Science & Religion

[SGWessells]

I will give you one big one - Natural selection is now understood as a conservative process not a creative one. That in itself is a big change. What do you think the implications of this are?

I can tell you an implication it does NOT have: the implication that changes only occur within the biblical “kinds” (however those are defined; the boundaries tend to shift to fit the needs of the current argument).

 

[SGWessells]

I think your position is overly dogmatic. The theory of evolution is considered well supported by researchers and explains fossil and biological observations but to assert it as an “undeniable fact” would undermine the provisional nature of science and is contrary to process of scientific enquiry.

Not if “undeniable” is understood to have the implication, “in our present state of knowledge.” I think most scientists understand this proviso. And there is a whopping lot of evidence.

 

[levinas12]

There is no corresponding measurement of God’s presence or activity.

Maybe not measurement … but what about the experience of the numinous or the sublime …

Einstein alludes to it … so the experience does not seem limited to the “ignoramuses” …

 

[StAnastasia]

But when there is an apparent conflict between science and religion you seem to opt for the former.

The fact that I opt for reason over a naively literal hermeneutic does not mean that I opt for science over religion. I reject both naive science and naive religion.

 

[SGWessells]

Wikipedia aside, it is more precise to say evolution is a theory that is composed of generally accepted facts. Regardless, science (including evolution theory) is provisional and relies on open minded inquiry, not dogmatic pronouncements of truth.

But when open-minded inquiry keeps on coming up with the same answer in ten different disciplines, eventually you don’t have to pursue that line of inquiry any more, unless something hapopens to call it into serious question. So far, ID isn’t it.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that I opt for reason over a naively literal hermeneutic does not mean that I opt for science over religion. I reject both naive science and naive religion.

And when neither is naive? I apologise for pressing home the point but it does make a difference to one’s outlook on life. Occupational hazards are ever-present…

 

[SGWessells]

What exactly is the soul in your scheme of things?

An imaginary construct of certain religions, artificially dividing the human being into soul and body (or some divide into soul, spirit, and body). This is useful to reinforce the idea of special creation by God, and his special love for humanity.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

But when open-minded inquiry keeps on coming up with the same answer in ten different disciplines, eventually you don’t have to pursue that line of inquiry any more, unless something hapopens to call it into serious question. So far, ID isn’t it.

Somehow, you’ve connotated my clarification of what evolution theory is as me supporting
ID.

 

[StAnastasia]

How do you distinguish “emerging hominids” and human beings?

We are human beings. Emerging hominids are our forbears. You’d need to talk to scientists like anthropologists or archaeologists or geneticists to get your bearings on the distinction. From what I know , Homo sapiens sapiens attained anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago, and behavioral modernity some time after that.

"There is considerable debate regarding whether the earliest anatomically modern humans behaved similarly to recent or existing humans. Modern human behaviors characteristic of recent humans include fully modern language, the capacity for abstract thought and the use of symbolism to express cultural creativity. There are two opposing hypotheses regarding the origins of modern behavior. Some scholars argue that humans achieved anatomical modernity first, around 200tya, and only later did they adopt modern behaviors around 50tya. This hypothesis is based on the limited record of fossils from periods before 50tya and the abundance of human artifacts found after 50tya. Proponents of this view distinguish “anatomically modern humans” from “behaviorally modern humans”.

“The opposing view is that humans achieved anatomical and behavioral modernity simultaneously. For example, proponents of this view argue that humans had evolved a lightly built skeleton during the transition to anatomical modernity, and this could have only occurred through increased human cooperation and the increased use of technology, traits characteristic of modern behavior.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

 

[tonyrey]

An imaginary construct of certain religions, artificially dividing the human being into soul and body (or some divide into soul, spirit, and body). This is useful to reinforce the idea of special creation by God, and his special love for humanity.

In other words you reject the soul and are left with the body which exists for no **reason **whatsoever…

 

[StAnastasia]

And when neither is naive? I apologise for pressing home the point but it does make a difference to one’s outlook on life. Occupational hazards are ever-present…

For example?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

That wasn’t from Wikipedia. If you feel more comfortable by saying it is a theory that is composed of pretty much undeniable facts, so be it

The point being is that a theory is a theory and is not a fact unto itself. It’s a hypothesis that is backed by evidence, which may be ultimately wrong. Being consistent with observable facts does not make it intrinsically true.

 

[buffalo]

It wasn’t evolution before. The theory is new, which is why the church had to change its unchanging revelation to allow for it when the evidence got too strong. But they didn’t want to admit that they were changing it because their authority is based on the claim to be the divinely appointed teachers and custodians of God’s unchanging revelation.

“Human reasoning of the observations” is science’s strong spot, if you ask me. The insistence on an unchanging revelation is a weakness because, as I keep repeating (apparently with no result except a growing personal frustration), growing knowledge will leave it behind and force the church to change in fact while pretending not to have changed. Eventually the cognitive dissonance gets too loud. Either you have a greater tolerance for inner discord than I do, or you don’t allow yourself to hear it.

Revelation distorts our reasoning because it refuses to change in response to new knowledge.

The name is changed the concept has not. As I said the Church has defended herself against it for a very long time. We can start here:

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE CREATION

Some men, admiring the world itself rather than the Creator of the world, have represented it as existing without any maker, and eternal; and as impiously as falsely have represented God as existing in a state of complete inactivity, while it would have been right on the other hand to marvel at the might of God as the creator and father of all, and to admire the world in a degree not exceeding the bounds of moderation.
But Moses, who had early reached the very summits of philosophy, and who had learnt from the oracles of God the most numerous and important of the principles of nature, was well aware that it is indispensable that in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject; and that the active cause is the intellect of the universe… while the passive subject is something inanimate and incapable of motion by any intrinsic power of its own, but having been set in motion, and fashioned, and endowed with life by the intellect, became transformed into that most perfect work, this world.

And those who describe it as being uncreated, do, without being aware of it, cut off the most useful and necessary of all the qualities which tend to produce piety, namely, providence: for reason proves that the father and creator has a care for that which has been created; for a father is anxious for the life of his children, and a workman aims at the duration of his works, and employs every device imaginable to ward off everything that is pernicious or injurious, and is desirous by every means in his power to provide everything which is useful or profitable for them.

But with regard to that which has not been created, there is no feeling of interest as if it were his own in the breast of him who has not created it. It is then a pernicious doctrine, and one for which no one should contend, to establish a system in this world, such as anarchy is in a city, so that it should have no superintendant, or regulator, or judge, by whom everything must be managed and governed.

---

The truth is unchangeable otherwise it is not truth.

 

[tonyrey]

We are human beings. Emerging hominids are our forbears. You’d need to talk to scientists like anthropologists or archaeologists or geneticists to get your bearings on the distinction. From what I know , Homo sapiens sapiens attained anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago, and behavioral modernity some time after that.

"There is considerable debate regarding whether the earliest anatomically modern humans behaved similarly to recent or existing humans. Modern human behaviors characteristic of recent humans include fully modern language, the capacity for abstract thought and the use of symbolism to express cultural creativity. There are two opposing hypotheses regarding the origins of modern behavior. Some scholars argue that humans achieved anatomical modernity first, around 200tya, and only later did they adopt modern behaviors around 50tya. This hypothesis is based on the limited record of fossils from periods before 50tya and the abundance of human artifacts found after 50tya. Proponents of this view distinguish “anatomically modern humans” from “behaviorally modern humans”.

“The opposing view is that humans achieved anatomical and behavioral modernity simultaneously. For example, proponents of this view argue that humans had evolved a lightly built skeleton during the transition to anatomical modernity, and this could have only occurred through increased human cooperation and the increased use of technology, traits characteristic of modern behavior.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

It seems that it is impossible to know for certain when human beings were recognisably human, let alone capable of distinguishing between good and evil.

It also seems highly unlikely that all individuals developed at the same rate. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that one of them was inspired? Or does a scientist rule that out on principle?

 

[buffalo]

The difference in the decay rate, according to the article you (I think) [posted was not consistently measured in all methods and was tiny; certainly not enough to make a difference of billions of years. As of now

Mutation rates affect the speed of evolution, not the age of the earth. Duh

As for uniformitarianism, the contrast is not as you have presented it. Originally, with Lyell and others, uniformitarianism was assumed to apply without any catastrophic interruptions. We now know (because scientific knowledge, unlike revelation, can change and thus become more accurate) that catastrophes occurred in the past (though nothing so drastic as a worldwide flood) and are still occurring today. Science has been taking this fact into account for decades. what does that do to the geologic column?

If physical constants are not the same in all parts of the universe, that shoots he anthropic argument in the foot, doesn’t it? You can’t argue that the constants are so amazingly fine-tuned that only design can account for them when you want to prove God, then turn around and say they aren’t finely tuned and delicately calibrated but rather changing when you want to disprove an old earth. Unless we are in a uniquely fine tuned cosmic bubble - see the article I provided

The target may be moving, but it’s getting no closer to the young earth nonsense. We agree it is moving

 

[buffalo]

Nope. Been there, done that. ID has repeatedly been shown to be religion, not science, not only in the scientific community but in the courts. ID proponents are as free as anyone to submit papers to peer-reviewed journals or present them at scientific conferences and symposia, but don’t bother to do so; they’d rather grandstand to the groundlings who are often unschooled in the sciences and easier to fool. ID conducts no original research, and proposes no scientific mechanism whereby it may be tested and confirmed. The science it has put out has been consistently refuted and shown to be unsubstantiated. It is religion hypocritically masquerading as science, and has been repeatedly exposed as such in court cases like Kitzmiller in PA and similar cases in Arkansas and Louisiana. In the first two cases, I have read the judges’ decisions, in which it was noted that ID supporters repeatedly lied and tried to conceal the religious nature of their position so they could more easily sneak their sectarian religious doctrines into science classes, where they don’t belong, and cripple our students’ ability to understand and advance in the world. Yet they have the nerve to accuse evolutionists of trying to impose the “religion” of evolution! Such hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Creationism has no scientific credibility whatsoever. Posters on this thread have repeatedly pointed out that science cannot investigate spiritual and non-material phenomena, so there’s no way a scientific proof of a spiritual creator can be found. You just have to live with it.
In short, there is virtually no chance of my becoming an ID zealot. I was once, but in the immortal words of the Monty Python newt guy, “I got better.”

So a judge is going to decide? Get real.

Is you claim there are no peer reviewed papers on ID?

You are going to have to give me more details of your claims, not just the “talking points” that are repeated here so very often.

 

[buffalo]

Are you referring to assertions like, “X behavior could have been selected for, or enhanced survival chances, for reason Y”? Or what specifically? I have read several books on evolution and never seen its factuality based on anything but well-established and repeatedly tested observations across many related fields of scientific investigation. It is as firmly established as scientific knowledge can be, so to overthrow it would require an enormous pile of evidence in biology, paleontology, genetics, embryology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, molecular biology, and several other fields, which I’m pretty sure you don’t have or you would have posted it already.

If there is observable, repeatable and predicable evidence I am all ears.

Two things can overthrow it immediately - mutations and natural selection. Now what have we learned recently about them. DNA actively fights against mutations and goes through several iterations to prevent any mutation at all. Natural selection is a conservative process. I have more…

I suggest you query what the top evo’s have been saying for the last few years. You may be surprised.

You are a newcomer. Look back at all my posts.

 

[buffalo]

Obviously. Creationism can be compared to illusionists/magicians. Illusionists trick people in making something seem real which is based on distraction and other methods. Creationists use the same tactics. If you ask a creationist a direct question, he distracts you with a counter question or other tricks he has up his sleeve. Both, illusionists and creationists, are aware that they are working with tricks(lies) which is why it is useless to have a discussion with them. That’s like trying to outsmart the guy on the street with the 3 nutshells and the pea underneath. It’s always a scam so you can’t win. The only option you have is to walk away.

This from a guy who supports the evolutionary fairytale?

By the way all Catholics are creationists by definition.

 

[buffalo]

I can tell you an implication it does NOT have: the implication that changes only occur within the biblical “kinds” (however those are defined; the boundaries tend to shift to fit the needs of the current argument).

When more genetic info comes in I believe you will see something like the “kinds”. The “tree of life” has fallen and is now a bush. We have HGT, epigenetics and more to consider.

 

[SGWessells]

You seem to be confusing - like so many others - Creationism with ID…

ID is just creationism dressed up in scientific disguise. You can see this when you investigate the background of the court cases challenging laws mandating “equal time” for ID and evolution; also read the books Dembski writes for a Christian audience rather than a general one; there he is quite explicit in identifying the “designer” with the Christian God. Supporters of requiring “creation science” teaching in schools are always connected with fundamentalist organizations (and opposed, BTW, in the Arkansas case by the Catholic Bishop of Little Rock – and good for him!).
The only confusion in the matter is among those who are fooled by the ID pretense of being a science. It is a religion, and any scientific basis they claim is a deliberate deception. Read the “wedge document”; it is quite explicit in admitting this.
Also, the author of the proposal that became the “balanced treatment act” (Ar590) in Arkansas, mandating that creation science be taught in science classes, was Paul Ellwanger, a respiratory therapist with no training in science or law. He gathered proposals for a creationist law, one coming from the Institute for Creation Research. In a letter to Pastor Robert R. Hays, and one to Tom Bethell, he admitted that creationism was not a science. In a letter to State Senator Bill Keith of Louisiana, he wrote: “I view this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces, though I know there are a large number of evolutionists who believe in God…” He continued that if there was a choice between ministers and non-ministers to organize the grassroots effort, “be sure to opt for the non-ministerial. It does the effort no good to have ministers out there in the public forum, and the adversary will surely pick at them.” Instead, the ministers were to “storm heaven with their prayers.”
A letter to State Senator Carlucci of Florida admits, “it wouild be very wise, if not actually essential, that all of us who are engaged in this legislative effort be careful not to present our position and our work in a religious framework.” In another letter, he said that doing so might undermine them in a court challenge. In the Bethell letter, he admitted that the purpose of the law was eventually “to kill evolution.”
The legislative history is equally revealing. The Greater Little Rock Evangelical Fellowship appointed a committee that passed along a copy of Ellwanger’s bill to a fundamentalist Arkansas legislator named Holsted, who introduced it at the last minute into the legislative session. He did not consult the State Department of Education, scientists, or science educators. During the perfunctory meeting of the Education Committee which passed the bill, no scientist was called to testify. The whole process was one-sided, sneaky, and religiously motivated from beginning to end, though they pretended it was not (which really glorified God ); yet they had the gall to claim that evolution should not be taught because it is a religion!
The whole judgment can be read in an appendix in Science And Creationism, ed. Ashley Montagu.