The Can of Worms called Creation and/or Evolution

[scoutldr]

I know for a fact there is an afterlife. I saw it on "Ghost Hunters".

[packsaddle]

In my mythical idea of heaven, one can see just past St. Peter (who is a stunning transexual) and the the pearly gates: in the distance there is a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant flanked on one side by a Krispy Kreme and on the other side by a Dairy Queen. A very prominent sign flashes, "Free: All You Can Eat".

Mmmmmmm.

 

Anyway, I'll repeat it: St. Augustine noted that faith has no purpose if not to transcend reason. Thus, he defined one useful characteristic of faith.

I also note with some agreement to others that working assumptions, on the surface, sometimes take the appearance of 'faith' and actually work the same way for a time. The difference in my mind is that working assumptions (hypotheses) are always available for rejection if evidence to the contrary is found. And in science, the job is to search for that contrary evidence, not to search for supporting evidence. Faith, as I understand it, is never subject to such examination and rejection.

 

As Merlyn correctly noted, in science nothing is proven absolutely. Facts, as an old mentor of mine was fond of saying, are things that are not currently under investigation. He was a great guy and a good scientist.

For matters of faith, proof is not necessary - for faith, alone, is sufficient. Which is why, as I've observed before, there are few religions that qualify their statements of belief or doctrines in a way that implies potential error...or end those statements with a qualifier, "but we could be wrong".

Unitarian Universalism is the only faith I've encountered in which such an admission is ever displayed prominently (almost a defining characteristic, LOL).

 

I do see a conflict between science and religion. However, I see this coming from the side of religion. It is almost as if every time a new discovery (especially in biology) provides a new explanation for something that was previously a mystery, another little chip is gone from their "God of the Gaps". Science, on the other hand, is indifferent (and I guess that can be taken as some kind of affront as well).

 

It is as if those who do not understand the difference between science and religion see an implied null hypothesis with regard to God, the null being there is no magic, no hocus pocus, no FSM, or no supernatural anything. And every scientific success seems to provide evidence in support of the null. This brings to mind Freud's statement that ignorance is a poor basis for a belief. I disagree, ignorance seems the be a wonderful basis for some beliefs. It seems to be a natural human ability to believe things that have no identifiable basis other than the desire to believe them.

[Gold Winger]

"I always thought Bernoulli's Principle came into play with an airplane"

 

It does or it doesn't, depending on which body of research you accept. :-)

[Gold Winger]

"In my mythical idea of heaven, one can see just past St. Peter (who is a stunning transexual) . . ."

 

That's just too wierd!

[CalicoPenn]

"In my mythical idea of heaven, one can see just past St. Peter (who is a stunning transexual) . . ."

 

Will drag queen do? I can picture RuPaul as St. Peter, but I've yet to meet a transexual as stunning as RuPaul.

 

Calico

[packsaddle]

In my youth, 'drag queens' were women who hung out with guys who had cars with huge slick tires and monstrous horsepower pumping out of eight cylinders with blowers and sometimes, nitro. And they went really hard and fast...in a monotonous straight line...for a only a few seconds...then they were completely spent...sometimes their engines exploded spectacularly. None of them are in my heaven myth.

[Trevorum]

RuPaul, RonPaul, I always get those two confused.

[skeptic]

For me, even though I consider myself a Christian (certainly not at the acceptance level of the "conservatives"), every scientific break through simply reinforces the miraculous nature of the universe we share. God represents the ultimate power that encourages our ever evolving understanding, the spirit of universal life. Our greatest thinkers, be they scientists or philosiphers, somehow are able to draw more deeply from that power which is represented by human intelligence, and nurtured by the soul. On the other hand, there are the unexplainable miracles of autistic capabilities and other such mental anomolies. Is the apparent happiness in many of the afflicted due to poor intelligence, or greater understanding within their personal world? Neither religion or science can answer the final question; or is there even a "final" question

 

Whether or not I am closer to right or wrong will eventually be known.

 

(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Beavah]

As Merlyn correctly noted, in science nothing is proven absolutely.

 

Nothin' different about religion, by and large. God far surpasses human understandin'. He can do what he wants, rewrite da rules, become incarnate. Your buddy St. Augustine said that faith seeks understanding. Not that it has understanding.

 

For matters of faith, proof is not necessary - for faith, alone, is sufficient. Which is why, as I've observed before, there are few religions that qualify their statements of belief or doctrines in a way that implies potential error...or end those statements with a qualifier, "but we could be wrong".

 

Oh, scientists don't do that too much either, eh? Especially on things where they've formed a general consensus. It remains implied, if yeh understand science, but to a non-scientist it sure looks like yeh all are pretty definitive about stuff that could be wrong.

 

No different for religion. In da Christian tradition, with the exception of creeds, doctrine is only defined in da negative, eh? The great councils that decided central tenets of Christian faith never declared what was "right", because God is unknowable and beyond definitive human understanding. Rather, they declared what was anathema, what was in error. Western science developed that notion of falsifiability because of its roots in Christian theology.

 

I think there can be a conflict between science and religion, but it's da exact opposite of packsaddle's. Science too often quests after what might be possible, without stoppin' to consider whether it should be pursued. In fact, it wants to pursue anything that's an interestin' challenge. In astonishin' arrogance, it seeks to increase da scope of mankind's power, but not of its judgment. By disavowing any responsibility for ethics, or any basis for universal ethics, it's willin' to hand a child a stick of dynamite and say "it's up to you."

 

It's as if those who do not understand religion believe that just because they've done a better job of stacking blocks or lighting a house than those in the past that they are more qualified to answer questions about love, and personal choice, and family, and ethics, and joy, and sadness, and suffering, and fulfillment. I dunno which way that goes in terms of null hypothesis, eh? But da mistake is that a success in one area means yeh understand and are qualified to comment on an unrelated field.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

As Merlyn correctly noted, in science nothing is proven absolutely. Nothin' different about religion, by and large.

 

There you go equivocating again.

 

Science does reach a consensus on many things and continues on from there; religion can't reach a consensus on anything, because there's no real knowledge there. Someone reading goat entrails is not comparable to medical science. Saying angels push planets around in their orbits is not a "theory" on par with orbital mechanics. And now you're going off like Ben Stein does, and criticizing branches of science for not being about what *you* apparently want them to be about. Science is a good way to *figure out how to do things in general*, whether that's feeding six billion people or murdering six million people. But that's because science is a method, a tool. If you want to criticize specific people for specific actions, do that, but blaming "science" is like blaming breadknives for stabbing deaths.

 

Science is a method to find out what actually happens in the universe; religion are people making up stories to fill up their ignorance.

[Gold Winger]

Can you prove that angels aren't pushing planets around? No you can't, anymore than you can disprove that fairies are responsible for "gravity" by pushing things to the ground.

 

In reality, there is one fairy assigned to each particle or aggregate of particles and they push them toward other particles. As they push, the particles accelerate because they overcome the inertia trolls. There are very specific rules about how the fairies and trolls interact and scientists have attempted to subvert this order into some bland thing called "science."

 

 

[Beavah]

Science is a method to find out what actually happens in the universe; religion are people making up stories to fill up their ignorance.

 

LOL!

 

It's always funny to read stuff like that, eh? The testament of a true, Fundamentalist Believer! Imagine what you'd say to someone who simply reversed da words "science" and "religion" in the above paragraph. And yet yeh don't realize you're makin' the same biased claim.

 

I'd offer that both science and religion tell stories (aka theories, but also genuine tales) in an effort to build and pass along understanding. Da stories are based on the experiences and observations of people. Some of the stories (like Newtonian gravitation, Bernoulli fluids and da like) are literally false, but the community still finds them instructive and teaches 'em to children anyways! Why? Well, I suppose because they help teach a way of thinking about things, and provide a helpful illustration for simple situations.

 

Not really that different for religion, eh?

 

And beyond religion, there are other areas of human thought and endeavor which are also valuable. Art. Music. Literature. Poetry. Like religion, these should not be readily dismissed by the Believers in science. They also comment on what happens in the universe and in human society and da human psyche, based on the experiences and observations of people. They also tell "stories" in an effort to communicate understanding. Religion does not dismiss these things, it welcomes them... and it welcomes da contribution of science, too.

 

Only you odd Science Fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge that bigger picture, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle]

Hey Pack, we had a Drag Queen in my old neighborhood as well. her daddy owned a Service Station, (back then they were Service Stations, not gas Stations, there is a difference).

 

She drove a '69 396 Malibu SS with a 5:11 rear end (I think it was 5:11, I know riding in it would give you whiplash) Everybody wanted to be her boyfriend, though my wanting to be a Priest pretty much kept my name off the short list, or the long list, or any list therein. Oddly enough I don't remember much what she looked like, but her car was HOT!(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey Gold Winger, if you want to live as if fairies are responsible for everything, go right ahead. No, there's no way to disprove ANY ridiculous statements that can be jury-rigged to mean anything, but such statements are worthless in understanding how the universe works.

 

Beavah writes:

I'd offer that both science and religion tell stories (aka theories, but also genuine tales) in an effort to build and pass along understanding.

 

Yes, but science actually works. Religion is still stuck in the same position it was thousands of years ago. It never makes progress, because it isn't about anything, really. It's just made up stories, and one story is as interchangable as another. People pay attention to what Newton wrote about physics and calculus because it leads to useful answers; but hardly anyone pays any attention to what Newton wrote about religion.

 

And beyond religion, there are other areas of human thought and endeavor which are also valuable. Art. Music. Literature. Poetry. Like religion, these should not be readily dismissed by the Believers in science.

 

I don't know anyone who dismisses those; I only dismiss religion as far as it makes baseless statements of knowledge.

 

Only you odd Science Fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge that bigger picture, eh?

 

Wrong, that's your caricature of science, which you are obviously trying to paint as "just another religion," to bolster your silly equivocation.

 

Tell you what, suppose a doctor checks your health and says your blood pressure is too high, and prescribes some drugs to lower it. However, your neighbor says he just sacrificed a goat and read its entrails, and he insists his entrail-reading says your blood pressure is too low, and you need to lower it by eating some mushrooms he picked this morning in the forest. You yourself feel no symptoms, which isn't unusual for people with problem blood pressure. So, do you believe the guy using science, or the guy using religion? Or do you say their advice has equal weight?

[packsaddle]

"Oh, scientists don't do that too much either, eh? Especially on things where they've formed a general consensus. It remains implied, if yeh understand science, but to a non-scientist it sure looks like yeh all are pretty definitive about stuff that could be wrong." So how do you propose to correct such ignorance displayed by such a non-scientist?

"Science too often quests after what might be possible, without stoppin' to consider whether it should be pursued." And who is to decide about speculative things that haven't been discovered yet? People who aren't even conscious of the process? Freedom of thought and the free flow of information is like blood to the scientific body. If you think you have better knowledge of how to choose what should be pursued, make your voice heard! Show us the merit of your ideas and who knows, someone might agree. Complaining will most likely just be ignored.

"In fact, it [science] wants to pursue anything that's an interestin' challenge. In astonishin' arrogance, it seeks to increase da scope of mankind's power, but not of its judgment." Do you propose that better judgment will be directly proportional to greater ignorance? Rather than 'arrogance', I would call this a working assumption that the more we understand, the better prepared we are to exercise good judgment. And that better judgment is supported by better understanding. It is an optimistic view that comes with the 'bargain' we, as a society, have made with science and technology. That bargain has been sealed and there is no going back on it unless we want apocalyptic social upheaval. Grow up.

"By disavowing any responsibility for ethics, or any basis for universal ethics, it's willin' to hand a child a stick of dynamite and say "it's up to you." Perhaps you should read some of the NAS documents on bioethics before you make such statements. Far from "...disavowing any responsibility...", scientists do worry about these questions, partly because we understand that someone WILL eventually make the discoveries and hand out those 'sticks of dynamite'. Do you think that there is any way to suppress the advancement of science worldwide? Perhaps there is, but I suspect that none of us would want to live with the conditions that made such suppression possible. Good examples that are addressed in the bioethics documents are the various discoveries in support of biotechnology - stem cells, cloning, gene therapies, genetic engineering, synthetic life.

Face it, these things are here, or coming soon. There is no more way to stop that than to keep gays out of BSA. If your point is that science is ill-equipped to advance human ethics, I tend to agree. So why load that responsibility on science? Perhaps it's time for everyone else to get to work and do some of the heavy lifting for themselves. Science is going to produce the ideas and the tools. It won't dictate to the people who can use them or how. The people need to grow up and learn to make good choices for themselves.