Why science and religion are not compatible

[Lowpro]

I reject the proposed mechanism which mainstream evolutionary biologists say accounts for the changes, a series of "unintentional, undirected" mutations. There is no evidence for this.

There is evidence for common ancestry. There is evidence for mutation resulting in LIMITED changes over time, sickle cell genes, penicillin resistance and so forth, but no evidence for a series of random mutations having the requisite creative power to turn a dinosaur into a bird.

Just because evolutionary biologists haven't come up with a better naturalistic explanation for the raw material, the mechanism for informational change, that would be required were "evolution" true, doesn't mean we have to buy into the mechanism for biologic informational change as currently presented in the main, a series of unintentionally connected mutations. So what if it is all they've got? There is no evidence for it, and so we should not buy in.

According to Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose". What Dawkins means in part by this statement is that living systems very much WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR A PURPOSE.

Because evolutionary biologists like Dawkins don't have a good explanation as to how a naturalistic mechanism might account for the origin of biologic information and its changing over time, does not mean an explanation does not exist. They may not have hit on it yet, or as I believe, it simply may be something beyond the ken of human appreciation, or finally, the intelligent design folks may prove everyone wrong.

All of this aside, mechanism aside, most Americans say they believe in God, an intelligent creator. And by God they mean, the believers mean, they were created with an intention, a purpose, if for no other reason than to appreciate they are in relation with that very maker, that designer. As such, religion and science, science as in the conventional presentation of neo-Darwinian doctrine, shall forever remain incompatible, irreconcilable, not "logically consistent" with one another in terms of representing very different overall world views.

This is full of world class ignorance Patrick. You obviously don't understand all of evolution, you've only targeted a small sliver of its whole explanation and called it the basic mechanism when it's far more complex.

Do yourself a favor and get Evolutionary Analysis the Freemon/Herron book. It will give you a more accurate and indepth understanding of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution so you don't parade around your ignorance like this.

There's also more information in the Science/Mathematics section of the forums.

You can also get Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" but Evolutionary Analysis gives you experiments and demonstrable data to support the theory of evolution, whereas Dawkin's book doesn't go as in depth.

 

[westprog]

But then accepts that the event could have happened due to a miracle. What was that about methodological naturalism (always search for natural causes in your work)? Miracles don't seem to fit into that.

Of course not. Religion isn't science. Beliefs aren't science. Beliefs in metaphysical naturalism aren't science. Law isn't science. Ethics (as propounded in another thread by the OP) aren't science. Marriage isn't science. Politics isn't science. None of these things are incompatible with science. Pseudo-science is incompatible with science.

Not incompatibility -- compatibility. There was even resort to a dictionary for the 'able to live together' type of definition which is exemplified by religious people who are scientists.

 

[Patrick1000]

Religion at root means one thing and one thing only

The quote you give indicates how science and religion get along:
"To believe that a good scientist must assume philosophical naturalism (the natural world is all there is), instead of just following methodological naturalism (always search for natural causes in your work) is wrong."

But the article uses a different definition of incompatible: that the two have contradictory conclusions. Getting along, being able to exist together (even in the same person), is a seperate kind of compatibility.

In terms of contradictory conclusions, science and religion as we know it are incompatible.

If we generalise to all possible religions, then we have to ask: what conclusions must a religion reach? And the answer is: none. But I see that as poor grounds to conclude consistency with science.



I think that's explained above. The thing to do is avoid mixing defintions of 'incompatible'.

The article does say that some harm arises out of religion, with the implication that this would be avoided without religion.



Then we have the whole question of miracles being compatible with science.

Religion at root means one thing and one thing only, YOU WERE MADE WITH A PURPOSE, WITH INTENTION.

Sure I can imagine a "religion" without this as a feature, but that would not be religion in our occidental tradition.

So, at root, religion says you were made on purpose.

AND, Blind Watchmaker type mainstream evolutionary theories say you were made without any intention at all.

As currently presented in the main, religion and science(modern fully naturalistic neo-Darwinism) don't mix, oil and Holy water they are.

 

[Patrick1000]

Show me the molecular evidence for birds from dinosuars

This is full of world class ignorance Patrick. You obviously don't understand all of evolution, you've only targeted a small sliver of its whole explanation and called it the basic mechanism when it's far more complex.

Do yourself a favor and get Evolutionary Analysis the Freemon/Herron book. It will give you a more accurate and indepth understanding of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution so you don't parade around your ignorance like this.

There's also more information in the Science/Mathematics section of the forums.

You can also get Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" but Evolutionary Analysis gives you experiments and demonstrable data to support the theory of evolution, whereas Dawkin's book doesn't go as in depth.

Show me the molecular evidence for birds from dinosuars. Let's see it. I am convincible. Convince me. Produce the evidence, one piece, one lousy shred. Let's see it.

 

[Patrick1000]

Dawkin's is shallow

This is full of world class ignorance Patrick. You obviously don't understand all of evolution, you've only targeted a small sliver of its whole explanation and called it the basic mechanism when it's far more complex.

Do yourself a favor and get Evolutionary Analysis the Freemon/Herron book. It will give you a more accurate and indepth understanding of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution so you don't parade around your ignorance like this.

There's also more information in the Science/Mathematics section of the forums.

You can also get Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" but Evolutionary Analysis gives you experiments and demonstrable data to support the theory of evolution, whereas Dawkin's book doesn't go as in depth.

Dawkin's is shallow. He should be read because he is so mainstream, but overall, on its merit, his writing is garbage.

 

[Lowpro]

Show me the molecular evidence for birds from dinosuars. Let's see it. I am convincible. Convince me. Produce the evidence, one piece, one lousy shred. Let's see it.

http://www.livescience.com/1410-rex-related-chickens.html

If you wanted molecular evidence...

You can also read this too:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

Now while I understand you think you're convincible, don't you think you're asking the moon for molecular evidence of birds and dinosaurs considering how difficult it is to get tissue samples to sequence? I mean they did it for the T-Rex but that's very rare. Don't you want molecular evidence for something more...alive, like say the Galapagos Tortoises...

 

[Lowpro]

Dawkin's is shallow. He should be read because he is so mainstream, but overall, on its merit, his writing is garbage.

I don't think it's garbage because its content is valid and informative. If you just don't like his writing style, I don't know what to tell you. He does need to be funnier at times; he gets too emotional like when he talked about how teary-eyed he got at the story of a girl and her imaginary friend.

Too sappy for my tastes, but not garbage.

 

[FireGarden]

I'm curious what "religious conclusions" people are assuming here.

How about belief in faith healing/effectiveness of prayer, or that the weather is not random and impersonal?

Also events like Exodus and Noah's flood are not supported by the evidence.

Of course, these aren't universal to religion. Nothing is universal to religion. But that seems poor grounds for saying religion and science are consistent.

If we are to take mistaken historic viewpoints into account, then we would need to take the mistakes of science into account as well. If we treated these same bygone errors equally, we could argue that science is incompatible with science.

According to the definition being used: modern science and old, refuted, science ARE incompatible.

Which just illustrates how pointless the exercise is. If you're in favour of evolution over creationism, then argue the case for evolution. There's no need to go gunning for religion.

 

[FireGarden]

Of course not. Religion isn't science. Beliefs aren't science. Beliefs in metaphysical naturalism aren't science. Law isn't science. Ethics (as propounded in another thread by the OP) aren't science. Marriage isn't science. Politics isn't science. None of these things are incompatible with science. Pseudo-science is incompatible with science.

This list of things which are not science just simply dodges the point: we have a religious person who agrees an event is in conflict with known science. What conclusion does he reach? That the event didn't happen? No. He reaches the conclusion that the event did happen, due to miracle. That conclusion is not consistent with science.

 

[Patrick1000]

One last point, THE BASICS OF OIL AND HOLY WATER

This is full of world class ignorance Patrick. You obviously don't understand all of evolution, you've only targeted a small sliver of its whole explanation and called it the basic mechanism when it's far more complex.

Do yourself a favor and get Evolutionary Analysis the Freemon/Herron book. It will give you a more accurate and indepth understanding of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution so you don't parade around your ignorance like this.

There's also more information in the Science/Mathematics section of the forums.

You can also get Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" but Evolutionary Analysis gives you experiments and demonstrable data to support the theory
of evolution, whereas Dawkin's book doesn't go as in depth.

Just so we are clear, a 10 year old can understand this stuff. It does not require heavy reading to get the gist of the thing.

The proposed mechanism for species origin is that of environmental pressures acting on variation(s) within a population of any given species. Those best equipped to deal with said pressures given their compliment of features/phenotype survive and pass their genotype on to their descendants. Over time, an organism, a biological system can change(by way of DNA CHANGE/INFORMATIONAL CHANGE) so much through this process that it becomes a wholly new species, or over eons, a new type of animal altogether, a dinosaur becomes a bird.

This is not difficult, it is not rocket science. It is as a matter of fact very very very simple.

There is good evidence to suggest biological systems are connected through time. The best evidence for that of course is the commonality of the genetic code. Starfish and neo-Republicans employ the same code, the same language.

Many evolutionary biologists view the process of a series of undirected random mutations occurring over time as the mechanism whereby biological systems change, and dinosaurs become birds. God did not make the birds as it were, this process did, a process that includes this series of unintentional, purposeless mutations.

Evolutionary biologists always trot out this idea, because unfortunately for them, it is the only one they've got. I say unfortunately because if one pauses to think about it, there is nothing empiric supporting this position/claim. So these guys need to go and look for something else that explains how this might come about. It does not mean this type of "limited evolution" does not occur. It only means it accounts for the creation of penicillin resistance and not the creation of birds.

It is also a mechanism that is incompatible with the Christian tradition.

So those are the basics, OIL AND HOLY WATER

 

[westprog]

This list of things which are not science just simply dodges the point: we have a religious person who agrees an event is in conflict with known science. What conclusion does he reach? That the event didn't happen? No. He reaches the conclusion that the event did happen, due to miracle. That conclusion is not consistent with science.

The possibility of events outside the current scope of science is not opposed to science. It's fundamental to the process of science. The fact that something is referred to as a miracle means that it doesn't require a different view of the laws of nature.

There's a mistaken belief about what science is and does which is, I suppose, not that surprising, since science can be done by scientists without any meta-scientific principle. Such principles are important, though.

Added: I suppose that it could be considered that this is just weaseling out of things - that restricting scientific truth to such a narrow bandwidth is just a workaround to let Christians play, but really science knows better. This is not the case. Being entirely open-minded is not an add-on to science - it's essential to science. Every scientific principle is up for grabs. No sooner is something established than scientists are trying to break it apart and find out how it's wrong. Methodological assumptions have to be minimised, and recognised as being only assumptions. If science (as opposed to individual scientists) ever takes certain metaphysical truths or beliefs on board, it will cause the scientific structure to collapse. There is precedent for this - Galileo, of course, but also biology in the Soviet Union.

 

[Leumas]

Religion at root means one thing and one thing only, YOU WERE MADE WITH A PURPOSE, WITH INTENTION.

So what is that purpose? What if it turned out to be to be A LAB RAT for some experiment. Or a CAGED PET?


OR to be the ENTERTAINMENT in some cosmic "REALITY" show?

Would that make you feel good?

If you are incapable of fathoming how a dog can evolve out of bacteria then why are you OK with something evolving out of NOTHING to be so clever as to CREATE US FOR A PURPOSE?

And even if we were created for a purpose by something that itself evolved..... does that not still mean that evolution is IT......

If we evolved to be able to create life.....isn't that just an EXTENSION of evolution.....

If something evolved and created us....isn't that just an extension of evolution?

Why are you comfortable with FATHOMING some supernatural entity EVOLVING out of nothing and evolving enough ability and power and knowledge to be able to CREATE us.....while at the same time you cannot COMPREHEND that we could have evolved in a similar manner to the entity you are happy to believe in.

Why not just say that we are the creator you espouse but at a stage of evolution where we are not yet able to create.....why not just dispose of the creator altogether and just accept that WE TOO can evolve out of nothing without a need for a creator just like your hypothesized creator?

Show me the molecular evidence for birds from dinosuars. Let's see it. I am convincible. Convince me. Produce the evidence, one piece, one lousy shred. Let's see it.

This kind of statement is very disingenuous.....why do you want US to show you....why don't you go and research it yourself. There are books and journals and research papers GALORE that do just that.


Do you REALLY want evidence..... all your posts in this thread have demonstrated otherwise unfortunately. You keep REPEATING the same point even after someone has responded to it and SHOWED you....but then you ignore it and come back again repeating the whole thing and asking to be "shown"......

 

[tsig]

Dawkin's* is shallow. He should be read because he is so mainstream, but overall, on its merit, his writing is garbage.

Maybe you just aren't aware of the depths.

*(you have misplaced an " ' ".)

 

[citizenzen]

Of course, these aren't universal to religion. Nothing is universal to religion.

I agree with you that there aren't any universal religious conclusions. We can cherry pick the most obviously wrong conclusions by the various religions or people who advocate for them.

But then couldn't we do the same thing with science? Should we list all the bone-headed theories and suppositions that scientists have held in the past and present and claim that is proof that science isn't even compatible with itself?

After science picks off one god belief after another ...

I believe if you look back through history, you won't find that science picked off one belief after another at all.

What science picked off the gods of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome? The list of historic gods is incredibly long. Did science pick them all off? Or were there other causes to this ever changing lineup of gods, goddesses, et al. I believe that societies, cultures and their deities change for a number of different reasons that don't all boil down to just one cause: science.

But if you wish assert otherwise, then please provide your proof.

 

[Leumas]

Just so we are clear, a 10 year old can understand this stuff. It does not require heavy reading to get the gist of the thing.

The proposed mechanism for species origin is that of environmental pressures acting on variation(s) within a population of any given species. Those best equipped to deal with said pressures given their compliment of features/phenotype survive and pass their genotype on to their descendants. Over time, an organism, a biological system can change(by way of DNA CHANGE/INFORMATIONAL CHANGE) so much through this process that it becomes a wholly new species, or over eons, a new type of animal altogether, a dinosaur becomes a bird.

This is not difficult, it is not rocket science. It is as a matter of fact very very very simple.
There is good evidence to suggest biological systems are connected through time. The best evidence for that of course is the commonality of the genetic code. Starfish and neo-Republicans employ the same code, the same language.

Many evolutionary biologists view the process of a series of undirected random mutations occurring over time as the mechanism whereby biological systems change, and dinosaurs become birds. God did not make the birds as it were, this process did, a process that includes this series of unintentional, purposeless mutations.

Evolutionary biologists always trot out this idea, because unfortunately for them, it is the only one they've got. I say unfortunately because if one pauses to think about it, there is nothing empiric supporting this position/claim. So these guys need to go and look for something else that explains how this might come about. It does not mean this type of "limited evolution" does not occur. It only means it accounts for the creation of penicillin resistance and not the creation of birds.

It is also a mechanism that is incompatible with the Christian tradition.

So those are the basics, OIL AND HOLY WATER

Little knowledge is infinitely more dangerous and benighting than no knowledge at all.

The problem with people who think they know is that they can never get to know more because they think they know it all and thus have no compulsion to learn more.

This is the basis for the collapse of many a civilization:

resting on your laurels..... what was good for my powerful empire building ancestors is good enough for me....why change things that have worked so well in the past?​

It is like my kid who after a few lessons of diving thought.... I can do that.... what is the point of learning all this other stuff..... I can dive now…. It is not so hard.

You should listen to the advice given below

So your rejection of the creation of birds vs penicillin resistance is just ignorance, which is fine as long as you don't draw a conclusion from ignorance, which you are doing. So cut it out, it's annoying.

[snip]

I also noticed you skipped over http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1 that I linked before, but it's okay I forgive you.

But BECAUSE you don't seem to understand that, I again can only recommend you get Evolutionary Analysis because you lack the information you claim to know. It's the reason you think evolution is limited, when it isn't. The book will explain that more in depth for you, including the molecular evidence you so desire. It's obvious that YOU think you have a good grasp of evolution and I'm telling you that you don't.

 

[FireGarden]

The possibility of events outside the current scope of science is not opposed to science. It's fundamental to the process of science. The fact that something is referred to as a miracle means that it doesn't require a different view of the laws of nature.

But the conclusions are not consistent. That is all. The rest doesn't matter. The definition given by the OP is that if they disagree, then they are incompatible. That means your views and mine are incompatible by that definition. It doesn't matter that we are both rational, or that we're different people or that we might change our minds -- we disagree. Our conclusions are different, so our views are incompatible by the definition of the OP.

So what?
Very little what, is the answer.

It's not my definition, or even the one I would prefer to use -- but we were specifically asked to avoid strawmen.

There's a mistaken belief about what science is and does which is, I suppose, not that surprising, since science can be done by scientists without any meta-scientific principle. Such principles are important, though.

I've not bothered to consider what science is because that isn't the basis upon which the claim is made. The definition provided by the OP goes by comparing conclusions.

I agree with you that there aren't any universal religious conclusions. We can cherry pick the most obviously wrong conclusions by the various religions or people who advocate for them.

But then couldn't we do the same thing with science? Should we list all the bone-headed theories and suppositions that scientists have held in the past and present and claim that is proof that science isn't even compatible with itself?

Yes. We can do that. Especially if we compare old science with new science. Earth, wind, fire and water being the four elements is no longer compatible with modern science.

Which just illustrates how pointless the exercise is. If you're in favour of evolution over creationism, then argue the case for evolution. There's no need to go gunning for religion.

 

[Lowpro]

Evolutionary biologists always trot out this idea, because unfortunately for them, it is the only one they've got. I say unfortunately because if one pauses to think about it, there is nothing empiric supporting this position/claim. So these guys need to go and look for something else that explains how this might come about. It does not mean this type of "limited evolution" does not occur. It only means it accounts for the creation of penicillin resistance and not the creation of birds.

It is also a mechanism that is incompatible with the Christian tradition.

So those are the basics, OIL AND HOLY WATER

They trot out the idea because there is evidence to support the claim. Homologous bone structure, the trex protein (which you seemed to have skipped entirely -.- if you're going to propose a challenge and it gets met, it's expected that you make a point of it) and the fact that each fossil is not anomalous; that they can be explained in their descent. We are literally making a taxonomy for extinct creatures BECAUSE evolution works.

So your rejection of the creation of birds vs penicillin resistance is just ignorance, which is fine as long as you don't draw a conclusion from ignorance, which you are doing. So cut it out, it's annoying.

As for compatibility, I don't really care because I don't have to integrate religion into science ever. Religion and its scriptures are not requisite for knowledge unless the knowledge I am seeking pertains to those religions or scriptures (ie I'm studying them)

I also noticed you skipped over http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1 that I linked before, but it's okay I forgive you.

But BECAUSE you don't seem to understand that, I again can only recommend you get Evolutionary Analysis because you lack the information you claim to know. It's the reason you think evolution is limited, when it isn't. The book will explain that more in depth for you, including the molecular evidence you so desire. It's obvious that YOU think you have a good grasp of evolution and I'm telling you that you don't.

 

[citizenzen]

Which just illustrates how pointless the exercise is. If you're in favour of evolution over creationism, then argue the case for evolution. There's no need to go gunning for religion.

Again we agree. I'm far less interested in gunning for religion than I am promoting science. When religion tries to pass itself off as science, then we need to make sure it abides by the rules or gets called out as pseudo-science. Otherwise, just leave it alone.

 

[westprog]

But the conclusions are not consistent. That is all. The rest doesn't matter. The definition given by the OP is that if they disagree, then they are incompatible. That means your views and mine are incompatible by that definition. It doesn't matter that we are both rational, or that we're different people or that we might change our minds -- we disagree. Our conclusions are different, so our views are incompatible by the definition of the OP.

So what?
Very little what, is the answer.

It's not my definition, or even the one I would prefer to use -- but we were specifically asked to avoid strawmen.



I've not bothered to consider what science is because that isn't the basis upon which the claim is made. The definition provided by the OP goes by comparing conclusions.







Yes. We can do that. Especially if we compare old science with new science. Earth, wind, fire and water being the four elements is no longer compatible with modern science.

And the same applies to most pre-1900 scientific models in the physical sciences. They have been made obsolete by new discoveries. Does this mean that people who subscribed to Newtonian physics before it was superseded were in conflict with science? Obviously not. Were there scientists who believed that Newtonian physics was actually true and the final word? It was very likely the majority view. Did it matter? No, because in science, what people believe isn't important. If a scientist, for reasons of personal belief, persisted in proposing that Newtonian physics were correct in spite of the research associated with relativity, then he would be in conflict with science.

 

[citizenzen]

If a scientist, for reasons of personal belief, persisted in proposing that Newtonian physics were correct in spite of the research associated with relativity, then he would be in conflict with science.

Exactly. Just as a Young Earther is in conflict with science.

Someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior, on the other hand, is not in conflict with science, as there is no science that conflicts with that belief.

If there is ... someone please share it.