Verisoph sapiens on August 25, 2009, 5:16 AM

No, I beg to differ here, Luke. Science is one thing, religion another.

Science and religion speak of different dimentions and properly understood do not, cannot overlap and conflict.

And that’s why creationist must be wrong, because it is a biblical, therefore religious doctrine presuming to speak of astronomy and biology, which are scientific doctrines.

Religion has nothing meaningful to say about the empirical realm, while science has nothing to say about morality or ultimate meaning. The two magisteria are as chalk and cheese, and those who choose to eat the former or draw with the latter are being either pig-headed or just plain stupid.

I think Herbie could explain this far better whith more facts and eloquence

sciencesaves on August 25, 2009, 8:37 AM

Luke, it seems you absolutely believe that falling back on the “god did it” conclusions somehow makes sense…isn’t it revealing when we realize how many times religious claims have been modified to survive actual discovery and progress?

The scientific method has proven to be indispensible for detemining real truths, while religions continue embrace of conclusion jumps, moving their claims beyond reach of the current technology, when they’re threatened by the knowledge gained from logical conclusions using proper, verifiable and repeatable methods of determining real answers.

The religious will only see what they want to see, pretending to have an open mind while still playing the ages old game of attempting to justify religious belief(s) in a modern world, for psychological “comfort”.  Take comfort in the fact that we no longer live in ignorance and superstition, if we choose not to.

Fear factors apparently still have an effect on the fairly intelligent, it’s obvious that even brilliant minds continue to be influenced by myth and wishful thinking, a big liability in the real world…in my opinion. 

tim hall on August 25, 2009, 12:41 PM

Luke,

http://www.swarmintelligence.org/

You said: But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Do not we first need background in evolutionary computation to study the many similarities  with PSO’s?

tim hall on August 25, 2009, 2:19 PM

http://ai-depot.com/Essay/SocialInsects-Swarm.html

I think the study of PSO’s is important in figuring out how we all work together while maintaining our distances with our individual beliefs and desires. To deny that as individuals we are not heading down the same social path with each other seams like denying both the evolutionary path as well as the God given path.

Obviously, I need Herbie’s help in understanding what the physics mean. But I think this study would help in understanding the nature or need to be different in beliefs and desires to correctly go forward, as planned.

Jay Alan on August 25, 2009, 4:28 PM

tim hall on August 25, 2009, 5:16 PM

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/3/23

Luke, you said: "In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”³

They use the theory of evolution throughout the biomed. industry all of the time, always have. I cannot understand where you and Doc. Menton are coming from? How would you expect them to understand microorganisms, without studying how they evolved. It would be like: "God created the micro-organism and I spoke to God and he told me what it was made from. In medicine, you have to have some way to follow a history of how things evolved. They don’t just pop out and say I am here by the grace of god? Can you better explain that theory?

Jay Alan on August 25, 2009, 5:16 PM

From my (layman’s) perspective, having a “particles-to-people” understanding of biology would seem to be beneficial; say, if I want to understand protein-chain reactions, I think it would help to understand how proteins involved, the role they play in other organisms, in what ways they can be manipulated (perhaps by observing their role in simpler life forms and “scaling up”). An understanding of the theory may or not be a useful in these instances, but from a non-scientist’s POV at least, I don’t see how it could hurt.

Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created.

I think one could make the case for technological evolution. After all, we start with fairly simple technologies and devices, and the ones that work best are kept around while those that don’t parish (BetaMax? Laserdisc?). We also improve upon these relatively crude designs by making the technology work smoother, run faster/cooler, etc. Look at the first ceullar phone (dubbed “the brick”) and your 3G iphone now. Apple certainly didn’t design it in a vacuum, it was built largely on the ideas and principles already established. 

How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?

Interesting point. A great deal of those in the field of AI and robotics are now introducing chaos into their designs, and looking at Artificial Intelligence from the bottom-up, not the top-down, as this hasn’t proven to be very fruitful. By building a robot with a basic set of instructions, the robots are able to “learn” in their environment the way organic lifeforms are. They can teach themselves to walk and avoid running into objects, and the “designer” does not need to program these abilities. If anyone has any links to these types of projects,  please post them. I know they’re out there but I’m pressed for time.

Also, look into fractals. These designs look incredibly complicated, but take very little “programming”. If you’ve seen any movie with a great deal of CGI backgrounds (mountains, trees) or effects, you’ve probably been looking at fractal design. Again, anyone wishing to give examples would be great.

Moving on, I’m not sure where to draw the line when labeling evolution a “belief”, which would put it on equal footing as spiritual belief. Clearly you can reduce anything to a “belief”; while I “believe” the Earth is round and that it revolves around the sun, I’ve never gone around it myself or visited space to confirm its orbit, but there’s enough evidence (including predictions based on the scientific method) that seem to corroborate these “beliefs”. If we wish to get philosophical, I can not even prove that I am typing these words, or that any of you are alive to read them, I simply have to “believe it”, since there’s no objective way to prove subjective experience that I know of.

As for Dr. Lisle mentioning Isaac Newton as a “believer,” I was reading an essay by Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Astrophysics, Cosmology) who pointed out (paraphrasing here) that we often invoke the Divine when our intellectiual limits are reached. He states that in Newton’s Principia Mathematica, the name of God is not mentioned until the end of the book, when Newton is having trouble explaining why the orbits of various celestial bodies- with the gravity of each affecting the others- should remain intact. His math could explain 2 bodies, but 3 or more, and… “God did it!” Mr. Tyson’s point was that you often find some of our greatest scientistic thinkers waxing poetically about religion only after they’ve explained the world away to their current understanding, anyting beyond that is left for Him, and these “gaps” are filled by the next generation of thinkers…

Or, perhaps God designed evolution Himself. Who’s to say? This is why I am firmly agnostic.

tim hall on August 25, 2009, 6:37 PM

“Or, perhaps God designed evolution Himself. Who’s to say? This is why I am firmly agnostic.” That would be an easy out. I don’t think you can find those words in the Bible. But a bet some preacher-man could mix 3 or 4 hundred years of stories together and  say looky there! That’s what it means. Or not!

Maybe we should stick with what we know as logical thinking. Think out side of the box, but keep it logical.

tim hall on August 25, 2009, 7:06 PM

But back to particles to people.

So God created people? God created all animals? God created insects? God created microorganisms? God created soil? God created earth. The sun, stars, comets. Where do we draw the line. Can we track the evolution of a meteorite. Where is the logic here?

AND THEN THERE WAS LIGHT! LOL

tim hall on August 25, 2009, 9:06 PM

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

Luke, you said: 

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible."

Yes, I agree that there are many Christians who are scientists. But following along of how Kings and people of power in biblical times kept stiff control over all propaganda, even up to the more modern day artist. Would logic have it that scientist of those times would have to claim what ever beliefs their king believed or not get published. Or woarse. I doubt we can retrieve the facts if they were instructed to lie. I am just logically going by the horrible treatment that the scribes got for not writing the kings truth.

Musycks on August 26, 2009, 12:31 AM

                                                       Luke… to claim any scientist as a believer from over say 100 years ago is a completly specious argument. Non-belief, for a myriad of complex reasons, was not an option for any of them (or us) until relatively recently. Newton, one of the great minds in history was also convinced alchemy was possible and spent a lifetime on that fruitless search, does that mean we really can change base metals into gold because he believed it? I’ll settle for the current estimated divide, which is 13% of scientists profess some kind of faith. That leaves 87% atheist or at worst agnostic. The believers who’d sign up to an evangelical model in the science community could hold their annual meetings in a phone booth.

Musycks on August 26, 2009, 12:34 AM

                                                    Jay… nice thoughts. Belief in Evolution is not required, anymore than belief in gravity. It’s a fact, even attested to by that bastion of free thought and progress the Vatican! To argue it’s a theory is the last resort of the mentally bankrupt faithful.

David on August 26, 2009, 5:56 PM

Evolution is absolutely required to properly teach biology. Teaching biology without evolution is like teaching car mechanics but  leaving out the engine. The theory has stood up to scrutiny for over 150 years, and remains. Why? Because the evidence supports it.

 Appealing to authority to support a claim doesn’t raise it’s truth value. If you would like to go down the road of “some scientists reject evolution,” then you are in for a very bumpy ride. There is no debate in the scientific community on the matter of evolution. It is overwhelmingly supported.

Science doesn’t work because of god. The scientific method is the reason it works. In fact, it can be argued that the “God” has been the biggest hiderance on technological advance, ever. Scientists let the evidence take them where it leads. They do not try to mold evidence to their dogma (as in creation science.) Why would they need to introduce an infinately complex entity to explain something that coul dhave happened naturally? Occams Razor comes to mind.

I believe studying the refutations of Paley’s watchmaker argument is in order.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 12:31 AM

Hey Verisophs,

“No, I beg to differ here, Luke. Science is one thing, religion another.”

The point the article made was that science was our way of understanding God and just to state no there separate really doesn’t raise the level of discussion.

“Science and religion speak of different dimentions and properly understood do not, cannot overlap and conflict.”

They can and do. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God CREATED the Heaven and the earth.” Something tells me that overlaps with the billion year old earth theory.

“And that’s why creationist must be wrong, because it is a biblical, therefore religious doctrine presuming to speak of astronomy and biology, which are scientific doctrines.”

No. The scientist in the above article would strongly disagree with that and we should be arguing his points if you want to believe “creationist must be wrong”.

“Religion has nothing meaningful to say about the empirical realm, while science has nothing to say about morality or ultimate meaning.”

Well thanks for conceding that science has nothing to say about morality or ultimate meaning a lot of scientist would argue that though. However the empirical realm is controlled from the “moral” or “meaning” realm because of the role of the observer.

“The two magisteria are as chalk and cheese, and those who choose to eat the former or draw with the latter are being either pig-headed or just plain stupid.”

Well I don’t think that Dr. Lisle is either “pig-headed” or “plain stupid” and I’m quite sure him and I both agree that the two magisteria aren’t chalk and cheese so since you have such an obvious different opinion than we do please support your statements with a little more either you agree with me or your stupid. Otherwise your arguments have very little validity.

“I think Herbie could explain this far better whith more facts and eloquence”

I gave Herbie two days to shred before I attempted to re-offend and either the topic doesn’t interest him or he hasn’t seen it yet at either rate facts and eloquence is usually required before you just dismiss something out of hand. Thanks for trying though.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 12:41 AM

Hey Sciencesaves,

“Luke, it seems you absolutely believe that falling back on the “god did it” conclusions somehow makes sense"

Yes Sciencesaves I do. And Im saying their are a lot of scientist doing the same.

“…isn’t it revealing when we realize how many times religious claims have been modified to survive actual discovery and progress?”

Please understand: Most scientific Christians don’t claim to know all the answers. We hope and look forward to modifying and learn and discover and create progress, all while the sneerer’s sneer.

 “The scientific method has proven to be indispensible for detemining real truths, while religions continue embrace of conclusion jumps, moving their claims beyond reach of the current technology, when they’re threatened by the knowledge gained from logical conclusions using proper, verifiable and repeatable methods of determining real answers.”

I to belief in the scientific method, that isn’t in question or debated; we are debating whether the scientific method comes from God or man. You claim man and I say man is divinely inspired by God. I don’t think I or Dr. Lisle runs from new truth or “real answers” If you do please state where and how.

“The religious will only see what they want to see”

The atheist will only see what they want to see.

“pretending to have an open mind”

Pretending to care about science.

“while still playing the ages old game of attempting to justify religious belief(s) in a modern world, for psychological “comfort”."

While still playing the ages old game of attempting to justify their superiority over God, which in a modern world shows how little they know scientifically. Relying on the “comfort” they are all that is and not having the strength to admit their own weakness.

 “Take comfort in the fact that we no longer live in ignorance and superstition, if we choose not to.”

I wish they’d take comfort in the fact we no longer live in ignorance, there is plenty of science to support God and they no longer need to just fall into their dogmatic atheist close minded positions.

 “Fear factors apparently still have an effect on the fairly intelligent”,

Satan still has an affect on the world, even if the person is intelligent.

“it’s obvious that even brilliant minds continue to be influenced by myth and wishful thinking, a big liability in the real world…in my opinion. "

It’s so obvious that even brilliant minds continue to be deceived by the king of deception the Devil himself and that he brings real damage to an eternal soul that I pray for daily. And that is just my opinion.

God Bless you SS 

SELAH

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 12:50 AM

Hey Tim 1, lol

“You said: But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?”

First Tim I wish I could’ve said those questions but those are from the far smarter than me Dr. Lisle. 

Do not we first need background in evolutionary computation to study the many similarities  with PSO’s?

Second. went to the website and read the info and all it really did was hype the PSO’s and how well they work and I won’t refute it but I’ll refute us evolving from a primordial sludge had anything to do with the PSO’s in the first place.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 12:50 AM

Hey Tim 1, lol

“You said: But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?”

First Tim I wish I could’ve said those questions but those are from the far smarter than me Dr. Lisle. 

Do not we first need background in evolutionary computation to study the many similarities  with PSO’s?

Second. went to the website and read the info and all it really did was hype the PSO’s and how well they work and I won’t refute it but I’ll refute us evolving from a primordial sludge had anything to do with the PSO’s in the first place.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 1:01 AM

Hey Tim 2,

“They use the theory of evolution throughout the biomed. industry all of the time, always have. ”

Please state what would be lost if we didn’t evolve but were created in the biomed view?

“I cannot understand where you and Doc. Menton are coming from?”

Where coming from the position that God created the earth.

“How would you expect them to understand microorganisms, without studying how they evolved.”

I don’t know but Dr. Collins sure understands microorganisms and he still subscribes to a theistic evolution so one could believe God made the microorganisms evolve and still learn from them according from his perspective.

“It would be like: “God created the micro-organism and I spoke to God and he told me what it was made from. In medicine, you have to have some way to follow a history of how things evolved. They don’t just pop out and say I am here by the grace of god? Can you better explain that theory?”

To better explain that theory, I don’t think any Christian scientist would ever say any science discovery is wrong. Where we disagree with “evolutionist” is the origin of the creation. Is that a good enough explanation? If not please feel free to ask anything and I’ll try my best to explain but please understand I work from the premise I could be really wrong and still know that God is perfect without my explanation.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 1:23 AM

Hey Jay,

Great response, thanks for the meat.

“From my (layman’s) perspective, having a “particles-to-people” understanding of biology would seem to be beneficial; say, if I want to understand protein-chain reactions, I think it would help to understand how proteins involved, the role they play in other organisms, in what ways they can be manipulated (perhaps by observing their role in simpler life forms and “scaling up”). An understanding of the theory may or not be a useful in these instances, but from a non-scientist’s POV at least, I don’t see how it could hurt."

Well it could hurt from devaluing people’s nature and basically just saying we are all animals. Simply put, God says that we are made uniquely and that uniqueness is what stops us from using mice to get exact observable information in coming up with “new” medicines to help us. Hence, let’s say that by thinking your nothing more than an animal I could help you with the behavioristic approach to psychology and not the best, psychodynamic perspective. If one new of one’s spiritual nature, medicine still wouldn’t be in the dark ages. This is just a couple examples of how it hurts science.

“I think one could make the case for technological evolution. After all, we start with fairly simple technologies and devices, and the ones that work best are kept around while those that don’t parish (BetaMax? Laserdisc?). We also improve upon these relatively crude designs by making the technology work smoother, run faster/cooler, etc. Look at the first ceullar phone (dubbed “the brick”) and your 3G iphone now. Apple certainly didn’t design it in a vacuum, it was built largely on the ideas and principles already established. 

Interesting point. A great deal of those in the field of AI and robotics are now introducing chaos into their designs, and looking at Artificial Intelligence from the bottom-up, not the top-down, as this hasn’t proven to be very fruitful. By building a robot with a basic set of instructions, the robots are able to “learn” in their environment the way organic lifeforms are. They can teach themselves to walk and avoid running into objects, and the “designer” does not need to program these abilities. If anyone has any links to these types of projects,  please post them. I know they’re out there but I’m pressed for time.

 Also, look into fractals. These designs look incredibly complicated, but take very little “programming”. If you’ve seen any movie with a great deal of CGI backgrounds (mountains, trees) or effects, you’ve probably been looking at fractal design. Again, anyone wishing to give examples would be great."

I don’t really know how to respond to this so that other reader’s could understand and how that it is best understood by you; but what you did in this paragraph and the next two you wrote was create a conflicting perspective. On this side you state Technological evolution and then the next couple paragraphs you use AI Robotics and fractals as proof that very little is needed for technology to “evolve” either one should state that there needs to be a process of “technological evolution” or that AI and fractals work best with randomness. Either way I could simply answer God is in control and allows us reason to use both technological evolution and random to create something from something. Whereas, God created us out of nothing. (Two completely different words in Hebrew that don’t translate well in english.) Does that argument even make sense to you? If not I’ll try a better explanation.

“Moving on, I’m not sure where to draw the line when labeling evolution a “belief”, which would put it on equal footing as spiritual belief. Clearly you can reduce anything to a “belief”; while I “believe” the Earth is round and that it revolves around the sun, I’ve never gone around it myself or visited space to confirm its orbit, but there’s enough evidence (including predictions based on the scientific method) that seem to corroborate these “beliefs”. If we wish to get philosophical, I can not even prove that I am typing these words, or that any of you are alive to read them, I simply have to “believe it”, since there’s no objective way to prove subjective experience that I know of."

This! This right here is your proof to move one from agnostic to theistic. The knowledge of the fallacy of holding on to facts regardless, leads one to a more permanent reality, the reality of the eternal soul in oneself that resides everlasting. I pray you find that from the above paragraph.

“As for Dr. Lisle mentioning Isaac Newton as a “believer,” I was reading an essay by Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Astrophysics, Cosmology) who pointed out (paraphrasing here) that we often invoke the Divine when our intellectiual limits are reached. He states that in Newton’s Principia Mathematica, the name of God is not mentioned until the end of the book, when Newton is having trouble explaining why the orbits of various celestial bodies- with the gravity of each affecting the others- should remain intact. His math could explain 2 bodies, but 3 or more, and… “God did it!” Mr. Tyson’s point was that you often find some of our greatest scientistic thinkers waxing poetically about religion only after they’ve explained the world away to their current understanding, anyting beyond that is left for Him, and these “gaps” are filled by the next generation of thinkers…"

Which is why God is the designer of science and what I stated still holds true. If God is what left after science explains then why do we still hold as beautiful what we know. Truly, it is more beautiful the more we know and the more we learn the closer we get to divine. Never actually reaching it in this state other than subjective (otherwise an objective Godhead would by definition eliminate free-will). What my point is and the reason for posting this article is the beauty of Christianity is finding the beauty in the creator. We work harder and strive more once we reach the end of understanding NEVER degrading discovery and always trying to discover more. Our parable of the unprofitable servant in the book of Matthew is our charge to do that. 

Or, perhaps God designed evolution Himself. Who’s to say? This is why I am firmly agnostic.

Perhaps Satan designed evolution to keep you agnostic? Who’s to say? Your soul.

God Bless you!

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 1:35 AM

Hey Tim 3,

“Yes, I agree that there are many Christians who are scientists. But following along of how Kings and people of power in biblical times kept stiff control over all propaganda, even up to the more modern day artist.”

I don’t think that Dr. Lisle position is helped or propped up from biblical extremists and he’s being forced to devalue evolution due to position, do you?

“Would logic have it that scientist of those times would have to claim what ever beliefs their king believed or not get published. Or woarse.”

Absolutely true. One can not ever know pure history, as we all know to the victor goes the history, however, currently we still have numerous Christian scientist that believe in creation and argue from a scientist perspective and not an illogical, myth based, perspective.

“I doubt we can retrieve the facts if they were instructed to lie. I am just logically going by the horrible treatment that the scribes got for not writing the kings truth.”

The kings and emperor’s truth for a long time was to persecute Christians and 2009 years later we still remain still learning from the same book that came out of the Council of Nicea over 1800 years! God is good!

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 1:40 AM

Hey my atheist brother Musycks,

“Luke… to claim any scientist as a believer from over say 100 years ago is a completly specious argument. Non-belief, for a myriad of complex reasons, was not an option for any of them (or us) until relatively recently.”

Well Voltaire was a while ago and today’s climate it works in reverse, but that really doesn’t add or subtract one point of the articles position.

“Newton, one of the great minds in history was also convinced alchemy was possible and spent a lifetime on that fruitless search, does that mean we really can change base metals into gold because he believed it?”

One can be brilliant in one area and slow in another. That isn’t the argument that is meant. The argument is that some of the greatest discoveries have came from a theistic scientist so our contribution to science shouldn’t be tossed aside.

“I’ll settle for the current estimated divide, which is 13% of scientists profess some kind of faith. That leaves 87% atheist or at worst agnostic. The believers who’d sign up to an evangelical model in the science community could hold their annual meetings in a phone booth.”

Hahahahaha there are so may zingers I could throw at that. The 80/20 rule comes to mind. but alas the small numbers with such great achievement should force the herd to come to our side. I tend to like phone booths didn’t superman change in them

;> keep dancing brother.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 1:51 AM

Hey David,

“”color: #404040; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;“>Evolution is absolutely required to properly teach biology. Teaching biology without evolution is like teaching car mechanics but  leaving out the engine.”

No, did you even read all the scientific advances that were made from the theistic perspective in the above paragraph?

“The theory has stood up to scrutiny for over 150 years, and remains. Why? Because the evidence supports it.”

Claim your evidence and I’ll show you the refuting of it by more scientific minds then me who know Creationism is the science of our existence.

 "Appealing to authority to support a claim doesn’t raise it’s truth value. If you would like to go down the road of “some scientists reject evolution,” then you are in for a very bumpy ride."

I tend to like bumpy rides, no worries there.

“There is no debate in the scientific community on the matter of evolution. It is overwhelmingly supported.”

Umm you did read this article right? Their is debate David, www.answersingenesis.org is proof of that. Please don’t make blanket statements your ignorance shows.

“Science doesn’t work because of god. The scientific method is the reason it works.”

Where did the scientific method come from David? Let me guess… would you say “human reason”? If so, where does human reason come from David?

“In fact, it can be argued that the “God” has been the biggest hiderance on technological advance, ever."

No. None of this “technology” would be applicable without the law of gravity and the article shows him to be a believer. and There is no charge in the Bible (the literal Word of God) that would support a hinderance to technological advancements.

“Scientists let the evidence take them where it leads.”

No they don’t, they take it where the grant money is.

“They do not try to mold evidence to their dogma (as in creation science.)”

They consistently do, starting with their dogma of evolution. 

“Why would they need to introduce an infinately complex entity to explain something that coul dhave happened naturally? Occams Razor comes to mind.”

because it couldn’t have happened naturally. This is what the article is stating and you haven’t as of yet refuted one position in the article so please enlighten me on what it takes to get you to actual respond to an idea that isn’t what you normally think?

“I believe studying the refutations of Paley’s watchmaker argument is in order.”

I’ve studied every refutation of Paley’s wathchmaker and still claim, scientifically, God is science.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 1:54 AM

Well it took me 80 minutes from post to post to completely word by word refute and disagree with all of your posts points. Please attempt to actually say something AGAINST the article, scientifically speaking, otherwise keeping my position of creationism and that God is science, is simply too easy. :>

Musycks on August 27, 2009, 2:52 AM

                                                     Luke boy! what we have here is a failure to communicate! Dear Cool hand, are you seriously suggesting answers in genesis is a legitimate source of scientific data? It would be hard to imagine a less rigourous group of ‘scientists’. If I want a balanced world view I don’t watch Fox News, likewise aig is not the place for critical opinions on evolution unless you’re a diehard fundie? you don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old do you? Please sort out your fundie friends there and then we’ll talk!

rock on Jesus warrior.

sciencesaves on August 27, 2009, 8:14 AM

Luke, I just don’t think a person can honestly believe in creationism and not allow it to affect their judgement on reality.

As evidenced by the long and convoluted rebuttals to any differing opinions, keeping your position that “god is science” is one that you’re stuck in, at present, (unfortunately).  You’re right, it is too easy…that’s why so many say “Why not?” unwittingly continuing the perpetuation of future childlike mentality based thinking.

Perhaps the next time you need medical assistance, you should mention that you only need gods science to save you, since theres no need to thank the real and dedicated professionals “PROVIDING gods science”.

I would imagine that you feel you’re rarely ever wrong about anything.   This is a strong indicator that the narrow religious viewpoint affects judgement.  No one is immune from mistakes, but the arrogance of suggesting that you posess some elusive divine knowledge connecting creationism to science is laughable.

I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack, and I appreciate your input, even when it doesn’t make sense at times, but try to understand that folks have been attempting to justify religious thinking through any means possible for a long time, and it still doesn’t work…     

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 10:39 AM

Hey Musycks,                                          

“Luke boy! what we have here is a failure to communicate!”

Na we communicate just not in a way that can change each other.

“Dear Cool hand, are you seriously suggesting answers in genesis is a legitimate source of scientific data?”

Yes. Of course. As much as skeptic.com is. (Which I do Love)

“It would be hard to imagine a less rigourous group of ‘scientists’.”

Yeah your right… who would want the MRI machine or a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields⁴ which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Those less rigorous people should NEVER be thought as “scientists”.

“If I want a balanced world view I don’t watch Fox News, likewise aig is not the place for critical opinions on evolution unless you’re a diehard fundie?”

I think balance isn’t to avoid fox new. I think balance is going to cnn then fox then bbc. We have a different view on what it takes to be balanced to.

“you don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old do you?”

Yes, I think I do. Theistic evolution does still intrigue me but currently I lean toward the scientific 6000 year old earth view.

Keep dancing brother.

Luke Allen on August 27, 2009, 10:52 AM

Hey SS, my Ohio family,

“Luke, I just don’t think a person can honestly believe in creationism and not allow it to affect their judgement on reality.”

We agree!! But what you don’t realize is that you can’t believe in evolution and not allow THAT to affect your judgement on reality.

“As evidenced by the long and convoluted rebuttals to any differing opinions, keeping your position that “god is science” is one that you’re stuck in, at present, (unfortunately)."

I think it is my job as a poster to defend what I post. I wouldn’t take a position if I wasn’t able to defend it. and I don’t think it’s unfortunate to believe that God is where are science ends and where our science is pressed to discover.

 "You’re right, it is too easy…that’s why so many say “Why not?” unwittingly continuing the perpetuation of future childlike mentality based thinking."

If you know it is the easiest position that describes all the data why isn’t Occaman’s Razor coming to mind to defend God?

 “Perhaps the next time you need medical assistance, you should mention that you only need gods science to save you, since theres no need to thank the real and dedicated professionals ”PROVIDING gods science"."

Perhaps the next time you need medical assistance, you should mention you don’t want the use of that pesky MRI machine since it was created from a “primitive thinking” Christian scientist. 

 “I would imagine that you feel you’re rarely ever wrong about anything.”

No, Sciencesaves, I’m sorry to give you that impression. I feel wrong every day and learn more every day. I just feel you should hold your position if you can. (Trust me if I’m proved wrong I apologize and tell ya.)

  “This is a strong indicator that the narrow religious viewpoint affects judgement.  No one is immune from mistakes, but the arrogance of suggesting that you posess some elusive divine knowledge connecting creationism to science is laughable.”

Again it’s not elusive divine knowledge, Dr. Lisle put it in an article for anyone with hears to ears, or eyes to read. It’s elusive to you just as evolution is elusive to me. 

“I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack, and I appreciate your input, even when it doesn’t make sense at times, but try to understand that folks have been attempting to justify religious thinking through any means possible for a long time, and it still doesn’t work…”

No brother, I don’t see this personal at all. We have different views and I try to use exactly what I get from other posters in response to their posts. I appreciate your posts even if they don’t make sense to me. I think without refuting 1 POINT that Dr. Lisle makes your proving that religious thinking IS justified and does work.

God bless ya SS   

Verisoph sapiens on August 28, 2009, 5:46 AM

Luke, I admire your ability to marathonglog, but, – hey let’s face it, it all only makes sense to fellow believers, does it not.

For all others, the following make sense:

Science is all about skepticism and doubt, and that’s the way we have to keep it. No dogma, no simple trust: you’re supposed to question everything, and accept the best supported ideas provisionally. We don’t want faith, we want evidence. Faith can’t be examined and tested and assessed against the natural world; it can’t be trusted.

Ideas change, and we are constantly collecting new evidence, and revising our ideas to better fit reality. A scientific field that has no new ideas is dead.

For creationists, it really is about what evidence you are willing to ignore.

And if you go by what the bible tells us, well, there can no be an Australia than there can be antipodes of any kind, remember, flat is the word they have for the world.

But one fine day in the distant future, creationist, scientist or not will see the light….

HerbieP on August 28, 2009, 3:17 PM

Sorry I’ve been away for a few days guys. Thanks for the kind invitations to comment. This topic is of great interest to me.

There’s so much been said and so many tangential points made that I don’t know where to start.

However there are some obvious things to say about creation and design and the conflicts between religion and science.

Firstly science can have nothing to say about creation as a concept. It is not a theory since it cannot lead to any testable conclusions.

Design is another matter. The simple idea that we can deduce design in the natural world by comparison with human design cannot be justified for a number of reasons.

Firstly all human design has come about by our manipulation of the material world. That human design resembles the natural world is therefore not surprising. Using the similarity to deduce the design of the natural world would be tautological. 

Secondly all human design, as has been pointed out, not only imitates but follows an evolutionary iterative process. The suggestion that a supernatural entity might design by some different process is not to propose design as we understand it but something else.

Thirdly the classic example of the watch on a beach is used to demonstrate design because we see the watch in contrast to the nature around it and hence know it to be designed. We cannot then say that the nature around the watch appears to be designed because its similar to the watch! (really a variation of the first point)

Like many creationists Luke confuses evolution, abiogenesis and ideas of cosmological origins. These are not interdependent theories. Each can be true without the others and various religions feel no conflict in accepting one, two or all three of them.

The theory of the evolutionary development of life on earth is really incontestable for anyone with an understanding of biology. There really is nothing to argue about. There is little point in attempting rational argument with anyone who has looked at and understood the evidence from numerous fields of science and does not accept the theory.

Theories of abiogenesis are much less well supported and there are several holes in scientific knowledge and a number of competing theories about the details. Truth is we don’t know; a common situation in science and why we still do it.

Although the ‘big bang’ and the age of the universe are well supported by observational evidence the big questions regarding the nature of ‘nothing’ and time remain metaphysical in nature although physics is constantly pushing back the boundary of metaphysics and huge progress has been made in the last thirty years.

As for the oft voiced emotional appeal ‘all this cannot come about by chance’ as applied to any aspect of natural phenomenon this is precisely where the conflict between religion and science is most evident. Science proposes theories that explain why everything does not come about by chance but by causal relationships. For example biological evolution has nothing to do with chance. It is a theory of how the apparent chaos of the natural world is not chaos after all and the underlying principle of natural selection leads to the evolution of species that we observe. All science is like this; trying to find the underlying laws by which we can understand and predict natural phenomena. Religious propose supernatural answers which is why religions are either in conflict with science or operating in a different magisterium.

As for evolution not being essential to science, if evolution is challenged it can only be challenged using good science. Thus far no one has come close to making any meaningful challenge to the basic theory, just slight refinements of it. If we were to abandon one of the theories most strongly supported by scientific evidence for no good scientific reason then we might as well arbitrarily abandon scientific method all together. So yes evolution and all the work that has been done on it by a large portion of the scientific community is essential to our understanding of the way we conduct science, pricisely because it has had a controversial history.

Basically I agree with Verisoph – only I’m more long winded.

sciencesaves on August 29, 2009, 8:29 AM

Very well-put, verisoph and Herbie!

Luke, I think perhaps more research on the materials you present to make your case will reveal that most of it is inadmissible evidence for the conclusions you’ve arrived at.  (common religious “logic”)

You don’t SERIOUSLY believe in creationism, do you?  Is this a new viewpoint encouraged by others close to you?  If so, congratulations on getting off the fence, although I could never respect myself if I chose pseudo-love over real love.

What is SELAH?

tim hall on August 29, 2009, 10:58 AM

Selah: “What ever”    “Say selah selah, whatever will be will be. The future is our’s to see, to see, say selah selah”

selah |ˈsēlə; ˈsel-|

exclamation(in the Bible) occurring frequently at the end of a verse in Psalms and Habakkuk, probably as a musical direction.

The psychology behind repetition is : “if one says it enough it shall be true.” It has proven to work very well. In my trade we use it to sell product especially during recessionary times. You never exclaim “SALE” You exclaim “Sale” “Sale” “Sale” “Reduced” “Reduced” “Reduced”

Do I have to teach you post Sadducees evrything! ha! ha! ha!

David on August 30, 2009, 4:42 PM

Luke,

“No, did you even read all the scientific advances that were made from the theistic perspective in the above paragraph?”

They were made by a person who happened to have a theistic belief. If he were say,a muslim… would you feel as apt to use his work as evidence for your presupposition?

“Claim your evidence and I’ll show you the refuting of it by more scientific minds then me who know Creationism is the science of our existence.”

Here is a good start.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

“Umm you did read this article right? Their is debate David, www.answersingenesis.org is proof of that. Please don’t make blanket statements your ignorance shows.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Doesn’t sound like much of a debate to me Luke.

“Where did the scientific method come from David? Let me guess… would you say “human reason”? If so, where does human reason come from David?"

The answer is in the question. Humans. There is no need to call on a supernatural entity to explain it.

“No. None of this “technology” would be applicable without the law of gravity and the article shows him to be a believer. and There is no charge in the Bible (the literal Word of God) that would support a hinderance to technological advancements."

Wasn’t it religous fundies that hindered stem cell research in the name of God?

“They consistently do, starting with their dogma of evolution.”

What exactly is the dogma of evolution by the way?

“”text-decoration: underline;“>because it couldn’t have happened naturally. This is what the article is stating and you haven’t as of yet refuted one position in the article so please enlighten me on what it takes to get you to actual respond to an idea that isn’t what you normally think?” 

Why couldn’t it have happened naturally? Why assume that some infinately complex supernatural being created it? What would make someone take the leap from “i don’t know” to “God did it”, when an answer isn’t present at the moment?

Matt Pidlysny on August 31, 2009, 11:20 AM

Hey Luke, nice theory!  Obviously nobody can prove that God DIDN’T create the Earth, but at the same time we can’t prove (right now) that he did.  You want my honest opinion, the truth is better left unsaid but we’re almost ripe.  People are beginning to love thyselves, minds are racing with thought, justice is being served…There have never been higher levels of GOOD THINGS on Earth, and naturally to balance it out bad things happen so that we can see and build off them.

Yes, Man is a marvel, but only because he doesn’t have the free will to do evil things.  Everything Man does is a good thing in his mind, and that’s all that matters.  On the topic of evolution, what more do I need to say?  I’m a psychologist (Having studied myself intensively) and I can’t disagree with the fact that IF there were a time to harvest humanity, it would be now.  Because information catalyzes new behaviour, and I’d say any day now the Liz King is gonna come down and “enlighten us”.

By the way, Luke, be careful about who you call God.  You’ll never see his face, even in the after life.

Musycks on September 3, 2009, 6:36 PM

                                             Matt, you need to use the word amateur before psychologist in regards to yourself. And you know Luke won’t ‘see’ the face of God in the afterlife because?? say hi to the Lizard King.

‘into this world we’re born.. into this house we’re thrown’

David… beautifully put.