Science and Religion

[Traveler]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We agree bro. I'm NOT a creationist. 

I thought to clarify something – as a proponent of artificial intelligence (including the Hive Mind).  I believe that the best use of intelligence is at the maximum possible distributed level.  It is obvious to me through such things as ordinations to priesthood that G-d fully intends to distribute his power and authority – both of which are essential to the creation or “organization” of stellar systems (planets or worlds) and life.  I believe it to be the modus operandi of G-d is to involve his children whenever possible.  In short I believe that Jesus was not the only of his offspring involved in creation.  I believe that Michael and others were involved as well.

I have stated this before but I believe we can find intelligence in the universe without looking (SETI) for other life forms – I believe we can detect intelligence in quantum or particle physics as well as the latest discoveries of Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Dark Radiation.  I believe that superclusters show intelligence – I once posted pictures of human brain cells and superclusters from the Hubble telescope and most could not tell which were which – I think those that did – did so with lucky guesses.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

From Wikipedia under the topic of Intelligent design: 

Contrary to your theory creationism (young earth) is very much involved in ID and the use of the term.  I concede that the term “Intelligent Design” can be used by anybody to mean whatever they want but the ID movement at its onset was and is today an effort to legally connect creationism (which includes young earth theology) to the term “Intelligent Design” and to be taught as alternate scientific “theory” to evolution and the Big Bang as viable scientific theories in public schools.

ID can mean whatever you want in you various posts – but if you intend to teach ID  curriculum as a teacher officially in schools you are required by law to teach  young earth theology.

 

The Traveler

Again, it just shows your ignorance not using proper unbiased research. Im guilty of it too so I guess it balances out.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Godless said:

The difference here is that there are no significant variations of flat earth theory. Some inconsistencies, perhaps, but all versions of it are equally ridiculous. 

ID theory, on the other hand, ranges from young-earth creationists to borderline evolutionists who are basically using ID to fill the gaps (God of the Gaps, anyone?) in our current understanding of biological evolution. The people on the latter end of the ID spectrum actually accept a great deal of the science involved in evolutionary theory. The problem is that they use sketchy "science" to try to explain aspects of evolution that either haven't been adequately explained or that don't make sense to them. 

The overwhelming number of theists, both on this board and in the scientific community at large, who accept evolutionary theory would seem to make this statement untrue, and that's great news for scientific progress. There used to be a time when religious consensus wasn't nearly as accommodating to scientific advancement as it is now. I believe that time is commonly called "the dark ages". If you want to put your faith in shaky science because it better fits your worldview, so be it. But to suggest that evolutionary theory is an enemy of religion is blatantly and demonstrably false.  

So I'm not allowed to speculate on the nature of an ideal god? I believed in God for 2/3 of my life, all while accepting evolutionary theory. The fact that I no longer believe in God stems from purely ideological causes, not scientific ones. Evolution didn't lead me away from the church. If you want to use my worldview to discredit my arguments, you're going to have to try harder than that. And if my worldview is truly the root of your bias against evolutionary theory (and it seems increasingly obvious that this is the case), then you're going to have to stop pretending that your objections to evolution are rooted in science.

Evolution theory actually is part of secular atheism. You may not believe it but I do and it doesnt matter if you think Im wrong because I know otherwise.

Obviously you are going to side with the secular atheism side and it shows your obvious bias in not properly understanding ID theory. Thats okay, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Godless said:

The difference here is that there are no significant variations of flat earth theory. Some inconsistencies, perhaps, but all versions of it are equally ridiculous. 

ID theory, on the other hand, ranges from young-earth creationists to borderline evolutionists who are basically using ID to fill the gaps (God of the Gaps, anyone?) in our current understanding of biological evolution. The people on the latter end of the ID spectrum actually accept a great deal of the science involved in evolutionary theory. The problem is that they use sketchy "science" to try to explain aspects of evolution that either haven't been adequately explained or that don't make sense to them. 

The overwhelming number of theists, both on this board and in the scientific community at large, who accept evolutionary theory would seem to make this statement untrue, and that's great news for scientific progress. There used to be a time when religious consensus wasn't nearly as accommodating to scientific advancement as it is now. I believe that time is commonly called "the dark ages". If you want to put your faith in shaky science because it better fits your worldview, so be it. But to suggest that evolutionary theory is an enemy of religion is blatantly and demonstrably false.  

So I'm not allowed to speculate on the nature of an ideal god? I believed in God for 2/3 of my life, all while accepting evolutionary theory. The fact that I no longer believe in God stems from purely ideological causes, not scientific ones. Evolution didn't lead me away from the church. If you want to use my worldview to discredit my arguments, you're going to have to try harder than that. And if my worldview is truly the root of your bias against evolutionary theory (and it seems increasingly obvious that this is the case), then you're going to have to stop pretending that your objections to evolution are rooted in science.

Evolution theory actually is part of secular atheism. You may not believe it but I do and it doesnt matter if you think Im wrong because I know otherwise.

Obviously you are going to side with the secular atheism side and it shows your obvious bias in not properly understanding ID theory. Thats okay, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Godless said:

The difference here is that there are no significant variations of flat earth theory. Some inconsistencies, perhaps, but all versions of it are equally ridiculous. 

ID theory, on the other hand, ranges from young-earth creationists to borderline evolutionists who are basically using ID to fill the gaps (God of the Gaps, anyone?) in our current understanding of biological evolution. The people on the latter end of the ID spectrum actually accept a great deal of the science involved in evolutionary theory. The problem is that they use sketchy "science" to try to explain aspects of evolution that either haven't been adequately explained or that don't make sense to them. 

The overwhelming number of theists, both on this board and in the scientific community at large, who accept evolutionary theory would seem to make this statement untrue, and that's great news for scientific progress. There used to be a time when religious consensus wasn't nearly as accommodating to scientific advancement as it is now. I believe that time is commonly called "the dark ages". If you want to put your faith in shaky science because it better fits your worldview, so be it. But to suggest that evolutionary theory is an enemy of religion is blatantly and demonstrably false.  

So I'm not allowed to speculate on the nature of an ideal god? I believed in God for 2/3 of my life, all while accepting evolutionary theory. The fact that I no longer believe in God stems from purely ideological causes, not scientific ones. Evolution didn't lead me away from the church. If you want to use my worldview to discredit my arguments, you're going to have to try harder than that. And if my worldview is truly the root of your bias against evolutionary theory (and it seems increasingly obvious that this is the case), then you're going to have to stop pretending that your objections to evolution are rooted in science.

Evolution theory actually is part of secular atheism. You may not believe it but I do and it doesnt matter if you think Im wrong because I know otherwise.

Obviously you are going to side with the secular atheism side and it shows your obvious bias in not properly understanding ID theory. Thats okay, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Godless said:

The difference here is that there are no significant variations of flat earth theory. Some inconsistencies, perhaps, but all versions of it are equally ridiculous. 

ID theory, on the other hand, ranges from young-earth creationists to borderline evolutionists who are basically using ID to fill the gaps (God of the Gaps, anyone?) in our current understanding of biological evolution. The people on the latter end of the ID spectrum actually accept a great deal of the science involved in evolutionary theory. The problem is that they use sketchy "science" to try to explain aspects of evolution that either haven't been adequately explained or that don't make sense to them. 

The overwhelming number of theists, both on this board and in the scientific community at large, who accept evolutionary theory would seem to make this statement untrue, and that's great news for scientific progress. There used to be a time when religious consensus wasn't nearly as accommodating to scientific advancement as it is now. I believe that time is commonly called "the dark ages". If you want to put your faith in shaky science because it better fits your worldview, so be it. But to suggest that evolutionary theory is an enemy of religion is blatantly and demonstrably false.  

So I'm not allowed to speculate on the nature of an ideal god? I believed in God for 2/3 of my life, all while accepting evolutionary theory. The fact that I no longer believe in God stems from purely ideological causes, not scientific ones. Evolution didn't lead me away from the church. If you want to use my worldview to discredit my arguments, you're going to have to try harder than that. And if my worldview is truly the root of your bias against evolutionary theory (and it seems increasingly obvious that this is the case), then you're going to have to stop pretending that your objections to evolution are rooted in science.

Evolution theory actually is part of secular atheism. You may not believe it but I do and it doesnt matter if you think Im wrong because I know otherwise.

Obviously you are going to side with the secular atheism side and it shows your obvious bias in not properly understanding ID theory. Thats okay, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Rob Osborn]

Holy cow, it kept copying my post over and over again. That was weird.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolution theory actually is part of secular atheism. You may not believe it but I do and it doesnt matter if you think Im wrong because I know otherwise.

From our friends at Merriam Webster:

Definition of atheism

1. 1a :  a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2. b :  a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

3. I don't see anything in there about evolution. Weird.

Quote

Obviously you are going to side with the secular atheism side and it shows your obvious bias in not properly understanding ID theory. Thats okay, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

This isn't an us-vs-them debate, or at least it doesn't need to be. As I said, my views on scientific matters didn't change much as I transitioned from theism to atheism. Many Christians (I would guess a majority) accept evolutionary theory as fact, and at no cost to their faith. The more you try to discredit evolution on religious grounds, the more clear it becomes that your objections have no scientific basis.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Godless

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

From our friends at Merriam Webster:

Definition of atheism

1. 1a :  a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2. b :  a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

3. I don't see anything in there about evolution. Weird.

This isn't an us-vs-them debate, or at least it doesn't need to be. As I said, my views on scientific matters didn't change much as I transitioned from theism to atheism. Many Christians (I would guess a majority) accept evolutionary theory as fact, and at no cost to their faith. The more you try to discredit evolution on religious grounds, the more clear it becomes that your objections have no scientific basis.

Secular atheism, its your guys religion. What more can I say?

[Guest Godless]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Secular atheism, its your guys religion. What more can I say?

What more can you say? How about explaining the statement you just made.

Atheism isn't my religion. I have no religion. Many atheists don't. Some atheists do. Some atheists are Buddhists or follow some other non-theist form of spirituality that isn't defined by their atheism. Some atheists take the pursuit of science to the extreme (which I believe is what you're trying to get at, correct me if I'm wrong) in claiming that their scientific views disprove god. Don't be fooled into believing that all, or even a majority, of atheists are so ideologically zealous in their scientific pursuits. People like Richard Dawkins (brilliant scientist, lousy theologian) don't hold any more ideological high ground than the ID supporters who claim that evolutionary theory is sacrilegious.

As for me, and many atheists, there is nothing religious about my disbelief in god. No form of worship, no rituals, no dogma. None of the things that traditionally define religion. I trust science to explain the world I live in to about the same extent as many theists do. I don't have some sort of weird religious fascination with it. It doesn't have any sort of profound impact on my worldview from a theological standpoint. The notion that atheism is a religion is a falsehood born of theists who can't comprehend the idea of absence of religion in one's life. 

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

What more can you say? How about explaining the statement you just made.

Atheism isn't my religion. I have no religion. Many atheists don't. Some atheists do. Some atheists are Buddhists or follow some other non-theist form of spirituality that isn't defined by their atheism. Some atheists take the pursuit of science to the extreme (which I believe is what you're trying to get at, correct me if I'm wrong) in claiming that their scientific views disprove god. Don't be fooled into believing that all, or even a majority, of atheists are so ideologically zealous in their scientific pursuits. People like Richard Dawkins (brilliant scientist, lousy theologian) don't hold any more ideological high ground than the ID supporters who claim that evolutionary theory is sacrilegious.

As for me, and many atheists, there is nothing religious about my disbelief in god. No form of worship, no rituals, no dogma. None of the things that traditionally define religion. I trust science to explain the world I live in to about the same extent as many theists do. I don't have some sort of weird religious fascination with it. It doesn't have any sort of profound impact on my worldview from a theological standpoint. The notion that atheism is a religion is a falsehood born of theists who can't comprehend the idea of absence of religion in one's life. 

I believe teachings of evolution from a common ancestor fall under that blanket of secularism and atheism which ideaology/belief system works to undermine and destroy true belief in God and true religion, morality, etc.

Its all part of that push to force God and true religion out of the public square, especially out of organized public teaching. Its war alright, between good and evil and evolution is just that- an evil atheist doctrine.

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[JohnsonJones]

If I understand right, no one believes in Darwin's theory of evolution anymore.  His theory was one that had things being only a few million years old.  The current models of evolution are different than that.

That is one reason among many that I said I do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, because the current theories (or even the ones that came out less than 20 years after his death for that matter) are different.

That said, I do not Ascribe to the Leakey theories or any in that manner, but for different reasons.

 

PS: Of course, I'm a historian, not a scientist, so, I normally don't have to deal with such things anyways, and of course my opinion is not what one would call super informed because of education or anything like that.

Edited March 9, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Clarification

[Guest]

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.  There can be some parts of evolution that are true while other parts are not.  In fact, the current antibiotics crisis is kind of proof that there is at least some truth to the theory of evolution.  Same goes with the Big Bang Theory.  (Although I personally see no conflict between the gospel and about 95% of evolutionary theory, and I have never understood objections of Christians to the big bang theory.)

My advice?  Learn all you can about the Church, learn all you can about evolution/big bang, keep an open mind, and have faith that it will all reconcile once we have more knowledge.  

Edited March 9, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.  There can be some parts of evolution that are true while other parts are not.  In fact, the current antibiotics crisis is kind of proof that there is at least some truth to the theory of evolution.  Same goes with the Big Bang Theory.  (Although I personally see no conflict between the gospel and about 95% of evolutionary theory, and I have never understood objections of Christians to the big bang theory.)

My advice?  Learn all you can about the Church, learn all you can about evolution/big bang, keep an open mind, and have faith that it will all reconcile once we have more knowledge.  

 

As an engineer working in the field of artificial intelligence – I have come to believe and expect that whenever change is realized that at some level, intelligence must be directly associated to that change either as the initial cause or the aftermath of the cause as an extension of Newton’s laws.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

@DoctorLemon 

You may be interested to know that in the scientific community - intelligence (including artificiail intelligence) is defined as the ability to learn and change outcomes (behavior modification).  It is not that far of a logic step to think that the observation of change is a good place to start looking for something intelligent.  It may also be interesting to note that the basic meaning of evolution is "CHANGE".  The very concept of evolution (change) is the scientific defination of intelligence.  

It is impossible to believe in divine creation and not believe in the theory of evolution.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

Just now, Traveler said:

@DoctorLemon 

You may be interested to know that in the scientific community - intelligence (including artificiail intelligence) is defined as the ability to learn and change outcomes (behavior modification).  It is not that far of a logic step to think that the observation of change is a good place to start looking for something intelligent.  It may also be interesting to note that the basic meaning of evolution is "CHANGE".  The very concept of evolution (change) is the scientific defination of intelligence.  

It is impossible to believe in divine creation and not believe in the theory of evolution.

 

The Traveler

I am just thankful there is room for belief in evolution in the Church.  I think it would be a very difficult trial of faith to learn the science behind evolution and then to have to be in a religion that mandates as part of its doctrine that no part of evolution can be true, because you would have to ignore an awful lot of scientific findings for this one.  Fortunately, the Church has taken a very flexible official position in regard to evolution, and I don't have to have this particular trial of faith.

Edited March 10, 2017 by DoctorLemon