Religion vs Science

[krosfyah]

I have a legitimate question that I want to repsectfully ask. I do not want to engage in a bash religion thread.

There has been a lot of discusion recently with the feeding tube debate and the IMAX controvery discussed here earlier that have put religion and science at direct odds against each other.

Regarding the debate about creationism vs. evolution, we hear the religious community disregarding science claiming that evolution is simply a theory.

Regarding Schaivo, I've heard comments by the religious community similiar to this:

"We should not be playing god with peoples lives so we should leave the feeding tube in."

So this leads me to my question. If the religious community cannot support what science has provided us with regards to evolution, how do you reconcile what science has provided us to keep people alive with a machine for years?

I think it is the mormons that refuse to take medicine because they leave the act of healing 'in God's hands.' I don't necessary understand that but I can respect their full immursion in faith. In this case, on the surface, it seems many Christians accept science sometimes and other times not.

I'm not being argumentative. I'm just curious. How do you reconcile that?

[Rocket River]

I beleive that one does not invalidate the other

I think religion explained science when science
was not understood
the more we understand science the less religion explains
the less faith we need

Science in my mind is an explaination of the mechanism
God uses to do his work

I can strike a match and be a god to primative man
them knowing how i did it . .. does not change the fact that i did it

Rocket River

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by Rocket River
I beleive that one does not invalidate the other

I think religion explained science when science
was not understood
the more we understand science the less religion explains
the less faith we need

Science in my mind is an explaination of the mechanism
God uses to do his work

I can strike a match and be a god to primative man
them knowing how i did it . .. does not change the fact that i did it

Rocket River

Okay, I can see your point of view. However, would you consider your opinion to be widly held?

[Severe Rockets Fan]

Originally posted by Rocket River
Science in my mind is an explaination of the mechanism
God uses to do his work

It's strange that science explains these things better than the Big Guy's book. Of course, our society would probably be in bad shape if he divulged nuclear power or something worse to the guys back in BC.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Severe Rockets Fan
It's strange that science explains these things better than the Big Guy's book. Of course, our society would probably be in bad shape if he divulged nuclear power or something worse to the guys back in BC. I think Science explains Science better than the bible. But it doesn't explain a spiritual relationship with God better.

As Max has said repeatedly, the bible was never meant to be a science text. It isn't meant to tell the future, it is meant to help people develop their relationship with God. It is a spiritual text book, and does that better than any science book. Science explains evolution, the creation of the earth, and other science related facts far better than the bible, because the bible doesn't really attempt to explain that stuff on the same level.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Okay, I can see your point of view. However, would you consider your opinion to be widly held?

unfortunately no
Most folx it is an either-or situation


Rocket River

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I think Science explains Science better than the bible. But it doesn't explain a spiritual relationship with God better.

As Max has said repeatedly, the bible was never meant to be a science text. It isn't meant to tell the future, it is meant to help people develop their relationship with God. It is a spiritual text book, and does that better than any science book. Science explains evolution, the creation of the earth, and other science related facts far better than the bible, because the bible doesn't really attempt to explain that stuff on the same level.

exactly
Advance technology could explain alot of miracles
but could u imagine explaining radio to a person of that age

I mean honestly. . .If I could teleport or some of the Star trek stuff
If I used the replicato ro insta-heal folx
I would be worshiped, Killed as a mutant or alien, or people would think it was a trick [mostly]
The more you do it . .and it is not seen as a trick . . .folx would come
to beleive you was not . .. normal and would grow to fear you
or worship you to get next to you

because they could not comprehend it fully the mechanisms of
how it was done.

in that day an age. . they would have killed ya
pure and simple

Perhaps the priest decided that most folx were
not READY for the responsibility
ether mental [able to comprehend it] or
emotionally [Can you imagine guns during the crusades?
or nuclear weapons?]

Rocket River

[Sishir Chang]

The case of Religion V Science was settled with a restraining order keeping Religion from approaching Science within 200 feet.

So this leads me to my question. If the religious community cannot support what science has provided us with regards to evolution, how do you reconcile what science has provided us to keep people alive with a machine for years?


Many believers will seemingly hold contradictory thoughts when they believe they are going for an overall higher goal. For instance consider how staunch defenders of States Rights like Tom DeLay have been eagerly federalizing a state issue.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
For instance consider how staunch defenders of States Rights like Tom DeLay have been eagerly federalizing a state issue.

Please, I was tying to have a civil conversation but any more conversation about Tom DeLay will force me to upchuck profusely.

Sorry, I haven't used the term upchuck in years and felt the need.

[Invisible Fan]

Science is a tool towards serving the interest of humanity. Religion is supposed to be one person's connection to spirituality, but it's inevitable that its interests would become something greater than each person. There is no mutual exclusion between the two.

The advancement of science, technology, and knowledge can be seen as increasing the quality of living and the power of humanity, but there are times when that power will come into conflict with the certain doctrines of different religions. Yet power and improving the quality of life also comes in different forms and tools such as politics and money. There isn't as large a controversy from religious groups when corruption sinks in the economic and political levels. Or at least, the impetus for change has not been felt from these groups. The consequences from abusing those two tools could negatively effect as much or more people than science.

Science and technology have increased the power of our political leaders to the scale where hundreds of million people will be affected. Are the two to be blamed when that power is used unjustly and unmorally? So why do people, who have certain key objections of science, accept that corruption of money and politics are the natural inclinations of man when science is another tool that man should control responsibly? Perhaps organized religious groups view the corruption of politics and money as another interest groups' fight, or maybe they've been guilty in some form that prevents them from tackling the issue head on. Whatever is the case, it seems that when times are the hardest or when the future is the bleakest, organized religion is the group that benefits the most in terms of membership.

Human spirituality has the potential for us to envision past the needs other interests say we have to fulfill. We can see past the need to accumulate wealth we might never use. We can live beyond the borders of nations and celebrate humanity. We wouldn't feel compelled to build more efficient tools that have no impact towards happiness and awareness. We wouldn't need to formulate the answers of why when the greatest why will never be solved in the realm of science. Science will provide more questions upon answers, when the most basic question all of us ask will not be answered by science. Our knowledge in the scale and magnitude of the universe is as limited as our time spent on this world, most likely even far less.

For the influencial, religion is another tool. Different groups will use it as selectively as they use science. As tools, none will advance the goals of its original intentions. Collectively, we are possibly happier with that. It's better to strive for a dream than to reach the summit of one's own truth.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Please, I was tying to have a civil conversation but any more conversation about Tom DeLay will force me to upchuck profusely.

Sorry, I haven't used the term upchuck in years and felt the need.

Sorry about that.

[MadMax]

i think most of you have very distorted views on what Christians and other people of faith in the Creator actually believe.

[glynch]

I don't think so.

[Dubious]

(As you know) Religion is such an interesting phenomena to me becuase it seems the need to have an answer to the unknowable is so universal, so endemic to the human psyche. Just about every civilization has had myths about the nature of a creator or gods that are greater than man that they believe in and worship even though they cannot be supported with rational arguments or empirical data. As civilizations evolve an new ones become dominant, they invariably replace the old gods with their own, usually ridiculiing the predicessors beliefs as ridiculous when in reality their own myths are just as baseless.

Religions seem to all need to answer the questions of science, dictate a code for worldly conduct and extend one's consciousness beyond death. That's a tall order but ,it seems also to be promoted as the primary means to gain and maintain political power. He who controls the religion controls the nation. And as we know, power corrupts.

Science on the other hand accepts that there are things that are unknowable, seeks to understand reality instead of promoting myths and as far as I know has never been a basis for any domination or repression.

[rhester]

Regarding the debate about creationism vs. evolution, we hear the religious community disregarding science claiming that evolution is simply a theory.

Krosfyah, very good questions here, because you seem sincere.

I don't disregard science at all, and yet I am convinced that evolution is a theory. These two views are consistent and held by many scientists.

science comes from the Latin 'scientia' which means to know or have knowledge.

Religion answers the questions-
Where we came from. Why we are here, and where we are going.

Science observes the processes that are put in place for these purposes.

In simple terms God decided we needed hands and created them.
Scientists spend their time trying to figure out how all those capillaries got stuffed into the end of your little finger.
And we choose whether we will use our hands for good or evil.

We need science to help us understand what God created.
We need God to help us use it for the purpose he designed.

Science does a very poor job in determining origins. They take a depth of earth and declare to the world it is 10 million years old. Then they find a bone fragment at the same depth and declare it is 10 million years old. Then they turn around and find a bone fragment and declare it is 10 million years old so they announce to the world that the depth they found it in is 10 million years old. It is circular reasoning at best.

I was a devout evolutionist all through college, and then I started thinking. That ruined me.

The only way to keep evolution a poor theory is to make it a scientific fact. Unless the evolutionary process stopped ubruptly about 6000 yrs ago there is no observable evidence to support it.

It actually should be moved to a hypothesis.

Imagine taking a snapshot yesterday of the world in a macro evolutionary process. For billions of years we have been in the grinding process of macro evolution as species after species painfully slowly evolve. Why looking across this evolutionary panorama we would expect to find billions and billions of transition species, 'links' if you please. Links everywhere observable and varifiable links as the long trudging process of macro evolution marches onward, ever evolving species, links between species just validating the assumptions of evolution for scientists everywhere. Think of the headlines- "5000 new 'links' observed between amphibians and reptiles just yesterday".

That would have to be the case if evolution was scientific fact. But I can't think of even one example of a transition or 'link' scientifically observable today.

For a science that demands, promotes and rests upon gradual transition between species it gives me a headache that it is not observable.

Species are distint. That is scientific. Transition is missing. That must be religion.

Leave science alone. It is doing fine helping us acheive a better understanding of the world God created.

Leave origins to God. He did a good job in the beginning.

[PhiSlammaJamma]

Neither can tell you what will happen in life. Therein lies the fundamental flaw of both science and religion. Neither idea really does much of anything.

Science can explain somethings, and provides evidence, but looks at itself funny when something like love comes into the equation. Life breaks the rules of science. Why? Who knows, it makes no sense, but it does.

Religion explains almost everything, but provides no givens and has almost no evidence to back it up. So both ideas are fundamentally flawed.

Which is why if you are looking for something to believe in, something to guide you, Science or Religion, you may want to consider that there is some idea that is better than both, and that there will soon be a third option. This is the mark of greatness. You have Jesus. You have Einstein. And there will be another. Someone who has an idea that takes everything a little further than both science and religion. I wouldn't try to reconcile the two ideas. I really wouldn't. I'm not going to say there is no value in reconcilation because I believe that there is. But there is something so much greater out there. Reconcilation is interesting, and someone should spend some time trying to do that, but if you really want to do something with your life, start seeking the inevitable, a new idea.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by glynch
I don't think so.

did you know that a majority of people who identified themselves as evangelical in a Time poll said they agreed with the decision to remove the feeding tube?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by krosfyah

I think it is the mormons that refuse to take medicine because they leave the act of healing 'in God's hands.'


IIRC, that is the Christian Scientists, not the Mormons, but I could be wrong.

[rhester]

Religion explains almost everything, but provides no givens and has almost no evidence to back it up. So both ideas are fundamentally flawed.

PhiSlammaJamma, good points, but I would say it a little differently:

Religion explains some things very well, and provides absolutes for moral actions and the evidence backs it up.

For example,

You get up and get drunk every morning beat your wife and throw her around. Guarantee you that you are damaging her and your marriage. And there is ample observable proof to back that up.

Or you molest your own children and they turn out traumatized and they are damaged physically and mentally.

Or someone lies to you and gains access to your personal wealth and plunders you leaving you bankrupt. Swindled as they say.

Or someone pulls a home invasion on your wife and rapes her simply because he saw her in the mall and fell in love with her.

Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

Right and wrong may be in the eye of the beholder, but a religion with the correct absolute truths can be avaluable asset when choosing how to love your neighbor.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by rhester
PhiSlammaJamma, good points, but I would say it a little differently:

Religion explains some things very well, and provides absolutes for moral actions and the evidence backs it up.

For example,

You get up and get drunk every morning beat your wife and throw her around. Guarantee you that you are damaging her and your marriage. And there is ample observable proof to back that up.

Or you molest your own children and they turn out traumatized and they are damaged physically and mentally.

Or someone lies to you and gains access to your personal wealth and plunders you leaving you bankrupt. Swindled as they say.

Or someone pulls a home invasion on your wife and rapes her simply because he saw her in the mall and fell in love with her.

Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

Right and wrong may be in the eye of the beholder, but a religion with the correct absolute truths can be avaluable asset when choosing how to love your neighbor.

I would rather understand and decide for myself why my actions are correct or not in each unique given situation, rather than relying on predefined "absolutes". There can be no absolutes when everything is in constant change. No two situations are exactly the same.

If moral absolutes exist we all might as well get lobotomies. There then becomes no reason to think.

[thegary]

Her name is Yoshimi
she's a black belt in karate
working for the city
she has to discipline her body

'Cause she knows that
it's demanding
to defeat those evil machines
I know she can beat them

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me

Those evil-natured robots
they're programmed to destroy us
she's gotta be strong to fight them
so she's taking lots of vitamins

'Cause she knows that
it'd be tragic
if those evil robots win
I know she can beat them

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me

Yoshimi

'Cause she knows that
it'd be tragic
if those evil robots win
I know she can beat them

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots defeat me

Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me
Yoshimi, they don't believe me
but you won't let those robots eat me

Yoshimi

[rhester]

If moral absolutes exist we all might as well get lobotomies. There then becomes no reason to think.

Moral- right or wrong
Absolutes- always right or always wrong

When I lived on the island of Yap in Micronesia they held that rape was legal. The chiefs said if a man is horny and a woman is found available, then it wasn't the man's fault (he was in the right)

My wife never agreed with that, I wasn't very pleased that I had to walk with her everywhere, I don't think the Yapese women were in real agreement, but the men sure saw it right in their own thinking.

I must protest that in all circumstances it is wrong for any of you to rape my wife.

I know, I know it is not an absolute just because I decide it is, but religion making it an absolute does not interfere with my choice or the rapist choice or the rape victum's choices.

Forget the lobotomies, we need every ounce of brain we have to make choices. Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute at 30,000 ft. may be a bad choices. There you are flapping your arms like a bird as you go splat against the absolute of gravity.

Now- as sure as gravity is in effect, you just find me 2 rape victums in the world who think there are no absolute consequences to such violation of one human upon another.

Sorry but moral laws are absolutes and so are there consequences.

The only reason we really need to think is to make the right choices in life.

Without moral absolutes we all need lobotomies because there certainly wouldn't be any motive to make a decision.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by rhester
I must protest that in all circumstances it is wrong for any of you to rape my wife.

Just for argument's sake, would you allow the rape to happen if you knew it would somehow save the world or even her life?

I know it a stretch, and I wouldn't blame you for saying "hell no", but some people might think they were doing the right thing for saying "yes".

Also, would it be wrong 100 years from now when she is dead? The question becomes moot, so the answer is non-existent. Therefore it is not an absolute.

Absolutes are generalizations.

[rhester]

Just for argument's sake, would you allow the rape to happen if you knew it would somehow save the world or even her life? Also, would it be wrong 100 years from now when she is dead? The question becomes moot, so the answer is non-existent. Therefore it is not an absolute.

Mr. MEOWGI-- Good points so let's answer them intelligently.

1. No raping my wife will not save the world. Anyone disagree?
2. No raping my wife so that she is not killed does not make rape the right choice for her. Anyone disagree. (adding murder to the list doesn't some how balance out rape or torture or anyother crime you wish to list)

How about rape is the wrong choice for someone to make. Anything wrong with that? (if you need a hint ask women)

3. Raping a corpse is a different evil. It is not a crime against the corpse but against the person commiting the act. Imagine the teacher that gets up in front of the high school class and tells all the boys to rape a corpse if they get horny.

The answers are all too clear. If a woman doesn't want you to rape her, don't do it. It is a matter of absolute right and wrong.

Why don't we decide to murder, lie, and steal under certain self-approved circumstances and teach our children to do the same.

Oh- yeah, we do that, sorry my mistake.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by rhester
Mr. MEOWGI-- Good points so let's answer them intelligently.

1. No raping my wife will not save the world. Anyone disagree?
2. No raping my wife so that she is not killed does not make rape the right choice for her. Anyone disagree. (adding murder to the list doesn't some how balance out rape or torture or anyother crime you wish to list)

How about rape is the wrong choice for someone to make. Anything wrong with that? (if you need a hint ask women)

3. Raping a corpse is a different evil. It is not a crime against the corpse but against the person commiting the act. Imagine the teacher that gets up in front of the high school class and tells all the boys to rape a corpse if they get horny.

The answers are all too clear. If a woman doesn't want you to rape her, don't do it. It is a matter of absolute right and wrong.



I know it wouldn't save the world or her life. It's called a hypothetical question...

I wasn't talking about a corpse. :D My point was that for the answer to exist as an absolute, the question must always exist too.

It's not even an absolute that the world will exist tommorrow.

Each unique sitiuation has it's own unique actions to be taken. Something can be correct 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, but not 100%

Why don't we decide to murder, lie, and steal under certain self-approved circumstances and teach our children to do the same.

Exactly. It's not always morally wrong. (self-defense, accidental, etc.)

[rhester]

I know it wouldn't save the world or her life. It's called a hypothetical question...

Sorry I have to disagree. A hypothetical question would be, 'Suppose someone raped your wife and the world didn't end would you day your wife saved the world?"

That is hypothetical and the answer would still be no.

Your question was a dishonest question (not hypothetical) a dishonest question is one that is asked knowing that the answer cannot be honest because the premise is dishonest. The premise you gave was that the rape of my wife could save the world. That cannot be true so the question is deceptive by nature, given as a more of a snare for the sake of debate.

I wasn't talking about a corpse
I thought you said she was dead. Help me out I'm slow.



My point was that for the answer to exist as an absolute, the question must always exist too.

I have to disagree. You gave two separate questions- one about my wife and one about her corpse after she was dead. I gave you two answers. Neither changed the absolute moral issue of rape.

It's not even an absolute that the world will exist tommorrow.

Thanks for proving the point. You have no moral choice as to whether the world will exist tomorrow. But you can make a moral choice about whether your next door neighbor's world ends tomorrow. Or he could make a moral choice about whether your world ends tomorrow. Those are matters of right and wrong. As far as the whole world goes, sorry you get no choice in the matter.

Each unique sitiuation has it's own unique actions to be taken. Something can be correct 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, but not 100%

Again proves my point- I mean in my eyes something is correct 39% of the time, in someone elses belief killing a Arab is right 85% of the time. Hey in certain circumstances we should lie to our parents, cheat on our tests and sleep like a harlot with all of our husbands best friends.

Without moral absolutes the only thing absolute is that men will decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

Oops, there I go again describing the way we currently view moral absolutes.

Mr. MEOWGI- Instead of saying there are no moral absolutes why not be honest and say that even if there are moral absolutes I will not adhere to them unless I want to and I don't see why anyone else should either.

Now tell me one more time why right and wrong is a bad thing.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by rhester

Religion answers the questions-
Where we came from. Why we are here, and where we are going.

Science observes the processes that are put in place for these purposes.

rhester, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Do you or does anybody else beleive we should keep Schiavo's feeding tube in that cites regious justifications?

Are we playing god by removing her feeding tube? To me, we are playing god by keeping her alive. The problem with my logic is that I don't know where the line is between sound medical life support and playing god. Is it okay to keep somebody on life support for 3 days or 3 months or 3 years or 3 decades?

I guess the answer to that is Mr. MEOWGI's opinion about no absolute answers. The answer on how long to keep somebody on life support is context based. The problem with Mr. MEOWGI's answer is that leads us to where we are today...A huge legal mess.

[MR. MEOWGI]

I wont reply to everything you said because it is nuts. You are talking in circles.

Mr. MEOWGI- Instead of saying there are no moral absolutes why not be honest and say that even if there are moral absolutes I will not adhere to them unless I want to and I don't see why anyone else should either.

I am being very honest and I am trying to be very clear.

You might build your foundations of morality on certain "truths", but each situation is unique and it has its own unique "right" actions to be taken. There is not a single moral absolute you can apply to every situation. There will always be exceptions, even if they are remote, and even if we can not imagine them.

[Sishir Chang]

Rhester;

A question. Do you believe there is such a thing as a just war?

[rhester]

Krosfyah, I can see you have thought about Ms. Schavio's situation carefully.

Technology has brought us new issues.

100 yrs ago she would have no opportunity for the modern life support assistance.

Maybe we should all consider the medical technology available today and get living wills in order to make these decisions legally for ourselves.

Maybe the biggest message in Ms. Schavio's circumstances is in the motives and intentions in the hearts of those who are considering her fate. Both sides say they are defending their love for her.

I must admit I do not know alot about her situation except that her feeding tube has been removed.

Was it right to put her on a feeding tube years ago? Was that her wishes? Why do we even have feeding tubes?

I must confess I do not know enough about modern medical technology and the motives of peoples hearts to make these type decisions.

Maybe the moral issue here is the love her parents have for her. If they have the financial resources maybe it is only right to allow them the dignity and the love to care for their daughter in her vegitative state. If that is the issue, then I would say the right thing to do is allow them the privilege to sacrifice, care for and love their daughter in such extremely tragic conditions.

Let them express such a noble example of love of a parent for a child and a good message is sent throughout the world.

Let us see pictures of them caring for her and loving her even when she cannot give them back anything in exchange.

This would certainly be an honorable expression of goodness and love in a family.

I think we all could learn from that.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by krosfyah
rhester, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Do you or does anybody else beleive we should keep Schiavo's feeding tube in that cites regious justifications?


In regards to the Schiavo case I'm trying to keep religion out of it and instead trust in our Constitutional legal system.

I guess you could call it faith since I will concede that our system is far from perfect but in the end this is a human matter and as humans we aren't perfect. Our legal system is the same way but its the best we have going.

Someone else in another forum I was reading made the point that if this was in God's hands god would've miraculously cured her already. I'm not so flippant but I'm not about to presume I know the will of God.

Its just as likely that God has intended this is her time and the courts are the agent to carry that out.

[krosfyah]

I understand MEOWGI's position on absolutes and tend to agree with it but it has its own problems.

rhester,

Suppose you were captured by an organization, such as the Nazi's, that were rounding up thousdands of people and were basically evil people.

Suppose the leader said he fancied your wife and wanted to rape her. If you did not agree, he threatened to kill thousands of other people. If you did agree, he would spare everybody's life.

IMO, this is a perfectly reasonable question. I don't see how this is a dishonest question. If you saw the movie Hotel Rwanda, there was a similar quandry in that movie where the man was forced to make a decision that put his family at risk to save dozens of his countrymen. It is a true story.

So what is right?

Do you save your wife or do you save the lives of thousands of people?

Me...I would save the lives of thousands of people. While extremely painful and sad, my wife's life would be spared.

[Sishir Chang]

Here's my thoughts on why we need at least faith if not religion.

Two things that sets us apart from practically every other animal is that we can percieve the passage of time over a long period and also have an awareness of self. As such we are aware of our own mortality and can perceive that through the mortality of others.

For instance to a bunch of cows grazing in a field if one cow were to suddenly die the rest of the cows probably wouldn't notice but would go on grazing. To the cows there is no perception of time or loss since they live in a continuous present. Also not being self-aware they have no sense of the implications of the passage of time or that one cow dropping dead means that they will drop dead eventually too.

For humans we remember that at one time there was a living person so when they drop dead we notice. We also realize that the death of a person like me realizes that I will also likely die at some too. That awareness means that we understand that life is finite and the realization of that means that we seek meaning to our life and existence.

[rhester]

Sishir Chang,
A question. Do you believe there is such a thing as a just war?

I would have a hard time coming up with one.
I don't believe there was war in the Garden of Eden (prior to man's sin) or that there will be wars in heaven after evil is done away.

Just- is a very powerful word. We have lost it's meaning in our culture.

Justice means praising what is right and punishing what is wrong.

A just war would be fought for right against evil.

I think the most just war I can think of is the one fought in our hearts. On one side fighting the temptations to do evil that war against our souls and on the other side the battle to surrender our lives to God.

I would say a war that God initiated would be a just war.
Now as far as an example, I am stumped at the moment.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
In regards to the Schiavo case I'm trying to keep religion out of it and instead trust in our Constitutional legal system....

Wow, well that introduces a whole other potential conflict.

Religion vs. Constitutional rights

Think gay marriage.

I've often heard the expression that the rule of God supercedes the rule of man. The interesting contradition about this expression is that the rule of man, namely the Constitution that protects freedom of religion, grants us the right to worship god as we please. In other countries, you may not even be allowed to even say anything about the rule of God.

But there have many many issues were our legal system demonstrated many flaws or gaps.

But that is another thread. :)

[rhester]

Suppose you were captured by an organization, such as the Nazi's, that were rounding up thousdands of people and were basically evil people. Suppose the leader said he fancied your wife and wanted to rape her. If you did not agree, he threatened to kill thousands of other people. If you did agree, he would spare everybody's life.

Krosfyah, I think you or I misunderstood the question. I thought the question was is it right to rape my wife? Not what would I do if I faced saving my wife or a thousand people. Somehow the rape is right because people's lives were saved?

No the right question is would I give my own life to save my wife from a rape? They would kill me first before they raped her. In fact they would kill me first before they killed a thousand people.

And I am not saying I would choose to see a thousand people die rather than my wife raped. Again the premise is dishonest- how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice if I can rape your wife.

How about in sacrifice and love for others doing everything in my power to stop the evil even giving my own life.

Rape isn't right. Neither is the murder of 1000 people. Laying my own life down for both my wife and the 1000 people would be the right thing.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by MadMax
did you know that a majority of people who identified themselves as evangelical in a Time poll said they agreed with the decision to remove the feeding tube?
I'm not at all surprised, Max, after having an Easter feast at my sister's place in Houston, with about 15 relatives and a couple of friends. Except for my Mom, my wife and I, and our two kids (growing up to be good Liberal Democrats!), everyone there was a Republican, and several are involved in local Republican politics. Not one of them thought Bush and Congress, along with the others trying to profit politically from this, were right to interfere, and they all thought removing the feeding tube was the right thing to do. It was most enlightening.

Even my brother-in-law, Mr. GOP Right-Winger personified, thought the political opportunism appalling. I was quite amazed. We discussed it without a fistfight or the outbreak of WWIII!



Keep D&D Civil!!

[Sishir Chang]

Krosfyah;

The problem I have with trying to institute the rule of God is the presumption that we know what the will of God is?

Its one thing as a Christian to support a government based on Christianity (FYI which ours isn't but that's for another debate) but then to be a Christian in a government based on Sikhism.

While there are a few beliefs that are almost universal there are TON of beliefs that are speficic to ones religion and generally anathema to other religions. For instance if the Ten Commandments were codified at law are we to jail Hindus for violating the first and second Commandments?

Civil government is the creation and the purview of humans not gods.

[Sishir Chang]

Rhester;

Don't take this as insult but I think you're punting on the just war question and the ones that Krosfyah and Meowgi have given you, which all really are the same thing.

I can understand where you're getting at that you would rather not do evil but what we're trying to ask you is will you weigh the magnitude of evils and thus allow or commit one evil if it prevents another greater evil.

In the context of just war lets put it on a personal level using the examples that Krosfyah and Meowgi laid out. If you and your wife were attacked by people intending to rape your wife and you had the power to kill the attackers would you do so? Given that the assumption that these people are unitelligible to reason and that they don't care whether you live or die but would rape your wife either way.

[rhester]

Sishir Chang,
Thanks for the explanation but you are giving me more credit than needed. I don't take it as an insult either I need the clarification and understanding. I'm only giving my opinion, that simple, and I enjoy the discussion.

I am still stuck on what is right and what is wrong and how absolute these choices are, so here goes:

1. Committing evil to do good is a unique and ugly concept. Men often see good as evil and evil as good. I believe that defending my wife's life even to the point of killing in self defense is good.
So there is no lesser evil vs. greater evil on that one.

Anyway if you think for a moment whether it is a Hitler or Osama Bin Laden isn't their evil seen as good in their own eyes?

My points aren't that there can't be any unusual circumstances that make doing the right thing extremely difficult or even make doing it impossible.

My point is that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.
I am going to have a hard time believing that murdering 1000 people or raping my wife or your wife is somehow virtuous.

Absolute rights can certainly be pushed to the extreme of reason but not to the point of destruction.

Let me ask you a question:

If you lie to your mother or your boss and no one gets hurt are you an honest person.

Or if you lie to Congress under oath does that make you a liar?

How many little white lies do you have to tell before you can say I am a liar.

If you are lying to me, I would say one would do.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by rhester
No the right question is would I give my own life to save my wife from a rape? They would kill me first before they raped her. In fact they would kill me first before they killed a thousand people.

I'm sorry rhester but in all due respect, you cannot simply change my hypothetical question to suit your argument. :)

Originally posted by rhester

And I am not saying I would choose to see a thousand people die rather than my wife raped. Again the premise is dishonest- how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice if I can rape your wife..

EXACTLY!!!

Your very question goes right to the point we are trying to make. How many people would have to die before it is right? That is fundamentally unanswerable. I can't tell you. And this is exactly why MEOWGI is saying it is imposible to have a universal right and wrong. At the very least, it is imposible for us to know what that right and wrong is...as humans.

BTW, how that it dishonest? I provided you a very similar real-world example (Hotel Rwanda).

Originally posted by rhester
How about in sacrifice and love for others doing everything in my power to stop the evil even giving my own life.

Rape isn't right. Neither is the murder of 1000 people. Laying my own life down for both my wife and the 1000 people would be the right thing.

The hypothetical question didn't involve you taking your own life. Besides, you would be more helpful alive than dead. If you stay alive you can make decisions, bargain or whatever. If you give your life, then you cannot have any influence on the situation anymore. So giving your own life is irrelevant or unuseful on several levels.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
The problem I have with trying to institute the rule of God is the presumption that we know what the will of God is?

Its one thing as a Christian to support a government based on Christianity (FYI which ours isn't but that's for another debate) but then to be a Christian in a government based on Sikhism.

While there are a few beliefs that are almost universal there are TON of beliefs that are speficic to ones religion and generally anathema to other religions. For instance if the Ten Commandments were codified at law are we to jail Hindus for violating the first and second Commandments?

Civil government is the creation and the purview of humans not gods.

Sishir Chang,
I agree with you because we seem to have similar beleif systems. But not everybody does. Some people strongly agree that the rule of God is higher than then rule of man. I cannot argue that by imposing my beleifs on them because fundamentally they don't accept my beleif system. I can respect that.

But problems arise when constitutional law and God's law conflict. Its these conflicts (science and law) that have always challenged the worlds religions and will continue to present challenges. Please note that I'm not implying challenges are bad.

[mateo]

I dont see them as mutually exclusive.

[Doctor Robert]

Originally posted by rhester
I don't disregard science at all, and yet I am convinced that evolution is a theory.
OK... so it sounds as if you believe in the scientific method. Using observation, hypothesis, testing, etc. Taking your knowledge and forming conclusions.

Religion answers the questions-
Where we came from. Why we are here, and where we are going.
Here you are saying that you are given the answer first and want to adjust your personal knowledge to align with that answer.

Science observes the processes that are put in place for these purposes.

Science does a very poor job in determining origins.
So why does you lack of satisfaction with science in these regards lead you to religion for an explanation? Since you believe in the value of the scientific method, then why wouldn't you continue on that path? It might lead you where your brain wants you to go anyway.

[rhester]

Krosfyah, thank you for your response.

Your belief that sometimes wrong is right is flawed for many reasons. Let me give you a better illustration and then I will give you something more logical to help understand why moral laws are universal.

First a hypothetical illustration: It could be argued and it has been asserted by the government that millions of lives are safer from terrorism because of the attacks on the world trade center towers. In fact Pres. Bush all but said that just like Pearl Harbor Osama Bin Laden has awakened our war on terrorism by this hineous attack. So Osama Bin Laden was not the only one who believed that what he did was good. In fact some have asserted that the attack was a good thing and the response to these attacks has prevented millions from becoming targets due to the necessity of the response our government has taken.

Now we can see that over 3000 Americans had to die so that our country would wake up and do what is necessary to enter the war on terrorism.

However if you start thinking this way. You will soon realize that bringing good from evil does not make evil good.

It is still wrong (absolutely) to murder over 3000 people. But good still can come from such tragedy. The issue is not under what circumstances is it right to murder over 3000 people while they work in their offices. It is never right.

Even Hitler could justify murdering people because greater good could be acheived.

You are trying to tell me that sometimes doing evil is good.
You are trying to prove it by describing circumstances that seem to justify horrible evils. Choosing a lesser evil does not change what is right or what is wrong. Choosing a lesser evil demonstrates that small evils are more hideous than we give them credit for. It could well be argued that the evil rape that was perpetrated in Rwanda was more evil than any other rape because it was brought about with the most evil of intentions, the murder of 1000 people. I believe that kind of thinking on the part of those who perpetrated this act is far more evil because of this position. So really, anytime you use a greater evil to perpetrate a lesser evil you have committed a far worse sin.

As long as your rights and wrongs are situational evil will go unchecked. One man's genocide is another man's spiritual cleansing.

So now you are on the airplane and the highjackers tell you to shoot yourself in the head or we blow up the plane. You want to save everyone on board so you......

Wait a minute what they are doing to you is wrong. You may pull the trigger to save others but it doesn't make what they are asking you to do right. Nope. It is still wrong, it is evil and it absolutely always will be.

You see bringing good out of evil is a lot different than calling evil good.

Your very question goes right to the point we are trying to make. How many people would have to die before it is right? That is fundamentally unanswerable. I can't tell you. And this is exactly why MEOWGI is saying it is imposible to have a universal right and wrong. At the very least, it is imposible for us to know what that right and wrong is...as humans.


BTW, how that it dishonest? I provided you a very similar real-world example (Hotel Rwanda).

I said it was dishonest because honestly I think you know that women shouldn't be raped. I don't think that is your message. I don't believe you that you are trying to give women a message that under certain situations rape is right for women. (If I'm wrong about this then go ahead and start the let's rape women under the right situation club)

No, I think you are really trying to say that you want there to be a way out for certain sins or wrongs that men commit. You want there to be justification for some sins. (Like our own favorites.)

Now which wrongs are you defending? And which ones do you enjoy and would rather not be judged for?

BTW you don't approve of date rape do you?:)

[twhy77]

Why must science (reason) and faith (religion) be at odds?

In fact they can't be at odds if they are to be some sort of truth claim. Now, to say that religious folk say that there is no reason would be incorrect. To say they see no faith would also be incorrect. As Aquinas points out in the divisions and methods of the sciences, human reason ultimately sees the finitude of what it has i.e. the brain; as well as the infinitude of what it searches for, i.e. God, truth, nothingness, what have you. Aquinas would say that-- therefore, we have faith in something outside of ourselves because of the our recognition of something infinite that we cannot understand. This is not to say that what we cannot understand is somehow unintelligble or irrational, but simply it is outside of our natural capacities as humans to understand. Therefore, we are led to the first precepts by faith of whatever it is we believe in from the very fact that we recognize something outside of ourselves. This could be God, the Bible, Christ, Buddha, Nothingness. The other choice is to deny this outsideness from ourselves and think everything takes place within the realm of our own thought.

Once again however, we are led to the first precepts from faith but it is there that the first precepts are given in some sort of intelligble manner, i.e. the Bible is in words because we think in words. Christ lays out the precepts as a human because we are human. From there reason is able (after a period of developement) to begin to form the doctrines of the faith.

I hope that was clear, although I know it wasn't.

[rhester]

Here you are saying that you are given the answer first and want to adjust your personal knowledge to align with that answer.
No I was saying that in those three questions the answer was found in religion and not in science.

Both creationists and evolutionists begin with the answer to the question of origins:
The evolutionist assumes evolution and then tries to use the scientific method to validate the theory.
The creationist assumes creation and then tries to use the scientific method to validate the theory.

Have you ever taken a watermelon into a lab and tried to tell what it tastes like by running chemical analysis? It's easier to take a bite and swallow. In other words some things are learned from experimentation and some things are learned from observation.

Where evolution fails is in the scientific method. It is not validated by either experimentation or observation. It starts with a belief that God did not create. That there is not scientific evidence of intelligent design but instead there is conclusive evidence of random chance doing all the designing.

There is not a question of whether there is design, intelligence and complexity in DNA. The question is whether it happened by random chance or by intelligent intervention.

I would rather hear someone argue that aliens created the complexity of the universe than the arguement that it was fashioned by random chance. That makes my brain hurt.

No the path that science takes me does not lead me to think that a tornado could hit a junk yard and by chance a stealth fighter is built. In fact I can't even look at a tree understanding the biology of the tree and feel comfortable that an incredible act of mutation, chance or randomness got everything that perfect.

[Invisible Fan]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Here's my thoughts on why we need at least faith if not religion.

Two things that sets us apart from practically every other animal is that we can percieve the passage of time over a long period and also have an awareness of self. As such we are aware of our own mortality and can perceive that through the mortality of others.

For instance to a bunch of cows grazing in a field if one cow were to suddenly die the rest of the cows probably wouldn't notice but would go on grazing. To the cows there is no perception of time or loss since they live in a continuous present. Also not being self-aware they have no sense of the implications of the passage of time or that one cow dropping dead means that they will drop dead eventually too.

For humans we remember that at one time there was a living person so when they drop dead we notice. We also realize that the death of a person like me realizes that I will also likely die at some too. That awareness means that we understand that life is finite and the realization of that means that we seek meaning to our life and existence.

There are certain animals who do posess the traits of awareness with their kin. Elephants are a popular example. They notice piles of elephant bones and they automatically feel its tusks to see if its anyone they know. They react accordingly. Mother elephants also stay behind the pack when their young dies. Whether that's grieving or mourning is outside our comprehension.

Many mammals exhibit the trait of 4 yr old children. Strip away any emotional personification, and there is still the question of whether they perceive the passage of their time and their past memories. It is an issue that we choose not to delve into because our domination of animals affords us great advantages. We push these ideas to the fringe and consequently it limits our perception of morality.

[Invisible Fan]

Originally posted by rhester

Where evolution fails is in the scientific method. It is not validated by either experimentation or observation. It starts with a belief that God did not create. That there is not scientific evidence of intelligent design but instead there is conclusive evidence of random chance doing all the designing.


It depends on your interpretation to what God is. I don't believe Macroevolution allows itself to deny an outside Creator. Science manifests itself through a process with the data we have in hand. The Evolutionary theory is evolving with the more knowledge we gather. I think what you mean by Evolution attempting to refute Intelligent Design is when evolutionists disprove Fundamental Christians who literally believe 60+% of what the Bible says, such as explainations of why serpents don't have legs, vestigial wings, and whatnot. Based on facts and observations I've seen, I believe that that literal interpretation of Intelligent Design is false, but I don't flat out disprove the possibility of Intelligent Design itself. It would reflect bias from a scientist if he did.

If you've had classes in biology, I think you'll find this Discover article very interesting. It's about the impact of Artificial Intelligence and how Evolutionists can observe generations by the thousands in mere hours and days. It's also interesting for those who seek intelligent life outside our own planet.

Discovering Darwin (http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/)

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by rhester
Both creationists and evolutionists begin with the answer to the question of origins:
The evolutionist assumes evolution and then tries to use the scientific method to validate the theory.

actually you've got that totallty backward. Darwin didn't presume evolution before hand but formulated it from direct observation. Darwin was also a strong believer in Christianity too.

Where evolution fails is in the scientific method. It is not validated by either experimentation or observation. It starts with a belief that God did not create. That there is not scientific evidence of intelligent design but instead there is conclusive evidence of random chance doing all the designing.

That's not true at all. Read the IMAX evolution thread where most of this is covered. There's been tons of observation and even experimentation supporting evolution while there's been none proving the exisitng of a supreme being.

[Invisible Fan]

That link I provided needs registration.

Here is a mirror.
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html

My apologies.

[Doctor Robert]

Originally posted by rhester
Both creationists and evolutionists begin with the answer to the question of origins:
The evolutionist assumes evolution and then tries to use the scientific method to validate the theory.
The creationist assumes creation and then tries to use the scientific method to validate the theory.
The scientific method has nothing to do with Creationism. Creationism is a strict and literal interpretation of the book of Genesis from the Bible. There is no scientific support for Creationism.

Where evolution fails is in the scientific method. It is not validated by either experimentation or observation. It starts with a belief that God did not create. That there is not scientific evidence of intelligent design but instead there is conclusive evidence of random chance doing all the designing.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is being pushed politically as an alternative to Evolution in the heated forum of public schools, but nowhere in the scientific community is it even discussed. Philisophical arguments are made, but no scientific arguments are even discussed. It is basically the little brother of Creationism because there is only one possible designer. I would reference the Evolution of Species by Charles Darwin and the 145 years of scientific research and writings since it was originally published as support of evolution. Also, it actually has nothing to do with the existence of God... it is about the origin of species.

Genetics is one of the fastest growing bodies of knowledge of all scientific disciplines at this time, so it would be tragic to abandon that faith in the scientific method. The Catholic Church hasn't.

There is not a question of whether there is design, intelligence and complexity in DNA. The question is whether it happened by random chance or by intelligent intervention.

I would rather hear someone argue that aliens created the complexity of the universe than the arguement that it was fashioned by random chance. That makes my brain hurt.
Well, preventing headaches is really the best support of Creationism I have seen. If you start with the answer and then just adjust everything you know to fit that answer... can you really in all honesty convince yourself that you are getting somewhere?

No the path that science takes me does not lead me to think that a tornado could hit a junk yard and by chance a stealth fighter is built. In fact I can't even look at a tree understanding the biology of the tree and feel comfortable that an incredible act of mutation, chance or randomness got everything that perfect.
Obviously we don't have time to discuss evolution here, but if it is hard to imagine how small incremental changes and mutations could have taken proteins and turned them into bacteria, taken bacteria and turned them into cells, taken cells and turned them into multi-cell organisms, turned multi-cell organisms... blah, blah, blah... then look at the Grand Canyon. That was dug by a river over the course of 2,000,000,000 years. Think that Morocco used to border New York. Lots of things are easy to dismiss as impossible because they are difficuly to fathom. Those examples you used are not representative of anything, and no one is saying those things happened.

Besides... since when is nature perfect? I have asthma. Family members of mine have died from tumors that were growing inside their bodies. Half of the United States is obese.

Also, I don't have any problem whatsoever with teaching philosophy in schools. They do it in France. Intelligent design could be taught in the appropriate context... the way you are talking about it is really a bastardized version of an argument for the existence of God, not a scientific theory. I don't really understand why there is a need to argue the existence of God side by side with the origin of species. Like I said before, it isn't a problem for the Catholic Church. Not for 50 years.

[Doctor Robert]

Sorry, I'll shut up... I haven't been hanging out here, so I didn't know this was recently covered.

[rhester]

Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp.



Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)
U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner, and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.


Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.


Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.


Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.

Just a short list of some of the world's most renowned and recongnized scientists who stand firm on creationism or intelligent design on scientific principle not political activism. And I can provide a larger list also. Not to mention a list of scientists who were once considered the leaders in evolutionary science, even text book authors who have switched in just the last 20 years.

I have no problem with believing in evolution. As long as we treat it as a belief or even as a theory. I have no problem with treating creationism as a theory. In fact I think it would better serve science to treat them both as theories and present them as alternative models for origins in our schools. I don't fear the teaching of evolution. I think it should be presented. If creationism has a place then evolution should have a place. That would encourage critical thinking for students. I do have a problem having creationism blackballed in a society that should encourage freedom of thought. I will provide a larger reference base of scientists (esp. former textbook authors) who now favor the creationist model of origins. I like to list the textbook authors because some of their textbooks are still used even though they've changed their positions.

:) :) :)

[rhester]

Whoaaaa!

Just read my own post and I want to apologize.

It reeks of pride and arrogance on my part.

I was not honest either because the truth is I would hold my views on creationism purely on religious grounds without regard to science. I falsely made it sound like I hold my beliefs on scientific grounds.

In fact I see my whole line of discussion being arrogant. I apoligize.

I would rather respect the difference of views than try to establish my own. And I see that I have posted with the primary motive of establishing my own opinion.

That is like playing God.

I would like to thank you for explaining your positions. I need to realize I don't have all the answers.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by rhester
Whoaaaa!

Just read my own post and I want to apologize.

It reeks of pride and arrogance on my part.

I was not honest either because the truth is I would hold my views on creationism purely on religious grounds without regard to science. I falsely made it sound like I hold my beliefs on scientific grounds.

In fact I see my whole line of discussion being arrogant. I apoligize.

I would rather respect the difference of views than try to establish my own. And I see that I have posted with the primary motive of establishing my own opinion.

That is like playing God.

I would like to thank you for explaining your positions. I need to realize I don't have all the answers.

Man now I have seen everything. Someone in D&D forum actually admitting he doesn't have all the answers. I guess we humsans do have hope after all. ;)

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Doctor Robert


Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is being pushed politically as an alternative to Evolution in the heated forum of public schools, but nowhere in the scientific community is it even discussed. .

Not true. Read my sig. http://www.discovery.org/csc/

"My conclusion can be summed up in a single word: design. I say that based on science. I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful, intentional design by an intelligent agent." -- Biochemist Michael Behe, Lehigh Univ.

Science is interfacing with faith in ways that it hasn't in centuries. There is very real discussion here that hasn't occurred in a long, long time.

"The best data we have concerning the origin of the universe are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole." -- Nobel-winning physicist Arno Penzias

"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." -- MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowski, former president of Association of Women in Science

[Sishir Chang]

Rhester;

No need to apologize. You're posts are already much pleasenter and humbler to read than most here.

This applies to Mad Max too.

As I said in the other evolution related threads evolution and belief in a higher power need not be contradictory at all since there is nothing about evolution that would deny the existence of a higher power. Evolution is formed by a process of continuous skepticism which is the opposite of faith which at some point requires abandonment of skepticism.

Paraphrasing some previous comments, Science requires that logically things can be disproven based on empircal data as much as proven. Faith is inherently cannot be disproven. In the example of evolution, evolution could logically be overthrown if someone where to find a human skeleton contemporaneous with dinosaurs. Creationism / Intelligent Design can never be subject to skepticism or logical overthrow because it starts from a point that has no logical test that using emprical data can disprove it so conversely there is no test using emprical data to prove it.

Its not science because it isn't testable.

Even so nothing about the science of evolution contradicts a general belief in God. Its just as rational to presume this all was decreed by God with evolution as the mechanism as much as it is do presume its all random chance. The only difference is that if we are to scientifically prove Creationism / Intelligent design the obvious test has to be to scientifically prove the existence of God.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by MadMax
"The best data we have concerning the origin of the universe are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole." -- Nobel-winning physicist Arno Penzias

"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." -- MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowski, former president of Association of Women in Science

MadMax;

You've cited these quotes several times and while modern physics have shown interesting parallels between the creation myths of various religions and the latest cosmological theories I would be careful reading too much into that, especially from a Christian viewpoint.

First in terms of time and concepts Hindu and Buddhist creation myths seem to match much closer to what are the latest scientific theories than Judeo-Christian views. If one were to take the Bible even remotely litterally the Universe and Earth wouldn't be anywhere near the observable age by several orders of magnitude.

Second all creation myths are meant to be read allegorically. Depending on how loosely you interpret the allegory you could say any creation myth is supported by modern science. For instance the Hopi origin myth of people arising from a hole in the ground is the same as some of the latest evolutionary belief that life might've formed and risen from fissures deep underground when the surface of the Earth was still inhospitable.

Finally while many scientists are people of faith and find comfort in the parallels no scientist worth his/her salt are going to base scientific findings upon religious beliefs. As I said in the posts on evolution, science requires skepticism and a logical method for squaring empiracal observation with logical inference and subjecting it to further testing. Faith requires belief. Faith isn't science and science isn't faith and its a mistake to mix the two up.

[MadMax]

Sishir --

i hear you. but theory is about inferences. what i'm hearing some, not all, scientists say is that the complexity of even the simplest life forms like single cells..the complexity of the universe...implies a designer. you're right...that can't ultimately be tested. but i've seen that sort of logic applied in science as well. at the very least, the inference is the first step. macroevolution, without further fossil discovery among other things, is an inference made from microevolution. as i've pointed out..it still has some holes, as well. it is not entirely truthful to present macroevolution as FACT and then step back and shake your head disapprovingly at anyone who would question it. in many circles, that's where we are, today. but i would say it's a good thing that discussions like the ones we've had here are happening amongst much smarter people than me in various scientific disciplines, today.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
MadMax;

You've cited these quotes several times and while modern physics have shown interesting parallels between the creation myths of various religions and the latest cosmological theories I would be careful reading too much into that, especially from a Christian viewpoint.

First in terms of time and concepts Hindu and Buddhist creation myths seem to match much closer to what are the latest scientific theories than Judeo-Christian views. If one were to take the Bible even remotely litterally the Universe and Earth wouldn't be anywhere near the observable age by several orders of magnitude.

Second all creation myths are meant to be read allegorically. Depending on how loosely you interpret the allegory you could say any creation myth is supported by modern science. For instance the Hopi origin myth of people arising from a hole in the ground is the same as some of the latest evolutionary belief that life might've formed and risen from fissures deep underground when the surface of the Earth was still inhospitable.

Finally while many scientists are people of faith and find comfort in the parallels no scientist worth his/her salt are going to base scientific findings upon religious beliefs. As I said in the posts on evolution, science requires skepticism and a logical method for squaring empiracal observation with logical inference and subjecting it to further testing. Faith requires belief. Faith isn't science and science isn't faith and its a mistake to mix the two up.

Buddhism doesn't believe in creation, at all, as I understand it. To them the universe is eternal. It's much to gnostic to concern itself with concrete details, because in Buddhism there is no reality. The only reality is in the mind.

The Hindu accounts are very interesting...they just go into more detail than the Bible's creation story. But the same concepts are there. There was nothing...and a Creator created something. From nothing. From emptiness. The Hindu accounts even talk about the nothingness as "waters," like Genesis does.

By the way...I cited them because the argument was made that serious scientists don't engage this....here's a Nobel prize winner asserting differently. I also cited them because I'm CERTAIN they're smarter than I am! :)

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by MadMax
Not true. Read my sig. http://www.discovery.org/csc/

"My conclusion can be summed up in a single word: design. I say that based on science. I believe that irreducibly complex systems are strong evidence of a purposeful, intentional design by an intelligent agent." -- Biochemist Michael Behe, Lehigh Univ.

Science is interfacing with faith in ways that it hasn't in centuries. There is very real discussion here that hasn't occurred in a long, long time.

"The best data we have concerning the origin of the universe are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole." -- Nobel-winning physicist Arno Penzias

"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." -- MIT physicist Vera Kistiakowski, former president of Association of Women in Science

There is a difference between scientists seeing a divine hand in the way science works, and scientific theory though.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
There is a difference between scientists seeing a divine hand in the way science works, and scientific theory though.

the statement I responded to was: "nowhere in the scientific community is it (intelligent design) discussed." I'll stand by my post.

[rhester]

Thanks, Sishir Chang, I really love the exchange of views and information. It broadens my view.
Evolution is formed by a process of continuous skepticism which is the opposite of faith which at some point requires abandonment of skepticism. It can be equally argued that skepticism requires as much faith as belief in God. If you showed me a skyscraper and told me there was no builder it evolved it would take great faith on my part to become skeptical of the builder.

And yes skepticism can be abandoned and it can be embraced for reasons that go beyond science and reason.

Science requires that logically things can be disproven based on empircal data as much as proven. This has been the best method creationist use. Most of classical Darwinism has been abandoned by scientist based upon observable data that breaks apart the macro evolutionary models.

Faith is inherently cannot be disproven
I don't find it wise to assume God if creationism is true. Proving God requires more than proving creationism. Faith can be based upon evidence that is gathered from several disciplines. Science being a small slice of the pie.

evolution could logically be overthrown if someone where to find a human skeleton contemporaneous with dinosaurs. There are recent examples confirming this, I will try to look them up for you. But these finds have had little effect overthrowing evolution in classroom or National Geographic. They have only helped some scientist revaluate their positions. One are is here in Glen Rose, Texas. There are others I can't remember. Would have to research it.

Intelligent Design can never be subject to skepticism or logical overthrow because it starts from a point that has no logical test that using emprical data can disprove it so conversely there is no test using emprical data to prove it. I also have some examples here if you are interested. In fact I have read more examples of empirical data disproving enolution than anything else. Its not science because it isn't testable Many scientists contend the opposite. In fact the tests run in DNA mapping, geology, physics etc. helped originate this debate in the scientific community.The only difference is that if we are to scientifically prove Creationism / Intelligent design the obvious test has to be to scientifically prove the existence of God. I don't know if proving creationism proves God's existence, but it helps with our understanding of science and origins.

I am not sure I personally know how to prove anything scientifically but many scientists believe they can:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT
EVOLUTION - 1
________________________________________
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT
EVOLUTION - 2
________________________________________
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by MadMax
the statement I responded to was: "nowhere in the scientific community is it (intelligent design) discussed." I'll stand by my post. I misunderstood the position of your post. Thanks for clarifying. There are other scientists as well who have talked about a belief in God, including those that study and are proponents of evolution.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by rhester
I don't find it wise to assume God if creationism is true. Proving God requires more than proving creationism. Faith can be based upon evidence that is gathered from several disciplines. Science being a small slice of the pie.


But how can you believe in Creationism / Intelligent design without the apriori belief that God exist?

By its very definition that there was a higher power dictating the creation of species then you have to presume that a higher power. That's all fine and good but for it be scientific you have to take the next step and scientifically prove the higher power.

The misunderstanding of evolution is that its in opposition to a general view of intelligent design. Nothing about evolution denies the possibility of a higher power. It just stops at the point of proving that one exist because there's no logical proof that would work without the apriori preassumption that a higher power exists.

As for the rest of your post Franchiseblade who's our resident Stephen Jay Gould expert is better to responding to that.

It can be equally argued that skepticism requires as much faith as belief in God. If you showed me a skyscraper and told me there was no builder it evolved it would take great faith on my part to become skeptical of the builder.

I wanted to respond to this because as surprising as it may seem I actually do do architectural work, when I'm not on the BBS.

There are many structures that exist naturally or are built by other animals that are as complex, if not more, than skyscrapers. When we see the structure of a skyscraper you're making an apriori assumption because you've already seen skyscrapers built by humans and are familiar with the type so even if you had never seen one before the logical presumption is that it was built by humans. But not all complex large geometric structures necessarily are created by human intelligence. For instance many people thought the Giants Causeway in Scotland was created by humans since the stones appeared too geometrically precise to be natural when it wasn't at all created by humans. At the same time when people first heard on radio telescopes signals from neutron stars they presumed it must be artificially created by an alien civilization since they were so regular. That didn't end up the case but those signals are still known by the acronum LGM for "Little Green Men".

[rhester]

There are many structures that exist naturally or are built by other animals that are as complex, if not more, than skyscrapers.
I am sure you mean this allegorically, you don't mean that animals could build a skyscraper????? No a skyscraper is much more complex than anythink an animal could build.

By its very definition that there was a higher power dictating the creation of species then you have to presume that a higher power. I agree wholeheartedly, my point was I am thinking of the Christian view of God and I certainly wouldn't start with creation science to validate the God of the Bible. Creation science validates a higher power but I really believe their are many differences of opinion on who God is is we are going to say God = higher power. I see know need to validate that as a claim in order to demonstrate that creationism is scientific.


But not all complex large geometric structures necessarily are created by human intelligence. For instance many people thought the Giants Causeway in Scotland was created by humans since the stones appeared too geometrically precise to be natural when it wasn't at all created by humans.
Just for the integrity of your viewpoint let's don't use the word created when talking about the Giant Causeway in Scotland. Let's say they formed that precise by random chance.

Actually I am learning form your points. I trust there is some profit for you in my opinions also.

[rhester]

BTW- you can see I am a so so typist. If all my typo's haven't been confusing I am sure they haven't helped any opinions I've shared.

Sorry

[PhiSlammaJamma]

Waston, or Crick, one or the other, believed that "Something" put us here. Not sure which one. I don't believe that person would consider that "something" a god. But certainly, an intelligent designer.