Why science and religion are not compatible

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

Yes, a 10 year old can understand the basic mechanisms because it is very simple. That is part of the beauty of it.

What 10 year old children and apparently you do not understand, and what Lowpro is trying to point out to you, is that you have a very limited view of what mutation is and can do. I tried to point out to you earlier that examples like penicillin resistance constitute only one type of change, but if you focus on prokaryotes you are going to miss the bigger picture. Also, by focusing attention on single gene mutations that have effects on proteins not involved appreciably in early development -- hemoglobinopathies like sickle cell disease -- you miss the bigger picture of what mutations can do in eukaryotes.

You need to focus on learning what happens within the proteosome in early development, if you want to 'see' the bigger effects of single gene mutations on changing the structure of organisms and on the way gene expression is regulated in eukaryotes, which is very complex. Altering regulatory regions can cause large changes. Expressing hox genes in different environments can lead to body structure alterations, etc.

It is disingenuous to ask for the genetic changes from dinosaur to bird since we have little genetic material from dinosaurs. Why not show that you are serious and ask for something that has a potential answer, like genetic changes leading to the whale line or the changes necessary to change from a wild form of animal (wolf) to tame (dog)? We can't easily supply all the genetic information from common ancestors because, well, they are ancestors and not available any longer. We have, as Lowpro has pointed out very nicely, constructed genetic 'bushes' from the available evidence of species who are believed to have descended from a common ancestor. That evidence supports the theory. And it jibes with the fossil evidence, etc.


If, as you say, the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Christian tradition, then so much the worse for the Christian tradition. Sorry, but the evidence is there for you to examine. Your view of the Christian tradition loses.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

I'm not sure that this issue is quite so simple, because there do appear to be conflicts but they may not be absolute.

I think Patrick1000 makes a valid point about the differences in worldview expressed by certain parts of science and religion.

A religious worldview (at least in the Abrahamic traditions) is teleological, intentional. Those who are religious see intention in the basic foundation of creation.

Science is supposed to be based in methodological naturalism, which does not necessarily conflict with a teleological worldview, but it can at best only reach a very uneasy peace with it. Part of the confusion arises because most folks who think using methodological naturalism/materialism are also philosophical naturalists/materialists who reject all forms of supernatural claim. I don't think it is quite so easy to separate methodological and philosophical naturalism unless one is simply not consistent. Methodological naturalism does not allow non-natural explanations. Viewing Jesus as one's savior, however, depends on a non-natural world. Or, as Patrick1000 has pointed out, the methodological naturalism of evolutionary theory, which admits of no intention but only random processes, contradicts Christian tradition.

Of course people compartmentalize naturalism and religious views and they can coexist in one person. That is not controversial.

I think what Sean Carroll is trying to get across is that we don't have to play nice any longer and say, 'well science is just methodological naturalism and there could be a whole other realm unaccounted for out there that science can't touch', when methodological naturalism taken seriously really just is philosophical naturalism. His argument amounts to a bald ontological statement -- that naturalism is all there is.

 

[Patrick1000]

I asked for evidence not GOBBLEDYGOOK, dinosaurs to birds, show it to me.

Yes, a 10 year old can understand the basic mechanisms because it is very simple. That is part of the beauty of it.

What 10 year old children and apparently you do not understand, and what Lowpro is trying to point out to you, is that you have a very limited view of what mutation is and can do. I tried to point out to you earlier that examples like penicillin resistance constitute only one type of change, but if you focus on prokaryotes you are going to miss the bigger picture. Also, by focusing attention on single gene mutations that have effects on proteins not involved appreciably in early development -- hemoglobinopathies like sickle cell disease -- you miss the bigger picture of what mutations can do in eukaryotes.

You need to focus on learning what happens within the proteosome in early development, if you want to 'see' the bigger effects of single gene mutations on changing the structure of organisms and on the way gene expression is regulated in eukaryotes, which is very complex. Altering regulatory regions can cause large changes. Expressing hox genes in different environments can lead to body structure alterations, etc.

It is disingenuous to ask for the genetic changes from dinosaur to bird since we have little genetic material from dinosaurs. Why not show that you are serious and ask for something that has a potential answer, like genetic changes leading to the whale line or the changes necessary to change from a wild form of animal (wolf) to tame (dog)? We can't easily supply all the genetic information from common ancestors because, well, they are ancestors and not available any longer. We have, as Lowpro has pointed out very nicely, constructed genetic 'bushes' from the available evidence of species who are believed to have descended from a common ancestor. That evidence supports the theory. And it jibes with the fossil evidence, etc.


If, as you say, the theory of evolution is incompatible with the Christian tradition, then so much the worse for the Christian tradition. Sorry, but the evidence is there for you to examine. Your view of the Christian tradition loses.

I asked for evidence, dinosaurs to birds, show it to me. A wild dog to a tame one emphasizes, if I may be so bold, the limitations of simple selective breeding, which by the way is not "random" in any sense. So here is an example where when people are TRYING! to make a "wild dog" different, they succeed in a limited sense. And even when TRYING!, no one has shown selective breeding, or anything else for that matter creates a wholly new species.

Science is evidence based. What evolutionary biologists offer us is gobbledygook. I am an atheist by the way. But as I have mentioned before, I find myself more than sympathetic to the intelligent, well spoken faction of the religious right at times. Christian fundamentalists have every right in the world to ask that "Intelligent Design" be presented in schools if neo-Darwinism is. The latter is a theory which suggests this world, our world, is one without a God. As such, neo-Darwinism is religious/atheist, and if taught, which I believe it should be, needs to have this point emphasized so the students don't get infected with the gobbledygooky thinking of the same type that the yo-yos writing biology textbooks are infected with.

Also, and to emphasize, there is no bona fide molecular evidence whatsoever that supports the notion of species evolving as a result of a series of unintentional mutations(or intentional mutations/selective breeding for that matter). They ought to be teaching this series of mutations gobbledygook as an option, and one that is a major reach given the lack of empiric support.

Being an atheist doesn't mean I do not find substance and value in Christian teachings. The bible, both Old and New Testaments are probably the most important/influential pieces of Western Literature. By that I mean pieces of literature per se. Take a look at Michelangelo's Pieta. It says a lot more about everything than does this ridiculous notion of a zillion mutations, a cavalcade of gobbledygook, carrying dinosaurs to birds.

So yes I am an atheist, but I say score one for Michelangelo and zero for the modern evolutionary biologists, guys and gals that don't understand the importance of empirics, yo-yos that better get a grip before the intelligent design crew articulate them into oblivion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I asked for evidence, dinosaurs to birds, show it to me. A wild dog to a tame one emphasizes, if I may be so bold, the limitations of simple selective breeding, which by the way is not "random" in any sense. So here is an example where when people are TRYING! to make a "wild dog" different, they succeed in a limited sense. And even when TRYING!, no one has shown selective breeding, or anything else for that matter creates a wholly new species.

We were discussing genetic mutation. There is, it turns out, a single gene change (or so we think, WBSCR17, the same gene that causes William's syndrome in humans) that accounts for the transition from wild to tame and this single gene change also accounts for typical physical dog features, such as floppy ears, short curly tails, behavioral neotony, etc. It was discovered by selective breeding of foxes actually to help promote a more tame variety; unfortunately so that they could keep and kill them more easily since it happened within the fur industry. This change occurred within 25 generations or so, which is pretty fast if you think about it. And this one gene (at least we think it is one gene) is responsible for numerous changes in the domesticated foxes.

Selective breeding is just one form of selection pressure. Why would you consider that any less random than natural selection? Or is natural selection not entirely random?

As to the issue of creating a new species, no one was trying to create a new species with such maneuvers, so I'm not sure why you would mention that fact. If we want to start discussing speciation, then we will first need to define species. If we are going to move down this road, I suggest a new thread because it is far off topic.

Science is evidence based. What evolutionary biologists offer us is gobbledygook.

Good argumentation is evidence based. Where is the evidence that evolutionary biologists only offer us gobbledygook?

I am an atheist by the way.

Good for you, but beside the point.

But as I have mentioned before, I find myself more than sympathetic to the intelligent, well spoken faction of the religious right at times. Christian fundamentalists have every right in the world to ask that "Intelligent Design" be presented in schoold if neo-Darwinism is. The latter is a theory which suggests this world, our world, is one without a God. As such, neo-Darwinism is religious/atheist, and if taught, which I believe it should be, needs to have this point emphasized so the students don't get infected with the gobbledygooky thinking of the yo-yos that write the text books.

I'm not entirely certain what you are trying to express here, but evolutionary theory, the theory itself, makes no claim about God whatsoever. You may claim, possibly correctly, that many people engaged in the endeavor and people who popularize it believe there is no God, but that is an entirely different point. The theory will not allow supernatural explanations if natural explanations are possible; that is very different from saying that it is atheistic.

Also, and to emphasize, there is no actual molecular evidence that support the notion of species evolving as a result of a series of u8nintentional mutations. They ought to be teaching that as an option, and one that is a major reach given the lack of empiric support.

Again, that is going to have to depend on a definition of species. There have, in fact, been many documented genetic alterations resulting in speciation where species is defined in terms of the ability of individuals to mate.

Being an atheist doesn't mean I do not find substance and value in Christian teachings. The bible, both Old and New Testaments are probably the most important/influential pieces of Western Literature. By that I mean pieces of literature per se. Take a look at Michelangelo's Pieta. It says a lot more about everything than does this ridiculous notion of a zillion mutations, a cavalcade of gobbledygook, carrying dinosaurs to birds.

So yes I am an atheist, but I say score one for Michelangelo and zero for the modern evolutionary biologists. Guys and gals that don't understand the importance of empirics. Yo-yos that better get a grip before the intelligent design crew aqrticulates them into oblivion.

I have no interest in dissuading anyone who enjoys reading and finding insight in the Bible; I have no idea why you would think that folks interested in molecular biology are not also interested in Renaissance sculpture or any number of other artistic creations. If you want to discuss issues in molecular biology as they relate to evolution, then I think it best to leave non sequiturs to the side.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not an answer. The correct answer is "none". Feel free to let it stick in your throat for a while, though.

The correct answer is, scientific evidence refutes all three. Gods are F-I-C-T-I-O-N. Feel free to let that sink into your brain for a while.

 

[citizenzen]

The correct answer is, scientific evidence refutes all three. Gods are F-I-C-T-I-O-N. Feel free to let that sink into your brain for a while.

Yes. I believe they are too.

By scientific evidence doesn't refute them ...

re·fute Verb:
Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Prove that (someone) is wrong.​

As many people have said in these threads before, we can't prove God doesn't exist, you need to prove that He does.

Science doesn't refute God. Science does explain clearly enough how the universe and the world around us functions, so that it renders God unnecessary. We don't need the invisible hand to move the stars in the sky. We have an understanding as to why they move as they do.

And I think most importantly, science has proven to be such an accurate measure of reality, that what today science can't explain, we accept that someday it will explain. And as that understanding becomes more complete and in depth I would expect the need for deities and the supernatural to diminish.

 

[Patrick1000]

I agree, and could not more.

The correct answer is, scientific evidence refutes all three. Gods are F-I-C-T-I-O-N. Feel free to let that sink into your brain for a while.

I agree, and could not more. No arguement from me there.

I actually find it kind of spooky, some aspects of Christianity. Sacres me!, even though it ain't real

 

[Craig B]

I agree, and could not more. No arguement from me there. I actually find it kind of spooky, some aspects of Christianity. Sacres me!, even though it ain't real

No argument from me either, but if you're looking for spooky, this is about as spooky as you can get; I mean your

So yes I am an atheist, but I say score one for Michelangelo and zero for the modern evolutionary biologists, guys and gals that don't understand the importance of empirics, yo-yos that better get a grip before the intelligent design crew articulate them into oblivion.

What on earth do you mean?

 

[Patrick1000]

Dinosaurs to birds, where is the molecular evidence?

We were discussing genetic mutation. There is, it turns out, a single gene change (or so we think, WBSCR17, the same gene that causes William's syndrome in humans) that accounts for the transition from wild to tame and this single gene change also accounts for typical physical dog features, such as floppy ears, short curly tails, behavioral neotony, etc. It was discovered by selective breeding of foxes actually to help promote a more tame variety; unfortunately so that they could keep and kill them more easily since it happened within the fur industry. This change occurred within 25 generations or so, which is pretty fast if you think about it. And this one gene (at least we think it is one gene) is responsible for numerous changes in the domesticated foxes.

Selective breeding is just one form of selection pressure. Why would you consider that any less random than natural selection? Or is natural selection not entirely random?


As to the issue of creating a new species, no one was trying to create a new species with such maneuvers, so I'm not sure why you would mention that fact. If we want to start discussing speciation, then we will first need to define species. If we are going to move down this road, I suggest a new thread because it is far off topic.





Good argumentation is evidence based. Where is the evidence that evolutionary biologists only offer us gobbledygook?





Good for you, but beside the point.




I'm not entirely certain what you are trying to express here, but evolutionary theory, the theory itself, makes no claim about God whatsoever. You may claim, possibly correctly, that many people engaged in the endeavor and people who popularize it believe there is no God, but that is an entirely different point. The theory will not allow supernatural explanations if natural explanations are possible; that is very different from saying that it is atheistic.






Again, that is going to have to depend on a definition of species. There have, in fact, been many documented genetic alterations resulting in speciation where species is defined in terms of the ability of individuals to mate.





I have no interest in dissuading anyone who enjoys reading and finding insight in the Bible; I have no idea why you would think that folks interested in molecular biology are not also interested in Renaissance sculpture or any number of other artistic creations. If you want to discuss issues in molecular biology as they relate to evolution, then I think it best to leave non sequiturs to the side.

Dinosaurs to birds, where is the molecular evidence?

Someone, an intelligence, a manipulator, is trying to make something happen in the case of selective breeding. This is a no no in the case of neo-Darwinism as conventionally presented.

We are not allowed to "breed dogs". I mean we can, but then it does not "count", and similarly, God is not allowed to "breed people" by whatever means anyone wants to imagine this may have been done. These are Natural Selection's axioms. The process is wholly naturalistic and intention does not play a hand.

In the case of Christianity, intention is the very point of the whole thing.

 

[Patrick1000]

I mean the guys that write biology books don't make sense, GOBBLEDYGOOK!

No argument from me either, but if you're looking for spooky, this is about as spooky as you can get; I mean your What on earth do you mean?

I mean the guys that write biology books don't make sense, GOBBLEDYGOOK!

 

[bikerdruid]

I mean the guys that write biology books don't make sense, GOBBLEDYGOOK!

yes, the biblical account of creation is so much more logical than all those scientists with generations of research and evidence for those hokey fantasies about evolution and such.
and those buggers use fancy words too.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Peterson]

I read the article and he seems to have a very narrow view of religion and a very wide view of science.

 

[Patrick1000]

About the intelligent design poeple. They do a better job with empirics.

No argument from me either, but if you're looking for spooky, this is about as spooky as you can get; I mean your What on earth do you mean?

About the intelligent design poeple. They do a better job with empirics often times, the intelligent design people do. They do a better job than the mainstream evolutionary biologist yo-yos that do not seem to understabnd their own subject.

Case in point is Stephen Meyer's book, SIGNITURE IN THE CELL. A book addressing the question of where genetic information came from to begin with. Meyer's answer is that an intelligent designer created the information. Not to get bogged down in details, I personally do not agree with Meyer, but he presents the facts, the empirics, the knowns, with skill and insight. He presents a range of explanations for the source of genetic information and a critical analysis of why one "solution" should be preferred over another.

World reknown evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala of the university of California at Irvine reviewed Meyer's book. One can tell in reading the review that Ayala first of all didn't even read Meyer's book, and secondly, didn't even know what the book was about, AND THIRDLY, HE DOES NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE BOOK'S POINTS ABOUT WHY ONE SOLUTION/EXPLANATION FOR LIFE'S ORIGIN SHOULD BE PREFERRED OVER ANOTHER(agreeing or disagreeing with Meyer's particular solution choice aside). The book is about the origin of FIRST LIFE and the INFORMATION required to run that system.

So from my vantage point, it is people like Meyer and mathematician/philosopher David Berlinski and their peers who argue most cogently about life's origins, not the guys who write mainstream texts or are invoved with the writing of mainstream popular accounts like Dawkins. Meyers, Berlinski and team, they mop the floor with the evolutionary biologists. If one reads the raging debate with an open mind, the intelligent design people are way ahead in terms of the quality of their presentations, their more balanced and complete approach to the problem.

One need not be religious to find great value in their writing, or agree with their conclusions. This is the sign of good writing that does not shy away from evidence, or the lack thereof.

And in their arguing so very cogently, the intelligent design people show along the way that neo-Darwinism and "intelligent design" are most decidedly most incompatible.

 

[R.A.F.]

Meyers, Berlinski and team, they mop the floor with the evolutionary biologists. If one reads the raging debate with an open mind, the intelligent design people are way ahead in terms of the quality of their presentations, their more balanced and complete approach to the problem.

Do you really think that you can make it true by proclamation?

Think again...

One need not be religious to find great value in their writing, or agree with their conclusions.

No they don't need to be religious...they just need to be ignorant about how evidence is actually evaluated.

 

[westprog]

The correct answer is, scientific evidence refutes all three. Gods are F-I-C-T-I-O-N. Feel free to let that sink into your brain for a while.

"Scientific evidence" is not the same thing as "things people claim on the internet". It isn't even the same thing as "things scientists happen to believe" since other scientists clearly believe something different.

Saying that something is scientifically proven without any references - that's scientific references, not random claims - doesn't prove anything.

 

[R.A.F.]

About the intelligent design poeple.

What are "poeple"?...fans of Edgar Allen??

 

[Peterson]

And thinking about his claim that "“God created humans,” “God created the Earth,” and “God created the heavens” have all been, to one extent or another, proven incorrect". Creation, at least from the Catholic point of view, doesn't mean he literally "made" them, that is fashioned them out of some material. It refers to the free Act of God that causes the existence of all things out of nothing. In this sense, creation isn't something that occurred at some point in the past but is something happening in the here and now. So yes God did create (and still is creating) the Earth, humans, and the heavens and science hasn't proven that incorrect.

 

[R.A.F.]

So yes God did create (and still is creating) the Earth, humans, and the heavens and science hasn't proven that incorrect.

"Science" only can "work" if the premise being investigated is falsifiable

The "existence" of god is, by definition not falsifiable.

 

[Peterson]

"Science" only can "work" if the premise being investigated is falsifiable

The "existence" of god is, by definition not falsifiable.

I was just using the authors own words.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG is wedded to the notion that if you can show the social, anthropological and mental processes that lead to a belief, then that is equivalent to disproving the belief. As this would enable any belief to be disproved, including beliefs that are precise opposites, there's a clear logical hole in the argument.

This is a distortion of what I believe the evidence supports. This is your way of discounting the evidence based conclusion you don't want to think critically about.


Your claim: "if you can show the social, anthropological and mental processes that lead to a belief, then that is equivalent to disproving the belief."

My actual claim: There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE god beliefs are human generated fiction. There is NO EVIDENCE real gods are the source of any god beliefs.

...It's been stated that since science doesn't assume the existence of God, that this equates to a scientific proof that God does not exist. This is so obviously a flawed argument that it could be used in chapter one of Errors In Logic.

OTOH, the absence of evidence proving gods don't exist is not evidence they do exist either.