The Co-existence of Science and Theology

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/28/2007 02:47:17 PM · #781

What about the poor celestial teapot? :-(

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/28/2007 02:49:59 PM · #782

Originally posted by Louis:

What about the poor celestial teapot? :-(

It's out there whistling away; we call it the "music of the spheres" :-)

R.

11/28/2007 03:04:09 PM · #783

Heh

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

11/28/2007 03:54:47 PM · #784

Just a reminder.

Christianity is 100% in harmony with science. Nothing in science contradicts the belief of Creationism.

The theory of evolution tries to -- but it's just a flawed theory.

Now back to your discussion.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/28/2007 04:00:32 PM · #785

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
be awed that it arose by chance.

Though chance is exactly not what the theory of evolution is predicated upon. That seems to be a very common misconception. Things don't randomly evolve. I quite often see people who are dismissive of the predictions of evolutionary theory use this 'random chance' misunderstanding as a crux of arguments.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/28/2007 04:04:00 PM · #786

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Christianity is 100% in harmony with science.

milo655321

Nikon D70

11/28/2007 04:08:35 PM · #787

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Nothing in science contradicts the belief of Creationism.

I suppose if you define science as â��that which does not contradict the belief of Creationismâ��, then that statement might be true, but then that would be a very creative, and false, definition of the meaning of the word science (and its methods) as itâ��s actually used within the scientific community.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/28/2007 04:26:07 PM · #788

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

. Nothing in science contradicts the belief of Creationism.

The theory of evolution tries to -- but it's just a flawed theory.

As opposed to creationism, which is an ancient fairy tale. It's no more based in fact than Sleeping Beauty.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/28/2007 04:36:36 PM · #789

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Nothing in science contradicts the belief of Creationism.

The theory of evolution tries to -- but it's just a flawed theory.

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as â��one theory among othersâ�� is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." - Signed, 11,000+ American clergy members

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/28/2007 04:40:21 PM · #790

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Nothing in science contradicts the belief of Creationism.

Correct, since science doesn't seek to address beliefs, only facts.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/28/2007 04:51:30 PM · #791

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

The theory of evolution tries to -- but it's just a flawed theory.

It's not that it tries to contradict it......that's hardly the point.

The study of evolution's point is to try and explain where we came from, if Creationism doesn't match the facts that we discover through the study, oh well, but that's not the point of the study.

Why is assumed that there is this adversarial intent with science?

And why should you be so defensive of your beliefs?

It doesn't matter what your beliefs are, I can't change that if you're comfortable, solid, and convinced of them.

And that's fine........but in my quest for understanding, if a theory or idea that I have is proven to be wrong, so be it; if someone just tells me I'm full of it with no substantiation, the heck with them.

In my mind, it's not a contest. Facts is facts, and beliefs is beliefs, and sometimes they're at odds and sometimes they work together.

I have to be flexible in my acquired knowledge simply because I'm an armchair everything for the most part.......but I realize that, for the most part, and am not only willing, but excited about the prospect of learning new things.

11/28/2007 05:04:15 PM · #792

Originally posted by Gordon:

You are incorrect. Chance mutation is the engine which runs evolution. Nothing more, nothing less. Selection comes later, but without chance selection has nothing to choose between.

11/28/2007 07:35:02 PM · #793

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
be awed that it arose by chance.

Though chance is exactly not what the theory of evolution is predicated upon. That seems to be a very common misconception. Things don't randomly evolve. I quite often see people who are dismissive of the predictions of evolutionary theory use this 'random chance' misunderstanding as a crux of arguments.

You are incorrect. Chance mutation is the engine which runs evolution. Nothing more, nothing less. Selection comes later, but without chance selection has nothing to choose between.

From a lecture given by Richard Dawkins on October 23, 2006 at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia:

"One of the biggest fallacies in popular understanding of Darwinian evolution by natural selection is that it is a theory of random chance. It is not. It's the very opposite, and this is one of the most important things to understand about it. There is a certain chance element in it. Mutation is a process of random chance. It's random with respect to improvement, things don't tend to get better as a result of mutation. The important step in the Darwinian theory of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a non-random process. Natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying genetic codes. The reason why some genetic codes survive better than others is their phenotypic effects via the processes of embryogenesis on phenotypes, on bodies, and which make them survive or not survive, reproduce or not survive [sic]. The ones that do survive and reproduce pass on the genetic coded instructions that built them and equip them, and made them good at surviving and reproducing. That's the idea. That is the explanation for the apparent adaptive design, the illusion of design that all living things show. It is a non-random process. It does not involve design of any sort, it produces an illusion of design."

I transcribed this from this video.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/28/2007 08:00:37 PM · #794

Louis, you are either misinterpreting him or me because we are saying the same thing. Notice he says "Mutation is a process of random chance." and that he says this before he says anthing about natural selection. Natural selection is not random; good traits are selected for, bad traits are selected against. But natural selection does not matter if you do not have the mutations to begin with. Nothing in evolution can occur without random mutation. It is the fundamental basis for the whole process. If you do not randomly produce a beneficial mutation it will never be selected for. If you do not randomly produce a harmful mutation it will never be selected against.

Am I making sense?

EDIT: A second possibility in Dawkins' statement is that he is overstating his case for effect or to sway the audience. If he is truly trying to minimize the random nature of genetic variability, then shame on him. I wouldn't completely put it past him because he is quite extreme in some of his opinions. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though.

ONE MORE EDIT: Louis, can you give me a rough idea of where in the video you got that question/answer? It's 70 minutes long.

HEY, YET ANOTHER EDIT: I'm enjoying the video. You'll notice that the theists score their biggest points early when asking questions about morality and free will. Dawkins is hard pressed to answer those questions as a naturalist. He does a lot of waffling and agreeing that it's quite a perplexing problem. "It's genuinely difficult to know why we are (moral)."

Message edited by author 2007-11-28 20:16:09.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

11/28/2007 08:39:47 PM · #795

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Just a reminder.

Christianity is 100% in harmony with science. Nothing in science contradicts the belief of Creationism.

You tried that back on page 4, and I asked you to explain Matt 27:52-53 in scientific terms. You either did not see the post, or ignored it. Let's have another try:

Matthew 27:52-53
52 "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life."
53 "They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

How are a city full of walking zombie saints 100% compatible with the known laws of science, please?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/28/2007 08:49:25 PM · #796

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Not really. What you're missing is that random mutation itself (the chance part) isn't what the theory is about. Lots of mutations occur that are completely meaningless, and independent of any selection. Evolution is strictly about the selection process (the non-random part). Even a very beneficial (or harmful) random mutation may not result in change until there's a stress factor that allows that mutation to make a survival difference.

Think of it like a beauty pageant- there are all sorts of random events and genetic variations that may lead to a given pool of contestants, but the pageant itself is a selection process, not a game based on random chance.

Message edited by author 2007-11-28 21:45:20.

Apple iPhone 5

11/28/2007 09:09:38 PM · #797

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

HEY, YET ANOTHER EDIT: I'm enjoying the video. You'll notice that the theists score their biggest points early when asking questions about morality and free will. Dawkins is hard pressed to answer those questions as a naturalist. He does a lot of waffling and agreeing that it's quite a perplexing problem. "It's genuinely difficult to know why we are (moral)."

Yeah, I've nearly finished watching it as well, it's a great vid. I'm going to watch part one tomorrow.

However, I don't think Dawkins was really hard pressed by any of the Theists' questions. He gave good clear answers to them all. In fact, it was the Theists who were waffling.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/28/2007 09:34:16 PM · #798

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yup - but if you keep describing evolution as 'chance' then you are clearly only really getting half the concept. The start of the theory of evolution is chance mutation, but that's at best 50% of the way. Describing it as really anything to do with chance is at best a misconception of the whole thing.

Message edited by author 2007-11-28 21:35:32.

11/28/2007 10:24:20 PM · #799

Originally posted by Gordon:

I totally, completely, and utterly disagree. How can you say it's a misconception to say evolution has anything to do with chance? It is the BEDROCK of the theory. To take my car parts analogy a bit further, natural selection could be considered the wheels of the auto. It is what the car uses to move from one place to another. Random mutation is, like I said before, the engine. Without the engine, the wheels are useless. Natural selection cannot exist without random mutation. Random mutation could, plausible, exist without natural selection.

I agree just saying random mutation is the whole story is incomplete to the idea of evolution. Natural selection obviously is part of the idea. But because random mutation is at the very foundation it is irrational to say evolution has nothing to do with chance.