I want to go back to this, because it flat isn't true.

I know a lot about creationism. It's still wrong. I know a lot about Nazism. It's still wrong. I know a lot about homeopathy. (Which is different than naturopathy, which does actual have some benefit sometimes that can be proven in double blind studies.) It's still wrong.

Shall I go on? In many cases, it is by learning more about whatever-it-is that I have discovered that I am opposed to things, such as, well, the Moon Hoax people. The more knowledge I accrue, the more wrong the other side is shown to be.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

but doesn't this support my point? new observational data altered the ideas behind thermodynamics, not evolution.
furthermore, evolution was still more of a hypothesis a hundred and fifty years ago rather than a theorey. the time scale problem was a major stumbling block for it. it was when that block was finally removed, in part through what you just described that the strength of the hypothesis was sufficient to elevate it from hypothesis to theorey status.

so, in summation, no. the strength of a religious belief has nothing to do with science. there is no struggle between belief and science because belief is irrelevent. it's the evidence for each side and the ability for the hypotheses to explain that evidence which carry the day. and for the thrid time: it IS that simple.

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

Actually yes and no. No, because Darwin did not alter his theory when observational evidence countered his hypothesis. He, no doubt, was troubled by it, at least enough to call Lord Kelvin an "odious spectre".

And, yes, because the observational evidence eventually pilled-up more and more on the side of the underdog, Darwin (though he was highly popular). It becomes a matter of degree, as I mentioned earlier.

I think it finally took the rediscovery of genetics to win mainstream. Part of the resistance to Darwin's ideas was the attraction other evolutionary theories had on the nascent scientific community. This is not unlike YEC's fondness to a simplistic interpetation of Genesis - it is very attractive if only it were true. When you add faithfulness (duty, honor, etc.) as an ingredient, "resistance is fertile"; it is proud to grow in opposition (for some, not all).

If you mean belief can not contribute evidence to science because it is outside of science, and then there should be no reason for a struggle, then I agree. Yet, the stuggle exists. As long as science contradicts belief, there will be community struggle. Note how it is that which is exoscience that engages the struggle, and rarely the other way around. This is how it should be.

Yes, but how do you define day? That is my point. What day does one capitulate to the evidence? Lord Kelvin's clout and skill with thermodynamics were quite powerful and contributed to Darwin's inefficacy. Yet, Darwin's belief in his own understanding of evolution was greater than the evidence of his day. So, again, yes, it does finally come down to the weight of evidence tipping the scale. Each person has his or her own scale, of course, so, in practice, it is rarely simple.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Same here, it's good to know the enemy. And once you do you know all their tricks.

But the point I am trying to express is that even this very struggle is based on a misunderstanding of what science is capable of and what religion is capable of. The struggle only appears when science and religion attempt to answer the same questions, but science and religion have no business answering the same questions. Questions that are posed in a scientific way, such as "what is the most useful model for understanding the motions of the solar system, where usefulness involves agreement with evidence and ability to make predictions", simply should not be answered using religion. It is a misapplication of religion, and religion has never, not even once, been able to make a successful prediction that is completely outside of a scientific model and was not reverse-engineered after the fact. Religion should instead answer the question "what model of the solar system will I choose to believe in, independently from any evidence for or against, simply because I wish to believe it". Now, clearly this would be a poor use of religion, for why would anyone choose to believe an observationally falsified (scientifically) model, this just seems like a question that should be left to science. But it's still a choice. On the other hand, questions like "why am I here" are completely unanswerable using science (the oft-seen response "for no reason, it's just random" is actually not scientifically supportable, it is a philosophical answer and one may use science to inform one's philosophy but it's still not science. If you think it is science, then answer, what controlled experiment can falsify that conclusion.) Any time there is a struggle between science or religion, one or the other is being used incorrectly.

Slightly tangential interjection: Lord Kelvin attempted to derive an age for the earth by improperly applying correct thermodynamics, although he had no way of knowing that his application was in error. It was, therefore, ideas behind the age of the Earth that were altered, and not any ideas behind thermodynamics.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken G The struggle only appears when science and religion attempt to answer the same questions, but science and religion have no business answering the same questions.

Agreed in general. But even this deserves some attention. Doesn't modern science keep a question mark on all conclusions? Rightfully so, for this allows for improved theories. For example, the question of velocities must be asked before using even Newton's laws.

On the opposing side, there is no question once something is accepted on faith unfeign; it becomes fact to them. Since religion holds it as fact, due to their faith, and science holds it in question, there is trouble waiting right from the start, and science appears the weaker. For someone of faith to begin to question an accepted specific belief, they must allow doubt - the enemy of faith. Often this is seen as a cliff ahead. However, that is not really true. Faith can downshift to hope and reinterpret for the steep climb ahead. Those that can do so, might get over the hill. [Perhaps the stormy seas in the Overlap is a better analogy.]

Quote:

Questions that are posed in a scientific way, such as "what is the most useful model for understanding the motions of the solar system, where usefulness involves agreement with evidence and ability to make predictions", simply should not be answered using religion.

Agreed. But when? 5,000 years ago science, if we assume such might have existed, couldn't spell solar system ('cause the word didn't exist, I presume). Of course, today, essentially everyone has confidence in science on this issue. The “when” for the solar system happened, perhaps, in Galileo’s “day” because of his evidence; as Copernicus’ model was no better than Ptolemy in predictive power, though simpler.

Of course, your point, I think, would demonstrate how religion would have been wise to let science from Copernicus in the door; hind sight makes that one easy. The “when” is still tougher for religion, in certain instances, compared to science. Where do we ask religion to place their trust? It becomes a matter of comparative strengths of scripture to the merits of the scientific theory. Understanding completely the merits of both can be very difficult, especially for those in religion uneducated in science.

Quote:

… religion has never, not even once, been able to make a successful prediction that is completely outside of a scientific model and was not reverse-engineered after the fact.

There are a few isolated cases where the scripture pointed a scientist in the right direction, but this was more coincidence than predictive power, IIRC. Perhaps, the dietary commands might be argued due to their benefit for the people on their road trip, but this doesn't change the validity of your argument, IMO. [Yet, there is one religious theory on an obscure table which does make two predictions: stellar flashes and watery looking disks (we won’t go there; he’s exceptional, IMHumbleO. ).]

Quote:

.. why would anyone choose to believe an observationally falsified (scientifically) model.

When in the overlap, where science impacts religion, for some, faith trumps theory. They already know the truth and science just hasn’t gotten there yet. Of course, the better approach is the down-shifting to the level of hope which allows for a much more open analysis of both the scientific and religious evidence. The addition of science integrated into the religious context could produce a superior interpretation (literal or allegorical). The end result is often more glorious to their view of God. It’s happened before: omnipotence is greater in a 200 billion galaxy universe vs. a single milky something or other?

Quote:

On the other hand, questions like "why am I here" are completely unanswerable using science (the oft-seen response "for no reason, it's just random" is actually not scientifically supportable, it is a philosophical answer and one may use science to inform one's philosophy but it's still not science.

Yes. This area is not in the overlap. I see three regions of importance: a region of science which has no impact on religion, a region of science that does impact religion, a region beyond the constraints of science (i.e. religion and philosophy). The second is simply the overlap, though some, in the past, seemed objectionable to this idea.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Yes. I recall reading that it was worded even more carefully by the conference speaker who presented the radioactivity corrections to Kelvin's calculations, as he noted Kelvin staring at him intently. For some reason, the emphasis was on just how competent those original thermodynamics calculations were.

While were on this, it is also noteworthy that Kelvin's early calculations placed the Earth's age at about 100 million years. Later, as new temperature data arrived from deeper mines, he refined it to about 20 million years. So, the news only worsened for Darwin with time.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I'm pretty sure that's not true. I mean, Copernicus' model gave a reason for epicycles, which Ptolemy did not; they just happened.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I think I see your point. Ptolemy could not explain the reason for his additions to Aristotle's model, whereas, Copernicus model reasoned them away. The simpler model, per Ocham's Razor, suggests superiortiy, (which is why I mentioned it).

The most troubling issue for Copernicus was, likley, the lack of parallax. Stars were observed to be fixed. So, there were reasons to argue for and against Copernicus. Galileo, however, had enough to easily tip the scale.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Yes, scientific answers have question marks, levels of precision, etc. But faith also has question marks-- faith can be altered, or lost. No answers are final, they are works in progress, that is because all answers are human endeavors (whether inspired or calculated, answers are generated by people).

When science is ready. The idea that a question is a religious one until science can address it is a doomed way to apply religion, and is all too often done. This is how religion paints itself into a corner and gets defensive-- it loses track of its own purpose, and tries to do things that, quite frankly, it is lousy at. Solar system models were always the domain of science, even when there was no science capable of doing it. They should have just said "until science reveals an effective model, we shall imagine the solar system is this way, but it is not a crucial piece of our faith". Imagine how easily European religions would have sailed through the scientific revolution had they merely adopted that stance. I think Eastern religions have this worked out much better, which is why you don't hear about turmoil between science and Buddhism, for example (or I know very little about such turmoil if it exists).
And this is precisely the doomed perspective of which I speak. It is just like people who predict the end of the world on a given date, using their religion. They are misapplying their own faith, and such people have always been shown wrong and will always be (unless they have a finger on "the button", heaven help us.) Religion is lousy at making testable predictions, that is what science is extraordinarily good at and should be left to science.

I agree, this starts with recognizing which questions are best left to each endeavor, and which answers are objective versus subjective. This is the real source of the problem, not any of the details of what science says or which religion is used. Unfortunately, most are very far from making this realization in the current arena.

Indeed, I have always wondered why the integration of science and religion, on a personal level, is not done with the simple acceptance of the idea that God (as defined by the individual) created science as the means for humans to learn about the things that are objective, and religion has no business trying to "leapfrog" that careful slow process.

That, and an atmosphere that did not indicate the Earth whizzing around.

The explanation for that had to await Newton, I think.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Perhaps, all answers from human endeavors are not final, would be more apt. But answers from a creator would be different. This is where differences are most distinct for many. Inspiried means "God breathed", truth from Him could be as final as it could ever be imagined, though the infinite is not always required for finality.

If science has no answers, and answers are needed, relilgion might be their only harbor in a storm, especially if it offers the correct direction. Once science can offer direction, it should be considered openly, though it is not welcomed, regretfully, by some who are closed minded for whatever motive.

Yes. If they would have considered where they got solar system models and what little religious grounds they had to support their own, much suffering would have been avoided.

Even Judaism is more open. Interestngly, Christians promoted evolution in India to Hindus to help open doors of understanding for their own cause. I believe Spencer was first more popular, though.

Some of this may not even be religion, but a ruse instead for obvious personal gains or mental excitement. Is there a BadReligion.com?

Maybe, but it wouldn't surprise me if some ancient Greek didn't have it solved.

Do we have a thread that lists the arguments for both the days of Copernicus and Galileo?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Ah, but who decides what is inspired by the creator, and what is just the ramblings of an insane person? There's your human endeavor right there. And what language is used? A human one-- another human endeavor, no? There's no escaping the human element, even by invoking the presence of a creator.

When a correct direction is offered, it is because some element of the scientific method was employed. The answer has to make sense in terms of what is experienced-- it has to conform to experiments. The scientific method is applied automatically by each of us every day, even if we are not doing scientific research. To find an answer that did not come from science, you would need to find something that made no logical sense at all but was accepted on faith-- but then how can it be said that is is the correct direction? You can only have faith in that, or it's science. It might be good science or bad science, but as soon as it is not pure faith, it is not pure religion either.

Good point. Ultimately, it is the individual who must decide. Many, perhaps nearly all, have personal religious experiences giving them assurances of their faith. Can science test these? Well, hopefully, science and religion can for the truly insane. But, for the most part, it is outside the purview of science.

But your point also addresses the need for a more concrete foundation, as religious experiences vary. For most Christians, it is the Bible. This allows them to test their experiences. Now we're back to scriptural interpretation. Science must be allowed to play its part in that interpretation, because direct divine interventions aren't happening. Evolution and astronomy must be part of the interpretation process for Genesis.

Selfless love makes sense independent of science. But your point is a good one, for how much selfless love is correct? An inspired document, not necessarily inerrant, is the answer for most Christians. Once they see a clear direction, it is hard for science to change it. Nevertheless, interpretation is still required and they should see science as a further blessing to help them see ahead, especially since science has a telescope.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I agree. Just as what is Caeser's should be left to Caeser, to quote a particular religious perspective, so should what is science's be left to science.

This is a nice way to get the message across.

I think it woud be...
Render therefore unto Science that which is science; and to God that which is God's.

[I'll not mention how the author was treated by the religious authorities of his day. The Overlap wil remain turbulent.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Hi Folks,
I just discovered this thread, so am getting in late and haven't read it all. Anyway, my 2 cents worth:
1. evolution is about how we got from A to B.
2. creation is about where A came from.
and I would add:
3. catastrophism is about how some of the steps between A and B happened suddenly, e.g. mutations.

It seems to me to be logical that all three happen/happened.

As far as 2. Stephen Hawking says this area is beyond science. We can't explain the origin of the universe, "it just is". That's his take. Everyone's take on where we came from really boils down to their individual faith, including saying "I don't know".
TomT

Works for me, TomT. How 'bout you, worzel?

ok i wonder what the hell religon even is or where it came from science is the only way we have to truely explain life and its origons unless you belive in fairytayles 6 million year old humonoid found religon 2000 years old carbon dating proves 6 million year old human no proof of any religion if there is please feel free to enlighten me and ill enlighten you about the facts of life on earth

Now there's some sophisticated scientific thinking, I'll tell ya.

You may wish to read up on Carbon dating and calm down a little.

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

(I do more or less agree with you, by the way, just pointing out that we can all use a little enlightening once in a while.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Well, we have the "creation" of the universe, then there's the "creation" of life on earth, which happened roughly 8 billion years after the universe appeared. The word "creation" could be entirely wrong, though, since it implies some external force at work, which may not be necessary. Currently, the answers to how these two things started are "beyond (the understanding of) science," but nothing says things have to stay this way. Stuart Kauffman has taken a large step toward the understanding of how life could have got started given an adequate diversity of molecules. And science has been getting closer and closer to understanding "the first threee minutes" after the big bang. A recent book I read said scientists were fairly certain about what was going on just one second after the big bang - and this is not from speculation but from observation and inventory of what we see around us today - the abundances of the elements, the microwave background, etc.

Depends on what you mean by "creation."

Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened -- the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the greatest mystery we know. That it happened is reasonably clear. - Carl Sagan

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

The operative word there is "after". This is the very nature of science-- it has never been a theory of causes, it is a method to determine the effects of a cause. By way of evidence, I offer the fundamental equations of physics. If the Big Bang ever becomes an effect of some other cause, it merely pushes the question back one level. Personal philosophy, in whatever form chosen, is the only way to close the chain, or one can simply let the mystery be, but there is no scientific evidence that science will ever answer this question definitively.