Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

[Behr]

If anyone, including chidren, wants to learn about God (or a "higher power"), they will have to seek it themselves, or as childeren, be educated by their parents. Science is taught in public schools. God, Religon, The Bible etc. is not.

 

[gsvol]

your view is the view I held for most of my life, perhaps i turned further away from religion due to never having had a event that convenience me there was a god.

Trust me when I saw i wish a god existed maybe something in my life will convince me someday. Until then all my experiences point to man having more in common with monkeys lol

My experience is completely different, from very early in life, my suggestion to you is to pray for God to reveal Himself to you. If nothing happens, no harm, if something does happens I doubt you will be dissappointed.

To put my two cents in....

I try not to view the creation v. evolution issue as science v. religion. As an atheist/agnostic myself (I have not yet decided, but lean more atheist), its more of one faith v. another faith. By that, I mean science isn't totally conclusive, as someone said earlier, their are holes in some scientific theories on how the earth came to exist along with all the creatures on it. Its something more complicated and so ancient we will never know. I have faith that the earth got here somehow, someway, that I will never know, but I do know that it wasn't by a divine being. Of course, no one will ever really actually know, hence it being faith.

Have you ever read any of the Tao?

By your own admission though, how can you come to the conslusion that it wasn't by a divine being??

(not saying you are wrong, just asking.)

It's very simple: You either buy into what science DOES tell us (and accept what it doesn't) or accept what religion tells you (and rationalize what it didn't).

How do you get 'rationalize' in that equation?

 

[KB5252]

It's very simple: You either buy into what science DOES tell us (and accept what it doesn't) or accept what religion tells you (and rationalize what it didn't).

Or you could look at it from a much more realistic point of view giving equal and fair treatment to both sides. You must realize that the limits of the human mind are most likely the biggest factor in our limited knowledge of what goes on around us and why it happens. This applies to both science and religion in many ways.

 

[rjd970]

Or you could look at it from a much more realistic point of view giving equal and fair treatment to both sides. You must realize that the limits of the human mind are most likely the biggest factor in our limited knowledge of what goes on around us and why it happens. This applies to both science and religion in many ways.

How can you give equal and fair treatment to both sides when one side manifestly declares to know things it can't possibly know, while the other openly celebrates what it doesn't know as part of the process to gaining truth?

I guess the main difference is science celebrates the pursuit of truth, religion just declares it as so. All this talk about faith needed by both sides is simply bogus. Faith in a process (science) and faith in actual conclusions (religion) are completely different magistra and as such, doesn't require equal treatment.

 

[KB5252]

How can you give equal and fair treatment to both sides when one side manifestly declares to know things it can't possibly know, while the other openly celebrates what it doesn't know as part of the process to gaining truth?

I guess the main difference is science celebrates the pursuit of truth, religion just declares it as so. All this talk about faith needed by both sides is simply bogus. Faith in a process (science) and faith in actual conclusions (religion) are completely different magistra and as such, doesn't require equal treatment.

Listen to any speech given by scientists, watch any documentary on a scientific subject and much of the unknowns are presented as fact, only when they are pegged on their theories or beliefs do they admit it is only a theory, what they think happens.

When a theory is proved wrong they start over and work out the problems. Christians and the otherwise religious believe in God, perhaps when this "theory" has been proven wrong or faulty they will do the same.

 

[gsvol]

I know first-hand that his kid is getting more of a chance to make up her own mind than I ever did.

I didn't know you hung out with crack heads! hmy:

Let's go over this just one more time IP, from the top;

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...!

 

[rjd970]

Listen to any speech given by scientists, watch any documentary on a scientific subject and much of the unknowns are presented as fact, only when they are pegged on their theories or beliefs do they admit it is only a theory, what they think happens.

When a theory is proved wrong they start over and work out the problems. Christians and the otherwise religious believe in God, perhaps when this "theory" has been proven wrong or faulty they will do the same.

You and I both know this simply isn't true. In the world of philosophical beliefs that are non-falsifiable by definition, it is impossible to disprove. This all gets back to invisible dragons in your garage and flying pasta monsters. No evidence against is not evidence for. The inherent nature of the belief allows for it to always be inserted somewhere in the scientific realm of unknowns. As unknowns are uncovered, the Creator belief either changes, or simply moves to another gap. It is an age old game and no matter what Christians or whoever will always believe what they do, because again, by definition it can't ever be proven wrong.

I don't understand your first paragraph. Unknowns presented as fact, except in the concept of theories? Like what?

 

[Gramps]

You and I both know this simply isn't true. In the world of philosophical beliefs that are non-falsifiable by definition, it is impossible to disprove. This all gets back to invisible dragons in your garage and flying pasta monsters. No evidence against is not evidence for. The inherent nature of the belief allows for it to always be inserted somewhere in the scientific realm of unknowns. As unknowns are uncovered, the Creator belief either changes, or simply moves to another gap. It is an age old game and no matter what Christians or whoever will always believe what they do, because again, by definition it can't ever be proven wrong.

I don't understand your first paragraph. Unknowns presented as fact, except in the concept of theories? Like what?

Please explain how the creator belief has changed.What gap are you referring to?

 

[rjd970]

Please explain how the creator belief has changed.What gap are you referring to?

Sun was once worshipped as a God, no? We now know it is a huge ball of burning gas. So, scratch that one, move onto the next.

God is responsible for a good harvest, so proper sacrifices help this. Scratch that one, it is dependent much more on weather patterns and meteorology more than anything. Sacrificing a bull does nothing.

God created man out of dust and divine breath in a single act of creation. Now evolutionary theory which is widely accepted suggests otherwise. So, scratch that one, now he is just behind the process of evolution (or whatever is currently being said).

...and so on. In each one of these cases there was an unknown phenomenon attributed to God, only to find out it was mistaken, so the particular belief was either thrown out or modified. It is no different now with all this beginning of the universe talk. We have an unknown phenomenon that science can't really answer, so it must be God.

 

[KB5252]

You and I both know this simply isn't true. In the world of philosophical beliefs that are non-falsifiable by definition, it is impossible to disprove. This all gets back to invisible dragons in your garage and flying pasta monsters. No evidence against is not evidence for. The inherent nature of the belief allows for it to always be inserted somewhere in the scientific realm of unknowns. As unknowns are uncovered, the Creator belief either changes, or simply moves to another gap. It is an age old game and no matter what Christians or whoever will always believe what they do, because again, by definition it can't ever be proven wrong.

I don't understand your first paragraph. Unknowns presented as fact, except in the concept of theories? Like what?

Watch just about any documentary, when speaking of any number of topics they will speak about theories as fact, as if there is a good grasp of what is really at play. Any number of scientists will do the same while giving speeches etc. It is a part of human nature to convey your beliefs when speaking about them as a fact when they are really only your beliefs or views.

This is the structure science is based on. Scientists come up with a theory, the theory is put to test and if it is found plausible it is accepted unless there is another equally plausible theory. When a theory is disproved or a better theory comes along then it replaces those inferior to it. At this point we have limits both in understanding and technology, the good news is advancements on both fronts are taking place all the time. Who's to say on day verifying the existence of something supernatural will never be possible, or for that matter disproving it?

Science saying that because theist beliefs are non verifiable at this point, thereby making them faulty and unworthy in the marketplace of ideas is rather short sided and unscientific if you ask me. At one time we didn't have a way to measure the effects of black holes or see distant galaxies, things progress and advancements are made because we want to seek the answers, not because we discount them and stop looking.

 

[rjd970]

Watch just about any documentary, when speaking of any number of topics they will speak about theories as fact, as if there is a good grasp of what is really at play. Any number of scientists will do the same while giving speeches etc. It is a part of human nature to convey your beliefs when speaking about them as a fact when they are really only your beliefs or views.

This is the structure science is based on. Scientists come up with a theory, the theory is put to test and if it is found plausible it is accepted unless there is another equally plausible theory. When a theory is disproved or a better theory comes along then it replaces those inferior to it. At this point we have limits both in understanding and technology, the good news is advancements on both fronts are taking place all the time. Who's to say on day verifying the existence of something supernatural will never be possible, or for that matter disproving it?

Science saying that because theist beliefs are non verifiable at this point, thereby making them faulty and unworthy in the marketplace of ideas is rather short sided and unscientific if you ask me. At one time we didn't have a way to measure the effects of black holes or see distant galaxies, things progress and advancements are made because we want to seek the answers, not because we discount them and stop looking.

Again, science is just a series of better approximations. To my knowledge, you will almost never here a scientist say this is it, the absolute explanation. Not sure where you are getting this. At most, they say the evidence for this is overwhelming and barring some extraordinary new evidence it isn't going to change. For instance, the specifics of how DNA works is still debated, but is there any doubt that it plays a part in genetic inheritance at this point? Nobody is saying the big bang is without a doubt how the universe "began", but the evidence suggest something of this sort did in fact happen.

But I still don't buy your original point that maybe one day the "creator did it" crowd will change its tune once new evidence comes about. The nature of the belief is such that there will always be someway to insert it in. That says absolutely nothing about the validity of the belief itself.

 

[jed]

Watch just about any documentary, when speaking of any number of topics they will speak about theories as fact, as if there is a good grasp of what is really at play. Any number of scientists will do the same while giving speeches etc. It is a part of human nature to convey your beliefs when speaking about them as a fact when they are really only your beliefs or views.

This is the structure science is based on. Scientists come up with a theory, the theory is put to test and if it is found plausible it is accepted unless there is another equally plausible theory. When a theory is disproved or a better theory comes along then it replaces those inferior to it. At this point we have limits both in understanding and technology, the good news is advancements on both fronts are taking place all the time. Who's to say on day verifying the existence of something supernatural will never be possible, or for that matter disproving it?

Science saying that because theist beliefs are non verifiable at this point, thereby making them faulty and unworthy in the marketplace of ideas is rather short sided and unscientific if you ask me. At one time we didn't have a way to measure the effects of black holes or see distant galaxies, things progress and advancements are made because we want to seek the answers, not because we discount them and stop looking.

That's strange that a scientist would say such a thing. I did know a very intelligent biologist from California that argued with me about that very thing though. A theory will never become a fact, no matter how much evidence supports it. That is the nature of science.

 

[IPorange]

I didn't know you hung out with crack heads! hmy:

Let's go over this just one more time IP, from the top;

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...!

He's not a crackhead. Maybe a bit of a drinker...

 

[seanofthedead86]

Have you ever read any of the Tao?

By your own admission though, how can you come to the conslusion that it wasn't by a divine being??

(not saying you are wrong, just asking.)

It's not plausible in my mind: I agree with the idea that a natural phenomenon created everything we see and not something divine. It would probably take many pages for me to just write out my thoughts on the subject.

I will say, though, that I may not agree with organized religion, but if your faith, no matter what it is, gets you to cope with the question of "why are we here?" and not going postal on your co-workers, mad props to you.

 

[gsvol]

He's not a crackhead. Maybe a bit of a drinker...

Oh, I meant to say 'cracked head'.

Did you click the link??

 

[gsvol]

It's not plausible in my mind: I agree with the idea that a natural phenomenon created everything we see and not something divine. It would probably take many pages for me to just write out my thoughts on the subject.

I will say, though, that I may not agree with organized religion, but if your faith, no matter what it is, gets you to cope with the question of "why are we here?" and not going postal on your co-workers, mad props to you.

Nonviolence can be a good thing, most of the time.

The Tao is very interesting philosophy.

Lao Tzu said that the knowledge was passed down to him by immortals.

Way of the Peaceful Warrior, Sacred Journey of the Peaceful Warrior and Wisdom of the Peaceful Warrior are interesting studies also.

I think a question more on point than 'why are we here' is 'what are we doing here' but I guess that's neither here nor there.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"It is beyond my power to induce in you a belief in God. There are certain things which are self proved and certain which are not proved at all. The existence of God is like a geometrical axiom. It may be beyond our heart's grasp. I shall not talk of an intellectual grasp.

Intellectual attempts are more or less failures, as a rational explanation cannot give you the faith in a living God. For it is a thing beyond the grasp of reason. It transcends reason. There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists.

With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined. In order to do so, you have to unlearn a lot of literature that dazzles your intelligenqe and throws you off your feet.

Start with the faith which is also a token of humility and an admission that we know nothing, that we are less than atoms in this universe. We are less than atoms, I say, because the atom obeys the law of its being, whereas we in the insolence of our ignorance deny the law of nature.

But I have no argument to address to those who have no faith. "

 

[IPorange]

Oh, I meant to say 'cracked head'.

Did you click the link??

Yes.

 

[gsvol]

Yes.

Ever heard the feminist story of creation?