Faith and science

[thebaldfacts]

[quote="schuey07"

Yea it's just easier to say god did it. If we all thought like this we would still be in the dark ages.[/quote]

On the contrary, belief that man being created in the image of God and that God being a reasonable God, man could use his reason to discover what God had created. That is why many of the early scientists were Bible believing Christian.

If however, we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum, than that belief would have left us in the dark ages.

[schuey07]

[thebaldfacts]

[David]

You all seem to be familiar with Dawkins's work, but I watched this early documentary of his the other day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok_tcAEbHHw

Of course, it's more about the process of evolution than its beginning, but it's pretty compelling stuff.

OK, so we have two problems here: the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe. Dawkins admits that both of these are very much mysteries, but he provides a hypothetical model for the beginning of life in The Selfish Gene. Even for someone not that well-versed in science, I can picture it fairly easily: once I think about life as something that can exist on a very basic level — in microscopic structures without mobility, sensory perception or consciousness — I begin to be able to see a relatively small gap between the most basic life forms and basic proteins. There needs to be a replicator, but that's pretty much it.

Even if we can't explain it, I'm still skeptical about putting God in the gaps. Removed from the religious context, God simply becomes an easy way out; a sign stating "we don't know how this happened, therefore someone must have done it".

It's the same with the creation of the universe, but by the time we get back that far I'd argue that the God argument becomes almost academic. Like some of the new atheists, I'd be perfectly happy to grant you a god that creates the universe and walks away, but such a god has absolutely no bearing on our lives and may as well not exist. And even if you still want to believe in a god, you're faced with the even more difficult question of how it came into being or how sentience could possibly exist outside of conscious organisms.

I think I'll stick with the scientific method. It's done pretty well so far!

[thebaldfacts]

I too love the scientific method which has indeed served us well thus far.

The scientific method which discovered DNA, the most complex information storage system known to mankind is an excellent example. As mentioned above the simplest organism is the equivalent of a 500 page book, but to then believe that by single copying errors that will eventually lead to us who are the equivalent of 1000 books, and all by random genetic copying mistakes.

That is fairy land stuff, and no amount of time can account for this.

What's more, bad theory leads to bad science. We all remember vestigial organs which were supposedly were leftovers from our evolutionary past. We know now that these organs do have functions after all. Similar mistake now with so called junk DNA. One time it was believed that 95% was junk, but now the Encode project has basically called an end to junk DNA.

Interestingly , Dawkins in the Greatest Show on Earth made the same claim as proof for evolution just 3 years ago. Surprisingly, even then it was becoming clear that the junk DNA was looking less realistic so why he went with it in his book I leave for you to determine his motives. Recently, he know claims that with evolution that is what you would expect that all the DNA should have some function. Breathtaking hypocrisy really. Junk DNA is evidence for evolution but know that it is found not be junk after all, that too is evidence for Evolution. That is the issue. Evolution will always be changed to accommodate the latest findings, but the paradigm itself is sacrosanct.

Can I recommend you get a copy of Jonathon Safarti's book The Greatest Hoax on Earth, where he goes through all Dawkins arguments. You can get this from Amazon. At the very least, it will give you a understanding of what the other view is. You may not agree with it, but that is fine but at least you will better educated about the views of the other side.

Interestingly and disappointingly, one of the recent athiest conventions, the creationist offered to have an open debate on the science and which view it fits best. Dawkins and co refused. Why, what were they scared of? I would love to see an open and fair debate on the science wouldn't you?

[Nick - Pie Man]

Not condescending to argue with idiots is not the same thing as being afraid of them.

[David]

TBF, I'm already quite familiar with the arguments — I actually grew up in a Christian family with a subscription to Creation Magazine. I even know who Sarfati is: he once sent an email calling my dad a heretic for denying the existence of the trinity (I'm not picking sides in that argument, mind you! ).

On the contrary, Dawkins and co. are often more than willing to debate Creationism and Intelligent Design proponents. I watched a debate on youtube a few weeks ago between Dawkins and an American supporter of 'teaching the controversy'. So, I'd hardly say that people are scared of confronting these matters.

What ID is, in my understanding, is simply a modern restating of the old watchmaker argument — something so complex must have a creator. It's always been the most compelling argument for the existence of God, but it's also seriously flawed.

I'll be the first to confess that, even for a long time after moving away from religious belief, I found some aspects of evolution difficult to grasp. I think my epiphany of sorts (and I still acknowledge that I don't understand everything) was beginning to give serious consideration to the massive time scales involved. So, here's a question I'll put to you: if the world is indeed many billions of years old — and, scripture aside, there's little reason to believe it couldn't be — do you really think life forms would really more or less stay the same over that vast time period, or would at some stage change and begin to look different? If you grant the latter, you have to at least on some level grant the possibility of evolution.

There are quite a few videos like this on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5EWKuHy9qo

[Pies4shaw]

There is, of course, a god. Her name is "Random Chance". She created everything.

Unfortunately for the creationists, she is not intelligent (although her random answers might still beat all of them in an IQ test) and most of her designs were - and remain -fundamentally flawed.

[David]

^ You're not an indeterminist by any chance, are you?

[Pa Marmo]

David and The Bald Facts, congratulations on not dragging this into the muck, it's a shame others in The thread couldn't resist the urge for name calling. Neither side has concrete proof, both are only interpreting the same evidence, but from a differing viewpoint.

I'm curious David, which branch of evolution do you support, as there are in fact several differing theories?

[Pies4shaw]

See what you've started, David?

I'm just off to count the fairies at the bottom of my garden. Back shortly.

[David]

[David]

Sorry, dp.

[HAL]

[thebaldfacts]