ChatterBank1 min ago
My Science Question On Religion & Spirituality
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Whilst it's true that evolution theory has not been definitively proved (and there are parts of it that I'm uneasy with), that doesn't mean you can just take any old idea based on superstition and give it an equal value. Creationism and Intelligent design are no more scientific theories than are (say) belief in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy.
The insurmountable divide between religion and science is neither a religious nor scientific issue; it is a philosophical question.
Philosophically the issue hinges on the validity of reason in the face of its archenemy faith.
Science, properly implemented, insists on dispensing with preconceived ideas in the pursuit of knowledge about the observable natural world.
Religion starts with a premise for which there is no justifiable hypothesis and attempts to support its claims by latching its �truth� on to the universally recognized value of a scientific approach to gaining knowledge.
Past history is interspersed with instances where new knowledge gained in the practice of scientific exploration into the nature of reality revealed irreconcilable contradictions between this new knowledge and the assertions of religious dogma passed down through millennia as �the unassailable Truth of God�. At every twist and turn the malleability of �God�s Word� has proven a great asset to those who having failed to squelch the purveyors of newly acquired facts, resign themselves to claiming that it was what their scriptures were saying all along. The real problem with this is that ultimately religion provides nothing to the growing knowledge base of humanity except to provide stumbling blocks to those whose only interest is in increasing this most essential and valuable store by virtue of the benefits it provides to the human struggle and evolutionary progress.
My question (for which I believe I have already provided part of the answer) is �Why does religion insist on riding on the coattails of science while simultaneously deriding scientific achievement?�
Philosophically the issue hinges on the validity of reason in the face of its archenemy faith.
Science, properly implemented, insists on dispensing with preconceived ideas in the pursuit of knowledge about the observable natural world.
Religion starts with a premise for which there is no justifiable hypothesis and attempts to support its claims by latching its �truth� on to the universally recognized value of a scientific approach to gaining knowledge.
Past history is interspersed with instances where new knowledge gained in the practice of scientific exploration into the nature of reality revealed irreconcilable contradictions between this new knowledge and the assertions of religious dogma passed down through millennia as �the unassailable Truth of God�. At every twist and turn the malleability of �God�s Word� has proven a great asset to those who having failed to squelch the purveyors of newly acquired facts, resign themselves to claiming that it was what their scriptures were saying all along. The real problem with this is that ultimately religion provides nothing to the growing knowledge base of humanity except to provide stumbling blocks to those whose only interest is in increasing this most essential and valuable store by virtue of the benefits it provides to the human struggle and evolutionary progress.
My question (for which I believe I have already provided part of the answer) is �Why does religion insist on riding on the coattails of science while simultaneously deriding scientific achievement?�
Knowledge has been, is and ever will be by it very nature and the means by which it must be obtained contextual, and limited in scope. As rojash pointed out evolution as a theory will never be a complete statement on the development of life. If you cannot except this than you will never be happy with the degree of knowledge you possess. Neither should anyone be forever totally satisfied with the amount they have so far obtained.
ll-billym - The theory of evolution is hard to prove? No one has done either?
There is an absolute mountain of evidence in support of evolution.... in fact, there are very few theories that have more evidence in its support,with cross discipline support ranging from the fossil record (including many documented instances of transitional forms), molecular biology (DNA mapping), radioisometric data of the rock strata fossils are found in or near,mathematical prediction and so on and so on.
You can see evolution in action every time you hear about drug resistant microbes, or the latest version of the flu or common cold virus.
You can see the effects of evolution every time you look at dog breeds or domesticated animals!
In fact, most organised religions have absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution at all... only those evangelical fundies who are insistent that a literal translation of their particular holy book contains the account of creation have any problems at all, and seek to deny or twist the science to meet their needs.
There is an absolute mountain of evidence in support of evolution.... in fact, there are very few theories that have more evidence in its support,with cross discipline support ranging from the fossil record (including many documented instances of transitional forms), molecular biology (DNA mapping), radioisometric data of the rock strata fossils are found in or near,mathematical prediction and so on and so on.
You can see evolution in action every time you hear about drug resistant microbes, or the latest version of the flu or common cold virus.
You can see the effects of evolution every time you look at dog breeds or domesticated animals!
In fact, most organised religions have absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution at all... only those evangelical fundies who are insistent that a literal translation of their particular holy book contains the account of creation have any problems at all, and seek to deny or twist the science to meet their needs.
Theland - I take it from your question that you are seeking opinion on the relative merits of the science of the sites you mention in your OP.
To precis both sites, Talk Origins was a newsgroup set up in 1994 by mainstream scientists of various disciplines to counter many of the spurious or downright wrong "scientific" claims made in support of creationism.. the idea that the holy book version of the creation of the universe and more specifically life on earth was literally correct.
true origin was set up by creationists as a central resource to attempt to counter the points and rebuttals made by talk origins.
As you probably know Theland, my own view is that the science contained within the talk origins site is better supported by evidence, better supported by qualified individuals, and is an extremely effective counter to some of the wilder creationist claims.
I suspect a readers view of the validity of the science and claims presented on each of the sites will be largely dependant upon how good their scientific training and knowledge is, and of course, their own views on the debate itself.
To precis both sites, Talk Origins was a newsgroup set up in 1994 by mainstream scientists of various disciplines to counter many of the spurious or downright wrong "scientific" claims made in support of creationism.. the idea that the holy book version of the creation of the universe and more specifically life on earth was literally correct.
true origin was set up by creationists as a central resource to attempt to counter the points and rebuttals made by talk origins.
As you probably know Theland, my own view is that the science contained within the talk origins site is better supported by evidence, better supported by qualified individuals, and is an extremely effective counter to some of the wilder creationist claims.
I suspect a readers view of the validity of the science and claims presented on each of the sites will be largely dependant upon how good their scientific training and knowledge is, and of course, their own views on the debate itself.
Having spent a great deal of time in my youth thinking about this question, (yeah I know, China wondering about something she doesn't all together get... unusual eh?) I did end up having a fantastic conversation once with a priest and a scientist (scientist went to same church as the one I was dragged to with my mum).
Anyway, the priest was actually very open to the theory of evolution (as I think most people are as it does seem to have been proved mainly beyond reasonable doubt) and the scientist had an idea that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. He had the idea that although in his head evolution as we know it was pretty much a done deal he maintained that what what made that little cell be attracted to the other little cell in the primative bog where life began is a mystery and that could have been something brought about by a higher deity. I thought he had something of a point.
(If anyone here has ever watched any star trek they may remember one when Picard is taken back to the beginning of creation by something and shown the first two cells ever joining and how they might have missed without a little outside help. I thought that was a great illustration of what the scientist up there ^^^^^ was talking about. Anyway, I digress, sorry).
And finally, I know there has been some arguments in the past about the testing of faith by God... I respond to this as well as he can so I'll leave this one to Bill Hicks....
�Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith." Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "Uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be...******' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA.�
Anyway, the priest was actually very open to the theory of evolution (as I think most people are as it does seem to have been proved mainly beyond reasonable doubt) and the scientist had an idea that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. He had the idea that although in his head evolution as we know it was pretty much a done deal he maintained that what what made that little cell be attracted to the other little cell in the primative bog where life began is a mystery and that could have been something brought about by a higher deity. I thought he had something of a point.
(If anyone here has ever watched any star trek they may remember one when Picard is taken back to the beginning of creation by something and shown the first two cells ever joining and how they might have missed without a little outside help. I thought that was a great illustration of what the scientist up there ^^^^^ was talking about. Anyway, I digress, sorry).
And finally, I know there has been some arguments in the past about the testing of faith by God... I respond to this as well as he can so I'll leave this one to Bill Hicks....
�Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith." Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? "Uh huh." Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be...******' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: "Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha HA.�
I'm not saying I don't believe in a higher form of life, I think I do... I just don't know what you'd call it, God, Budda, Alien, Allah? Who knows? As long as it encourages people to live together in peace then I don't think I really care either.
(Ps: Any chance of Mibn2 and Gunner starting up an open university couse in how to give clear and succint answers to questions... I think I struggle with this!)
(Ps: Any chance of Mibn2 and Gunner starting up an open university couse in how to give clear and succint answers to questions... I think I struggle with this!)
LazyGun, my point is that nobody can prove how life itself came about as evidence from that long ago is impossible to come by. It hasn't been done in a lab and it hasn't happened by accident to anyones knowledge so I cannot see how you can say that it it has been proven.
I for one with my limited knowledge of the subject completely support the theory and, as you say, evidence of species evolving can be seen all around us but without a complete fossil record and the ability to create life ourselves I don't think you can say that the way we "think" it happened can be taken as scientific fact.
It is very easy nowadays to show that the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's that one sorted but until proof of how life started can be shown with this ease then there will always be room for other theories or beliefs.
I for one with my limited knowledge of the subject completely support the theory and, as you say, evidence of species evolving can be seen all around us but without a complete fossil record and the ability to create life ourselves I don't think you can say that the way we "think" it happened can be taken as scientific fact.
It is very easy nowadays to show that the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's that one sorted but until proof of how life started can be shown with this ease then there will always be room for other theories or beliefs.
If I may, the tenor of this debate seems, for the moment, to be somewhat civilized with a chance for a reasoned exchange of viewpoints... so let me offer this... LazyGun offers some direct points that we can discuss. For example, the belief that rocks can be dated by radiometric processes. This process is the determination of age based on the measuring of the decay of various naturally-occurring radioactive materials. However, only igneous rocks, (those formed) during volcanic activity can be so measured. To my knowledge, fossils are not preserved in such formations, but only in sedimentary rocks, which are the results of weathering of the igneous rocks... If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed. (Source: University of Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Geology, author Dr. S.H. Knight)...
Additionally, I'm not aware of even one uncontested transitional form extant in fossil study. There may be some, but I follow this fairly closely. As a student of Geology, I noticed a form of circular reasoning that to this day still troubles me. That is, most sedimentary rock formations are dated by noting the fossils contained therein. But, when asked the age of the fossils, the answer usually is something on the order of "... because of the rocks in which they were discovered...".
Contd
Additionally, I'm not aware of even one uncontested transitional form extant in fossil study. There may be some, but I follow this fairly closely. As a student of Geology, I noticed a form of circular reasoning that to this day still troubles me. That is, most sedimentary rock formations are dated by noting the fossils contained therein. But, when asked the age of the fossils, the answer usually is something on the order of "... because of the rocks in which they were discovered...".
Contd
Contd.
Finally, I would dispute the examples of evolutionary progress such as size, color and variations of dogs (or for that matter, drug resistant bacteria). No matter the variation of the dog, it's still a dog, not a cat or someother species. Same holds true for the samples of bacteria... still the same specie of bacteria, no?
In another thread dawkin and I had a very affable discussion (though no minds were changed, I'm sure) about the famous Peppered Moth controversy in England. I found his/her views interesting and very well presented, but came away with no more confidence in evolution as a viable basis than I had before. At least as described in Darwin's Second Edition here on my desktop...
Finally, I would dispute the examples of evolutionary progress such as size, color and variations of dogs (or for that matter, drug resistant bacteria). No matter the variation of the dog, it's still a dog, not a cat or someother species. Same holds true for the samples of bacteria... still the same specie of bacteria, no?
In another thread dawkin and I had a very affable discussion (though no minds were changed, I'm sure) about the famous Peppered Moth controversy in England. I found his/her views interesting and very well presented, but came away with no more confidence in evolution as a viable basis than I had before. At least as described in Darwin's Second Edition here on my desktop...
Thank you all for your responses.
Clanad makes a very important point, and that is the tone of the responses being civilised, therefore inviting more comment and response.
It is often difficult in the face of what sometimes verges on personal criticism, to feel inclined to post new questions or respond to those of others.
Clanad makes a very important point, and that is the tone of the responses being civilised, therefore inviting more comment and response.
It is often difficult in the face of what sometimes verges on personal criticism, to feel inclined to post new questions or respond to those of others.
I would hope that I have been civilised (but possibly robust!) in all my responses... I don't believe name calling or overly aggressive posts achieve anything positive.
I would like to respond in some detail to clanads post... but I don't have the time at the moment.. I will post later today hopefully.
Billy - To be clear about what we are talking about.... are you talking about science being unable to explain or offer proof of Evolution ( development of organic life), or abiogenesis ( the origin of organic life) ?
Clanad - I think it would be very helpful to have some definitiions we can all agree on, particularly with respect to the somewhat vague term "speciation". Would you care to offer your definition?
I would like to respond in some detail to clanads post... but I don't have the time at the moment.. I will post later today hopefully.
Billy - To be clear about what we are talking about.... are you talking about science being unable to explain or offer proof of Evolution ( development of organic life), or abiogenesis ( the origin of organic life) ?
Clanad - I think it would be very helpful to have some definitiions we can all agree on, particularly with respect to the somewhat vague term "speciation". Would you care to offer your definition?
I must admit didn't know that there was a difference, the question as about "origins", and I suppose I was thinking about "Origin of Species" being evolution all that jazz but seeing as it is now down to semantics I suppose I mean "abiogenesis" is impossible to prove (today) and "evolution" being a very hard thing to prove (today).
It would be very difficult for me to offer an acceptable defininiton of speciation, Lazy Gun, since that has not been agreed upon in almost any sense within the scientific community. Bioligists, especially, can reach a level of redfaced vitriol when arguing their own defintiton. Which has been a point I've tried to make for some time. What constitutes a new species? What do you think? (drestie, where are you?)
Additionally, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the example of diversity in dog (and other animal populations) is designed, is it not? An intelligent designer, human in this case, designed the varities seen. In fact, i've seen results of experiments that conclude if a diverse pack of dogs is left to its own devices, unaided, so to speak, by humans, a return to the original source material will be accomplished in a relatively short time. Sorry, I don't have a reference for you at the moment.
Additionally, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the example of diversity in dog (and other animal populations) is designed, is it not? An intelligent designer, human in this case, designed the varities seen. In fact, i've seen results of experiments that conclude if a diverse pack of dogs is left to its own devices, unaided, so to speak, by humans, a return to the original source material will be accomplished in a relatively short time. Sorry, I don't have a reference for you at the moment.
Finally, II_billym, I would say the idea of abiogenesis has been pretty well discarded, even in evolutionary circles. The experiments of Miller-Urey in 1953 were unsuccessful, by any definition and have been further discounted by the experiments failure (purposefully, in my opinion) to include any Oxygen in the constructed atmosphere for the experiment. Oxygen would destroy any amino acids (the building blocks of life) that might be produced. Oxygen precludes any naturalistic evolutionary origin of life. Yet, as far down as we dig into the Earth's crust, we find oxidized rock, indicating the Earth has always had an oxygen-rich atmosphere. (Source: Philosophy and Naturalism, Vol.II, 1998).
I would hope my presentations are equally as robust, elegant and civil towards all presenters...
I would hope my presentations are equally as robust, elegant and civil towards all presenters...
I'm all for manners but lets have a bit of fire.
Clanad, 'no matter how far we dig down we find evidence of oxygen..'
Early rocks contain fossil prokaryotes that did not require oxygen (these critters still exist today as extremophiles. There is evidence of bacteria type critters in pre-cambrian strata but not "higher" animals that would have required oxygen. These critters only appear after the banded iron formations about 2 bya, which are evidence of an atmosphere rich in oxygen, which was caused by the aforementioned bacteria. The evidence of evolution from simple (bacteria) to complex (jade goody) fits in with the history of the earth's abundance of free oxygen.
Sedimentary rocks are dated by isolating minerals contained in the rock when it was formed (if 2 or more minerals are present that can be radiometrically tested they can be used to cross check the age the rock).
Transitional forms are always contested by someone. Come on, all science is contested by someone. There are abundant transitional forms in the right order in the fossil record with further evidence based on geographic isolation.
Species in sexually reproducing organisms are normally thought of as critters that are able to interbreed successfully. Much of speciation is due to geographic isolation (think plate tectonics) for this reason alone speciation tends to be a time consuming event. But seriously, think about monkeys and apes. The new world monkeys are closer to apes than to old world monkeys both geographically and genetically. Chimps and gorillas are more closely related to each other than to the geographically more remote gibbons; and chimps and bonobos are geographically isolated by the Congo and evolved differently.
If your lucky I may talk about dogs tomorrow.
Clanad, 'no matter how far we dig down we find evidence of oxygen..'
Early rocks contain fossil prokaryotes that did not require oxygen (these critters still exist today as extremophiles. There is evidence of bacteria type critters in pre-cambrian strata but not "higher" animals that would have required oxygen. These critters only appear after the banded iron formations about 2 bya, which are evidence of an atmosphere rich in oxygen, which was caused by the aforementioned bacteria. The evidence of evolution from simple (bacteria) to complex (jade goody) fits in with the history of the earth's abundance of free oxygen.
Sedimentary rocks are dated by isolating minerals contained in the rock when it was formed (if 2 or more minerals are present that can be radiometrically tested they can be used to cross check the age the rock).
Transitional forms are always contested by someone. Come on, all science is contested by someone. There are abundant transitional forms in the right order in the fossil record with further evidence based on geographic isolation.
Species in sexually reproducing organisms are normally thought of as critters that are able to interbreed successfully. Much of speciation is due to geographic isolation (think plate tectonics) for this reason alone speciation tends to be a time consuming event. But seriously, think about monkeys and apes. The new world monkeys are closer to apes than to old world monkeys both geographically and genetically. Chimps and gorillas are more closely related to each other than to the geographically more remote gibbons; and chimps and bonobos are geographically isolated by the Congo and evolved differently.
If your lucky I may talk about dogs tomorrow.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.