Facts for evolutionists

[Danyc]

Rtooty, reading your posts, you seem like a reasonable man. Just from the way you talk; I think you're able to learn.

So we won't give up on you. As you can see, many people are answering your posts; most of the time it's simply a few making snide remarks when a creationist with no interest in the subject at hand comes through. They're not worth the effort.

 

[Markus6]

But the point still stands. The scientific process, as it is used, states pretty strongly that the supernatural does not exist, the moment it is applied to the supernatural. As near as I can tell, resorting to the "methodological naturalism" stance is nothing but a strategic move to protect science from religious opposition, while at the same time having the effect of protecting religious beliefs from scientific inquiry. It's an arbitrary edifice that has no reason supporting it other than strategy.

The scientific process does not state, in any way, that the supernatural does not exist.

Of course, it's also reflected in the minds of scientists and those well-educated in the sciences who are also religious. They erect a barrier within their own minds: on one side of the barrier, all claims are investigated with rigorous scrutiny and skepticism. On the other side, the theist doesn't bother with any of this, and just arbitrarily believes in a variety of unsupported, and often completely unsupportable, claims about the nature of reality. The whole NOMA edifice, when used by theists, is just a codification of this inherently irrational way of thinking in an attempt to give it a false sense of respectability.

Your claim to know exactly how the mind of every single well educated, scientifically minded, religious person works is noted. However, considering you haven't spoken to the vast majority of these people I suspect the generalisation is merely an attempt to rationalise that fact that you, yourself, can't comprehend how religion and scientific education can coexist.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The scientific process does not state, in any way, that the supernatural does not exist.

Correct, because universal negatives are a weak logic stance.

However, when utilizing factors in any given scientific model, the factors cannot be "supernatural". In a sense, if a supernatural effect is studied and analyzed and experienced repeatedly by all objective observers to be the same among all observers, then it is probably not "supernatural" but simply an unknown facet of the "natural".

To that end, it would certainly behoove those who wish to interject "God" into the sciences to "model" God and present a clear set of attributes that all will agree on that "outline" God in such a way that further models can be developed that utilize this hypothesis and will function within statistical limits.

To my knowledge, no such "model" of God has ever been produced by the faithful even given several millenia of efforts.

Your claim to know exactly how the mind of every single well educated, scientifically minded, religious person works is noted.

And, in a sense, it is probably pretty close to correct. I know many, many bright scientists in the earth and chemical sciences who are, themselves, religious. They believe in God, Jesus, etc. And I don't recall any of them saying that this or that reaction ran in a specific way because God caused it to rather than fundamental physical laws.

This is not to say that many don't hold the belief that God "set the laws in motion" or uses these laws to control reality, but that is a somewhat different proposition.

If God were to be utilized by scientists in any given specific instance then it would be non-scientific as an hypothesis until the basic work is done on modeling God.

However, considering you haven't spoken to the vast majority of these people I suspect the generalisation is merely an attempt to rationalise that fact that you, yourself, can't comprehend how religion and scientific education can coexist.

I used to be religious. I put that wall up in my mind. I can't imagine ever publishing something akin to:

"the reaction produced an excess of product B that was unexpected from prior results. It is assumed that God touched the reaction and, in the present case, produced more Product B than normally would be found from this type of reaction."

NOW, when I was a religious person, I might assume that God, in the beginning established the laws of physics and when I ran my experiment and found an excess of Product B I was either looking at:

• an error in my technique
• some heretofore unknown side-reaction that was not anticipated

I would not have knelt down in prayer that God had fundamentally altered my reaction in this instant. (I might have prayed in thanks if my reaction proceded as expected, but not because I thought God was in there monkeying with the works, but rather thanking him that I hadn't screwed up the preparation...again, somewhat different in scope and effect).

Of course, as a scientist, I cannot speak for what is really in anothers' mind. But I would have to say the "wall" hypothesis is proabably closer to accurate.

 

[RTooty]

But high school isn't the place for that. Yes, students should learn the flaws in the theory of evolution, just as they should learn the flaws in any theory.

Which high school students are, by no means, educated enough to reach. Science isn't decided in the class. It's decided in labs and in peer-reviewed journals.

Saying "High schools students are, by no means, educated enough to reach such conclusions" is asinine. High school students are more than capable to understand fact vs. fiction and if presented with both cases they can draw their own conclusions. They don't need to do the research. Just present them with the data. Presenting only a pro evolution point of view to our students is like dropping all foreign languages from curriculum because they only need English.

I believe the reason for such animosity of those who adhere to evolution is because the atheist community use it as a crutch to prove that God doesn't exist. Or, am I missing the point. Isn't that the underlying issue here. If evolution were real, it explains our universe and there is no need for a creator. But if evolution was false, atheist can't explain life, they can't explain how such marvelous creatures were made without divine creativity. The real issue is that evolution is a soap box for atheism.

 

[Chalnoth]

The scientific process does not state, in any way, that the supernatural does not exist.

Sure it does. There is no evidence whatsoever for anything supernatural. There is not even any hint from any field of science that there might possibly be anything supernatural. Ergo, the supernatural is highly highly unlikely, most especially if we're talking about a specific supernatural claim.

Your claim to know exactly how the mind of every single well educated, scientifically minded, religious person works is noted.

This partitioning is necessary. There really is no other way that they can possibly function. To understand or practice science, they must engage in skepticism and rational thinking. To believe the claims of any religion are true, they must forgo both. Therefore they must necessarily erect a division in their minds between propositions which can (and should) be questioned, and those that should not (or, some believe, can not).

 

[Chalnoth]

The real issue is that evolution is a soap box for atheism.

Well, evolution is true. So what's the problem?

And, by the way, evolution is only a "soap box for atheism" in that it demonstrates certain specific religions to be making false claims. If those religions didn't bother to try to make such patently false claims, it wouldn't be an issue.

P.S. Oh, and the primary problem in teaching Intelligent Design/Creationism in public schools isn't so much that the "kids can't handle it", but instead that it's against the US constitution. I'd be perfectly fine with it, personally, if the controversy was taught by competent teachers, as the students would be even more convinced of the validity of evolution.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Saying "High schools students are, by no means, educated enough to reach such conclusions" is asinine. High school students are more than capable to understand fact vs. fiction and if presented with both cases they can draw their own conclusions. They don't need to do the research. Just present them with the data. Presenting only a pro evolution point of view to our students is like dropping all foreign languages from curriculum because they only need English.

No! it's like giving "both sides" to the occurance of the holocaust or moon landing. Biologists DO NOT debate whether or not evolution occured, even a sloppy lay search of the scientific literature will reveal that.

I believe the reason for such animosity of those who adhere to evolution is because the atheist community use it as a crutch to prove that God doesn't exist. Or, am I missing the point. Isn't that the underlying issue here. If evolution were real, it explains our universe and there is no need for a creator. But if evolution was false, atheist can't explain life, they can't explain how such marvelous creatures were made without divine creativity. The real issue is that evolution is a soap box for atheism.

You are wrong. The animosity is from BIOLOGISTS who resent having this pseudoscience prancing around as legitimate when it produces NO science. it doesnt predict or accurately describe or account for ANYTHING in nature. It is not even its own theory! it is a series of charges (almost all of which are PRATTs) against evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

Saying "High schools students are, by no means, educated enough to reach such conclusions" is asinine. High school students are more than capable to understand fact vs. fiction and if presented with both cases they can draw their own conclusions. They don't need to do the research. Just present them with the data.

This won't help you, since all the data points to common descent. There is no data that points to creationism, because creationists do not produce any data. All they produce is apologetic arguments.

Presenting only a pro evolution point of view to our students is like dropping all foreign languages from curriculum because they only need English.

I really don't see the relevance in your analogy. I have a better analogy... Teaching creationism in biology classes would be like teaching alchemy in chemistry classes, or astrology in astronomy classes.

I believe the reason for such animosity of those who adhere to evolution is because the atheist community use it as a crutch to prove that God doesn't exist. Or, am I missing the point.

Yes, I'm afraid you are. Here is the point: Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. PERIOD. Am I getting through to you at all?

Isn't that the underlying issue here. If evolution were real, it explains our universe and there is no need for a creator. But if evolution was false, atheist can't explain life, they can't explain how such marvelous creatures were made without divine creativity. The real issue is that evolution is a soap box for atheism.

Garbage. Most Christians use a creator to explain where the universe and its laws come from, and to explain the human soul, and other intangibles that science cannot address.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Saying "High schools students are, by no means, educated enough to reach such conclusions" is asinine. High school students are more than capable to understand fact vs. fiction and if presented with both cases they can draw their own conclusions.

So you going to support extending High School for about 10 years? Grades 9 through 19 will be all you need to cover every known theory of origins in sufficient detail. We'll start with Hinduism, and then all the Native American origins hypotheses, then Greek, Norse, etc. Maybe near the middle we can throw in some Judeo-Christian.

You see, there's a reason why science has any value whatsoever: that reason is expressed in the almighty STATISTICAL LIKELIHOOD OF A FINDING NOT BEING IN ERROR.

It is key to science that error can be quantified within statistical limits. Testing hypotheses results in an assessment of how likely it is we are wrong. That allows us to deal with the most likely hypotheses rather than treat every single statement ever made as equally valid all the time forever.

They don't need to do the research. Just present them with the data.

Just dump the data on 'em? That'd work really well. There's another couple dozen years of high school you are asking for.

Good luck selling 25 years of high school to kids!

I believe the reason for such animosity of those who adhere to evolution is because the atheist community use it as a crutch to prove that God doesn't exist.

Oh my. You dont' know many Christians do you? Most of them accept evolution with no problem. In fact it is only a small minority of people who, by and large, are scientifically disinterested, who seem to have the problem of Evolution and Christianity coexisting.

Speaking from personal experience I can tell you It was NOT evolution that drew me away from being a Christian. It was, however, a lack of evidence for God that turned me into an atheist. I was a pro-evolution Christian for decades. Believe me, it wasn't evolution or abiogenesis that pulled me away from God.

Or, am I missing the point. Isn't that the underlying issue here.

Most assuredly NOT.

Science is the point. Science has nothing to do with religion and religion doesn't work in science. What most of us, atheist and christian evolutionists alike, want is to keep science free of unfounded assumptions.

if evolution was false, atheist can't explain life

See, the whole evolution and abiogenesis thing breaks down here really badly. Evolution is unrelated to abiogenesis. So if chemistry is incorrect, then we have a tough time with abiogenesis. If evolution is incorrect we have to find a way to explain the huge masses of data that show:

1. Change in life over time (fossil record)
2. Adaptation to environmental stressors
3. Genetic changes, drift and mutation

That's why evolution is an attractive theory, because it successfully explains all the data and it does it using only known factors that are agreed up on by all observers.

If evolution were false, you'd still be stuck with the data that seems to sort of scream "evolution". So how could creationists "know" evolution is "false"?

, they can't explain how such marvelous creatures were made without divine creativity.

Correct me if I'm in error here, but I thought the main reason Creationists didn't like evolution was because it made us descended from "animals". How many times do we have to hear the disgust in the voices of creationists proclaiming: "I ain't descended from a monkey!"

The real issue is that evolution is a soap box for atheism.

Wow. That's putting it to the countless geologists, biologists and scientists all over the world who've been involved in this type of research, yet mysteriously have no problem believing in God!

I will point out that I have spent years in the geologic sciences and know many paleontologists who are both Christian and believe in evolution! What is wrong with them?

 

[atomweaver]

Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids. To make collagen you would have to line up 1055 amino's in the right sequence. The odds of that happening are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 (thats 1 followed by 260 zeros).

As a polymer chemist, I'm dumbfounded at attempts to apply a probabilistic analysis to a chemical reaction. It looks to me like to get your 'odds', all that's been done is a calculation of some factorial of the number of amino acids in collagen (1055), which is taken as 'odds against"... What does this number have to do with the chemistry of amino acids? Nothing. Chemistry is about yields, not odds.

Here's the crazy part it doesn't get made. It makes itself.

Yes, its true, polymers make themselves. Is it crazy? Not hardly, it happens all the time. When three simple chemicals (acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene) were mixed together and heated, the keyboard you are using right now made itself in a similar fashion. "That's crazy", right? Not really.At worst, you could say it is counter-intuitive, but that's about it.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Saying "High schools students are, by no means, educated enough to reach such conclusions" is asinine. High school students are more than capable to understand fact vs. fiction and if presented with both cases they can draw their own conclusions. They don't need to do the research. Just present them with the data.

Show me another theory of biological diversity supported by a body of evidence in the scientific literature and I will support its inclusion in the public school science curriculum. As things stand today, evolution is the only one.

Presenting only a pro evolution point of view to our students is like dropping all foreign languages from curriculum because they only need English.

No, presenting only evolution is being honest with the students because it is the only evidence-based theory of biological diversity available at the moment.

I believe the reason for such animosity of those who adhere to evolution is because the atheist community use it as a crutch to prove that God doesn't exist. Or, am I missing the point. Isn't that the underlying issue here. If evolution were real, it explains our universe and there is no need for a creator. But if evolution was false, atheist can't explain life, they can't explain how such marvelous creatures were made without divine creativity.

All in all, you believe too much.

The real issue is that evolution is a soap box for atheism.

Except for the millions of religious people who accept evolution completely.

 

[The Madcap]

Saying "High schools students are, by no means, educated enough to reach such conclusions" is asinine. High school students are more than capable to understand fact vs. fiction and if presented with both cases they can draw their own conclusions. They don't need to do the research. Just present them with the data. Presenting only a pro evolution point of view to our students is like dropping all foreign languages from curriculum because they only need English.

I believe the reason for such animosity of those who adhere to evolution is because the atheist community use it as a crutch to prove that God doesn't exist. Or, am I missing the point. Isn't that the underlying issue here. If evolution were real, it explains our universe and there is no need for a creator. But if evolution was false, atheist can't explain life, they can't explain how such marvelous creatures were made without divine creativity. The real issue is that evolution is a soap box for atheism.

No, it isn't a soap box for atheism. It isn't synonymous with atheism like you're saying it is. And, evolution does not disprove God, either. But judging from our current evidence, there is no NEED for a creator. That doesn't make it impossible, but there is no need. If evolution were false, that doesn't mean God wins by default, and if evolution is true, that doesn't mean atheism wins by default.

 

[Markus6]

I find it interesting that the two of you seem to be addressing me from very different perspectives (if agreeing in a larger sense). Just an observation.

Correct, because universal negatives are a weak logic stance.

However, when utilizing factors in any given scientific model, the factors cannot be "supernatural". In a sense, if a supernatural effect is studied and analyzed and experienced repeatedly by all objective observers to be the same among all observers, then it is probably not "supernatural" but simply an unknown facet of the "natural".

To that end, it would certainly behoove those who wish to interject "God" into the sciences to "model" God and present a clear set of attributes that all will agree on that "outline" God in such a way that further models can be developed that utilize this hypothesis and will function within statistical limits.

To my knowledge, no such "model" of God has ever been produced by the faithful even given several millenia of efforts.



And, in a sense, it is probably pretty close to correct. I know many, many bright scientists in the earth and chemical sciences who are, themselves, religious. They believe in God, Jesus, etc. And I don't recall any of them saying that this or that reaction ran in a specific way because God caused it to rather than fundamental physical laws.

This is not to say that many don't hold the belief that God "set the laws in motion" or uses these laws to control reality, but that is a somewhat different proposition.

If God were to be utilized by scientists in any given specific instance then it would be non-scientific as an hypothesis until the basic work is done on modeling God.



I used to be religious. I put that wall up in my mind. I can't imagine ever publishing something akin to:

"the reaction produced an excess of product B that was unexpected from prior results. It is assumed that God touched the reaction and, in the present case, produced more Product B than normally would be found from this type of reaction."

NOW, when I was a religious person, I might assume that God, in the beginning established the laws of physics and when I ran my experiment and found an excess of Product B I was either looking at:

• an error in my technique
• some heretofore unknown side-reaction that was not anticipated

I would not have knelt down in prayer that God had fundamentally altered my reaction in this instant. (I might have prayed in thanks if my reaction proceded as expected, but not because I thought God was in there monkeying with the works, but rather thanking him that I hadn't screwed up the preparation...again, somewhat different in scope and effect).

Of course, as a scientist, I cannot speak for what is really in anothers' mind. But I would have to say the "wall" hypothesis is proabably closer to accurate.

I'm afraid I see this as a little bit of a strawman allowing you to support Chalnoth when, from what you've said, your stance does differ from his significantly. I agree that religious scientists are not interjecting supernatural divine intevention into science. However, I see this as different from Chalnoth's "wall" hypothesis. Granted his emotive language is probably causing me to react negatively to it and a sensitive rephrasing may produce a statement I could agree with. As it stands he seems to be stating that when religious people are performing science they are acting as perfectly good atheists but when they address religious claims they lose all skepticism and rationality. It is painfully clear to me that the scientific religous do not hold their religious beliefs "arbitrarily" as Chalnoth claims. Of course they do not hold their beliefs because of the results of science and the methods they go about to accept religious claims are undoubtably different. However, not looking for supernatural divine intervention does not make them atheists when they are performing science. It is still possible to look at science through theistic lenses. As you mentioned assuming got established the laws is a start. Indeed belief in the Abrahamic God (monotheistic, benevolent creator of the universe) could lead you to predict rational, consistent, discoverable laws under pinning the workings of the universe in a way that no other view would (e.g. polytheism, pantheism or animism. Even atheism in my view couldn't produce that prediction a priori.) Natural science is only atheistic if you see only the supernatural as controlled by God and the natural as Godless. In general theistic evolutionists would not agree with that. We accept that God uses the natural as much, if not more, than the supernatural.

Sure it does. There is no evidence whatsoever for anything supernatural. There is not even any hint from any field of science that there might possibly be anything supernatural. Ergo, the supernatural is highly highly unlikely, most especially if we're talking about a specific supernatural claim.

Importantly even "highly highly unlikely" is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. I agree with thaumaturgy's argument about universal negatives. However, even the logic used to get to "highly highly unlikely" rests on some assumptions that those who believe in the supernatural would not accept, e.g. that if the supernatural did exist we would be able to study it with science. Perhaps that would be fair if we believed in the impersonal, repeatable supernatural (e.g. if you walk under a ladder your chance of having a bucket fall on your head increases by 76%). However, most of the scientific religious believe in the personal supernatural, affected more by relationship than resembling a black box with consistent inputs and outputs. Your view seems to be bordering on scientism, saying that the only way we can discover truth is through science. That's quite alright for your personal metaphysical view but don't expect us to agree with you and if you insist on judging us based on that view don't expect to understand us.

This partitioning is necessary. There really is no other way that they can possibly function. To understand or practice science, they must engage in skepticism and rational thinking. To believe the claims of any religion are true, they must forgo both. Therefore they must necessarily erect a division in their minds between propositions which can (and should) be questioned, and those that should not (or, some believe, can not).

Again with the generalised view based on your own view of science and religion and not taking into account the differing views of those you are talking about (of which you are generally ignorant). My theory is that if you ever have to resort to conspiracy or self deception to explain the stand point of a group then you haven't properly understood their beliefs. I see it with Creationists who have to conjure up some giant atheist conspiracy to explain why the scientific establishment accepts evolution because they don't properly understand the evidence. To claim that everyone who holds religious beliefs discards all skepticism and rational thought does a severe disservice to a huge number intelligent religous people who put a great deal of thought into their beliefs. There has been much written on the interplay between science and religion by far greater minds than my own from as far back as Bacon, Kepler and Newton and recently by Polkinghorne, Rodney D. Holder ('Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?' is a very good book on his topic), Alister McGrath, and on evolution, Miller and Collins.

A poorer, but interesting argument, is that if you want to advance the study of science in the world your claims are not going to help. America at least is still religious in the majority and claims that science is atheistic or says that God does not exist are going to hurt the cause of science. For Creationism to survive it needs outspoken atheists attempting to use science and evolution to disprove religion, like Dawkins. It buys nicely into their claim of an atheistic elite conspiring against creation science.

 

[atomweaver]

Saying "High schools students are, by no means, educated enough to reach such conclusions" is asinine. High school students are more than capable to understand fact vs. fiction and if presented with both cases they can draw their own conclusions. They don't need to do the research. Just present them with the data. Presenting only a pro evolution point of view to our students is like dropping all foreign languages from curriculum because they only need English.

Bold emphasis mine. You say that, as if the "language of creationism" were used as frequently as the "language of evolution" in biology. Do you not see the flaw in this? BIOLOGISTS DON'T USE CREATIONISM... You don't develop a better future biologist (or chemist, or physicist, or engineer, or mathematician, etc.) by pretending the non-scientific notions of the ancient past are just as good a scientific tool as the most up-to-date modern theories.

Tell me, how comprehensive do you find your local high school's Aramaic curriculum to be..?

 

[Chalnoth]

As it stands he seems to be stating that when religious people are performing science they are acting as perfectly good atheists but when they address religious claims they lose all skepticism and rationality. It is painfully clear to me that the scientific religous do not hold their religious beliefs "arbitrarily" as Chalnoth claims.

Yes, this is precisely what I'm saying. Now, granted, the scientific religious may well use some semblance of logic within this sphere of reasoning. But they only do this after already accepting unsupported (and often unsupportable) premises. For example, such a person my say, "Because the Bible says X is good, I believe X is good." This is a rational stance to take, given the wholly irrational stance that the Bible is the word of God.

No matter how much they sugar coat it, there are still some claims which the religious take to be true based upon no evidence whatsoever. No matter how "logical" a religious person is in deducing things from those claims, the fact that they must hold irrational claims to be true to be religious means that this wall must be there.

Importantly even "highly highly unlikely" is not the same as saying it doesn't exist.

"Highly highly unlikely," in scientific language, is exactly the same thing as saying it doesn't exist in colloquial language. It is equally unlikely that any particular god exists as it is that unicorns exist, that leprechauns exist, that ghosts exist, that space aliens which visit Earth on a regular basis exist, or any number of other such unevidenced entities.

However, most of the scientific religious believe in the personal supernatural, affected more by relationship than resembling a black box with consistent inputs and outputs. Your view seems to be bordering on scientism, saying that the only way we can discover truth is through science. That's quite alright for your personal metaphysical view but don't expect us to agree with you and if you insist on judging us based on that view don't expect to understand us.

But that makes things even worse, though. Positing that the god you are proposing is a personal god just makes this unevidenced entity that much more complex. The attributes associated with such gods are also quite often self-contradictory, and there's the additional problem that intercessory prayer has been tested and come up wanting.

Again with the generalised view based on your own view of science and religion and not taking into account the differing views of those you are talking about (of which you are generally ignorant). My theory is that if you ever have to resort to conspiracy or self deception to explain the stand point of a group then you haven't properly understood their beliefs.

Here's the thing: you think the members of all of those other religions (and variants of your own) that you don't believe in are mistaken. I merely go one religion further, that is all. My stance is no different from your own where these other religions are concerned. I'm just not arbitrarily attaching myself to one set of beliefs.

A poorer, but interesting argument, is that if you want to advance the study of science in the world your claims are not going to help. America at least is still religious in the majority and claims that science is atheistic or says that God does not exist are going to hurt the cause of science. For Creationism to survive it needs outspoken atheists attempting to use science and evolution to disprove religion, like Dawkins. It buys nicely into their claim of an atheistic elite conspiring against creation science.

What does the truth gain if it is hidden for the purpose of strategy? Look, creationism does not survive because people claim that others are wrong. Creationism survives because of the enforced ignorance of the young. I don't need to shut up to help get rid of creationism. I need to advocate the teaching of good science to children, that is all.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm afraid I see this as a little bit of a strawman allowing you to support Chalnoth when, from what you've said, your stance does differ from his significantly.

While I respect Chalnoth's point, I am not in any way beholden to agree or disagree with him.

But, I still maintain that it is never logically valid to make a "Universal Negative" claim.

In the case of atheism, scientific or otherwise, clearly I, as a weak atheist, simply fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no God. That does not mean I state "There is no god", but rather I fail to find any evidence that God exists, certainly none sufficient to make it likely I will not be making a Type I error in rejecting said null hypothesis.

I agree that religious scientists are not interjecting supernatural divine intevention into science. However, I see this as different from Chalnoth's "wall" hypothesis.

Well, in a very real sense it is a "wall". If God is who God is supposed to be, then God can do any and all things and we are without power to understand them. ERGO, God could reach in and monkey with the reactions and make it go, and the proper theist would indeed have to assume that was possible.

Granted his emotive language is probably causing me to react negatively to it and a sensitive rephrasing may produce a statement I could agree with.

It is emotive. Many of us scientists do tend to react humanly once in a while and overstate a much more subtle and nuanced point. Chalnoth's "Wall Hypothesis" is reasonable in that it is a de facto reality, whether it is fundamentally how one sees it or not.

As it stands he seems to be stating that when religious people are performing science they are acting as perfectly good atheists but when they address religious claims they lose all skepticism and rationality.

Well, to be fair, I kind of agree with that. Since science is, by necessity "a-theistic" (ie no gods in the mix) then when science is being done they are acting "a-theistically" and when religion is being done they are no longer acting "scientifically". When people hypothesize about an object that is either unfalsifiable (as most definitions of God turn out to be when pushed against the wall) or simply un-evidenced, then they are not scientific. Skepticism? Of God? Skepticism of God would seem to lead one where I have wound up, as an atheist. But if they have good evidence for God that all others can experience then they should definitely publish that. It could become the most important information ever provided to humanity.

Of course the evidence so far presented in support of God usually has many other "more mundane" explanations. Guess that's why we have an almost limitless number of "God Hypotheses" and "God Concepts" out there in the world over the course of history.

Of course they do not hold their beliefs because of the results of science and the methods they go about to accept religious claims are undoubtably different.

Indeed.

However, not looking for supernatural divine intervention does not make them atheists when they are performing science.

Again, I will have to disagree. I can think of no valid science that presents itself as having a potential effect "The Divine". I've simply never seen valid science like that. In fact, much the opposite, a total lack of the Divine is usually the hallmark of science. Rendering it, by definition "a-theistic".

It is still possible to look at science through theistic lenses.

Correct. However that is "tacked onto" and over and above the science itself. It is never a "tested" part of the science (unless, of course, in the case of "prayer" studies, which usually, if I recall, come out failing to reject the null that "prayer has NO impact"). Most theistic scientists do a-theistic science and then tack on some "meta-analysis" that this or that reveals the nature of God in nature, etc.

But note how it is not part of the science, qua science.

Indeed belief in the Abrahamic God (monotheistic, benevolent creator of the universe) could lead you to predict rational, consistent, discoverable laws under pinning the workings of the universe in a way that no other view would

Yet, ironically, many Christians pray fervently that those same physical laws be set aside for them when they are endangered. Or that they be allowed by the creator of the universe to be shifted into the "tails of the statistical distribution" as it suits them.

I know, I've been there with a vengeance!

Importantly even "highly highly unlikely" is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. I agree with thaumaturgy's argument about universal negatives. However, even the logic used to get to "highly highly unlikely" rests on some assumptions that those who believe in the supernatural would not accept, e.g. that if the supernatural did exist we would be able to study it with science.

Ah now we enter into the dreaded "Unfalsifiability of the Supernatural". If it can't be studied by the known human routes, then how, exactly, is it studied? How come so many on the earth throughout history have "known" so much about it, and yet so few agree with each other as to its scope and description?

Your view seems to be bordering on scientism, saying that the only way we can discover truth is through science.

When I roomed with my college bud, who is now a philosophy professor, we used to argue over Empiricism vs a priori reasoning. I was pretty hard-core empiricist, but I've soften my stance in theory, but again, I will always ask "what other ways than by testing and observation" do we have to understand that which is not part of us?

If the supernatural has an existence outside of our brain, the surely we must be able to experience it. If it has a truth value that is universal in extent then everyone must be able to access that.

In the entire course of human history I've seen no consistent, single detailed description of "God". I've seen many that look an awful lot like "what humans would design as a god", and I've seen many that share a "love your neighbor" kind of exhortations, but again, that is pretty fundamental to our survival. Why is God needed to explain these things?

If God is capable of doing anything and everything, then surely he could communicate clearly and in a way that all us simple primates crawling around on a rock in space could agree upon.

Observation, testing; what else is there to finding out the nature of God?

What better way? "Inspiration"? Nah, I can find 15 homeless schizophrenics who are "inspired" and "feeling" very intensely that the traffic light is watching them on behalf of the CIA. That doesn't make it a "truth".

My theory is that if you ever have to resort to conspiracy or self deception to explain the stand point of a group then you haven't properly understood their beliefs.

You will, understandably, forgive us scientists on the board who have had to hear ad nauseam how scientists have "frozen out" the real creationist science, how scientists lie non-stop to hide the "truth" of creationism and how they white-wash bad data to make the unsuspecting believe the garbage we are publishing about evolution, origins, etc.

You are correct, when one resorts to "conspiracy" they have pretty much lost the argument. (Despite the emotional rhetoric, I don't think Chalnoth is necessarily going "full-bore" conspiracy on this).

To claim that everyone who holds religious beliefs discards all skepticism and rational thought

Well, to be fair, "skepticism" must be abandoned in regards to religious, supernatural beliefs. "Rational Thought", not so much. There are plenty of fine logical "proofs" of God that are quite fascinating and show a great deal of rational thought. Obviously I (and others) find flaws in the construction of those thoughts, but in the end it's only a "mental construct" that can come close to explaining God without resort to data, facts, proof, etc.

does a severe disservice to a huge number intelligent religous people who put a great deal of thought into their beliefs.

Again, please forgive many of us atheists who have to be told ad nauseam that we are "without morality" (ie couldnt' tell good from bad), or that we are secretly theists who simply "hate" god for some unknown reason.

I know I certainly fall into some funks sometimes when I just want to rail at theists because I've had enough of being told about whatever conspiracy or atheist agenda I'm part of.

America at least is still religious in the majority and claims that science is atheistic or says that God does not exist are going to hurt the cause of science.

We americans also can't be bothered to:

1. live within our means without raking in massive personal debt
2. Convert to the metric system which binds most of the civilized world in common measurement
3. Conserve fuel instead opting to buy the biggest baddest vehicle known to mankind only to whine like babies when the price of fuel goes up
4. Vote for a president who will tell us what we need to do rather than vote for a president who will pander to us non-stop just to get in office.

So, to be fair, toadying to American's "baser instincts" is hardly going to serve science! (and I'm an American saying this!)

For Creationism to survive it needs outspoken atheists attempting to use science and evolution to disprove religion, like Dawkins.

Long before Richard Dawkins showed up on the scene the Creationists were busy trying to jail evolution-teaching. Long before Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris put pen to paper, the religious have been working overtime to get their unique "morality" foisted off on a mass of people who don't necessarily agree with it.

Even outside of the U.S. we see the limits of religious "fundamentalism" (of which Creationism is a part) and the kind of regressive features they can plaster onto a society that refuses to fight back.

THANK GOD Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens write stuff! Imagine 20 or 30 years ago finding one of their books in mass circulation! It's a glorious day that religion can be treated as all other concepts in human endeavor! If it can stand up, it will stand. If it has to be protected from criticism, well, then sadly it deserves to be criticized.

It buys nicely into their claim of an atheistic elite conspiring against creation science.

Oh my, finally, after a couple millenia, 3 authors have dared to "speak out" against religion! They must be quashed! Even for the good of atheism...which must, by all means, be kept hidden, in the closet and kept away from children and the infirm!

I will believe any of this strange censorship the day a presidential candidate for the U.S. presidency can stand up and say "I'm not a christian nor do I care one whit about religion!" and then that person gets elected.

Religious people have had center stage for long enough. If they can't share the spotlight then they need to get a stronger faith

 

[Belk]

Except for the millions of religious people who accept evolution completely.

*cough* Billions *cough*

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Wow, turn your back for 1 second* and see what happens...

*well, a time equal to the accumulation of a large number of 1 second increments

There's much to respond to here, but most of the biology has been well covered already, so I'll limit myself to those areas more aligned with my particular... "skills"...

To all that have replied to me, uou guys are contradicting yourself. If you believe man evolved from an amoeba like single cell organism, then there must be multiple species between amoeba-like and man yet you say dogs will still be dogs.

Not a contradiction. This has been explained. But let's try one more time; since you like mathematical analogies so much, the current discussion goes something like this:
Me: 999,997, 999,998, 999,999, 1,000,000 woo!, 1,000,0001, ...
You: Hey, what are you doing?
Me: It's called "counting" -- you start at 1, then go to 2, 3, 4 and so on, adding 1 to the last number. I'm happy because I just to to 1 million.
You: Impossible. You must have cheated!
Me: Whut? No way. I got to 1 million fair and square.
You: That's impossible. No way you can get from 1 to 1 million just by adding 1.
Me: Lots of 1s. I've been doing this for a long time.
You: Doesn't matter. I believe there's a fundamental limit to how far you can get.
Me: Why? What is this limit and how does it work?
You: I don't know. But look, to get from 1 to 1 million you have to go through 6 orders of magnitude! You can't do that with 1s. You can't just add 1 to 100 and get 1000. That's just stupid.
Me: Yes, it is. But that's not what happened. I added lots of 1s to 100 to get 1000. O(n+1) = O(n) for any n, but O(n+lots of 1s) =/= O(n).
You: Now you're just contradicting yourself. First you say that you can go from 1 to 1 million through 6 orders of magnitude, now you say that adding 1 doesn't change the order of magnitude!!!1!!!eleven!11!! ZOMG!!!1!pi!!
Me:

Yes it hard do draw the line where hairy becomes bald, but there is a point where someone is clearly bald and bears no resemblance to and is in fact no longer a hair man; he is a bald man. I believe that there is an unobservable line that cannot be crossed by genetics.

IOW, you believe in magical pink cloud fairies: you believe in an unverifiable ad hoc rationalization to avoid something you don't like. Occam's Razor -- u no haz it -- u needz it.

You cannot prove that it doesn't exist and I can't prove that it does

You say that without knowing the mechanism, there is no reason to not believe that they can't change further but there's no reason TO think that they can change further.

A) Burden of proof. Russell's Teapot. IPUs. FSM. Etc.

B) Actually, ignoring the loaded word "prove", we can demonstrate that this mythical boundary doesn't exist. As has been explained to you, the taxonomic divisions biologists use are somewhat abitrary. Yes, there is a significant morphological difference between having a spine or not (so it's a useful division), but there's no difference in biochemistry. We know the mechanism for descent with modification and we know there's no difference in that mechanism for us or jellyfish. So there is, in fact, no reason to think that this mythical boundary of yours exists, and good reason to conclude that it doesn't. Add to that the tiny little fact that (as some here like to say) we have the fossils, we win. Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and so on. There is a long list of fossils that don't fit the "standard" taxonomy and are therefore perfect examples of "transitional" species. Oh, and don't forget the genetic evidence for common descent: ERVs, chromosome 2, vitamin C...

Bottom line: the mechanism IS known. There IS a reason not to believe in an "unobservable line that cannot be crossed by genetics".

Futher more, all the examples of new species emerging through mutation and evolution are actually the mergence of new subpecies. All the "new" organisms are for the most part majorly similar to the previous iteration. The argument that because you can make inumerable little changes to an organism and therefore get a whole new organism is exactly like the mathematical asymtote. You Suppose you start with the nubmer one then you half it, then half it again, and agin to infinitum. You can make an inifinite number of changes to the number 1 but at the end of the day, it will never truly be zero. Until you prove that the function crosses over into the negative realm, you must assume that the function in fact approaches zero but never actually equals zero.

No, it's not "exactly like the mathematical asymtote" [sic]. It's critically different: evolution works with finite changes, not infinitesimals. Thus your analogy is fundamentally flawed. With finite increments, no matter how small, it's very easy to step from one predefined "state" (such as positive/negative) to another.

I read Genesis 1 and 2 (OK skimmed, even as a Christian I still sadly find the Bible quite a bore to read) and find no inconsistencies.

You find Gen 1 & 2 boring? Leviticus must make you catatonic. But anyway, read closer. Gen 1: God makes plants before man; Gen 2: vice versa. (Of course, there are always ad hoc ways to interpret your way out of these kinds of issues, but the evidence points strongly to separate authorship, with the details not carefully aligned.)

You ask for evidence of creationism and ID? Here it is. Life. The Bible says God created life and clearly here it is. The Bible says God made the sun, the moon, et cetera and you can clearly observe them. Yes, you may say that's a cop out answer but it's not.

OK, are you actually serious here? You can't possibly think that the existence of something is evidence for someone's hypothesis about its origin. I say clouds are made by magical pink cloud fairies -- I must be right because clouds exist!11!!!twelveminuszeropointnine!!!1!

Moreover, archeology turns up new information proving more and more that the contents of the Bible are true.

Some of them. None of them related to science, though. Unless someone's successfully repeated the "striped poles breeding experiment" and I haven't heard about it.

Years ago, the city of Jericho was thought to be a myth and yet it was found.

Wow, an old document had a verified factual historical basis. Stop the presses. The same thing happened with Troy. Does that make the Odessey and Iliad true in all things?

They have found the remains of an army at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (aka the Red Sea) corroborating the story of the Israelites crossing through the sea and then the sea swallowing the armies of Egypt.

Really? Cool. Source please? I haven't heard about that.

The biggest evidence of the Biblical creation story is what we experience every day, the week. The weekly cycle is the only cycle that doesn't have a linked physical phenomenon. A year is the time it take the earth to orbit the sun. A month is the time it takes for the moon to complete it's cycle (plus or minus, the Caesars kinda effed with it back in the day). The day is the daily solar cycle. After that, everything is based off of base 12 (24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, are all divisible by 12). But the week is unique. There are no base 7 systems that were wide spread. The only explanation for the seven day week I have ever found was the Biblical story of creation. No matter what the civilization, they all observe the seven day week and the only explanation of this is found in the Bible's creation story.

Once again you get the cart in front of the horse. If this is the "biggest evidence of the Biblical creation story" there is, then you have problems. There is, in fact, an astronomical reason for the 7-day week: there were 7 "planets" in the astrological sense -- ie 7 astronomical lights (visible to the naked eye) that moved relative to the sphere of fixed stars. If you don't believe that, take a look at the names of the days of the week across a few European languages. Three are preserved in English (Saturn day, Sun day, Moon day), the others have been "god translated" (Tiw's day, Woden's day, Thor's day and Frigg's day), but are preserved in Romance languages. The ordering can even be explained by labelling the hours on a rotating basis using the planetary ordering (in a geocentric system). Given that the evidence of this system comes from ... Sumeria... I think (possibly another ancient middle eastern civ), it's likely that the Biblical narrative is a retrofitted "just so" story. Either way, your statement that "[t]he only explanation for the seven day week I have ever found was the Biblical story of creation" is no longer true. Sorry.

In response to your question of why a being would put so much deception into a universe, I say that He didn't

Except that science shows something to be true that you claim isn't. Which means God made a universe in which the evidence is contrary to The Truth. For an omniscient, omnipotent God to do that is deceptive.

. He made a perfect universe. It was his artwork. If he made a "new" universe, we wouldn't be able to see the beauty of the stars.

Huh? Why not? Do you honestly think current theories of stellar evolution don't incorporate the tiny detail that we can see them?

If he began with world from zero and had all the radioactive elements set at their maximum levels, the world would not be able to sustain life. He would have made Adam and Adam would have immidiately contracted radiation poisoning and died if he wasn't boiled alived by the gamma rays.

OK, add radiometric dating to the list of things you don't understand but will criticize anyway. Would you like radio dating explained?

Then he makes fluid, air and water (air is often mathematically modeled as a fluid as in fluid aerodynamics) and He organizes it again into gasses and fluids.

Quibble: fluids are "organized" into gases and liquids. Air IS a fluid. There is no such discipline as fluid aerodynamics -- aerodynamics is part of fluid dynamics.

The argument ad hominen that I'm not a scientist so how dare I disagree with established scientific theory is moot.

Questioning someone's credentials relevant to the point at hand is not ad hominem. Making that the entire basis of the argument is, but that has not happened here.

It was scientists that proved that piltdown man was a hoax. But Christians knew it was a hoax first.

Blind squirrels. Nuts. Etc. Creationists reject all fossil evidence of evolution. If you always bet on Black 7, eventually you'll win. Pity that you've already lost all your money (credibility) when it happens.

About your section on church beliefs. It doesn't matter what a church believes or what pastors teach. It only matter what the Bible teaches. It's a well known fact that Christians are the poorest examples of Christianity. Isn't it Gandhi that said "I would be Christian if I hadn't met so many of them?" What any church teaches may or may not be what the Bible teaches. It is important to make that distiction. Furthermore, many theologians (protestant mainly) do not accept Catholicism as actual Christianity, although it may be the most popular form of it.

And how do we determine what the Bible teaches about evolution? Because the theologians who have declared evolution compatible with Christianity probably know their Bible. Better than you, in fact. The Catholic ones probably know it in the original languages. (BTW, can you name a few non-protestant theologians who consider Catholicism to be not "actual" Christianity? That I'd like to see! They could be Orthodox, I guess.) Anyway, basically you've got a nice No True Scotsman fallacy going on here:
You: Christianist reject evolution.
Us: Here's a list of Christians who don't.
You: TRUE Christians (TM) reject evolution.

Look at the faith icons of those debating with you. And be careful about what you accuse others of.

If you are to take examples of Christianity, do not take it from the Catholic church which is more relgio-political than religious.

Ever hear of the electron cloud, entropy, fluid dynamics, or fission. All of these involve a factor of chance

Yes on all four counts (and a degree in one). While there is randomness at a quantum level, there is statistical averaging on the macro level. So the laws governing the macro results (reaction rate equations, or Navier-Stokes (w00T!) for fluids) are deterministic. Which you admit...

While the Chemistry itself may be predictible,

but then

the physics behind it is not

... OK, I'm lost. What point are you trying to make here? Randomness in quantum physics => evolution is false because.....?

Here endeth Part The First.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Part The Second:

I have never been dishonest

I don't think I've said you were. If I did, or you interpreted anything I said that way, then I apologize. (Your replies aren't targeted, so...)

As for the pi argument & the Bible not stating the correct value, the full diameter of the pull is 10 cubits. This is important information because this is the dimension that you need to know in order to find where to put it within the temple. The 30 cubits around is the measure of the inside ring. You need to know this measurment in order to know how much water it would hold. How assuming the circumference is 30 cubits, that would put the inside ring's diameter about 9.5 cubits. This would make the walls of the...whatever the hell this thing is (a "molten sea"?) about .25 cubits or about 4 inches thick. This makes perfect sense as its holding in about 1200 cubic feet of water (approx 9000 gallons).

Nope. Heard this attempted ad hoc before, but it fails. The "molten sea" is ten cubits from one brim to the other and 30 cubits around. It does NOT say that the sea was one thing and the container another. Furthermore, "brim" indicates the interface between liquid and container, which means the inner diameter was 10 cubits. Finally, there is no need to state it this way. An omniscient God should do a better job of being unambiguous (or just plain wrong).

The Nicean Creed says that Christianity is those who only worship God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit but the Catholic Church worships the Virgin Mary, The Apostle Peter, et cetera. Therefore, because of this violation, they are not Christian.

Now you've moved on to Begging The Question. Why is the Nicean Creed the official definition of Christianity? (And you do realize that the Council of Nicea was prior to protestantism, right...? And the Catholic Church may take issue with your accusations against them, here.)

Finally, please stop conflation atheism and evolution/science. Science works without the hypothesis of an omniscient being. That's it. Occam's Razor in action. Such a hypothesis is unnecessary and unverifiable; as such, it should be avoided. Many many many religious people are quite capable of accepting that in their daily life as scientists. Out of interest, do you pray every time you cross the street or do you mostly just look both ways? If the latter, then you're demonstrating that it's perfectly OK to rely on non-religious precepts in everyday situations. So why is that not OK for scientists?

 

[Markus6]

Chalnoth and Thaumaturgy - Thanks for your replies, I'll respond when I get a bit more time. For now I just want to address this.

As for the pi argument & the Bible not stating the correct value, the full diameter of the pull is 10 cubits. This is important information because this is the dimension that you need to know in order to find where to put it within the temple. The 30 cubits around is the measure of the inside ring. You need to know this measurment in order to know how much water it would hold. How assuming the circumference is 30 cubits, that would put the inside ring's diameter about 9.5 cubits. This would make the walls of the...whatever the hell this thing is (a "molten sea"?) about .25 cubits or about 4 inches thick. This makes perfect sense as its holding in about 1200 cubic feet of water (approx 9000 gallons).

Now I'm no biblical inerrantist but this doesn't seem to be the best argument against the bible. If the diameter was actually anywhere within the range of 9.5-9.7 then "10 and 30" would be accurate to the nearest whole unit. Sure they could have put more accuracy in but it still wouldn't have given the proper value of pi. Maybe they could have quoted the accuracy they were working to or given the series that calculates the value of pi but this isn't a maths textbook.