Science and Religion

[Rob Osborn]

35 minutes ago, unixknight said:

My issue with these theories has nothing to do with my religion.  My issue is that theories that go unproven are being pushed as absolute truth.  Evolution theory is treated as an axiom now and to question it is heresy some circles.  That kind of thinking is not scientific and it's dangerous. 

I completely agree.

[Rob Osborn]

35 minutes ago, unixknight said:

My issue with these theories has nothing to do with my religion.  My issue is that theories that go unproven are being pushed as absolute truth.  Evolution theory is treated as an axiom now and to question it is heresy some circles.  That kind of thinking is not scientific and it's dangerous. 

I completely agree.

[Rob Osborn]

49 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That's not part of the Big Bang theory at all.  Remember, science and LDS faith agree that matter cannot be created or destroyed.  

Might as well be as all matter coming from an infintesimally small point smaller than a subatomic particle makes no logical sense.

[anatess2]

None of the survey answers match my position so I couldn't join the poll.

I hold "God created the earth" as fact.  I don't hold that "God created the earth out of nothing" as true.  So how did God create the earth?  Dunno.  It could possibly be that God said, let there be light, and BANG, there was light.

I hold that "God breathed the spirit into man" as fact and not Adam is the first spiritual man.  Whether that man went through an evolutionary process before the spirit entered it, dunno.  It could possibly be that Adam fell and left Eden is not like leaving the Philippines to migrate to America... it could be that the process of the fall is an evolutionary process.

In any case, the scriptures is not a scientific book in the same sense that a science book is not spiritual text.  Science is simply a method by which we can gain a deeper understanding of the truths held by scriptures.

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Might as well be as all matter coming from an infintesimally small point smaller than a subatomic particle makes no logical sense.

There was a time in human existence when an Earth revolving around the sun makes no logical sense.

I just spent a few hours last night trying to understand the logic of the Flat Earthers... I can see how they hold their position of a flat earth but it all hinges on the belief that NASA and its international counterparts are hoodwinking people.

[Guest Godless]

56 minutes ago, unixknight said:

My issue is that theories that go unproven are being pushed as absolute truth.  Evolution theory is treated as an axiom now and to question it is heresy some circles.  That kind of thinking is not scientific and it's dangerous. 

Only the Sith and religious fundamentalists deal in absolutes. And yes, any moron who tries to push evolutionary biology as absolute truth is a religious fundamentalist. 

You're right about the axiomatic nature of evolutionary study, however. While our knowledge of it is far from perfect, we have more than enough of an empirical scientific foundation to operate under the assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. The application of this truth in modern science and medicine has revolutionized our understanding of the natural world. 

Look at it this way, there are aspects of your religion that are not fully understood and have been the subject of rigorous discussion amongst the saints. Topics like exaltation/apotheosis, exact qualifiers for Celestial progression, and the role of evil spirits in the world have not been widely addressed in LDS canon, leaving a great deal of room for mystery, speculation, and debate. Are these subjects vital to your understanding of Mormon dogma? Probably not, otherwise they would have been clarified by now. Do the unknown and/or disputable aspects of the gospel make it any less true in your eyes? No? Then why do you need a perfect understanding of scientific concepts before you are willing to accept them as true? We understand evolution well enough to base a wealth of biological knowledge on it. Just like in your gospel, there are grey areas and subjects of contention, but none are important enough to discount the entire theory. Yes, some scientists get a little over-zealous on the topic. Don't let the flaws of human arrogance (another trait that is just as common in the religious community as the scientific community) blind you to the profound truths of the world you live in.

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

Only the Sith and religious fundamentalists deal in absolutes.

That is itself an absolute statement, Jedi. 

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

You're right about the axiomatic nature of evolutionary study, however. While our knowledge of it is far from perfect, we have more than enough of an empirical scientific foundation to operate under the assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. The application of this truth in modern science and medicine has revolutionized our understanding of the natural world.

You're right, and I do get that.  If everybody I've had that debate with approached it in the way you're describing, I'd have no issue.  The trouble is that I see people who apply two separate standards.  You make some kind of assertion and they utterly ignore it unless you can immediately produce a battery of peer reviewed papers to back you up, meanwhile those same folks will ridicule and mock you for being skeptical about a theory which has NOT been through such standards.  As Evolution Theory is neither reproducible nor falsifiable, it can't technically be defined as a theory and yet people think of it as if it were a scientific law.

I don't have a problem with people who find Evolution Theory to be convincing.  It might actually be true.  I'm not emotionally invested in it, as it needn't conflict with my religion, as illustrated by people in this very thread.  I just don't find the evidence compelling and I refuse to accept it just because the majority does.

 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

My issue with these theories has nothing to do with my religion.  My issue is that theories that go unproven are being pushed as absolute truth.  Evolution theory is treated as an axiom now and to question it is heresy some circles.  That kind of thinking is not scientific and it's dangerous. 

The *theory* of evolution and all other scientific theories, *should* not be treated in such a way-- we always have more to learn.  For those who think mistreat them otherwise, as a professional scientist, I will join@unixknight in the throw-pillows-against-stupidity campaign. 

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There was a time in human existence when an Earth revolving around the sun makes no logical sense.

I just spent a few hours last night trying to understand the logic of the Flat Earthers... I can see how they hold their position of a flat earth but it all hinges on the belief that NASA and its international counterparts are hoodwinking people.

You see, I put big bang believers along with the flat earthers- they both make no sense. 

What frustrates me is that as we get better and better pictures of our deep space we are finding that the universe just keeps going and going and going. I really question how we can suppose we know the origin of something we have no way of comprehending or knowing. Perhaps it goes on forever for all we know. Then what? The big bang theory states there must be a definable quantity to the universe. But in order to prove there was a big bang one must first find that it is a definable quantity. How can they do that when they cant even define what the universe is or how far it extends into space?

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

Only the Sith and religious fundamentalists deal in absolutes. And yes, any moron who tries to push evolutionary biology as absolute truth is a religious fundamentalist. 

You're right about the axiomatic nature of evolutionary study, however. While our knowledge of it is far from perfect, we have more than enough of an empirical scientific foundation to operate under the assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. The application of this truth in modern science and medicine has revolutionized our understanding of the natural world. 

Look at it this way, there are aspects of your religion that are not fully understood and have been the subject of rigorous discussion amongst the saints. Topics like exaltation/apotheosis, exact qualifiers for Celestial progression, and the role of evil spirits in the world have not been widely addressed in LDS canon, leaving a great deal of room for mystery, speculation, and debate. Are these subjects vital to your understanding of Mormon dogma? Probably not, otherwise they would have been clarified by now. Do the unknown and/or disputable aspects of the gospel make it any less true in your eyes? No? Then why do you need a perfect understanding of scientific concepts before you are willing to accept them as true? We understand evolution well enough to base a wealth of biological knowledge on it. Just like in your gospel, there are grey areas and subjects of contention, but none are important enough to discount the entire theory. Yes, some scientists get a little over-zealous on the topic. Don't let the flaws of human arrogance (another trait that is just as common in the religious community as the scientific community) blind you to the profound truths of the world you live in.

All of the scientific advances we have made do not hinge one way or the other off if we all came from a common ancestor or not. Medicine advancement relies on a knowledge and understanding that viruses mutate and vary not on if we all have a common ancestor. T

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You see, I put big bang believers along with the flat earthers- they both make no sense. 

What frustrates me is that as we get better and better pictures of our deep space we are finding that the universe just keeps going and going and going. I really question how we can suppose we know the origin of something we have no way of comprehending or knowing. Perhaps it goes on forever for all we know. Then what? The big bang theory states there must be a definable quantity to the universe. But in order to prove there was a big bang one must first find that it is a definable quantity. How can they do that when they cant even define what the universe is or how far it extends into space?

The big difference between Big Bang theorists and Flat Earthers is that Big Bang theorists know it's a theory and treats it as such.  Flat Earthers are religious fanatics to their Flat Earth beliefs.

[Guest]

There is apparently more hostility to the Big Bang than evolution!  I am a little surprised.

From what I am aware with ten year old science classes, evidence for the big bang is a constant 3 degrees Kelvin temperature throughout the universe, plus the constant motion and change of matter.  This is not much evidence to go on one way or another or to really know what happened.  Are we seeing the aftermath of an ancient explosion from billions of years ago, or just the power of God?  Or did God use the big bang to set the universe in motion, a clockmaker winding a clock?  We simply don't know enough about what happened.

There isnt enough data to conclusively prove this one way or another.  My advice: have faith in prophets, learn what you can about the science, and have faith that they will reconcile once we have more knowledge.

Edited February 27, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Mike]

23 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

I believe God is the ultimate scientist and science and religion work together in a way that both sides can't see.

I have mixed feelings about thinking of God as the ultimate anything in terms of human pursuits, if you know what I'm trying to say. I used to think of God as the ultimate scientist, ultimate artist, ultimate musician, etc. But at the moment I wonder if that might be the wrong way for me to imagine Him. I used to think some day (in Heaven) I will be able to learn and in turn comprehend all the mathematics that gave me difficulties here in this life. Right now I wonder if mathematics to God is as beside the point as playing pirates as I did at age 6 is to me now. I do it with my six-year old grandson because playing together makes us both happy. But it isn't relevant otherwise to what I'm about. I wonder if the most complex physics to us might be as irrelevant to God in creating an Earth as tying a shoe lace is to one who lives barefoot on a warm gentle beach. ... or, I may be wrong. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

Right now I wonder if mathematics to God is as beside the point as playing pirates as I did at age 6 is to me now.

This is how Jesus multiplied the loaves and the fishes.  What does math mean to Him?

Edited February 27, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

the "big bang" isnt really a "theory" its just a model of belief

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

the "big bang" isnt really a "theory" its just a model of belief

Why is theory in scare quotes?

Big Bang is in the realm of science, not religion.  Therefore, it is a scientific theory.  It is widely accepted today because Scientists have not yet come up with a better theory.  Before Big Bang Theory came into prominence, the Steady-State Universe Theory was the one widely accepted in so much as even Einstein himself was presented with the Big Bang and exclaimed that the math was good but the physics was abysmal.  It wasn't until more scientific evidence for a Big Bang came about (Hubble's observations of an expanding universe, Gamow's observations of a cooling universe, etc.) that it replaced Steady-State Theory in prominence.  The Big Bang theory still has left a lot of questions unanswered, therefore, as scientific study progresses, it might go the way of Steady-State and get replaced by a more superior one.  As it stands, scientists have already abandoned the Big Bang as the origin of the universe to accept the more superior position that the universe existed but was in a different state prior to the Big Bang.

This is science.  It is in a constant continual state of discovery.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Why is theory in scare quotes?

Big Bang is in the realm of science, not religion.  Therefore, it is a scientific theory.  It is widely accepted today because Scientists have not yet come up with a better theory.  Before Big Bang Theory came into prominence, the Steady-State Universe Theory was the one widely accepted in so much as even Einstein himself was presented with the Big Bang and exclaimed that the math was good but the physics was abysmal.  It wasn't until more scientific evidence for a Big Bang came about (Hubble's observations of an expanding universe, Gamow's observations of a cooling universe, etc.) that it replaced Steady-State Theory in prominence.  The Big Bang theory still has left a lot of questions unanswered, therefore, as scientific study progresses, it might go the way of Steady-State and get replaced by a more superior one.  As it stands, scientists have already abandoned the Big Bang as the origin of the universe to accept the more superior position that the universe existed but was in a different state prior to the Big Bang.

This is science.  It is in a constant continual state of discovery.

Yeah, I dont really subscribe to their philosophies.

[anatess2]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, I dont really subscribe to their philosophies.

Okay, we're back to this rut.

Philosophy is not science although science is a small subset of Philosophy.  Big Bang is a science, not a philosophy.  Meaning - Big Bang doesn't attempt to explain a philosophical position.  Rather, Big Bang can be used by philosophers to support their specific philosophy.  Make sense?  So, Religious folks are philosophers - so they can, if they desire, use Big Bang Theory to support their philosophy that God created the universe by causing this primordial explosion.  At the same time, atheists - who are also philosophers - can use Big Bang Theory to support their philosophy that there is no God (although this position is much weaker because it lacks the sophistry to address the question of... then what caused the Bang?).

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Okay, we're back to this rut.

Philosophy is not science although science is a small subset of Philosophy.  Big Bang is a science, not a philosophy.  Meaning - Big Bang doesn't attempt to explain a philosophical position.  Rather, Big Bang can be used by philosophers to support their specific philosophy.  Make sense?  So, Religious folks are philosophers - so they can, if they desire, use Big Bang Theory to support their philosophy that God created the universe by causing this primordial explosion.  At the same time, atheists - who are also philosophers - can use Big Bang Theory to support their philosophy that there is no God (although this position is much weaker because it lacks the sophistry to address the question of... then what caused the Bang?).

Yeah, im pretty sure the big bang is a philosophy, and in my opinion, a bad one at that.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, im pretty sure the big bang is a philosophy, and in my opinion, a bad one at that.

Your hatred of science is showing through... it is really stupid to insist something is something it isn't just because you don't like scientists.  It's like calling a strawberry a vegetable because you hate vegetables and you don't like strawberries.

Edited February 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Your hatred of science is showing through... it is really stupid to insist something is something it isn't just because you don't like scientists.  It's like calling a strawberry a vegetable because you hate vegetables and you don't like strawberries.

I love science, when they actually have real observable evidence. I dont hate science at all. But for some reason secular intellectuals like to think their faith based beliefs about our existance are scientific theories. Thats philosophy, not science, at least by the way science defines such.

[anatess2]

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I love science, when they actually have real observable evidence. I dont hate science at all. But for some reason secular intellectuals like to think their faith based beliefs about our existance are scientific theories. Thats philosophy, not science, at least by the way science defines such.

Sure doesn't extend to Big Bang.  Big Bang has solid math and solid scientific evidence behind it and even directly observable using a telescope.  It has nothing to do with the faith-based beliefs of the people who came up with the math especially since the origins of the theory was started by Father Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic Priest and supported farther by Edwin Hubble who is a Christian and then farthered by Gamow who is an atheist and brought to public prominence by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, agnostics who, in their Nobel Prize interview, stated that the Big Bang Theory makes the Hebrew Bible the most correct historical account of the origins of the universe.

Edited February 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

On 2/26/2017 at 4:53 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

I know some will say we have   the topic of science and religion.  But humor me.   

Science is not my best subject (hard science anyway) so I haven't followed along on all those dead horse beating conversations.  I have recently changed my views on the Big Bang and Darwin's theory of evolution.  I'm simply curious if I'm the only one.  The poll is anonymous if you are shy.    

Feel free to discuss...or not...as you choose. 

  To me, Creation is profound and science prodding and poking at it, is just us, discovering what God has made.

For the Big Bang in general, why not? God's Creation is continually unfolding, like a blooming flower, it grows and becomes what God intends it to be.  

[eddified]

Big Bang and evolution are forensic sciences. This means they are sciences in the sense that we can use logic and math etc but cannot use the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, & test, in a cycle over and over again). Forensic sciences  are not verifiable. You can't go out and do a test that will definitively show the hypothesis (big bang, evolution etc) to be true. You CAN do this for gravity for example. You can't for forensic sciences. 

Evolutionists are a creative bunch. Read the scholarly articles and you will find lots of "could have", "probably", etc. The theory of evolution is not falsifiable because it is a belief system. Any evidence you find will be fit, ad-hoc, into the evolutionary framework of belief. 

Evolutionary science has not produced any useful predictions. Observational science can be used to make useful predictions. 

In short, evolutionary thought has proven to be useless save turning believers into atheists (which it is very good at). Take a long, hard look at the fruits of evolutionary theory: disbelief in God. 

I don't have anything against other people  believing in the establishment's forensic sciences. I just don't give them much credence myself. 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, eddified said:

Big Bang and evolution are forensic sciences. This means they are sciences in the sense that we can use logic and math etc but cannot use the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, & test, in a cycle over and over again).

This is the first time I have ever heard the term "forensic science" used in this way. Can you provide some citations to establish this most unusual usage?

4 minutes ago, eddified said:

The theory of evolution is not falsifiable because it is a belief system.

Not really correct. Various aspects of evolutionary theory are indeed falsifiable. In many cases, these aspects have been (and are) updated or completely changed, or even discarded, when the evidence demonstrates them wrong.

6 minutes ago, eddified said:

Evolutionary science has not produced any useful predictions.

Sorry, eddi, but this is simply laughable. You do not know what you're talking about.

6 minutes ago, eddified said:

In short, evolutionary thought has proven to be useless save turning believers into atheists (which it is very good at).

Again, you are point-blank wrong about evolutionary thought being "useless". But I do agree that evolution has an unusually good record of turning nominal believers into atheists. I doubt that has much to do with evolutionary theory per se, and a lot more to do with the state of testimony and reasons for belief of said "believers"-turned-atheists.