Oluseyi, the problem with that is that creationism has, in fact, been refuted. Many times, by many different methods.
And science and religion do, in fact, conflict. The statement 'God exists and has thus-and-such' properties is a statement of fact. It is in principle testable, or it is meaningless. To the extent that religion refuses to accept what science has to say on the matter, the two conflict. What religion has to say on morality is another matter : This is indeed a point where science has no answers. But morality is not confined to religion; there are many moral philosophies that make no reference to outside forces.
Scientific American "give up"
Quote:Original post by King of MenYou will have to excuse me when I call bullshit. Your lack of substantiation of even your own claim doesn't help (where and when and by whom was creation refuted, these many times? References, young man. References!).
Oluseyi, the problem with that is that creationism has, in fact, been refuted. Many times, by many different methods.
Quote:And science and religion do, in fact, conflict. The statement 'God exists and has thus-and-such' properties is a statement of fact.No, it is a statement of conviction. Until you grok the difference between objective, universal fact and subjective truth - perfectly true unto those who believe, perfectly untrue to those who disbelieve, unproveable one way or another to those who inquire about believing - you will continue to make religious pronouncements such as the above.
And it is religious, because it is predicated on biased sample selection. Why choose that statement over all others? Why not choose "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth"? Note that it doesn't say how he created it, or how long it took him.
Quote:Original post by kSquared
From "Even Einstein Had His Off Days", January 2nd, 2005, the New York Times.Quote:The Big Bang model was initially ridiculed by the scientific establishment. For example, one of its pioneers, Georges Lemaitre, was both a cosmologist and an ordained priest, so critics cited his theology as his motivation for advancing such a crackpot theory of creation. They suspected that the model was Lemaitre's way of sneaking a Creator into science. While Einstein was not biased against Lemaitre's religious background, he did call the priest's physics "abominable". It was enough to banish the Big Bang model to the hinterlands of cosmology.
However, in 1929, Einstein was forced to eat humble pie. Edwin Hubble, working at Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California, showed that all the distant galaxies in the universe were racing away from one another as though they were debris from a cosmic explosion. The Big Bang model seemed to be correct. And while it would take several decades before the theory was accepted into the scientific establishment, Einstein, to his credit, did not fight on. "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and even called his repulsive force the biggest blunder of his career.
Don't judge a book by its cover. Science has been wrong before
This is wrong in the literal sense. Science is a process. This process is humanity's greatest single intellectual achievement. To "prove science wrong", you would have to provide us with an alternative method that's better at taking on the job that science does.
In regards to the sense that I assume you meant "proven wrong" - Well, yes, of course the understandings that we have gained through science are more accurate today than they were 100 years ago. That's the entire point - to increase knowledge of the natural world. This type of "even Einstein was wrong on occasion" thing is often brought up as a kind of dig against the reliability of science, as though the accuracy of scientifically-constructed models is somehow arbitrary. It isn't. In fact, to one who understands the scientific method, it demonstrates that science is thriving, and, like it or not, that our combined scientific knowledge of today consists of the current pinnacles of human understanding of the universe - easily to the point of leaving all alternative superstitious paradigms in the dust.
Technically creationism can't be refuted without time travel. It isn't something that can be tested in the first place. Once you throw an all-powerful being into the mix, all bets are off.
Point in case. You go over to an all-powerful being's house, he offers you cookies. You have no idea if those cookies were baked the normal way using flour, sugar, etc, or if the all-powerful being said "let there be cookies" and there were cookies. When you assume an all-powerful being, laws like conservation of matter go right out the window. In order to refute creationism, you have to prove that a being that is all-powerful by very definition can't do something, and you reach a contradiction in terms. So, unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and check how it was done, saying that it didn't happen is rather pointless. Similarly, it can't be proved without a time machine.
Now if you don't believe in an all-powerful being, then creationism isn't possible in your personal belief system, but that's not something you can apply to someone else.
-fel
Point in case. You go over to an all-powerful being's house, he offers you cookies. You have no idea if those cookies were baked the normal way using flour, sugar, etc, or if the all-powerful being said "let there be cookies" and there were cookies. When you assume an all-powerful being, laws like conservation of matter go right out the window. In order to refute creationism, you have to prove that a being that is all-powerful by very definition can't do something, and you reach a contradiction in terms. So, unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and check how it was done, saying that it didn't happen is rather pointless. Similarly, it can't be proved without a time machine.
Now if you don't believe in an all-powerful being, then creationism isn't possible in your personal belief system, but that's not something you can apply to someone else.
-fel
Religion and Science aren't incompatible: the former is primarily to provide guidance on a moral and ethical basis while latter is primarily about how stuff works.
It's notable that The New Testament suggests that Jesus himself didn't preach about who made the Earth or why we are here. His teachings are basically about "being excellent to each other". (Okay, it's not an original plot, the pacing's slow and the action is somewhat lacking and I swear there's not even a sex scene, but it isn't bad for a book written by committee.)
The problem with Creationism is that it is heavily reliant on that thorn in the side of the Christian Churches: The Old Testament. The 'God' described in this, much older, book is _VERY_ different from the one in the later book. In effect, belief in the literal 'Creationist' theories -- specifically the '6000-year-old Earth' hypothesis -- requires that vast tracts of the Old Testament be taken as literally true, rather than as symbolic fables.
That produces an obvious dilemma: In the Old Testament, the god is a vengeful, spiteful bastard of a deity. We're talking serious fire and brimstone here. He is _really_ old school as gods go. This is in stark contrast with the God of Jesus' story. Since Jesus is also (according to Catholic doctrine) God and not just his son, there's some serious hypocrisy going on if we are to accept both Testaments as being equal. Literal Creationism makes Catholicism's core doctrines untenable.
Now, as someone with an interest in myth and storytelling through the ages, I regret I cannot really take The Old Testament as a definitive account of the early, proto-historic world. It's clearly a cobbled-together remix of other myths and legends. (It's also a really plodding read initially, particularly all those 'begats', but it does pick up later on, with more action and sex scenes compared to the sequel.)
*
Science isn't about cold, hard, undeniable facts. Nothing has ever been proven 100%. You start with a hypothesis and try and disprove it.
Yes, you read that right. The purpose of most scientists is to prove a hypothesis is _wrong_. In many cases, this is done by constructing counter-hypotheses and designing experiments that determine which of the competing theories best fits the observed results.
The more tests a hypothesis passes, the stronger the likelihood that said hypothesis is correct. However, there's no such thing as a hypothesis that has been proven 100% accurate. The earlier quote from Einstein merely shows this process in action -- Einstein has never claimed to be infallible, after all -- so its use as an example to "prove science wrong" merely displays a fundamental lack of understanding of what real Science is all about.
Many hypotheses that we still get taught as kids in school have _already_ been proven inaccurate. However, some are still accurate _enough_ to allow real applications to rely on them. Newton's Laws of Motion, for instance, have been supplanted by Einstein's later theories, but many engineers still use Newton's Laws as the basis for their calculations because, for many cases, Newton's Laws are good enough to get the job done.
Science is a tool used to investigate how this strange, wonderful universe we find ourselves in actually works. However, it is a fundamentally amoral tool. (Note: that's "amoral", not "immoral". The difference is subtle, but important.)
Religion is one of a number of tools for building moral and ethical frameworks within which we can live. It has little to do with explaining *why* something *is* -- "God did it!" is not an explanation. It's just a convenient way of saying "I don't know!" without admitting your ignorance.
The two are complementary, in theory. All Science can do is explain how to build an atom bomb; it can't say whether dropping it on Hiroshima is Good or Evil, but a moral and ethical framework _can_.
The wars begin when the lines are crossed. When Creationists start telling us what should be taught in a Science curriculum, they're crossing the line. When scientists start telling Catholics that "God Doesn't Exist", they, too, are crossing the line, since no supernatural being's existence can ever be proven or disproven scientifically. ("Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition, Zeus, God and Jupiter are outside science's problem domain.)
*
I want to emphasise that Religion is just _one_ of a number of tools that can be used to work out which metaphorical paths we should walk down. It is not the only one.
There is no particular reason why you should follow the teachings of some bearded hippy who lived around 2000 years ago and, therefore, was preaching to people in the context of the existing morals and ethical norms of the period, but The New Testament is as good a source of morality as any. Certainly, you could get much the same morality from watching old Star Trek episodes or -- heaven help us -- The A Team. Since there are no absolutes in morals and ethics, it is impossible to compare and contrast to determine which is the "best". It's all subjective and, often, dictated as much as culture, upbringing and the society you happen to have been born into.
*
If you have read this far then I'm clearly not the only one who needs to get out more.
--
Sean Timarco Baggaley
It's notable that The New Testament suggests that Jesus himself didn't preach about who made the Earth or why we are here. His teachings are basically about "being excellent to each other". (Okay, it's not an original plot, the pacing's slow and the action is somewhat lacking and I swear there's not even a sex scene, but it isn't bad for a book written by committee.)
The problem with Creationism is that it is heavily reliant on that thorn in the side of the Christian Churches: The Old Testament. The 'God' described in this, much older, book is _VERY_ different from the one in the later book. In effect, belief in the literal 'Creationist' theories -- specifically the '6000-year-old Earth' hypothesis -- requires that vast tracts of the Old Testament be taken as literally true, rather than as symbolic fables.
That produces an obvious dilemma: In the Old Testament, the god is a vengeful, spiteful bastard of a deity. We're talking serious fire and brimstone here. He is _really_ old school as gods go. This is in stark contrast with the God of Jesus' story. Since Jesus is also (according to Catholic doctrine) God and not just his son, there's some serious hypocrisy going on if we are to accept both Testaments as being equal. Literal Creationism makes Catholicism's core doctrines untenable.
Now, as someone with an interest in myth and storytelling through the ages, I regret I cannot really take The Old Testament as a definitive account of the early, proto-historic world. It's clearly a cobbled-together remix of other myths and legends. (It's also a really plodding read initially, particularly all those 'begats', but it does pick up later on, with more action and sex scenes compared to the sequel.)
*
Science isn't about cold, hard, undeniable facts. Nothing has ever been proven 100%. You start with a hypothesis and try and disprove it.
Yes, you read that right. The purpose of most scientists is to prove a hypothesis is _wrong_. In many cases, this is done by constructing counter-hypotheses and designing experiments that determine which of the competing theories best fits the observed results.
The more tests a hypothesis passes, the stronger the likelihood that said hypothesis is correct. However, there's no such thing as a hypothesis that has been proven 100% accurate. The earlier quote from Einstein merely shows this process in action -- Einstein has never claimed to be infallible, after all -- so its use as an example to "prove science wrong" merely displays a fundamental lack of understanding of what real Science is all about.
Many hypotheses that we still get taught as kids in school have _already_ been proven inaccurate. However, some are still accurate _enough_ to allow real applications to rely on them. Newton's Laws of Motion, for instance, have been supplanted by Einstein's later theories, but many engineers still use Newton's Laws as the basis for their calculations because, for many cases, Newton's Laws are good enough to get the job done.
Science is a tool used to investigate how this strange, wonderful universe we find ourselves in actually works. However, it is a fundamentally amoral tool. (Note: that's "amoral", not "immoral". The difference is subtle, but important.)
Religion is one of a number of tools for building moral and ethical frameworks within which we can live. It has little to do with explaining *why* something *is* -- "God did it!" is not an explanation. It's just a convenient way of saying "I don't know!" without admitting your ignorance.
The two are complementary, in theory. All Science can do is explain how to build an atom bomb; it can't say whether dropping it on Hiroshima is Good or Evil, but a moral and ethical framework _can_.
The wars begin when the lines are crossed. When Creationists start telling us what should be taught in a Science curriculum, they're crossing the line. When scientists start telling Catholics that "God Doesn't Exist", they, too, are crossing the line, since no supernatural being's existence can ever be proven or disproven scientifically. ("Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition, Zeus, God and Jupiter are outside science's problem domain.)
*
I want to emphasise that Religion is just _one_ of a number of tools that can be used to work out which metaphorical paths we should walk down. It is not the only one.
There is no particular reason why you should follow the teachings of some bearded hippy who lived around 2000 years ago and, therefore, was preaching to people in the context of the existing morals and ethical norms of the period, but The New Testament is as good a source of morality as any. Certainly, you could get much the same morality from watching old Star Trek episodes or -- heaven help us -- The A Team. Since there are no absolutes in morals and ethics, it is impossible to compare and contrast to determine which is the "best". It's all subjective and, often, dictated as much as culture, upbringing and the society you happen to have been born into.
*
If you have read this far then I'm clearly not the only one who needs to get out more.
--
Sean Timarco Baggaley
This might seems silly, but when did the idea come from?
The idea, that some 'god' came out, made everything, ect. Is non-obvious. (very non-obvious, considering that i would never have thought anybody could believe that until i actually saw someone who did [lol]). So who started it?
And why? (power is the most resonable explanation i've thought of. Because if you've got somebody whose speaking on behalf of a supernatural being that can kill you for all eternity, they have quite a lot of power over those that believe in them). It still doesn't make much sense. Why bother writing a largish book, when nobody could read it, unless you've got a whole lot of different versions, and your trying to fit them all together.
From,
Nice coder
The idea, that some 'god' came out, made everything, ect. Is non-obvious. (very non-obvious, considering that i would never have thought anybody could believe that until i actually saw someone who did [lol]). So who started it?
And why? (power is the most resonable explanation i've thought of. Because if you've got somebody whose speaking on behalf of a supernatural being that can kill you for all eternity, they have quite a lot of power over those that believe in them). It still doesn't make much sense. Why bother writing a largish book, when nobody could read it, unless you've got a whole lot of different versions, and your trying to fit them all together.
From,
Nice coder
If anyone is interested in the full article:
Quote:Okay, We Give Up
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense, and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because of a lack of scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits to blindly building an anti-ICBM defense system, that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussion of how policies affect science either - so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
THE EDITORS
Quote:Original post by Nice Coder
This might seems silly, but when did the idea come from?
The idea, that some 'god' came out, made everything, ect. Is non-obvious. (very non-obvious, considering that i would never have thought anybody could believe that until i actually saw someone who did [lol]). So who started it?
Joseph Campbell's studies of the myths and legends of the world are invaluable if you want to find the answer to your question. (Admittedly, he leans towards Jungian interpretations, but still, it's an impressive body of work.)
Personally, I suspect the origins of god myths can be directly attributed to two important facts:
1. Humans are naturally curious. Hence: "Where does lightning come from, daddy?"
2. Humans hate admitting ignorance. Hence: "It comes from Zeus, who lives in the sky and loves to smite naughty children who don't stop asking silly questions."
I suspect the craft of bullshitting predates the creation of deity myths. But not by much.
--
Sean Timarco Baggaley
Quote:Original post by Nice Coder
Why bother writing a largish book, when nobody could read it.
That's a separate issue. Organised religions are as much about power and control as they are about building moral and ethical foundations upon which we can build our lives. (This is certainly true for Catholicism.)
As for the illiteracy -- why do you think they invented _preachers_? Consider the definition of the word "sermon".
The church didn't just write the Book. They even provided live readings of it.
Today, people just rent the DVD.
--
Sean Timarco Baggaley
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm going to just jump in here, "in the middle of it"...
Let me just start by saying that there is no Scientific Evidence to support that God didn't create the Universe 2 minutes ago.
That's right. In fact Science elucidates us on the fact, that, although the odds against it are staggering, the Universe MAY have just formed 2 minutes ago, with it's atoms already arranged in a very precise fashion. We humans may even seem to have the memory of certain things happening a week ago... but that is just a side effect of the atom's configuration in our cerebral cortex'es...
I'm not going to sit here and say the obvious: Every body of evidence points to the theroy that the Earth wasn't just created as is, with all its living beings perfect, a mere thousands years ago, as some Bible Scholars seem to have calculated.
None the less, if you believe in a higher force, a force that might have created the whole of the Universe, then there is little diference between that force having created everything just 2 minutes ago, or that force having created the Universe 13 thousand million years ago (13 billion in "american years"...)
I'll finish my post by saying that I do have faith, I believe the whole of the Universe, everything there IS, is part of a single "entity", whose sole purpose, when it created itself, was to learn and evolve, from its "smaller" parts... us...
Let me just start by saying that there is no Scientific Evidence to support that God didn't create the Universe 2 minutes ago.
That's right. In fact Science elucidates us on the fact, that, although the odds against it are staggering, the Universe MAY have just formed 2 minutes ago, with it's atoms already arranged in a very precise fashion. We humans may even seem to have the memory of certain things happening a week ago... but that is just a side effect of the atom's configuration in our cerebral cortex'es...
I'm not going to sit here and say the obvious: Every body of evidence points to the theroy that the Earth wasn't just created as is, with all its living beings perfect, a mere thousands years ago, as some Bible Scholars seem to have calculated.
None the less, if you believe in a higher force, a force that might have created the whole of the Universe, then there is little diference between that force having created everything just 2 minutes ago, or that force having created the Universe 13 thousand million years ago (13 billion in "american years"...)
I'll finish my post by saying that I do have faith, I believe the whole of the Universe, everything there IS, is part of a single "entity", whose sole purpose, when it created itself, was to learn and evolve, from its "smaller" parts... us...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement