Why science and religion are not compatible

[Skeptic Ginger]

The main argument for creationism in the classroom is that neo-Darwinism is atheistic given its mechanism being unintentional. If that is being taught, which it is, then the creationists have a very valid gripe.

Oh my word! I'd say this addresses the OP despite the fact you are otherwise arguing something off topic. Here's the evidence for why science and religion are not compatible. Patrick1000 and many many other theists, particularly the Evangelicals, reject any scientific evidence that contradicts their god beliefs.

Maybe the Catholics pay a little lip service to evolution theory today. But clearly they suppressed Bruno's and Galileo's scientific discoveries 4 centuries ago.

The only god belief which does not contradict scientific findings is Deism and logic contradicts Deism. There are no means for humans to be aware of a Deist god if said god does not interact with the Universe it created.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And adding to what I noted earlier about coming back to bite, the theory of evolution does not have an atheism component within the theory. But what are the educators to do with the questions that arise in children of the Christian faith who've been taught that the Adam and Eve and Original Sin myths are true? Does the educator avoid answering the questions or answer them honestly? Patrick1000 presents an example of the result of the incompatibility between science and at least his own religion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And adding to what I noted earlier about coming back to bite, the theory of evolution does not have an atheism component within the theory. But what are the educators to do with the questions that arise in children of the Christian faith who've been taught that the Adam and Eve and Original Sin myths are true? Does the educator avoid answering the questions or answer them honestly? Patrick1000 presents an example of the result of the incompatibility between science and at least his own religion.

He says he is an atheist. But he is big on Intelligent Design. Which means he is possibly a Raelian.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He says he is an atheist. But he is big on Intelligent Design. Which means he is possibly a Raelian.

But he complained that evolution theory was atheistic. Is he saying ET designed us but not gods per se? None of it leads to a logical position except theism. Who designed ET?

Seems to me like a semantic quibble to claim there was a designer but no god.

 

[Leumas]

It's certainly possible to start with the assumption that gods are delusions, and then to gather evidence as to how such an illusion might be generated. Note that I've not said that this research should not take place!

It's just that such research couldn't then claim that the empirical fact of such gods (or any others) existing had been thereby disproved. (Or some similar word substituted - I know the Wasp isn't keen on using proof and disproof as a scientific term).

See this Post and the video linked in this post.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am hardly big on intelligent design

But he complained that evolution theory was atheistic. Is he saying ET designed us but not gods per se? None of it leads to a logical position except theism. Who designed ET?

Seems to me like a semantic quibble to me to claim there was a designer but no god.

I am hardly big on intelligent design. The idea though is to encourage people, forum members, to consider reading books where important problem issues are covered more directly than they are in the mainstream biology literature. Stephen Meyer's SIGNATURE IN THE CELL is a great case in point, for reasons mentioned. Give it a go if you have a few minutes, he has much to say about these very issues we are debating here.

David Berlinski is another, a fabulous science writer.

Darwin himself was a fine writer, tremendous. There is much to learn there in his books, writings.

What I have learned here in this forum almost more than anything is that for most people this subject is absolutely black or white.

The one situation where religion and science could fully coexist, peacefully coexist, is in the context of an intelligent design solution.

Given that 76% of US residents are Christians, 76% are de facto intelligent design advocates, yet not a single post outside of mine mentioned intelligent design as the solution to this whole conundrum.


I guess I am a reluctant atheist. I attended Catholic Boys School and loved the learning, hated the boring and literally incredible religion. Now I am fascinated by the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but the New is interesting as well. I think trying to sort out who wrote what and why is one of the most interesting things one could devote a life to. I once heard the religious scholar John Dominic Crossan(historical Jesus specialist) speak in a tiny little(but very very rich!) church auditorium in San Francisco. It was the most fascinating talk I have ever heard in my life. Amazing stuff.

 

[Leumas]

Darwinism, because it is not falsifiable…

My point is there is not one way, but many ways to falsify Darwinism

My lawyer will be in contact with you.

Whiplash.

And Of Course he is going to ignore this post of yours or even look at it…

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But he complained that evolution theory was atheistic. Is he saying ET designed us but not gods per se? None of it leads to a logical position except theism. Who designed ET?

Seems to me like a semantic quibble to me to claim there was a designer but no god.

Not sure I can make sense of it. It's silly to argue that any form of atheism is being taught through Darwin's theory anyway. If that is the case, what about plate tectonics, general relativity, etc.? God is nowhere to be found in those theories. What's so special about Darwin?

What about history class? No God there either; just the impartial forces of the universe playing out. Home Ec doesn't even to seem to invoke divinity.

Meanwhile, my kids have been taught by at least three admitted creationist in a regular science class that included evolution (the teacher told the class that she didn't believe the Miller-Urey experiment so they were going to skip it), chemistry, and social studies.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The one situation where religion and science could fully coexist, peacefully coexist, is in the context of an intelligent design solution.

But how is intelligent design science? Or religion? At best it seems a pale substitute for either.

 

[Tricky]

The one situation where religion and science could fully coexist, peacefully coexist, is in the context of an intelligent design solution.

Yes they could coexist peacefully if scientists would simply abandon doing science, because there is nothing scientific about the concept of intelligent design. As soon as scientists learn to accept things without evidence, that roadblock to coexistence will disappear.

 

[Patrick1000]

Call it what you like

Not sure I can make sense of it. It's silly to argue that any form of atheism is being taught through Darwin's theory anyway. If that is the case, what about plate tectonics, general relativity, etc.? God is nowhere to be found in those theories. What's so special about Darwin?

What about history class? No God there either; just the impartial forces of the universe playing out. Home Ec doesn't even to seem to invoke divinity.

Meanwhile, my kids have been taught by at least three admitted creationist in a regular science class that included evolution (the teacher told the class that she didn't believe the Miller-Urey experiment so they were going to skip it), chemistry, and social studies.

Call it what you like. 76% of US citizens identify themselves as Christians. That means they identify with a religious tradition which holds as a fundamental tenet that each of them, each of the 76% of the Christian self identified American adults(over 18 years of age), ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE MILLION PEOPLE, most of the people that you work with, most of the people that you play with, most of your boyfriends, most of your girlfriends, most of your wives, most of your husbands, most of your classmates, most of the members of the sports teams you play on, most of the members of the clubs and other community organizations to which you belong, do not believe that they were created by anything like the fundamentally undirected, unintentional, purposeless process of natural selection.

All of these people, the vast majority of people that you will encounter today, believe contrary to the tenets of neo-Darwinism, they were made with a purpose in mind, with great intention. In fact, these people believe that they were made "with love". Whatever that means.

So tease me and make fun all you like, but your side is the side that should feel confused about these very simple FACTS which I simply present and make no claims with regard to.

My only claims are that I find both Christianity and neo-Darwinism wanting as an explanation for life's being what we know it to be. By "know" I mean experience life to be phenomenologically.

I sure as shoot know it, but have no idea why it is. And as best I can tell, nor does anyone else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am hardly big on intelligent design. The idea though is to encourage people, forum members, to consider reading books where important problem issues are covered more directly than they are in the mainstream biology literature. Stephen Meyer's SIGNATURE IN THE CELL is a great case in point, for reasons mentioned. Give it a go if you have a few minutes, he has much to say about these very issues we are debating here.

Your false assumption here is not many of us are well informed on intelligent design. On the contrary, those of us familiar with evolution theory are for the most part also thoroughly acquainted with Behe and ID.

...The one situation where religion and science could fully coexist, peacefully coexist, is in the context of an intelligent design solution.

Nope. Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis upon which ID is dependent has been disproved by the genetic evidence which revealed that the bacterial flagella evolved from a chemical transport system. Behe thought the flagella was irreducible because he only looked for a structure that appeared outwardly to be a precursor. Turned out the percursor was genetically clear but its structural appearance was dissimilar to the flagella.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Call it what you like. 76% of US citizens identify themselves as Christians. That means they identify with a religious tradition which holds as a fundamental tenet that each of them, each of the 76% of the Christian self identified American adults(over 18 years of age), ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE MILLION PEOPLE, most of the people that you work with, most of the people that you play with, most of your boyfriends, most of your girlfriends, most of your wives, most of your husbands, most of your classmates, most of the members of the sports teams you play on, most of the members of the clubs and other community organizations to which you belong, do not believe that they were created by anything like the fundamentally undirected, unintentional, purposeless process of natural selection.

All of these people, the vast majority of people that you will encounter today, believe contrary to the tenets of neo-Darwinism, they were made with a purpose in mind, with great intention. In fact, these people believe that they were made "with love". Whatever that means.

So tease me and make fun all you like, but your side is the side that should feel confused about theses very simple FACTS which I simply present and make no claims with regard to.

My only claims are that I find both Christianity and neo-Darwinism wanting as an explanation for life's being what we know it to be. By "know" I mean experience life to be phenomenologically.

I sure as shoot know it, but have no idea why it is. And as best I can tell, nor does anyone else.

Trust me, we are all aware of these facts. Lots of people believing something doesn't make it true.

It's fine with me if you find these explanations wanting. I would hope that means that you would like to spend more time learning. That's the most important thing any of us can do.

 

[Patrick1000]

Behe is hardly "Intelligent Design"

Your false assumption here is not many of us are well informed on intelligent design. On the contrary, those of us familiar with evolution theory are for the most part also thoroughly acquainted with Behe and ID.

Nope. Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis upon which ID is dependent has been disproved by the genetic evidence which revealed that the bacterial flagella evolved from a chemical transport system. Behe thought the flagella was irreducible because he only looked for a structure that appeared outwardly to be a precursor. Turned out the percursor was genetically clear but its structural appearance was dissimilar to the flagella.

Behe is hardly "Intelligent Design". What, am I supposed to give up on my point because you make one, about a single author?

My primary point is not about the validity of ID, it is that most adult Americans are self identified with it, one hundred and seventy five million of them, whether they recognize this formally or not. Yet, it is a subject misunderstood, if it's ever discussed at all.

So what if Behe is right or wrong? That was not my point.

And by the way, I don't think he writes well, Behe.

 

[Patrick1000]

Off topic some, but I like your style!

Trust me, we are all aware of these facts. Lots of people believing something doesn't make it true.

It's fine with me if you find these explanations wanting. I would hope that means that you would like to spend more time learning. That's the most important thing any of us can do.

Off topic some, but I like your style Ichneumonwasp! You are smart and FAIR! A great foil. Thanks for the back and forth today.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Likewise.

 

[Leumas]

How about Intelligent Design Aridas, any merit to it do you think?

Here we go....exactly where I expected him to go.....I called it a while back

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"......

I am not at all.

All indications are quite clear..... refusing to attend to replies to his repeated wrong assertions and dogmatic reassertions of the same already rebutted twaddle without any recognition for any logic or facts are well known traits and actions.

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.

 

[Patrick1000]

Til' we tangle again, ciao!

Likewise.

Til' we tangle again, ciao!

I'll reread your posts tonight and say more next time 'round.

Pat

 

[Leumas]

The one situation where religion and science could fully coexist, peacefully coexist, is in the context of an intelligent design solution.

Responded to way back before you even explicitly mentioned ID.

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?

 

[Aridas]

The main argument for creationism in the classroom is that neo-Darwinism is atheistic given its mechanism being unintentional. If that is being taught, which it is, then the creationists have a very valid gripe.

This point has already been addressed, repeatedly. You'd know that if you had paid attention. Intention is literally irrelevant. It is neither required nor disqualified. This "gripe" is conjured up out of nothing but ignorance and fear mongering. That you're continuing to argue it to be the case just continues to show that you are demonstrating one or both of those two things.

Furthermore, until the creationists can actually demonstrate that their theories are useful in understanding the nature of reality, instead of blatantly promoting self-serving ignorance, any and all gripes they raise are categorically disqualified.