Science and Religion

[Guest MormonGator]

@Vort-you have a background in science, don't you? 

[Vort]

Re: "Do you believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which was about animals, not the origin of man)":

This is not correct. Darwin's arguably greatest* work was his book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, wherein (as the title suggests) he explicitly tied his theory of evolutionary change to humans.

*Personally, I would not argue that this is his greatest work, but I have seen many others do so.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Vort-you have a background in science, don't you? 

I have an educational background in science, not a vocational background.

[eddified]

Can you please tell me how you believe evolutionary theory to be useful?

[Jane_Doe]

I believe the thread has once again reached this point:   

[eddified]

I may have used the term "forensics" incorrectly. I'm not going to argue it was a good usage of the term. However, did it get the point across? It seems that it did. The point being - evolutionary thought and big bang are ideas which offer untestable explanations for the phenomena we see. So they're not so much fields of hard science as they are fields of philosophical inquiry. 

[Guest]

If evolution is true, then i'll be a monkey's uncle!  ?

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, eddified said:

I may have used the term "forensics" incorrectly. I'm not going to argue it was a good usage of the term. However, did it get the point across? It seems that it did. The point being - evolutionary thought and big bang are ideas which offer untestable explanations for the phenomena we see. So they're not so much fields of hard science as they are fields of philosophical inquiry. 

Gravity is a theory in the same way that Big Bang is a theory.  The conditions that support both theories are, of course, testable and repeatable.  Hence, they're scienctific.  Just like when you drop a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum you will always see the same results, measuring the movements of interstellar bodies always give the same results.  They are theories, not facts, because What Exactly causes the feather and the bowling ball to fall is not provable.  So we just attribute it to this concept called Gravity.  It has the same scientific authority as Green Men in the earth's core pedaling in their unicycles pulling all objects toward them.  In the same manner, What Exactly causes interstellar bodies to careen away from our point of perspective is not provable.  So we just attribute it to this concept called a Big Bang which is the most logical cause of such testable and repeatable energetic movement.

Now, if there ever comes a time that some Vulcan would appear in a spaceship to tell us he saw the Big Bang and have irrefutable proof of it, then it would cease to be a scientific theory but become scientific fact.

In any case, this is not a matter of philosophy.  This is Science.  

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[eddified]

No one has tested the hypothesis that a universe can suddenly appear as a single point. It is just an explanation for some observable phenomena such as Cosmic background radiation. I have no issues with phenomena which the scientists can make predictions about. If you can test a Big Bang in your basement, great! Please let me know if you succeed. In other words no one has observed a Big Bang occur.

Consider however that all these naturalistic explanations (evolution, Big Bang) are coming from people whose very creed is that only naturalistic explanations will be allowed. This means that of course the explanations they come up with will not involve God -- they purposely made it that way, it's part of their rules. 

Do you want to put your faith in modern science which has sworn off God? I find that a highly untenable position to be in. 

There are many scientific reasons not to accept evolution. One resource is www.scienceagainstevolution.info which only uses science and logic to refute evolution. (It does not make religious claims against evolution)

 

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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.

Yeah, the idea of a big bang start to the universe is a philosophy. Nothing wrong with that definition. People have a type of self deception where they want so much for a belief to be true they will sell it as science if they can somehow just show a mathematical proof for part of the principle. We could make the same argument under that premise for the proof of Superman. But we wouldnt say thats "science" is it?

[eddified]

I would also say that if you want to call the Big Bang science, that's fair -- it can just be part of your (and the world's) definition of science. However, it's not part of my definition of science. I'm just trying to point out that it is of a different nature than observational, repeatable, testable science. 

From Moroni 10:

Quote

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

I would just like to point out that the theory of evolution tends to do the opposite of testifying of Christ and acknowledging that He exists. It tends to explain away the need for a God, and by so doing, lead people away from belief in God. This verse right here was my turning point for determining that the theory of evolution is wrong. The scientific evidence against the theory of evolution is just icing on the cake. But theological issues were what ultimately swayed me. 

I know I'm in the minority and therefore "anti-science". So be it. I won't be believing the theories of men when it tends to contradict the revealed word.

Edited February 28, 2017 by eddified

[Vort]

3 hours ago, eddified said:

Can you please tell me how you believe evolutionary theory to be useful?

Sure. Here's a simple one: How about pentadactyly? We have five fingers. Apes have five fingers. Weird, that. But wait -- lots of animals have five digits on their extremities. Even horses have vestigial digits totaling five per limb. WHALES even have five "digits" in their flippers! So that's a strange mammalian thing. Except it's not only mammalian -- birds also exhibit this skeletal trait. So do many reptiles. Even fish exhibit this! In other words -- all vertebrates tend to exhibit this strange, seemingly random property of pentadactyly.

What is the explanation for this? An obvious suggestion is a common origin for vertebrates, where the common ancestor had four five-digited limbs. (The fact of four limbs among vertebrates is another extraordinarily strange "coincidence".)

Doesn't stop there, of course. Why do all insects have six legs? Thousands of species, some wildly different from others, yet all exhibit this six-legged trait. Why do all spiders have eight legs? From tarantulas the size of dinner plates to mites so small you can't see them without a magnifying glass, they all have eight legs. What's up with that?

We're all formed of the same type of DNA. Why should that be? Not just humans and monkeys. Not just mammals. Not just vertebrates. In fact, not just animals. All life is based on essentially the same basic molecular forms; with fairly rare exceptions, these basic molecular forms take the shape of four identical types of molecules -- that is, more or less all DNA is composed of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, whether you're talking about a worm, a flower, a redwood tree, or a human being.

There is no obvious reason this should be so. if you believe (as do many Christians, but not Latter-day Saints) that God created all animals and plants and such by fiat, then I suppose you could offer some weak rationalization like, "Well, God stumbled upon a plan that worked, so why mess with a good thing?" I think many of them realize what weak sauce that argument truly is -- but in any case, it doesn't apply to us. Mormons know better. God did not magically blink things into existence. There is no such thing as ex nihilo creation. God is a God of truth and law, not a God of magical powers. And even if we believed that God fashioned animals by hand (five-fingered, naturally) in their present form, we would have to attribute a lack of imagination to our God that he couldn't tear himself away from variations on the four-limbed, five-fingered model.

Perhaps you would like to discuss epidemiology. The study of evolution has utterly reformed our understanding of diseases, how they adapt, how they change, and how our previously bullet-proof treatments are becoming increasingly unable to cope.

Organic evolution is more or less the "grand unified theory" of biology. In light of evolutionary theory, everything in biology starts to make sense and fall into a recognizable pattern. Without evolutionary theory, biology is pretty much just a very large collection of unconnected observations.

1 hour ago, eddified said:

No one has tested the hypothesis that a universe can suddenly appear as a single point. It is just an explanation for some observable phenomena such as Cosmic background radiation. I have no issues with phenomena which the scientists can make predictions about. If you can test a Big Bang in your basement, great! Please let me know if you succeed. In other words no one has observed a Big Bang occur.

That "no one has observed a Big Bang occur" is meaningless. By its nature, it cannot be observed. But certain consequences necessarily arise from the idea of a "big bang", and those can indeed be tested. And guess what? We see them all over the place. The cosmic background radiation, the universal red shift, and the increase in red shift as you observe ever-further stars are all stunning evidence of a Big Bang. How do you explain such things otherwise? "Well, ya know, that's jist how things are!" Not really a very enlightening explanation.

No one has ever seen the nucleus of an atom. No one ever will. By its nature, it cannot be seen. Does that therefore mean it does not exist?

6 minutes ago, eddified said:

I would just like to point out that the theory of evolution tends to do the opposite of testifying of Christ and acknowledging that He exists. It tends to explain away the need for a God, and by so doing, lead people away from belief in God.

Evolutionary theory says nothing at all about God. If you think it leads you away from God, that points to a problem with you, not a problem with evolutionary theory.

[Vort]

For the record, eddified: Two of the finest men I have ever known in my ward are named Ed. I am honored and humbled to serve with them and be classed with them. As far as I know, neither of them believe in evolutionary theory. I don't know this, not having ever spoken with either of them about it, but I would be surprised if they did. I still consider them paragons of Christ-like service and an example to me. So while I disagree with you strongly on evolutionary theory, I do not think less of you as a person or as a Saint for it. I just believe that, in this particular case, you do not understand what you're talking about. I don't claim any sort of perfect understanding, either, but I understand enough to convince me that these things are basically true. Furthermore, I see no conflict between those ideas and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So believe as you will, and I won't think less of you for it. But please be careful in characterizing either those ideas or those who believe them. Lots of good, intelligent, and perfectly faithful Latter-day Saints believe the idea of organic evolution and the Big Bang. These are not issues to hang your testimony on, one way or the other.

[eddified]

@VortIt sounds like you are unaware that there are other explanations that explain cosmic background radiation, redshift etc. But there are. There are other, God-centered explanations. It doesn't surprise me at all that you believe what you are taught -- and creationist explanations of these phenomena are not taught in schools. It doesn't surprise me that you seem uneducated in them. I also am uneducated in them -- I went to public schools etc. But they are there. You sound as if the Big Bang is the only sensible explanation, but this is just not so. 

Did I characterize people that believe in evolution? If I did I apologize, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything to malign anyone. I agree that there are good people on both sides. I judge ideas as I see them, but I am much more careful about judging people, as you suggest. 

"Organic evolution is more or less the "grand unified theory" of biology. In light of evolutionary theory, everything in biology starts to make sense and fall into a recognizable pattern. Without evolutionary theory, biology is pretty much just a very large collection of unconnected observations." - This sounds very much like what they teach in school, and that you are very unaware of other explanations. I encourage you to learn more about Creationism & Intelligent Design. It really sounds like you could use some knowledge in these areas.

[Vort]

@eddified -- I am quite well-versed in Creationism. Pardon the imagery when I say that it is a steaming pile of horse excrement. The Creationist line essentially says the following:

"God created everything. He did this by magically blinking everything into existence just as we see it. We know this because the Bible says it's so. We will therefore fight tooth and nail against anything and everything that threatens this viewpoint. We will not actually answer anything; rather, we will simply state that it's untrue, and that we know it's untrue because it doesn't agree with (our interpretation of) the Bible."

Creationism is almost the very definition of willful ignorance. "Intelligent design" is ultimately no better. Neither of them are science, and only the latter pretends to be.

You don't need to believe science. You don't need to learn to read. These things do not determine your salvation. But I daresay one's attitude toward truth and the search for understanding reality ultimately does affect one's salvation. If your bias is that God exists and is your loving Father, and you therefore reject out of hand anything that teaches against that principle, then I can understand and respect that. If your bias is that your particular scriptural interpretation must be correct and you therefore reject out of hand anything that teaches against your interpretations, then I suggest that such an attitude is out of harmony with a humble attitude and a sincere desire to understand truth.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Vort

[eddified]

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

Re: "Do you believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which was about animals, not the origin of man)":

This is not correct. Darwin's arguably greatest* work was his book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, wherein (as the title suggests) he explicitly tied his theory of evolutionary change to humans.

Thanks.  I see now that I misinterpreted this line:

Quote

Contrary to popular opinion, Darwin never claimed that man descended from apes.

It goes on to say:

Quote

Rather he argued that man and apes descended from a common ancestor, diverging gradually and eventually resulting in the separate species we see today. 

Both quotes are from Charles Darwin: A Gentle Revolutionary   https://www.storybehindthescience.org/biology.html

Edited February 28, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, the idea of a big bang start to the universe is a philosophy. Nothing wrong with that definition. People have a type of self deception where they want so much for a belief to be true they will sell it as science if they can somehow just show a mathematical proof for part of the principle. We could make the same argument under that premise for the proof of Superman. But we wouldnt say thats "science" is it?

We went through this argument before.  I don't want to rehash it so I just want to leave it at this:  Religious people who want to explain away God ,like Intelligent Design, is what I see as the self deception where they want so much for a belief to be true they will sell it as science.

The Big Bang theory is the opposite - its origins started with a Belgian priest observing with his naked eye a seemingly expanding universe.  So then he decided to see if this expansion is measurable which led to the scientific study and then the math to come up with the Hubble constant.. etc. etc. etc. The scientific testing produced reproducible results so then the next logical thing is to attribute this reproducible and observable activity to a CAUSE (like how an apple falling consistently to the ground at a specific acceleration needed a CAUSE, so they called it Gravity).  The most logical cause that could result to the activity observed is... a primordial explosion of energy that sends all these bodies into deep space in the relative acceleration of the measurable Hubble constant.  The priest is happy that he stumbled upon how God probably created the universe... God said, Let there be Light and BANG, there was light.

So, in summary - Intelligent Design is a conclusion first - it's a conclusion in search of scientific evidence.  Big Bang is an observation first - it's a scientific evidence in search of a conclusion.

Thank you for your conversation.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

We went through this argument before.  I don't want to rehash it so I just want to leave it at this:  Religious people who want to explain away God ,like Intelligent Design, is what I see as the self deception where they want so much for a belief to be true they will sell it as science.

The Big Bang theory is the opposite - its origins started with a Belgian priest observing with his naked eye a seemingly expanding universe.  So then he decided to see if this expansion is measurable which led to the scientific study and then the math to come up with the Hubble constant.. etc. etc. etc. The scientific testing produced reproducible results so then the next logical thing is to attribute this reproducible and observable activity to a CAUSE (like how an apple falling consistently to the ground at a specific acceleration needed a CAUSE, so they called it Gravity).  The most logical cause that could result to the activity observed is... a primordial explosion of energy that sends all these bodies into deep space in the relative acceleration of the measurable Hubble constant.  The priest is happy that he stumbled upon how God probably created the universe... God said, Let there be Light and BANG, there was light.

So, in summary - Intelligent Design is a conclusion first - it's a conclusion in search of scientific evidence.  Big Bang is an observation first - it's a scientific evidence in search of a conclusion.

Thank you for your conversation.

Thank you too. You believe your science, I will believe mine. Nothing wrong with that.

[Rob Osborn]

And it gets rather old when folks discount Intelligent Design which comes closest to LDS beliefs. Do you deny Jesus Christ the Creator too?

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

And it gets rather old when folks discount Intelligent Design which comes closest to LDS beliefs. Do you deny Jesus Christ the Creator too?

Intelligent Design resembles LDS beliefs? I don't think so. Poles apart.

No, I do not deny Jesus Christ the Creator. Why do you ask? Do you honestly believe that rejecting the absurdity that is Intelligent Design is tantamount to rejecting Christ?

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And it gets rather old when folks discount Intelligent Design which comes closest to LDS beliefs. Do you deny Jesus Christ the Creator too?

We've been through this before too.  NOBODY IN HERE that I know of discount intelligent design (small letter i, small letter d).  As a matter of fact, because we believe in God, we, of course, believe in intelligent design!  We simply discount Intelligent Design as a SCIENCE (capital I, capital D).  It is a PHILOSOPHY.  So as you can see here, it is simply a disagreement between you and I about what constitutes Science and what constitutes Philosophy under this thing called God's Universe.  And that disagreement seems to be insurmountable.  C'est la vie.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

Intelligent Design resembles LDS beliefs? I don't think so. Poles apart.

No, I do not deny Jesus Christ the Creator. Why do you ask? Do you honestly believe that rejecting the absurdity that is Intelligent Design is tantamount to rejecting Christ?

It truly baffles me you could state such disbelief. 

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

We've been through this before too.  NOBODY IN HERE that I know of discount intelligent design (small letter i, small letter d).  As a matter of fact, because we believe in God, we, of course, believe in intelligent design!  We simply discount Intelligent Design as a SCIENCE (capital I, capital D).  It is a PHILOSOPHY.  So as you can see here, it is simply a disagreement between you and I about what constitutes Science and what constitutes Philosophy under this thing called God's Universe.  And that disagreement seems to be insurmountable.  C'est la vie.

So, we must conclude that the big bang and evolution from a common ancestor is philosophy also. At least we can agree on that.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, we must conclude that the big bang and evolution from a common ancestor is philosophy also. At least we can agree on that.

No they're not.  They have solid scientific evidence that Intelligent Design hasn't met.  So, no, we can't agree on that either. 

One of these days, maybe Intelligent Design will mature as a scientific study and reach the point of meeting the rigors of scientific evidence.  It hasn't reached that point yet.  Big Bang was presented back in the 1920's.  Einstein rejected it as not enough scientific evidence to qualify as science.  Hubble, Gamow, et. al. added more work into it and it still wasn't enough.  It wasn't until the late 60's with the addition of the work of Penzias and Wilson that it finally met the qualifications for scientific evidence that it became accepted as a Science and replaced Steady-State Theory.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2