Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 61 of 145 (468129)
05-27-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Wounded King
05-27-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Prediction
This is true as far as it goes.
If you compare the predictive ability of Newtonian mechanics for the behaviour of bodies in motion, i.e. projectile flight, to the ability of an evolutionary biologist to predict any particular mutation or the evolution of any particular trait then the predictive ability of evolution, in terms of predicting the future course of evolution, is virtually non-existent.
I disagree. As I understand it Newtonian mechanics can't handle more than 2 bodies and be perfectly predictive. Evolution may be considered to be just as predictive but we have no "2 body" cases to deal with. They are all too complex to allow for total prediction.
It isn't a fault of the theory it is a challenge of the applications of it.
In fact, I may be wrong about the above. We have cases that are simple enough for pretty precise predictions to be possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2008 9:37 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 05-27-2008 12:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 62 of 145 (468132)
05-27-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NosyNed
05-27-2008 12:38 PM


Re: Prediction
As I understand it exact solutions to the equations of 3 (or more) bodies cannot be obtained but approximation methods involving expanded series will give solutions to an extremely high degree of accuracy in any practical sense.
The sorts of predictions available to physics are of the type -
IF X, Y, Z THEN A will necessarily happen.
It can then be repeatedly shown that A does indeed happen in such conditions.
The predictions of evolutionary theory are more of the form
IF X happened then we should see A as a necessary consequence.
If A is indeed observed/discovered then our hypothesis X has been validated.
Both are valid forms of prediction but there is a difference in terms of repeatability.
Evolution relies much more on an accumulated body of knowledge that is consistent both with the evidence available and the predicted findings of new evidence.
There is a difference of approach but the main aim of achieving objectivity by testing our theories against the ultimate realities of nature is met in either case.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 05-27-2008 12:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 145 (468136)
05-27-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Wounded King
05-27-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Prediction
I think evolutionary theory can make good general predictions. For example: If two groups of the same species find themselves in complete geographical isolation from each other, they will inevitably diverge (in genetic character). We know that drift alone would ensure that.
So, we should find a difference between British and Irish hares, known to have been separated for 8/9,000 years since sea levels rose after the last ice age, and sure enough, there is a family difference.
Often, a creationist angle seems to imply that because the specific course of future evolution cannot be predicted, then the theory is not predictive. But no science can predict the future of the planet. How can we know about that black hole that we're moving towards that'll start sucking the solar system into itself in the year 2148? Or about the giant asteriod that'll hit us the year before? We can't even predict the next ice age.
So, I think that the "non-predictive" criticism of ToE is bollocks, basically, and due to a misunderstanding of "predictive" which expects crystal ball type magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2008 9:37 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Wounded King, posted 05-27-2008 3:05 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 64 of 145 (468147)
05-27-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 7:05 PM


Re: Issues in creation vs issues in religion
I feel that I am a scientist because I actually tried to investigate by living according to the dictates that were presented to me in order to prove the claims regarding the theory of evolution which I read in THE SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P. Blavatsky.
I am aware that academic institutions and the media do not propose Blavatsky's written work as an alternative theory of evolution to Darwin's.
I would like to help the public become more familiar with this work and as an 19 year old encountering "the path of occultism" for the first time in The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the instructions there being not too different from 10 commandments, I investigated what I could find written about in theosophy and elsewhere in hopes of ascertaining the public's reluctance to wrestle with the ideas of evolution found there.
While I would NEVER attempt to burden you with such a misconceived theory under ordinary circumstances, in this case I have made the attempt (for 13 years) to communicate what I consider to be scientific findings regarding what this theory by Blavatsky describes. As a psychologist investigating, I had to have obtained something that I did not find written about in the literature. In this case, I found an evolutionary cycle (which is written about) that seemed out of balance because we are told that the human kingdom is the last of 7 kingdoms that occupy and make use of these 7 globes in our planetary chain.
The cycle I discovered is only considered new and relevant because it includes on further kingdom only in regards to the human ascent. This higher kingdom - the girasas - has gone beyond the need to attain form on a single globe such as the earth. Only 7 kingdoms - as babies or children - growing towards universal standing are limited to life as a form on a globe.
Once the girasas kingdom is reached we have grown beyond our need to occupy a form in that manner. We still will have forms, but the forms will be capable of living or calling another structure within our universe home. Thus my understanding of the cycle of descent and ascent according to the literature I had read did not include a descent by the girasas kingdom. With a sudden awakening that this kingdom could complete their duties to lower life forms by ascending the humans, but not taking up residence in forms on earth or any similar globe, I had what I needed as far as a scientific discovery to make an announcement concerning how we can understand what is written more adequately.
If a girasas kingdom aids in evolution as a 7 race theory describes, we would have religion and Jesus Christ attempting to instruct us about actual occurrences which had not yet come to a larger group as a whole. Forerunners may prove instrumental in bringing us knowledge that we cannot obtain on a case by case basis. Christianity is said to be a 5th race religion with association to the European continent. In our North American continents, we need to have the founding of a 6th race religion to accompany our race. Both theosophy and the "I AM" Temple may help us to achieve a new approach to life through religion. Christianity, in my estimation of truth, appears to be the most helpful in advancing towards the goals of the 6th race, while maintaining an equilibrium for the 5th race to peacefully coexist.
Evolution to me, since the age of 19, has always been an investigation of theosophy and I am so sorry that others have not joined me in this study, because it is truly a powerful presentation. How can we help others to hear about this newcomer to the stage after so many have previously dismissed theosophy as fantasy or myth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 7:05 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 65 of 145 (468148)
05-27-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluegenes
05-27-2008 1:27 PM


Re: Prediction
So, I think that the "non-predictive" criticism of ToE is bollocks, basically, and due to a misunderstanding of "predictive" which expects crystal ball type magic.
So do I, but the sort of general predictions evolutionary theory supplies as to trends are clearly not of the same degree of precision as the sort of calculations which are routinely done in physics classrooms to predict a multitude of things which can then be performed immediately in the classroom. I think it is understandable that people who have encountered evolutionary theory and Newtonian mechanics at high schools come away with an impression of a vast difference in the predictive strengths of each.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 05-27-2008 1:27 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 66 of 145 (468150)
05-27-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Granny Magda
05-26-2008 8:39 PM


Trilobite and dolphin
I am very interested in your remarks about trilobites and dolphins and have also examined this data to some extent with the inclination to make the following remarks.
Could trilobites be seen as an "evolving animal race" such as the 3rd animal race which would have had to evolve by making its body out of that "housing" the plant life in an arrangement to ascend that plant life off the planet. When the evolving plants are ascended away from earth, the animal lives would ensoul plants for their use (a type of virtual world) by commanding the angels to take up the forms that were dropped by the evolving plants. A fourth race animal would be the evolving animals "4th round" and furthest attainment to date. Once the human descent begins, the forms occupied by the evolving animals - which would be tending towards extinction except when engineered for use by the group of human angels and permitted to exist within our virtual environment (void of all evolving plants and animals). The evolving life "waves" would return during the 5th round and start up at their last attained life structures. The "shistas" of the evolving lives are buried in the earth in strategic places that allow them to be revived for use during the next round. A dolphin form - while useful and pleasant to the human - may have little use to the evolving animal and would hence not exist until an advanced stage of life. Since we see dinosaurs as going extinct, we can imagine differing levels of dinosaur forms as 4th race animals and resulting 5th - 6th race animals - until the human had made their form out of the bodies of those evolving lives and ascended the life on its progressive journey around the globes in the chain (as reported). Trilobite to dinosaur is enough of a transformation for the evolving life, whereas dolphin can be seen as part of the angelic life created in conjunction with the human descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Granny Magda, posted 05-26-2008 8:39 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 145 (468336)
05-29-2008 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by cavediver
05-05-2008 10:01 AM


The following statements appear to contradict one another, imo.
The Universe exists because God wills it so. The act of creation brings the entirety of the Universe into being - past and future included.
Both are part of the entire Universe and are thus part of that creation. No direct 'tinkering' is required.
Seems to me the requirement and force of God's will to create and sustain? the universe is "direct tinkering" in a mighty way.
Most, yes - miracles being direct interventions by God that do contradict physical laws.
So there is acceptance God does tinker via miracles? There is some sort of mechanism and avenue for this or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 05-05-2008 10:01 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 05-29-2008 3:56 AM randman has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 68 of 145 (468356)
05-29-2008 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
05-29-2008 2:17 AM


The following statements appear to contradict one another, imo.
I would suggets that that is because you are unfamiliar with viewing the Universe from the perspective of space-time physics.
Seems to me the requirement and force of God's will to create and sustain?
I'm not sure I understand this. If a creator were to stop 'sustaining', would the Universe disappear? When would it disappear?
So there is acceptance God does tinker via miracles?
Some scientists do accept this.
There is some sort of mechanism and avenue for this or not?
Who knows? If a god operates outside physical laws, how would one even begin to suggest a mechanism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:51 PM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 145 (468445)
05-29-2008 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
05-29-2008 3:56 AM


I would suggets that that is because you are unfamiliar with viewing the Universe from the perspective of space-time physics.
I'd suggest the opposite, that though you are trained in such physics, you still are thinking linearly despite what you are saying. Note your next comment as an example.
I'm not sure I understand this. If a creator were to stop 'sustaining', would the Universe disappear? When would it disappear?
Of course it would because God, by definition being outside space-time, has created the universe from all points in time. It seems like you are still thinking linearly about this and hence didn't catch the fact "sustain" and "create" should be thought of as the same thing if you view the universe from "space-time physics" and accept a God/Creator from outside that space-time.
Who knows? If a god operates outside physical laws, how would one even begin to suggest a mechanism?
What are "physical laws"? If a mechanism is involved in doing things within the universe, isn't it by definition within "physical laws"?
In fact, why assume God operates outside physical laws at all? Or more to the point, why assume God operates arbitrarily outside of truth? The God of the Bible is Himself bounded by and works within wisdom and truth. You can separate physical and spiritual truth and wisdom if you want, but from a scientific perspective, it's all the same as both operate within the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 05-29-2008 3:56 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 70 of 145 (468838)
06-01-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Hi, Wumpini: sorry I took so long to respond. I've been at a conference for the North American Benthological Society, and haven't really had the time or the energy to get to the computer since that started.
Wumpini writes:
It seems that someone wants people to believe that God does not exist, and has never played a role in the world.
I can agree with this statement: there are many people who want us to stop believing in God. However, do you believe that evolution is just a manifestation of this "someone's" desire to hurt peoples' faith in God? More specifically, do you believe that evolution is the work of Satan? Or that it is a conspiracy against Christianity?
Wumpini writes:
My theory is that God was involved in the Creation of the universe, and in the Creation of man. This theory is held by most of the people on this earth.
First, and I'm repeating myself a bit here: it's not a theory if you don't have a mechanism attached. If you say "God spat out the oceans" is your theory, I would accept that as a testable alternative to evolution. If you were to say "God took some dirt and molded it into the shape of a man," I would accept this as a testable alternative to evolution. If you were to say "Bees spontaneously spring from the rotting pancreas of red kangaroos," I would consider this an testable alternative to evolution.
But, when all you have to say is who was involved in the process, and nothing about the process itself, YOU DON'T GET TO CALL IT A THEORY!!!! No matter how much you believe in it.
Second, lots of people believe something very similar to what you believe. They believe in something that you would likely associate with what you call "God," and they believe in some sort of magical process that resulted in the appearance of animals, plants and human beings. And, they believe in something that you would likely associate with what you call a "soul." This does not make them all conflatable into a single "theory." They would likely disagree with you (maybe even call you a heathen or something) if you tried to share with them your opinion about "God's" nature.
Wumpini writes:
We all have faith; it is simply what you believe to be true. You can have faith that there is a God, and He was involved in the Creation of the world. Or, you can have faith that there is no God, and He was not involved in the Creation of the world. Or, your faith can lie somewhere in between. No matter what your position, your position rests upon faith.
I have heard numerous definitions of the word "faith" on this website, and there isn't a topic here that pisses me off more than this.
So, for you, "faith" simply refers to "belief?" Got it. In the Book of Mormon, there's a story about a man who had the greatest faith ever, and he was given the privilege of seeing God, at which point he is explicitly stated as no longer having faith, because his faith was replaced by knowledge. So, my opinion as to the meaning of faith is clearly not equivalent to yours.
I was always raised believing that faith is "belief without evidence," just as all the atheists and evolutionists on this forum define it. And science simply does not "believe" anything without evidence. Anything that a particular scientist believes without evidence is no more than a personal belief. I hold out in my hope that someday, somebody will find evidence of God, or of the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon, etc., but, until there is evidence for it, it's just a personal belief, and I will not incorporate it into my scientific studies.
Until you can actually show that science is built upon the beliefs of individual scientists, and not entirely on evidence, there is absolutely no reason to bring up anybody's faith in anything in relation to science.
Wumpini writes:
What makes you think that I or most of the world needs to know all of the details about anything?
Fair enough. I don't suppose everybody needs to know anything in particular. But, if someone doesn't need to know something, they also don't need to comment on it, either. Let biologists study biology, and everybody who doesn't understand should just shut up and read until they do understand.
Wumpini writes:
For some that may weaken their faith. It has the opposite effect for me. My faith becomes stronger.
One time, my little brother decided that he was going to wear his tennis shoes to church. My mother worked on him for a long time, telling him that he had to wear his Sunday shoes to church. Eventually, after arguing, he looked up at her and said, "Mom, if you keep telling me not to do something, it just makes me want to do it more."
I'm not saying you're like my little brother, but I am saying that there could be a lot of reasons for what you have ascribed to your faith and to the Hand of God.
Wumpini writes:
Bluejay writes:
Once again, your personal disbelief doesn't mean a damn thing.
What does that have to do with the origin of the universe? It is not my personal disbelief that is at stake. I do believe in God. It appears that you may be the one who has placed your faith in something or someone other than the Creator.
First, the topic of this thread is not the origin of the universe, so I don't have to tie my remarks back in to that.
Second, I said, "Your personal disbelief doesn't mean a damn thing" in response to your saying "I don't believe it." Read here for a review of the context. Belief/disbelief don't mean anything when you're trying to find truth: only supporting evidence means anything.
Third, tell me exactly what it is that I have put my faith in. If you mean I have put my faith in the ToE, I have already addressed this.
Wumpini, in Message #39 writes:
I went back and noticed that you never answered the questions that were posed at the beginning of this thread.
I do not intend to answer those questions. This is because I don't know what God did or didn't do, nor do I base my faith in Him on what He did or didn't do. I believe He is real, and that He did something, but I will not risk attaching my faith to something that may later be proven false. So, whatever science can explain, ascertain or prove with sufficient empirical evidence, I will accept as likely true, and I will remain silent on all other questions.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 9:37 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Wumpini, posted 06-02-2008 3:26 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 71 of 145 (468881)
06-02-2008 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Blue Jay
06-01-2008 8:36 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Bluejay writes:
I've been at a conference for the North American Benthological Society, and haven't really had the time or the energy to get to the computer since that started.
I had to look up on the internet the term Benthological Society. I cannot even find a definition. I guess it has something to do with aquatic biology. Regardless, I hope it was a good meeting.
I can agree with this statement: there are many people who want us to stop believing in God.
That seems to be true!
However, do you believe that evolution is just a manifestation of this "someone's" desire to hurt peoples' faith in God? More specifically, do you believe that evolution is the work of Satan? Or that it is a conspiracy against Christianity?
Until I came across this website and began to communicate and read some of the information here, I don’t think I believed anything about evolution. I never really even considered it. If you had asked me these same questions one month ago, then I would have given you different answers. However, I will try to answer these questions.
do you believe that evolution is just a manifestation of this "someone's" desire to hurt peoples' faith in God?
No, I do not believe that evolution is JUST a manifestation of someone’s desire. Microevolution is an observation in the world today. The “Theory of Evolution” is an attempt by scientists to explain life on this planet without God. I believe that there are many people in the world who are abusing the “Theory of Evolution” (either with or without awareness) and this is hurting peoples’ faith in God.
More specifically, do you believe that evolution is the work of Satan?
I believe that Microevolution is an observation. I believe that the “Theory of Evolution” is an idea of man who has been influenced by Satan. I believe that Satan is effectively using this theory to help achieve his goals.
Or that it is a conspiracy against Christianity?
As I said, Microevolution is an observation. Observations can not be the origin of conspiracies. I believe many people in the scientific world are involved in a conspiracy against God. This is not limited to the “Theory of Evolution.” By conspiracy against God, I mean that these people would like to eliminate the belief in God.
Wumpini writes:
My theory is that God was involved in the Creation of the universe, and in the Creation of man. This theory is held by most of the people on this earth.
Bluejay writes:
First, and I'm repeating myself a bit here: it's not a theory if you don't have a mechanism attached.
God is the mechanism!
If you say "God spat out the oceans" is your theory, I would accept that as a testable alternative to evolution. If you were to say "God took some dirt and molded it into the shape of a man," I would accept this as a testable alternative to evolution. If you were to say "Bees spontaneously spring from the rotting pancreas of red kangaroos," I would consider this an testable alternative to evolution.
These seem to be attempts to attribute human characteristics to God known as anthropomorphism. God could have chosen to create using natural laws, or to create outside the natural laws of nature. The theory is God Creates. God creates the oceans. God creates man. God is the power.
But, when all you have to say is who was involved in the process, and nothing about the process itself, YOU DON'T GET TO CALL IT A THEORY!!!! No matter how much you believe in it.
I know you do not like it but it is my theory. I have spent a lot of time in another thread attempting to understand what scientists mean when they say theory. Since this is not a science thread, I can use the word theory any way that I would like.
The Wikipedia encyclopedia says that I can do this:
quote:
The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
I am using theory of Creation to mean that most people in the world believe that God was the mechanism for Creation.
Second, lots of people believe something very similar to what you believe. They believe in something that you would likely associate with what you call "God," and they believe in some sort of magical process that resulted in the appearance of animals, plants and human beings.
I assure you that God does not use magic. He does not need to because He is the power. Actually, God condemns magic. Magic is synonymous with sorcery. Moses used the power of God; the Pharaoh’s magicians used magic.
And, they believe in something that you would likely associate with what you call a "soul."
I think everyone knows that they have a soul. I do not think everyone realizes that it originates from God. Do you not believe that you have a soul? Don’t you sense a part of you that seems separate and distinct from your physical existence?
This does not make them all conflatable into a single "theory." They would likely disagree with you (maybe even call you a heathen or something) if you tried to share with them your opinion about "God's" nature.
And, why would that be? When you say the “Theory of Evolution” you mean one theory. However, scientists do not agree on many of the details. As a matter of fact, they disagree on many things. So why can you have one theory for evolution and I must have many theories for Creation?
Wumpini writes:
We all have faith; it is simply what you believe to be true. You can have faith that there is a God, and He was involved in the Creation of the world. Or, you can have faith that there is no God, and He was not involved in the Creation of the world. Or, your faith can lie somewhere in between. No matter what your position, your position rests upon faith.
I have heard numerous definitions of the word "faith" on this website, and there isn't a topic here that pisses me off more than this.
Sorry.
So, for you, "faith" simply refers to "belief?" Got it.
It depends upon the context. Biblical faith in God does not simply mean belief. It takes more then believing in the existence of God to have faith. However, faith in God includes belief in His existence.
In the Book of Mormon, there's a story about a man who had the greatest faith ever, and he was given the privilege of seeing God, at which point he is explicitly stated as no longer having faith, because his faith was replaced by knowledge. So, my opinion as to the meaning of faith is clearly not equivalent to yours.
I do not believe that anyone can have complete and perfect knowledge about anything. Therefore, there is always an element of faith. This is even true with science and the natural laws. When you say something is a fact, or that you are completely sure of anything, then there is always an element of faith in that statement.
I was always raised believing that faith is "belief without evidence," just as all the atheists and evolutionists on this forum define it
You cannot have faith without evidence unless you are insane. That would be totally irrational. You can have faith without objective evidence.
And science simply does not "believe" anything without evidence. Anything that a particular scientist believes without evidence is no more than a personal belief.
Once again you are using anthropomorphism. You are correct that science cannot believe anything without evidence, because science is not human. You are also correct that scientists believe in things without evidence.
I hold out in my hope that someday, somebody will find evidence of God, or of the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon, etc., but, until there is evidence for it, it's just a personal belief, and I will not incorporate it into my scientific studies.
There is already evidence for the existence of God. Many people are convinced by that evidence. Even if more objective evidence became available for the existence of God, you would still not be able to use God in your scientific studies. It would not change anything. Your theories would still have to be based upon natural laws without supernatural intervention. The only thing that could change is possibly the number of scientists who believe in God. I think many would still deny God even with more objective evidence.
Until you can actually show that science is built upon the beliefs of individual scientists, and not entirely on evidence, there is absolutely no reason to bring up anybody's faith in anything in relation to science.
Science is definitely influenced significantly by the personal beliefs of scientists. It takes time for science to correct these biased theories. Here is a quote that probably explains it better than I do.
quote:
Other kinds of values also come into play in science. Historians, sociologists, and other students of science have shown that social and personal beliefs-including philosophical, thematic, religious, cultural, political, and economic beliefs-can shape scientific judgment in fundamental ways. For example, Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics as an irreducible description of nature-summarized in his insistence that "God does not play dice"-seems to have been based largely on an aesthetic conviction that the physical universe could not contain such an inherent component of randomness. The nineteenth-century geologist Charles Lyell, who championed the idea that geological change occurs incrementally rather than catastrophically, may have been influenced as much by his religious views as by his geological observations. He favored the notion of a God who is an unmoved mover and does not intervene in His creation. Such a God, thought Lyell, would produce a world in which the same causes and effects keep cycling eternally, producing a uniform geological history.
Does holding such values harm a person's science? In some cases the answer has to be "yes." The history of science offers a number of episodes in which social or personal beliefs distorted the work of researchers. The field of eugenics used the techniques of science to try to demonstrate the inferiority of certain races. The ideological rejection of Mendelian genetics in the Soviet Union beginning in the 1930s crippled Soviet biology for decades.
http://www.nap.edu/html/obas/contents/values.html
Fair enough. I don't suppose everybody needs to know anything in particular. But, if someone doesn't need to know something, they also don't need to comment on it, either. Let biologists study biology, and everybody who doesn't understand should just shut up and read until they do understand.
That is true. Except that your theory of evolution (which is possibly biased) contradicts my theory of Creation (which you say is not a theory). Therefore, I cannot shut up right now. Maybe that will change in the future.
First, the topic of this thread is not the origin of the universe, so I don't have to tie my remarks back in to that.
Actually, the thread was started to help me better understand scientists views on all origins, including the origin of the universe. Evolution is being used in the broad sense of the word, not in the biological sense of the word.
Belief/disbelief don't mean anything when you're trying to find truth: only supporting evidence means anything.
As I discussed above, belief/disbelief have a lot to do with trying to find the truth. Scientists make judgments to interpret evidence. This judgment is based upon personal beliefs and values.
Third, tell me exactly what it is that I have put my faith in. If you mean I have put my faith in the ToE, I have already addressed this.
It would seem you have put your faith in science rather than God. I am not saying that you do not believe in God. However, it seems that you are saying that whenever the evidence is contradictory, you will lean towards a naturalistic approach. This may be the most rational, and logical conclusion, but that does not mean it is the correct conclusion. There is a big difference.
I do not intend to answer those questions. This is because I don't know what God did or didn't do, nor do I base my faith in Him on what He did or didn't do. I believe He is real, and that He did something, but I will not risk attaching my faith to something that may later be proven false. So, whatever science can explain, ascertain or prove with sufficient empirical evidence, I will accept as likely true, and I will remain silent on all other questions.
Thanks for answering the questions.
You believe God exists, and He played a role in creation, but you do not know what that role might be.
As for attaching your faith to something that could be proved false, do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead? I am sure that science has already proven that people are not raised from the dead! However 1 Cor 15 says if you don't believe in the physical resurrection then your faith is worthless. Do you see how relying completely upon science in contradictory situations could put you into a difficult spot?
I am traveling to Togo today so I may or may not be able to reply for the next few days.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2008 8:36 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Wounded King, posted 06-02-2008 4:40 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2008 3:03 PM Wumpini has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 72 of 145 (468885)
06-02-2008 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wumpini
06-02-2008 3:26 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
I believe that there are many people in the world who are abusing the “Theory of Evolution” (either with or without awareness) and this is hurting peoples’ faith in God.
I agree, the majority of these people are creationists.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wumpini, posted 06-02-2008 3:26 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by brendatucker, posted 06-02-2008 10:30 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
brendatucker
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 168
From: West Hills, CA
Joined: 05-22-2008


Message 73 of 145 (468910)
06-02-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Wounded King
06-02-2008 4:40 AM


When can I count on you to do the right thing?
Would the ideas that I present and that are found based in theosophy revolutionize knowledge?
Would a new approach to knowledge generate from this new seven race theory of evolution? Would we find a way to communicate, decipher, and gather data from the girasas?
How soon would we be able to fill books with what they tell us and how long would it take before those books could be fully understood?
Would purifying practices such as healthy diets and abstinences become the trend?
What would happen to all the knowledge we now have gathered into books? Would all that we now "known" have to be rewritten?
A revolution is a mighty thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Wounded King, posted 06-02-2008 4:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Coragyps, posted 06-02-2008 11:57 AM brendatucker has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 74 of 145 (468915)
06-02-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by brendatucker
06-02-2008 10:30 AM


Re: When can I count on you to do the right thing?
Would the ideas that I present and that are found based in theosophy revolutionize knowledge?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by brendatucker, posted 06-02-2008 10:30 AM brendatucker has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 75 of 145 (468943)
06-02-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wumpini
06-02-2008 3:26 AM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Wumpini writes:
The “Theory of Evolution” is an attempt by scientists to explain life on this planet without God.
Alternatively, it is an attempt by scientists to explain how the creative processes of God manifest in the physical world. Any religious person in the world can add
“and God did it” to the end of any of scientific theory, explanation, data or conclusion, and I wouldn’t complain.
Perhaps I should have answered your questions like this:
quote:
I believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859 and as supported and refined by the Mendelian Genetics, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, etc., and believe that this theory is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth today. And I believe that God did it.
Wumpini writes:
God is the mechanism!
This is problematic, because God is most definitely not the mechanism; He is the agent. Your theory is akin to “the mechanic fixed my car,” where my theory is akin to “the mechanic fixed my car by twisting a wrench and pouring fluids in.” Your theory only says what the sum total result of the mechanic’s work was, whereas my theory sorts into what the mechanic actually did. Under this logic, my theory includes everything that your theory includes, except mine also incorporates more information.
Wumpini writes:
These seem to be attempts to attribute human characteristics to God known as anthropomorphism.
First, they aren’t my attempts to do anything. But, they are models that potentially explain how God did what He did, and they could be tested. The results of these tests would produce information and knowledge, which I could then apply to my attempts to understand other aspects of nature.
Second, the Bible states very clearly that I am made in the image of God. That means I am like Him. If I am like Him, He is also like me, so I see no problem with anthropomorphizing on this issue. Anthropomorphizing does, however, produce problems in other parts of my understanding of God.
Wumpini writes:
God could have chosen to create using natural laws, or to create outside the natural laws of nature.
And with this, I disagree. I believe in a God of order.
Wumpini writes:
Since this is not a science thread, I can use the word theory any way that I would like.
Fair enough. But, you have to remain consistent in your usage. You don’t get to take the theory of evolution, and your theory of Creation, and say they are equal and equivalent entities just because we’re not on a science thread. There is a difference between them, and just because we’re not exposed to the rigormarole of science doesn’t mean you can flip back and forth.
This also goes for the word “faith.” In your last post, you flipped back and forth between different definitions of “faith” so that you could answer everything I had to say with “there is still an element of ”faith’.” That is extremely unfair to me, and makes it impossible for me to argue anything. Either stick to one definition of “faith,” or use qualifying words or make up terms to distinguish between the different types of faith, because you know damn well I’m not referring to all of the possible meanings of “faith” when I say “I don’t have faith in God
Wumpini writes:
I assure you that God does not use magic. He does not need to because He is the power.
So now, it appears that there are multiple meanings of the word “magic” as well. What is the difference between what God does and what a sorceror does, other than that one is used for “good” and the other is used for “evil?” I understand “magic” to mean “something that people can’t comprehend and science can’t explain.” If you object to my use of this terminology, show me why it’s erroneous.
Wumpini writes:
So why can you have one theory for evolution and I must have many theories for Creation?
Because everybody on the ToE side agrees on the mechanism: natural selection. Your mechanism, you have said, is God. Yet, God is the part that people on your side can’t agree on: some think it’s one God, some think it’s many, some think it’s a disembodied power, etc.
And, even if you agreed on the nature of God, there is still no consensus on the mechanism of His creation: did He point His finger and zap the dust with lightning so that it formed into the shapes of humans, trilobites and chitons? Or did He mix it in a Cosmic petri dish and manipulate the molecules using teenty-tiny forceps? Or do the words that emit from His mouth interact with things at a molecular level and cause cells to form? These are mechanisms. And on these, nobody in the Creationist camp agrees. Therefore, many theories.
Wumpini writes:
Once again you are using anthropomorphism. You are correct that science cannot believe anything without evidence, because science is not human. You are also correct that scientists believe in things without evidence.
And I am also correct that scientists’ beliefs without evidence are not part of science.
Iano, I mean, Wumpini writes:
There is already evidence for the existence of God.
I can’t top Straggler. See here. Basically, he says “great claims require great evidence.” If you have something on which everything in the world hinges, you’d better be prepared to do more than just tell somebody you felt something. You’d better apply the most exacting standards possible, and you’d better get the best, most objective evidence possible. Until you do, you’re better off not committing to anything specific (as bluegenes said very well here.)
---
In summation of all this, it does often nag at me that I almost always side with atheists and anti-Christians in debates at EvC, even though I am a legitimate believer in God and Jesus. I try to always side with good arguments, but have been caught many times making bad ones. But, I have noticed that the pro-God arguments are usually very weak, and I cannot, in good conscience, defend a weak argument, even if it supports something that I want to be true. Take the recent gay marriage thread, for instance, in which I made it clear that I don’t like gay marriage, but I can’t argue against it because the arguments are weak. It hurts to do that, but the fact that I can do it makes me feel strong and secure in my ability to come to the truth, and in my ability to be fair and open with people. I feel that I am gaining the ability, partly through this forum, to discern truth and error, and that this will make me a better judge and person in this world and the next.
I believe God wants me to study and learn on my own, and to test the data for myself, rather than just conclude that a certain vague feeling one day is proof of something grand and indescribable. I will always side with the people who are willing to subject their own arguments and standpoints to the same critical standards to which they subject others’ viewpoints, because those are people who are able to see when they have made mistakes, and are able to apply their knowledge evenly across every field of study and work. And, in my experience, those people are more commonly atheists than Christians.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change 2nd link from containing "m=145#151" to "m=151#151". The "m=" number gets you to the page containing that message number. Different members have different numbers of messages per page in their profile setup. IF the specific message is on that page, the "#" number will jump to to that message. If the specific message is not on that page, you just get the top of the page. For most reliable results the "m=" and "#" numbers should be the same - That of the specifec message being referred to.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wumpini, posted 06-02-2008 3:26 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 7:28 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024