# Science vs.? Intelligent Design?



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2008)

In the dust storm kicked up by proponents of Intelligent Design over what should be taught in the public schools, the science of evolutionary biologythe Darwinian model of evolutionis dubbed as materialistic, reductionistic, and atheistic. The Intelligent Design advocates suggest that to be a Christian one must take a stand against Darwinism. According to them, to pursue scientific research under the principles of random variation and natural selection is un-Christian. So-called theistic evolutionists (a phrase actually coined by the creationists as a term of derision) are accused of selling out to the enemy.-Last week, Pat Robertson basically told the town of Dover, PA. that they were going to hell for voting out a pro-intelligent design school board.

In turn much of the scientific establishment tries to assert that to be religious is like having a disease that quarantines a person against participation in science. To accuse someone of holding a religious view about evolution helps to defend the hegemony of the Darwinian model in the public schools. Why? Because science is not subject to First Amendment proscriptions, while religion is. So, if you label your opponents religious, you get the courts on your side.

The implication is that those who continue to believe in religious things are simply not smart enough to advance. When they become smart, theyll drop their religion and join the scientific community.

Intelligent Design proponents and creationists insist that the Darwinists are blinded by their atheism so they cannot see the limitations and gaps in their theory. These advocates argue that the very existence of complexity contradicts the standard theory of evolution, which assumes that change occurred gradually, slowly, step by step. They say that a qualitative leap to a higher order of complexity must be acknowledged, and that only an appeal to a transcendent intelligent designer provides an adequate explanation. Without quite using the word stupid, intelligent design advocates suggest that insistence by Darwinists that natural selection suffices as an explanation shows at least a lack of open-mindedness.

What all of this leaves out is my group of friends and colleagues. I hang out with some-called theistic evolutionists. Being scientists, we tend to think that most scientists are pretty smart. In fact, many of my colleagues are even evolutionary biologists. We are convinced that the neo-Darwinian model of random genetic variation combined with natural selection provides the most adequate explanation for the development of life forms.

But my friends and colleagues are also religious, mostly Christian but with some other faiths mixed in. We think religious people can be pretty smart too. What is so important and what gets missed too often when the media covers the evolution wars is this: To be a Christian/Creationist does not require that one be anti-Darwinian.

Its very possible that one could embrace the science of the Darwinian tradition and also embrace a Christian understanding of God at work in the natural world. I believe that the Creator has used the evolution of life over deep time to serve a divine purpose for creation. This requires distinguishing between the strictly scientific Darwinian model and the atheism and related ideologies that have frequently been associated with evolution. The science is solid.

Christian faith seeks understanding, as St. Anselm put it. Historically, (and, yes, even if one examines the whole Galileo/Roman Catholic Church thing closely) Christians have fallen in love with science. Faith loves science. Today, the Christian faith should demand that our schools teach the best science, and only the best science. To teach inferior science-which "Intelligent Design" pretty much is- would be stupid and, yes, irreligious.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 26, 2008)

I applaud your skill at melding what I thought to be irreducible dipoles into a constructed entity :tup:.

My view does not match with your own but I can see the logic inherent within your thinking.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I hang out with some-called theistic evolutionists....We are convinced that the neo-Darwinian model of random genetic variation combined with natural selection provides the most adequate explanation for the development of life forms....To be a Christian/Creationist does not require that one be anti-Darwinian.



Certainly.  However, I would submit to you that your theistic evolutionist friends are not applying the same scientific rigor to the theistic part as they are to the evolutionist part.  You already know what evidence justifies the theory of evolution.  What evidence justifies theistic evolution?  Applying Occam's Razor, why should we add an unnecessary explanation of theism on top of the perfectly adequate evolutionary explanation?



elder999 said:


> To teach inferior science-which "Intelligent Design" pretty much is- would be stupid and, yes, irreligious.



Indeed, although you are going to have a lot of trouble with the "irreligious" part.  Despite how you personally feel about how religion and science should relate, much of religion requires an adherence to anti-scientific principles.  This conflict has only grown more pronounced with time as more and more evidence has come to light showing that the details of revealed religion are wrong.

Now, there are and have been many responses to this.  One historical one, of which the intelligent design brouhaha is part of the tradition, is simply to deny the evidence.  Evilutionists worship Satan.  Fossils are a trick planted by Satan and/or God to fool us/test our faith.  And so on.

Another more sane response is to attempt to harmonize the two, as your friends have done.  However, this is also getting harder and harder with time.  The knowledge gaps where God can live are getting smaller.  Also, at the end of the day, you are attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable.  Science is an ever changing, self-correcting process based on empiricism.  Religion is a fundamentally subjective process based heavily on faith without evidence and a body of revealed dogma.  These processes haven't and never will mesh well, and as science advances, that split will only become more obvious.


----------



## morph4me (Aug 26, 2008)

I've often wondered why people on both sides of the fence would think that Creationism and Darwinism were mutually exclusive :idunno:


----------



## TheOriginalName (Aug 26, 2008)

I have to say that my friends and i have been discussing similar issues recently - that is to say the science vs religion issue. 

Only a couple of hundred years ago we all believed the earth was flat - even the scientists. 
A couple of thousand years ago the majority of the world believed that thunder and lightening was the god being angery. 

So on both fronts - science and religion have evolved as our understanding of the world\universe have expanded. This needs to continue now. Both extremes will continue to be at each others throats - and more than likely both extremes will one day learn that the answer was somewhere in the middle.

I encourage everyone, no matter what your religous views are, to educate yourself - understand the others point of view (not nessisarily agree with it) and then use the information to come to a personal belief - not nessisarily that pushed on you by science or religion.

Question everything - even the established "rules - learn - absorb - evolve as a independent thinker......

Just my opinion though.........


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I've often wondered why people on both sides of the fence would think that Creationism and Darwinism were mutually exclusive :idunno:



Because the explanation usually put forth by Creationists (the inerrant Biblical creation story) directly contradicts the scientific explanation.  Other softer versions of Creationism may be more compatible.

BTW, a minor but telling nitpick: it isn't "Darwinism."  No one is studying, theorizing, or worshipping Darwin.  We aren't following his writings or words.  The modern synthesis, the Theory of Evolution, was started by Darwin but surpassed him long ago.  "Darwinism" makes as much sense as calling quantum mechanics "Einsteinism".


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

TheOriginalName said:


> Both extremes will continue to be at each others throats - and more than likely both extremes will one day learn that the answer was somewhere in the middle.



Science with time has become more and more materialist, it hasn't drifted at all towards mysticism.  Religion on the other hand has given up quite a bit of ground.  Treating the two like two equivalent poles who will one day meet in the middle is a fantasy.  As it is, how do you construct a middle ground between empiricism and mysticism?  They have entirely different systems of epistemology, entirely different premises, and entirely different conclusions.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Aug 26, 2008)

Your entire discourse is very well-put. You make several good points and I agree with not only some of your details but also some of your conclusions.  Your post is refreshing, thank you.

I take issue with one:



elder999 said:


> Intelligent Design proponents and creationists insist that the Darwinists are blinded by their atheism so they cannot see the limitations and gaps in their theory.


 
I do not believe that Darwinists are blinded by their atheism. I believe that many modern scientiests are blinded by the same thing that blinds many Americans when it comes to politics and also effects many religious people...the ability to release preconceived ideas and to think independently.

The theory of macro evolution, that one species transformed into a completely different species, is unsupported by ANY scientific evidence.  Creationists explain it with a biblical God.  Intelligent Design proponents explain it with an unknown, intelligent, powerful being.  Darwinists exaggerate changes within a species to suggest that an actual change of species is possible. 

No amount of scientific study will result in any conclusive proof. The fossil record is used by both sides to support their theory.

Anyway, I did not wanted to be grouped in with that generalization.  I would be interested in seeing someone to take a new look at the scientific evidence without referencing any established theories...maybe they would come up with a new alternative.

Who knows?


----------



## tsdclaflin (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> What evidence justifies theistic evolution? Applying Occam's Razor, why should we add an unnecessary explanation of theism on top of the perfectly adequate evolutionary explanation?
> 
> ... much of religion requires an adherence to anti-scientific principles. This conflict has only grown more pronounced with time as more and more evidence has come to light showing that the details of revealed religion are wrong.


 
What evidence? The only way that evolution is possible is for it to have been caused/directed by a creator. Statistically, macro evolution is impossible.  The "odds" against even the simplest amount of evolution defies mathematical possibilities. So it is not "theistic evolution" that needs evidence, it is non-theistic evolution that lacks evidence.

What 'anti-scientific principles' are required by religion? Quite the opposite... scientific research continues to validate the Bible as an accurate, historical document.

and the debate continues...


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 26, 2008)

you're so cute when you get on one of your "must post more" frenzies!


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

tsdclaflin said:


> The theory of macro evolution, that one species transformed into a completely different species, is unsupported by ANY scientific evidence.





tsdclaflin said:


> What evidence? The only way that evolution is possible is for it to have been caused/directed by a creator. Statistically, macro evolution is impossible.



Alright, the points you brought up above and the way you phrase them are commonly used in a highly dishonest way by creationist proponents.  However, I am going to give you a chance and answer this seriously.  Hopefully I won't regret it.

For the statistics: you don't have the slightest clue, and neither does anyone else, what the probability of life evolving _de novo _is.  Thus, your argument is bankrupt from the start.  Nonetheless, several proof of concept experiments have demonstrated that some of the early steps could take place.

As for your lack of evidence charge: nothing could be further from the truth.  Cladistics, molecular genetics, paleontology, they all support the explanation proferred by the theory of evolution.  We have transitional animals, we have clear genetic evidence of species evolving from common ancestors, and _we have actually observed evolution in action_.  Yes, humankind has been around long enough to see species evolve.  Some of it we have caused ourselves.

Only someone irrationally convinced could throw out all that evidence and say that a collection of stories written thousands of years ago with no evidentiary backing holds more weight.



tsdclaflin said:


> What 'anti-scientific principles' are required by religion?



Assertion of facts without evidence.  The most anti-scientific thing someone can do.



tsdclaflin said:


> Quite the opposite... scientific research continues to validate the Bible as an accurate, historical document.



  Tell me you're kidding...?


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 26, 2008)

elder999 said:


> ......theistic evolutionists. Being scientists, we tend to think that most scientists are pretty smart.
> >
> >
> ....We think religious people can be pretty smart too. What is so important and what gets missed too often when the media covers the evolution wars is this: To be a Christian/Creationist does not require that one be anti-Darwinian.
> ...


Thank you!!



Empty Hands said:


> .....What evidence justifies theistic evolution? Applying Occam's Razor, why should we add an unnecessary explanation of theism on top of the perfectly adequate evolutionary explanation?


I was thinking about this exact topic in-depth several months ago.  My thought was that using the scientific method requires some tacit assumptions, including the reliability of our physical senses for observing data, the existence of matter, the existence of energy, and the material nature of both (i.e., devoid of a 'will' or subjective nature).  However, if one posits the existence of a Creator-God, then the existence of the physical universe would be a deducible consequence.  Therefore, Occam's razor would demand we retain the belief in a Creator-God and remove the postulate of (or the 'belief' in) the existence of matter and energy and their material nature as an unnecessary additional assumption .

Theists that recognize a Creator-God as possessing the attributes of morality and the right to govern through moral law could naturally deduce that the created physical world would also be governed by law.  Only in such a universe governed by law would the scientific method (finding laws through observation of repeatable experiments) make sense.  Historically, this is the course the development of science took, as the scientific method was first set forth by a 12th C. Bishop teaching in a Christian university.

But in fairness to Elder, I think his whole point was just that the views of theists and scientists are NOT mutually exclusive.  


morph4me said:


> I've often wondered why people on both sides of the fence would think that Creationism and Darwinism were mutually exclusive :idunno:


Thank you again!

For those interested, there is a group called the American Scientific Affiliation that serves as a social and professional society for scientists of faith.  They have some excellent articles on their website.  They have also produced a monograph called , "Teaching Origins in a Climate of Conrtoversy", which offers suggestions towards balancing the needs and views of atheists and theists without compromising on teaching science.  I recommend it for science teachers in the primary grades through high school.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Therefore, Occam's razor would demand we retain the belief in a Creator-God and remove the postulate of (or the 'belief' in) the existence of matter and energy and their material nature as an unnecessary additional assumption .



We perceive matter and energy and a material universe.  We do not perceive a Creator-God.  Why would it be more rational to postulate something we cannot perceive for something we can?  At least without very convincing evidence.


----------



## TheOriginalName (Aug 26, 2008)

Just sitting here reading and thinking......and yes i was amazed as well that i could do two things at once!! 

I've often thought of science and religion as not being mutually exclusive - i've always thought of God as being a scientist.......

If a greater being did create the universe then they also created all the laws of physics that allow it to exist. If he is all knowing and all powerful - then he could have designed the "big bang" so that evolution would eventually occur on this tiny rock that we call home. 

Science is the art of observing the universe and then generating theories to explain what has occured - then updating the theory on new observations - a continous loop of learning and expanding our understanding. 
So if we keep doing this we start to see the finer details in the design of the universe (by universe i refer to both the very large and the very small - from the construction of a snow flake to the construction of a galaxy). And as such we come closer to understanding God. 

This is my belief - my view on the subject, and yes i could go on but i don't want to bore you all........

The thing i love about all of this stuff - is that at the end of the day no one is right and no one is wrong. We all are entitled to our own thoughts and beliefs - no one has to agree with them but no one else has right to tell us we are wrong.........their is something empowering about that.


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Applying Occam's Razor, why should we add an unnecessary explanation of theism on top of the perfectly adequate evolutionary explanation?


If I hear one more Occam's Razor plea against religion, I think I'm going to be sick.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 26, 2008)

TheOriginalName said:


> I have to say that my friends and i have been discussing similar issues recently - that is to say the science vs religion issue.
> 
> Only a couple of hundred years ago we all believed the earth was flat - even the scientists.
> A couple of thousand years ago the majority of the world believed that thunder and lightening was the god being angery.



That is a urban myth, no one ever thought the earth was flat.  Misjudged the size of it perhaps, but even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.  Aristotles model of the universe had it round, as did Ptolmeny's which was used from ancient Greece right up until Coppernicus.

They did believe the earth was the center of the universe, and up until the invention of the telescope there was some really good evidence for that.  There has however, never been any good evidence that the earth was flat. 

Science follows evidence, it always has.  It is about observation and prediction, bad science can't make accurate predictions, but good science can.  Even with a model of the universe where the earth is in the middle the math and the predictions work.

Intelligent Design can't do that, there are no predictions, just a idea that tries to match observation with a pre-established conclusion.  

Science is very accurate, and is very good at what it does.  It is very rare for existing science to be flat out wrong.  Take a simple concept like gravity, going right back to Aristotle you can use his theories to make predictions and those predictions will match observations.  As our observations got more and more accurate, and our understanding of other things grew the explanation of what we think is causing it has changed, but the predictions and the outcomes haven't changed much.

Evolution is in the same boat, we know it is happening.  We can record the changes that happen, and we can make predictions about what will happen and verify them.  The reasons behind those changes have "evolved" since Darwin, but the core of the theory has remained the same and is proven, just like the "theory" of gravity.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Certainly.  However, I would submit to you that your theistic evolutionist friends are not applying the same scientific rigor to the theistic part as they are to the evolutionist part.  You already know what evidence justifies the theory of evolution.  What evidence justifies theistic evolution?  Applying Occam's Razor, why should we add an unnecessary explanation of theism on top of the perfectly adequate evolutionary explanation?



My thoughts exactly! Perhaps those theists are just brains in vats who think they're in bodies and working at a laboratory. Conceivable, but hardly scientific. I have heard these types of comments before--"I believe God works by precisely the methods science currently believes are at work in the world"--and it seems to me that these people are on the fence with respect to both their religion and their scientific vocation. Superstition and science are simply not compatible points of view. Stephen Jay Gould's notions of separate magisteria is defensible, but as you say the areas of knowledge that science cannot penetrate are shrinking constantly.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 26, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I've often wondered why people on both sides of the fence would think that Creationism and Darwinism were mutually exclusive



One issue is that evolution (there is no "Darwinism") is compatible with most religions if you're willing to stretch the interpretation of their creation myths that far. The Christian Bible, for example, states that on the sixth day of creation, God created "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds" after he had previously created birds and aquatic creatures, and this version of creation is quite hard to reconcile with evolution, which doesn't generally work on a single day scale and places land-based dinosaurs prior to birds. But if you take "day" to mean "an arbitrary period of time" and assume that he created not the beasts as said but the means to create the beasts, you can torture the text until it tells you what you want to hear. (Or, you can ignore the first creation account and skip to the second.) It's similar for most religions. Either Thor the Thunder God makes it rain with his magic hammer, or it's an atmospheric process. It's a stretch to say that the hammer causes the water cycle to happen.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 26, 2008)

tsdclaflin said:


> I believe that many modern scientiests are blinded by the same thing that blinds many Americans when it comes to politics and also effects many religious people...the ability to release preconceived ideas and to think independently.


 
Well...those scientists went to school for 13 years, college for 4 years, and graduate or medical school for 4-8 years, followed by a postdoc/residency of 3+ years. To call such intense and prolonged study of the most up-to-date research in their field "preconceived ideas" is to deny the very possibility of research and education. As to the ability "to think independently"...if scientists lacked that, we'd still have Lamarckian and Newtonion theories rather than Darwinian and Einsteinian. That's exactly wrong: Scientists become famous by proving other scientists wrong. If you can name a scientist, it's almost surely because he upended a paradigm by independent thinking.



> The theory of macro evolution, that one species transformed into a completely different species, is unsupported by ANY scientific evidence.



Unless by "scientific evidence" you mean "evidence accepted by scientists as scientific" in which case there's an overwhelming amount of such evidence: Fossils, DNA, and so on.



tsdclaflin said:


> Statistically, macro evolution is impossible.  The "odds" against even the simplest amount of evolution defies mathematical possibilities.



 What are those odds?



> What 'anti-scientific principles' are required by religion? Quite the opposite... scientific research continues to validate the Bible as an accurate, historical document.


 
This is news to me. 



> and the debate continues...



There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not the theory of evolution is fundamentally correct. That doesn't mean it can't be wrong, but that it was developed according to the same principles that were used to develop the theories behind the design of antibiotics, surgical lasers, and blood pressure medicines (let alone airplanes, indoor plumbing, and the Internet). Why are no theists rejecting those scientific developments? Gravity is, after all, just a theory.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> For those interested, there is a group called the American Scientific Affiliation that serves as a social and professional society for scientists of faith.  They have some excellent articles on their website.  They have also produced a monograph called , "Teaching Origins in a Climate of Conrtoversy", which offers suggestions towards balancing the needs and views of atheists and theists without compromising on teaching science.  I recommend it for science teachers in the primary grades through high school.



What are your qualifications for making a recommendation for the teaching of science in high schools? In Florida, they relied on science teachers. After all, "balancing the needs and views of atheists and theists" isn't the goal--it's educating students. People who wouldn't give an atheist equal time in a church want equal time for the superstitious in biology classes. Why not teach religion in church and biology in science class and let people choose which approach they prefer?

Perhaps you are a qualified scientist...but people who wouldn't dispute their physician on what antibiotic to prescribe seem quite happy to dispute the experts on evolution. It requires a great deal of study to appreciate the DNA evidence and the totality of the fossil record. Those who reject evolution reject the whole foundation of modern biology and medicine. Yet, they rarely take a principled stand and refuse to accept their fruits. It's hypocritical to use antibiotics but reject evolution.



mrhnau said:


> If I hear one more Occam's Razor plea against religion, I think I'm going to be sick.



Well, from a scientific point of view it's perfectly logical: There's no evidence for God, so there's no basis for including it in a theory. The supernatural and the unsourced are not allowed in. Otherwise, you get the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" sneaking in on the same basis: You can't prove it's wrong, after all.


----------



## K89 (Aug 27, 2008)

I'm among the people who thing "religiosity," at least as far as spirituality is concerned, is not mutually exclusive of scientific thought, and I feel I ought to preface my commentary with Einstein's eloquent reflection:

"[....] it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe  spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive [....]"

The organization and, dare I say, perfection of some of the patterns of nature as discovered (and frequently upended by) science inspire awe, and to some they inspire belief. I personally cannot study physiology without feeling some wonder at how amazing it is that we even function. Perhaps this is why the likes of Darwin, Einstein, and in some ways, Newton, were deists. 

That being said, faith is just that--FAITH. Something you follow blindly. We don't follow history, science, math, language, or any other primary school subjects blindly, so why should "Intelligent Design" even be considered a challenge to evolution? It simply doesn't fit in with the curriculum.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 27, 2008)

Excellent sequences of posts, *Arnisador* and *EH*, tho' perhaps we could do without the BS flags (unless intended humorously).  I do understand the exasperation that draws them forth but they don't help particularly when structuring an argument.

For myself, I've been on the fence for a long time about this issue, neither 'side' having had a convincing argument for me when it comes to how the whole process got started.

However, in recent months, I've been exposed to the experimental evidence for the formation of self-replicating molecules and how there is an observable drive towards increasing complexity over time.  Also, the oft quoted "odds against" such things are meaningless as they are posited upon the chance of something happening at any given instant and place.  When globally you have trillions of reactions per second happening over millions of years then astronomical 'odds' suddenly don't seem so unlikely.  Especially when you allow for the facts that the Earth might not be the only place with the right conditions and that what we have long thought of as 'life' can take many more forms than we gave it credit for.

That is enough to tweak my investigative nose to learn more about the subject, which is vaster than I imagined, as it's become clear that my indecision has largely been caused by my own misconceptions about the science viz I thought I knew enough to reject a non-theistic causation for life beginning but I truly did not .


----------



## morph4me (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> We perceive matter and energy and a material universe. We do not perceive a Creator-God. Why would it be more rational to postulate something we cannot perceive for something we can? At least without very convincing evidence.


 
Apparently there are people who do percieve a Creator-God, it's a matter of interpretation. You can argue facts all you want, but you're wasting you're time arguing beliefs.


----------



## jkembry (Aug 27, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Apparently there are people who do percieve a Creator-God, it's a matter of interpretation. You can argue facts all you want, but you're wasting you're time arguing beliefs.



Absolutely True!  Although, I must say that over time...beliefs do change - mine included.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 27, 2008)

This argument or debate is always fascinating.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





However there are some interesting dynamics here.  On one side you have a scientific theory that while having flaws has been shown to viable.  So viable that creationists are now using it in conjunction with creationism. :ergif you can't beat them *then join them*)  On the other side you have faith.  No proof, simply faith.  Who is right and who is wrong?  Well we know that evolution as a scientific theory is not going away until it is disproved. (good luck with that)  We also know that faith is not going away either.  That is what makes this debate entertaining in that neither side can ever satisfy the other.  So in the end it is and will be a stale mate.  Not that one side is better than the other though I fall with the evolutionary theory.  Just that neither side can really win because well both sides are entrenched.  One with *Science *and the other with *Faith*!

So have at it but do so in a friendly manner!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 27, 2008)

Couplea notes in here because there's lotsa interesting things to respond to and I don't want to go crazy.

First off, I'm a Christian.

"Theistic Evolutionist" - I don't think the term is that important.  No more so then  saying "Theistic Aerodynamics" or "Theistic Gravity".  The two are really talking about two things.  "Evolutionist" just means you believe that evolution happens, which should not be any more interesting than believing gravity happens but, there you go.  "Theistic" just means that you believe in a theistic variation of a god (ok, granted we are usually talking about the judeo-christian concept of God, but, it's a term...)  Most Theists believe that the world is what it is because of the way God setup the rules from the beginning and they run without interruption or interference.  To be logically consistent, that should apply to evolution as well as gravity.

Now here's the part I have a problem with Creationists and Intelligent Designer proponents.  Basically, what you are saying is God screwed up.  One of the positions that made a lot of modern scientific thought possible early on in it's development was the idea that God is not capricious.  The world runs on it's own, God is not messing around in aerodynamics minute to minute to keep some planes up and make others fall... he's not fussing around with gravity so that some things fall faster than others, etc...From a theist point of view, scientific discovery is possible *because* God doesn't get involved with the process.  When scientists were still theists, that was understood, and I think theists today should remember that, because the same God who was clever enough to set up aerodynamics to work should be clever enough to set up evolution to work, without interference.  So when you start peeking in biology to try to find the 'holes' in evolution to say "ah ha, God was here", your are essentially looking to say "Ah, ha...God was here, because I found where he screwed up originally and had to fix it"  You are looking for evidence of God in God's mistakes..  People don't spend time looking for such evidence of God's screw-ups in studying weather or the mechanics of the stars and planets or such, why do they spend so much time looking for it in cell structures and bird wings and such?  If you believe in God, you should know that the same God that made Bernoulli possible also made Darwin possible and get on with it.

So... back to the tale   The term ""theistic evolutionist" is really a term that rationally shouldn't exist, but because of all the supposed heat between 'science' and 'religion' I guess it must.

"Faith" - Faith is an interesting concept and I think it means a lot more then most people bother to consider.  To start with, to take a religious view of faith, or more precisely a Christian view of faith, when faith is mentioned in the bible, it is not about "blind belief" but based on evidence and experience.    The way faith is used has the connotation of "I have faith in what God will do in the future based on what I have seen God do in the past"  The New Testament  especially is written from the point of view of people who were there and saw the events.  YOu may think the writers were wrong n what they thought they saw, you may even think they didn't even really right it, but the overarching message there is that the New Testament talks of faith in a way that the Christian thought of 'faith' should be "because of what you have seen and experienced in the past, you have faith in what will happen in the future" 

This is nothing special, my belief in my wife's integrity and character is based on my experience with her, and my faith in how she will act in the future is based on that faith in her personality.  That 'faith' is not a 'blind belief' but is based on the evidence and experience of my wife in my life.

Most Christians, most religious people do not come to a religious belief based on sort 'blind hopeful obedience' but rather a reflection on experiences in their own life which they feel provides adequate personal evidence in the existence of... something else (God, Jesus, etc..., whatever...).  They may be wrong, they may be reading their own desires or fears into their interpretations of the events in their lives or in others, but that belief is at least based on perceived evidence.

This is not really any different then how we conduct our lives on a day to day basis, in our trust in our friends and instructors and our confidence that are car will not break down on the way to work.

Which is actually not far from the scientific method, just less rigorous. Observe, observe, predict, observe, conclude, correct.  Mechanical laws are predictable, repeatable, and transferable, social interactions are not nearly so to the same level of exactness.  Most religious belief is very akin to a social interaction in that vein.

I think the supposed conflict between 'science' and 'faith' is much more a fabrication by those (on both sides) who try to make each 'side' say more than it is. One will say "I have a formula that describes gravity ina totally mechanical way which means gravity can be explained without resorting to the supernatural which means the supernatural is not needed which means God doesn't exist", to which I say "well, duhh!!!!" for most of it (that the supernatural is not needed to explain gravity).  Now the theist/believer takes offense at this and says "well I still have faith that God exists" and forgets what that faith is based on.  So the scientist tries to get a mechanical law to say more than it can and the believer goes searching for holes in the science and there becomes animosity and conflict where none really is.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 27, 2008)

A couple of points I thought I would bring up.  My first day in philosophy class the professor said, "I am going to prove that God does not exist" because that is what everyone says philosophy and science does.  He then stated to exist you must occupy space and time.  God does neither of those things, so God does not exist.  You can not measure God, or if God does or does not exist.

So trying to apply science to something that can't be measured is just a waste of time as we understand the scientific method.  We all understand the concept of love and know that it exists but how does science measure that? How does science replicate that?

The second point I would like to bring up and it is a peeve of mine is when Christians create and believe in the "God of the gaps".  That is, "well science can't explain X, so it proves there is a God."  What happens when science explains X, does that prove there is no God, or does your God shrink a little bit?

I think it is a better view that the creation story was a story to help people understand that God put things in motion and the part he plays in our lives and not a LITERAL play by play of what happened.  To me science and creation/intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.

The last thing is even before evolution took place, where did the energy come from that existed for the big bang to occur?  God said "Let there be light...and there was."


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 27, 2008)

tsdclaflin said:


> The theory of macro evolution, that one species transformed into a completely different species, is unsupported by ANY scientific evidence.  Creationists explain it with a biblical God.  Intelligent Design proponents explain it with an unknown, intelligent, powerful being.  Darwinists exaggerate changes within a species to suggest that an actual change of species is possible.



No, there is a butt load of supporting evidence and predictions which where later confirmed to be accurate.  That's why evolution gets to be called a "theory".

Here is a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

The "there is no evidence" claim is made by creationists because macro-evolution (the micro / macro divide isn't really seen by scientists) cannot be observed in a lab, the time required is too great.  But it ignores all sorts of other evidence across different branches of science that leads to the same conclusion.




> No amount of scientific study will result in any conclusive proof. The fossil record is used by both sides to support their theory.



There is no dispute in the scientific community, evolution is confirmed through observation, experimentation and prediction.  No amount of scientific study will ever convince those that have faith in a holy book that claims otherwise though.



> Anyway, I did not wanted to be grouped in with that generalization.  I would be interested in seeing someone to take a new look at the scientific evidence without referencing any established theories...maybe they would come up with a new alternative.
> 
> Who knows?




I don't think you really understand how much evidence there is for evolution, the only reason any other explanation exists is coming from a 2000+ year old old text.  At this point saying evolution is not occurring is like claiming radio waves don't exist, at least when looking at the issue from a scientific POV.

Now, I will admit that religion will always find a way around such evidence if it needs to.  I've even seen it claimed that all of the evidence was put there by the devil to confuse us.  But the evidence is very much in support of evolution, not creationism.  Whether or not some creator started the process, or whether the evidence was placed by a malicious being to trick us, well, people can decide that for themself.


I'm sorry but when I punch in "Evidence creationism" into google, the top result has stuff like this:



> However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?




~ http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm

There is no science there at all.  All of the proof seems to come down to a simple formula, Darwin was wrong here, therefore the entire idea is wrong and the bible proves it.

That's not a theory, that is religious ideals.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 27, 2008)

I'll get to almost everyone else later, but.....



Twin Fist said:


> you're so cute when you get on one of your "must post more" frenzies!


 
Was it good for you too? I didn't hurt you, did I? :lol:


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> For myself, I've been on the fence for a long time about this issue, neither 'side' having had a convincing argument for me when it comes to how the whole process got started.



I think this is bothersome to everyone: The fundamental philosophical question of why _anything _exists, and what it would be like if nothing did. I also think the comments by *K89 *are on-target: Some days you look at the world and feel it must have been intelligently designed, and some days you look at the world and say "If someone _was _in charge of making this mess, fire him!" Science is just one approach to the world. But it is a whole approach, and what disturbs me is seeing people take its benefits while rejecting its methods. If you take modern pharmaceuticals, you've pretty much bought into evolution.



> there is an observable drive towards increasing complexity over time.



The field of Complex Adaptive Systems is fascinating. I feel it'll be the Next Big Thing in interdisciplinary science. Have you seen the boids fly?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 27, 2008)

Thanks for those links, *Arni*, I'll be following up on them.  

The _Boids_ study on rules based emergent behaviour is something I am familiar with from my time in programming and systems analysis and is one of the stepping stones I've utilised in widening my understanding of how seemingly incomprehensibly complicated systems can come about from some simple starting conditions and some rules {the universe for one thing :lol:}.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Certainly. However, I would submit to you that your theistic evolutionist friends are not applying the same scientific rigor to the theistic part as they are to the evolutionist part. You already know what evidence justifies the theory of evolution. What evidence justifies theistic evolution? Applying Occam's Razor, why should we add an unnecessary explanation of theism on top of the perfectly adequate evolutionary explanation?


 
Why do we apply _Occam&#8217;s Razor?_ It&#8217;s ironic to me that this heuristic tool is named for a man who utilized it _to &#8220;prove&#8221; the existence of God_ is used in such a manner-in fact, I laugh every time it gets trotted out. Remember, it&#8217;s not a tool that establishes proof or disproof of anything, it is merely one for laying groundwork for a theory-reaching the &#8220;simplest&#8221; explanation, but not necessarily discounting more complex ones.The fact that one explanation is _simpler_ doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean it&#8217;s *correct*-it just makes the problem easier to address when viewed that way. Without the simple evidence of their obvious existence, and-_applying Occam&#8217;s Razor_- there is no place in evolution for a fur bearing, young-suckling, egg-laying venomous mammal, yet we know that the duck-billed platypus is all of these, as well as, improbably, duck-billed. I&#8217;ll apply Occam&#8217;s razor to human evolution in a bit, using it to demonstrate that there *must* be a creator/god.




Empty Hands said:


> Indeed, although you are going to have a lot of trouble with the "irreligious" part. Despite how you personally feel about how religion and science should relate, much of religion requires an adherence to anti-scientific principles. This conflict has only grown more pronounced with time as more and more evidence has come to light showing that the details of revealed religion are wrong.
> 
> Now, there are and have been many responses to this. One historical one, of which the intelligent design brouhaha is part of the tradition, is simply to deny the evidence. Evilutionists worship Satan. Fossils are a trick planted by Satan and/or God to fool us/test our faith. And so on.




Don&#8217;t confuse &#8220;religion&#8221; with &#8220;faith&#8221; or&#8221;belief.&#8221; The institutions that call themselves &#8220;religions&#8221; have a vested interest in maintaining their control over people. If one looks at the roots of the word, &#8220;religion,&#8221; one finds the latin, _relagare_-to regulate. This can mean a regulation of oneself and one&#8217;s own life, or the regulation of people and their lives by others.



Empty Hands said:


> Another more sane response is to attempt to harmonize the two, as your friends have done. However, this is also getting harder and harder with time. The knowledge gaps where God can live are getting smaller. Also, at the end of the day, you are attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. Science is an ever changing, self-correcting process based on empiricism. Religion is a fundamentally subjective process based heavily on faith without evidence and a body of revealed dogma. These processes haven't and never will mesh well, and as science advances, that split will only become more obvious.




Again, not necessarily-some gaps get smaller, others get larger-depending upon the science. As far as reconciliation goes, how&#8217;s this, for now, briefly, science cannot prove or disprove God, nor is it its place to. Faith and belief are, well, mostly unscientific-while they may be based upon &#8220;evidence&#8221; such evidence is usually of a personal nature, and cannot be shared, duplicated, proven or disproven-sort of like the guy who has seen the Loch Ness monster, or other such odd phenomena-he saw it, he knows what he saw and that he saw it, but he can&#8217;t exactly prove it, or make it come back for everyone else to see.





Empty Hands said:


> Science with time has become more and more materialist, it hasn't drifted at all towards mysticism. Religion on the other hand has given up quite a bit of ground. Treating the two like two equivalent poles who will one day meet in the middle is a fantasy. As it is, how do you construct a middle ground between empiricism and mysticism? They have entirely different systems of epistemology, entirely different premises, and entirely different conclusions.


 
Don&#8217;t hang out with many theoretical physicists, do ya? Some of the directions the field has taken, and their inherent oddness, has pushed more than a couple of physicists into the realm of mysticism, in hope of broadening their understanding-or, at least keeping their bearings&#8230;.




tsdclaflin said:


> What evidence? The only way that evolution is possible is for it to have been caused/directed by a creator. Statistically, macro evolution is impossible. The "odds" against even the simplest amount of evolution defies mathematical possibilities. So it is not "theistic evolution" that needs evidence, it is non-theistic evolution that lacks evidence.





tsdclaflin said:


> What 'anti-scientific principles' are required by religion? Quite the opposite... scientific research continues to validate the Bible as an accurate, historical document.
> 
> and the debate continues...




The Bible is hardly an accurate, historical document. Parts of it have some basis in real history, and parts of it have none at all-parts of it are purely allegorical, and the creation myth of Genesis is one of them. We all knew this, up until the Middle Ages-most writing of the time from 400 AD- about 1000 AD, Jewish *and* Christian, makes this clear. It is only during the Dark Ages that we have a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Genesis come to the fore-thus, to think that Genesis is the &#8220;real story&#8221; of creation is to, quite literally, live in the Dark Ages. :lol:





Empty Hands said:


> We perceive matter and energy and a material universe. We do not perceive a Creator-God. Why would it be more rational to postulate something we cannot perceive for something we can? At least without very convincing evidence.


 
Again, evidence of God is _personal_-and easily dismissed as delusions, mass-hysteria, hypnosis, optical-illusion, etc.-_especially_ by those who have not witnessed them. They can&#8217;t be duplicated or reproduced, _*usually*_, and thus they cannot be proven or disproven.



So, _for the time being_, &#8220;Intelligent Design,&#8221; is not even a theory.

Unfortunately, it&#8217;s touted as such, and I think that&#8217;s too bad-it&#8217;s lent impetus to all sorts of crazy stuff like &#8220;museums&#8217; that espouse the idea of a &#8220;young earth&#8221; and depict man coexisting with dinosaurs by way of explanation. :lol:

What it is-or could be-and here I am explaining things in the same way that I do for my mom the shrink-is a _postulate_. A postulate, for those of you who don&#8217;t know, is an assumed truth, or a claim-in mathematics and science, it&#8217;s an initial basis for a theory, not the theory itself-which must, after all, be disprovable. 

The word *I* like to use to define a postulate, when speaking to my mom, or most of you, is _suggestion_.

At any rate, somehow the idea has come up-just as said in my initial post-that there is an inherent contradiction between faith and science-that the religious are not scientific, and that scientists are not religious. Both, of course, are simply not true. Many religious people know that the theory of evolution is probably true and trust science in general, and, as I also pointed out in my initial post, many scientists are religious.

The contradiction is when, as in the case of how ID is _used_-you try to mix the two.

It is not, and, _for the time being_ cannot be the place of any science to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, god, Creator, giant foot from another dimension, or even little pink bunnies on the moon.-Such a being is, b y definition, outside of his creation.

There was, of course, once a time when there was no DNA testing, and we didn&#8217;t even know what DNA was-and, just as those things came to be, there may come a time when science can prove or disprove, once and for all, the existence of such a being. 

_For the time being,_ however all anyone-scientist, person of faith, or Bible-thumping whack-job-can do is _suggest_ the notion-it&#8217;s not disprovable (or, for that matter, in any way _provable_), so it&#8217;s not a theory. 

So what&#8217;s it good for?

Well, that&#8217;s sort of like asking why the sky is blue. Really.

Now, the short, &#8220;religious&#8221; answer is &#8220;because God wants it that way.&#8221;

And the scientific answer is Rayleigh scattering- look it up, I&#8217;m not going to bother explaining;trust me, or look here ; it&#8217;s Rayleigh scattering.

If Rayleigh had left it, as people of his time were wont to do, at &#8220;because God ..whatever,&#8221; well, it would be called something or other else scattering, because someone would have figured it out, but that&#8217;s not the point. The point is that for the religious person, evolution, Rayleigh scattering, X-rays, gravity _ad infinitum, ad nauseum_ can be thought of (suggested to be, _postulated_) the mechanisms by which the (equally _postulated_) creator/God/giant foot/supreme being fostered and fosters the creation-part of his grand design.

Grand design, some of you say-what about the end of life of the sun, what about the human bodies faults, what about sex-what (and this one is one of my favorite pet peeves) about *goddamn knees?*

(As a side note, at times I&#8217;m certain that knees were an afterthought-or a cruel joke on His part.) :lol:

As an engineer, I have to say that all of those things are often part of a good design-design life, inherent instabilities for various purposes, etc.
And many of us, myself included, are living a bit past our functional design life, which, for a mammal is the time it takes to rear offspring to reproductive age-for humans, maybe 40 years. 

Which brings us Occam&#8217;s razor, God, and human evolution.

It&#8217;s an accepted part of neuroscience, now, that the human brain appears to be hardwired for belief in God, and/or, for lack of a better word, religious experience. The archaeological record indicates that we&#8217;ve been that way for most of our existence. Humans, throughout history-and I say that as a generality, not meaning &#8220;all humans&#8221;-have believed in a Creator, god or gods. We&#8217;ve believed a lot of other stuff as well, but getting to this hard-wired trait for belief in God-what good is it? We&#8217;ve had it all this time, and it serves and has never served, as far as anyone can tell, any purpose as an _evolved or adaptive survival trait._So, applying Occam&#8217;s razor, *humans belief in &#8220;God&#8221; is the best (simplest, least complex) proof there is that &#8220;God&#8221; exists.*:lol:

If the sun burning out bugs you, or your knees bug you-let it go, or blame god-or evolution, I don&#8217;t care, and it doesn't prove or disprove the Master Architect to be competent or incompetent-_if there is such a being, we only can begin to comprehend his thoughts when we completely comprehend his creation_-*and we've got a loong way to go, as far as &#8220;completely comprehending his creation.*.

If there was a _plan_ to all of this-it&#8217;s beyond our pea brains, and we have to make our own plans and trust-on *faith*-that they&#8217;re part of the design.

At any rate-these are things that make an excellent metaphysical conversation, or theological debate, but they do nothing to serve science, and _for the time being_ science cannot serve them.

Incidentally, some serious scientists are making up amino soup combinations and exposing them to various stimuli right now-they'll create life (that everyone can agree is life) sooner or later-doesn't make _them_ god, and doesn't prove there isn't one-just will prove that god isn't necessarily necessary-and, misuse of Ockham's Razor notwithstanding, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.

As far as statistics go-I&#8217;m no statistician, and don&#8217;t really care-having had to take the same damn courses in statistics nearly a half-dozen times (what is *up* with that? Had to take it for the baccalaureates, had to take it for the masters, had to take it for the Ph.D. and it&#8217;s the same damn stuff every time-sometimes (twice) even the same damn book. _Screw _statistics.) I can say that they&#8217;re a useful tool, and, like any tool, completely manipulable. And, while statistics is a tool it is also a science, and, as I&#8217;ve said before-and elsewhere-it is not, and cannot be (_for the time being_) the place of science to prove or disprove the existence of-well, you get the picture.

For the record, while raised and somewhat educated as a Christian-I'm not one in any mainstream sense of the word. While I do believe in a Creator, and love and respect the teachings of the Rabbi Yeshua, I don't have much use for what most people have done with those teachings-especially when it comes to nonsense like the "Creation Museum." As a scientist, and a man of faith-whose faith is based on personal evidence, of a real and concrete, empirical nature, though it can neither be duplicated, reproduced, proven or disproven-I've come to the conclusion that while there is no inherent contradiction in believing in a Creator and being a scientist, they must, _for the time being and forseeable future_ be kept separate.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Excellent sequences of posts, *Arnisador* and *EH*, tho' perhaps we could do without the BS flags (unless intended humorously).



The points made were egregiously wrong, and have a history of being used in a very dishonest way by the proponents of creationism.  That justified the flags in my mind.  If they are too incendiary, I can remove them.

Good post BTW.  The stuff about self-replicating reactions is very interesting, I have seen some of that.  Also good points about statistics which I should have brought up.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> We all understand the concept of love and know that it exists but how does science measure that? How does science replicate that?



Quite easily, actually.  We even know some of the brain circuits and hormones responsible.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2008)

elder999 said:


> The fact that one explanation is _simpler_ doesnt necessarily mean its *correct*-it just makes the problem easier to address when viewed that way.



No, it doesn't make it correct.  However, it is clear that if a simpler explanation suffices, there is *absolutely no reason *to postulate a more complex one.



elder999 said:


> Without the simple evidence of their obvious existence, and-_applying Occams Razor_- there is no place in evolution for a fur bearing, young-suckling, egg-laying venomous mammal, yet we know that the duck-billed platypus is all of these, as well as, improbably, duck-billed.



No, you cannot use the razor to disprove facts-in-evidence.  That would be a misuse of the tool.  The platypus obviously exists, so any explanation that does not account for it *should *be made more complex.  Remember, the razor is "entities must not be multiplied beyond *necessity*."  The razor does not say that entities should never be multiplied.



elder999 said:


> Dont confuse religion with faith orbelief. The institutions that call themselves religions have a vested interest in maintaining their control over people.



Sure, but they are inextricably bound together.  Communities of faith have their own complex emergent behavior which favors the formation of religions.



elder999 said:


> Many religious people know that the theory of evolution is probably true and trust science in general, and, as I also pointed out in my initial post, many scientists are religious.



Of course, the human brain is highly malleable.  That is why both the religious and the scientists can apply different standards of rigor to fundamentally incompatible beliefs.  Each way of thought says something about the universe that is generally contradictory and also that relies on completely different standards of epistemology.  The conflict is more acute for the scientist, which is why you see a lot less highly religious scientists than in the general population.  We have a harder time not applying our scientific standards to our beliefs.  Not so difficult for the general population, since they are by and large unfamiliar with scientific epistemology.




> Its an accepted part of neuroscience, now, that the human brain appears to be hardwired for belief in God, and/or, for lack of a better word, religious experience.



Indeed.  Feelings of religiosity/numinosity/religious awe can be replicated in a laboratory setting by stimulating the right areas of the brain.



> Humans, throughout history-and I say that as a generality, not meaning all humans-have believed in a Creator, god or gods.



Somewhat ironically, given the conversation, God-belief has evolved quite a bit too.  In earlier times, there was no conception of a Creator god.  The supernatural consisted of nature spirits, ancestor worship, and the like.  The belief in an omniscient and omnipotent creator is a very recent development, historically speaking.




> Weve had it all this time, and it serves and has never served, as far as anyone can tell, any purpose as an _evolved or adaptive survival trait._So, applying Occams razor, *humans belief in God is the best (simplest, least complex) proof there is that God exists.*:lol:



I think you are misusing the razor.  Evolutionarily "useless" beliefs do not prove much of anything.  Plenty of "useless" bits stick around simply because evolution is a stochastic process, and there is not enough pressure exerted on the traits to make them go away.  Understanding that evolution (and all biology) is a fundamentally random process is critical to this understanding.  There is no perfection or direction to a stochastic process, and highly unlikely events can take place or persist simply due to random chance.  

Besides, I do not accept your argument that supernatural beliefs have no evolutionary benefit.  As we have seen, belief and the attendant susceptibility to religiosity has been a powerful organizing force among humanity.  Such a force could easily have survival benefit since humanity has flourished as it has organized in larger and larger groups.  Who knows, maybe religiosity made this possible?



> I can say that theyre a useful tool, and, like any tool, completely manipulable. And, while statistics is a tool it is also a science, and, as Ive said before-and elsewhere-it is not, and cannot be (_for the time being_) the place of science to prove or disprove the existence of-well, you get the picture.



Well, you're a physicist, so they aren't all that useful to you.  I can assure you though that when you get into the guts of chemistry and biology, *everything* is based on statistical reasoning.  This is one of *the *critical insights into understanding how life truly functions.



> I've come to the conclusion that while there is no inherent contradiction in believing in a Creator and being a scientist, they must, _for the time being and forseeable future_ be kept separate.



Well, I agree that they are separate.  I do believe that they are contradictory processes however.  How can two processes which say different things about the same universe not be?  Especially when completely different systems of epistemology are involved.

Which isn't to say that humans can't do and believe both.  We are very good at compartmentalizing our mental beliefs.  Just look at the political discussions here for some pertinent examples!


----------



## thardey (Aug 27, 2008)

What we must remember is that there are many ways to "find truth" and I'm not talking about the "many paths and we can't really discuss them" nonsense. I'm talking philosophy.

There is a study of things called _Methodologies_. These are simply ways in which we determine what we believe, and how, and when, and what circumstances to either accept or reject truth. (Not fact - that's a different game.) 

One of the basic questions facing all of us, and philosophy in general, is, how does one choose which methodology to follow, if one even really chooses one in the first place?

The "Scientific Method" is one form of methodology. It is a method to interpret raw data. It is unique in that it was designed for a specific field of study, and that method has been almost universally accepted for that specific field.

However, as *elder* pointed out above, the scientific methodology was not designed to answer spiritual questions. In fact, the method was specifically designed to rule out spiritual answers to problems. Even in the issue of being able to reproduce an experiment there is a removal of a personal spiritual influence. In martial arts, we know that the same attack on the same person will not always provoke the same defense - that is because we are dealing with a personality. However, if we are dealing with an inanimate object, then we can expect the same results from the same stimulus.

As was also pointed out, above, if God meddled in science, then it would be impossible to learn anything by scientific method, since God could change the "laws" of physics depending on what he wanted. Gravity, density, etc would be arbitrary. It would depend on God's mood, with is impossible to predict. 

Therefore, by providing that an experiment has to be reproducible, you have removed the individual element, both of the bias of the scientist, and the "whims" of God. 

Science can not teach anything about spirituality, whether positive or negative. Science can neither prove, or disprove God. This is why some people throw around the attack of "Reductionistic." Which is unfair, because the Scientific Method is very good at doing what it was intended to do.

There are other forms of Methodology, however, many more. Some commonly defined ones include Rationalism, Agnosticism, Empiricism, Fideism (Don't discount it quickly - it was taught by the likes of Pascal, Hamann, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein), Evidentialism, Experientialism, Pragmatism, and Combinationalism. Science is just one method of many.

The problem is that none of these other methods can take the place of the Scientific Method, for the pursuit of pure science, but that outside of pure science, the have very powerful uses. In this thread we've already alluded to experientialism, rationalism, fideism, and empiricsm. 

The fact that spiritual questions have sought answers by the application of many different methods is not a weakness, nor is it new. Faith can be questioned by methods other than Fideism, without losing it's status as faith. However, once the scientist applies methods other than the scientific method, he is no longer practicing science, but philosophy.

So, if you define faith solely as Fideism (faith in faith), then no, you can't combine it with the Scientific Method and expect something that will be accepted as science. Won't happen, because the rules we put in place (for both Fideism and the Scientific method) are specifically designed to prevent that. 

However, it also is not fair to denounce as "ignorant" any methodology other than the scientific method, for there are many questions that will never be answered by science, nor were they meant to. Things like beauty, art, taste, etc. cannot be pigeon-holed into a purely scientific method without killing the very thing they are studying.

The trick is to recognize the uses and limitations for each methodology. Eventually, the hope of Philosophy (at least mine) is that some method will be used and accepted that can be universally applied. But we're not there yet. No one method has been universally accepted, because each one has it's limitations.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Quite easily, actually. We even know some of the brain circuits and hormones responsible.


 
No, you can explain the after affects of it and the print it leaves behind but you can't explain "why" we have it or "where" it actually comes from.  Science can tell you what chemicals it illicits in the brain and what parts of the brain are activated, but you still haven't reached the core of "love".  Science even knows that the chemical cocktail for attraction starts to fade after a year.  Now, which kind of "love" are you talking about?  Are you talking about a mother for her child? Because that is different than a husband/wife which is what most of the research concentrates on.  The greeks had 5 different words for the different types of "love".

So, if it is so easy, "prove" that your mother loved you...
What is your proof?  You will be left with your own personal experiences and interpretations of her actions.

Again, this doesn't mean that because science can't prove love, that God MUST exist.  It only goes to show that even science accepts concepts outside of it's realm of explanation in some cases.  If you are really inclined try reading the science behind thought.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> No, you can explain the after affects of it and the print it leaves behind but you can't explain "why" we have it or "where" it actually comes from.



Yes, we can.  We know the purpose of pair-bonding. We have a reasonable evolutionary hypothesis for it. We know some of the chemicals that cause it (oxytocin for one).  We know what parts of the brain are responsible for it.  We don't have a complete mechanism yet, but it is wrong to say that "love is outside of science."



punisher73 said:


> If you are really inclined try reading the science behind thought.



I have, I did my Master's work in neuroendocrinology.  That literature demonstrates my point for me that science is hard at work explaining these "mysteries" of the brain.  Even religion.  As I have posted elsewhere, some of the regions in the brain responsible for religious feeling have been identified.  They can be stimulated in order to elicit feelings of religious awe in a laboratory setting.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Yes, we can. We know the purpose of pair-bonding. We have a reasonable evolutionary hypothesis for it. We know some of the chemicals that cause it (oxytocin for one). We know what parts of the brain are responsible for it. We don't have a complete mechanism yet, but it is wrong to say that "love is outside of science."
> 
> 
> 
> I have, I did my Master's work in neuroendocrinology. That literature demonstrates my point for me that science is hard at work explaining these "mysteries" of the brain. Even religion. As I have posted elsewhere, some of the regions in the brain responsible for religious feeling have been identified. They can be stimulated in order to elicit feelings of religious awe in a laboratory setting.


 
I never said that "love is outside of science", I said that science can't prove love.  Again, you talk about the science of attraction and pair bonding.  You completely ignored all other types of love.  You again, talked about the chemicals which I also readily admitted and talked about. Yet ignored the other aspects of it.  You have only shown the footprint in the sand, but not the person who made it so to speak.

Since your masters is on neuroendocrinology where does thought actually come from?  I'm not talking about the processes, such as the firing of the brain in certain areas or what chemicals are released etc.  I mean your ACTUAL thought itself.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 27, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> where does thought actually come from?  I'm not talking about the processes, such as the firing of the brain in certain areas or what chemicals are released etc.  I mean your ACTUAL thought itself.



Same as a computer, just a lot more complicated (so far )

And before we get into a computers can't evolve a thought process, have a quick look into evolutionary algorithms, which is a really neat branch of Computer science that uses the ideas of evolutionary theory in programming and has gotten some really amazing results.


----------



## Ray (Aug 27, 2008)

I think we should use science to help us intelligently design cities, transportation systems. etc.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> I never said that "love is outside of science", I said that science can't prove love.



I think those two statements are functionally equivalent.



punisher73 said:


> Again, you talk about the science of attraction and pair bonding.  You completely ignored all other types of love.



AFAIK, they are all based off the same mechanism.



punisher73 said:


> Since your masters is on neuroendocrinology where does thought actually come from?  I'm not talking about the processes, such as the firing of the brain in certain areas or what chemicals are released etc.  I mean your ACTUAL thought itself.



The processes, neuron firing, and chemicals ARE thought. Asking what thought is while excluding what actually makes up thought is meaningless.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2008)

thardey said:


> The "Scientific Method" is one form of methodology. It is a method to interpret raw data. It is unique in that it was designed for a specific field of study, and that method has been almost universally accepted for that specific field.
> [...]
> There are other forms of Methodology, however, many more. Some commonly defined ones include Rationalism, Agnosticism, Empiricism, Fideism (Don't discount it quickly - it was taught by the likes of Pascal, Hamann, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein), Evidentialism, Experientialism, Pragmatism, and Combinationalism. Science is just one method of many.



To take just one example, do you really think that C.S. Peirce would have agreed that Pragmatism is somehow in conflict with the Scientific Method? If anything, he sought to extend it. This list seems like distraction to me.



> However, it also is not fair to denounce as "ignorant" any methodology other than the scientific method



It is, however, fair to ask after their success rate. In fairness, philosophical methods seek to answer a different kind of question.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> I said that science can't prove love.



What does that mean--to "prove love"?

There's a lot that isn't yet understood, but you're postulating a distinction that I don't think you could describe in a way that could be measured. It may be that the distinction you are certain is there...isn't.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 27, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Same as a computer, just a lot more complicated (so far )
> 
> And before we get into a computers can't evolve a thought process, have a quick look into evolutionary algorithms, which is a really neat branch of Computer science that uses the ideas of evolutionary theory in programming and has gotten some really amazing results.



Actually, this has always amused me.  What has alway struck me about Genetic Algothrithms, Game Of Life, etc.. kinds of simulations and other evolutionary problem solving with computers is that is that from what I've seen and played with them, well, they don't really say much about biological evolution.  First off, those that use an iterative, generational approach pretty much always have a 'fitness' measurement, whether it's with a G.A. where you are trying to get closer to an optimal solution or a Life where you have some, perhaps arbitrary, criteria for surviving to the next round.  Now that survival criteria is determined by... an outside intelligence, the programmer or the runner of the program.    Sometimes the survival criteria is very intentional, such as a GA where you are reaching for a specific solution, or sometimes it's pretty randomly applied, but even the random parameters were picked as the parameters to be applied.  All of this exists in a 'reality' that was built by someone who was intentionally building an environment for just such an evolution to occur in.

Don't get me wrong, I think they are really cool tools for problem solving and exploration, but it always have seemed to me to be, if anything, more an argument for ID then for purely mechanical evolution, but above and beyond that, the correlation to biological systems is superficial and fairly simplistic


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 27, 2008)

arnisador said:


> What does that mean--to "prove love"?
> 
> There's a lot that isn't yet understood, but you're postulating a distinction that I don't think you could describe in a way that could be measured. It may be that the distinction you are certain is there...isn't.



Well the analogy that kept running through my mind about it all was that because you've figured out that when a pedal moves, the car goes forward.  You can even simulate it and stimulate it in controlled environment.  The car is therefore self-sufficient in it's mechanical operation and thus can operate with need for a driver.


----------



## Ray (Aug 27, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> I never said that "love is outside of science", I said that science can't prove love. Again, you talk about the science of attraction and pair bonding. You completely ignored all other types of love. You again, talked about the chemicals which I also readily admitted and talked about. Yet ignored the other aspects of it. You have only shown the footprint in the sand, but not the person who made it so to speak.


While I can't speak to the chemical reactions that make the feelings of love manifest, we can certainly look to the improved chances of survival that the several types of love bring about. Love for our spouse and children increase the odds that our genes will continue another generation.

For example: Brotherly Love will help to ensure that humans, in general, will continue another generation. etc.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> it always have seemed to me to be, if anything, more an argument for ID then for purely mechanical evolution, but above and beyond that, the correlation to biological systems is superficial and fairly simplistic



Well, criticizing the applicability of these models to biological systems is certainly fair, but remember that before the Game of Life etc. people would make sweeping statements about the _impossibility _of simple rules giving rise to complicated structures from basic components. This type of thing demonstrated that it was in fact possible in principle; it didn't show that it was possible in the specific case of organic molecules. So, a fair criticism but in its context it did refute a certain argument against evolution, and continues to refute the sweeping claims of those ID proponents who say that complicated structures and behaviours _must _be designed.

As to the fact that a fitness measure is put in by fiat...well, it's surely more complicated in the real world, but I think it's the same proof-of-concept thing. Using simpler mathematical models is how airplanes were and are designed, for example--you can't perfectly model turbulence. Simplified (but increasingly complicated) models put men on the moon. I remember in graduate school taking a nuclear engineering course in reactor design and being shocked at the use of a first-order linearized model for a certain nonlinear ODE's solution--this was, after all, a _nuclear reactor_ we were designing--but it's how science proceeds. How many things are designed via a Bode plot? This is science at work, I'd say.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 28, 2008)

The major difference I see, is that proponents of creationism don't scream and whine about how those who believe in evolution are ignoring science/stupid/neo-luddites, etc.
If the science is so strong, why do evolutionists (for lack of a better term) fear from creationism?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 28, 2008)

Ladies and gentlemen, at best that is an aside. 

Please feel free to step over this little fillip and continue discussing the subject under the spotlight rather than being distracted by matters that are not pertinent to evaluating the merit of either Evolutionary Theory or Intelligent Design.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I think those two statements are functionally equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough, what I meant when I said science can't prove love (and Empty Hands stated that all forms of love are from the same mechanism which I had asked about-and any further breakdown would result in a philosophical only discussion on 'love' and not the OT).  But, he still never answered the original challenge of how would you "prove" that your mother loved you?  All you have to rely on are your own personal experiences and interpretations of her actions.  Again, he has identified the footprints left by it (body/brain chemistry) but not the source.

As far as the processes of neuron firing and chemicals ARE thought.  That kind of still misses an important part, and on that a number of scientists agree with.  FearlessFeep actually used the analogy I was going to use.  You have described the car and how it works, and may have watched the car go down the road, but you haven't identified the driver yet.  What is the "it" that causes the neurons etc. to go in the first place?  Some scientists differentiate between the brain and "the mind", while others say there is no differentiation we are just an epiphenomenon.

Do you think that we are nothing more than a giant chemical reaction with nothing "controlling" the experiments so to speak?  If so that is fine, we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 28, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The major difference I see, is that proponents of creationism don't scream and whine about how those who believe in evolution are ignoring science/stupid/neo-luddites, etc.
> If the science is so strong, why do evolutionists (for lack of a better term) fear from creationism?



The problem is that it is being presented as science, it isn't and teaching it as such is doing a huge injustice to all the kids that fail to get a proper education.

What I would like to know is why Creationist try so hard to get their beliefs considered "science", what's wrong with keeping it as religion?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I think you are misusing the razor.


 
I'm using the razor precisley the way you and others like you do to discount a creator-humans everywhere believe in a creator and afterlife, and apparently almost always have. There is no useful evolutionary reason for such a belief-indeed, given the chaos and slaughter that one can historically attribute to "religion," the very notion of a creator and an afterlife seem counterproductive to some, and have a history of counterproductivity. If there is no useful purpose to it, from an evolutionary standpoint, and yet humans everywhere have always believed in such things, then _the least complicated reason for it is that there *is* a God._ :lol:


Of course, I'm just doing that to demonstrate your misuse of the razor-not out of any need or desire to prove there is a God. It's as I said, I think: "evidence of God" is for the individual: such things are not normally repeatable, cannot normally be reproduced, are unprovable or disprovable and thus , un-testable-much the same as Intelligent Design, which is why it's not a theory-it isn't even worthy of the name.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 28, 2008)

Well, I agree. It isn't really Occam's razor as much as a theory ("God was the prime mover") for which no evidence has been adduced. From a scientific (and philosophical) standpoint, statements made without support need not be refuted. Otherwise, we'd still be stuck trying to prove that we're not all brains in vats. Still, saying "Occam's razor" isn't a bad shorthand way of saying that until you make a case for it, we won't include it, is it?

From a faith-based standpoint it appears to be different.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 28, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> But, he still never answered the original challenge of how would you "prove" that your mother loved you?  All you have to rely on are your own personal experiences and interpretations of her actions.  Again, he has identified the footprints left by it (body/brain chemistry) but not the source.



As far as Mom goes, those personal experiences and interpretations ARE evidence.  Her behavior was observed, and it was consistent with love.  If you want "proof" in the sense of "100% certainty" then you have stepped beyond the bounds of science.  Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty.  Everything is provisional based on the totality of the evidence.  A useful definition of "fact" written by Stephen J. Gould is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."  You'll notice that the words "proof" and "certainty" aren't in there, while "provisional" is.  Under that scientific definition, my Mother's love is a fact.



punisher73 said:


> What is the "it" that causes the neurons etc. to go in the first place?



I can describe the mechanism of neuronal firing, what causes it, but I think that would be a bit far afield for this discussion and still wouldn't satisfy you.  Science can describe what thought is and "why" it occurs sufficient for a naturalistic explanation.  If you try to push beyond that to a "driver" or "controller" or "greater purpose" you have left science behind.  There is also no evidence for any such view.  The theory of vitalism, which describes something like what you are driving at, was discredited long, long ago.



punisher73 said:


> Do you think that we are nothing more than a giant chemical reaction with nothing "controlling" the experiments so to speak?  If so that is fine, we can agree to disagree.



Yes.  You can disagree if you want, but you should understand that their is no scientific backing for your view.  Science can describe what is going on perfectly well without recourse to hypothesizing a "controller", so to assume one exists is simply faith.


----------



## thardey (Aug 28, 2008)

arnisador said:


> To take just one example, do you really think that C.S. Peirce would have agreed that Pragmatism is somehow in conflict with the Scientific Method? If anything, he sought to extend it. This list seems like distraction to me.



I'm not familiar with Peirce, but generally, I would consider pragmatism to be _applied science_. That is, science (knowledge) couple with intent, for a specific purpose. Thus, you have an intelligen design behind applied science, it's just easier to point to the designer. (Usually an engineer.)




> It is, however, fair to ask after their success rate. In fairness, philosophical methods seek to answer a different kind of question.


Exactly, each is designed to answer different questions, and if you're using the wrong tools to solve the wrong problems, then we'll have problems exactly like the OP was talking about!


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 28, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Of course, I'm just doing that to demonstrate your misuse of the razor-not out of any need or desire to prove there is a God.



I still don't understand what you are driving at.  From my view, using the razor, not to disprove God, but to simply say such an explanation is unneccesary, is perfectly legitimate because a naturalistic explanation suffices for everything we see.  On the other hand, I don't see how your use is not a misuse or equivalent to what I am saying.  You are saying because we all have this belief that is "useless" then God must exist as the simplest explanation.  I just don't see the equivalence.  As I have pointed out, God belief could be a benefit.  Or it could simply be random chance without enough evolutionary pressure to weed it out.

Help me understand what you are driving at because I just don't see it.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I still don't understand what you are driving at. From my view, using the razor, not to disprove God, but to simply say such an explanation is unneccesary, is perfectly legitimate because a naturalistic explanation suffices for everything we see. On the other hand, I don't see how your use is not a misuse or equivalent to what I am saying. You are saying because we all have this belief that is "useless" then God must exist as the simplest explanation. I just don't see the equivalence. As I have pointed out, God belief could be a benefit. Or it could simply be random chance without enough evolutionary pressure to weed it out.
> 
> Help me understand what you are driving at because I just don't see it.


 
That "Occam's razor" has no point in the "debate between science and 'God' " That there is no point to the debate between science and god? That there is no debate worth having between the two-mostly, here though, that Occam's razor cuts both ways, that it has no place in the debate. You say "creation" is less complex without a Creator? I'm not so sure, but okay....I say "human religious behavior" which dates back to the Neanderthals, is less complex to explain _with_ a Creator-if one uses Occam's razor, and stops at the simplest of points-no need for rationalizing an evolutionary or possible evolutionary benefit, no need for complicating it with the tag of "random evolutionary anomaly that serves no useful purpose," or even saying it's like the appendix, a vestige of something no longer necessary. The simplest explanation is that we're hardwired for God by our Creator-and that there therefore *is*one. The fact that it doesn't prove a goddam thing doesn't make it any less valid a use of Occam's razor than yours is-in fact, it's just as valid.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> As far as Mom goes, those personal experiences and interpretations ARE evidence. Her behavior was observed, and it was consistent with love. If you want "proof" in the sense of "100% certainty" then you have stepped beyond the bounds of science. Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty. Everything is provisional based on the totality of the evidence. A useful definition of "fact" written by Stephen J. Gould is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." You'll notice that the words "proof" and "certainty" aren't in there, while "provisional" is. Under that scientific definition, my Mother's love is a fact.
> 
> I can describe the mechanism of neuronal firing, what causes it, but I think that would be a bit far afield for this discussion and still wouldn't satisfy you. Science can describe what thought is and "why" it occurs sufficient for a naturalistic explanation. If you try to push beyond that to a "driver" or "controller" or "greater purpose" you have left science behind. There is also no evidence for any such view. The theory of vitalism, which describes something like what you are driving at, was discredited long, long ago.
> .


 
That was my point.  Your definition for "proof" of your mother's love is no different than someone's belief in God.  It is based on their personal experience and interpretation.  You have "faith" that your mother loved you, based on what you believe she did for you.  One argument would be that they interpreted 'God's actions' wrong and there was another explanation.  I would point out that I have talked to MANY people who were in abusive relationships that didn't see anything other than "love" from the person.  Now we are left with judging someone's experience and judging for ourselves whether their experience is valid. 

I am familiar with the theory of vitalism and that is not what I am suggesting.  I am more inclined with quantum mechanics and it's theory.  

PS: When I say "prove" I am using the general meaning of the term, not the scientific term of "proof".  I was at one time a chemistry/biology major before switching to psych. so I am familiar with hypothesis, postulates etc. and what science can and can't do.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 28, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> That was my point.  Your definition for "proof" of your mother's love is no different than someone's belief in God.



Oh no, it's radically different.  For one thing, everyone can agree that my Mother existed at one point.  If she hadn't, I wouldn't be here!  Furthermore, while colored by my interpretation, she definitively performed actions for me which can be interpreted.  Furthermore, you could find several existing witnesses who can describe in detail those actions, and were actually present for them.  If we could do all that for God, no one would be having this discussion!


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> There is no useful evolutionary reason for such a belief-indeed, given the chaos and slaughter that one can historically attribute to "religion," the very notion of a creator and an afterlife seem counterproductive to some, and have a history of counterproductivity. If there is no useful purpose to it, from an evolutionary standpoint, and yet humans everywhere have always believed in such things, then _the least complicated reason for it is that there *is* a God._ :lol:


 
Daniel Dennet suggests that religion evolved just like everything else.  He suggests some evolutionary mechanisms and pressures and provides a very plausible and secular explanation for religion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2008)

Religion evolved via co-evolution.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Daniel Dennet suggests that religion evolved just like everything else. He suggests some evolutionary mechanisms and pressures and provides a very plausible and secular explanation for religion.


 
That's very interesting, and complex-my point wasn't, however, about the necessity or lack of it, or an explanation of how we're hardwired for it-or even it's lack of utility or utility, something I don't really believe-

My point was that Occam's razor is misapplied in the instance of a Creator, repeatedly. _Occam's razor says that Daniel Dennet's suggestions aren't necessary, and are unecessarily complex. Man is hardwired for religion by God-that's the simplest explanation, and any more complex theorizing is unecessary._


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> If we could do all that for God, no one would be having this discussion!


 
Oh if only ...

Wouldn't it be marvellous to end all the bloodshed and wrangling?

Sorry, an aside to this discussion I know; my apologies.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Oh no, it's radically different. For one thing, everyone can agree that my Mother existed at one point. If she hadn't, I wouldn't be here! Furthermore, while colored by my interpretation, she definitively performed actions for me which can be interpreted. Furthermore, you could find several existing witnesses who can describe in detail those actions, and were actually present for them. If we could do all that for God, no one would be having this discussion!


 
Your mother's existence wasn't in question only her actions that you interpret as love.  You are left with the same analysis that people who believe in a creator are left with.  Many people have witnessed things that they interpret as "God".  Sometimes even in big groups and they all saw the same thing and thought the same thing.  You are placing value judgement on what YOU see and believe it to be more credible than what others see and experience.  Hypothetical question:  If you had an angel (how ever you interpret how they would look if they existed) appeared to you and said that you were loved by God, what would your reaction be?


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 29, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> Your mother's existence wasn't in question only her actions that you interpret as love.  You are left with the same analysis that people who believe in a creator are left with.  Many people have witnessed things that they interpret as "God".  Sometimes even in big groups and they all saw the same thing and thought the same thing.  You are placing value judgement on what YOU see and believe it to be more credible than what others see and experience.  Hypothetical question:  If you had an angel (how ever you interpret how they would look if they existed) appeared to you and said that you were loved by God, what would your reaction be?



Define "Love", then someone might be able to prove its existence. But as long as you are not allowing love to be defined in any concrete way you're not going to be able to prove it exists.

But at the end of the day, from a scientific perspective, I suspect love is a chemical reaction in the brain that influences our behaviour.  That is something we can prove.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 29, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> Your mother's existence wasn't in question only her actions that you interpret as love.  You are left with the same analysis that people who believe in a creator are left with.



No, it is still a false equivalence.  *My mother's actions can be observed and verified by independent observers*.  The same cannot be said for God!  It isn't just my subjective interpretation.  For instance, I could call my Father and sister as witnesses and they could give their accounts and interpretations.  We could even hook my Mom up to an MRI and see whether this whole love business holds up.  It is an entirely different class of evidence and interpretation for God.  No independent observers!



punisher73 said:


> Hypothetical question:  If you had an angel (how ever you interpret how they would look if they existed) appeared to you and said that you were loved by God, what would your reaction be?



Well, you gotta go with the evidence.  After getting checked out for medical conditions, I would have to provisionally believe in the supernatural.  However, not even that would prove God.  What if the angel was a trickster who was trying to fool me?  Human mythologies are rife with such figures.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> We could even hook my Mom up to an MRI and see whether this whole love business holds up.  It is an entirely different class of evidence and interpretation for God.  No independent observers!



Sorry, but I gotta beat on this a little 

We could have multiple  observers that see the same sign as "God", we could also hook them up to the MRI and verify that they are experiencing something.

But I don't think many believers want to degrade "God" down to a experience that people have, especially when I imagine the same experience could be registered around many different belief systems.  Love is a emotion, something that is felt, and those feelings influence behaviour.  We can prove all of that.

We could also prove that in a similar manner the feeling of "God" is real and can influence peoples behaviour as well.  What we can't do is take that leap from the sensation of experiencing "God" to their actually being a God that exists outside of a experience people have.  

We also can't (I assume) trace that feeling of God in any way that can lead back to a single idea of what God is, a "religious experience", or "God experience" can happen whether you believe in one God, a hundred Gods, or a monkey king.


----------



## Ray (Aug 30, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> That was my point. Your definition for "proof" of your mother's love is no different than someone's belief in God. It is based on their personal experience and interpretation.


For me,  everything in my life is a personal experience.  How is it not for you?


----------



## Marginal (Aug 30, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I've often wondered why people on both sides of the fence would think that Creationism and Darwinism were mutually exclusive :idunno:


Because evolutionary theory doesn't ever require the presence of a God/creator at any point along the chain.


----------



## Ray (Aug 30, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Because evolutionary theory doesn't ever require the presence of a God/creator at any point along the chain.


Not a very compelling explanation.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 30, 2008)

Because there's no scientific evidence of God, and the Christian Bible clearly conflicts with evolution (e.g., the order of creation of species specified in Genesis).


----------



## Marginal (Aug 31, 2008)

Ray said:


> Not a very compelling explanation.


How compelling can a blind algorithmic process be?


----------



## Ray (Aug 31, 2008)

Marginal said:


> How compelling can a blind algorithmic process be?


I meant your response to morph4me's question.  Not whatever program you're referring to (or perhaps you're referring to evolution as an algorithm).


----------



## Marginal (Sep 1, 2008)

Ray said:


> I meant your response to morph4me's question.  Not whatever program you're referring to (or perhaps you're referring to evolution as an algorithm).


I'd assume the latter since the former makes absolutely no sense given the context. 

Evolutionary theory offers an explanation of how life arose. One that doesn't require the presence of a creator at any point in the process. You can tack some God kinda thing on at the beginning if you want to feel a dose of warm fuzziness for both sides, but one doesn't need the other at all to function. The reason that fundies are so offended by evolution is because it doesn't need god to provide a workable explanation. (The fear being that once Johnny hears that his DNA isn't just so 'cause God made it that way, he'll go and beat his mother for lying to him about God. Then Johnny will become a stone killer and be executed by the state. Which means his science teacher will burn in hell for unraveling Johnny's empty, easily shaken faith.)


----------



## Ray (Sep 1, 2008)

Marginal said:


> I'd assume the latter since the former makes absolutely no sense given the context.


To some it does.


Marginal said:


> Evolutionary theory offers an explanation of how life arose. One that doesn't require the presence of a creator at any point in the process. You can tack some God kinda thing on at the beginning if you want to feel a dose of warm fuzziness for both sides, but one doesn't need the other at all to function.


I'm not much for warm fuzziness. And I see clearly that evolution is a very good explanation of how things are and how they became that way; and that it doesn't require a creator. I fully accept evolutionary theory as it is currently understood.


Marginal said:


> The reason that fundies are so offended by evolution is because it doesn't need god to provide a workable explanation. (The fear being that once Johnny hears that his DNA isn't just so 'cause God made it that way, he'll go and beat his mother for lying to him about God. Then Johnny will become a stone killer and be executed by the state. Which means his science teacher will burn in hell for unraveling Johnny's empty, easily shaken faith.)


That is too bad that "fundies" are offended by evolution. Personally, I don't think anyone is going to burn in hell for teaching evolution...I don't think Heavenly Father works that way.  BTW: what's a "fundy?"


----------



## morph4me (Sep 2, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Because evolutionary theory doesn't ever require the presence of a God/creator at any point along the chain.


 
Quite the contrary, if a person is a believer it requires the presence of a God/creator at every point along the chain.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Sep 2, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Quite the contrary, if a person is a believer it requires the presence of a God/creator at every point along the chain.



No more so then gravity


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 3, 2008)

Evolution does not really deny the existence of god. It does however make you feel a bit less special, being part of an ongoing process of change rather than god`s favored special little creature made in his own image. "Intelligent design" is just a reaction to this, an attempt to say god made you perfect for your time, feels good doesn`t it? Sure, fiction will beat sience if you want it to every time. If you excuse me, I`m off to eat raw horse meat to Tor`s honor.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Sep 3, 2008)

Cirdan said:


> Evolution does not really deny the existence of god. It does however make you feel a bit less special, being part of an ongoing process of change rather than god`s favored special little creature made in his own image. "Intelligent design" is just a reaction to this, an attempt to say god made you perfect for your time, feels good doesn`t it? Sure, fiction will beat sience if you want it to every time. If you excuse me, I`m off to eat raw horse meat to Tor`s honor.



Not really.  

Look at a single shot in pool.  Past the initial point if contact, or even within it, nothing in the system gives evidence of an intelligent force behind the trajectories of the balls, and yet the balls go where the player intends. The process is entirely natural and mechanical, but the intent of the process is not.

Now you have a trillion balls on an endless table and and a player of infinite skill.  The motion of  the balls is entirely within the physical constraints of the materials and forces at play and yet when the balls all come to a rest, who's to say they are not exactly where the player intended?

The problem with the ID crowd is that they keep looking for the places where God nudges the balls, tilts the table... has to cheat.

Some people see the mechanics of the motions and say "it all works so no prior intelligence is needed".  Some people see the motion of the mechanics and say "there is intent here so there must be intelligence in the intention".  And the interpretation I supposed comes down to your metaphysical or romantic leanings


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 3, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Now you have a trillion balls on an endless table and and a player of infinite skill.



Which leads to the obvious question, could God set up a shot so tricky even he could not make it?


----------



## Ninjamom (Sep 3, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> .....Now you have a trillion balls on an endless table and and a player of infinite skill. The motion of the balls is entirely within the physical constraints of the materials and forces at play and yet when the balls all come to a rest, who's to say they are not exactly where the player intended?
> >
> >
> Some people see the mechanics of the motions and say "it all works so no prior intelligence is needed". Some people see the motion of the mechanics and say "there is intent here so there must be intelligence in the intention". And the interpretation I supposed comes down to your metaphysical or romantic leanings


Beautiful summation, short and to the point.


----------



## Ray (Sep 3, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Look at a single shot in pool. Past the initial point if contact, or even within it, nothing in the system gives evidence of an intelligent force behind the trajectories of the balls, and yet the balls go where the player intends. The process is entirely natural and mechanical, but the intent of the process is not.
> 
> Now you have a trillion balls on an endless table and and a player of infinite skill. The motion of the balls is entirely within the physical constraints of the materials and forces at play and yet when the balls all come to a rest, who's to say they are not exactly where the player intended?
> 
> The problem with the ID crowd is that they keep looking for the places where God nudges the balls, tilts the table... has to cheat.


I don't know about the universe, but I do know that your pool table, balls and cue sticks have a creator.


----------



## teekin (Sep 4, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Which leads to the obvious question, could God set up a shot so tricky even she could not make it?


(small but important modification made):asian:

What if the answer is "Yes"? What is the next progression?:erg:


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 4, 2008)

God is a old man with a beard and white robes, that's what the Renaissance taught us.

But the progression is a basic paradox of omnipotence.  Either way there is something he "cannot" do.


----------



## teekin (Sep 4, 2008)

God, like truth is a construct. She can take any form I choose.
 Time, like entropy has a progression. I don't think time or entropy are mutable to the degree you suggest so my question stands. Or does the fact lead to the answer "No"?
Lori


----------



## FearlessFreep (Sep 4, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> But the progression is a basic paradox of omnipotence.  Either way there is something he "cannot" do.



Well, then, I guess the answer is "no", not really.  I sorta assumed the question was in jest...

Nowhere in the conceptualization of "omnipotence" is the idea of doing things logically impossible.   A little like asking the question "could God make '1=2'.  It's impossible, but not for lack of power, but simply by logical necessity.


----------



## thardey (Sep 4, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> But the progression is a basic paradox of omnipotence.  Either way there is something he "cannot" do.



Indeed, God cannot do less that what is perfect, or he/she/it ceases to be God, but is controlled by something else. Or, at very least, an imperfect God could be superseded by another God.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 4, 2008)

I dunno...I could build a house that I couldn't lift. Where's the logical impossibility? I disagree with that analysis, *FeearlessFreep*.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 4, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I dunno...I could build a house that I couldn't lift. Where's the logical impossibility? I disagree with that analysis, *FeearlessFreep*.



You are not omnipotent


----------

