The Origin of Species

[justus]

Real is a relative term. I agree with you about the biblical creation stories though. I don’t think any rational mind would take those stories as what actually happened.

[stuka pilot]

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

How would you “Christians” feel if as a Science teacher I began pushing science as a religion? Or isn’t that you have already said exists, and wouldn’t doing the opposite be two wrongs?

Yes, that’s very important to point out. I didn’t think of it until you mentioned it. It really rises the suspicians of a Christian community if one would push evolutionary science as a way for how our world began and how men came to be with technology, religion, civilization, etc.

Now, you have this alternative ‘science’ fused in with what Christians believe and the extremist science gurus up in arms because of that. Like I said before…. clever. When ever there is a black there is always a white, ya know?

[Guest]

@Desertfox:

As for my questions about the laws of physics you missed the point. It’s not how things work, it’s why it works that way.

But sometimes it is hard to differ between the how and why.
Why is there gravity ? … Because mass bends space.
How is there gravity?.. Mass bends space and moves along the curved space.

@221B:

I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.

And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?

@justus:

It’s all about the “scientific method” with you isn’t it Falk.

Well, of course it is when it comes to mixing unscientific things into science.
ID and creationism can’t be proven or disproven. ID accepts evolution, but implies that there is something behind it, a goal (otherwise it wouldn’t be “directed”, a direction can only lead to a goal). And we can’t prove or disprove it. I don’t mind anyone believing in their own version of afterlife etc. , but i don’t see how ID and creationism are scientific. It is more scientific to claim that in each volcano there sits a little god, and when you anger him, the vulcnao explodes. You could prove or disprove that by sitting in front of the vcolcano and shouting/acting insults to check which one will cause the volcano to explode.

@Mary:

… CURRENT science is that the physical constants could have been anything. … The conclusion is that we are either very lucky, or somebody rigged the universe.

True, this would be a defeater, but believing in infinite parallel universes at this point is a matter of faith. There certainly isn’t any evidence to hang your hat on.

I agree. So, how makes believeing that it was rigged a scientific theory?
As is said, both are not. Science has no way to touch meta-physics (that’s why it is meta). So, don’t try to bring it into science.

3. Who’s to say life couldn’t arise in different conditions? To which I would reply that believing in a being made purely of hydrogen requires more faith than belief in God.

See, i only need one other set of constants out of the uncountably infinite numver of them, maybe there the creation of Si -based life is more favorable. Just as you can’t disprove god, you can’t disprove that there is an infinite number of sets where life can come into existance. Even the variation of 10^-6 has an uncountably infinite number of possibilities in there. Actually, there are the same amount of numbers between 0 and 10^-6 as there are numbers >10^-6.

As for its popularity, it is certainly popular in philosophy …

In one country, which by chance calls itself “god’s own country”.

Take it for what it’s worth, but keep in mind that there wouldn’t be such an effort to disprove it if it wasn’t popular and didn’t have a certain appeal.

It is dangerous to science. It makes people stop asking behind things. Look, if one of parts of equipment behave strangely for no (apparent) reason, i don’t say “it must be divine interference”, but just look harder to find the error.

@justus:

I don’t think any rational mind would take those (literal biblical) stories as what actually happened.

They did, and it started to stop only a few hundred years ago. In 1925 there were still rational hardcore believers out there. Now, as science can explain more and more, they start to look for the gaps, claiming that the failure of science to be able to explain all is a proof of god. I myself doubt that mankind ever can explain everything, but we are making progress (because of science) to explain more and more. But as i said, if you find the middlestone in one gap, you create two gaps.

@SHP:

However, we should not be teaching religion as science or vice versa.

Exactly my position. If you start promoting ID as science, i will have to storm into churches and “prove” how your belief can not lead to salvation. (that would be equally as unfitting).

@SHP:

If we followed your line of reasoning then Galileo and Copernicus should never have been able to publish

For justus … at that time, every rational man knew that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, and Rome was the center of it. Everyone knew that women where only inclompete men, and the natural order was to have kings rule over their people. etc.

[Real Fake Reel]

Excellent posting Falk! I admire your eloquent defense of science!

“a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.

A famous physicist once said"I believe in God because it makes me feel better".I think that about sums it up as far as the impact that “faith” has on our way of thinking.It makes people feel better.
I think its odd that there is a “theory” of the Trinity (the idea of God,the Son and the Holy Ghost,all manifestations of the same entity) taught in theological universities.I suppose that even the most passionate of persons,can,at times, see contradictions in their religion,forcing them to take a “scientific” approach to try and resolve the paradoxes that religion generates…But invariably,they will go back to their “faith”,believing that this brief interlude into critical thinking was just a test of their faith,perhaps spurred on by the Devil to try and steal their soul.

[cystic crypt]

well F_alk - you know i can’t resist the urge . . .

@F_alk:

@Desertfox:

As for my questions about the laws of physics you missed the point. It’s not how things work, it’s why it works that way.

But sometimes it is hard to differ between the how and why.
Why is there gravity ? … Because mass bends space.
How is there gravity?.. Mass bends space and moves along the curved space.

just to be a pain . . .
but WHY does mass bend space? What compels it to do so? What generated the law for this. No prime mover? Just “because”? (I realize that one might do the same with a deity, but still . . . )

@221B:

I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.

And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?

you mean like macroevolution?
It seems to too often be taught in both theological and scientific communities that spirituality and science must be mutually exclusive. No one truly “wins” with this mindset, nor is it either scientific, or religiously dogmatic (unless we want it to be . . . ).

@justus:

It’s all about the “scientific method” with you isn’t it Falk.

not just with F_alk. As a scientist and as a physician i am all about the scientific method. It goes far in helping make sense of the physical world.

I don’t mind anyone believing in their own version of afterlife etc. ,

whew - that’s lucky!

but i don’t see how ID and creationism are scientific. It is more scientific to claim that in each volcano there sits a little god, and when you anger him, the vulcnao explodes. You could prove or disprove that by sitting in front of the vcolcano and shouting/acting insults to check which one will cause the volcano to explode.

i’ve got into this before and been challenged as being “crazy” (i think “psychotic” was the word here), but there is evidence of God in the hearts and minds of people the world over. Miracles happen daily in medicine that are not (currently) explainable by experts in their fields.
People do not have “put into their heads” that there is a little god in the volcano. There is either a folie-a-deux on a massive scale, or there is something else that science is unable to explain.

quote=“Mary”]… CURRENT science is that the physical constants could have been anything. … The conclusion is that we are either very lucky, or somebody rigged the universe.

True, this would be a defeater, but believing in infinite parallel universes at this point is a matter of faith. There certainly isn’t any evidence to hang your hat on.

I agree. So, how makes believeing that it was rigged a scientific theory?perhaps not a scientific theory, but this makes it no less valid.

As for its popularity, it is certainly popular in philosophy …

In one country, which by chance calls itself “god’s own country”.

really? so aside from defining logic sets, what good is philosophy if
BINGO - we’re here because of the most unlikely occurance happened?

Take it for what it’s worth, but keep in mind that there wouldn’t be such an effort to disprove it if it wasn’t popular and didn’t have a certain appeal.

It is dangerous to science. It makes people stop asking behind things. Look, if one of parts of equipment behave strangely for no (apparent) reason, i don’t say “it must be divine interference”, but just look harder to find the error.

you realize of course that questioning evolution is considered by many so-called-scientists as “idiocy” or “ignorance”.

Exactly my position. If you start promoting ID as science, i will have to storm into churches and “prove” how your belief can not lead to salvation. (that would be equally as unfitting).

hmmm . . .
ID is SCIENCE! ID is SCIENCE!

now . . . Go F_alk Go!

[221B Baker Street]

221B Baker Street wrote:
I beleive evolution happened (s), but I see no conflict with God directing evolution as fitting to him. If God did direct evolution how could science possibly detect this as the work of God? All science would know is that one animal changed over time - you couldn’t prove or disprove Gods work in this.

And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?

Lots of things in science (as in religion) cannot be proven or disproven, for example string theory or what is past the event horizon of a black hole. That doesn’t mean its not worthwhile, both scientifically or theologically, to speculate. And you never know that someday it might become possible to scientifically test for it (wouldn’t an experiment that proves God be interesting :D ?).

[Jennifer]

@cystic:

@Jennifer:

Excuse me if I am repeating something already said, I only skimmed the responses, however, who’s to say God didn’t use evolution to create life on this planet?

This is pretty funny given that i said the exact same thing prior to your statement.

I have a tendancy to reply to statements on the way down the thread - sometimes this results in re-iterating what others have already said, though, I do not do this on purpose as it is redundant.

[Jennifer]

@stuka:

@justus:

How many time must I say it: it’s not about proof, it’s about as Janus puts it, “a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.

Yes, it is a leap of faith. But I don’t need that kind of faith to lead a healthy life or to find some sort of salvation. I do not believe (these are MY beliefs, I am not speaking for others :wink: ) that I need a required faith to take the place of an explanation of how our world was created or how the lives of the very first men were. And of course a leap of faith can’t be duplicated. I could say that “I believe” that there was a Middle Earth; another notion which can not be duplicated in the scientific worldview. Doesn’t mean it really happened :wink: . It is simply as you say, faith.

Religion, from my point of view, can sometimes have a desperite way of gaining the confidence of the masses by saying “look, we figured it out”. While science works at a pace of its own and gradually sheds light upon the things foriegn and unknown to us. I am more prone to have the “belief” that God set the world in motion and from this world derived an intelligent species. Man. It’s way more believable than the Garden of Eden or Noah’s Ark.

And sometimes science proves the Bible right.

For instance:

God set his paths in the sea……Ocean Currents
God pitched a tent for the sun…The Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around
And isn’t the basic dimensions of Noah’s ark still used today to create transport tankers as it’s the most stable skematic we have?

So maybe faith isn’t as ignorant as some scientists would have us believe. Maybe it’s scientists that sometimes need the light shed to them to understand what some christians have taken as faith?

[Jennifer]

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

however, who’s to say God didn’t use evolution to create life on this planet?

And like I said earlier if we are going to decide to teach religion in school lets do so in an academic/intellectual manner not as prostiletizing which has no place in a center of learning. Even if you believe this part of ID then this should be taught as part of the religion/theology of Christianity and which allows us to open a way to discuss in school the theological differences between the evangelical, luthern and catholic schools of thought. However, we should not be teaching religion as science or vice versa. How would you “Christians” feel if as a Science teacher I began pushing science as a religion? Or isn’t that you have already said exists, and wouldn’t doing the opposite be two wrongs?

SHP, I have two issues iwth your statements.

1. I agree, no theory should be given to students as fact until it has been proven, undeniably, as a fact. For instance, telling students the sky is blue is a proved theory. However, evolution has many issues with it, namely the missing links (and lately, according to THC, DISC, Discovery Magazine and Popular Science they think Neanderthals and Homosapiens lived side by side much like German Shepards and Doxhunds) as well as Creationism cannot be proven difinitively. Thus, both sides should be displayed equally or neither should be displayed at all.

2. I personally feel that much science is a religion. There are minor differences in opinion, and many scientists will tell you that they only believe in facts, but so will many christians, muslims, buddists, scientologists, etc. It’s all in perspective and opinion and in faith that what you believe is right.

[Jennifer]

@Real:

Excellent posting Falk! I admire your eloquent defense of science!

“a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.

A famous physicist once said"I believe in God because it makes me feel better".I think that about sums it up as far as the impact that “faith” has on our way of thinking.It makes people feel better.
I think its odd that there is a “theory” of the Trinity (the idea of God,the Son and the Holy Ghost,all manifestations of the same entity) taught in theological universities.I suppose that even the most passionate of persons,can,at times, see contradictions in their religion,forcing them to take a “scientific” approach to try and resolve the paradoxes that religion generates…But invariably,they will go back to their “faith”,believing that this brief interlude into critical thinking was just a test of their faith,perhaps spurred on by the Devil to try and steal their soul.

Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.

[Jennifer]

Exactly CC, why does religion and science have to be mutually exclusive? If God exists, as many of us believe he does, then did he not write the laws of science? The very same laws scientists study? So in their studies, are they not studying God and revelling in his works? Of course, those questions only apply if God exists.

If God does not exist, science is helpless to prove it. In the famous words of the Russian Astronaut: “I am in space, and there is no God here.” In other words, how can you prove that something does not exist anywhere?

As I said a couple posts above, would it not be wiser to teach both sides of the story with all the theories and conjecture and facts and allow the children to decide on their own which path they believe to be true or to believe that both paths are false or complimentary to each other and true?

[Guest]

@221B:

Lots of things in science (as in religion) cannot be proven or disproven, for example string theory or what is past the event horizon of a black hole.

But string theory can be proven in principle. Just not now. Just like had no idea about light could transfer momentum before Einstein.

That doesn’t mean its not worthwhile, both scientifically or theologically, to speculate. And you never know that someday it might become possible to scientifically test for it (wouldn’t an experiment that proves God be interesting :D ?).

Well, for string theory, we know how to test it -in theory-. Anything where we even don’t have an idea of how to test it (like what is inside a black hole etc) is metaphysics. Pure speculation and no science at all.

@cystic:

well F_alk - you know i can’t resist the urge . . .

sigh well then, if you must :D ;) :)

but WHY does mass bend space? What compels it to do so? What generated the law for this.

Mainly mathmatics :) … the 4D space a Minowski metric mathematically was known before we knew it can be applied to special relativity. I didn’t spend much time at GR lectures, so i know but i can’t tell which mathematics sits behind GR and “inspired” it.

No prime mover?

Maybe logic :)

And as we can’t prove or disprove it, what place does it have in science ?

you mean like macroevolution?
It seems to too often be taught in both theological and scientific communities that spirituality and science must be mutually exclusive. No one truly “wins” with this mindset, nor is it either scientific, or religiously dogmatic (unless we want it to be . . . ).

I think they both win when not being mixed. Otherwise it too too easily becomes esoterics. There are questions which religion can’t answer, there are questions which science can’t answer. Just because one discipline can’t doesn’t mean the other can.

but i don’t see how ID and creationism are scientific.

i’ve got into this before and been challenged as being “crazy” (i think “psychotic” was the word here), but there is evidence of God in the hearts and minds of people the world over.

The problem is that this is personal evidence and not quantitative evidence. And science can’t live from personal evidence. I don’t say it is less real for that person, it is just no scienctific evidence.

Miracles happen daily in medicine that are not (currently) explainable by experts in their fields.

Exactly. currently. Like we had no idea of how the sun worked before fusion was predicted.

There is either a folie-a-deux on a massive scale, or there is something else that science is unable to explain.

The sun was bigger. It affected each and everyone. Actually it was quite a blow to creationists, when a way was found allowed the sun to be older than a few 1000 years.

So, how makes believeing that it was rigged a scientific theory?

perhaps not a scientific theory, but this makes it no less valid.

No, it is abut that. I don’t care if it is valid or not. I care about wether it should be teached / mentioned in Science.

really? so aside from defining logic sets, what good is philosophy if
BINGO - we’re here because of the most unlikely occurance happened?

as i said, it gave us models which seem to describe parts of nature very well.
And you van’t prove at all it was the “most unlikely”, you can’t even prove it was “unlikely”. How much more likeliness did we win by the design ?
100% ? i guess not, we could always have been very unlucky ;).

you realize of course that questioning evolution is considered by many so-called-scientists as “idiocy” or “ignorance”.

I already said i appreciate that it push us to close more and more gaps.

ID is SCIENCE! ID is SCIENCE!

Let me think of something along this lines:
http://www.ysa.org.au/themill/2000.1.hell.html

[Guest]

@Jennifer:

And sometimes science proves the Bible right.

Where does the water come from? Was god and water created out of the metric ?

[Guest]

@Jennifer:

Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.

Especially as all scientists of that times were religious scholars or monks (in our culture).

[Guest]

@Jennifer:

In other words, how can you prove that something does not exist anywhere?

Perfect dogma. We are right, and therefor the burden for the proof is on you. And it is a proof of non-existance, just for the fun of it.
That alone is the definition of unscientific. Nothing exists until postulated and proven.

[Mr Ghoul]

oops

[Mr Ghoul]

would it not be wiser to teach both sides of the story

Well, there are several religions besides Christianity. If you’re going to teach one, why not the others? Wouldn’t that allow “our children” to choose their own path? And for that matter, why not teach them about Zeus and Ares and all the Norse gods and whatever other mythical deity one can think of. That would really allow our children to make an informed decision.

[haxorboy]

Well, there are several religions besides Christianity.

Exactly. And they don’t all come to the same conclusion about anything…and in fact if you are going to teach one faith you might as well teach all. Buddism, Muslim, Native American Indian lore and it goes on and on. Religion is an ideal on how to live your life and something to believe in. But to start teaching that as fact in school with nothing to base it on outside of a book of stories that would be tough to swallow.

I’m not bashing anyone for being of a Christian faith at all her nor am I implying you are wrong for thinking this.

[Jennifer]

@F_alk:

@Jennifer:

Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.

Especially as all scientists of that times were religious scholars or monks (in our culture).

Yes, but thinking the world round and setting out to prove it was still a leap of faith - one that almost cost Columbus his life by mutiney, if I have my history right.

SHP: No, I’ve never objected to chemistry or physics because I can see the tangible results of their theories. I can mix hydrogen and oxygen (two highly explosive elements) and get water (one of the most stable products) or I can throw an apple at an orange with incredible velocity and achieve fruit salad. However, with evolution, there’s no definitive proof other then we are all carbon based life forms. And what proof there is, isn’t even widely accepted by all scientists but only by some scientists - others remain skeptical or outright hostile.

That’s why I say we should teach BOTH evolution and creation in schools so that the individual can decide which they choose to believe and which they choose to disbelieve. I don’t mean to force religion on the people, nor do I mean to force evolution on the people. I just want the schools to give the students both sides of the story and the theories behind those opinions so that the children can work it out, at least until we find incontroversial proof that one or the other theory is false.

I also disagree that science is designed to predict and religion to be psychological. Science is the study of God’s universe and CAN be used to predict what might happen in the future, but it’s more a study of how things work and why, not of future events. Perhaps that’s a matter of semantics to you, but it’s a huge difference in my mind. As for religion, it’s not so much psychology as it is cultural ethics. Thou shalt not kill, steal, lust, etc. These, as well as ancient Mosaic law, are more designed to form harmonious tribes of people then it is to treat depression or anxiety - although, if your wife isn’t being lusted after, your children arn’t killed and you havn’t lost anything to theft, I’d wager you’re a bit happier then the man who’s had that done to him.

F_alk:

Perfect dogma. We are right, and therefor the burden for the proof is on you. And it is a proof of non-existance, just for the fun of it.
That alone is the definition of unscientific. Nothing exists until postulated and proven.

Exactly. Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.

Who knows, maybe God does not exist. Personally, I think he does and that he’s extremely lenient and loving to his creations, but that doesn’t mean he does - or for that matter if he does that he actually cares two hoots about his creations. However, science will never be able to prove - definitavly - that God does not exist and without that proof, religion will always be a part of man’s culture and life - in one form or another.

Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.

[haxorboy]

Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.

Who’s going to pay for all this? Now not only do you need to squeeze in the normal class time but you need to get teachers who can do all this as well…the parents will start to throw fits about the other religions and it will turn into a Battle Royal with each faith stepping up - which is exactly my point and I am glad you hinted at this idea. Let the teaching of evolution be for public school and the teaching of creationism be for parochial school.