Why science and religion are not compatible

[Patrick1000]

Rarely devious, I was here, this is a "trick question"

I'm no expert on bacterial DNA sequences, but are you sure? Have you sampled all the available bacteria on the planet? The claim may be entirely correct, I do not know, but if so that points to one big lacune in our knowledge base, but I'm not sure it points to much else.


ETA: There are two obvious explanations if that observation is correct. One is that we simply haven't looked at enough bacterial species and certainly not the one from which mitochondria were derived. The other is that the 'intermediate forms' no longer exist and are lost to time. A third possible explanation is that it's all just magic, but that isn't very satisfying.

Rarely devious, I was here, this is a "trick question".

Cytochrome C was one of the first examples of what some evolutionary molecular biologists came to refer to as a "molecular clock". In 1963 Margoliash famously wrote;

"It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome C of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged. If this is correct, the cytochrome c of all mammals should be equally different from the cytochrome c of all birds. Since fish diverges from the main stem of vertebrate evolution earlier than either birds or mammals, the cytochrome c of both mammals and birds should be equally different from the cytochrome c of fish. Similarly, all vertebrate cytochrome c should be equally different from the yeast protein."

And so was born the idea among evolutionary biologists of NEUTRAL! mutations, occurring with clocklike regularity and having apparently no discernable affect on the phenotype pro or con!!!!!!!!

Well how now brown cow can that ever square with mainstream Neo-Darwinism I would ask????????!!!!!!!!!

And where is God in all of this anyway?

 

[Resume]

And where is God in all of this anyway?

Absent and unnecessary.

 

[Paulhoff]

Riddle me this then?????????????

The mitochondrial membrane protein, Cytochrome C, has been studied intensively across a wide range of species; insects, mamals, birds, Republicans, monkeys, plants, bacterium and so forth. The Cytochrome C sequence divergence across the range of organisms studied is astonishingly limited. From bacterium to sunflower the divergence is 69 %, bacterium to man 66%. Cytochrome C wise, a sunflower is as "distant" from a bacterium, molecularly speaking, as is a man/woman.

If changing the DNA means "changing the organism", why are rabbits, fish, penguins, sunflowers and people all equally divergent from a bacterium as a person is, Cytochrome C wise anyway(64%-69%)?????? AND!, if Cytochrome C has diverged that much in these higher forms, 66% say on average, why should it "work" at all???????????? 66% divergence and it still functions as Cytochrome C in the mitochondrial membrane? I thought changing the DNA would change the function??????? AND boy!, this is a big change, more than half the molecule, 66%!!!!!!!

So what gives there mate?

Keep in mind, there are absolutely NO INTERMEDIATES FOUND THAT FILL IN THE GAPS. All higher forms are roughly 66% distant Cytochrome C divergence wise from ANY ARBITRARILY SELECTED BACTERIUM SPECIES.

So simple again, if something works well, a change may not make it work better so that most likely will stay the same because any change could make that new version not work as well so it dies out and isn't carried on to the next generation.

Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Rarely devious, I was here, this is a "trick question".

Cytochrome C was one of the first examples of what some evolutionary molecular biologists came to refer to as a "molecular clock". In 1963 Margoliash famously wrote;

"It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome C of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged. If this is correct, the cytochrome c of all mammals should be equally different from the cytochrome c of all birds. Since fish diverges from the main stem of vertebrate evolution earlier than either birds or mammals, the cytochrome c of both mammals and birds should be equally different from the cytochrome c of fish. Similarly, all vertebrate cytochrome c should be equally different from the yeast protein."

And so was born the idea among evolutionary biologists of NEUTRAL! mutations, occurring with clocklike regularity and having apparently no discernable affect on the phenotype pro or con!!!!!!!!

Well how now brown cow can that ever square with mainstream Neo-Darwinism I would ask????????!!!!!!!!!

And where is God in all of this anyway?

So what you are really asking is how can mutations occur and not disrupt function? That's a different issue. I think most people here are aware that it is used as a 'molecular clock'.

I would have to check and see but I seem to recall that cytochrome c is one of the proteins where some of the subunits are coded for in mitochondrial DNA and some in nuclear DNA. Those in nuclear DNA can easily accept non-coding mutations in introns with no effect on the function of the subunit since the mutation is not coded for.

Most of the work that I recall about molecular clocks, though, has focused on actual amino acid substitutions, so the answer there depends on what type of substitution occurs and where it occurs. Most of the molecule is not functional. Whenever mutations occur in the 'business part' of cytochrome c we end up with a disease state or death. Mutations that cause amino acid substitutions in the 'non-business part' of the molecule don't do much to disrupt function as long as they do not cause the protein to fold in a funny way or to improperly insert in the mitochondrial membrane.

Not all mutations produce any functional change in a molecule. It depends on what and where they occur.

ETA:

And I guess I should mention that from what I recall the only reason we can use this as a molecular clock is because it is so conserved across species.

 

[tsig]

I disagree. God doesn't need to have an origin. The Jewish/Christian God is unchangeable and therefore is eternal. The changes we see can all be accounted for by natural processes. The existence of the processes themselves can't be accounted for by anything natural (in my opinion).

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that religion needs to keep moving the goal post and unfortunately, that's correct. What bothers me is that Thomas Aquinas had already placed that goal post so far back (to the level of existence itself) that there would be no need to ever move it to accommodate science (as Catholic, I'll just blame the reformation for that).

In an eternity god could have created an infinity of universes populated with humans. Given that, there would be an infinity of Petersons, tsigs and JREFs endlessly repeating the same posts.

 

[tsig]

Not necessarily. If this universe has it's origin from another, then it's possible that matter has existed from eternity but this in no way invalidates the creation by God (he is still the cause of the existence of the matter). Also, God sees the whole of creation as a single moment which leads me to believe that the universe could have, in some way, existed from eternity (I'm not sure about this though).

These are not scientific questions but they are questions that the guy who wrote the article implies may be answered by science some day.

How do you know that?

 

[Minoosh]

Michelangelo's Pieta says more than a zillion words, if one has the eye to behold.

Michelangelo the Catholic was also an anatomist, driven to break very serious Church rules in order to secretly dissect corpses, that he might better glorify God and his creation.

Amazing guy.

 

[tsig]

Well, there's two approaches to this. One is pragmatic. If there were a test for an omnipotent being, why hasn't anyone suggested it? By this I mean a scientific test, not of the metaphysical speculation kind. While a test might be impractical under present conditions, it could certainly be designed in principle.

However, the main reason is very simple. If a finite, limited being is playing hide and seek with an infinite, all-powerful being, then clearly the omnipotent player is going to win. No matter how hard the finite being searches, he has to accept the fact that he won't find a God that doesn't want to be found. You can perfectly well speculate in philosophical terms as to the likelihood of such a being existing. You can deduce metaphysically that there is no necessity for him. However, scientifically speaking you have to accept that the God thing is a dead end, and that there is no way to have a definitive answer for it.

As long as we stipulate that this god can have no discernible effect on reality then I agree that god cannot be disproved, however the moment you claim that god did anything that affects the world then it comes under the purview of science.

 

[westprog]

As long as we stipulate that this god can have no discernible effect on reality then I agree that god cannot be disproved, however the moment you claim that god did anything that affects the world then it comes under the purview of science.

It might come under the purview of science. A visible, accessible God can be studied by science. A God that covers his tracks cannot. Investigate all you want, and you'll get nowhere.

But that's not the suggestion. The suggestion is that God is detectable by science, that science has proven that God does not exist, and hence that any claim or belief that God exists (and the possibility of associated supernatural, miraculous phenomena) is in conflict with science. All of this is incorrect - in the sense that it's bad science.

 

[The Norseman]

It might come under the purview of science. A visible, accessible God can be studied by science. A God that covers his tracks cannot. Investigate all you want, and you'll get nowhere.

But that's not the suggestion. The suggestion is that God is detectable by science, that science has proven that God does not exist, and hence that any claim or belief that God exists (and the possibility of associated supernatural, miraculous phenomena) is in conflict with science. All of this is incorrect - in the sense that it's bad science.

Scientists -- or more accurately, people utilizing the scientific method -- haven't made claims. The theists make the claims about various gods and the gods' attributes which are then analyzed critically. So far, the claims that have been made that are testable have all been either logically or physically refuted. That some claims are made, such as the existence of a god which covers its tracks, which attempt to place them outside of critical review does not mean that it's a failure of the scientific method, nor does it mean that any credence should be lent to the accuracy or reality of them.

 

[Aridas]

Just because neither is scientific, does not mean that they are not contradictory.

Neo-Darwinism's world view is one in which life evolves without intelligent input, without direction.

Christianity is a world view which claims I was made by a creator with intention.

Neither view of the world is scientific, but they nevertheless are very much mutually exclusive. So I most certainly do not rescind my previous claims. Those stand and those claims do stand very well indeed.

...

Well, now I know that you have no idea what you're talking about, as if I needed more proof. I asked you to rescind or correct the errors in your statement, if you actually agreed with me, and weren't just cherry-picking, in an attempt to support your case while ignoring the issues. But hey, let's list one of the massive errors, directly, again.

Science and "neo-Darwinism" are not the same thing. Twice, in that short statement, you try to say that they are. This actually becomes funny, in light of this post, where now, you're trying to say that science is unscientific, rather than changing science in your statement to "neo-Darwinism." Your failure to admit that this is an error is dishonest.

I disagree. God doesn't need to have an origin. The Jewish/Christian God is unchangeable and therefore is eternal. The changes we see can all be accounted for by natural processes. The existence of the processes themselves can't be accounted for by anything natural (in my opinion).

You might, maybe, want to look more critically into what the Bible actually says, before the next time that you claim that the Jewish/Christian God is unchangeable. It's possible to support this hypothesis, but the picture that emerges isn't a pretty one, or at all agreeable to most believers in those Gods.

That said, the moment that you say that God is eternal and had no origin, you're honestly forced to concede that existence itself is eternal and had no origin, unless you want to invalidate that God's existence. Once you concede that... well, that existence has always existed, you've removed any logical reason why reality, with or without God, could not have always existed, which renders the entire argument moot and pointless.

That some claims are made, such as the existence of a god which covers its tracks, which attempt to place them outside of critical review does not mean that it's a failure of the scientific method, nor does it mean that any credence should be lent to the accuracy or reality of them.

I don't think that westprog argued, at any point, that credence should be lent to their accuracy, nor that it's a failure of the scientific method when the form of god or gods in question is in the untestable. He's simply saying that science has nothing to say, in those areas, and therefore, cannot disprove them. End there, and all is well. Try to add to the conditions... like moving the bar to whether we should believe the claims, and I'm fairly sure that you'll find yourself in agreement, unless I've been misconstruing his replies.

 

[Peterson]

QUOTE=tsig;7671833]How do you know that?[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

I guess I don't know it, but I believe it. It gets tricky to talk about because when I say "see" I don't mean He has eyes. Maybe it's better to say he understands the whole of creation simultaneously or something like that. But it's because He exists completely outside of time. It was also implied when Jesus said something like: Before Abraham was, I am.

...
You might, maybe, want to look more critically into what the Bible actually says, before the next time that you claim that the Jewish/Christian God is unchangeable. It's possible to support this hypothesis, but the picture that emerges isn't a pretty one, or at all agreeable to most believers in those Gods.
u
That said, the moment that you say that God is eternal and had no origin, you're honestly forced to concede that existence itself is eternal and had no origin, unless you want to invalidate that God's existence. Once you concede that... well, that existence has always existed, you've removed any logical reason why reality, with or without God, could not have always existed, which renders the entire argument moot and pointless.

Not really well versed enough to discuss the first paragraph (I'm really only a beginner with all this stuff).

The Christian God is pure existence itself (He is not a being, he is Being) so we would agree that existence has existed from eternity. He is not a thing, He is an act (or cause) and the universe is an effect. The effect could be coeternal with the cause without contradicting creation. This may be Plato's (not sure) but imagine a foot planted in the sand from eternity. The footprint would also exist from eternity but it would still be caused by the boot. Personally though, I believe there was a beginning of the world and will be an end but that's a whole different thing.

 

[westprog]

Scientists -- or more accurately, people utilizing the scientific method -- haven't made claims. The theists make the claims about various gods and the gods' attributes which are then analyzed critically. So far, the claims that have been made that are testable have all been either logically or physically refuted. That some claims are made, such as the existence of a god which covers its tracks, which attempt to place them outside of critical review does not mean that it's a failure of the scientific method, nor does it mean that any credence should be lent to the accuracy or reality of them.

No, but it means that scientists, when doing science, should leave discussion of God out of it. Leaving God out of Science class means exactly that. Bringing God into science class is a bad idea. It's bad religion and bad science.

 

[The Norseman]

I don't think that westprog argued, at any point, that credence should be lent to their accuracy, nor that it's a failure of the scientific method when the form of god or gods in question is in the untestable. He's simply saying that science has nothing to say, in those areas, and therefore, cannot disprove them. End there, and all is well. Try to add to the conditions... like moving the bar to whether we should believe the claims, and I'm fairly sure that you'll find yourself in agreement, unless I've been misconstruing his replies.

I could be misunderstanding, sure. I think he's at least implied in his posts that we should have some sort of reservation towards god beliefs instead of saying that certain god beliefs are not amenable to the scientific process therefore we should consider them irrelevant.

 

[Humes fork]

No, but it means that scientists, when doing science, should leave discussion of God out of it. Leaving God out of Science class means exactly that. Bringing God into science class is a bad idea. It's bad religion and bad science.

But God is purported to be an explanationfor the birth of the universe, and the origin of life.

And again, the God hypothesis could have fit the data better than it does. If for example there was no evidence for evolution, and the data instead pointed to a sudden appearance of the species, it would fit better with the God hypothesis as for the origin of species than our current Earth. And if the universe was much younger, giving no time for evolution, that fact would have a hard time fitting into the Darwinian account, but would fit into the God hypothesis.

Again, it is not impossible in principle for the God hypothesis to be the most plausible. It's just not so in practice.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It might come under the purview of science. A visible, accessible God can be studied by science. A God that covers his tracks cannot. Investigate all you want, and you'll get nowhere.

But that's not the suggestion. The suggestion is that God is detectable by science, that science has proven that God does not exist, and hence that any claim or belief that God exists (and the possibility of associated supernatural, miraculous phenomena) is in conflict with science. All of this is incorrect - in the sense that it's bad science.

I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said here, but one that hides doesn't necessarily meet any useful definition of God. Since we generally define God as a being or Being worthy of worship, where does that put us if 'he' hides? Does that action, hiding, fit within the characteristics of one worthy of worship?

Nothing can prove that God does not exist just as nothing can prove that God does exist. The existence or non-existence of God belongs to no field of endeavor. If God exists, that existence is beyond philosophy, theology, whatever. Belief in the existence of God is an individual decision that people make.

 

[Minoosh]

Belief in the existence of God is an individual decision that people make.

I'm not even sure it's a decision. It may just happen.

Does anyone on this thread think that someone can believe in God and yet make no claims about God?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It doesn't matter what you THINK is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. We are discussing science, and what is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. So if you'll point to a peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC paper that comes to that conclusion, then it's relevant. If it's philosophical or metaphysical reasoning, then it is not relevant to a discussion about SCIENCE, no matter how many BLOCK CAPITALS are used.

Then you should DEMONSTRATE your confidence by presenting the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
In discussions about science, evidence which doesn't meet the requirements of science matters not, that is correct.

You have an incredibly anemic view of science, the scientific process, and scientific evidence if you think everything can be boiled down to a single peer reviewed scientific paper.

Can you boil down evolution theory, cosmology, quantum mechanics, gravity and plate tectonics each to a single peer reviewed scientific paper?

How about a college degree in anthropology or biology or sociology? Can you bring someone up to speed by a couple citations in a forum when the evidence for a conclusions consists of a very large amount of research, and not some simple single paper? Look at how complex it is just to fill Patrick1000 in on the vast amount of genetic science he is ignorant of when he claims to understand the evidence for evolution theory. Where do you even start with that kind of knowledge deficit?


Of course the fact you don't want to address your own god belief lest you find out it is unsupportable is a reason you don't want to consider a complex body of evidence. It's easier for you, isn't it, to find a simple barrier that allows you to dismiss the evidence before you have to look more closely at it?


But there are scholars who have put their extensive research together into single books regarding the nature of god beliefs. And you can gain a lot of insight reading the following book review if you don't have time to read the whole book.

It's a book by the award winning journalist, Robert Wright. There is a thorough book review here: "The Evolution Of God: The Origins Of Our Beliefs"

What Wright sets out to do here is to trace the origins of religions across Judaeo-Christian traditions (he excludes Hinduism, Buddhism, and others) in a painstakingly researched, well-documented, wittily written book....

Starting with the rise of shamans in ‘primitive’ (the term itself is questionable, Wright points out) forms of beliefs, Wright goes on to locate early religion’s connections with social structures such as chiefdoms (in Polynesia, but also in Mesopotamia)....

Wright notes that Yahweh, the Jewish god, around the second millennium BCE, is exactly like the god of hunter-gatherer societies. As the battle for supremacy raged between Babylon and Egypt, the nature of the gods the populations and rulers worshipped also changed. Wright notes that as fortunes changed, the superiority of Israel had to be acknowledged, both in the political and theological domains, and led to the supremacy of Jewish gods as well....

Wright argues that changes in beliefs, moving them towards monotheism, were achieved through changes in scriptural texts at later dates. Such changes were necessitated by political reasons, not theological. Thus Isaiah depicts the fall of Babylon as the fall of polytheistic beliefs and the triumph of monotheism....

All this makes for a fascinating reading (on par with Karen Armstrong’s A History of God). But what makes Wright’s work all the more interesting is his conviction that religious faith is less a matter of the ‘word of God’ than of interpreting texts to suit geopolitical needs and considerations.

Thus, his account of how all religions, at some point in their history, begin to justify large-scale violence suggests the political necessity of religion and conquest....

There are many excerpts from the book available here on the book's website.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not even sure it's a decision. It may just happen.

Most of the time the person making the decision is one's parent. Just happening is also a decision; not necessarily a conscious decision. My basic point was that there is no way to prove God or not-God. Many people think they can prove the existence or non-existence of all god claims, but there is always an out. The problem with most of the 'outs' is that they spout contradictions like an open artery.

Does anyone on this thread think that someone can believe in God and yet make no claims about God?

I, for one, don't. The title God, without claims about him, is simply an empty placeholder word.

 

[Leumas]

The claim is birds from dinosaurs. Any molecular evidence at all will do. Show me the mutations over time. Direct, or good indirect evidence for those mutations having occurred and their being "unintentional". That is the claim of the evolutionary biologists. I would like to see it backed up with something substantive.

If not birds from dinosaurs, then mamals from ancient fish. Any mainstream lineage will due. I am not picky.

Show me evidence that you actually will look at any evidence that is given to you....so far you have proven the contrary.


Show me evidence for a designer.....


Who designed the designer?

If you are willing to accept that the designer SPONTANEOUSLY existed then why not the universe that we are in and in which evolution took place over EONS of space-time and that is much SIMPLER than a SENTIENT DESIGNER.

Even if there is a designer....s/he/it evolved and exists in space-time....so he is nothing but an ALIEN who had to evolve too.