Why science and religion are not compatible

[Patrick1000]

Read Meyer's Book, then one is entitled to comment

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

Think again...



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

Read Meyer's Book, then one is entitled to comment. Ayala didn't read the book and so his opinion is of course worthless.

My point is regardless of one's views; religous and life's origin rooted in purpose, or naturalist, and llife's origin wholly unintentionally mechanistic, the Intelligent Design people are quite simply, better with the facts. The mainstream evolutionary biologists seem to me and many others to be afraid of the facts, and I am an atheist.

So read Meyer's book and let me know what you think. It is 600 pages long by the way, give or take.

 

[Patrick1000]

Modern Evolutionary theory/Neo-Darwinism is not falsifiable.

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

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

Modern Evolutionary theory/Neo-Darwinism is not falsifiable. So by your criteria R.A.F., Neo-Darwinism/modern evolutionary theory likewise is not scientific.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re dinos to birds: Jurassic Park comes true: How scientists are bringing dinosaurs back to life with the help of the humble chicken

He says: ‘Of course we can bring them back to life. Their ancestral DNA is still present.
'The science is there. I don’t think there are any barriers, other than the philosophical.’
So just how have these scientists arrived at the point where they believe they might unleash the mysteries of a prehistoric lost world?

By activating a dormant gene, Harris and Fallon attempted to ‘trick’ the chicken’s leg into growing feathers instead of scales.
It worked — they had uncovered the genetic changes that had taken place as the dinosaur evolved into a bird.
Meanwhile, in Canada, Larsson had found that the three-fingered dinosaur claw structure remains hidden within a bird’s wing to this day.

Horner believes that a modern bird’s DNA contains a genetic memory that could be ‘switched on’ again, resurrecting long-dormant dinosaur traits.
To make such a creature, he would start with the genome (the whole hereditary information encoded in the DNA) of an emu.
‘Emus have all the features we need in order to make a Velociraptor-sized dinosaur,’ he says.
‘If I were to make a dinosaur, that is where I’d start.’
Far-fetched as this sounds, his work is supported by other leading academics.

Larsson had pinpointed a method for turning on dormant dinosaur genes.
If birds retained a dormant tail imprint, did they still retain a memory of dinosaur teeth?

In 2005, Matt Harris and John Fallon, developmental biologists at the University of Wisconsin, noticed something strange while researching mutant chickens.
Harris says: ‘Looking at an embryonic 14-day-old head, I came across the beak and these structures that were not supposed to be there.’
Could they really be teeth? Peeling away the beak in this tiny, mutant bird, the academics revealed sabreshaped formations almost identical to embryonic alligator teeth.
Next, Harris and Fallon attempted to trigger the formation of teeth in a normal chicken, by injecting the embryo with a virus designed to ‘turn on’ the relevant gene.
It was a long shot.
‘Making a tooth is complex,’ says Harris. ‘So the idea of turning on one gene that might be able to do this in an animal that hasn’t made teeth in over 70 million years, was somewhat of a stretch.’
Examining the growing embryo two weeks later, he called colleagues to look at what had happened.
‘You could see very clearly paired structures on the lower jaw.
'And so, a normal chicken can actually grow teeth.’
This was unexpected. Furthermore, the teeth had the same curved shape as dinosaur
fangs.

 

[Patrick1000]

I agree, science has not proven that incorrect.

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.

I agree, science has not proven that incorrect. On the other hand there is no compelling reason to BELIEVE in , to accept anything as a "first cause".

And so it is an odd sort of Mexican stand off. Science cannot prove, what most Americans claim to believe, which is itself at odds, with the most popular naturalist theory of human existence that we have, which is a theory that denies us our God.

Oh my, what a mess!

 

[Patrick1000]

Having dinosaur genes does nothing to show how the dinosaurs became birds.

Re dinos to birds: Jurassic Park comes true: How scientists are bringing dinosaurs back to life with the help of the humble chicken

Having dinosaur genes does nothing to show how the dinosaurs became birds. this is a complete non starter. You could have an intact dinosaur genome, a pair of mating dinosaurs alive today. How does this show the truth in the assertion that birds came from donosaurs? It shows nothing.

Matter of fact, it one pauses to think about it, the whole notion of an avian cardiopulmonary system arising from that of a reptile's is absurd by way of one point mutations, or even handfuls of them, batches of them, occurring in succession. An avian lung, from that of a reptile's, over millions of years? who cares, obviously impossible and as such, it is not surprising there is no empiric evidence for it. Why should we expect to see evidence for something we all know could never have occurred?

It's enough to drive you straight to church to look for a better solution, given the "right" constitution of course.

 

[R.A.F.]

Read Meyer's Book, then one is entitled to comment.

Crap is crap...Why do I need to read crap to tell you it is crap?

...the Intelligent Design people are quite simply, better with the facts. The mainstream evolutionary biologists seem to me and many others to be afraid of the facts, and I am an atheist.

I don't know why I even bother with you...you simply post "here's what I think", and ignore anyone who disagrees...

Scientists are not afraid of facts...why would you post something so "ignorant"?

The Intelligent Design poeple are not better with the facts....your whole "argument" is based on your extreme ignorance about well, EVERYTHING.

by your criteria

No...you don't get to put words in my mouth...so don't even try...

 

[Patrick1000]

Growing feathers instead of scales does not a bird make.

Re dinos to birds: Jurassic Park comes true: How scientists are bringing dinosaurs back to life with the help of the humble chicken

Growing feathers instead of scales does not a bird make. This is a non starter again, the feathers instead of scales business. Theoretically, every cell in the bird may be totipotent and could grow both feathers and scales. So what if either could be made to grow on command, what does that do to prove an avian cardiopulmonary system arose through a series of mutations from that of a reptile? NOTHING.

AND, my point is very much NOT that a dinosaur ancestor did not give rise to birds, it is that this did not occur by way of a series of mutations which were undirected, unintended. So what if both the bird "genes" for feathers and scales can be traced back through time to a series of intermediates that were the direct desendants of the bird progenitor dinosaur, it does not mean this came about as the evolutionary biologists claim that it did. That is my whole point. And that is the point relevant to this thread.

This stuff is said to have happened by accident. There is no evidence for it being so, a series of molecular accidents carrying a dinosaur to a bird. And accidents are not compatible with God.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually, I challenged you to read Stephen Meyer's book

Crap is crap...Why do I need to read crap to tell you it is crap?



I don't know why I even bother with you...you simply post "here's what I think", and ignore anyone who disagrees...

Scientists are not afraid of facts...why would you post something so "ignorant"?

The Intelligent Design poeple are not better with the facts....your whole "argument" is based on your extreme ignorance about well, EVERYTHING.



No...you don't get to put words in my mouth...so don't even try...

Actually, I challenged you to read scientist Stephen Meyer's book, SIGNATURE IN THE CELL, and then asked you to tell me what you thought of the book. I said I did not agree with Meyer's conclusions, but pointed out his presentation of the evidence, all of it, including negative evidence, the absence of findings, for life's origins was very thorough compared to that presented by evolutionary biologists in the main.

I actually make no claims myself. I personally think science has limits and this is probably one of them, though I may well be wrong and that would be OK. That said, main stream scientists have yet to present anything like compelling evidence for "evolution's mechanism".

I stand eagar to be convinced of the truth they can show me, but they never show us anything, just empty words about what should be the case.

Religious people at least follow through on their beliefs in a way the evolutionary biologists don't follow through on their BELIEFS. That is exactly what the evolutionary biologists are entitled to call their opinions with regard to "evolution's mechanism", they are nothing more than BELIEFS.

 

[Minoosh]

Religious conclusions that I can think of are ...

• God is the eternal, omnipotent, creator of the universe
• God created man in His image
• Jesus Christ is our Lord and savior​

To which someone has responded, "science refutes all three."

Science rebuts all three, in various ways, but how does it refute the conclusion "Jesus Christ is our Lord and savior?

So, figure most religious doctrines are necessarily false, since scientifically speaking they can't all be right. Does that equate to science "refuting all three?" And has science refuted that God is the eternal, omnipotent creator of the universe?

If science is not addressing itself to these claims, can science refute them?

 

[Minoosh]

p.s. Patrick, your posts just leave me confused. You think evolution doesn't explain the complexity that has developed, and yet you're an atheist. If it wasn't God, nor any natural process so far identified, what then could explain the complexity that has developed?

 

[westprog]

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.

That replaces an argument with an assertion.

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

 

[westprog]

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

Which simply places the issue outside of the scope of science.

 

[Aridas]

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.

Huh. This is news to me. Maybe, just maybe, you should actually look into what religion is, before making claims like this.

Of course, I could always have fun with pointing out the similarity of logic between your statement and "Those other Christians aren't "real" Christians because they allow dancing in church." Or force a specific uniform to be worn to service and segregate men and women completely. Or don't. Or... a lot of other things, really, but I think my point's been made.

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.

As amusing as before, I see. I wasn't aware that "science" = "modern fully naturalistic neo-Darwinism." Somehow, I'm rather certain that they're not one and the same, though, despite your assertions.

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>

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.

Quoted, again, for continuing relevance.

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.

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

Just to point something out in slightly different words... Having a belief for illogical and non-evidence based reasons does not mean that the belief is wrong. Very often, the beliefs will be wrong, certainly, but they aren't always. This is, of course, no reason for others to accept a belief blindly, but simply pointing out that truth and irrational belief don't have the requisite relationship for automatic refutation because a belief is irrational.

I agree, science has not proven that incorrect. On the other hand there is no compelling reason to BELIEVE in , to accept anything as a "first cause".

And so it is an odd sort of Mexican stand off. Science cannot prove, what most Americans claim to believe, which is itself at odds, with the most popular naturalist theory of human existence that we have, which is a theory that denies us our God.

Oh my, what a mess!

I agree with your first paragraph. Your second, though, falls into the realm of... Huh? What?

Science doesn't do much "proving" of anything. At all. So what are you going on about, really? And "denies us our God" is an interesting statement for one who has repeatedly tried to pass himself off as an atheist. Again, it's blatantly false, though, unless you're referring to a specific god with specific traits and proposed actions that can be verified to be false.

Perhaps you should fill in a number of the obvious gaps in your understanding before posting more on these subjects?

 

[Patrick1000]

For the most part, I am a naturalist.

p.s. Patrick, your posts just leave me confused. You think evolution doesn't explain the complexity that has developed, and yet you're an atheist. If it wasn't God, nor any natural process so far identified, what then could explain the complexity that has developed?

For the most part, I am a naturalist.

Thanks for the question Minoosh first off. By and large, we operate under the assumption that we have the ability to understand anything and everything, including the fundamental nature of life , including its origins, how it came about.

As intelligent, critically thinking individuals, at least those of us here participating in the forum, those agreeing and those disagreeing with me all, we should pursue our interests with that assumption. We have to in order to get anywhere. We assume we can know, and will know. We study hard, try and be open minded, try not to prejudice ouselves and so become blind to the obvious and not so obvious.

That said, we are limited, very very very very limited. It only stands to reason that there is much we will never be able to understand, stuff beyond our ken. Goldbach's Conjecture poses the following; EVERY EVEN INTEGER GREATER THAN TWO CAN BE EXPRESSED AS THE SUM OF TWO PRIMES. The Riemann Hypothesis suggests to us something about how prime numbers are distributed. Will someone "solve" for these? I surely cannot, nor can anyone participating in this forum. We do not have the requisite mathematical skills, and it may even prove to be the case that problems such as these can never be solved even by the best mathematicians, and not for want of trying, or want of creativity, or want of innovation. We may not be "smart" enough, all of us put together. Simple as that. There has to be limits to what we can know.

The origin of biologic information, its very deep nature, may have the requisite complexity to be out of our reach, cognitively off limits. Bill Gates says biologic information is like computer code, just like it, only way way way more complex. If it baffles Gates, it's gonna' baffle the best of us.

We should try try try try and maybe we'll crack it, figure out how it happens to be, why it is as it is. But my opinion is that will not be the case. It would be great if we did, without question, the greatest scientific achievement of all time, by a light year. But if they can't crack Riemann, or Goldbach, somehow, I don't think they are gonna' crack this one. Different kind of problem, much much much harder.

 

[Patrick1000]

"You were made in the image and likeness of God"

Huh. This is news to me. Maybe, just maybe, you should actually look into what religion is, before making claims like this.

Of course, I could always have fun with pointing out the similarity of logic between your statement and "Those other Christians aren't "real" Christians because they allow dancing in church." Or force a specific uniform to be worn to service and segregate men and women completely. Or don't. Or... a lot of other things, really, but I think my point's been made.



As amusing as before, I see. I wasn't aware that "science" = "modern fully naturalistic neo-Darwinism." Somehow, I'm rather certain that they're not one and the same, though, despite your assertions.



Quoted, again, for continuing relevance.



Just to point something out in slightly different words... Having a belief for illogical and non-evidence based reasons does not mean that the belief is wrong. Very often, the beliefs will be wrong, certainly, but they aren't always. This is, of course, no reason for others to accept a belief blindly, but simply pointing out that truth and irrational belief don't have the requisite relationship for automatic refutation because a belief is irrational.



I agree with your first paragraph. Your second, though, falls into the realm of... Huh? What?

Science doesn't do much "proving" of anything. At all. So what are you going on about, really? And "denies us our God" is an interesting statement for one who has repeatedly tried to pass himself off as an atheist. Again, it's blatantly false, though, unless you're referring to a specific god with specific traits and proposed actions that can be verified to be false.

Perhaps you should fill in a number of the obvious gaps in your understanding before posting more on these subjects?

"You were made in the image and likeness of God". It all starts from there. This is western religion. To say otherwise is to miss the point. You were created with a purpose in mind. To say otherwise is to miss the point. You were created in the furtherance of God's purpose. To say otherwise is to miss the point. This is our western tradition.

 

[Aridas]

Growing feathers instead of scales does not a bird make. This is a non starter again, the feathers instead of scales business. Theoretically, every cell in the bird may be totipotent and could grow both feathers and scales. So what if either could be made to grow on command, what does that do to prove an avian cardiopulmonary system arose through a series of mutations from that of a reptile? NOTHING.

Again, trying to say that science needs to "prove" something just, rather blatantly, shows that you don't understand science. We could get into the relevant philosophy here, but I really don't feel like it, at the moment.

AND, my point is very much NOT that a dinosaur ancestor did not give rise to birds, it is that this did not occur by way of a series of mutations which were undirected, unintended. So what if both the bird "genes" for feathers and scales can be traced back through time to a series of intermediates that were the direct desendants of the bird progenitor dinosaur, it does not mean this came about as the evolutionary biologists claim that it did. That is my whole point. And that is the point relevant to this thread.

Sure. Believe that it was directed and intended. That's quite your right to do. I, certainly, have no problem with that belief. I do have problems, however, when you make proclamations that are blatantly false. Luckily, this paragraph doesn't appear to be one of them.

This stuff is said to have happened by accident. There is no evidence for it being so, a series of molecular accidents carrying a dinosaur to a bird. And accidents are not compatible with God.

And... excuse me as I... *facepalms*

Anyways, this is something of a straw man, on multiple levels, and doesn't actually address the topic. Science says nothing about it being accidental. Science says that this seems to be the most likely explanation of how things happened, based on the information at our disposal. Nothing to do with the why. You're trying to argue with philosophical naturalism, which isn't quite the same thing as science.

Furthermore, your definition of "God" is narrow. Extremely narrow, in fact, if you're trying to argue that "God" and "accidents" are not compatible. And that's before you get to the single "God" versus multiple point. And before you get to the point where religion doesn't require deities. You're addressing a question much different than the topic.

 

[bikerdruid]

This is our western tradition.

what do you mean 'our'?
it ain't mine, dude.
that is christian mythology.

 

[Craig B]

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

I have been trying to understand your, I am an atheist, and also a fervent believer in ID, and now I think I do.

ID proponents say, disingenuously, that their doctrine doesn't require belief in a god. Any old designer will do. Most of them don't mean it of course, certainly not Behe; for ID was cynically invented to circumvent the separation of church and state - that admirable feature of the US constitution. So it pretends to be a science.

You, however, are clearly of a religious disposition, and you believe in purposeful creation. However, you also claim to be an atheist. A contradiction? Perhaps not. Do you believe that the "designer" though conscious, purposeful and powerful enough to direct the development of life on at least one planet, was not in fact divine, and has not employed supernatural powers to create humanity. Do you, in fact, believe we have been created by some super beings who are not in fact supernatural? Like aliens from another solar system?

In this way, you could be, by your odd definition, simultaneously religious (believer in purpose), and atheist (not believer in the supernatural).

But you may not have that in mind. In that case I'm totally baffled.

 

[Aridas]

"You were made in the image and likeness of God". It all starts from there. This is western religion. To say otherwise is to miss the point. You were created with a purpose in mind. To say otherwise is to miss the point. You were created in the furtherance of God's purpose. To say otherwise is to miss the point. This is our western tradition.

Western tradition =/= religion as a whole. To say that "You were created with a purpose in mind" is the only aspect of "western religion" worth dealing with is fallacious. To define Western religion by it is worthy of an eye-roll. You're narrowing the playing field from what it is to what you want it to be, and then arguing against the whole thing by presenting arguments relevant specifically to your narrowed definition. That's a logical fallacy if I've ever heard one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having dinosaur genes does nothing to show how the dinosaurs became birds. this is a complete non starter. You could have an intact dinosaur genome, a pair of mating dinosaurs alive today. How does this show the truth in the assertion that birds came from donosaurs? It shows nothing.

Matter of fact, it one pauses to think about it, the whole notion of an avian cardiopulmonary system arising from that of a reptile's is absurd by way of one point mutations, or even handfuls of them, batches of them, occurring in succession. An avian lung, from that of a reptile's, over millions of years? who cares, obviously impossible and as such, it is not surprising there is no empiric evidence for it. Why should we expect to see evidence for something we all know could never have occurred?

It's enough to drive you straight to church to look for a better solution, given the "right" constitution of course.

Why don't you just admit you don't want to believe evolution theory is correct and tell us why rather than trying to argue the science you are so poorly informed about?