An Incompatibility Between Science and Religion? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2009, 11:11 PM   #46
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I'm curious to hear your opinion of this rebuttal, A_W. What's your take on it?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 02:28 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post

I don't see complexity as an infinite series of coincidences, it is the continuous culling of life and the selection of forms which succeed at reproducing; this model has more explanatory power than an intelligent designer (which leads to the infinite regress of how that intelligence came to be).

Once the ball gets rolling and life, or proto-life, which has the properties of heritable variability, replication, and differential survival then more complexity seems highly likely.
By definition, evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Where the rolling ball came from. Among other things, evolution also fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for human consciousness and morality. Which we've discussed before.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 03:04 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I cheered when said that. Out loud. Literally cheered.

It has been in hiding the last eight years. The Bush administration fired scientists for daring to contradict the faith-based pseudo "science" that the administration supported.


Its rightful place is back in public discourse, an informed and intelligent discourse. Bush and his pals had no respect for science that didn't support whatever environmental destruction their friends would profit from.
Science hasn't left the public discourse. What we don't need to do is attach a quasi-sacred authority to anything labeled as such. There is nothing wrong with introducing ethics into the stem-cell debate just as there is nothing wrong with introducing economics or challenging the politics of the global warming debate.

Do you label extreme animal-rights activists as "anti-science" when they vandalize research facilities or harass their employees? Why don't you label as "anti-science" those that block the building of nuclear power plants in this country even though that's something we could do tomorrow to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

No, my guess is that if George Bush had been all gung-ho for federally funded embryonic stem-cell research then liberals would have argued that we've seen no clinical results from such research (which is true) and that the money would be better spent on "infrastructure," "condoms," or "insuring our nation's 44 million uninsured."
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 03:17 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
If we lived in a world with no chimpanzee, and other primates that are 99.X % the same genetic makeup as humans, and if there were no fossil remains of pre-humans before homosapiens the creationists' case would be very persuasive.
Well, most of that DNA is unused so we share roughly 70% of our DNA with the lowly yeast. But isn't it interesting what a 1% or 2% difference in DNA can produce.
Man launches themselves to the Moon, Chimps launch their feces.

Possibly there's something other than just DNA at play here.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 06:48 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 06:46 AM

Restoring science to its rightful place for me means judging scientific research on its merits, and not dismissing it because its conclusions doesn't suit you for political, financial or religious reasons.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 08:07 AM   #51
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTeeth View Post
Restoring science to its rightful place for me means judging scientific research on its merits, and not dismissing it because its conclusions doesn't suit you for political, financial or religious reasons.
Agreed. Haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating something.

Scientists test theories. Believers test faith. Both often dismiss results of those tests as faulty if they don't support the initial hypothesis.

Belief systems evolve just as our bodies do. But I believe that brings us closer to God. Resisting that evolution without being able to reframe the Q&A is what pulls us away from Him.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 08:15 AM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
By definition, evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Where the rolling ball came from. Among other things, evolution also fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for human consciousness and morality. Which we've discussed before.
Evolution can explain the origins of consciousness and morality, the mechanics of thought are to be found through neuroscience.

Those questions falls under the domain of empiricism which can be explained in a scientific fashion (if we ought to act according to our moral intuitions, say by protecting one of our children instead of 20 complete strangers is in a different domain).

The origin of life is distinct from evolution, but that does not put it off limits to scientific investigation and it certainly doesn't justify an intelligent designer (where does the designer come from?).

You point out the gaps in science, the non-static nature of ideas, and the continuous debates between scientists as a negative when it is the greatest strength of that type of knowledge accumulation.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 08:25 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Well, most of that DNA is unused so we share roughly 70% of our DNA with the lowly yeast. But isn't it interesting what a 1% or 2% difference in DNA can produce.
Man launches themselves to the Moon, Chimps launch their feces.

Possibly there's something other than just DNA at play here.
This supports a critical prediction of evolution, namely adaptation, to generate different forms a population doesn't need to completely replace pre-existing enzymes with brand new ones, merely accumulate modifications by co-opting and cobbling together pre-existing elements.

The existing elements are altered, the developmental processes which are controlled by genetic switches change to produce different types of organisms, selection acts on these organisms.

The existence of massive differences between the little machines that make up every organism would go against evolutionary theory, it would suggest that something different was going on.

I don't know how you can draw a large line between ourselves and the other chimps, they show complex social behaviour, basic reasoning, tool use, and rudimentary culture; they retain these archaic features of our common ancestor, while we have developed these capacities to a much greater degree. Different selective pressures between our lineages explain our differences, common descent explains our commonalities.



This animal is basically human.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 08:32 AM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Science hasn't left the public discourse. What we don't need to do is attach a quasi-sacred authority to anything labeled as such. There is nothing wrong with introducing ethics into the stem-cell debate just as there is nothing wrong with introducing economics or challenging the politics of the global warming debate.

Do you label extreme animal-rights activists as "anti-science" when they vandalize research facilities or harass their employees? Why don't you label as "anti-science" those that block the building of nuclear power plants in this country even though that's something we could do tomorrow to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

No, my guess is that if George Bush had been all gung-ho for federally funded embryonic stem-cell research then liberals would have argued that we've seen no clinical results from such research (which is true) and that the money would be better spent on "infrastructure," "condoms," or "insuring our nation's 44 million uninsured."
I support nuclear power.

I think that green politics can border on religiousity.

I say that "animal rights" terrorists are be anti-science and that animal testing delivers tangible benefits to all of us.

I think that alternative medicine proponents are usually morons.

I think that both sides are responsible for spinning global warming, I think that personal interest underpins their campaigns.

I think that blocking stem cell funding is a religiously based objection, I want public policy shaped by bioethicists before priests.

I don't think that scientists should be considered as rarefied wizards, although I think that a decent section want to distance scientists from the public for political gain via anti-intellectualism.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 09:02 AM   #55
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Do you label extreme animal-rights activists as "anti-science" when they vandalize research facilities or harass their employees?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Why don't you label as "anti-science" those that block the building of nuclear power plants in this country even though that's something we could do tomorrow to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
Because nuclear power has some serious safety issues that still haven't been resolved.


The Bush administration fired scientists who challenged the party line. That's anti-science.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 09:20 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'm curious to hear your opinion of this rebuttal, A_W. What's your take on it?
I think that Miller is first and foremost a good scientist, that he genuinely feels that faith can be accommodated, and that for political ends this can be effective.

The concepts of God which are made to be compatible with the latest scientific findings become so vague and nebulous that they become removed from traditional ideas about a creator God that steps into bronze age conflicts, knocks up virgins with miraculous children, and talks directly to certain men.

A good clarification was in here
Quote:
I made no argument that this happy confluence of natural events and physical constants proves the existence of God in any way—only that it could be understood or interpreted as consistent with the Divine by a person of faith.

To Coyne, however, even the mere possibility that someone might understand nature in a Divine context is absolute heresy. As a result, while he strictly rules out anything but natural causes in the evolutionary process (as would I), he then must argue that the same process could never, ever happen again. Why? Because if conditions in our universe are such that they make the emergence of intelligent life, sooner or later, pretty much a sure thing, then people might wonder why. And if they were to come to the conclusion this might mean that there was a Creator who intended that as part of his work, they would be guilty of the very thoughts that Coyne finds so outrageous that he wishes to banish them from the scientific establishment.
This leap from a possible future observation that intelligent life is a cosmic inevitability, hard wired into the laws of physics, to a God hypothesis is an unscientific one.

I absolutely agree with the premise that within the universe natural law rules, I think that the idea of life being a universal occurrence is an open question (I remain agnostic on the subject, even if we found life on Mars it could just be our long lost cousins, we need independently originated life to make any firm judgements), but to make a leap (in future) and accept this as evidence of purpose and deliberate design of the universe is unjustified.

The jump from "intelligent life is a cosmic inevitability" to "this means there is a creator" is the point of divergence. It may be possible for a scientist to believe this (I know a few smart scientist who do) but without any evidence it is a weak hypothesis, a creative intelligence demands complexity, we get forced into that old infinite regression of who made God.

To declare a personal bias, I would personally like the universe to be eternal, if the universe is infinite there is no need for a beginning and no need for a creator, I don't have any trouble accepting the big bang model in spite of my personal preference.

Back to the topic, if numerous intelligent alien species were discovered (or discover us), and a robust model of how life originates can be defined, and it turns out that the universe is really well suited for life then the why question comes up; but this should be pursued in a scientific fashion, with a goal of producing some testable model, any appeal to an unfathomable and untestable designer only obstructs understanding (but if God showed up, sat down and produced a lot of persuasive proof for his existence and handiwork then I'd obviously have to change my mind).

It's that point where a religious scientist puts God into play that their scope may be narrowed.

I feel as if scientific naturalism naturally leads onto agnosticism about those huge questions of purpose with an active scepticism towards certain claims.

I would rather sit in a restless ignorance with half a dozen bitterly argued competing ideas swirling in my head than be satisfied with a God based non-answer.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2009, 10:23 AM   #57
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:46 AM
The arrogance of ignorance.

Ignorance posing as erudition brings suffering and tragedy. Arrogance couched in the language of compassion and caring breeds contempt and resentment.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 08:39 PM   #58
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Scientists and religious leaders call for end to fighting over Darwin's legacy

by Martin Beckford
Telegraph (UK), Feb 8



Prominent scientists and leading religious figures have joined forces to call for an end to the fighting over Charles Darwin's legacy. Ahead of the 200th anniversary of the pioneering naturalist's birth on Thursday, they warn that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it as a weapon with which to attack religion. However, in a letter published in the Telegraph, they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to back up Darwin's theory of how life on Earth has developed.

It comes after a survey of 2000 [British] people conducted by Theos, the religion think tank, found that half believe the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of the natural world. One in three said they thought God created the Earth within the past 10,000 years.

The influential signatories of the letter include two Church of England bishops, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain and a member of the Evangelical Alliance, as well as Professor Lord Winston, the fertility pioneer, and Professor Sir Martin Evans, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

They write: "Evolution, we believe, has become caught in the crossfire of a religious battle in which Darwin himself had little personal interest. We respectfully encourage those who reject evolution to weigh the now overwhelming evidence, hugely strengthened by recent advances in genetics, which testifies to the theory's validity. At the same time, we respectfully ask those contemporary Darwinians who seem intent on using Darwin's theory as a vehicle for promoting an anti-theistic agenda to desist from doing so as they are, albeit unintentionally, turning people away from the theory. In this year of all years, we should be celebrating Darwin's great biological achievements and not fighting over his legacy as some kind of anti-theologian."
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 09:36 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:46 PM
Quote:
SIR – The 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, one of Britain’s most brilliant scientists, falls on Thursday.

We are concerned that, according to recent research by ComRes for the public theology think tank Theos, only 37 per cent of people in the United Kingdom believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is (to quote the question used in this survey of more than 2,000 respondents) “so well established that it’s beyond reasonable doubt”.
Evolution, we believe, has become caught in the crossfire of a religious battle in which Darwin had little interest. Despite his own loss of Christian faith, he wrote shortly before his death: “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.”

We respectfully encourage those who reject evolution to weigh the now overwhelming evidence, hugely strengthened by recent advances in genetics, which testifies to the theory’s validity.

At the same time, we respectfully ask those contemporary Darwinians who seem intent on using Darwin’s theory as a vehicle for promoting an anti-theistic agenda to desist from doing so, as they are, albeit unintentionally, turning people away from the theory.
In this year of all years, we should be celebrating Darwin’s great biological achievements and not fighting over his legacy as some kind of anti-theologian.

Dr Denis Alexander
Director, Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund’s College
Cambridge

Inayat Bunglawala

Dr Francis Collins
Former Director, National Human Genome Research Institute, United States

Professor David Cutler
President, Linnean Society of London

Professor Martin Evans
Director, School of Biosciences
Cardiff University

Professor Susan Greenfield
Director, Royal Institution, London

Dr Usama Hasan
Senior Lecturer in Engineering and Information Sciences
Middlesex University
Clifford Longley

Mary Midgley
Former Senior Lecturer in Philosophy
Newcastle University

Rt Rev John Pritchard
Bishop of Oxford

Rt Rev Lee Rayfield
Bishop of Swindon
Former Lecturer in Immunology, University of London

Professor Nancy Rothwell
Deputy Vice Chancellor
University of Manchester

Justin Thacker
Head of Theology, Evangelical Alliance

Baroness Mary Warnock

Lord Winston
Professor of Science and Society
Imperial College London

Paul Woolley
Director, Theos
I do wonder what counts as using evolution for an anti-theistic agenda, and how disingenuous people should be about their thoughts in the name of inclusiveness.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2009, 11:50 PM   #60
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:46 AM
On 'Darwin Day,' many Americans beg to differ
The latest tactic by evolution opponents -- 'academic freedom' laws -- recently scored its first major victory.


By Jeremy Kutner
Christian Science Monitor, February 12



...In June of last year, Louisiana became the first state to pass what has become known as an "academic freedom" law. In the past, fights over evolution took place at the local school board level, but academic freedom proponents specifically target state legislatures. Such laws back away from outright calls for alternative theories to evolution, electing instead to legislate support for teachers who discuss the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of issues such as evolution in the name of protecting the freedom of speech of instructors and students alike. In 2009, bills have been introduced in Oklahoma, Alabama, Iowa, and New Mexico. Their likelihood of success is uncertain: In the wake of the Louisiana result last year, similar bills were introduced in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina, all of which failed.

But it's a strategy shift, opponents say, which is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst. "Quite honestly, there aren't any strengths and weaknesses to evolution in the way they say. It's the hook they use to introduce nonscientific explanations," says Robert Gropp, director of public policy for the American Institute of Biological Sciences in Washington. "You have to give [evolution opponents] credit: They've gotten crafty about arguments they make. 'Academic freedom' sounds very all-American, but the problem is it sets aside the way science is done, the way we teach science."

Supporters of such legislation, like Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon (R), who introduced The Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act 10 days ago, wonder how people who claim evolution is iron-clad could object to open debate. "It befuddles me," Senator Brogdon says. "It's amazing that people who believe in human secularism don't want to have an open discussion...My gosh, what kind of system do we have if we only teach one set of information, one piece of the puzzle?"

Model legislation is currently being promoted by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that had supported the teaching of "intelligent design," which claims that life is too complex to have simply evolved without the hand of an intelligent designer. The Institute is offering an alternative to Darwin Day that it is calling "Academic Freedom Day." "We're doing sort of a counter to Darwin Day, which has become a sort of quasi-religious celebration," says John West, a senior fellow at the Institute.

Academic freedom arguments echo a long history of defeated attempts to challenge evolution's primacy in the classroom. Calls for equal classroom time for "creation science" gave way to less overtly religious support for "intelligent design." But in 2005, a federal court rejected the teaching of intelligent design in public-school classrooms. The US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania concluded its ruling by saying: "We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." "It was a shot across the bow nationally," says Tom Hutton, senior staff attorney for the National School Boards Association. "The case was really noticed by school boards." Merely mentioning intelligent design or religious alternatives to evolution became anathema.

Academic freedom laws specifically mention that they should not be seen as supporting a religious viewpoint. Language began to focus on "scientific" objections to evolution itself, something most evolutionary biologists say don't exist in the way such language implies.

...Louisiana's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approved its new guidelines based on the law in mid-January, allowing teachers to introduce "supplementary materials" into classroom discussions, though the review process for determining which materials were nonreligious in nature remains unclear. "This is very, very, watered down from the earlier generation of strategies, and it's harder to deal with that on legal level because it's not about the legislation" but rather about how individual teachers choose to interpret the legislation, says Joshua Rosenau, spokesman for the National Center for Science Education, a leading critic of such legislation.

...Yet activists on both sides acknowledge that, while the debate over science education is far from resolved, school boards have far more pressing issues at hand. "When schools are not worried about laying off a huge percentage of school staff this may loom larger," says Mr. Hutton of the National School Boards Association. "It's taken some of the wind out of the sails."
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com