have seen a number of people, including some on this board who have tried to apply that label and them claim that I said things that I don't believe and have never said. I have also never used that label myself.

This I cannot answer the second question because I am not sure as to what you mean by literalists.

There is a book which would define it for you. It is called the Holy Bible. Check it out!

Hmm. Evasion. Why not just explain to anyone reading this thread what "Biblical Christianity" is, as you understand it. You use the locution an awful lot. If you want people to understand you, and not misrepresent your views and the things you say, seems explaining an expression you use with great frequency, and which is clearly very important you and central to the way you view the world, would be quite useful both to you and to others. I'm sure you have an answer to so basic a question. This might be a great opportunity to share it with the world.

By the way, I'm asking because I've heard different people explain it in different ways. I think it would be a useful contribution to the discussion if you explained your understanding of what "Biblical Christianity" means.

Hmm. Evasion.

Hmmm... false accusations.


Why not just explain to anyone reading this thread what "Biblical Christianity" is, as you understand it.

If you do not understand what Christianity is, it would take much more than just posting a few lines on a post on a discussion forum. If you truly want to understand what the Bible teaches about Christianity, send me contact information, and I will see if I can get someone to contact you where you live who can spend the time to guide you through the essentials of the Christian faith as taught in scripture.

I am not sure what you mean by a Bible literalists. I have seen a number of people, including some on this board who have tried to apply that label and them claim that i said things that I don't believe and have never said. I have also never used that label myself.

This I cannot answer the second question because I am not sure as to what you mean by literalists.

I mean, basically, someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old instead of 4.54 billion years old.

I am not sure what you mean by a Bible literalists. I have seen a number of people, including some on this board who have tried to apply that label and them claim that I said things that I don't believe and have never said. I have also never used that label myself.

This I cannot answer the second question because I am not sure as to what you mean by literalists.

Here's how I characterized it at post #39:


The way you read it. E.g. the earth is six thousand years old. The creation story is a literal descriptions of the events of the creation of the universe. Noah had a boat with two of every creature aboard. That sort of thing.

You've already claimed to believe that the earth is about six thousand years old. You've also claimed that the creation story in Genesis is an accurate account of the creation of the universe. How about Noah and the flood? Did Noah have two of every creature on board a boat while the was flooded?

I mean, basically, someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old instead of 4.54 billion years old.

Oh, you mean someone who believes the Bible.

you've already claimed to believe that the earth is about six thousand years old. You've also claimed that the creation story in Genesis is an accurate account of the creation of the universe. How about Noah and the flood? Did Noah have two of every creature on board a boat while the was flooded?

You have also claimed that I believe things that I don't and there is much much more in the Bible than these couple of points - you might have noticed how big the Bible is.

hmmm .... false accusations.



If you do not understand what Christianity is, it would take much more than just posting a few lines on a post on a discussion forum. If you truly want to understand what the Bible teaches about Christianity, send me contact information, and I will see if I can get someone to contact you where you live who can spend the time to guide you through the essentials of the Christian faith as taught in scripture.

I see. So you don't want to explain what you mean.

I just have one last question about this. Is there such thing as "unBiblical Christianity"? In other words, is "Biblical Christianity" (whatever you take that to be) exhaustive of what counts as Christianity, or is there an "unBiblical Christianity" which is nevertheless still Christianity?

You have also claimed that I believe things that I don't and there is much much more in the Bible than these couple of points - you might have noticed how big the Bible is.

Right now I'm asking about Noah and what he had on the boat. Do you believe that Noah had two of every creature on the boat with him? Seems like a perfectly straightforward question. Do you read the story of the flood literally?

Well, to get back to my point, there are scientists who cannot accommodate religion and literalists who cannot accommodate large tracts of science.

In between are tens of millions of people who find ways to accommodate science and religion. But I do think it's telling that the best scientists don't have much use for religious belief. It suggests to me a degree of incompatibility between the two kinds of thinking.

I see. So you don't want to explain what you mean.

I see. So you don't want to understand. I made an offer to you, and you chose to reject it.



I just have one last question about this. Is there such thing as "unBiblical Christianity"?

There is no such thing as unBiblical Christainity in reality, but there are many people who profess to be Christian but deny parts of the Bible or add to it. Jesus spoke about some such people in Matthew 7.

Well, to get back to my point, there are scientists who cannot accommodate religion and literalists who cannot accommodate large tracts of science.

To single out scientists is not appropriate. There are people from all walks of life who reject God, but that does not mean that accountants and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that mechanics and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that bus drives and Christianity are not compatible. That is simple not logical.

I don't know who these un-named so-called literalists are who you claim reject science. I don't know any, but I suppose that it always possible that there are some somewhere.

To be honest I don't care what scientists do in their personal life as long as they do good reproducible science that advances humanity's understanding of their world. A scientist could be a devil worshipper or a bigamist, it matters not in his data.

To be honest I don't care what scientists do in their personal life as long as they do good reproducible science that advances humanity's understanding of their world. A scientist could be a devil worshipper or a bigamist, it matters not in his data.

I agree. As long as the scientist does not allow his other beliefs or activities to influence the quality of the data, then it should not matter with respect to the work that he is doing.

To single out scientists is not appropriate. There are people from all walks of life who reject God, but that does not mean that accountants and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that mechanics and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that bus drives and Christianity are not compatible. That is simple not logical.

We are not discussing whether religion is compatible with accounting. We are discussing whether religion is compatible with science.


I don't know who these un-named so-called literalists are who you claim reject science. i don't know any, but i suppose that it always possible that there are some somewhere.

I mean you.

Hey Tom, this is a momentous occasion. :)

We are not discussing whether religion is compatible with accounting. We are discussing whether religion is compatible with science.

Agreed, and the reasoning that you are using is not logical.


I mean you.

Then you are mis-representing and falsely accusing me. I have a strong background in science.

hey tom, this is a momentous occasion. :)

:) :)

A scientist could be a devil worshipper or a bigamist, it matters not in his data.

I take your point about how you feel, but in terms of the science, I don't agree. Good scientists are not interested in things like devil worship. A few of them might accept bigamy, but basically they are too wrapped up in their work to deal with the complexities of multiple spouses. Your typical scientist would regard devil worship and bigamy as annoying distractions.

I take your point about how you feel, but in terms of the science, I don't agree. Good scientists are not interested in things like devil worship. A few of them might accept bigamy, but basically they are too wrapped up in their work to deal with the complexities of multiple spouses. Your typical scientist would regard devil worship and bigamy is annoying distractions.

You claim to speak on behalf of me (and mis-represent me), and now you claim to speak on behalf of scientist around the world. To put it kindly, that is pretty presumptuous.

Let me amend that. I'm speaking for good scientists. I think I've known enough of them to be sure they are NOT interested in devil worship. They are interested in getting tenure, getting their paper out before another researcher, being on the committee that assigns lab space in the new building... They are all wrapped up in their own worlds.

As for your technical qualifications, you are quick but if you are well read in any area of science, we haven't touched on it yet.

Let me amend that. I'm speaking for good scientists. I think I've known enough of them to be sure they are interested in devil worship. They are interested in getting tenure, getting their paper out before another researcher, being on the committee that assigns lab space in the new building... They are all wrapped up in their own worlds.

And could not, in your understanding, ever have outside interests that you don't know about :p

Again, sounds pretty presumptuous to me.


As for your technical qualifications, you are quick but if you are well read in any area of science, we haven't touched on it yet.

Well, from what I have seen, I am not too terribly concerned about your judgment on my qualifications.

I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.

I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense. A person may pick the results that are useful to him personally or at least less repugnant. But that's like someone reading the Bible as literature, basically for fun.

I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.

I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense. A person may pick and choose the results that are useful to him personally or at least less repugnant. But that's like someone reading the Bible as literature, basically for fun.

Quite right.

And the academic scientists I've known have also been in it for the science. Otherwise they could make lots more money elsewhere.

I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science. That again, seems not just presumptuous, but very judgmental of what others can enjoy or do in their lives.

Maybe we should put your outside activities under a microscope to see if you could become a good scientist.


I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense.

Your opinion is noted, but I would suggest that most scientists can only dream of being as good as many of the Christian scientists. Pre-judging is not compatible with good science, and when someone prejudges others based upon their faith in God, that indicates that they engage in prejudging (which is the same thing as prejudice). If a person would engage in prejudging elsewhere in their life, how can we know that would not spill over into their work as a scientist and impair their objectivity?

So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science.

Not I.


Your opinion is noted,

Really? By whom?


but I would suggest that most scientists can only dream of being as good as many of the Christian scientists.

No doubt.

As I recall, I was making a joke about devil worship and bigamy not being suitable hobbies for a serious scientist. I stand by that.

Not I.

Good - then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist. We agree.

Good - then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist. We agree.

Hardly. First of all it would depend entirely on what you meant by "being a Christian."
Obviously, 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences are believers of some sort, though I don't know if they are Christians. They may all be Muslims for all I know. Well I know Francis Collins is Christian. So that's one.

You asked "So who said that those . . ." I did not say anything like what follows.

And your two sentences are hardly equivalent.


So who said that those who are Christians or who have other hobbies do not have a main interest in science.


then there is nothing about outside interests or being a Christian that in any way impairs a person from being a good scientist.

Just to be clear. I didn't say the first one and I don't agree with the second one.

Just to be clear. I didn't say the first one and I don't agree with the second one.

Okay, you seem all over the map here.

Do you or do you not believe that being a Christian impairs the chances of a person being a good scientist - YES or NO.

Okay, you seem all over the map here.

Do you or do you not believe that being a Christian impairs the chances of a person being a good scientist - YES or NO.

Weren't you just told that it depends what you mean by "being a Christian"? If your idea of "being a Christian" means believing the earth to be approximately six thousand years old, then no, it's not compatible with doing good science. At least not in biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, or geology. I'm sure I left a few out.

What Akoue said.

Plus, "What is this? 20 questions?"

Weren't you just told that it depends what you mean by "being a Christian"? If your idea of "being a Christian" means believing the earth to be approximately six thousand years old, then no, it's not compatible with doing good science.

No doubt similar thoughts were expressed to men like Galileo too. This response is akin to saying - you don't agree with my opinion, so you are not a scientist. A scientific response would be long the lines of "I don't think so, but if you have some evidence that may point that way, let's have a look".let's look at the evidence and see.

I wonder if you ever thought why so many spectacular discoveries have been made over the centuries by men who were thinking outside of the normal boundaries. The reason is because if you only accept what is known today, you will never seen what is unknown. It is not those minds closed to what they don't agree with that move science forward - they are the ones who oppose progress.

Those who say that you cannot be a good scientist and a good Christian are not scientists themselves, rather they are "priests" (or wannabees) of a religion that they call science. They are not in fact practicing scientists if they are unwilling to keep an open mind.

let's look at the evidence and see.

Tom, I already posted the evidence. Remember the data on members of the National Academy? That was evidence.

The top scientists in the United States don't have beliefs like yours. They mostly aren't Christians. They mostly don't even believe in God. In terms of religion, they are an entirely atypical sample of Americans. That's evidence.

Your belief that the world is only 6000 years old is contradicted by geology, paleontology, astronomy, isotope dating (physics), and probably several other fields. It's just absurd from a scientific point of view. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but your belief is not at all compatible with science of the last 150 years.

It was Charles Darwin's reading of the great geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology--given to him by the captain of the HMS Beagle (who was a Christian, by the way)--that helped Darwin begin to understand how old the Earth was.

Tom, I already posted the evidence. Remember the data on members of the National Academy? That was evidence.

Evidence of what?


The top scientists in the United States don't have beliefs like yours. They mostly aren't Christians. They mostly don't even believe in God. In terms of religion, they are an entirely atypical sample of Americans. That's evidence.

Most people in the US are not Christians - so what? You should know that claim that a person cannot be a Christian to be a scientist based upon a survey of how many scientists are Christians is a completely illogical conclusion.

Probably the only profession where the majority are Christian are the clergy.


Your belief that the world is only 6000 years old is contradicted by geology, paleontology, astronomy, isotope dating (physics), and probably several other fields.

That is your belief, but I have discussed this with members of a number of those same professions and I have examined the evidence and it is not as clear cut as you think. Have you taken the time to consider the assumptions? Have you even looked at the information posted by the increasing numbers of scientists who disagree with your position?

Evidence of what?

The evidence you asked for.. .
Get some sleep. I think you are starting to lose it.


Have you even looked at the information posted by the increasing numbers of scientists who disagree with your position?

You haven't given me any reason to think you know what I think and I don't know which scientists you are alluding to, so I can't answer this new question.

The evidence you asked for.. .
Get some sleep. I think you are starting to lose it.

I did not ask for any evidence.


You haven't given me any reason to think you know what I think and I don't know which scientists you are alluding to, so I can't answer this new question.

It was a generic question. And it should be easy enough if there is no bias against those who disagree with your religious views. If there is, then what you are discussing is no longer science, but a competing religion.

I've created a new thread. For all your 'religious' discussions, please post them on 'Validity of Bible and sciences'... I've been reading your answers and sometimes you were completely out of subject.

Well, someone said that the world is more than 40 billion years old... I'll study this and submit an answer... Christians say 6,000 and scientists say more than 40 billion.
<<<<BTW, THE BIBLE IS PERFECT>>>>

Maybe I am joining in a little late ,has this thread run its course and is on its way to its demise?

I do not understand why science and religion has to be a fight each time it is brought up.

I find what I believe and follow not to be contradictory with scientific findings. And to have scientific facts about our natural world is something that strengthens my belief.

So yes, science and my belief co-exists without conflict.

No, you are not 2 late... Islam and science both says the same things? There's no conflict between them?

No, u r not 2 late... Islam and science both says the same things? There's no conflict between them?

It is not so much as Quran and science saying the same thing,but that the Quran enforces seeking knowledge of the world and how it works.
In Islam we are commanded to look at the creations in the world, which is where science comes in and explains it all.

The Quran does not give a specific time for creation in years, and it mentions that every living thing is made of water,there is no conflict there.
About evolution, the Quran does not specify if we evolved, but it is mentioned that the first human was created by the Almighty.
Quran mentions that the heavens and earth were one before it was "cloven asunder" and that the universe is expanding.

The few things that the Quran does mention related to the natural world has been verified in scientific findings.

I'll create a thread for a discussion on Christianity and Islam..

Well, someone said that the world is more than 40 billion years old.... I'll study this and submit an answer... Christians say 6,000 and scientists say more than 40 billion.
<<<<BTW, THE BIBLE IS PERFECT>>>>

Not all scientists say 40 billion. There is a large group who hold to a young earth also.

Not all scientists say 40 billion. There is a large group who hold to a young earth also.Hello again:

Actually, NO scientists say 40 billion. The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. We know that, because of carbon 14 dating. No, really, we KNOW that! We're not making it up!

I submit to you, that any person who says they believe in science, but that the earth is only 6,000 years old, doesn't know how silly he sounds.

excon

NO scientists say 40 billion. The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
excon

I, the admitted "right winger", agrees.

And I agree too that no reputable scientists say the earth is just 6000 years old.

Since we have fresh blood in this thread now (yay!), can we clarify the question?

Obviously, science and religion do coexist in the world and do coexist in many people's minds.

In addition, there are definitely reputable scientists who are religious. The one I keep mentioning is Francis Collins who helped guide the Human Genome Project to completion.

From Wikipedia, for example:

Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He became an evangelical Christian after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.[9]

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution which he prefers to term BioLogos.

Francis Collins (geneticist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)#Religious_views)

So, Shelesh, what do you mean by coexist-- beyond co-exisitng in the world and co-existing in a particular person's mind? We already know they CAN coexist that way. Please clarify what you are asking. Do you mean, SHOULD they coexist? Something else?

Thanks!

Correction:
Sorry guy, I missed the '.' in 40 billion and did not pay attention.. --- 4.0 billion

Since we have fresh blood in this thread now (yay!), can we clarify the question?

Obviously, science and religion do coexist in the world and do coexist in many people's minds.

In addition, there are definitely reputable scientists who are religious. The one I keep mentioning is Francis Collins who helped guide the Human Genome Project to completion.

From Wikipedia, for example:


Francis Collins (geneticist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)#Religious_views)

So, Shelesh, what do you mean by coexist-- beyond co-exisitng in the world and co-existing in a particular person's mind? We already know they CAN coexist that way. Please clarify what you are asking. Do you mean, SHOULD they coexist? Something else?

Thanks!


A previous post stated that only a few percent of the scientists believed in God. So, this means that religion, somehow tends to close and limit the mind of man. It acts as a barrier to intellectual inquiry and observation. But their coexistence depend on the individual.. maybe, it depends how people interpret science and religion. Even if it is a few percent, it does exist.. Am not saying they should coexist but can they co-exist in the world of today.

Correction:
sorry guy, i missed the '.' in 40 billion and did not pay attention.. --- 4.0 billion

No problem. 4-6 billion works for the purposes of this discussion :)

I'll create a thread for a discussion on Christianity and Islam..

That may not be such a good idea, as it just may very well turn into an argument on who's right.
Obviously each of us believe in our faiths with all our hearts and will not like to see it belittled,but if we could put out our beliefs as information and not have it slammed down,that will be nice as I too would like to read more on the Christian belief in such things.

That may not be such a good idea, as it just may very well turn into an argument on who's right.
Obviously each of us believe in our faiths with all our hearts and will not like to see it belittled,but if we could put out our beliefs as information and not have it slammed down,that will be nice as I too would like to read more on the Christian belief in such things.

I agree. There's already umpteen discussions/debates over this very thing - already here on the site.

... see, for example, the Similar Threads listed at the bottom of this page...

A previous post stated that only a few percent of the scientists believed in God. So, this means that religion, somehow tends to close and limit the mind of man. It acts as a barrier to intellectual inquiry and observation. But their coexistence depend on the individual..maybe, it depends how people interpret science and religion. Even if it is a few percent, it does exist.. Am not saying they should coexist but can they co-exist in the world of today.

Shelesh, Thanks.

To clarify and sum up

... Belief in God
Americans generally:... 73%
Scientists generally:... 30%
NAS* scientists:... 7%
NAS biologists:... 5%

*National Academy of Sciences (a prestigious organization of the top ranking scientists)

Here's an interesting interview with biologist Francis Collins on this exact subject.
He is a Christian AND a member of the National Academy.
Voices - Francis Collins - National Geographic Magazine (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html)

(I might have mentioned that a lot of good biologists ride motorcycles. :) )

Beware the source on statistics like that.

Here's a statistic worth a chin scratching:
99.73% of Statistics are not accurate.

:)

I'd be curious what the statistics compiled by a Theistic organization would show.

... and my guess is that the truth would be somewhere between the two.

It is easy to dismiss statistics simply because they ARE statistics. But that doesn't make them false.

I have every reason to think these are all accurate, possibly excepting the first one -- 73% for Americans generally, which I picked up from Wikipedia's entry on the demographics of atheism. Another page at Wikipedia gives the figure 78%, which I'm prepared to accept. If you have a neutral source for this figure, possibly a government or academic source, please contribute it. But the numbers on scientists are from well-conducted surveys and I feel comfortable with the numbers.

I provided the source for these statistics earlier. These were surveys conducted by a historian at the University of Georgia and published in the scientific journal Nature.

You can see more details than I have provided by reading this article originally published in Nature and reproduced at this website. (I cannot show it to you in Nature because it costs $300 to $400 a year to subscribe... )

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"  July 23, 1998 (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)

I am 99% sure :) that if asked a different way, 96% of Americans would say that they believe in "God".

I obviously can't persuade you, but you should go and read about the rate of belief in the United States. The consensus from various polls is that it's lower than you appear to think and, also, that atheism has become somewhat more widespread and acceptable over the last 10 to 15 years.

By the way, to be clear, all the people not listed as believing in God are not atheists. Many are agnostics who just don't care one way or the other, or don't think about religion much. These are people who may become religious again at some point, or may become atheists, or may never give the matter any attention.

But please do your own reading before taking a strong position on any numbers.

I obviously can't persuade you, but you should go and read about the rate of belief in the United States. The consensus from various polls is that it's lower than you appear to think and, also, that atheism has become somewhat more widespread and acceptable over the last 10 to 15 years.

By the way, to be clear, all the people not listed as believing in God are not atheists. Many are agnostics who just don't care one way or the other, or don't think about religion much. These are people who may become religious again at some point, or may become atheists, or may never give the matter any attention.

But please do your own reading before taking a strong position on any numbers.

I agree, 96% is way too high, even for America.

A previous post stated that only a few percent of the scientists believed in God. So, this means that religion, somehow tends to close and limit the mind of man. It acts as a barrier to intellectual inquiry and observation.Hello S:

Religion and the Bible aren't the same thing. Most Christians don't take the Bible literally, so they have no problem with the hard numbers science comes up with. Their religion doesn't close their minds.

Others, however, take what the Bible says literally. Therefore, they couldn't go along with ANY of those scientific numbers... THEIR minds are closed - no matter HOW enlightened they try to sound.

excon

The thing I have never understood is the creationist believe in religion and only religion god made this god made that no if ands or buts about it.
But then you take the scientific route evolutionist who believe that we evolved they believe that there is a higher power that helped everything come into existence.
If religion and science are going to coexist, religious freaks need to realize that science plays a part in everything but also their god plays a part in it too.

But then you take the scientific route evolutionist who believe that we evolved they believe that there is a higher power that helped everything come into existence.Actually that is incorrect. An evolutionist does not posit on how "everything come into existence".

Hello again:
Actually, NO scientists say 40 billion. The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. We know that, because of carbon 14 dating. No, really, we KNOW that! We're not making it up!

C14 has a half-life of about 5000 years, therefore any attempt to use it to date something to the billions of years would be astronomically inaccurate.


I submit to you, that any person who says they believe in science, but that the earth is only 6,000 years old, doesn't know how silly he sounds.

I may sound silly to someone who tries to use C14 to date something billions of years old, but that is okay with me.

Beware the source on statistics like that.

Here's a statistic worth a chin scratching:
99.73% of Statistics are not accurate.

:)

I'd be curious what the statistics compiled by a Theistic organization would show.

...and my guess is that the truth would be somewhere between the two.

Before you put a stake in the ground on such numbers, make sure you also know what the actual question that was asked.

Actually that is incorrect. An evolutionist does not posit on how "everything come into existence".

Agreed. I have yet to find one who can provide a feasible answer to that question.

C14 has a half-life of about 5000 years, therefore any attempt to use it to date something to the billions of years would be astronomically inaccurate.



I may sound silly to someone who tries to use C14 to date something billions of years old, but that is okay with me.

You're right, Carbon 14 is not used to date anything much older than 60,000 years (~10 half lives). Uranium-lead dating, Potassium-argon dating, or some other similar process is used. These processes have half lives on the order of many billions of years. excon still has a point, though, even if his facts were a little wrong. (C14 still shows that the Earth is NOT 6000 years old... )

C14 has a half-life of about 5000 years, therefore any attempt to use it to date something to the billions of years would be astronomically inaccurate.


Correct - but pretty acurate at dating something that is, say, 50,000 years old, agreed?

Agreed. I have yet to find one who can provide a feasible answer to that question.

I haven't heard anyone posit a feasible answer to that question either.

As far as carbon 14, Tom is right that it is used to date materials that are up to about 60,000 years old.

Fortunately, there are other isotopes with much longer half lives that can be used to date older rocks.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods)

Agreed. I have yet to find one who can provide a feasible answer to that question.Hello again, Tj:

I guess I'm the first, then. It's called the big bang. Of course, it's NOT feasible to you. You think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But, it's feasible to lots of people.

Of course, if you want to ask where the singularity that banged came from, I couldn't tell you.

excon

To me "feasible" has a kind of engineering Practicality to it. Feasible (to me) means someone could maybe theoretically do it.

To be honest, the whole question of the origin of matter is totally beyond my imagination. I know there's scientific evidence for the big bang, the expanding universe (red shift), the background radiation, etc, but I can no more imagine everything in the world coming into existence at once than I can imagine millions of species popping into existence on a nice perfectly created planet on a Saturday in May. I know. This is a failure of the imagination, but there it is.

Just my two cents.

I know. This is a failure of the imagination, but there it is.Hello asking:

It's well beyond my imagination too. I can't grasp billions and billion of galaxies. Thinking about how many stars that might be gives me a headache.

But, I don't have to grasp it in order to believe it.

excon

asking, excon:

It's true, imagination cannot grapple with this, largely because what we can imagine is tied in all sorts of ways to our past sensory experiences. We can imagine a unicorn because we've seen horses and we've seen horns. But we've never seen, or perceived by means of any other sensory modality, anything that would give us imaginitive purchase on the singularity that yielded the big bang.

Fortunately, conceivability outruns imaginability. So you can conceive of the big bang, even though your imagination can't put useful images to it. You can't imagine an infinite magnitude, but you can conceive of one. Here's an example: the set of all real numbers. Oh goody! I just conceived of it too!

I more or less agree. But I have spent enough time looking through telescopes to feel comfortable with the idea of so many stars and galaxies. They really are all out there! I feel this is graspable in the same way a beach of individual grains of sand is. I get it, in principle at least. But things like the big bang and relativity have, for me, a kind tenuous, "if you say so, I'll take your word for it" quality for me.

I'm going to assume that if Einstein got it wrong, someone would have figured that out by now, but it's not real to me in the way other things are.

Newtonian mechanics feels totally graspable. Evolution is completely real to me. But things I've never really understood and which don't immediately explain anything I need to know... that's harder.

[[Edit: I was addressing what excon said.]]

I can conceive of the set of all real numbers because it is an abstraction. I cannot conceive of the big bang, except as a superficial illustration in a magazine. To me that is a cheat.


Edit: I should add that I was on a tour at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) a few months ago and they showed us a 3 D movie of the universe forming. It was bizarre and engrossing and beautiful. But I still can't imagine it in the way I mean.

Edit: I should add that I was on a tour at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) a few months ago and they showed us a 3 D movie of the universe forming. It was bizarre and engrossing and beautiful. But I still can't imagine it in the way I mean.

The movie would have had to be in 4 dimensions so that you could see 3-dimensional space expanding, which needless to say is impossible to envision. That's why they use analogies like imagining how the 2-D surface of a balloon expands into 3-D space when you inflate it. It's the only way to "see" how space expands.

Correct - but pretty acurate at dating something that is, say, 50,000 years old, agreed?
Actually, the numbers are reliable or at a much lower number of years. And even then you need to take into account assumptions. Such as the method is only entire accurate for an uncontaminated sample (hard to achieve in nature).

So billions? I don't think so.

Hello again, Tj:
I guess I'm the first, then. It's called the big bang. Of course, it's NOT feasible to you. You think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But, it's feasible to lots of people.

Of course, if you want to ask where the singularity that banged came from, I couldn't tell you.


Then explain to us how the first cell came to be.

Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Tj:
I guess I'm the first, then. It's called the big bang. Of course, it's NOT feasible to you. You think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But, it's feasible to lots of people.


Of course, if you want to ask where the singularity that banged came from, I couldn't tell you.

Then explain to us how the first cell came to be.

This seems like a complete nonsequitor.

This seems like a complete nonsequitor.

You mean claiming that I said something that I did not say?

You mean claiming that I said something that I did not say?non sequitur - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur)

Non sequitur.
Sorry about my spelling.
I do somewhat better in my native English.

Since we have fresh blood in this thread now (yay!), can we clarify the question?



Eeeeks, now you are scaring me! :eek:

I agree with Asking;
Shelesh, could you please clarify what exactly we are talking about here?thanks.

non sequitur - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur)


Ho hum - we are really getting a very picky bunch on here aren't we. If only those who are so picky were more precise.

A logic fallacy cannot have been committed based upon a faulty prermise (i.e. a mis-quote). Therefore her conclusion is wrong.

Hello again, Tj:

I guess I'm the first, then. It's called the big bang. Of course, it's NOT feasible to you. You think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But, it's feasible to lots of people.

Of course, if you want to ask where the singularity that banged came from, I couldn't tell you.

excon

Ex,

Thought I would enlighten you on Christians since you think we are all brainwashed. Not all Christians think the world is 6000 years old. My father is a devout Christian and brilliant in the word of God and he thinks it is billions of years old. I'm not sure myself. What I can't figure out is how you think a so called "big bang" just happened. Is it easier for you to believe that out of chaos perfect order was formed? Please... I ain't got enough FAITH to believe that. :p

Ex,

Thought i would enlighten you on Christians since you think we are all brainwashed. Not all Christians think the world is 6000 years old. My father is a devout Christian and brilliant in the word of God and he thinks it is billions of years old. I'm not sure myself. What i can't figure out is how you think a so called "big bang" just happened. Is it easier for you to believe that out of chaos perfect order was formed? Please...i ain't got enough FAITH to believe that. :p


There are many Christians who believe that the world is billions of years old. I used to be a very strong believer in that myself, so I understand and accept that to be true. I understand why they believe what they do. I was involved in doing exactly what we see others on here doing - trying to refute those who believe in creation and a young earth.

Let me take a few moments to summarize what I went through to bring me to where I am today. Some of the challenges that I was faced with from those who disagreed with me at that time took more research. While I was doing my research to refute these people who, I thought at the time, were so obviously ignoring the evidence, I discovered things that I could no longer ignore, both in scripture and in science.

It took a while, and for a while I fell back to a more comfortable position which I felt covered the problem, and that is theistic evolution. The believe that God used evolution, that the earth really is billions of years old and that Genesis was the story of evolution being described as the stages of creation, explained away by the phrase "a day is as a thousand years with the Lord". But as I tried to defend that position, I found it was the least defensible, and instead of holding to that position for the long period of years that I believed in evolution, my stint in theistic evolution was short.

As a Christian, a man of science, a researcher, and a man of logic, I simply could no longer fool myself into accepting evolution. I made a 180 turnaround into a position that I have now held for as long as I was an evolutionist.

You will find that those who ridicule the YEC (Young Earth Creationists) most often use ridicule as their response. We have seen it on here, ridiculing how anyone could possible be so ignorant. And yet do you see any validation of their position? I asked the evolutionists on many threads, on many boards (including this board) to provide evidence of evolution, and to date nothing.

For Christians, evolution or OEC (Old Earth Creation) is a problem because if the story of Adam and Eve is false, then what happens to the gospel? How did sin enter the world? Why does the New Testament deal explicitly with Adam as a real man, even placing him in the genealogy of Jesus? If Genesis is just a story, where does the story end and history begin - show me the verse.

These are some of the issues that I dealt with from a theological perspective. From a scientific perspective there are some equally big hurdles. I have raised some of the questions on this board and others and so often the same answers come back - ridicule, but never a solid scientific response.

There are many excellent scientists, many of the secular who are quite open about admitting the problems that evolution brings with it. Some other scientists are less open and prefer to not admit the issues but rather staunchly close their eyes and say that it has been proven. If so, where is the proof?

Some people say that we cannot know either way. I disagree with them, but I find that a more honest position than to deny the issues and claim that evolution is a fact. I don't mind people who say that they don't know. If a person will admit that, then they may be able to look at the evidence objectively.

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded story, but it may help those who are interested to know that my background is not that of a YEC, but rather of an evolutionist who was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the evidence which was contrary to what I wanted to believe.

Tj3,

Interesting. The church I go to believes the earth is around 6,000 years old. But there are lots of Godly men who believe the world is billion of years old and they believe the earth was created in literally 6 days. My father is one I guess it is considered the "gap" theory or something. I don't know. I'm not real scientific OR logical.. lol . I tend to go with the earth being relatively young. I went to a Creation museum that Ken Ham was involved with building last March. I found it very interesting. By the way I LOVE hearing about evolutionist who come to their senses!

Well, am still searching for an answer. I don't believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.. The answer is in the Bible and I'll find it..

Tj3,

Interesting. The church I go to believes the earth is around 6,000 years old. But there are lots of Godly men who believe the world is billion of years old and they believe the earth was created in literally 6 days. My father is one I guess it is considered the "gap" theory or something.

Yes, I agree that there are many godly persons who hold to an OEC position. I am familiar with the gap theory. I do not find it compelling because it depends upon assuming that scripture left something out.


I don't know. I'm not real scientific OR logical.. lol . I tend to go with the earth being relatively young. I went to a Creation museum that Ken Ham was involved with building last March. I found it very interesting. By the way I LOVE hearing about evolutionist who come to their senses!

I'd like to go there some time. We have a world class research center near us which studies fossils and I have been there a number of times. If you ask questions, I have found that they will be honest and admit where the assumptions are in how they came to their conclusions. In my view, that is a sign of a good scientist - one who can admit and is willing to acknowledge where the line between assumption and fact lies.

Yes,

Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1490160)

I think belief in God AND science can co-exist.

In this survey 76% of physicians vs 83% in the general population believe in God.

Physicians have a science background and the majority have bachelors in biology or other "hard" science before going to medical school and years of reidency. So no one can claim they are not thinking for themselves and are they are exposed more to evolutionary theory than the general population.

As opposed to bench scientists these professionals deal with science and the human condition daily. And the biggest human condition they see is human suffering.

Despite this, more than 75% of hysicians in this survey believe in God.

The degree that they believe in the Bible was not studied in this study, so I can't comment on that, but the point of this link is that to the OP's ?

A definite YES, science and religion can and do exist.





G&P

These numbers for doctors fit in well with the other numbers I posted earlier, fitting between the average for ordinary scientists and all Americans together, and, in particular, closer to the numbers for average Americans.

The medical schools I'm familiar with do not require medical school applicants to have an undergraduate degree in biology. While many do major in biology, many have majored in history or literature or sometimes chemistry.

In medical school it would be quite unusual for students to be exposed too much in the way of evolution or natural history.

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine (http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evolutionary-medicine.html)

The emphasis is on human anatomy, physiology and pharmacology. If you took a comparative approach to learn these topics in the context of how things work in other animals as well as humans, you would learn a lot about evolution, but the majority of doctors are not exposed to that. They have to memorize what to do if a patient comes in with a certain set of symptoms, how to calculate dosages, and so on. The most important thing is to prevent an imminent death. Everything else can wait.

Most doctors are highly educated technicians and have no reason to think like scientists. It's not what they do day to day and it's not how they were trained. This is not a fault. It's just not what they do.

So it sounds about right that they would be only a bit different from the general population.

I am of course not talking about the few MD/PhDs or MDs involved in quality research programs.

Hi asking.

I've found the numbers you've offered very interesting, but I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of them. Clearly sociological data don't speak to the question whether science and religion are incommensurable frameworks. You've mentioned that, in your experience, many good scientists just don't pay any attention to religion. Do you suspect there is much else going on here? Are you willing to hazard any guesses about what the data may be reflective of? You have suggested that perhaps scientists find their worldview sufficiently satisfying that they aren't looking to supplement it with religion. Do you suspect this is a widespread phenomenon? (I won't hold you to anything you say, since I'm really just asking for guesses based on anecdotal evidence.)

I'm more of a pragmatist than a philosopher, so I'm reluctant to hazard more than guesses about what the data mean.

I will say that I think they mean SOMETHING. They are too dramatic, I think, to be mere coincidence.

But what's cause and what's effect, I don't know.

In brief, I think that either people who are indifferent to religion are disproportionately drawn to science or else the practice of science fills a psychic gap that might, in other circumstances, be filled by religion. I think that whichever it is is more the case with very intelligent people, the sort who end up in the National Academy of Sciences. I guess I lean toward the latter but it could very easily be both. I don't see any reason to choose.

I need to repeat that science and religion clearly are compatible in some good scientists' minds. That's why I posted John Horgan's interview with Francis Collins.

But, that said, I don't think it's coincidental that Collins is a bench scientist with an emphasis on genetics and medicine. A scientist who, further, has devoted himself mostly to management and long range planning for big institutions.

An epidemiologist has to grapple with wild populations. But scientists who work on things that don't vary much, don't always grasp the messiness of real life. Those who work with lab animals or viruses and bacteria in dishes don't get a sense of the sweep of nature. Lab organisms are specifically chosen for rapid reproduction, minimal variation, development that is unaffected by environment, and various other traits that make them easy to work with but which are NOT representative of wild populations of animals, including ourselves.

On top of all that, most genetics experiments deliberately control environmental variation, so traditional geneticists/molecular biologists have come to expect that anything interesting that happens is going to be caused by genes, not the environment. But it is environment that shapes the path of evolution. And that's a whole long other story.

I think that exposure to the enormous variation and the complex interactions that go on in nature predispose people to understand evolution regardless of their education. It doesn't matter if the person encounters nature as a cattle breeder, a hunter, or a field biologist, the effect is significant. Being out in the world allows people to see for themselves that what science says is true. Water does visibly erode mountain ranges, filling rivers with silt and moving beaches. The immense time spans needed to build layers of sandy sediments that are a mile high tell their own tale. Where did all that sand come from? How many winter storms did it take to build the individual grains eroded from older mountains into a towering mountain range like the Rockies?

So I think that although the numbers don't explore it, I would predict that field biologists (and probably field geologists) would be less more likely to think in very long time spans and less likely to believe in God than comparable people in fields that do strictly lab work, such as someone in drug development, an industrial chemist, or an engineer who designs bridges.

These are just tendencies, not absolutes. I would predict lots of exceptions, so some of you, please don't inundate me with examples otherwise. I take those as a given.

These numbers for doctors fit in well with the other numbers I posted earlier, fitting between the average for ordinary scientists and all Americans together, and, in particular, closer to the numbers for average Americans.

The medical schools I'm familiar with do not require medical school applicants to have an undergraduate degree in biology. While many do major in biology, many have majored in history or literature or sometimes chemistry.

In medical school it would be quite unusual for students to be exposed to much in the way of evolution or natural history.

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine (http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evolutionary-medicine.html)

The emphasis is on human anatomy, physiology and pharmacology. If you took a comparative approach to learn these topics in the context of how things work in other animals as well as humans, you would learn a lot about evolution, but the majority of doctors are not exposed to that. They have to memorize what to do if a patient comes in with a certain set of symptoms, how to calculate dosages, and so on. The most important thing is to prevent an imminent death. Everything else can wait.

Most doctors are highly educated technicians and have no reason to think like scientists. It's not what they do day to day and it's not how they were trained. This is not a fault. It's just not what they do.

So it sounds about right that they would be only a bit different from the general population.

I am of course not talking about the few MD/PhDs or MDs involved in quality research programs.



If evolution was really pertinent to the care of human beings don't you think that it would be part of medical school curriculum?

In fact, evolution is contrary to medical care. Medical care is about caring for the weak, the sick, the poor, ------- these are the folks that evolution would select out.

As to physicians being just technicians I have to disagree.
For example, your phycsician has to know the presenting evidence from history and physical, come up with a list of potential diagnosis based on probabilty, order tests that would have pertinence, know what to do with the results whether they support or do not support a presumptive diagnosis, and then often times has to choose and tailor fit the best treatment plan.


Your cardiothoracic surgeon not only has to have the technical skill to perform the surgery, but know if surgery is indicated, would the patient survive surgery, would the patient benefit with surgery versus pharmacologic therapy alone, and deal with any postoperative complications. This is not just being a "technician" and should not be placed in the same skill as the technical ability to change a flat tire, for example.


The fact that lab / research scientists do not deal with the human condition on a daily basis, allows them the luxury to theorize. Wat practical use is evolution in daily life?
At least with God, the bible, and religion there is practical advice on the way to live your life.



What would an evolutionists tell a cancer patient? Sorry you inherited or acquired mutations that caused oncogenes and your cancer? Sorry you are in sickle cell crisis and in excruciating pain, but did you know you have an evolutionary advantage against malaria?

NEJM -- Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/24/2457)

Here is an example of the "research" -- the statistical analysis is enough to cure insomnia.
they deal with numbers, facts, and draw conclusions even they may contradict previously held assumptions.


I would argue that the research and the evidence required for medical research is stricter than that in evolutionary biology or cosmology. You can't do a randomized placebo controlled double blind, reproducible study with evolution.







G&P

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine (http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evolutionary-medicine.html)


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biology/why-teach-evolution-248894-4.html#post1261628

In fact, evolution is contrary to medical care. Medical care is about caring for the weak, the sick, the poor, ------- these are the folks that evolution would select out.

Oh, no! Many animals cooperate and take care of their own. It is not at all unusual in social animals and it is certainly not contrary to evolution in any way.


As to physicians being just technicians I have to disagree.
For example, your phycsician has to know the presenting evidence from history and physical, come up with a list of potential diagnosis based on probabilty, order tests that would have pertinence, know what to do with the results whether they support or do not support a presumptive diagnosis, and then often times has to choose and tailor fit the best treatment plan.

That's right. Those are technical skills. Some doctors are very good at it Others, not so good. Most of them these days don't remotely have enough time to do a good job on a difficult case. House, after all, is just television. So I disagree.



Your cardiothoracic surgeon not only has to have the technical skill to perform the surgery, but know if surgery is indicated, would the patient survive surgery, would the patient benefit with surgery versus pharmacologic therapy alone, and deal with any postoperative complications. This is not just being a "technician" and should not be placed in the same skill as the technical ability to change a flat tire, for example.

There are many kinds of technical skills that are far more difficult than changing a flat tire, so that's hardly a fair comparison. I stand by my assertion. I knew that this post would offend some people, but I let Akoue draw me out. :)



The fact that lab / research scientists do not deal with the human condition on a daily basis, allows them the luxury to theorize.

No. Just the opposite. People who deal with the human condition in situations they cannot control, and people who deal with wild populations -- of deer and fleas and rats and plants -- you name it -- do not just theorize. They are in the trenches of life.

[QUOTE]Wat practical use is evolution in daily life?

You'd be amazed what you can learn from watching the other kinds of life around you.

As for morality and values, I learned those from my parents, like most people, and from other loved ones, from living, from making mistakes, from getting it right, just like most people. Don't ever tell me that you can only learn right and wrong from a book.


What would an evolutionists tell a cancer patient? Sorry you inherited or acquired mutations that caused oncogenes and your cancer? Sorry you are in sickle cell crisis and in excruciating pain, but did you know you have an evolutionary advantage against malaria?

There's a place for every kind of technician. If your computer crashes you don't call a doctor and you don't call a biologist. If your car makes a nasty sound and the "check engine" light comes on, you don't call your minister or a cardiac surgeon, no matter how good he is. When you have cancer, you go to the doctor, because they've been taught what to say to you and the pharmaceutical reps have taken them to lunch and given them a list of things that might help you. Or not.


I would argue that the research and the evidence required for medical research is stricter than that in evolutionary biology or cosmology.

I won't argue cosmology, 'cause it's not my field. But for biology, most of the time you'd be wrong. Medical research is often really bad. I've read enough papers with sample sizes consisting of one doctors 7 patients and no controls. That's why they've been trying to make them better. Have you heard of "evidence based" medicine? That they even have to say that is an indication that they didn't used to consider evidence. I saw an ad for a job at a company that does "evidence-based" biomedical research. They think there's another kind??


You can't do a randomized placebo controlled double blind, reproducible study with evolution.

Actually, you can.

Are you a doctor, by any chance?
If so, let me repeat that I am talking generalities, not about specific people.

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine (http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evolutionary-medicine.html)


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biology/why-teach-evolution-248894-4.html#post1261628

"Doctors are not scientists" does not meant "doctors are not good doctors."

There is such a thing as medical research that is done scientifically. But dispensing antibiotics to children with earaches and -- even -- cutting open a heart patient is not research. It's treatment.

Would many doctors be better doctors if they understood more biology? Sure. Do they all need it? I seriously doubt it. The doctor at my local clinic who gives out antibiotics or doesn't clearly does not understand what causes antibiotic resistance. If he understood evolution, I'd be able to explain it to him. But with only a 6 minute appointment, there's no way. But I kind of doubt the gap in his knowledge has a huge impact because the rules he's following are set by the clinic and the insurers.

Should medical researchers have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology? Absolutely.

Would many doctors be better doctors if they understood more biology? Sure. Do they all need it? I seriously doubt it. The doctor at my local clinic who gives out antibiotics or doesn't clearly does not understand what causes antibiotic resistance. If he understood evolution, I'd be able to explain it to him. But with only a 6 minute appointment, there's no way. But I kind of doubt the gap in his knowledge has a huge impact because the rules he's following are set by the clinic and the insurers.

Should medical researchers have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology? Absolutely.

What you are describing here is micro-evolution. As we have discussed before, there is no proof for macro-evolution, and a lot of holes in the theory.

House


- yes a TV show, where else do 4- 6 doctors spend days on end taking care of one patient.


How gorilla gestures point to evolution of human language (http://www.physorg.com/news153413952.html)

Is something like this what is considered science?

How exactly do you get from 102 estures in Gorillas to human langauge?

Where is the reproducible study?

How do you draw the conclusion that gorilla gestures and human language are even similar?

Is that the same as saying a bicycle has wheels and a car has wheels so they are the same? Oh wait, I'm using examples of design.

Why don't these scientists use the same train of thought when comparing dolphin sonar and human language? Or human sonar? Oh wait, humans used there intelligence to develop sonar and radar.









G&P

In brief, I think that either people who are indifferent to religion are disproportionately drawn to science or else the practice of science fills a psychic gap that might, in other circumstances, be filled by religion. I think that whichever it is is more the case with very intelligent people, the sort who end up in the National Academy of Sciences. I guess I lean toward the latter but it could very easily be both. I don't see any reason to choose.

I suspect you're right that there's no very compelling reason to choose. I also think you are right about what the candidates are for an explanation.


So I think that although the numbers don't explore it, I would predict that field biologists (and probably field geologists) would be less more likely to think in very long time spans and less likely to believe in God than comparable people in fields that do strictly lab work, such as someone in drug development, an industrial chemist, or an engineer who designs bridges.

Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that. I hadn't considered this but I'd be very surprised if you aren't right.

"Doctors are not scientists" does not meant "doctors are not good doctors."

There is such a thing as medical research that is done scientifically. But dispensing antibiotics to children with earaches and -- even -- cutting open a heart patient is not research. It's treatment.

Would many doctors be better doctors if they understood more biology? Sure. Do they all need it? I seriously doubt it. The doctor at my local clinic who gives out antibiotics or doesn't clearly does not understand what causes antibiotic resistance. If he understood evolution, I'd be able to explain it to him. But with only a 6 minute appointment, there's no way. But I kind of doubt the gap in his knowledge has a huge impact because the rules he's following are set by the clinic and the insurers.

Should medical researchers have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology? Absolutely.



And how did they come to the conclusion that bypass would be helpful?

ACC/AHA guidelines and indications for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on C (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/3/1125)


Start at page 47 and see how much research was done to come to some nuanced indications for bypass.

What would the "evolutionist doctor"
Doctor say to the parents of a kid with an ear infection:
Otitis Media: Overview - eMedicine Emergency Medicine (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/764006-overview)
Note the possible cause, bacteria being among the majjor causes with viruses also a consideration.
There is no sure fire way to know the exact cause in an office so:
No antibiotics, the kid gets worse, has damaged hearing, maybe a brain infection or death, if this is an untreated bacterial cause. Or it is a virus and self limited.
Do you risk doing nothing and hope that it is a virus or do you play the percentages and treat? Add into that consideration the medico-legal environment and parental expectations. Also consider that half the times a doctor prescribes an antibiotic it is taken improperly, not taken all the time or long enough, and this contributes to antibiotic resistance [which is not macro -evolution as Tom points out]




Now you provide the proof that further evolutionary studies in medical school in residency would make better doctors?










G&P

eMJA: Spirituality, religion and health: evidence and research directions (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_10_210507/wil11060_fm.html)




There is mounting scientific evidence of a positive association between religious involvement and multiple indicators of health. The strongest evidence exists for the association between religious attendance and mortality, with higher levels of attendance predictive of a strong, consistent and often graded reduction in mortality risk.






Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analyt...[Health Psychol. 2000] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10868765?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn)

Here is more proof that religion and science do co-exist and are mutually beneficial






G&P

I think that whichever it is is more the case with very intelligent people, the sort who end up in the National Academy of Sciences.


I suspect you're right that there's no very compelling reason to choose. I also think you are right about what the candidates are for an explanation.

So the interesting question here to me is how being intelligent or --at least -- being very good at what you do affects religious experience. Why are only 7% of NAS members believers compared to (what was it?) 30% for scientists generally? Is it just brains? Does science turn people away from God? Is there an interaction between being a scientist AND being a workaholic that drives down the numbers of believers? I don't have a handle on this at all. Are NAS members workaholics? Seems likely. Maybe they just don't have time for two things in their lives. Good male scientists tend to be married, with small families (I have no data, this is just observational). Good women scientists tend not to have children. I alluded to the demanding nature of academic science before. But the pressure isn't all coming from the outside. People like this tend to be driven generally.

This is basically somebody's dissertation topic.

Maybe it is pride?

To believe in ones self or intellect alone leaves no room to consider the Creator.

Use to be doctors thought themselves as god, or so the stereotype went, but over the past several decades that is less true.

When you see how once healthy vibrant people can get sick and die, or just decline to the point of just being shells of their former selves, and despite doing all you can... it is humbling... all the brain power, logic, reason, technology is of little use at that time. That is not to say that basic research and development should not occur... but at that moment, it is kindness, empathy, compassion, patience, listening, and someone just being there or available that helps.

Probably anyone taking care of elderly parents understands this.

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

I know to literally take the story of Noah's ark, and how he got a pair of every living thing on that ark, REALLY stretches the imagination...

But can you imagine, the Son of God, the Creator of the universe... washing feet?

Which is more believable?















G&P

To believe in ones self or intellect alone leaves no room to consider the Creator.
Millions of us in the world are just fine with that.





















NK.

Does science turn people away from God? Hello again, asking:

That's the question!

The simple answer is YES. It turns them away, the same way growing up, turns people away from Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

Indeed, when faced with objective evidence to the contrary, most people give up their childish notions - except when it comes to religion.

excon

Millions of us in the world are just fine with that.

And the majority of the planet is fine with otherwise :)

























NK.[/QUOTE]

Hello again, asking:

That's the question!

The simple answer is YES. It turns them away, the same way growing up, turns people away from Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

Indeed, when faced with objective evidence to the contrary, most people give up their childish notions - except when it comes to religion.

excon

Yes, I think I see what you mean. Look out your window. All that you see just happened?? Talk about a fairy tale. If it is a childish notion to look at the mountains, the ocean, the stars and to conclude there IS a creator.. then so be it. You say I have childish notions... I say you are being foolish.

By the way... I haven't met a grown adult who still believed in the tooth fairy or santa claus... I have met brilliant men and women that believed in a creator. It isn't childish at all. It is the beginning of wisdom.

And the majority of the planet is fine with otherwise I've never been one to go with the majority just because it's the majority - that whole 'thinking for yourself' thing y'know. ;)

I've never been one to go with the majority just becasue it's the majority - that whole 'thinking for yourself' thing y'know. ;)

Good for you. I'm the same way; no kidding.

I'm not with the majority of the US (or the world, I might guess) on MANY issues.

I'm sure that if you and I were on my back porch having a nice beverage, we'd find we have much more in common than we disagree about :)

I'm sure that if you and I were on my back porch having a nice beverage, we'd find we have much more in common than we disagree about :)There is absolutely no doubt about that! I have friends of every belief (or lack of), the topic of religion rarely comes up. That pretty much in keeping with a plan to keep fanatics away from my inner circle in real life.

If you're ever in Ohio, let me know: I'll feed and lubricate you and we'll have a good time :)

I'll be flying over it in a week's time. I'll raise a drink box to you (yes it's a family vacation). :)

Order a Tomato Juice and I bet you could slip the stewardess a 10 spot to secretly slip you one of those little bottles of Vodka to help the juice ;)

yes, i think i see what you mean. Look out your window. All that you see just happened????

From my perspective, an argument for special creation is just that.

It all just appeared one day 6000 years ago. It all just happened.

That just seems like a fundamentally uninteresting proposition. I'm more interested in how and why things happened--mechanistically. For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions.

How and why did photosynthesis come into existence?
Why do humans have hands that can wrap around a ball shaped object, unlike other primates?
Why do sediments vary in thickness and composition?

If the answer to every question is the same (God did it), it's like being in an intellectual prison.

Maybe it is pride?

To believe in ones self or intellect alone leaves no room to consider the Creator.

Use to be doctors thought themselves as god, or so the stereotype went, but over the past several decades that is less true.

I think pride could be one factor.

Doctors used to present themselves as more godlike, which made doctors feel good, AND also contributed to the placebo effect, which is very effective. If your doctors knows all and says "you will get better," very often patients do.

But, as you say, the status of doctors has dropped a lot in the last few decades. I think many things have contributed to that, including an influx of women into the profession; patients' right and the movement toward putting the responsibility for medical decisions onto the patient (no matter how ignorant); the increasing role of insurers in dictating not only the number of patients seen in a day, but what they can prescribe, and what tests can be done; and of course the "evidence-based medicine" that results in strict guidelines, which comes from the work of the CDC and large clinical trials funded by the government. Doctors of 50 years ago were cowboys compared to today.















G&P[/QUOTE]

From my perspective, an argument for special creation is just that.

It all just appeared one day 6000 years ago. It all just happened.

That just seems like a fundamentally uninteresting proposition. I'm more interested in how and why things happened--mechanistically. For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions.

How and why did photosynthesis come into existence?
Why do humans have hands that can wrap around a ball shaped object, unlike other primates?
Why do sediments vary in thickness and composition?

If the answer to every question is the same (God did it), it's like being in an intellectual prison.

For whatever it's worth, I think it is also theologically stultifying. If theology is obliged to stop at the surface contours of the text, if no more probing question can be asked than "What does the Bible say?", any attempt at a deeper understanding of the Bible, or God, or of the spiritual life and its prospects and projects, is pre-empted before it can really begin. Theology is then limited to endless recapitulations of Biblical sound bites, quotes rolling off the tongue almost mechanically. This strikes me, at least, as a profound lack of respect, respect for--among other things--the integrity of sacred texts and the traditions that honor them.

There is a tendency in some quarters to greet with a suspicious gaze the desire to plumb whatever depths may be plumbed. There is, I mean to say, a tendency for some to stifle theological, and not just scientific, inquiry if it appears to threaten to do anything other than to parrot the texts themselves. This not only breeds contempt for science and scientific inquiry; it breeds its own contempt for religion and for the humanistic drives and urges that make religion meaningful. I will put this problematically, or hypothetically, in deference to those here who don't believe that there are genuinely sacred texts: If a text is sacred, it isn't itself an object to be worshipped; it is an invitation to a conversation in which the questions don't stop while there is breath in the questioner. To suppose otherwise is to back into the notion that the text itself cannot withstand interrogation; it is to make of the text not the beginning of a conversation but the end of all conversation.

It is worthy of note that we have come to learn a great deal about the composition of the Bible, about the conflicts that raged within the earliest Christian communities, about the ways in which the Bible was itself produced and transmitted, and about the transformations it has undergone. It was not penned by God's own hand, of course, and its transmission and diffusion has been the work of many very deeply flawed human beings. We've come to learn a great deal more about this over the last hundred years. These have to be part of the conversation, not juest between Christianity and science, but between Christianity and itself.

From my perspective, an argument for special creation is just that.

It all just appeared one day 6000 years ago. It all just happened.

Actually, other than the timeframe, that sounds like the explanation for the big bang. The difference is that the big bang omits God from the event, and assumes the all this complex design occurred by chance.


That just seems like a fundamentally uninteresting proposition. I'm more interested in how and why things happened--mechanistically. For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions.

Personally, I find God very interesting!



How and why did photosynthesis come into existence?
Why do humans have hands that can wrap around a ball shaped object, unlike other primates?
Why do sediments vary in thickness and composition?

You are working on a computer. You would make no sense to say I would like to know how this computer (a complex design) came to be, but I don't want to know anything about how it was designed or manufactured. That is not scientific - good science does not start saying "I will accept any answer except the ones that I find boring".

Actually, other than the timeframe, that sounds like the explanation for the big bang. The difference is that the big bang omits God from the event, and assumes the all this complex design occurred by chance.

I don't about chance. But see my comments about the big bang earlier. To be frank, I'm fairly ignorant about the details of big bang theory, which may be one reason it doesn't compel my interest. But it's also because it has this "it just happened" aspect to it.


You are working on a computer. You would make no sense to say I would like to know how this computer (a complex design) came to be, but I don't want to know anything about how it was designed or manufactured. That is not scientific - good science does not start saying "I will accept any answer except the ones that I find boring".

But it would be really boring if I said "How does the computer work?" and you said, "IBM and Microsoft designed and built it." And if I asked any more questions, you got testy and said, "Microsoft works in mysterious ways. Do not question the CreatorTM." End of discussion. THAT's how religious explanations appear to me. There's no mechanism. There are certainly no design plans. No corporate history, no reason given for one design over another. Not so much as a patent application.

I really like Akoue's last post. This makes so much sense to me.

From my perspective, an argument for special creation is just that.

It all just appeared one day 6000 years ago. It all just happened.

That just seems like a fundamentally uninteresting proposition. I'm more interested in how and why things happened--mechanistically. For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions.

How and why did photosynthesis come into existence?
Why do humans have hands that can wrap around a ball shaped object, unlike other primates?
Why do sediments vary in thickness and composition?

If the answer to every question is the same (God did it), it's like being in an intellectual prison.

Photosynthesis, the genetic code, human hands, vision, life on earth:

For those that don't believe in God the answer to every question is nature or evolution or the big bang anything but the possibility of God.


Show me the proof that man and ape have the same ancestors:

You can't, because that cannot be reproduced, it can't be measured, it can't be observed.
Only ASSUMPTIONS can be made. You can't create an experiment to prove evolution because the process of coming up with an experiment requires INTELLIGENCE and forethought. Evolution is self -refuting.




That is not scientific.









G&P

For whatever it's worth, I think it is also theologically stultifying. If theology is obliged to stop at the surface contours of the text, if no more probing question can be asked than "What does the Bible say?", any attempt at a deeper understanding of the Bible, or God, or of the spiritual life and its prospects and projects, is pre-empted before it can really begin. Theology is then limited to endless recapitulations of Biblical sound bites, quotes rolling off the tongue almost mechanically. This strikes me, at least, as a profound lack of respect, respect for--among other things--the integrity of sacred texts and the traditions that honor them.

There is a tendency in some quarters to greet with a suspicious gaze the desire to plumb whatever depths may be plumbed. There is, I mean to say, a tendency for some to stifle theological, and not just scientific, inquiry if it appears to threaten to do anything other than to parrot the texts themselves. This not only breeds contempt for science and scientific inquiry; it breeds its own contempt for religion and for the humanistic drives and urges that make religion meaningful. I will put this problematically, or hypothetically, in deference to those here who don't believe that there are genuinely sacred texts: If a text is sacred, it isn't itself an object to be worshipped; it is an invitation to a conversation in which the questions don't stop while there is breath in the questioner. To suppose otherwise is to back into the notion that the text itself cannot withstand interrogation; it is to make of the text not the beginning of a conversation but the end of all conversation.

It is worthy of note that we have come to learn a great deal about the composition of the Bible, about the conflicts that raged within the earliest Christian communities, about the ways in which the Bible was itself produced and transmitted, and about the transformations it has undergone. It was not penned by God's own hand, of course, and its transmission and diffusion has been the work of many very deeply flawed human beings. We've come to learn a great deal more about this over the last hundred years. These have to be part of the conversation, not juest between Christianity and science, but between Christianity and itself.


What you say, is can be said for the Darwin religion, the global warming religion.
No contrary oponion or evidence can be tolerated.








G&P

What you say, is can be said for the Darwin religion, the global warming religion.
No contrary oponion or evidence can be tolerated.


G&P

Why stop there? What about the gravity religion?

I think many of us would not take too seriously someone who denied gravitational force on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the Bible.

And if the gravity-denier produced as evidence photos of astronauts floating in the space shuttle while orbiting the earth, we still wouldn't take his denial of gravity seriously.

Why? Because it isn't *evidence* that there is no such thing as gravitational force.

The problem with contrary evidence that is proposed in order to expose the falsity of evolution is that it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.

I've seen people at ths very site propose an unusually warm summer or mild winter as *evidence* that there is no global warming. But, of course, it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.

You might think that evolutionary theory and global warming are bunk. You might think proponents of these views are fanatical in their defense. But even so, and even if you're right and they're all wrong, that doesn't make what they believe a religion. That would make it an ideology.

that cannot be reproduced, it can't be measured, it can't be observed.

Neither can God's existence. So, by your own reasoning, that has no place in science either.


Only ASSUMPTIONS can be made. You can't create an experiment to prove evolution because the process of coming up with an experiment requires INTELLIGENCE and forethought. Evolution is self -refuting.

That is not scientific.

This doesn't show that evolutionary theory is self-refuting. At most it would show it to be an empirically unverified hypothesis.

Moreover, while it is true that experimentation requires intelligence, evolutionary theory does not propose that evolution was or is an experiment. There's nothing "self-refuting" or contradictory about it. At worst, it's just false.

Of course, it isn't that either.

From my perspective, an argument for special creation is just that.

It all just appeared one day 6000 years ago. It all just happened.

That just seems like a fundamentally uninteresting proposition. I'm more interested in how and why things happened--mechanistically. For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions.

How and why did photosynthesis come into existence?
Why do humans have hands that can wrap around a ball shaped object, unlike other primates?
Why do sediments vary in thickness and composition?

If the answer to every question is the same (God did it), it's like being in an intellectual prison.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to understand and question things. Like how it all works, why it does. We were given brains for a reason and believing in a creator doesn't make someone stupid or in a intellectual prison. I believe you can have faith and also wan to understand photosynthesis... or why sediments vary in thickness. Having faith doesn't make people 'fundamentally uninteresting."

I don't about chance. But see my comments about the big bang earlier. To be frank, I'm fairly ignorant about the details of big bang theory, which may be one reason it doesn't compel my interest. But it's also because it has this "it just happened" aspect to it.

I think it's important to stress that this is not what Big Bang theory says. It's very easy to think of the big bang happening and then moving forward in time from there, and you're right that it seems magical if you look at it from that point.

But the whole point is that if we trace the evidence backwards, then at some point it must have all been at a singularity. It says nothing about the state of the universe before the singularity because that's as far as the evidence can lead us (at the moment).

It's the same with evolution, we trace life back and we find a point where life *just appeared*. It doesn't mean that it actually just appeared from nowhere, it just means we don't have the evidence or we need to look at the evidence in a different way. We need hypotheses so that we can make predictions and search for the evidence to show that it came about through a natural process. Same deal with the big bang.

I think it's important to stress that this is not what Big Bang theory says. It's very easy to think of the big bang happening and then moving forward in time from there, and you're right that it seems magical if you look at it from that point.

But the whole point is that if we trace the evidence backwards, then at some point it must have all been at a singularity. It says nothing about the state of the universe before the singularity because that's as far as the evidence can lead us (at the moment).



Thanks for reminding me. I guess I should read about it again. I think it's the idea of a singularity that I don't get. I have heard this word used lately to argue that in the future all matter will become information. (And not far in the future, but soon, which I can't accept.) So this isn't personally helpful, but I get your point anyway.

In contrast, I know enough about cells to be able to envision a stepwise beginning for life. But that's what knowledge does. It gives you the tools to be able to imagine or conceptualize something amazing, which is sort of my point. If I understood the math behind big bang theory, I probably wouldn't find it so unimaginable. A lot of people think that knowledge is just about believing something or not, when understanding is needed for it to be more than just belief in one thing or another.

I don't about chance. But see my comments about the big bang earlier. To be frank, I'm fairly ignorant about the details of big bang theory, which may be one reason it doesn't compel my interest. But it's also because it has this "it just happened" aspect to it.

Evidence for it is also pretty sketchy.

The big bang that I believe in is God said it, and "bang" it happened!


But it would be really boring if I said "How does the computer work?" and you said, "IBM and Microsoft designed and built it." And if I asked any more questions, you got testy and said, "Microsoft works in mysterious ways. Do not question the CreatorTM." End of discussion. THAT's how religious explanations appear to me. There's no mechanism. There are certainly no design plans. No corporate history, no reason given for one design over another. Not so much as a patent application.

Some things are too far removed from our understanding. For example, if you took that same computer and put it in front of a young child and the child said tell me how you make a the computer chips - it would be beyond their ability to understand even the basics. The same is true, and even more so when we look at the understand of humans verses a being so powerful that he can speak things into being. You make think that he is boring, but I find Him anything but boring.

But the point remains - to reject something because you find it boring is definitely not a scientific approach.

. You make think that he is boring, but i find Him anything but boring.

To refrain, I did not say that religious people were boring and I did not say that God was boring.

I said that using God to explain interesting questions about the real world is intellectually suffocating. It is an opinion. Opinions are not science. They are opinions, and that one is mine.

I did not say that God was boring.

Yes you did - here is the quote:

"For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions." ( https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/science-religion-315729-2.html#post1558156 )

How exactly does this description vary from "boring"?

Why stop there? What about the gravity religion?

I think many of us would not take too seriously someone who denied gravitational force on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the Bible.

And if the gravity-denier produced as evidence photos of astronauts floating in the space shuttle while orbiting the earth, we still wouldn't take his denial of gravity seriously.

Why? Because it isn't *evidence* that there is no such thing as gravitational force.

The problem with contrary evidence that is proposed in order to expose the falsity of evolution is that it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.

I've seen people at ths very site propose an unusually warm summer or mild winter as *evidence* that there is no global warming. But, of course, it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.

You might think that evolutionary theory and global warming are bunk. You might think proponents of these views are fanatical in their defense. But even so, and even if you're right and they're all wrong, that doesn't make what they believe a religion. That would make it an ideology.

Gravity can be measured and observed. Can macro evolution be observed? Has it been observed?

Take one cell : genetic material, mitochondria or chloroplasts, ribosomes aminoacids ---these are the minimum and I'm allowing you that:

What research paper demonstrtates that this one cell becomes a reproducing mulitcellular organism?

That is one cell taken all the way to trillions of cells that we have?

What observable/ experimental evidence makes this plausible by evolution?

There is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for this. And that makes evolution science fiction.
It takes faith and because of that it is a religion.


There is more evidence in archaeology and in the lives of believers for Jesus Christ ;)








G&P

Gravity can be measured and observed. Can macro evolution be observed? Has it been observed?

I find the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution to be utterly artificial and obfuscating. But yes, evolution can be observed.


Take one cell : genetic material, mitochondria or chloroplasts, ribosomes aminoacids ---these are the minimum and I'm allowing you that:

What research paper demonstrtates that this one cell becomes a reproducing mulitcellular organism?

That is one cell taken all the way to trillions of cells that we have?

What observable/ experimental evidence makes this plausible by evolution?

Are you thinking that an inability to answer your question vitiates evolutionary theory? If so, you're making things far too easy for yourself.

Tell me whether your inability to answer the following question vitiates Christianity: What was God doing before he created?


There is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for this. And that makes evolution science fiction.
It takes faith and because of that it is a religion.

It would appear you and I have very different conceptions of faith.


There is more evidence in archaeology and in the lives of believers for Jesus Christ ;)

Well, there certainly isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of God. Is that what you are getting at? I certainly don't deny the existence of Jesus--or of God, for that matter.

I find the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution to be utterly artificial and obfuscating. But yes, evolution can be observed.

Micro-evolution ONLY.


Well, there certainly isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of God. Is that what you are getting at? I certainly don't deny the existence of Jesus--or of God, for that matter.

There is evidence for the existence of God. I have posted evidence on this board a number of times. And there is considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus and many of the key attributes and events during His time on earth, from Christian and from secular sources. Even from sources opposed to Christianity.

But proof of macro-evolution? None.

Micro-evolution ONLY.

As I say, I reject the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. So if you want to hawk the fundamentalist line on this I'm probably not your best audience.


There is evidence for the existence of God. I have posted evidence on this board a number of times. And there is considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus and many of the key attributes and events during His time on earth, from Christian and from secular sources. Even from sources opposed to Christianity.

Yes, as I say, there is evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.

No, there is no evidence of God's existence in the sense of *evidence* that is relevant to science. God has no physical properties and so cannot figure in the physical sciences.

As I say, I reject the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. So if you want to hawk the fundamentalist line on this I'm probably not your best audience.

This is why macro-evolution is called a religion. Scientists acknowledge and have defined the line. There is a book out by a leading scientist on this very topic. And yet there are those who for religious reasons, as you have shown, reject this division. This the believe in evolution os species is in fact believe by faith.


No, there is no evidence of God's existence in the sense of *evidence* that is relevant to science. God has no physical properties and so cannot figure in the physical sciences.

There is in fact evidence of God. You are typing on a computer. Do you believe that there is a designer of that computer? Have you anything of a physical nature related to that designer?

This is why macro-evolution is called a religion. Scientists acknowledge and have defined the line. There is a book out by a leading scientist on this very topic. And yet there are those who for religious reasons, as you have shown, reject this division. This the believe in evolution os species is in fact believe by faith.

Nah, this is a line pushed by the Discovery Institute. If your "leading scientist" is Behe--as he was the last time this came up--you can keep him. The Discovery Institute is a crock.


There is in fact evidence of God. You are typing on a computer. Do you believe that there is a designer of that computer? Have you anything of a physical nature related to that designer?

This is not evidence of God. In fact, if you take one more step you'll have committed a fallacy, so best to turn around and go back whence you came. You have a REALLY loose notion of what counts as evidence.

You seem to want to try inference to the best explanation. Here's an example of how that works: I have a cat. I put a dish of cat food on the floor. Time elapses. I look to see that the food is gone. I infer from this that the cat ate the food. And that's a reasonable inference. But it's not a slam-dunk, of course. Nevertheless, I'd probably be prepared to assign it a high probability of being true, say .7.

Now you seem to want to say we can infer the existence of an artificer from the observed fact that physical phenomena exhibit a certain order and complexity. Here's where you want to be really careful, because there are lots of ways of constructing an invalid argument on the strength of this "intuition".

Evidence is only evidence within an explanatory framework, and within the explanatory framework of the physical sciences, nothing can count as evidence for God's existence. This because God is not physical.

If you want an argument for God's existence that has a chance of being at all compelling, you're probably better off with an a priori argument (a la Anselm) than with an a posteriori argument. A posteriori arguments for God's existence (of the sort you tried to sell asking) are really hard to make work, and Aquinas did it way better than you. And I don't buy his versions of the argument (hint: I don't share his allergy to infinite regresses).

Nah, this is a line pushed by the Discovery Institute. If your "leading scientist" is Behe--as he was the last time this came up--you can keep him. The Discovery Institute is a crock.'

The Discovery Institute is one such scientific institute but there are many others. Again, science does not reject something out of hand simply because a person doesn't like it or agree with it. When you reject something in such a fashion, that is religion, not science.



This is not evidence of God. In fact, if you take one more step you'll have committed a fallacy, so best to turn around and go back whence you came. You have a REALLY loose notion of what counts as evidence.

Heh heh - I noticed that you dared not answer the question.


Evidence is only evidence within an explanatory framework, and within the explanatory framework of the physical sciences, nothing can count as evidence for God's existence. This because God is not physical.

Then I guess, based upon your reasoning, that you don't think - because thoughts are not physical, you have no evidence that they exist.

I find it interesting that the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, something never seen, is no problem for you. But when we discuss God, you reject out of hand even the idea that evidence can exist, though the evidence is overhwelming.

There isn't one person who designed any of our computers from the ground up. The tools and parts for making modern computers have accumulated over time from different sources. Nobody today could build a desktop computer without the previous invention of all sorts of new technologies and materials. It has been a stepwise accumulation of information, where things that didn't work were discarded and things that did were used again in the next iteration, with some new improvement here or there.

There isn't one person who designed any of our computers from the ground up. The tools and parts for making modern computers have accumulated over time from different sources. Nobody today could build a desktop computer without the previous invention of all sorts of new technologies and materials. It has been a stepwise accumulation of information, where things that didn't work were discarded and things that did were used again in the next iteration, with some new improvement here or there.

So do you deny that there are intelligent designers behind it, or not?

The Discovery Institute is one such scientific institute but there are many others. Again, science does not reject something out of hand simply because a person doesn't like it or agree with it. When you reject something in such a fashion, that is religion, not science.

If you want to stick up for the Discovery Institute knock yourself out. Not sure why you think I'm rejecting their work because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's shoddy. If you think it's the bees knees then by all means, have at it.


heh heh - I noticed that you dared not answer the question.

That's right. I read it and began to quake with fear. "I dare not answer THAT question", I whispered to myself as I huddled in the corner of the room. "It could be my undoing."

Yes, computers have designers. From that it does not follow that the universe does. You see that right? That to infer from the fact that computers have designers to the claim that the universe has a designer would be fallacious. Sure you do.


Then I guess, based upon your reasoning, that you don't think - because thoughts are not physical, you have no evidence that they exist.

Mental states are second-order functional properties and events which supervene on first-order physical properties and events. And, as anyone who's ever read Descartes's Meditations knows, I don't need evidence for having thoughts. I'm HAVING them. There is no inference involved unless I am ascribing mental states to others. In that case, I have a quite considerable evidentiary base.

Do you think that second-order functional properties of first-order physical properties and systems are non-physical? Or are you making illicit assumptions?


I find it interesting that the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, something never seen, is no problem for you. But when we discuss God, you reject out of hand even the idea that evidence can exist, though the evidence is overhwelming.

As I have said several times now, in the sense of "evidence" that is relevant to the physical sciences, there is no evidence for God's existence. Are you confused about what it means to say that the physical sciences are PHYSICAL sciences? If not, why ask the question?

If you want to stick up for the Discovery Institute knock yourself out. Not sure why you think I'm rejecting their work because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's shoddy. If you think it's the bees knees then by all means, have at it.

Again, I note that you ignore the fact that the Discovery Institute is one quality scientific Institute amongst many. I also note that you attack then without any basis for doing so. That is not scientific.


That's right. I read it and began to quake with fear. "I dare not answer THAT question", I whispered to myself as I huddled in the corner of the room. "It could be my undoing."

Indeed.


Yes, computers have designers. From that it does not follow that the universe does.

So then why do you think that anyone designed your computer? Do you take it by faith?


Mental states are second-order functional properties and events which supervene on first-order physical properties and events.

I did not discuss mental states - I said "thoughts". Show me physical evidence of a thought. Prove to me that a thought is physical.


As I have said several times now, in the sense of "evidence" that is relevant to the physical sciences, there is no evidence for God's existence. Are you confused about what it means to say that the physical sciences are PHYSICAL sciences? If not, why ask the question?

You are coming up with you own rules around evidence, contrary to what are used in science. And you are not using even your rules consistently.

I also note that you attack then without any basis for doing so. That is not scientific.

You mean to say that you assume I have no basis for doing so.

BTW, are you familiar with the Dover case? What did you think about it?


So then why do you think that anyone designed your computer? Do you take it by faith?

Nope, it's a priori.


I did not discuss mental states - I said "thoughts". Show me physical evidence of a thought. Prove to me that a thought is physical.

Tom, thoughts are mental states.

Mental states (including thoughts, which are intentional mental states) are second-order functional properties of first-order physical properties. How do you understand the relation of second-order functional properties to first-order physical properties?


You are coming up with you own rules around evidence, contrary to what are used in science. And you are not using even your rules consistently.

How do you figure?

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describe the Discovery Institute as a scientific organization.

I haven't read their website lately, but 10 years ago they were quite open about their purpose, which THEY STATED was to undermine belief in evolution. Probably they don't say this anymore.

It's unclear why Tom is so obsessed with computer design. Yes, they are manufactured by people and the designs are upgraded at regular intervals, just like those for cars and couches. Tom, will God upgrade you and create a new marketing plan for you?


Prove to me that a thought is physical.

You just wrote your thought down, thus transmuting your thought from an electrochemical state in your brain to a set of light and dark pixels on my screen in California. I can't think of anything more physical than that. It's actually very cool, which is why I'm glad I don't have to be told that it's the result of God's intervention, instead of my actually having some vague understanding of how it works.

It's even cool to know that there is an entire group of mammals called the Afrotheria who have evolved to not have external testes, a state known as "testicond" and a big, big evolutionary step, since dangling the testes on the outside of the body is an unsafe place to keep them. But if God did that specially for elephants, hyraxes, and manatees, He has some curious preoccupations, and you have to wonder why He didn't provide the same upgrade for His personal favorites.

You mean to say that you assume I have no basis for doing so.

That is what I am saying - so far you have done nothing but reject anything scientific which fails to agree with you out of hand.


BTW, are you familiar with the Dover case? What did you think about it?

You think that the courts are who determine what is and is not scientific? Do you think that the OJ Simpson case came to the right and logical conclusion based upon the evidence?


Nope, it's a priori.

So you agree that cases exist where physical evidence is not required.


Tom, thoughts are mental states.

You should check with a psychologist or psychiatrist. A mental state is a state of depression, a state of joy, etc. but is not a thought. You are making up definitions again.


How do you figure?

Have you been following the discussion?

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describe the Discovery Institute as a scientific organization.

Then maybe you have not been reading as widely as you should. And they are not the only scientists who oppose macro-evolution. The numbers are increasing, based entirely upon the scientific evidence.



It's unclear why Tom is so obsessed with computer design. Yes, they are manufactured by people and the designs are upgraded at regular intervals, just like those for cars and couches.

How would you know this? Have you seen the person designing you computer. Have you seen the person building your computer? How do you know that there was a person behind it?


Tom, will God upgrade you and create a new marketing plan for you?

I was upgraded by the fact that when I was saved, God's took away my sins.


You just wrote your thought down, thus transmuting your thought from an electrochemical state in your brain to a set of light and dark pixels on my screen in California. I can't think of anything more physical than that.

Agreed - so there can be physical evidence of something which is not physical which proves that which is non-physical exists.

Therefore, God need not be physical for there to be physical evidence of His existence.

That is what I am saying - so far you have done nothing but reject anything scientific which fails to agree with you out of hand.

What that is scientific have I rejected?


You think that the courts are who determine what is and is not scientific? Do you think that the OJ Simpson case came to the right and logical conclusion based upon the evidence?

Geez, why so jumpy? I just wondered whether it got much press in Canada.


So you agree that cases exist where physical evidence is not required.

In the physical sciences, physical evidence absolutely is required. In conceptual analysis, not so much.


You should check with a psychologist or psychiatrist. A mental state is a state of depression, a state of joy, etc. but is not a thought. You are making up definitions again.

Actually, no, Tom. The sense of "state" that you just used is not the relevant sense, since we are talking about thoughts. (Clinical psychologists use "state" one way, neuroscientists use it another way, and cognitive scientists in still another.)

The following are all examples of *types* of mental states in the relevant sense of "state": thoughts, beliefs, desires, perceptions (sensory states).

So, to be clear: Thoughts are second-order functional properties or events which supervene on first-order physical properties or events. How do you understand this relation between second-order functional properties or events and their first-order supervenience bases?

Then maybe you have not been reading as widely as you should. And they are not the only scientists who oppose macro-evolution. The numbers are increasing, based entirely upon the scientific evidence.

We've been through this. When I ask you to name practicing biologists who don't subscribe to theory of evolution or to provide evidence in support of an alternative scientific theory that explains all the facts, you change the subject. There are no such scientists. And "numbers" of what?



How do you know that there was a person behind it?

Last summer I was dating the person who invented the first laptop computer.

Will God go on a date with me?


I was upgraded by the fact that when I was saved, God's took away my sins.

Good answer!
But He gave me a different upgrade.


Therefore, God need not be physical for there to be physical evidence of His existence.

Akoue is the expert in this area, not me. But I haven't seen any physical evidence of God's existence. Anything you can point to can be explained more easily by ordinary events. I thought the whole point of God was to have faith without looking for proof or demanding miracles...

How would you know this? Have you seen the person designing you computer. Have you seen the person building your computer? How do you know that there was a person behind it?


So you think science should proceed on the strength of the sorts of assumptions we make in our everyday life? Surely science should be more rigorous than that. The mere fact that someone may be prepared to assume a designer without ever having had perceptual commerce with the designer shows only that we are not epistemically rigorous much of the time. You can't think science should canonize these habits.

Agreed - so there can be physical evidence of something which is not physical which proves that which is non-physical exists.

WHAT? What could it even mean to say that there could be physical evidence for something which is non-physical? What on earth do you mean by "evidence"?

Also, the designer of the computer was, or is, physical. So your argument, such as it is, is invalid. The absence of perceptual commerce with the designer isn't evidence of a non-physical designer.

We've been through this. When I ask you to name practicing biologists who don't subscribe to theory of evolution or to provide evidence in support of an alternative scientific theory that explains all the facts, you change the subject.

I have never seen you ask before - enjoy!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660


Last summer I was dating the person who invented the first laptop computer.

Will God go on a date with me?

He indwells me.


Akoue is the expert in this area, not me.

I have no evidence that he is an expert in this area.


But I haven't seen any physical evidence of God's existence. Anything you can point to can be explained more easily by ordinary events. I thought the whole point of God was to have faith without looking for proof or demanding miracles...

Then you have not read the past threads on the topic.

So you think science should proceed on the strength of the sorts of assumptions we make in our everyday life?

That is what I oppose. Evolution is based largely upon unproven assumptions.

WHAT? What could it even mean to say that there could be physical evidence for something which is non-physical? What on earth do you mean by "evidence"?

We just went through that.


Also, the designer of the computer was, or is, physical.

Yes, but have you seen or touched or do you have any physical evidence of the person who designed or built your computer? No, you don't so how do you know that they exist?

Physical evidence of that which you have never sensed directly in any physical way.

We just went through that.



Yes, but have you seen or touched or do you have any physical evidence of the person who designed or built your computer? No, you don't so how do you know that they exist?

Physical evidence of that which you have never sensed directly in any physical way.

Well, I've never seen an electron, or Andromeda, either. The idea that each person must, individually, have direct cognitive contact with each existent in order to be justified in the belief that it exists is, well, it's kind of bizarre, frankly. We have division of labor and it works well because then we get different people specializing in different things. I don't have to have seen China with my own two eyes in order to be justified in believing that China exists. And my evidence for the belief that China exists isn't anything non-physical. So, just to be clear: My belief that China exists has for its object something physical (China), and the causal-informational linkages that warrant, and even justify, my belief that China exists are likewise physical. In the case of the computer, I don't even need the causal-informational system, since it is part of the concept of a computer that it is an artefact and it part of the concept of an artefact that artefacts have artificers. So that belief is a priori and probably analytic. For someone who prides himself on logical acumen, you are going off the rails in a pretty big way here, Tom. This all just basic logic meets basic epistemology. One needn't have a naturalistic epistemology in order to accommodate what I've said, but everything I've said is perfectly consistent with a naturalistic epistemology. Don't you agree?

I notice you didn't answer the question about the relation of second-order functional properties and events that supervene on first-order physical properties and events. I'm beginning to get the suspicion that it is because you "dare" not to.

I have never seen you ask before - enjoy!

Well that is truly odd, since I remember you being asked--by asking--on the evolution thread just a few weeks ago. In fact, I remember you being asked repeatedly by a number of people, including asking. And I know that you saw the request, because you quoted it in some of your own posts.

That is what I oppose. Evolution is based largely upon unproven assumptions.

What *evidence* do you have for this claim:


He indwells me.

Is this epistemically on all fours with the claim that God exists, or are they in different epistemic categories? I trust that the claim that God "indwells" you is not something you would adduce as evidence that God exists since that would be begging the question.

Well, I've never seen an electron, or Andromeda, either. The idea that each person must, individually, have direct cognitive contact with each existent in order to be justified in the belief that it exists is,.


Once you again, all you are doing is supporting my contention that something which is not physical can be demonstrated to existed by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person. You do not need to physically touch and feel the exact subject of your investigation to be able to prove its existence.

The same is true with God. We can indeed find evidence of His existence, contrary to your prior statement that one can only see evidence of God if He was physical.


I notice you didn't answer the question about the relation of second-order functional properties and events that supervene on first-order physical properties and events. I'm beginning to get the suspicion that it is because you "dare" not to.

I've responded to all your comments. I note that you don't read my comments carefully. You seem to miss a lot.

What *evidence* do you have for this claim:

There is so much and far too much to summarize on a single post. Part of the problem being that it depends upon exactly what aspect of evolution you are speaking of - because there are assumptions made for each area. If you had to following this and the last thread, you will see that I went over a number of the assumptions regarding the age of the earth. My suggestion, if you are really interested in learning about the topic is to grab a copy of the book "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe - you might learn a great deal. Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack the book without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.

He indwells me.

This sounds painful!

Indwell "Pertaining to a catheter or other tube left within an organ or body passage for drainage, to maintain patency, or for the administration of drugs or nutrients."


I have no evidence that he is an expert in this area.


You probably have no direct evidence that your local congressperson actually ever goes to Washington, D.C. either. Or possibly even that he or she exists. But you have indirect evidence. I have substantial indirect evidence that Akoue exists and knows what he's talking about.

I even think that you are real, since your prose style is consistent over a long period and others have attested that they have encountered you elsewhere on the Internet. Although I don't know anyone who has ever seen you.

My suggestion, if you are really interested in learning about the topic is to grab a copy of the book "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe - you might learn a great deal. Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack the book without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those. Hello again, Tj:

I'm one of those.

Michael J. Behe, a central figure in the Intelligent Design movement, is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Intelligent design is creationism. I don't need to know any more about ID than what has been proposed here numerous times by you and others; It's TOO complicated for nature, therefore God did it!

For anybody who truly understands evolution, there really isn't ANY cogent argument against it. I wouldn't take the time to read a book that offered "evidence" of the Tooth Fairy, either. I just wouldn't.

excon

We've been through this. When I ask you to name practicing biologists who don't subscribe to theory of evolution or to provide evidence in support of an alternative scientific theory that explains all the facts, you change the subject.


I have never seen you ask before - enjoy!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

This 2001 list of scientists who don't agree with evolution has been thoroughly debunked. Only 20% are [Edit: are listed as] biologists. Those that have some biological training represent a tiny fraction of biologists world wide; their reasons for disagreeing are religious, not scientific; and their institutional affiliations are often fraudulent (e.g. Jonathan Wells is not affiliated with UC Berkeley, but with the Discovery Institute itself). And as I mentioned before, he got his PhD in molecular and cell biology, with the express purpose of giving himself credentials to use in his fight against evolution, not in ecology and evolutionary biology.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Expertise_rele vance)

Furthermore, you have still not introduced an alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution. Needless to say, creationism is not a testable scientific hypothesis, nor is there any scientific evidence in support of it. In science, alternative hypotheses always have at least some modicum of evidence in support of them and they make some kind of sense--even when they turn out to be wrong. Creationism has not scientific evidence in its favor.

-->There is no credible evidence against evolution.
-->There is no testable alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution.

-->The few biologists who the Discovery Institute claims doubt evolution are mostly or entirely not practicing biologists. I have not analyzed the entire list myself, but I certainly am not interested in the opinions of people who may not even be real. I picked one "biologist" on the list at random and his college appears not to even exist and he does not have a web page anywhere on the internet. His only existence appears to be on the discovery institute's apparently fraudulent list.

Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack [Behe's book] without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.


Hello again, Tj:

I'm one of those.

... I wouldn't take the time to read a book that offered "evidence" of the Tooth Fairy, either. I just wouldn't.


I actually did take the time to read some of Behe's book. I reject his arguments entirely, as have biologists generally.

As for Creationism's God-is-in-the-gaps arguments, I might just as well argue that because I can't understand how my car works that it must have been designed by God, because nothing less than a celestial being could possibly create something that I cannot explain in its entirety.

I agree with excon.

Once you again, all you are doing is supporting my contention that something which is not physical can be demonstrated to existed by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person.

Not sure what this means: "Something can be demonstrated to exist by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person."

Do you mean to say that X is evidence for the existence of X? If so, that's trivially true. "From X I can deduce that X" is a tautology and so is not informative. Let me try to make this even more vivid: From the premise "X" I can deduce that "X". While deductively valid, it is circular and is therefore epistemically useless.



You do not need to physically touch and feel the exact subject of your investigation to be able to prove its existence.

That's true, so long as the thing whose existence you are proving is itself physical (like China, in my example). This won't work for proving God's existence so long as the evidence is physical since physical evidence can't prove the existence of a non-physical existent.


The same is true with God. We can indeed find evidence of His existence, contrary to your prior statement that one can only see evidence of God if He was physical.

No, the same isn't true in the case of proving God's existence. Evidence that we can see has to be physical (vision is a perceptual system and cannot detect non-physical objects). You can ARGUE by means of inference to the best explanation that the existence of God is the most rational explanation for what you see, but that's a different animal.


I've responded to all your comments. I note that you don't read my comments carefully. You seem to miss a lot.

I've just re-read the thread and notice that since I corrected your use of "mental state" you have not addressed my question in any way. If you don't have an answer just say so and I'll let it drop. But since you were the one who mentioned thoughts being non-physical I am interested to know how you understand the relation of second-order functional states (like thoughts) to their first-order physical supervenience bases.

There is so much and far to much to summarize on a single post. Part of the problem being that it depends upon exactly what aspect of evolution you are speaking of - because there are assumptions made for each area. If you had to following this and the last thread, you will see that I went over a number of the assumptions regarding the age of the earth. My suggestion, if you are really interested in learning about the topic is to grab a copy of the book "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe - you might learn a great deal. Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack the book without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.

I'm not sure why you changed the subject in this way. My question was: Do you have *evidence* for the claim that "God indwells" you? You answered by not answering, i.e. by talking about evolution (see quoted post above). Please, do you have evidence that God indwells you and, if so, what is that evidence?

-->There is no testable alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution.

This seems to be the one that proponents of Intelligent Design pass over with the greatest frequency. They're willing to make their case that evolution is deeply flawed, but they don't seem to appreciate that Intelligent Design cannot count as an alternative scientific explanation of the data since it isn't a *testable* hypothesis. At the same time, these proponents of ID claim that evolution isn't empirically verified (testable) despite the fact that scientists have made plenty of predictive claims on the strength of it, claims which have in turn been empirically verified. It starts to look a bit like a shell-game.

This sounds painful!

Not at all. But an eternity in hell wo0uld most certainly be painful


You probably have no direct evidence that your local congressperson actually ever goes to Washington, D.C. either. Or possibly even that he or she exists.

I know for a fact that my congressman does not exist. We are an independent country and in fact won the last war between our countries.


But you have indirect evidence. I have substantial indirect evidence that Akoue exists and knows what he's talking about.

No actually you don't. Akoue could be simply another userid for someone else. But if you accept that as evidence, I have 66 books of evidence that God exists.

Akoue could be simply another userid for someone else. But if you accept that as evidence, I have 66 books of evidence that God exists.

Of course, "Akoue" is a userid, as is Tj3. But I can engage both Akoue and you in conversation in which my very specific questions and comments generate a coherent response that is, furthermore, specific to userid. For example, Akoue's responses are consistently articulate and scholarly, indicating a significant academic background. I would estimate that Akoue's control of English language is 99th percentile. In essence, Tj3 and Akoue both pass the Turing test.

The Bible, in contrast, is a static entity that does not respond to my specific queries any more than any other book. No book can past a Turing test. A book is made of paper and ink. It is, in essence, a fossilized remains of human thoughts. It is not, in itself, an intelligent or living entity.

I actually did take the time to read some of Behe's book. I reject his arguments entirely, as have biologists generally.

Well, you cans peak for yourself, but I am always suspicious when someone elects themselves a spokesperson for others. Why don't we get into details on the book "The Edge of Evolution".


As for Creationism's God-is-in-the-gaps arguments

Cannot comment - never heard of that argument.

Of course, "Akoue" is a userid, as is Tj3.

Yes, but for all you know, it could be one of a multiple userids of someone else, and may not be a separate person at all. What evidence do you have to the contrary?


Akoue's responses are consistently articulate and scholarly, indicating a significant academic background.

That is an matter of opinion.


The Bible, in contrast, is a static entity that does not respond to my specific queries any more than any other book. No book can past a Turing test. A book is made of paper and ink. It is, in essence, a fossilized remains of human thoughts. It is not, in itself, an intelligent or living entity.

Fossil evidence, and indeed any other evidence that we find in nature that relates to the past does not respond to queries either - do you reject all of that as evidence?

I'm not sure why you changed the subject in this way. My question was: Do you have *evidence* for the claim that "God indwells" you? You answered by not answering, i.e., by talking about evolution (see quoted post above). Please, do you have evidence that God indwells you and, if so, what is that evidence?

I saw no sense because so many of your questions do not have seem to be serious. Yes, I do have evidence. I know God personally and I have His promises, and I have had His guidance.

But the statement had zero to do with the topic at hand. It was in response to Askings comments about dating God. It seems that you are trying to build a new distraction based upon her distraction from the topic.

This seems to be the one that proponents of Intelligent Design pass over with the greatest frequency. They're willing to make their case that evolution is deeply flawed, but they don't seem to appreciate that Intelligent Design cannot count as an alternative scientific explanation of the data since it isn't a *testable* hypothesis.

Macr0-evolution is also not testable, which is a point that far too many evolutionists reject. Many good scientists have pointed this out, but far too many people (who are likely for the most part do not have a strong scientific background) feel that macro-evolution has been proven - which it has not and cannot be.

I saw no sense because so many of your questions do not have seem to be serious. Yes, I do have evidence. I know God personally and I have His promises, and I have had His guidance.

But the statement had zero to do with the topic at hand. It was in response to Askings comments about dating God. It seems that you are trying to build a new distraction based upon her distraction from the topic.

It has everything to do with the topic because it speaks to your view regarding what counts as evidence.

Macr0-evolution is also not testable, which is a point that far too many evolutionists reject. Many good scientists have pointed this out, but far too many people (who are likely for the most part do nto have a strong scientific background) feel that macro-evolution has been proven - which it has not and cannot be.

Many good scientists also reject the distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. I certainly see no meaningful distinction between the two.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

This 2001 list of scientists who don't agree with evolution has been thoroughly debunked. Only 20% are [Edit: are listed as] biologists.

Ah, so you don't think that anyone is a good scientist unless they are a biologist. I am sure other scientists would be most interested in your declaration!


Those that have some biological training represent a tiny fraction of biologists world wide; their reasons for disagreeing are religious, not scientific; and their institutional affiliations are often fraudulent (e.g. Jonathan Wells is not affiliated with UC Berkeley, but with the Discovery Institute itself). And as I mentioned before, he got his PhD in molecular and cell biology, with the express purpose of giving himself credentials to use in his fight against evolution, not in ecology and evolutionary biology.

So, if a scientist uses his expertise in a way that you don't agree with, then you also delcare him to be not a good scientist.


Furthermore, you have still not introduced an alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution.

Then you have completely ignored all the discussions that we have had on this topic.


-->There is no credible evidence against evolution.

All this is that you reject any evidence which disagrees with your belief - that is religiobn, not science. Many good scientists, including evolutionists will freely and openly admit that there are problems with theory.

Your approach, as shown above, is hardly either scientific nor objective.

That is an matter of opinion.


Somewhat. But not entirely. For example, you have a very strong position that is consistent from post to post and identifies you as a particular person. Likewise, your posts have large numbers of misspellings, typos, and words out of order or missing. You often use the passive voice instead of the active. Even if you used a different userid, I think I would recognize you by your style of arguing and by the specific writing errors you make. Your posts are consistent and recognizable.

Akoue's posts demonstrate much smaller numbers of such errors. Akoue uses sentence constructions that are unusual at AMHD and a specialized vocabulary accurately and consistently. The kinds of topics and arguments that interest Akoue are fairly distinctive.

All of this is supporting evidence for my hypothesis that you are both recognizable as human type people and recognizable as specific people. I have no reason to think that either id is a composite of different posters or is in fact computer generated.

I am not aware of any contrary evidence, although I am open to it.


Fossil evidence, and indeed any other evidence that we find in nature that relates to the past does not respond to queries either - do you reject all of that as evidence?

The question was whether the Bible is an intelligent interlocutor such as Akoue or yourself. Clearly it is not.

Somewhat. But not entirely.

No, it truly is. His input on Biblical Greek and science and other topics, along with the need to abuse those who disagree with him are not indicative of what you describe as articulate and scholarly. If I wanted that, I could find that in any bar.


For example, you have a very strong position that is consistent from post to post and identifies you as a particular person. Likewise, your posts have large numbers of misspellings, typos, and words out of order or missing. You often use the passive voice instead of the active. Even if you used a different userid, I think I would recognize you by your style of arguing and by the specific writing errors you make. Your posts are consistent and recognizable.

I have noticed similar things about many of your posts, but unlike you, I have not taken to being picky about typos and other similar things in your posts. Again, rightly or wrongly, that comes across as someone less interested in a real discussion than someone who is quite judgmental and has no interest in an exchange of ideas.


Akoue's posts demonstrate much smaller numbers of such errors. Akoue uses sentence constructions that are unusual at AMHD and a specialized vocabulary accurately and consistently. The kinds of topics and arguments that interest Akoue are fairly distinctive.

Not always using the term appropriately or in the right context, but if you are impressed by someone who uses big words, then so be it. I am more impressed by the content of the message and the ability of the person to carry on a respectful discussion. But to each his own.

Remember the show "Cheers"? There was a guy on there (Cliff) that used big words and made lots of claims to impress people. I have had the distinct privilege to know a handful of people in my life whose scholarly abilities, and indeed their intellect ranked amongst the highest that you could even hope to meet. One was ranked as one of the top in intellect in the province that I was in. And not one of them had to blow their own horn. Not one of them was abusive and ignorant to those they disagreed with. Not one flashed around "big" words to make people think they knew more than they did. Every one could and speak to anyone at any level treated them with respect. Truly brilliant and scholarly people have no need to make people think that they are. And discerning folks see through the veneer of those who are not.


The question was whether the Bible is an intelligent interlocutor such as Akoue or yourself. Clearly it is not.

Actually, if you have a look at the original comment, you have twisted what was said. And I notice that once again, you have ignored the actual question:

Now if you are done with trying to discuss folks on here, [perhaps we can get back to the topic:



Fossil evidence, and indeed any other evidence that we find in nature that relates to the past does not respond to queries either - do you reject all of that as evidence?

I am looking forward to your answer.

One last question - why is it that every thread which a small group of people choose to join must always end up in discussions about people instead of the topic. Is it absolutely impossible for you and others just to discuss the topic?

I have had the distinct privilege to know a handful of people in my life whose scholarly abilities, and indeed their intellect ranked amongst the highest that you could even hope to meet. One was ranked as one of the top in intellect in the province that I was in. And not one of them had to blow their own horn. Not one of them was abusive and ignorant to those they disagreed with. Not one flashed around "big" words to make people think they knew more than they did. Each and every one could and speak to anyone at any level treated them with respect. Truly brilliant and scholarly people have no need to make people think that they are. And discerning folks see through the veneer of those who are not.

Nice paragraph.

No, it truly is. His input on Biblical Greek and science and other topics, along with the need to abuse those who disagree with him are not indicative of what you describe as articulate and scholarly. If I wanted that, I could find that in any bar.



I have noticed similar things about many of your posts, but unlike you, I have not taken to being picky about typos and other similar things in your posts. Again, rightly or wrongly, that comes across as someone less interested in a real discussion than someone who is quite judgmental and has no interest in an exchange of ideas.



Not always using the term appropriately or in the right context, but if you are impressed by someone who uses big words, then so be it. I am more impressed by the content of the message and the ability of the person to carry on a respectful discussion. But to each his own.

Remember the show "Cheers"? There was a guy on there (Cliff) that used big words and made lots of claims to impress people. I have had the distinct privilege to know a handful of people in my life whose scholarly abilities, and indeed their intellect ranked amongst the highest that you could even hope to meet. One was ranked as one of the top in intellect in the province that I was in. And not one of them had to blow their own horn. Not one of them was abusive and ignorant to those they disagreed with. Not one flashed around "big" words to make people think they knew more than they did. Each and every one could and speak to anyone at any level treated them with respect. Truly brilliant and scholarly people have no need to make people think that they are. And discerning folks see through the veneer of those who are not.



Actually, if you have a look at the original comment, you have twisted what was said. And I notice that once again, you have ignored the actual question:

Now if you are done with trying to discuss folks on here, [perhaps we can get back to the topic:



I am looking forward to your answer.

One last question - why is it that every thread which a small group of people choose to join must always end up in discussions about people instead of the topic. Is it absolutely impossible for you and others just to discuss the topic?

More of the same.

More of the same.

So it appears neither you nor asking have an answer to the question.

Science needs proofs,that is evidence.whatever is true in reality,is now being proved by the scientific.I admit that religion needs faith but also for you to believe in your religion,you must have seen something different from other religion.that is,there must have been some fact.science is only trying to prove you but it is also true that in whatever they said is in the Bible or Koran.I think most are found in the Koran.now it depends on you,on your faith,on your understanding to see what is right and wrong.but whatever it is,we have to pray ONLY to the one who created us.

Because if ever we are going ti the wrong way,I hope that it will not be too late in realizing our misunderstanding.

Bye
God Bless

science needs proofs,that is evidence.whatever is true in reality,is now being proved by the scientific.

TRUE science needs proof. That is not always the case in practice. For instance, despite claims, macro-evolution has not been proven. Also a study several years ago wanted to find out whether there was any manipulation of data and test results to obtain grant dollars, and the finding (which was published in one of the scientific journals the name of which escapes me at the moment) found that to one degree or another, data manipulation was found in about 10-15 of the published papers. There was quite a famous case a few years ago that hit the new year. The majority of the cases are probably not outright fabrication, though the study did find a few, but simply making adjustments or failing to use proper controls to ensure that the results looked promising so that finding would continue.


I admit that religion needs faith but also for you to believe in your religion,you must have seen something different from other religion.that is,there must have been some fact.science is only trying to prove you but it is also true that in whatever they said is in the Bible or Koran

Science is found in the Bible and God exhorts us to avoid false science:

1 Tim 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
KJV

The word here refers to knowledge, and thus true science is the study of God and His creation, and true science will complement what the Bible says. As a Christian and as a man of sceince, I have found this to be true. There is a great deal of validation for the truth of the Bible:

1) Science
2) History and Archeology
3) Prophetic declarations in scripture and their fulfillment

The word here refers to knowledge, and thus true science is the study of God and His creation, and true science will complement waht the Bible says.Hello again, Tj:

That's what YOU say true science is... True scientists, don't say that...

But, we could cut to the chase here, by you just saying that there are holes in evolution. Nobody is arguing that there isn't. You just want to fill those holes with religion.

You will NEVER change your mind. You're not INTERESTED in changing your mind. You're not INTERESTED in the arguments of those who disagree.

The same can be said for those of us who are arguing with you. You are arguing ID. ID is fine, but it's NOT science.

I don't know what you miss about science stuff being "testable". I really don't know why that slips over your head, and never even gets a remark from you. Maybe that's because you're not dumb, even though you are fully indoctrinated.

excon

Yeah,but what is being proved by the scientific is true.it has already been mentioned before and therefore science is only proving it to us.now,it depends on us,whether to believe in a religion and its book without proof only or a religion who has his book and evidence along.

Hello again, Tj:
That's what YOU say true science is... True scientists, don't say that...

The problem here is that by definition, anyone who disagrees with what you believe is not a true scientist.


But, we could cut to the chase here, by you just saying that there are holes in evolution. Nobody is arguing that there isn't. You just want to fill those holes with religion.

To some degree what you say is true - there are massive holes in the theory of evolution which simply do not agree with the known facts. The Biblical explanation fits the facts better.


You will NEVER change your mind. You're not INTERESTED in changing your mind. You're not INTERESTED in the arguments of those who disagree.

I see that once again, it has to get personal. The truth is that I have changed my mind. I used to be more like you, arguing against these folk who hold to the Bible. I could not undersatnd why they would not accept what science was saying - until I checked out the facts for myself and found that I was the one who was not looking at the fact. That is when I changed my mind. The facts convinced me evolution is wrong.


I don't know what you miss about science stuff being "testable".

Show me the tests that prove macro-evolution.

it has already been mentioned before and therefore science is only proving it to us.now,it depends on us,whether to believe in a religion and its book without proof only or a religion who has his book and evidence along.

I do not believe in a book without proof - do you?

The problem here is that by definition, anyone who disagrees with what you believe is not a true scientist.

You are reversing cause and effect.


The Biblical explanation fits the facts better.

I'd like to see you defend this assertion. How does the Biblical explanation account for 580 million year old fossil embryos found in China? How does the Biblical explanation account for the existence of millions of extinct species that do not appear in any historical accounts or the Bible? How does the Biblical explanation account for Australian's huge fauna of marsupials, none of which are mentioned in the Bible? What does the Bible have to say about duck billed platypuses and giant ground sloths?


The truth is that I have changed my mind. I used to be more like you [excon], arguing against these folk who hold to the Bible.

I find this an extremely dubious assertion.

Anyway, we are not arguing "against these folks who hold to the Bible." We are arguing against pretending that the Bible can be any sort of basis for science.

Believe what you like but (1) don't call faith science and (2) don't attack ordinary science and call if faith. George Orwell called this doublethink.

You are reversing cause and effect.

No, it has become clear time and time again on here.


I'd like to see you defend this assertion. How does the Biblical explanation account for 580 million year old fossil embryos found in China?

First show me the proof that the fossils are 580 million years old.


How does the Biblical explanation account for the existence of millions of extinct species that do not appear in any historical accounts or the Bible?

Who ever claimed that the Bible provided a complete catalogue of every species that ever existed?


How does the Biblical explanation account for Australian's huge fauna of marsupials, none of which are mentioned in the Bible? What does the Bible have to say about duck billed platypuses and giant ground sloths?

First you need to explain where you see the problem. I do not even see that there is a an issue to be accounted for.



I find this an extremely dubious assertion.

Well, this gets to the root of it. Like I said, any scientists who disagres with you, you reject as scientists. Anyone who agrees with you, even if they demonstrate a lack of knowledge in this area, you accept as an expert and scholar.

Since my personal testimony conflicts with what you want to believe, you have to suggest that I am lying about it.

Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion not science.



Anyway, we are not arguing "against these folks who hold to the Bible." We are arguing against pretending that the Bible can be any sort of basis for science.

That is what George Orwell called "doublespeak"


Believe what you like but (1) don't call faith science and (2) don't attack ordinary science and call if faith. George Orwell called this doublethink.

By requiring that people must believe what you think to be true is religion, not science. Your reasoning is circular. If someone who is a scientist disagrees with you, you say that he is not a scientists (no matter what his qualifications), and thus you say that what he puts forward is not science. That way, everything that you want to believe is the only thing that falls into what you call science.

Whereas those scientists and the scientific evidence which disagrees with you is left outside of your "science" definition. You are creating a religion of science, where only those scientists and others who agree with you are qualified to be the priests of your religion.

For "Asking", who seems to not believe that it is possible for a person to accept the evidence and reject evolution, once again here is my personal testimony of the topic (posted earlier in this thread):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me take a few moments to summarize what I went through to bring me to where I am today. Some of the challenges that I was faced with from those who disagreed with me at that time took more research. While I was doing my research to refute these people who, I thought at the time, were so obviously ignoring the evidence, I discovered things that I could no longer ignore, both in scripture and in science.

It took a while, and for a while I fell back to a more comfortable position which I felt covered the problem, and that is theistic evolution. The belief that God used evolution, that the earth really is billions of years old and that Genesis was the story of evolution being described as the stages of creation, explained away by the phrase "a day is as a thousand years with the Lord". But as I tried to defend that position, I found it was the least defensible, and instead of holding to that position for the long period of years that I believed in evolution, my stint in theistic evolution was short.

As a Christian, a man of science, a researcher, and a man of logic, I simply could no longer fool myself into accepting evolution. I made a 180 turnaround into a position that I have now held for as long as I was an evolutionist.

You will find that those who oppose the YEC (Young Earth Creationists) most often use ridicule as their response. We have seen it on here, ridiculing how anyone could possible be so ignorant. And yet do you see any validation of their position? I asked the evolutionists on many threads, on many boards (including this board) to provide evidence of evolution, and to date nothing.

For Christians, evolution or OEC (Old Earth Creation) is a problem because if the story of Adam and Eve is false, then what happens to the gospel? How did sin enter the world? Why does the New Testament deal explicitly with Adam as a real man, even placing him in the genealogy of Jesus? If Genesis is just a story, where does the story end and history begin - show me the verse.

These are some of the issues that I dealt with from a theological perspective. From a scientific perspective there are some equally big hurdles. I have raised some of the questions on this board and others and so often the same answers come back - ridicule, but never a solid scientific response.

There are many excellent scientists, many of the secular who are quite open about admitting the problems that evolution brings with it. Some other scientists are less open and prefer to not admit the issues but rather staunchly close their eyes and say that it has been proven. If so, where is the proof?

Some people say that we cannot know either way. I disagree with them, but I find that a more honest position than to deny the issues and claim that evolution is a fact. I don't mind people who say that they don't know. If a person will admit that, then they may be able to look at the evidence objectively.

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded story, but it may help those who are interested to know that my background is not that of a YEC, but rather of an evolutionist who was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the evidence which was contrary to what I wanted to believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I indicated in this post, those who oppose YEC most often use ridicule rather than scientific evidence to try to refute YEC. This can be seen in the most recent post by "Asking" where she implied that I was lying about this testimony. Accepting the fact that knowledgeable people with a scientific background might disagree with them is apparently unthinkable to such folk.

"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of the particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms that very period. Well it would, wouldn't it?"
(Source: Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil record", New Scientist, Vol.108,No.1485 (Dec 5,1985), p.66)

The problem here is that by definition, anyone who disagrees with what you believe is not a true scientist.

To clarify, a good scientist will normally not give credence to someone who rejects the conclusions of 99.9% of scientists in the field--which is your position. If you had a new idea that was scientifically credible, it might be interesting to consider your hypothesis. But you have only a very old idea that was never even intended as science as its understood now. Creationism is not scientifically credible. So yes, I absolutely reject creationism out of hand and I am in excellent company--AT LEAST 99% of the nearly one million biologists do so also.

You seem to want people to think that every scientific topic is controversial and there's always a minority opinion about every scientific idea, and that you can point to such minority opinions in support of Creationism. But there is no scientific controversy about whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, biologist argue about things like whether bats are two lineages or one, or whether the scrotum evolved once or twice (I'm not making this up!). Even if there WERE controversy about whether organisms evolved, such a controversy would not support Creationism.

To sum up, because of the things you are saying a normal biologist will disagree with you. That is, you have reversed cause and effect.


First show me the proof that the fossils are 580 million years old.

The rocks were dated using several methods including radiometric dating.
This is one of two papers cited in the paper about the fossil embryos. I assume you won't quibble about 30 million years, since you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

You can address your objections to Professor Condon, at MIT. I'm inclined to accept this report at face value, along with other peer reviewed science in respectable journals, in this case Science.

Here is the citation and abstract:

U-Pb Ages from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation, China
Daniel Condon,1* Maoyan Zhu,2 Samuel Bowring,1 Wei Wang,2 Aihua Yang,2 Yugan Jin2

U-Pb zircon dates from volcanic ash beds within the Doushantuo Formation (China) indicate that its deposition occurred between 635 and 551 million years ago. The base records termination of the global-scale Marinoan glaciation and is coeval with similar dated rocks from Namibia, indicating synchronous deglaciation. Carbon isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic data imply that the spectacular animal fossils of the Doushantuo Formation are for the most part younger than 580 million years old. The uppermost Doushantuo Formation contains a pronounced negative carbonate carbon isotopic excursion, which we interpret as a global event at circa 551 million years ago.

1 Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
2 Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

And an excerpt:

The age of the uppermost Doushantuo Formation (Miaohe Member) is constrained by the age of a third ash bed, JIN-04-2 (Jijiawan Section) that occurs at the top of the black shale member containing the Miaohe biota. Zircons from this ash bed yield variably discordant dates (n = 10) that define a linear array on a concordia diagram anchored by two concordant analyses (fig. S2). All data yield a weighted mean 207Pb/206Pb date of 550.55 ± 0.75 Ma (MSWD = 0.48). The two concordant analyses yield a U-Pb concordia age of 551.07 ± 0.61 Ma (MSWD of concordance and equivalence = 0.48). This ash bed occurs about 85 cm below the base of the Dengying Formation (within the Miaohe Member) at the interface between a black shale unit and overlying carbonates that record a progressive increase in 13C values [from –4 to +0.5 per mil ()] over a thickness of 2.3 m. Negative 13C values occur both above and below the sequence boundary separating the Upper Sequence and Miaohe Member (fig. S1). Below this boundary a pronounced 13C excursion (with values as low as –8) occurs; in the Wuhe section it is characterized by invariant 13C values of –8, whereas in the Jijiawan section there is a return to positive 13C values before the base Miaohe Member sequence boundary is encountered. This local variation is most likely related to variable preservation below the sequence boundary and/or lateral variation in sediment accumulation and preservation. In both sections, the lowermost Dengying Formation dolomites have values of –3 to –1, which increase to about 3 over about 5 m. This trend is interpreted + as being the top of the pronounced 13C excursion (with values as low as –8) that characterizes the top of the Doushantuo Formation (Fig. 1), thus constraining the age of the sustained negative excursion to (just) older than 551.1 ± 0.7 Ma, the time at which 13C values increase to positive values. This interpretation assumes that any period of nondeposition across this sequence boundary has a duration that is less than the duration of the negative 13C excursion itself.


Who ever claimed that the Bible provided a complete catalogue of every species that ever existed?

No one. I think we can all agree it is not a complete catalogue of anything.

You claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."

Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of hundreds of fossil embryos.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of the existence of egg-laying mammals.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of extinct dinosaurs that lived 80 million years ago.


Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion.. .

I don't think everyone views religion that way.

To clarify, a good scientist will normally not give credence to someone who rejects the conclusions of 99.9% of scientists in the field--which is your position.

That would exclude people like Einstein, Galileo, etc... I see your position now. So what is right depends upon what the majority believe even if that is in a flat earth or whatever.

Thank you for clarifying that. As for your percentage figure, methinks that cam out of thin air also.


If you had a new idea that was scientifically credible, it might be interesting to consider your hypothesis.

Scientifically credible means that is agree withw hat everyone who you agree with currently accepts.


But you have only a very old idea that was never even intended as science as its understood now.

Ah, so something which has been accepted for a long time is bad - new ideas that agree with you are good.

But how does a new idea get to be to be good, when when it is first introduced, it will also be a tiny majority who accept it. I guess that once the priests of your view bless it with their sanctification, it will be okay.


Creationism is not scientifically credible.

Because it disagrees with you. I am getting it now!


You seem to want people to think that every scientific topic is controversial and there's always a minority opinion about every scientific idea, and that you can point to such minority opinions in support of Creationism.

Don't bother trying to tell me what I must think - Good scientists (I mean the real ones) go where the evidence takes them, not what they are told to think. If they did not, there would never be any new discoveries.


But there is no scientific controversy about whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.

Maybe not if you reject everyone who disagrees with you. That ensure that there is no controversy within the framework of what you have redefined as science.


The rocks were dated using several methods including radiometric dating.
This is one of two papers cited in the paper about the fossil embryos. I assume you won't quibble about 30 million years, since you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Okay now, please list the assumptions which were made. You know, like the ones where they assume that the sample is not contaminated, and they assume a specific level of radiation at the start of their timeframe. Others?



No one. I think we can all agree it is not a complete catalogue of anything.

Now that is not the attitude that I would expect of a good scientist. After all, I am sure that you are well aware that scientists, historians and archeologists have all at one time or another use d the Bible as a source document. Or maybe you reject anyone who does - sorry I forgot the rules of your religion of science.



You claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."

Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of hundreds of fossil embryos.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of the existence of egg-laying mammals.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of extinct dinosaurs that lived 80 million years ago.

Again, the first thing is that you need to validate your facts (o.e. age) and we are starting that discussion on one rock. Second, you seem to think that so many things are problems and honestly, I don't even know what the problem that you see is with the first two. Please explain.

I don't think everyone views religion that way.[/QUOTE]
[quote]

And I don't think everyone views science the way that you do (thank goodness! )

"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of the particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms that very period. Well it would, wouldn't it?"
(Source: Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil record", New Scientist, Vol.108,No.1485 (Dec 5,1985), p.66)

I looked through New Scientist's archives and I don't find such an article. Perhaps you can provide a link at New Scientist to the article you mean.

In any case, Tom Kemp has written this 1999 book for Oxford University Press, so I sort of doubt that he doesn't believe in evolution.


Fossils and Evolution
Description
Rather survey of the extensive data, this book focuses on the ideas, methodology and scope of contemporary palaeobiology. It devotes four chapters to the central principles of the field and then describes in detail five areas of current research: fossils and phylogenetic inference, the mechanism of speciation, taxonomic turnover on the geological time-scale, mass-extinctions, and the origin of new taxa.

Product Details
296 pages; 94 figures;
ISBN13: 978-0-19-850424-5
ISBN10: 0-19-850424-1
About the Author(s)
Tom Kemp, Lecturer in Zoology, and Curator of the Zoological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History

I looked through New Scientist's archives and I don't find such an article. Perhaps you can provide a link at New Scientist to the article you mean.

Believe it or don't believe it - I don';t care. You reject everything that fails to agree with you in any case so to take the time to go back through the archives would be wasting my time wouldn't it? You'd probably accuse me of planting it there.


In any case, Tom Kemp has written this 1999 book for Oxford University Press, so I sort of doubt that he doesn't believe in evolution.

Whether he does or does not is not the point. He is an open minded scientist who is willing to acknowledge that there are problems and is willing to call them as he sees them. BTW, I note your assumption - if he writes a book for Oxford, he must agree with you - the same old argument - whoever agrees with you - good, whoever disagrees bad. If he is an author, he must agree with you.

Unlike some who say that anyone who dares do so (following - good, thinking-bad) is not a "good scientist".

I'd really hate to be a scientific conference (you know places where free exchange of ideas takes place) with you.

I looked through New Scientist's archives and I don't find such an article. Perhaps you can provide a link at New Scientist to the article you mean.
From T. Kemp's own website, his list of articles written in 1985:

Kemp, T.S. 1985. Relationships between reptiles. Nature 317: 669.

Kemp, T.S. 1985. The origin of mammalian locomotion. In Principles of construction in fossil and recent reptiles. Eds J. Reiss and E. Frey. University of Stuttgart and University of Tübingen. Pp181-191.

Kemp, T.S. 1985. Synapsid reptiles and the origin of higher taxa. Special Papers in Palaeontology. No. 33: 175-184.

Kemp, T.S . 1985. Models of diversity and phylogenetic reconstruction. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 2: 135-158.

So far as I've found, the only sites that list the New Scientist article are Christian ones. I will next check WorldCat.

Thank you for clarifying that. As for your percentage figure, methinks that cam out of thin air also.

It did not.


Okay now, please list the assumptions which were made. You know, like the ones where they assume that the sample is not contaminated, and they assume a specific level of radiation at the start of their timeframe. Others?

I doubt those are assumptions. Do you have any evidence to suggest that MIT contaminated their samples or that if they did it would make a difference? Do you have any evidence that laws of physics change over time and the half life of isotopes was different half a billion years ago from what it is now? Are you one of those people who says that the speed of light changes over time as well? Do you have any evidence for that?

Finally, if you believe these numbers published by an MIT planetary scientist are in error, why don't you ask Science for a correction and show us?

Tom, you claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."

Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of fossil embryos that are half a billion years old.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of the existence of egg-laying mammals.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of extinct dinosaurs that lived 80 million years ago.

Tom, you stated, "Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion . . ."

Do you really believe that?

In a thorough WorldCat search for the Kemp article, the only Kemp who appears in New Scientist is Sandra.

Apparently the article does exist. I found this:

From The Quote Mine Project, Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines, "Sudden Appearance and Stasis" by the talk.origins newsgroup, Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html) --

What has been quoted by some (Quote #33):

"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould." (Kemp, Tom S. "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67)

In the paragraph this quote is taken from, Kemp is criticizing the claim that the fossil record is incomplete because it does not support gradualism. But the full quote is more illuminating (bolded sentences are in the original article):

The fact that the fossil data did not, on the whole, seem to fit this prevailing model of the process of evolution - for example, in the absence of intermediate forms and of gradually changing lineages over millions of years - was readily explained by the notorious incompleteness of the fossil record. In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be "wrong". A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?

Spearheaded by this extraordinary journal, palaeontology is now looking at what it actually finds, not what it is told that it is supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the "punctuated equilibrium" pattern of Eldredge and Gould. Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution.

Note that Kemp states that the fossil record "leads in practice to description of long-term evolution or macroevolution...."

I looked through New Scientist's archives and I don't find such an article. Perhaps you can provide a link at New Scientist to the article you mean.


Believe it or don't believe it - I don';t care. You reject everything that fails to agree with you in any case so to take the time to go back through the archives would be wasting my time wouldn't it? You'd probably accuse me of planting it there.

You have cited a magazine article that does not seem to exist. I reject non- evidence, including made-up articles. If it exists, I challenge you to produce it. No one will care if it has a different title or date, but it must bear some resemblance to what you originally said.

Edit: I looked some more myself and did not find it, but now I see Wondergirl's post, so I will take a look.