Jump to content
IGNORED

why are science and faith at odds?


alphaparticle

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

Enoch2021 - Which leads to Equivocation Ad Nauseum.

 

I think it is fair and reasonable to make the distinction between "Evolution" as a worldview of life and it's origins (and beyond) as opposed to "evolution" confined, if you will, to a process that explains the diversity of life.  Certainly one can "equivocate" within the terms themselves however the terms from my perpective are mutually exclusive. While I might choose to argue against Evolution, I seldom choose to argue against evolution.

 

 

however the terms from my perpective are mutually exclusive

 

That's a start

 

 

While I might choose to argue against Evolution, I seldom choose to argue against evolution.

 

Are you saying you might choose but seldom choose?  Or is this erroneous.

 

No Problem, that's one of the reasons I'm here.  And for "evolution" side it's not much of an argument as in ZERO.  Here one minute, I'll give you an example...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.

 

 

==========================================================

 

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.

 

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.

Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, Geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology…..

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

 

 

I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity

 

:huh:  Is this your argument?

 

 

Evolution is not a world view.

 

 

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

"Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity."

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

"Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here."

Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

 

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD Physics and Professor Cognitive Science University of Arizona....

'Some months ago an American philosopher explained to a highly sophisticated audience in Britain what, in his opinion, was wrong, indeed fatally wrong, with the standard neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. He made it crystal clear that his criticism was not inspired by creationism, intelligent design or any remotely religious motivation. A senior gentleman in the audience erupted, in indignation: ‘You should not say such things, you should not write such things! The creationists will treasure them and use them against science.’ The lecturer politely asked: ‘Even if they are true?’ To which the instant and vibrant retort was: ‘Especially if they are true!’ with emphasis on the ‘especially’.

This stunning exchange exemplifies the religious fervour with which some scholars and laypersons adhere to the Darwinian doctrine. It’s a secular religion, for sure, an atheistic banner under which the white knights of scientific rationality rally in their fight against the forces of darkness. There are countless manifestations of this unwholesome religious Darwinian fervour, more than can be listed here."

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD, March 2010

 

"Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith."

Phillip Johnson Professor of Law; Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, October 1990

 

 

It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.

 

It's "Predictive Value" ??  What "Tree Diagrams"?  :24:

 

This is quite "Predictive".....

 

We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’

Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205.

 

 

Anything Else?  I should say...anything with any substance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

 

Anything Else?  I should say...anything with any substance?

 

I guess I could go out on the web like you did and copy and paste some quotes of people's opinions, or intersperse a few emoticons in my posts...looks like that is what you consider substance.

 

Or I could direct you to do some research on genetics.  What we've learned from evolution has allowed us to predict how genes will behave helping us in medicine - especially vaccinations. 

Edited by jerryR34
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  405
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   98
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/27/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Enoch2021 -Are you saying you might choose but seldom choose?  Or is this erroneous.

 

Yes, on rare occasions I might briefly dive into a discussion on evolution, though I most always choose not to do so as to specifics.  The simple reason is that over the years I've come to firmly believe that both sides have validity. (I will note that Colin Patterson qualified his oft used quote) I won't argue the point but there any number [don't give me that Ad populum : )] of Evangelical Christians who hold to evolution within parameters, and certainly not extended to neo-darwinistic Evolution. So typically I will confine my specific thoughts in the general tense and disregard the minutiae.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

Enoch2021 -Are you saying you might choose but seldom choose?  Or is this erroneous.

 

Yes, on rare occasions I might briefly dive into a discussion on evolution, though I most always choose not to do so as to specifics.  The simple reason is that over the years I've come to firmly believe that both sides have validity. (I will note that Colin Patterson qualified his oft used quote) I won't argue the point but there any number [don't give me that Ad populum : )] of Evangelical Christians who hold to evolution within parameters, and certainly not extended to neo-darwinistic Evolution. So typically I will confine my specific thoughts in the general tense and disregard the minutiae.

 

 

=====================================================================

 

 

The simple reason is that over the years I've come to firmly believe that both sides have validity

 

neo-darwinian evolution has no validity whatsoever.  I ask you to Support this claim.

 

 

(I will note that Colin Patterson qualified his oft used quote)

 

Please post HIS rebuttal to the oft used "quote" and we'll review it.  Also, there are about 7 more up there that I posted...anything on those? 

 

 

Evangelical Christians who hold to evolution within parameters

 

It really doesn't matter what or who believes anything...... it's what the can support or PROVE

 

So typically I will confine my specific thoughts in the general tense and disregard the minutiae.

 

ooooh, Not a good idea to post generalities here....especially regarding "Just So" stories

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

 

 

Anything Else?  I should say...anything with any substance?

 

I guess I could go out on the web like you did and copy and paste some quotes of people's opinions, or intersperse a few emoticons in my posts...looks like that is what you consider substance.

 

Or I could direct you to do some research on genetics.  What we've learned from evolution has allowed us to predict how genes will behave helping us in medicine - especially vaccinations. 

 

 

 

===================================================================

 

I guess I could go out on the web like you did and copy and paste some quotes of people's opinions, or intersperse a few emoticons in my posts...looks like that is what you consider substance.

 

Told Ya Tolken....No Game. 

 

 

Or I could direct you to do some research on genetics.  What we've learned from evolution has allowed us to predict how genes will behave helping us in medicine - especially vaccinations.

 

 

That's all you can do is direct----------------------- right to a Clumsy Falsehood: uh huh, How about these "Peoples" "opinions".....

 

 

Dr. Marc Kirschner  Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences:

 

In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.

Dr. Marc Kirschner:  The Boston Globe,  October 23, 2005

 

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences)...

 

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

 

 

Can you also explain this...

 

"Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used."

Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990

 

 

Can't wait to hear the answer for these....is there an emoticon or a period or apostrophe out of place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

 

 

Anything Else?  I should say...anything with any substance?

 

I guess I could go out on the web like you did and copy and paste some quotes of people's opinions, or intersperse a few emoticons in my posts...looks like that is what you consider substance.

 

Or I could direct you to do some research on genetics.  What we've learned from evolution has allowed us to predict how genes will behave helping us in medicine - especially vaccinations. 

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

Addendum....

 

I guess I could go out on the web like you did and copy and paste some quotes of people's opinions, or intersperse a few emoticons in my posts...looks like that is what you consider substance.

 

This is a Textbook Ad Hominem....

 

Ad Hominem- An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ad%20hominem

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,363
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   403
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  08/01/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

Science and faith are not at odds.  Never have been.   It is Evolution and the Bible that are at odds.   It is any attempt by science to explain the origin of our universe and the origin of life in a way that precludes God and factors Him out of the equation entirely, and the Bible that are at odds.

 

What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.     One thing I noticed after the Nye/Ham debate and even before that debate took place is that Ham received death threats and extremely vulgar comments on his facebook page and on his website.   He wasn't merely ridiculed or belittled.  He reported all kinds of violently hateful things that people said to him  just because of his participation in that debate.   That shows that this is not an intellecual issue, but a spritiual one and it shows that there is more going on than a debate over different points of view.  

 

Alright, so how and why the change? If it was the case that someone could be a committed Christian and one of the greatest scientists in the world and no one batted an eye, and  now there is this incredible discontinuity between the religious beliefs of scientists and the general populace, it seems safe to infer something has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,363
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   403
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  08/01/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

 

 

That is so Hilarious.

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. :thumbsup:

 

And then evolution...in the same post. :huh:    I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds.  Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one.

 

Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!!

 

Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!!

 

Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me??  I'm Stupified!!  My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation.

 

And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@.  I'm Close to a Conniption Fit  :24:

 

They need to get back in A BIG WAY to:  Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al.

 

You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!!  LOL  Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!!  :thumbsup:

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

 

Calm Spirit ?

 

How do you know I didn't..... Special Evolution Mind Powers?

 

Do "Calm Spirits" have Particularly Acute Reading Comprehension Skills?

 

I read it and got the point thanks.

 

Figured with your background you may have some insight into Plasma's ....  Nothing more Nothing Less.  Sorry for derailing your OP on a tangent, there was no malicious intent.

 

 

I'm not sure you did get the point, and that may be because I was unclear. No one has really responded to my question.

 

It used to be that not only could you be a great scientist and a Christian, but a particularly committed Christian, and no one thought that peculiar. What I want to know is why that is so different today. The only reason I brought in the term evolution at all was to dismiss it as being relevant for a majority of researchers, e.g. a physical chemist could be a good physical chemist whatever his feelings on evolution. So... it's hard to see it as that being the only difference between then and now. I really do NOT want to get into a discussion about evolution here.

 

Why do you think plasma is a good candidate for darkmatter? To have plasma conditions need to be hot. Also, plasma is not transparent (dark) to light. Its existence in large quantities would be manifest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

Closed at OPs request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...