The Co-existence of Science and Theology

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/15/2007 04:04:53 PM · #301

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

Why??????

Louis

Nikon D800

11/15/2007 04:06:12 PM · #302

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

Why??????

Because.

11/15/2007 04:10:29 PM · #303

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I, like ANY scientist strives for the truth. If something is shown to be different, proven to me, I will accept it until a better theory is revealed. If Evolution is proven wrong, I honestly wouldn't care, because it would have to be replaced by another robust theory. I don't think thatâ��s going to happen mind you...

Ahh. Your clever, young man, very clever, but it's (robust) theories all the way down.

That's absolutely correct!

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts."

Thus, robust scientific theories are also known as facts... all the way down. Very good, Ron.

I did what the link suggested and saw "scientific method". I found this:

"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results.

What repeatable, experimental studies have been conducted to support the theory of evolution ( which theory emcompasses both micro- and macro- evolution )?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/15/2007 04:15:38 PM · #304

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

Why??????

Because.

Ahhh. That explains it. The validity of scientific research is in the eye of the beholder. Or...Your better facts are better than their better facts, making your almost proven theory more better than theirs.

Q: When is a scientist not a reputable scientist?
A: When their conclusions don't agree with the conclusions of a consensus of other scientists ( whether reputable or not ).

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/15/2007 04:17:25 PM · #305

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Like I said - The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovable, the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Yeah, you said it, but that doesn't make it true. When scientific conclusions are disproven, they are abandoned (geocentrism, phlogiston theory, etc.). Macroevolution has not been disproven (or shown to be unprovable) and offers the best explanation for available evidence. 2000 years ago you might have claimed that heliocentrism was unprovable, but that wouldn't make it so.

I erred, admittedly. My fingers got ahead of me. I should have said

The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovEN ( not unprovABLE ), the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

The problem is that proof is not absolute yes or no, it's varying degrees of certainty.

The creationists simply set the bar of certainty beyond the current scientific knowledge and claim that evolution is unproven/unprovable. This is the same logic used, successfully I might add, for years by the tobacco companies to claim that it was unproven that smoking tobacco causes cancer.

Then, in the same breath, the creationists claim that creationism must be the truth because, regardless of any facts to the contrary, it's in the Bible.

It's amazing how the level of certainty required for acceptance of a theory changes based on how that theory agrees with someone's dogma.

Those of you who are creationists; do you also smoke?

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 16:18:29.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/15/2007 04:17:46 PM · #306

Originally posted by RonB:

"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results.

What repeatable, experimental studies have been conducted to support the theory of evolution ( which theory emcompasses both micro- and macro- evolution )?

You must have missed Cheeky's earlier link. Here ya go.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/15/2007 04:25:07 PM · #307

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Originally posted by RonB:

The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovEN ( not unprovABLE ), the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

I AM actually a scientist, so Iâ��m fairly well positioned to answer this.

Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

Do any of the scientists you mention support the view that the Earth came into existence a literal 6000 or so years ago?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/15/2007 04:25:48 PM · #308

Originally posted by RonB:

Q: When is a scientist not a reputable scientist?

A: When he doesn't rely upon basic scientific method.

"Critics emphasize that creation science fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events."

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 16:26:15.

Louis

Nikon D800

11/15/2007 04:25:52 PM · #309

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

Why??????

Because.

Ahhh. That explains it. The validity of scientific research is in the eye of the beholder. Or...Your better facts are better than their better facts, making your almost proven theory more better than theirs.

Uh... no. Their theory is no theory at all. It's not even science. It's been discredited as science over and over and over again. If they claim to be scientists based on their acceptance of pseudo-science, I'm afraid they are no scientists at all, and thus, cheeky becomes best qualified to answer all your scientific questions (at a bargain rate of free!).

Originally posted by RonB:

Q: When is a scientist not a reputable scientist?

Easy. When they accept unprovable, untenable fantasy over empirical data.

Originally posted by RonB:

A: When their conclusions don't agree with the conclusions of a consensus of other scientists ( whether reputable or not ).

If you're suggesting that your creationist "scientists" are more reputable than those who've done actual work of theorizing and building on the base of decades of empirical data, because they simply have said "No! Nyah-nyah-nyah!", instead of offering real scientific data as a counter to that offered by evolutionary theory, then there's more work to be done on ya than I'd thought.

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 16:28:52.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/15/2007 04:41:34 PM · #310

Originally posted by RonB:

Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

I don't put much stock in appeals to authority. If their work is credible, it is credible, not just because they have letters after their name.

Dr Gordon McGregor B.Eng (Hons) M.Sc. CCDSP Ph.D. MIEEE MIEE

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/15/2007 05:07:40 PM · #311

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/15/2007 05:19:30 PM · #312

Originally posted by Gordon:

Nor do I. That's why I am unimpressed by appeals to the Pope and his views on evolution.

I did not include their designations as an appeal to authority, only as evidence that they were individuals who had met the level of education and demonstrated the disciplines required to obtain such designations.

I do appreciate the reference to the credibility of their work based on its own merits. I think that is a fair response. I wish that some of the other posters in this thread saw it that way, instead of refusing to consider the credibility of the work merely because of the persons ideology.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

11/15/2007 05:26:31 PM · #313

Originally posted by jhonan:

There's something being stepped around here, and I think it's important to the debate. And that's the concept of death.

Theists believe that there is an afterlife, they have a soul, that there is a creator who they will return to when they die. Whereas Nontheists are facing up to the idea that when they die it's 'game over'; they lose consciousness, their brain dies, and they cease to exist.

My question to both groups is this; Does the concept of 'game over' dying frighten you? And does your fear or acceptance of this concept reinforce your beliefs?

I'm not sure which group you would put me into. I believe that the Universe is a single intelligent system and that, as humans, we are a simple manifestation of its energy operating on a particular vibrational frequency. I believe that these bodies we currently inhabit are groupings of energy forces collected for whatever purpose the soul energies have designated and when disposed of will be recycled for use by another entity.

I'm not afraid of death because I believe my soul is part of the larger whole and my intelligence will continue on its journey to the next manifestation, whether it be on this plane of reality or another.

milo655321

Nikon D70

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

11/15/2007 06:04:58 PM · #314

Originally posted by RonB:

I do appreciate the reference to the credibility of their work based on its own merits. I think that is a fair response. I wish that some of the other posters in this thread saw it that way, instead of refusing to consider the credibility of the work merely because of the persons ideology.

When the gentlemen you mentioned see fit to publish in the professional journals using â��creation theoryâ��, then there will finally be some work for the professional scientific community to examine. In the meantime, Christians can and do perform scientific research and publish to the professional journals, creationists donâ��t. Hereâ��s a link to a professional organization of geologists who are Christians and accept the evidence for an earth that is billions of years old.

Apple iPhone 5

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

11/15/2007 06:18:34 PM · #315

Originally posted by rox_rox:

I hate categorising people... but Pantheist perhaps? - Either way it's a subset of Theism.

Originally posted by rox_rox:

I'm not afraid of death because I believe my soul is part of the larger whole and my intelligence will continue on its journey to the next manifestation, whether it be on this plane of reality or another.

Well, would you be afraid of the concept (or can you visualise) a death where you become unconscious, die, and cease to exist? - Or do you find this thought frightening?

What I'm trying to establish is if Theists hold these beliefs because they cannot imagine dying and ceasing to exist. The belief in some form of afterlife is comforting, and an important part of their psyche.

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

11/15/2007 06:19:41 PM · #316

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by RonB:
I do appreciate the reference to the credibility of their work based on its own merits. I think that is a fair response. I wish that some of the other posters in this thread saw it that way, instead of refusing to consider the credibility of the work merely because of the persons ideology.

When the gentlemen you mentioned see fit to publish in the professional journals using â��creation theoryâ��, then there will finally be some work for the professional scientific community to examine. In the meantime, Christians can and do perform scientific research and publish to the professional journals, creationists donâ��t. Hereâ��s a link to a professional organization of geologists who are Christians and accept the evidence for an earth that is billions of years old.

It's a catch-22. If a scientific paper even hints at creationism, or a creationist hypothesis ( e.g. young earth, worldwide flood ) it will be rejected by the journals regardless of the evidence because it represents ( in their minds ) non-science. It's only if a paper AVOIDs supporting a theistic world view and SUPPORTs the non-theistic world view that publication is possible. Literaly thousands of papers have been submitted and have never even gotten to the stage of peer review, because the editors of the scientific journals act as gatekeepers. THAT is one of the reasons that the internet has become so popular - it cannot be censored in the same manner.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/15/2007 06:25:59 PM · #317

Originally posted by Louis:

Because.

Because????

From Wikipedia: Creation science is a movement which attempts to provide scientific corroboration for divine intervention in the creation of the world. [1] [2] Its most vocal proponents are Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the United States. They seek scientific explanations which would confirm the historicity of a literal interpretation of the creation and other events as described in the Bible's Book of Genesis, and to mount a challenge against science's Darwinian theory of evolution.

You *DO* know Wikipedia is just exactly what the you guys are talking about when you diss the Bible.....

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on some 9,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. As of today, there are 2,091,508 articles in English; every day hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia."

So what's to say someone can't just insert their pet theory?

I'm really surprised to see this used as a reference.....I like it, but I use all the links to corroborate what I'm looking to find, not as the point of reference itself.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/15/2007 06:36:58 PM · #318

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by rox_rox:
I'm not sure which group you would put me into. I believe that the Universe is a single intelligent system and that, as humans, we are a simple manifestation of its energy operating on a particular vibrational frequency.

I hate categorising people... but Pantheist perhaps? - Either way it's a subset of Theism.

Sure. I'd never tried to categorize my perspective, but that seems to do it justice.

Originally posted by rox_rox:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Well, would you be afraid of the concept (or can you visualise) a death where you become unconscious, die, and cease to exist? - Or do you find this thought frightening?

Depending upon how you interpret it: I've experienced personal evidence which proves to me that this is not the case; or I have been so deceived by my senses as to believe that this is not the case. In either instance, I have no fear of what comes after my physical form ceases to be. My concerns are that I have not fulfilled the purpose that brings me here; and that others who don't see it the way I do may be deeply saddened by my departure.

Originally posted by jhonan:

What I'm trying to establish is if Theists hold these beliefs because they cannot imagine dying and ceasing to exist. The belief in some form of afterlife is comforting, and an important part of their psyche.

I've often wondered that, myself. That could be a part of it, but I think it's more complex than that.

zxaar

11/15/2007 06:52:48 PM · #319

Here is my view as a hindu. Whatever written in bible (or any other religion's book) is wrong, and whatever our hindu books say is the truth. This is my adamant view and there is nothing anyone could say would change my mind about it. (and yes like bible, we also have some sporadic proofs about what is written in hindu books, and there are large number of hindus in this world, so it does carry some weight).

By the logic that since it is written in holy books, whatever others say is wrong, I think I am only correct one here.

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 18:53:46.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

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

11/15/2007 06:53:20 PM · #320

Originally posted by milo655321:

This seems to me to be an important distinction, which gives me a whole different take on my original thought.

There do seem to be some believers in God here that seem to have no trouble with evolution, but the creation thing seems to stick in the craw of most people who think in a linear manner.

Ron, the more I'm around, the more I want to understand how you reconcile your faith, and your heart, with what seems to be a reasonable and inteligent brain.

Am I to understand that you actually pretty much discount everything that the scientific community has discovered about this earth that extends back past that magic 4-6000 year mark?

I promise not to be rude, or insensitive.......personally I have passed some kind of threshold, especially after Louis's comment about "Creationism, as it turns out, is a dangerous affront to reason. It absolutely must be confronted where it is found,". I just don't feel that way in the most minute fashion. That's way too hardline for me......I'm too comfortable in my world to see a threat like that from someone's beliefs. (Disclaimer for aggressive extremists who kill in the name of their God.)

If you want to believe in blue bumblebees, you go right ahead......that's your right, and I respect that. What I am, and perhaps I should have been paying closer attention, is curious as to how you would suggest that I fill in the blanks with some explanation that I, as a stated skeptic, can swallow in the way of evidence that may sway my held beliefs.

I will state that I, like Shannon and perhaps one or two others have said, will jump ship on my theories if I can grab onto something that works in my mind.

I know that sounds like a lot of qualification, but it took me 48 years, a lot of soul-searching, a quest for spirituality, and what was looking like confronting my own demise if I didn't change my path to get to the faith and spirituality that I have now.

I've pretty much stayed out of the, "Oh yeah? Well what about this detail?" discussion, 'cause in the first place, I'm not that knowledgeable about a lot of what's been said in detail, but I also *do* accept most of what science has shown me. I don't have to dig the fossils out of the ground myself, though I have, to believe that they're there, but can you tell me what they're all about if they didn't take eons to be produced?

I don't have any problem at all with my God having been there forever, but I also think he just kicked the evolutionary train to a start in the primordial ooze, and stood back and watched. I just cannot fathom the literal creation.

What my question is after all this lead in......do I have to make a great big leap of faith and disallow everything I've learned about natural history, and take it all on faith?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

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

11/15/2007 06:58:47 PM · #321

Originally posted by zxaar:

Here's where I am with any and all sects that state that they're "righter" than the rest of God's children.

What if you're wrong?

And if you're not, does everyone else go to Hell?

All the Popes, the saints, the martyrs?

Were they all deluded and the good and decent lives that they led as believers were all for nothing?

I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every living thing.

What they do with it from there, well......but no saints from Christianity, and certainly not Mother Theresa, and a jillion Hindus are all gonna burn 'cause the Jews are "The Chosen". How could a good and decent God do such a thing?

zxaar

11/15/2007 07:02:13 PM · #322

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by zxaar:
Here is my view as a hindu. Whatever written in bible (or any other religion's book) is wrong, and whatever our hindu books say is the truth. This is my adamant view and there is nothing anyone could say would change my mind about it. (and yes like bible, we also have some sporadic proofs about what is written in hindu books, and there are large number of hindus in this world, so it does carry some weight).

By the logic that since it is written in holy books, whatever others say is wrong, I think I am only correct one here.

Here's where I am with any and all sects that state that they're "righter" than the rest of God's children.

What if you're wrong?

And if you're not, does everyone else go to Hell?

All the Popes, the saints, the martyrs?

Were they all deluded and the good and decent lives that they led as believers were all for nothing?

I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every living thing.

What they do with it from there, well......but no saints from Christianity, and certainly not Mother Theresa, and a jillion Hindus are all gonna burn 'cause the Jews are "The Chosen". How could a good and decent God do such a thing?

that was not argument in favour of hinduism or any religion.
My point was that if we have to believe in holy books, the truth changes with the reference frame. The truth according to hindu books is different than bible.
And the truth will vary if you look through kuran.
But the truth being the truth should not vary.
Science is science whether we are hindu muslim or Christian.

This whole thing is missed in this discussion. Mainly because most of you are Chritstians.

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 19:03:19.

11/15/2007 07:12:09 PM · #323

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm really surprised to see [Wikipedia] used as a reference.....I like it, but I use all the links to corroborate what I'm looking to find, not as the point of reference itself.

;-)

Just a matter of convenience for this informal discussion. It's easier to find concise references on a variety of topics there than digging through a pile of Google links. It's certainly possible (even likely) that some text could contain inaccuracies, but this isn't a scientific journal or master's thesis. If I doubted something quoted from Wikipedia, I'd simply check other sources for corroboration rather than relying on one text as gospel (pun intended). I would encourage others to do the same.

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 19:22:13.