Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.

As someone who grew up in a very Christian house and went to private Christian schools my whole life, this statement is not often far from the truth.

Many of the older generation of Christians think that science and God are enemies, which of course makes it sound like God is somehow threatened by science or fears it might disprove him, which indeed would be selling God short.

And like I said earlier, proving evolution would not disprove God. God very well may have initiated evolution into rolling along. Do we as humans view it as the most direct way of doing things when God can just as easily think things in and out of existence? No, but then we as humans shouldn't pretend to know how God thinks at all as we are in fact NOT omniscient.

So for the hardcore creationists, don't get offended at the idea that God may have used evolution as a means of rather indirect creation. You don't know either way, nor does anyone else on the planet.

I maintain that I've not seen enough evidence personally to convince me that evolution is the end all answer to our origin.

So let's all play nice and not pretend like we know what God(even if you don't believe He exists) is thinking behind any decision He makes. Generally in this day anyone claiming to know how God thinks, and therefore speaks(or acts in the case of some fanatics) directly on his behalf gets thrown in a loony bin. Westboro claim to know what God thinks, and look how well that's going for them.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

Yes..and I remember reading in my science textbooks about how the speed of light is constant, and abiogenesis was real. But lo and behold it turns out that both of those concepts may as well have written by GRR Martin. <---see what I did there?

GG

That is the great thing about science, as we learn more about the universe, we incorporate that advancement into how we explain the universe. Things that dont fit the observations are altered so they explain what is seen or new explanations are developed and tested to make sure they explain what is observed as accurately as possible. And the great thing is all this is published and reviewed and testable and repeatable.

The exact reverse of religion, especially fundamentalist sects which warp the world to fit what they want it to be.

So lets see...10 years ago, you were an idiot and had a narrow view if you doubted some current theory that was popular. But now that it turns out that the idiots were right, we just call it scientific progress and hand waive the fact that we insulted a group of people. Yeah that about sums it up.

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Whether God understands science is neither here nor there. What I am saying is that fundamentalists Christians sell God short by assigning to him their own narrow understanding and hostile attitude toward science.

As someone who grew up in a very Christian house and went to private Christian schools my whole life, this statement is not often far from the truth.

Many of the older generation of Christians think that science and God are enemies, which of course makes it sound like God is somehow threatened by science or fears it might disprove him, which indeed would be selling God short.

And like I said earlier, proving evolution would not disprove God. God very well may have initiated evolution into rolling along. Do we as humans view it as the most direct way of doing things when God can just as easily think things in and out of existence? No, but then we as humans shouldn't pretend to know how God thinks at all as we are in fact NOT omniscient.

So for the hardcore creationists, don't get offended at the idea that God may have used evolution as a means of rather indirect creation. You don't know either way, nor does anyone else on the planet.

I maintain that I've not seen enough evidence personally to convince me that evolution is the end all answer to our origin.

So let's all play nice and not pretend like we know what God(even if you don't believe He exists) is thinking behind any decision He makes. Generally in this day anyone claiming to know how God thinks, and therefore speaks(or acts in the case of some fanatics) directly on his behalf gets thrown in a loony bin. Westboro claim to know what God thinks, and look how well that's going for them.

I'm pretty much with you there Aarethen..I used to be pretty hard core against evolution on these boards as some of the Dakka members can remember, but when I started researching the stuff really hard, it became quite apparent that some of the creation scientists were overzealous in their efforts to refute evolution(read-- made stuff up). So I have learned to try and throw the bathwater out, while retaining the baby. I don't always succeed.

GG

I can't comment on every theory in existance 10 years ago, but I would not suggest blindly believing every theory you hear. However I don't recall science descibing certain groups as 'idiots' or splitting into different factions because someone discovered that under some conditions the speed of light is variable (and I'm no scientific historian but wasn't that known more than 10 years ago?).

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I can't comment on every theory in existance 10 years ago, but I would not suggest blindly believing every theory you hear. However I don't recall science descibing certain groups as 'idiots' or splitting into different factions because someone discovered that under some conditions the speed of light is variable (and I'm no scientific historian but wasn't that known more than 10 years ago?).

Silver..my point is that 10-15-100 yrs ago or whatever ago it was,scientists(and non scientist laymen types) pushed a certain theory as though it were fact. And if someone tried to claim disbelief...they might be ridiculed as being a maroon, or buffoon for questioning the almighty scientific thought.

It still goes on today..look at this thread for examples of it.

Todays scientific truth may turn out to be tomorrows scientific law or it may turn out to be tomorrows scientific "oops".

My point is that I'm not against science, I'm against scientific snobbery.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:


So lets see...10 years ago, you were an idiot and had a narrow view if you doubted some current theory that was popular. But now that it turns out that the idiots were right, we just call it scientific progress and hand waive the fact that we insulted a group of people. Yeah that about sums it up.

GG

Are you simply hostile to the idea of expanding knowledge? It seems like you dislike the idea that our understanding of the world might be imperfect, yet improved.

Yes, theories were less correct before, and are (hopefully and usually) more correct now. How is that insulting to anybody?

Ive always tried to sort out my views on religion and never really got a grasp on it. My mother and grandparents have always been very religious, whereas my dad is of a very... Shall we say, practical mindset.

Personally, I'm actually scientifically inclined, got a degree in biochemistry saying so.

So, ive got this sort of quarter formed analogy that I occasionally ponder about when I can't sleep.

"So maybe life, the universe, everything actually is a crap shoot, but who is throwing the dice? And who is to say that, sometimes the dice aren't weighted one way or another?"

I then have another thought that also sort of touches on what Grog is saying. Maybe, if there is a god/creator/what-have-you, maybe s/he/it set up the uni/multi verse as a grand example of procedural generation and maybe he has super admin rights allowing him to fiddle with things as and when, allowing there to be rules (eg evolution), yet still keeping that little hand in of wonder.

Then there's a question of, is a miracle done by 'natural' means any less of a miracle? For example, a common thing about the feeding the 5000 was that Jesus was just such an awesome, inspiring bloke that people started taking out wee bits of food they had stashed away - I usually carry around a bag of sweets with me in my jacket pocket - and shared them amongst everyone.

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


So lets see...10 years ago, you were an idiot and had a narrow view if you doubted some current theory that was popular. But now that it turns out that the idiots were right, we just call it scientific progress and hand waive the fact that we insulted a group of people. Yeah that about sums it up.

GG

Are you simply hostile to the idea of expanding knowledge? It seems like you dislike the idea that our understanding of the world might be imperfect, yet improved.

Yes, theories were less correct before, and are (hopefully and usually) more correct now. How is that insulting to anybody?

Comeon Polonius you're a smart dude, not sure why you asked me that question? As a lawyer you should know better than to misrepresent my statement. Unless that was your intent?

Where did I say that theories and or the advancement of scientific knowledge were insulting?

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and answer you, by saying that it is insulting to "knee jerk" and call people narrow minded or backwards when they question certain scientific concepts. Even if they are concepts that seem to be scientific fact.

GG

No one minds the questioning of scientific concepts it's how science works and advances.

The problem is misinformed people not questions but calling bs on and being venomously againstsomething they don't understand because it hurts their world view.

Most people who I have heard try arguing against the theory of evolution don't understand it and also don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was under the impression that every example of "irreducible complexity" that had been advanced by "intelligent design" proponents had been resolved in favour of evolution.

That of course does not "prove" evolution.

Yes, "irreducible complexity" has been roundly dismissed as nothing more than another God of the gaps argument. Michael Behe (and by extension the entire intelligent design movement) was humiliated during his cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005. Here are some highlights:

"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."

What Judge Jones said about intelligent design pretty much sums up the entire "movement":

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

 Aerethan wrote:
My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.

I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other. And while many Christians (and more loudly fanatics claiming to be Christians) might preach creationism as fact, it is actually faith. And until you can prove 100% that there is no God, then you cannot discount it as a possibility(I hear you evolutionists love probability and possibility).

I don't push my beliefs on others. But I will take the wind out of someones sails if they insist on trying to do the same to me.

For all I know as fact, I could be wrong just as much as right. But please let's not all go around acting like we know every secret of the universe and how it came about.

And the "Christian God" is not the only form of intelligent design that has been discussed. Ben Stein had a good documentary a few years back on Netflix about it.

Evolution is not at all "inconclusive" and is, in fact, very well understood. There aren't a "ton of new questions" for every one question answered, and if there was it wouldn't matter, that is how science works. The theory of evolution has passed the rigors of scientific testing for the past 150 years; it is testable and falsifiable. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in biology, it is merely a re-branding of the an argument from ignorance fallacy and has been soundly dismissed as such. Belief in god is inconsequential to evolution; it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of whether you believe god had anything to do with it.

Oh, that Ben Stein "documentary" (and I use that term very loosely) is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and is merely propaganda hogwash at its finest. It is intellectually dishonest and rife with misrepresentation of facts (evolution caused the Holocaust?). It is no better than the sorry excuse for a documentary, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, that Fox put out in 2001. God has everything to do with intelligent design (see the wedge strategy) and is nothing more that neo-creationism trying to be passed off as real science.

As far as I know, isn't evolution not a theory, but an established and observable fact? Aren't the theories based around how evolution actually works (ie, natural selection, sexual selection, etc.)?

This does NLT surprise me. Then again, I go to highschool with a girl who does not beliehe in dinosaurs...

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was under the impression that every example of "irreducible complexity" that had been advanced by "intelligent design" proponents had been resolved in favour of evolution.

That of course does not "prove" evolution.

Yes, "irreducible complexity" has been roundly dismissed as nothing more than another God of the gaps argument. Michael Behe (and by extension the entire intelligent design movement) was humiliated during his cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005. Here are some highlights:

"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."

What Judge Jones said about intelligent design pretty much sums up the entire "movement":

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

 Aerethan wrote:
My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.

I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other. And while many Christians (and more loudly fanatics claiming to be Christians) might preach creationism as fact, it is actually faith. And until you can prove 100% that there is no God, then you cannot discount it as a possibility(I hear you evolutionists love probability and possibility).

I don't push my beliefs on others. But I will take the wind out of someones sails if they insist on trying to do the same to me.

For all I know as fact, I could be wrong just as much as right. But please let's not all go around acting like we know every secret of the universe and how it came about.

And the "Christian God" is not the only form of intelligent design that has been discussed. Ben Stein had a good documentary a few years back on Netflix about it.

Evolution is not at all "inconclusive" and is, in fact, very well understood. There aren't a "ton of new questions" for every one question answered, and if there was it wouldn't matter, that is how science works. The theory of evolution has passed the rigors of scientific testing for the past 150 years; it is testable and falsifiable. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in biology, it is merely a re-branding of the an argument from ignorance fallacy and has been soundly dismissed as such. Belief in god is inconsequential to evolution; it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of whether you believe god had anything to do with it.

Oh, that Ben Stein "documentary" (and I use that term very loosely) is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and is merely propaganda hogwash at its finest. It is intellectually dishonest and rife with misrepresentation of facts (evolution caused the Holocaust?). It is no better than the sorry excuse for a documentary, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, that Fox put out in 2001. God has everything to do with intelligent design (see the wedge strategy) and is nothing more that neo-creationism trying to be passed off as real science.

You give me such a motoboner. Thank you!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
As far as I know, isn't evolution not a theory, but an established and observable fact? Aren't the theories based around how evolution actually works (ie, natural selection, sexual selection, etc.)?

This is a point that is commonly confused. In common parlance theory is used in a fashion roughly comparable to what science would consider a hypothesis. Basically, a guess. A theory in a scientific context is a concept/idea that has been repeatedly and independently confirmed through testing and observation. Its the highest level of being proved, so to speak. So, in science, evolution is very much a theory.

 DEUS VULT wrote:

This is a point that is commonly confused. In common parlance theory is used in a fashion roughly comparable to what science would consider a hypothesis. Basically, a guess. A theory in a scientific context is a concept/idea that has been repeatedly and independently confirmed through testing and observation. Its the highest level of being proved, so to speak. So, in science, evolution is very much a theory.

Well, I know the bit about scientific theory being different from more common colloquial ideas, but my point of confusion was at that of the theory of sexual selection/natural selection, and evolution. As in, is there a separation between them?

I have an unwavering belief in God and that He is the force that set everything in motion.

The more I (and humanity as a whole) learn about science and the complexity of the universe the more I am in awe that everything is even able to exist.

Science and God aren't enemies and I never understand the feeling that science somehow makes God less relevant. To me the Bible has always been focused on "God created" not "this is how God created", and the more we learn about the mystery of life the more we learn about the mystery of God.

Just my $0.02

 Aerethan wrote:
I maintain that I've not seen enough evidence personally to convince me that evolution is the end all answer to our origin.

The theory of evolution does not attempt to solve the question of abiogenesis, it only explains the mechanisms by which organisms have descended from the last universal ancestor. That is an important distinction to make.

 d-usa wrote:
Science and God aren't enemies and I never understand the feeling that science somehow makes God less relevant.

It makes god less relevant because the more you explain with science the less you have to resort to "god did it" to explain things. The whole argument for the existence of a god depends on it being impossible to explain the world without one, so if you provide that explanation then god becomes redundant. There's just no point in falling back on "god did it using the mechanisms revealed by science" because you don't need god anymore, that position is just an attempt to keep god relevant despite lacking any good reason to believe.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Science and God aren't enemies and I never understand the feeling that science somehow makes God less relevant.

It makes god less relevant because the more you explain with science the less you have to resort to "god did it" to explain things. The whole argument for the existence of a god depends on it being impossible to explain the world without one, so if you provide that explanation then god becomes redundant. There's just no point in falling back on "god did it using the mechanisms revealed by science" because you don't need god anymore, that position is just an attempt to keep god relevant despite lacking any good reason to believe.

Except nothing in science takes "God did it" away, especially since the Bible doesn't aim to explain how God did things and only tells us that He did.

People don't believe in God because they can't figure out gravity.

Unless they are physics majors and it's finals week...

 Fafnir wrote:
Well, I know the bit about scientific theory being different from more common colloquial ideas, but my point of confusion was at that of the theory of sexual selection/natural selection, and evolution. As in, is there a separation between them?

It's kind of complicated because those are broad concepts describing a whole field of science in a few words. But as a rough approximation:

Evolution is indisputable* fact. Populations/species change over time. Traits within a species change strength/frequency/etc over shorter periods of time, and accumulated changes produce major changes and new species over longer periods of time.

The theory of evolution by natural selection attempts to explain the observed facts of evolution. The theory, in simple form, is that random changes happen in DNA (since DNA replication is not perfect), and changes that improve an organism's chances of producing copies of itself are passed on because of that benefit, while changes that harm those chances fail and disappear. Minor changes accumulate over time until the end result is a major improvement over a distant past generation. This theory is well supported by various independent forms of evidence (observed evolution in lab experiments, DNA comparison between species, the fossil record, etc) and there is no meaningful debate over the fundamental concepts anymore.


*Well, as indisputable as anything ever gets. The objections here are about as relevant as flat earth theory, or the crazy guy on the corner screaming about the black helicopters.

 generalgrog wrote:
RC fundies

wat is this i dont even

 d-usa wrote:
Except nothing in science takes "God did it" away, especially since the Bible doesn't aim to explain how God did things and only tells us that He did.

But that's exactly what science does. If explanation X explains observation Y then there's no reason to believe that the real explanation is X plus some vague undefined Z. In that case Z is completely redundant and including it is irrational. For example, if I believe that I'm out of eggs because I had eggs for breakfast I shouldn't pay any attention to some random guy who says that my eggs are also gone because some of them hatched into chickens overnight. And I certainly shouldn't believe in some ridiculous story about how my breakfast was just the process by which they hatched into chickens.

God is the same kind of thing. The only reason to include god in your explanation is if you're starting from an assumption that you really want to believe in god and need to explain away all of the arguments against god.

People don't believe in God because they can't figure out gravity.

Of course they do. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say "I believe in god because X couldn't happen without god".

 Peregrine wrote:
I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say "I believe in god because X couldn't happen without god".

I think statements like that are more often made (misguidedly) to defend faith in a specific context rather than to describe the origins of someone's faith.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

People don't believe in God because they can't figure out gravity.

Of course they do. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say "I believe in god because X couldn't happen without god".

And I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say that science takes God away because they don't know why people believe in God to begin with...

 d-usa wrote:
And I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say that science takes God away because they don't know why people believe in God to begin with...

Well, it's not like those other reasons are any better. But that's a subject for a different thread. The point here is that "god used evolution" isn't a viable theory that adds a necessary element to our understanding of the world, it's an attempt to protect the belief you already hold for other reasons. If you didn't have independent reasons for believing in god you'd never look at evolution and say "you know what, this looks like the perfect tool for god to use".

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard someone say that science takes God away because they don't know why people believe in God to begin with...

Well, it's not like those other reasons are any better. But that's a subject for a different thread. The point here is that "god used evolution" isn't a viable theory that adds a necessary element to our understanding of the world, it's an attempt to protect the belief you already hold for other reasons.

It's no better and no worse than "conditions just happened to be right for primordial soup to form on earth by pure chance". It doesn't have to be a necessary element to our understanding of the world.

The speed of light in Vacuum is still c wether you believe it just happens to be that way or because you believe that God made it that way.
The Gravitational constant is the same wether you believe that it is the value that just randomly ended up that way or you believe that God set it that way.

The only time science suffers is if you stop looking. And you can stop looking because you throw up your hand in the air saying "God did it" or you can stop looking because you throw up in the air saying "we got c figured out, no need to research it more".

I like science because it helps me learn more about the universe that God created, but a belief in God is not needed to belief in science or to think that this universe is amazing.

 d-usa wrote:
It's no better and no worse than "conditions just happened to be right for primordial soup to form on earth by pure chance".

No, it's much worse because the "conditions just happened to be right" idea at least makes predictions that are theoretically testable, works only with what we know exists (the "right conditions" are well within what we know happened), and has the potential to become a better theory. Speculating about god has none of those advantages.

It doesn't have to be a necessary element to our understanding of the world.

Then why include it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's no better and no worse than "conditions just happened to be right for primordial soup to form on earth by pure chance".

No, it's much worse because the "conditions just happened to be right" idea at least makes predictions that are theoretically testable, works only with what we know exists (the "right conditions" are well within what we know happened), and has the potential to become a better theory. Speculating about god has none of those advantages.

And that statement only matters because you cut out this part of my reply:

The only time science suffers is if you stop looking. And you can stop looking because you throw up your hand in the air saying "God did it" or you can stop looking because you throw up in the air saying "we got c figured out, no need to research it more".

So you can go "primordial soup just happened, we don't need to figure out anymore" and you can go "God made primordial soup, we don't need to figure out anymore".

Or, both the "everything is random" and "God played a role" group keep on researching more to find out what this primordial soup was made out of, what the conditions were, how things could have gone differently.

Switching between "random" and "God" doesn't make a lick of difference as long as you don't stop doing science.

It doesn't have to be a necessary element to our understanding of the world.

Then why include it?

Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?

If not then why include it?

nkelsch wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Fun? What does this look like to you a game? This sir is the internet. Srs buznis.

I am genuinely curious at what point in the Protestant tree and which of the 33,000 denominations did a denomination 'break off' with a literal interpretation of the old testament and who/when did it start?.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/fundamen.htm

Covers it quite well.

I think the above however undersells somewhat the effects of the Great Depression -- especially in conjunction with the Dust Bowl/Dirty Thirties -- the rise of radio/wireless broadcasting

"According to estimates by the National Association of Broadcasters, in 1922 there were 60,000 households in the United States with radios; by 1929 the number had topped 10 million. "

http://autocww.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/CinemaAndBroadcasting/Broadcasting,RadioAndTV.html

And also something of a reaction to the Scopes trial.

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9746

raises a few interesting points too.

This question will not be definitively answered until we die, and everyone will have their opportunity to find out.

GG

p.s. wow that sounded kind of morbid

 d-usa wrote:
Switching between "random" and "God" doesn't make a lick of difference as long as you don't stop doing science.

I didn't say it has horrible practical consequences if you have a vague "god kind of did something maybe" religion, and there are plenty of productive scientists with that kind of religious belief. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not a rational belief to hold, or that it's nothing more than a way of defending an existing belief that you already hold for other reasons.

Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?

If not then why include it?

We include it because know that random events happen (as well as deterministic events that are effectively random because they're well beyond our ability to predict) and are necessary to explain the world. For example, good luck understanding how the semiconductors in your computer work if you refuse to acknowledge random events. So the question now becomes whether we should use a theory that only includes known factors (random generation of variation and non-random selection), or whether we should speculate about additional factors based on nothing more than our desire to have those additional factors exist.

 d-usa wrote:
Is a system that relies on everything being 100% random a necessary element to our understanding of the world?

If not then why include it?

There is no better statement to show a lack of understanding evolution than one such as this. While there is some chance involved, this argument completely ignores the role natural selection, and selection is the exact opposite of chance. Even abiogensis (again, completely separate from the framework of evolution) is not random; atoms and molecules arrange themselves not by random but according to their chemical properties.