A question about Religon and Progress

[Felch]

Originally posted by Elok


And by "the fun" you mean "the clap?" Or just "the cirrhosis?" Or "that time they woke up in a dumpster full of vomit in Tijuana?"

Yes, No, and Yes.

[Sandman]

(did I mention Dawkings 'the universe can be self-existent if God can be self-existent' remark already?)

I think it was Hume that came up with that argument first.

[Whoha]

Re: A question about Religon and Progress

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
So my question is, what holds for a nations future and position of power that does not embrace science by facts, but by foolish ideas such as ID? Would it collapse? Would it fall behind? Are we seeing something similar like that happening now?

European nations have done just fine by squelching scientific advance(first to file for patents over there), so I wouldn't predict any kind of deline as a result of anti-science policy.

[Blaupanzer]

Darwin was very religious. He did not say or imply that people that were less than "perfect" were defective. He did not believe, and there is no evidence to support that most human imperfections are genetic.

There is nothing in the New Testament that is in any way hostile to the scientific method. Christians can be both religious and scientific.

ID is not a scientific theory. It is an attack on a theory. Evolutionary theory was developed over more than 100 years based on the available evidence. In order to compete with that theory, the IDers need to provide countervailing, testable theory accounting for that evidence. Logic is important to theory development, but does not qualify as evidence for a new theory. For the most part IDers don't have any new evidence or any new theory that can be tested.

In round 1, creationists were hoisted on the petard of a supposedly 6,000 year old world with millions of years worth of fossil records. In round 2, it appears that IDers will be hoisted on the petard of no real, testable hypothesis. Scientific method requires testable elements with repeatable results. Evolutionary theory presents evidence of the natural selection process occuring over and over again. An alternate explanation for this needs to be debated if evidence supports it.

[FrostyBoy]

I feel I should fine-tine my question a bit more.

Does religion, inhibit the accurate progress of biology?

Darwin, Newton, etc were all great scientists, and believers, although Darwin did have some doubts i'm sure, but I am talking about the problem we are at now, because fields of science - especially biology - clashes with many religions, how can you be a biologist who I imagine, would need to believe in natural selection, which is our updated view of the biological world around us AND be a Christian without conflicting your views?

For example, Sunday morning, scientist wakes up, goes to church. Rev. Shoutalot talks about age of the Earth being around 6000 years. You finish the sermon with a great smile and you feel all good inside. Later, after church, you go to your laboratory and you see that you need to do some carbon dating - uh oh! Something seems to be wrong with the machine, it keeps coming up with a number in the millions. - This, this is my roadblock that I am talking bout. If you are a scientist, stuck in believing the world is only 6000 years old, yet your testing shows otherwise, would he likely reject the test as false or ignore and move on to something else because it conflicts with his beliefs? Thus, like I asked in my first post, does it slow progress down?

[Jon Miller]

You know that there are lots and lots of Christians (the majority?) who believe in evolution.

Not very many denominations are going to shout at you about the earth being 6000 years old.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

He did not believe, and there is no evidence to support that most human imperfections are genetic.

Small comfort for those who do have an inheritable disability.

Evolutionary theory was developed over more than 100 years based on the available evidence.

What evidence? There's no observations of one species transforming into another. There is evidence of differentiation, and Mendel provided the method by which differentiation occurs.

The central thesis of Darwinian evolution is mostly speculation.

In order to compete with that theory, the IDers need to provide countervailing, testable theory accounting for that evidence

Darwin did just fine without any evidence whatsoever. If we hold ID to the standard of needing to show evidence which can be both tested and falsifiable, then their criticisms of evolution hold water.

In round 1, creationists were hoisted on the petard of a supposedly 6,000 year old world with millions of years worth of fossil records.

You can fit the sum total of the evidence wrt to the human species in the bottom half of a small closet?

Millions of years of evidence? Sure. One fossil now, and one from a million years ago.

In round 2, it appears that IDers will be hoisted on the petard of no real, testable hypothesis. Scientific method requires testable elements with repeatable results.

Agreed. How is evolution been replicated in the lab? Have they managed to transform monkeys into people? Do they have direct observation of the process of macroevolution? No. By that standard macroevolution fails to be a scientific theory.

Evolutionary theory presents evidence of the natural selection process occuring over and over again.

Besides the fossil record, which is inadequate, where is the evidence that species have transformed from one to the other?

Has it been replicated in a lab?

Does evolution provide testable hypotheses?

ID and Darwinian evolution are at the same level of science, both are speculative, and neither can be proven with adequate rigour. Therefore to favour one over the other is wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

how can you be a biologist who I imagine, would need to believe in natural selection, which is our updated view of the biological world around us AND be a Christian without conflicting your views?

Why are biologists required to adhere to the antiquated relic of darwinian evolution? Physics has left Aristotle behind, Chemistry has moved beyond Agrippa. Why is Evolution saddled by Darwin?

For example, Sunday morning, scientist wakes up, goes to church. Rev. Shoutalot talks about age of the Earth being around 6000 years.

Ah, so all Christians are YEC? Hardly so. I am not, and I'm not even sure there is a YEC here on Apolyton.

My question for the educated man, what was the first discovery to shatter the YEC perspective?

[ramseya]

What was the point? To say that a religious society holds up scientific progress? While cases of Galileo have existed, science progressed under the Islamic Caliphs and throughout the highly religious Victorian era. More recently, scientific achievements had occurred in relatively religious America but less so in atheistic Soviet Russia.

Religious persecution of scientists a la Renaissance Italy is one thing which we do not have in even religious America.

Ben Kenobi:

Evolution need not be witnessed in a laboratory setting. If it adequately explains the origin of observed phenomena better than ID (which it does), then it surely takes precedence.

and the whole distinction between micro- and macro- evolution is a myth; the change is a continuous process, not a discrete one. You might say that macro is the change from one species to another but these distinctions are conceived by man (well there's the can they reproduce if they mated test but this has more to do with population isolation than true genetic difference). A fish may develop a habit of going onto land to mate or eat insects... certain fish may develop an urge to go onto land more and more. Those fish who are randomly a little more agile on land will do better and will have more offspring. This is your 'micro-evolution'. But at what point would this continuous adaption to land (eventually progressing to an amphibian) be a macro-evolutionary change?

[ramseya]

Ben:

Subatomic particles can not be observed directly (actually, they can NEVER be observed directly) but their existence is a near-certainty through indirect observations, such as reactions with other particles.

Evolution need not be observed directly for us to determine its truth through its results.

[Ben Kenobi]

Evolution need not be witnessed in a laboratory setting.

Yes it does, I'm afraid. It must be replicable in some way shape or form, and it must make predictions that can falsify the theory.

Darwinian evolution says that it is survival of the fittest, but it describes the fittest as those who are most adapted to their environment. Thus the definition is circular. By definition, whichever creature survives was fitter then the other.

If it adequately explains the origin of observed phenomena better than ID (which it does), then it surely takes precedence.

It's a good theory, but there is no evidence to back it up.

and the whole distinction between micro- and macro- evolution is a myth; the change is a continuous process, not a discrete one.

You miss the point. Darwin assumes that the process of differentiation by which a species changes and adapts to fill different ecological niches, could also explain the origin of species.

He proved wholeheartedly the first principle, which is microevolution, through the process of observation, he could make predictions on how a species would differentiate in response to different environments. He proved without a shadow of a doubt that a species is shaped by their environment, and will change in order to adapt in a predictable way.

Mendel showed why it worked, and the underlying principles behind heredity.

However, his premise that differentiation could show how one species could change into another is entirely speculative. It has yet to be adequately proven.

You might say that macro is the change from one species to another but these distinctions are conceived by man.

Oh really? So cladists labour in vain to establish a scientific method of taxonomy. You believe we should throw out that entire structure because it is 'man made', and yet you adhere to Darwin?

Chemistry progressed when they realised that the periodic table had real significance, that the grouping of elements was not arbitrary. Yet here you are saying that Taxonomy is entirely man made and has no real bearing on the world?

Wow!

And I'm supposed to be the uneducated fanatic?

This is your 'micro-evolution'. But at what point would this continuous adaption to land (eventually progressing to an amphibian) be a macro-evolutionary change?

Why are you asking me that question, you should know that answer being an evolutionist after all.

The second question I raise, is the other one you list. You say that evolution is a continuous process. It is not discrete. If in fact it is true that the environment does shape the nature of the species, then it will be a discrete process. Natural catastrophes will play the largest part in evolution.

[Ben Kenobi]

Subatomic particles can not be observed directly (actually, they can NEVER be observed directly) but their existence is a near-certainty through indirect observations, such as reactions with other particles.

Need I reference Rutherford? I would say firing a cannon at a sheet of paper, and having the cannon deflected would be rather good proof of the existance of subatomic particles.

Evolution need not be observed directly for us to determine its truth through its results.

Then evolution is not science. One cannot observe the conclusions of theology first hand either, and yet we do not consider theology to be science. Evolution is a theology, in that it explains the origins of the world in a self-consistant manner that cannot be directly observed or falsified.

This is why Darwinists and Christians cannot be abided together, they have different faiths about the origins of the world. The fault is no more that of the Christian as it is the Darwinist. For the followers of Christ abide by him, and the followers of Darwin abide by him.

[Barnabas]

Ben, what I will say will sound horribly arrogant, and I am regretting writing it, but, I think your opposition to evolution is a leftover from your protestant years (you were evangelical, right?)

The C Church does not have any major problem with the theory of evolution, never has a Pope spoken against it, catholic schools teach it, and creationism is irrelevant in catholic countries.

Catholics generally believe that we all come from monkeys, and previously fishes, and previously one single cell, what they don't believe in is in chance, they believe thats the way God wanted it.

[Japher]

I think GWs religious background/backing has hindered stem cell research in the US (at least they aren't funding it). However, Israel is huge on the stem cell front and I think they are pretty religious.

I think Frosty Boy's issue is that he hasn't become comfortable with the fact that people can believe in God and the forces of the universe/nature. I think a lot of ppl who believe in God and who are scientists believe that God made the rules and we are to figure them out and make them work for us. Others may have no opinion until the look deeply into their science and find God there. However, it's approach I think one common thread is important for both a scientist and a man of faith; an open mind. A person with a preconceived notion of faith will surely be disappointed, as will a scientist who puts his conclusion before his theory.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Considering the USA has been strongly religious for all of its 200+ years of existence and considering that the USA is one of, if not THE top innovator in the world for much of those 200 years it is rather silly to say that religious belief is going to somehow harm us in the future.

Actually, it hasn't. Around the time of the revolution it was a lot more irreligious than it is today. There was a Great Awakening that swept the land around 1810 or so, and we've been religious nuts ever since.