God and Science: An Inner Conflict

[RandomGuy]

God and science are inherently at odds, or so goes the story with roots that reach back nearly 400 years to the Inquisition's trial of Galileo on suspicion of heresy.


The ongoing effort of U.S. creationists to inject doubt about evolution into science classrooms in public schools is an example of that conflict, not to mention the polarizing arguments over the decades offered by numerous members of the clergy, politicians, and some atheist scientists and scholars including Richard Dawkins.


Now a new study suggests our minds are conflicted, making it so we have trouble reconciling science and God because we unconsciously see these concepts as fundamentally opposed, at least when both are used to explain the beginning of life and the universe.


But what is the source of this seeming "irreconcilable difference" - are we hard-wired for it, or is it tenacious cultural baggage?


The experiments


Experiments headed up by psychologist Jesse Preston of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and her colleague Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago provide some data to support the argument that the conflict is inherent, or hard-wired. They found that subjects apparently cannot easily give positive evaluations to both God and science as explanations for big questions, such as the origin of life and the universe, at the same time.


In one experiment, 129 volunteers, mostly undergrads, read short summaries of the Big Bang theory and the Primordial Soup Hypothesis, a scientific theory of the origin of life.


Half of the group then read a statement explaining that the theories were strong and supported by the data. The other half read that the theories "raised more questions than they answered." All of the subjects then completed a computer task where they were required to categorize various words as positive or negative.


During the task, the word "science" or "God" or a neutral control word was flashed on the screen before each positive/negative word. For instance, right before the word "awful" appeared, either the word "God" or "science" was flashed on the screen for 15 milliseconds - too brief to be seen but it registers unconsciously.


This is a standard experimental psychology approach designed to measure latent, or automatic, attitudes toward (or evaluations of) the priming word - in this case, God or science. Faster response times mean a closer association between two concepts, for example "science" and "great."


Preston and Epley found that subjects who read the statement in support of the scientific theories responded more quickly to positive words appearing just after the word "science" than those who had read statements critical of the scientific theories. Similarly, those who read the statement suggesting that the scientific theories were weak were slower than the other group (who read the theory-supportive statement) to identify negative words that appeared after they were primed with the word "God."


The results are detailed in the January issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Financial support for the study was received from the National Science Foundation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


Implications for science's influence


Preston says her research shows that a dual belief system, for instance the idea that evolution explains biology but God set the process in motion, does not exist in our brains.


"We can only believe in one explanation at a time," she told LiveScience. "So although people can report explicitly, 'Look, I've been a Christian all my life, and yes, I also believe in science and I am a practicing chemist,' the question is, are these people really reconciling belief in God and science, or are they just believing in one thing at a time?"


When it comes to the ultimate questions, it's really just one thing at a time, Preston says.
People rarely think about these problems, however, so most people live their lives without paying much attention to how the universe started or how life began, Preston said.


Behind the findings


However, Hampshire College science historian Salman Hameed says Preston and Epley's framing of the issues and interpretation of their findings are bound up in a particular view of science and religion known as the "conflict thesis." Yes, sometimes particular scientific and religious claims conflict, but there are numerous examples of individuals, such as Isaac Newton, who saw no inherent conflict between their scientific and religious convictions, Hameed said.

The experiment's results actually may reveal cultural forces - a specific way of thinking about science and religion - dating back to the 19th century, Hameed said, and these have shaped people's thinking about science and religion.

"If society has been primed that science and religion have been in conflict, and that is the dominant narrative, then maybe all we are seeing is the effect of that priming, rather than the actual conflict," Hameed said. Society and journalists like conflict stories because they grab attention, but science and religion interactions are more complex and defy over-simplistic oppositional categories, he said.

Preston agrees that there is a cultural opposition that we are all aware of, which may be a background context for her experiments, but she said religion and science have grown apart in the last few centuries because science developed theories that are inconsistent with doctrine.

"To the extent that culture is the culmination of history - all our ideas, knowledge, and traditions - the opposition that grew between religion and science is a part of our culture," Preston said. "But it is part of the culture because the contradictions are well known, and become part of our knowledge structure. The concept of zero as a number is also part of our culture, for example. The cultural opposition we see between religion and science is not a superficial opposition like dog lovers vs. cat lovers."

The history of the conflict

Some historians trace the idea that science and religion are in conflict back to Cornell University's Andrew White and New York University's John William Draper, proponents of the professionalization of science who wrote books in the mid-1800s that claimed there was an inherent conflict between science and religion, citing the Galileo affair as the classic case.

The affair led to the astronomer's house arrest on suspicion of heresy (not heresy itself), starting in 1633 until his death in 1642. Galileo argued that the Earth revolved around the sun, based in part on his telescope observations, counter to Church teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe.

But science historians, including John Hedley Brooke, have questioned the conflict thesis, and others have poked big holes in simplistic interpretations of the Galileo story. For instance, some historians point out that Galileo, a practicing Catholic, didn't want to oppose the Church, but rather to update its views and prevent it from losing ground to Protestant scholars. Also, the Church ultimately sentenced Galileo, who had many political enemies in the church, on a technicality.

Galileo redeemed

Ultimately, Galileo has been mostly redeemed, thanks to the ongoing efforts of scientists and, in the end, some clergy.

The International Year of Astronomy kicked off this month as a year-long celebration of astronomy timed to coincide, in part, with the 400th anniversary of the first recorded observations made by Galileo with a telescope.

In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for Church errors during the past 2,000 years, including the trial of Galileo.

And in May of this year, according to the Associated Press, some Vatican officials will attend an international conference on the Galileo affair.

:stirpot:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090115/sc_livescience/godandscienceaninnerconflict

[baseline bum]

How can faith and skepticism not be diametrically opposed? It's pretty hard to tiptoe a line between believing in something because you believe in it and believing in something because there is physical evidence. Claiming the two core ideas aren't in direct opposition and can somehow be reconciled just because you want to believe both is intellectually lazy.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Those who claim to have faith yet fear science, have no real faith at all.

[Alex Jones]

RandomLie (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1813) Can't even admit WC7 was Bombed a few years back, and yet he wants us to believe something that happened 400 years ago?

RamdomLie open your eyes about 9/11 if you want to be taken seriously.

[johnsmith]

Just the other day I was thinking about how Spurstalk.com should really start a thread about religion some time soon.

[Alex Jones]

All we need now is MiamiHeat to rent another dooms day DVD and come in here talking shit like he's Nostradamus.

[RandomGuy]

Just the other day I was thinking about how Spurstalk.com should really start a thread about religion some time soon.

BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're welcome. :cooldevil

[RandomGuy]

RandomLie (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1813) Can't even admit WC7 was Bombed a few years back, and yet he wants us to believe something that happened 400 years ago?

RamdomLie open your eyes about 9/11 if you want to be taken seriously.

Heh, let me know how all of those predictions about Bill Clinton declaring martial law using the millenium bug as an exuse panned out for you there, Alex.

It was kinda fun watching the viens pop out on your forehead on that shitty cable access show you had in Austin at the time.

Still being chased by mysterious black helicopters?

:lmao

[SpursGirl21]

RandomGuy are you single? :)

[ploto]

The Bible is not a science text but a religious one. Finding scientific truths that counter the Old Testament does nothing to lessen my religious faith. Just because science can explain a process does not mean that God did not create it.

[The Power Hour.]

I love the way the ignorant atheist want us to believe they know what happed 450 billion years ago and yet they can't even tell you what really happend on 9/11.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy are you single? :)

Additional Information
Age:
38
Biography:
Accounting student, army vet, father, husband.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1813

No, ma'am. I haven't quite updated my bio in years, but that last bit hasn't changed.

[RandomGuy]

I love the way the ignorant atheist want us to believe they know what happed 450 billion years ago and yet they can't even tell you what really happend on 9/11.

Actually, the "ignorant atheists" think the universe is only about 14 billion years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

[baseline bum]

Still waiting on mono's thoughts...

[Larry David]

How can faith and skepticism not be diametrically opposed? It's pretty hard to tiptoe a line between believing in something because you believe in it and believing in something because there is physical evidence. Claiming the two core ideas aren't in direct opposition and can somehow be reconciled just because you want to believe both is intellectually lazy.
Do you plan on, or have you played Braid, baseline?

[Winehole23]

How can faith and skepticism not be diametrically opposed? It's pretty hard to tiptoe a line between believing in something because you believe in it and believing in something because there is physical evidence. Claiming the two core ideas aren't in direct opposition and can somehow be reconciled just because you want to believe both is intellectually lazy.From the Thomistic point of view, what's intellectually lazy is to conflate two distinct orders of assent: revelation and reason.

Etienne Gilson:


"To have faith is to assent to something because it is revealed by God. And now, what is it to have science? It is to assent to something which we perceive as true in the light of natural reason. The essential difference between these two distinct orders of assent should be carefully kept in mind by anybody dealing with the relations of Reason and Revelation."

According to scholastic theory, the objects of science and faith are not the same.

Thomas Aquinas:


"it is impossible that one and the same thing should be believed and seen by the same person...it is equally impossible for one and the same thing to be an object of science and of belief for the same person"

As emphasized in the OP, the conflict narrative is of fairly recent vintage, the "scientific" evidence in the OP itself is based on the pseudo-science of psychology, and Baseline Bum's insistence that there is a necessary or logical contradiction of science and faith seems to rest on semantic laziness rather than analytic rigor. Both can be called "belief," but that hardly means the two operate the same way, or aim at the same objects.

[baseline bum]

From the Thomistic point of view, what's intellectually lazy is to conflate two distinct orders of assent: revelation and reason.

Etienne Gilson:


"To have faith is to assent to something because it is revealed by God. And now, what is it to have science? It is to assent to something which we perceive as true in the light of natural reason. The essential difference between these two distinct orders of assent should be carefully kept in mind by anybody dealing with the relations of Reason and Revelation."

According to scholastic theory, the objects of science and faith are not the same.

Thomas Aquinas:


"it is impossible that one and the same thing should be believed and seen by the same person...it is equally impossible for one and the same thing to be an object of science and of belief for the same person"

As emphasized in the OP, the conflict narrative is of fairly recent vintage, the "scientific" evidence in the OP itself is based on the pseudo-science of psychology, and Baseline Bum's insistence that there is a necessary or logical contradiction of science and faith seems to rest on semantic laziness rather than analytic rigor. Both can be called "belief," but that hardly means the two operate the same way, or aim at the same objects.

Aquinas is a religious apologist whose arguments for the existence of god are awful; they're even worse than Descartes'. Kudos to you for cutting and pasting a couple of lame passages though.

[Winehole23]

Aquinas is a religious apologist whose arguments for the existence of god are awful; they're even worse than Descartes'. Kudos to you for cutting and pasting a couple of lame passages though.We're not talking about ontological proof here. We're talking about the difference between faith and science. Your disrespect for faith is evident. Per contra, Aquinas wasn't content to defend faith, but made room for science in his philosophy. And not being content to have merely made room for science, he insisted on its importance and founded schools to perpetuate it.

The debt you scientistic assholes owe Aquinas is huge. Without the scholastic emphasis on reason, logic, empiricism and Aristotle, European science doesn't even begin get off the ground. By spitting on him you spit on yourself, you ignorant fuck.

[Winehole23]

Kudos to you for cutting and pasting a couple of lame passages though.It's quotation, you arrogant jerk. I have the fucking books and I've read them. You should try it yourself sometime. But you're probably content to continue insult what you know next to nothing about. Kudos to you for having more balls than brains.

[baseline bum]

How does revelation from god fit in with the need for evidence and for skepticism when there is none? How does it fit in under reproducible experiment? Saying faith aims at different objects of truth than science is a cop-out, as is clearly not the case right now with the fundamentalist movement this country is currently suffering through.

[mouse]

I notice a pattern here at spurstalk. When you question GOD or the Bible your an Intelligent person who wants real answers and wants to know all the facts, as you question everything your not labeled some weak minded religious nut. Your now considered a deep thinker and a person with a higher IQ that wants to know more.


But yet if you question anything about 9/11 and why wtc7 came down at free fall speed your now a tin foil hat wearing anti American conspiracy nut with a very low IQ. You can question GOD just don't question Bush.

why is that I wonder.

:wakeup

[Agitator]

I notice a pattern here at spurstalk. When you question GOD or the Bible your an Intelligent person who wants real answers and wants to know all the facts, as you question everything your not labeled some weak minded religious nut. Your now considered a deep thinker and a person with a higher IQ that wants to know more.


But yet if you question anything about 9/11 and why wtc7 came down at free fall speed your now a tin foil hat wearing anti American conspiracy nut with a very low IQ. You can question GOD just don't question Bush.

why is that I wonder.

:wakeup

I KNOW I just didn't see someone equate belief in God with belief in some shitty conspiracy theory.

"I beleive in God, and you guys are mean to me."

"I beleive in a conspiracy theory, and you guys are mean to me."

Boo-fucking-who, get a helmet, SpongeBob Dumbpants.

By making the belief in these two things equal, you have just insulted anybody with any religious faith. Way to go. I gaurantee you my belief in God is a hell of a lot more meaningful to me than your fucktarded faith on conspiracy websites.

Seriously dude, what the fuck is up with you personally? It is your mission in life to beleive in stupid shit just... because?

I can beleive in God and Jesus and not have to buy everything in the bible as 100% unvarnished truth based on what others TELL me to beleive about the bible.

It seems to me that you aren't some "questioner". You are exactly the opposite. You find something that sounds good to you and let everybody else tell you what to believe about that.

You believe in God, so you let all of these emotionally and intellectually stunted jackasses tell you what is required to beleive in God like "you have to think the universe is only 10,000 years old, mouse, otherwise you aren't a good Christian". Bullshit. I am a good Christian because of a lot of other things that have nothing to do with beleiving in THAT particular idea.

The same goes for your belief in this conspiracy bullshit. You want to be skeptical of the government, and that is fine and good, but then you read all of these shitty conspiracy theory websites and let them tell you "you have to beleive in this to be a good skeptic of the governemnt"

You take what normally is a good thing, like faith in God or honest skepticism of the government, and warp that into some "i have to beleive in every stupid thing that people tell me about my beliefs to be a "good" beleiver."

You don't quesntion things, you just go along because it makes you feel good, sorry, and don't pretend otherwise. You aren't a martyr or some avenging intellect "questioning" the way things are, you are simply someone who lets other tell you what to beleive.

Sorry if I had to burst your bubble about that. I have no doubt that this won't really change your mind about following along with what others tell you because you have no doubt convinced yourself oftherwise, based on what I read here and in that other long-ass thread.

It is just sad to see someone who so obviously beleives that they are one thing when they are so obviously the opposite.

[FreeMason]

Why believe a book written by man. Still, you have to appreciate the timeless wisdom from a peoples that old.

Why believe that humans are anywhere close to knowing enough of science to disprove God.

You are going to die within the next 100 years. Even if science has some crazy break through and connects the dots, you will be long dead. Sit back and just enjoy the show. :hat

[Rogue]

I used to believe science until I finally found it just kind of well-polished religion, now I would rather to believe in God.

Those scientist disguise the presense of aliens who are actually existing in the world and living with us. I would like to keep silent but I still can't help saying that we have been fooled by those scientists who have made NO progress on that front, though they are pretty dynamic on bed.

[Winehole23]

How does revelation from god fit in with the need for evidence and for skepticism when there is none? How does it fit in under reproducible experiment? The two aren't the same. The authority of revelation is supernatural; if it were sensible, or susceptible to proof or empirical demonstration, it would no longer be revelation. That is why Aquinas insists the same thing cannot be believed (in the sense of having faith) and seen by the same person. The object of science is the certainty of the five senses, and the truths that can be derived from it; the object of faith is a suprasensible God.


Saying faith aims at different objects of truth than science is a cop-out, as is clearly not the case right now with the fundamentalist movement this country is currently suffering through.You call it a cop out. I call it philosophy. Religion is not the night in which all cows are grey. The Thomism I've cited is different in kind from fundamentalism. For it, the unity of faith and science is truth; for fundamentalism, God and scripture alone are true.

[spurster]

How can faith and skepticism not be diametrically opposed? It's pretty hard to tiptoe a line between believing in something because you believe in it and believing in something because there is physical evidence. Claiming the two core ideas aren't in direct opposition and can somehow be reconciled just because you want to believe both is intellectually lazy.

That's a false dichotomy. We have to believe many things without having a scientific basis for them. No one has the time to apply the scientific method to test everything they believe and do, and few have the ability to apply the scientific method rigorously, and when they do, it is often in a very restricted context. Most of our actions are based in tradition, anecdotes, and (over)simplified models of how the world works.

I'm not an expert in psychology, but the study in the first post seems like a simple example of priming to me, not anything monumental. Trying to illuminate the science vs. religion issue with bad, overhyped science is not a good way to start this discussion.

Science is indeed in opposition to those who read religious texts literally and uncritically, though one has to wonder at people opposing science, yet treating their scriptures as scientific dogma. The fact of the matter is that the universe is wonderously complicated and scriptures are anything but a simple account of the truth.

[InRareForm]

Science is a human construct based on observation and inductive reasoning, that is based on a bunch of trusted assumptions that try to explain the world. While it does a damn good job, there is nothing FACT about it, I am sorry.

In other words, it is a religion.

[angel_luv]

Do you guys think that everything really need be explained?

[Blake]

No one has the time to apply the scientific method to test everything they believe and do, and few have the ability to apply the scientific method rigorously, and when they do, it is often in a very restricted context. Most of our actions are based in tradition, anecdotes, and (over)simplified models of how the world works.


right, but to chalk up what we don't know to simply giving God credit is wrong.




Religion is not the night in which all cows are grey.

I like it when posters try to sound super smart as if it will make their argument that much better.

It's hard to tell exactly what everyone is trying to argue, but it's pretty simple

God and science do not mix. If you think they do, then you are basically subscribing to the Angel Luv Doctrine of "I can't explain it, so it must be God."

Saying "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and will one day figure it out" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Saying "There is no explanation other than it is a miracle by God's all powerful hand" in a labcoat is unacceptable.

It is also acceptable to be a Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian based scientist.

That's pretty much it. I don't see what the debate is about.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Saying "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and will one day figure it out" is a perfectly acceptable answer.


What if one day you figure out that it's God?

[Blake]

Science is a human construct based on observation and inductive reasoning, that is based on a bunch of trusted assumptions that try to explain the world. While it does a damn good job, there is nothing FACT about it, I am sorry.

In other words, it is a religion.

I am sorry you don't know what you are talking about

[Blake]

What if one day you figure out that it's God?

awesome.

Angel Luv suddenly reaches genius level and puts us all to shame.

[Blake]

Do you guys think that everything really need be explained?

no, we really need no explanation about how the Earth works.

we are just fine believing that it's flat.

[InRareForm]

I am sorry you don't know what you are talking about

LOL where did i go wrong, Mr. Know it all?

[I Love Me Some Me]

It is also acceptable to be a Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian based scientist.

What is a Christian-based scientist?

[InRareForm]

Saying "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and will one day figure it out" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
.

:lol:lol:lol sounds similar to my credit card debt plan.

[Blake]

What is a Christian-based scientist?

I could come up with any number of definitions.

My own experience was that I attended a private Christian school in middle school. The earth science book was faith based and spent the majority of it trying to debunk chaos theories and evolution.

One example was:

"Imagine if a print shop exploded and everything fell perfectly into place to form a perfect fully functioning encyclopedia. That's what atheists try to say is how the universe was formed."

I'm not saying I disagree with that. It just has no place in science class. It belongs in something like philosophy class.

[angel_luv]

no, we really need no explanation about how the Earth works.

we are just fine believing that it's flat.

Point taken.

Some information is useful.

But, for example, do you think we need to know why the earth is round instead of flat?

[Blake]

LOL where did i go wrong, Mr. Know it all?

I don't know it all, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Saying "science is a religion" is something you hear at Sunday School.

[InRareForm]

I don't know it all, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Saying "science is a religion" is something you hear at Sunday School.

explain to me how science is FACT and then I will take back my statement. If something is not fact, it is safe to assume it is something you believe strongly (if you indeed accept it).

[Blake]

Point taken.

Some information is useful.

But, for example, do you think we need to know why the earth is round instead of flat?

who is "we"

[I Love Me Some Me]

I could come up with any number of definitions.

My own experience was that I attended a private Christian school in middle school. The earth science book was faith based and spent the majority of it trying to debunk chaos theories and evolution.

One example was:

"Imagine if a print shop exploded and everything fell perfectly into place to form a perfect fully functioning encyclopedia. That's what atheists try to say is how the universe was formed."

I'm not saying I disagree with that. It just has no place in science class. It belongs in something like philosophy class.

It has no more a place in the science class than does the big bang theory, or any other origin of the universe theory that exists.

[angel_luv]

who is "we"

Anyone.

In your opinion: Does anyone need to know why the earth is round, and if so, who?

I am genuinely interested.

[Blake]

It has no more a place in the science class than does the big bang theory, or any other origin of the universe theory that exists.

due to the "FACT" that the universe is constantly expanding, some parts of the big bang theory are very plausible and at this point do have a place in science books as a theory.

[RandomGuy]

Science is a human construct based on observation and inductive reasoning, that is based on a bunch of trusted assumptions that try to explain the world. While it does a damn good job, there is nothing FACT about it, I am sorry.

In other words, it is a religion.

I guess if you loosen the definition of "religion" to be next to meaningless, that would be the case.

Science is based on observations, and testable hypothesis.

If scientific observations don't really get you "facts", then why don't you test out the Law of Gravity by dropping a car on your head, and see how far that gets you.

...or try to design a jet engine based on the tenets of the bible, and leaving out all the "facts" like thermodynamics, metallurgy, and physics.

That I would like to see.

[RandomGuy]

"Ladies and gentlemen, this jet engine is based on the book of Luke, and I put it together all by myself, ignoring all of the silly faith based "facts" of science." :rolleyes

That's really what you are going with when you call science a "religion"? Seriously?

GMAFB.

[Blake]

Anyone.

In your opinion: Does anyone need to know why the earth is round, and if so, who?

I am genuinely interested.

since I like you, I'll give you a genuine answer.

There are literally thousands of things you take for granted today simply because someone before you wanted to know "why".

Maybe 10,000 years from now, thanks to the knowledge of knowing why the earth is round, humans are able to rebuild a new earth after our population reached the 500 trillion mark.

I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't care about the why and how of the universe other than the standard selfish, lazy answer of "who cares, you'll be dead in 100 years any way"

[angel_luv]

since I like you, I'll give you a genuine answer.

There are literally thousands of things you take for granted today simply because someone before you wanted to know "why".

Maybe 10,000 years from now, thanks to the knowledge of knowing why the earth is round, humans are able to rebuild a new earth after our population reached the 500 trillion mark.

I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't care about the why and how of the universe other than the standard selfish, lazy answer of "who cares, you'll be dead in 100 years any way"


You make an excellent point. Thanks very much. :)

I think it is a compelling task- to temper my desire for knowledge and explanations with the acceptance that there are some things I personally will never be able to fully comprehend.

[ploto]

Science and religion serve two entirely different purposes. It is apples and oranges. Scientific methods require proof, but religious beliefs do not. I have religious faith but not scientific faith, and there is no contradiction there. My mind can actually understand that they are two different arenas of study, and there does not have to be a single means of access to truth. I approach mathematics differently than the way I approach literature, and I have no problem with that.

I think some of you are confused as to what religion is about to many people and are tied up in the fundamentalists' perceptions of the Old Testament and opposition to evolution that does not pervade all of religious belief and believers.

"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research."-- Albert Einstein

[ploto]

Iy own experience was that I attended a private Christian school in middle school. The earth science book was faith based and spent the majority of it trying to debunk chaos theories and evolution.

That is simply not a science book and points to the type of religious school you attended. I have spent my life and my child's life in religiously-affiliated schools and have never seen a bogus science textbook like that.

[InRareForm]

"Ladies and gentlemen, this jet engine is based on the book of Luke, and I put it together all by myself, ignoring all of the silly faith based "facts" of science." :rolleyes

That's really what you are going with when you call science a "religion"? Seriously?

GMAFB.

TEXTBOOK Straw man argument! Congrats

[InRareForm]

Science is based on observations, and testable hypothesis.


what do you think inductive reasoning is, like i said?

look I said it is highly trusted, but you can't label it as fact.


if we want to play a game of semantics, this is a whole different debate regarding the words: religion, belief, trust, etc.

[spurster]

It's hard to tell exactly what everyone is trying to argue, but it's pretty simple

God and science do not mix. If you think they do, then you are basically subscribing to the Angel Luv Doctrine of "I can't explain it, so it must be God."

Saying "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and will one day figure it out" is a perfectly acceptable answer.


More false dichotomies.

How about "I can't explain it, so it might be God." and "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and might one day figure it out." There is no contradiction between those two statements. Belief is not this either/or thing you've got in your head.



It is also acceptable to be a Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian based scientist.


If you interpret Christian more broadly than Moral Majority literalists, one could do worse than being a scientist who follows Christian moral principles.

[I Love Me Some Me]

due to the "FACT" that the universe is constantly expanding, some parts of the big bang theory are very plausible and at this point do have a place in science books as a theory.

The expansion of the universe does little to move 'big bang' from anything more than the theory that it is. If something that is not a proven fact is introduced into science education as "theory" then I have no problem with it...including the theory that God created the universe.

[Blake]

what do you think inductive reasoning is, like i said?

look I said it is highly trusted, but you can't label it as fact.


if we want to play a game of semantics, this is a whole different debate regarding the words: religion, belief, trust, etc.

seems like you are the one trying to play a semantics game.

[Blake]

More false dichotomies.

How about "I can't explain it, so it might be God." and "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and might one day figure it out." There is no contradiction between those two statements. Belief is not this either/or thing you've got in your head.

it might also be a flying spaghetti monster. It might be an alien that is simply higher in the evoluionary order than humans but not quite omnipotent.

There is no place for those type of theories in a science class.



If you interpret Christian more broadly than Moral Majority literalists, one could do worse than being a scientist who follows Christian moral principles.

no problem with scientist with good Christian values.

Ive got a problem with people trying to push God into a science class.

[I Love Me Some Me]

There is no place for those type of theories in a science class.


Why not?

[Blake]

The expansion of the universe does little to move 'big bang' from anything more than the theory that it is. If something that is not a proven fact is introduced into science education as "theory" then I have no problem with it...including the theory that God created the universe.

there is an observational basis for the Big Bang theory.

there is nothing but a religious basis for the theory that God created the universe.

[Blake]

Why not?

see above

[I Love Me Some Me]

there is an observational basis for the Big Bang theory.

there is nothing but a religious basis for the theory that God created the universe.

Link to who observed Big Bang?

[Blake]

That is simply not a science book and points to the type of religious school you attended. I have spent my life and my child's life in religiously-affiliated schools and have never seen a bogus science textbook like that.


I agree, but there are these types out there:


https://www.abeka.com/AbekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=52574&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

I think this might be the same publisher of the books I had.....if not, it's pretty darn close

and if some had their way, public schools would be pushing this too because "God should be a relevant theory"

[Blake]

Link to who observed Big Bang?

we observe the universe expanding. that's common knowledge I hope.

therefore several components of the big bang seem plausible.

either way, the big bang is an explanation of how the universe came to be. There is nothing saying "spontaneous" and I dont recall any science teachers claiming that it is all just one freak accident...

much like evolution.

[I Love Me Some Me]

we observe the universe expanding. that's common knowledge I hope.

who is "we"....I'm kidding, that was a jab at your ridiculous line of questioning to AL earlier.


therefore several components of the big bang seem plausible.

Which components of the big bang theory are made plausible by universal expansion?


either way, the big bang is an explanation of how the universe came to be. There is nothing saying "spontaneous" and I dont recall any science teachers claiming that it is all just one freak accident...

much like evolution.

No one else has introduced 'spontaneous' into this conversation. I'm simply pointing out that the origin of the universe is completely unknown. Any theory attempting to explain it is inherently void of the physical evidence science requires in order to accept it.

[Blake]

who is "we"....I'm kidding, that was a jab at your ridiculous line of questioning to AL earlier.

We love us some we


Which components of the big bang theory are made plausible by universal expansion?

this is one of those roads that even if I quoted word for word out of an Astronomy II text book that would lead to nowhere and do little to change anyone's minds.



No one else has introduced 'spontaneous' into this conversation. I'm simply pointing out that the origin of the universe is completely unknown. Any theory attempting to explain it is inherently void of the physical evidence science requires in order to accept it.

It's not God vs the Big Bang. It's really God vs sponateous accidental combustion which is not taught in schools to my knowledge.
Maybe God caused the Big Bang. Maybe God caused evolution.

The Big Bang and evolution are two theories based on observation. The reason evolution gets crapped on so often is because fundamentalists rely on the book of Genesis as their source of scientific fact.

[I Love Me Some Me]

this is one of those roads that even if I quoted word for word out of an Astronomy II text book that would lead to nowhere and do little to change anyone's minds.

In other words..."I don't know"


It's not God vs the Big Bang. It's really God vs sponateous accidental combustion which is not taught in schools to my knowledge.
Maybe God caused the Big Bang. Maybe God caused evolution.

The Big Bang and evolution are two theories based on observation. The reason evolution gets crapped on so often is because fundamentalists rely on the book of Genesis as their source of scientific fact.

We're talking about origin of the universe. Call it whatever you want. Science will never be able to prove it happened naturally, I can promise you that. So, we come up with our scientific theories and observe the universe, but before we observe we've already eliminated (without basis) the possibility that there is a God who created all of it. So, since we've eliminated that as a possibility before we begin observing, any observation we record has no possibility of supporting a Creation theory.

It's like the theory of the origin of the universe is the BCS, and creation is Utah. It could be the best thing around, but it's eliminated without even being given a chance.

[Blake]

In other words..."I don't know"

in other words you should do your own homework.

if you don't know that the universe is in a constant state of expansion, then going forward is a waste of time




We're talking about origin of the universe. Call it whatever you want. Science will never be able to prove it happened naturally, I can promise you that. So, we come up with our scientific theories and observe the universe, but before we observe we've already eliminated (without basis) the possibility that there is a God who created all of it. So, since we've eliminated that as a possibility before we begin observing, any observation we record has no possibility of supporting a Creation theory.

You keep confusing Big Bang with spontaneous generation.


It's like the theory of the origin of the universe is the BCS, and creation is Utah. It could be the best thing around, but it's eliminated without even being given a chance.

I don't like the BCS either, but Florida or OU would crush Utah.

[RandomGuy]

"Ladies and gentlemen, this jet engine is based on the book of Luke, and I put it together all by myself, ignoring all of the silly faith based "facts" of science."

That's really what you are going with when you call science a "religion"? Seriously?

GMAFB.



TEXTBOOK Straw man argument! Congrats
You have said that there are no "facts" in science. It is indeed an exaggeration mostly for the purposes of humor, but if you can't define what you would call a "fact", then you will have to forgive me for not fully understanding or being able to accurately depict your real position.

Science actually provides us with a level of assurance above facts, in that it has workable theories that explain observed facts.

What WOULD you call factual?

[I Love Me Some Me]

in other words you should do your own homework.

if you don't know that the universe is in a constant state of expansion, then going forward is a waste of time

I'm not disputing the expansion. You're the one who said because of the expansion "several components of the big bang seem plausible."

I asked you which components you were referring to. You stated this as though it were fact...if you're that certain about it, no homework should be necessary. Just tell me which components of the big bang theory are plausible because of universal expansion.



You keep confusing Big Bang with spontaneous generation.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm talking about theories attempting to explain the origin of the universe. You can call them whatever you want.



I don't like the BCS either, but Florida or OU would crush Utah.

Of course, that's your opinion and should not be considered fact. But, we'll never know because Utah was excluded before the season began.

[RandomGuy]

Link to who observed Big Bang?

We have observed as far back as about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

Before that the universe was too hot and too opaque to really observe with present day instrumentation.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2001/2001%20-%203701.html

We might not have observed the car crash, but from the presence of two crumpled vehicles locked together, we can deduce the existance of such a crash with a very high degree of certainty.

[I Love Me Some Me]

We have observed as far back as about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

Before that the universe was too hot and too opaque to really observe with present day instrumentation.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2001/2001%20-%203701.html

How is that measured, exactly? (I ask because I don't know, not to be a contrarian). I imagine speed of light sort of calculations?


We might not have observed the car crash, but from the presence of two crumpled vehicles locked together, we can deduce the existance of such a crash with a very high degree of certainty.

Mainly because you have physical evidence (mangled metal, engine parts, etc...). The physical evidence we have today really doesn't provide any conclusive evidence to the origin of the universe.

[ploto]

I agree, but there are these types out there:

https://www.abeka.com/AbekaOnline/BookDescription.aspx?sbn=52574&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

I think this might be the same publisher of the books I had.....if not, it's pretty darn close.

A Beka- I should have known. Never seen one but have heard all about their "history" and "science" books. So many home schooled kids are being taught by these books. :bang

[spurster]

it might also be a flying spaghetti monster. It might be an alien that is simply higher in the evoluionary order than humans but not quite omnipotent.


There you go. That's a much better argument. I approve.

But you could believe this and also believe science might solve all our problems. Doubt is the beginning of wisdom.

[Blake]

Doubt is the beginning of wisdom.

depending on who you ask, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[Winehole23]

I like it when posters try to sound super smart as if it will make their argument that much better.I was pointing out that that there are important philosophical differences between faiths. You disagree?

Not everyone who acknowledges the supernatural is immune to reason and empiricism. Indeed the faculties by which the two are apprehended, though they are not the same, do not necessarily conflict, and in fact may harmonize. Rationalism and empiricism, like it or not, find their roots in Christian philosophical heritage. The theory that reason and revelation conflict discloses a profound ignorance of the history of rationalism and religion.


God and science do not mix. If you think they do, then you are basically subscribing to the Angel Luv Doctrine of "I can't explain it, so it must be God."

Saying "There is no explanation other than it is a miracle by God's all powerful hand" in a labcoat is unacceptable.I quoted Aquinas, not Malebranche (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/malebranche/). Aquinas saw reason and empiricism as part of providence. He included science in his philosophy as a path to truth. Though he defended faith, he did not scorn science, and was a more exacting rationalist than anyone in this thread. I'm with Spurster: the contradiction of science and faith is false.


It is also acceptable to be a Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian based scientist.The first clause swims back to my point; the second describes a point I never tried to make. Faith and reason are different faculties. The two do not conflate, but this does not mean they conflict: they aim at different objects, and are operationally dissimilar.

[Winehole23]

it might also be a flying spaghetti monster. It might be an alien that is simply higher in the evoluionary order than humans but not quite omnipotent.

There is no place for those type of theories in a science class.




no problem with scientist with good Christian values.

Ive got a problem with people trying to push God into a science class.I was not arguing for this. Who was?

[MiamiHeat]

boring zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

All of this is irrelevant. In the end, you will all just agree to disagree. there is no point

[Winehole23]

Science is a human construct based on observation and inductive reasoning, that is based on a bunch of trusted assumptions that try to explain the world. While it does a damn good job, there is nothing FACT about it, I am sorry.

In other words, it is a religion.I believe something like this. As institutionally constructed, science and religion now perceive themselves to be fighting over the same throne. The one that dictates universal truth.

To hoist the certainty of the senses above faith and tradition is itself a sort of faith. This is the main theme of Paul Feyerabend (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/), the notorious anarchist historian of science.

My own viewpoint is more antique. Reason is the science of the sensible; faith, that of the suprasensible.

[Winehole23]

boring zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

All of this is irrelevant. In the end, you will all just agree to disagree. there is no pointThanks again for your non-contribution to the discussion. Much appreciated. You're clearly out of your depth here.

[Winehole23]

right, but to chalk up what we don't know to simply giving God credit is wrong.This goes back at least as far as Lucretius (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lucretius/), and I kind of agree. To put down the gaps in our knowledge to God is lazy.

[Alex Jones]

boring zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

All of this is irrelevant. In the end, you will all just agree to disagree. there is no point


Translation: I haven't rented any videos lately from blockbuster that i can quote and look smart on a message board.

Why not go rent back to the future so you can figure out how to go back in time and have your pappy wear a condom?

This way you won't exist and can't make a fool out of yourself on any message boards?

[exstatic]

How can faith and skepticism not be diametrically opposed? It's pretty hard to tiptoe a line between believing in something because you believe in it and believing in something because there is physical evidence. Claiming the two core ideas aren't in direct opposition and can somehow be reconciled just because you want to believe both is intellectually lazy.

+1 Science is constantly re-evaluating and testing itself. Religion expects you to believe what they say, no questions. It's the rational vs. the irrational. There is no proof of God, nor can there ever be. Religion is based upon belief without proof. Science, true science, is based on proof, without belief.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why believe a book written by man. Still, you have to appreciate the timeless wisdom from a peoples that old. (1)

Why believe that humans are anywhere close to knowing enough of science to disprove God.(2)

You are going to die within the next 100 years. Even if science has some crazy break through and connects the dots, you will be long dead. Sit back and just enjoy the show. :hat

:lmao

(1) Yes, "timeless wisdom" is fine, parables are fine, but that does not make them proof of anything. The Bible is full of wonderful parables and epithets about how one should live a good life, but it is NOT a LITERAL DOCUMENT. There is so much evidence to disprove Genesis that only a moron could believe that is how the world was created.

(2) The aim of science is not to disprove the existence of God! It is to observe and understand the world better through reproducible experiments.

God botherers, answer me this - why does God care about man? Why would an omniscient being capable of creating a Universe give a shit about anything an insignificant human being does? And no, because he "loves" me is not an answer.

I can entertain the possibility that there are higher beings than us in the universe. What I cannot understand is why they'd give a toss about humanity. If you look at humans versus the other beings on our planet, which I'm assuming are all "lesser" forms of life in that their brains are not capable of what ours are, all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak. So why should any greater being care about the plight of 7.5billion stupid organisms who are destroying the planet that supports their life? Makes no sense to me.


+1 Science is constantly re-evaluating and testing itself. Religion expects you to believe what they say, no questions. It's the rational vs. the irrational. There is no proof of God, nor can there ever be. Religion is based upon belief without proof. Science, true science, is based on proof, without belief.


Exactly.

[RandomGuy]

How is that measured, exactly? (I ask because I don't know, not to be a contrarian). I imagine speed of light sort of calculations?



Mainly because you have physical evidence (mangled metal, engine parts, etc...). The physical evidence we have today really doesn't provide any conclusive evidence to the origin of the universe.

The answers to both the question and the statement are in radio astronomy.

The first is likely due to red shift, and we the physical evidence we have of the origin of the universe are all the little photons and high-energy particles that are floating around for us to observe. It might not be the kind of thing you can hold in your hand, but it is physical evidence.

[Blake]

:God botherers, answer me this - why does God care about man? Why would an omniscient being capable of creating a Universe give a shit about anything an insignificant human being does? And no, because he "loves" me is not an answer.

I can entertain the possibility that there are higher beings than us in the universe. What I cannot understand is why they'd give a toss about humanity. If you look at humans versus the other beings on our planet, which I'm assuming are all "lesser" forms of life in that their brains are not capable of what ours are, all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak. So why should any greater being care about the plight of 7.5billion stupid organisms who are destroying the planet that supports their life? Makes no sense to me.


"all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak"

that's a pretty broad stroke you're painting

I thought for the most part humans cared whether or not polar bears and bald eagles, to name a few, become extinct.

as for why God cares about man......I'm guessing you probably don't have kids of your own or you would understand the philosophical reasoning.

[I Love Me Some Me]

God botherers, answer me this - why does God care about man? Why would an omniscient being capable of creating a Universe give a shit about anything an insignificant human being does? And no, because he "loves" me is not an answer.

I can entertain the possibility that there are higher beings than us in the universe. What I cannot understand is why they'd give a toss about humanity. If you look at humans versus the other beings on our planet, which I'm assuming are all "lesser" forms of life in that their brains are not capable of what ours are, all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak. So why should any greater being care about the plight of 7.5billion stupid organisms who are destroying the planet that supports their life? Makes no sense to me.

The simple answer is that he is a father who cares about his children.

[Agitator]

Do you guys think that everything really need be explained?

Yes.

That is the purpose of our existence.

[Agitator]

there is an observational basis for the Big Bang theory.

there is nothing but a religious basis for the theory that God created the universe.

that pretty much is the answer for the "why put the big bang theory in a science class and not the Bible".

Putting the Bible in a science class demeans both science and religion.

[angel_luv]

Yes.

That is the purpose of our existence.

Not mine.

As it says in Revelation 4:11" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

[Blake]

Not mine.

As it says in Revelation 4:11" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

really? so that goes for all Christians?

who needs penacillin when you have prayer

I also fail to see where it says "and since the Lord hath created man and all things, there shalt ne'er be a need to figure this stuff out"

[Phenomanul]

I was pointing out that that there are important philosophical differences between faiths. You disagree?

Not everyone who acknowledges the supernatural is immune to reason and empiricism. Indeed the faculties by which the two are apprehended, though they are not the same, do not necessarily conflict, and in fact may harmonize. Rationalism and empiricism, like it or not, find their roots in Christian philosophical heritage. The theory that reason and revelation conflict discloses a profound ignorance of the history of rationalism and religion.

I quoted Aquinas, not Malebranche (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/malebranche/). Aquinas saw reason and empiricism as part of providence. He included science in his philosophy as a path to truth. Though he defended faith, he did not scorn science, and was a more exacting rationalist than anyone in this thread. I'm with Spurster: the contradiction of science and faith is false.

The first clause swims back to my point; the second describes a point I never tried to make. Faith and reason are different faculties. The two do not conflate, but this does not mean they conflict: they aim at different objects, and are operationally dissimilar.

+1

[Phenomanul]

The answers to both the question and the statement are in radio astronomy.

The first is likely due to red shift, and we the physical evidence we have of the origin of the universe are all the little photons and high-energy particles that are floating around for us to observe. It might not be the kind of thing you can hold in your hand, but it is physical evidence.

Not enough to factually substantiate any claim concerning the origin of the universe... By your own standards no less.

We can't even ascertain whether or not matter behaved as such seconds after the "Big Bang". How then can any post-analysis of the 'evidence trail' we observe lead to anyone to make such conclusive statements? Can observations made 300,000 years after the event in question even be considered science? Not by your standards. For that matter, certainly not by mine, especially when physicists haphazardly assume that all of the physical constants that bind our universe have always remained constant - a critical assumption we have absolutely no proof of...

[mogrovejo]

This topic is so 19th century.

[Blake]

Not enough to factually substantiate any claim concerning the origin of the universe... By your own standards no less.

We can't even ascertain whether or not matter behaved as such seconds after the "Big Bang". How then can any post-analysis of the 'evidence trail' we observe lead to anyone to make such conclusive statements? Can observations made 300,000 years after the event in question even be considered science? Not by your standards. For that matter, certainly not by mine, especially when physicists haphazardly assume that all of the physical constants that bind our universe have always remained constant - a critical assumption we have absolutely no proof of...

that's why it's called Big Bang Theory and not Big Bang Law

[Phenomanul]

really? so that goes for all Christians?

who needs penacillin when you have prayer

I also fail to see where it says "and since the Lord hath created man and all things, there shalt ne'er be a need to figure this stuff out"

Ironic, considering Dr. Howard Florey (the chief developer of Penicilin) was a noted Christian.

[Phenomanul]

that's why it's called Big Bang Theory and not Big Bang Law

Science and absolutism are mutually exclusive concepts where first hand observations are not available, or where testable hypotheses are inherently missing (as would be the case with any origins based scientific claim). Either way, the point I'm trying to make is that not all scientific claims are as concrete as we are lead to believe they are.

Personally, I believe the Big Bang Theory closely describes what I read in Genesis. To claim that it occured chaotically and without purpose however, should never pass as science. Unfortunately, many assume this premise holds true.

Besides, there are other more interesting theories out there...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

"all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak"

that's a pretty broad stroke you're painting (1)

I thought for the most part humans cared whether or not polar bears and bald eagles, to name a few, become extinct. (2)

as for why God cares about man......I'm guessing you probably don't have kids of your own or you would understand the philosophical reasoning. (3)

(1) Take a quick look at the last 4000 years of human history and tell me that powerful enslaving the weak isn't the major theme.

(2) You have no idea what we are doing to the planet. Our entire global economic system is one big sausage factory - in the go the resources, out come the consumer goods, then we dig a big hole in the ground, or dump it into the air or rivers/lakes/oceans when we've finished with it. We are chewing through the non-renewable resources of the planet at an incredible rate (eg. 80,000,000 barrels of oil/DAY!), and destroying non-renewable resources (eg. soil, fresh water, fisheries, rainforests) at a far greater rate than is sustainable. Open your eyes.

(3) But we are not God's "children" - it is an omnipotent being that can create Universes, we have a common ancestor with chimps.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Not mine.

As it says in Revelation 4:11" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

So we are here for the pleasure of God? What does that say about God?

Sorry, I don't want to be nasty, and I don't care what other people choose to believe spiritually (that's their choice), but I do have a problem with religion impinging on science classes in high schools (intelligent design is NOT science, as has been proven in a court of law), and I do have a problem with people telling me the Earth was created as described in Genesis when there is a ton of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Oh, and Phenomanul, I'm talking about the physical evolution of this planet (as apparent in geology), not the Big Bang.

[Blake]

Ironic, considering Dr. Howard Florey (the chief developer of Penicilin) was a noted Christian.

exactly

[I Love Me Some Me]

that pretty much is the answer for the "why put the big bang theory in a science class and not the Bible".

Putting the Bible in a science class demeans both science and religion.

No one's asked to put the Bible in the science class.


But why not explain that there are theories that exist that support intelligent design? Need not make reference to Christianity or the Bible...just offer the theory as just that...a theory.

[Blake]

(1) Take a quick look at the last 4000 years of human history and tell me that powerful enslaving the weak isn't the major theme.

there are a lot of bad things man has done over the past 4000 years. In the end, we know the difference between right and wrong which is why we put a stop to slavery and have laws regarding cruelty to animals.


(2) You have no idea what we are doing to the planet. Our entire global economic system is one big sausage factory - in the go the resources, out come the consumer goods, then we dig a big hole in the ground, or dump it into the air or rivers/lakes/oceans when we've finished with it. We are chewing through the non-renewable resources of the planet at an incredible rate (eg. 80,000,000 barrels of oil/DAY!), and destroying non-renewable resources (eg. soil, fresh water, fisheries, rainforests) at a far greater rate than is sustainable. Open your eyes.

:lol

anyone with a TV or a computer knows what we are doing to the planet.

you're making it sound as if absolutely nobody cares and nobody is trying to do anything about it.



(3) But we are not God's "children" - it is an omnipotent being that can create Universes, we have a common ancestor with chimps.

Biblically speaking, yes we are.

[Blake]

No one's asked to put the Bible in the science class.


But why not explain that there are theories that exist that support intelligent design? Need not make reference to Christianity or the Bible...just offer the theory as just that...a theory.


Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District 2005

Holding: "Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[I Love Me Some Me]

Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District 2005

Holding: "Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Eh...and that's probably accurate too. It's difficult to ask people to consider what is admittedly a supernatural event and offer it as a natural, scientific event.

Doesn't make it less likely that it happened that way, just impossible to prove because scientifically because it is not repeatable.

[Phenomanul]

So we are here for the pleasure of God? What does that say about God?

Sorry, I don't want to be nasty, and I don't care what other people choose to believe spiritually (that's their choice), but I do have a problem with religion impinging on science classes in high schools (intelligent design is NOT science, as has been proven in a court of law), and I do have a problem with people telling me the Earth was created as described in Genesis when there is a ton of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Oh, and Phenomanul, I'm talking about the physical evolution of this planet (as apparent in geology), not the Big Bang.

With all due respect.... I don't see the difference; the subject of origins (cosmic, physical, biological, etc...) cannot be classified as science in any arena. Most of the Scientific world inherently classifies Intelligent Design as psuedoscience on that basis, but they fail to see the similarities with statements that declare as much emanating from their own camps.

[angel_luv]

So we are here for the pleasure of God? What does that say about God?


I am glad you asked.

It says that God is not some distant designer who makes us and then loses interest.
On the contrary, He is an ever present Father, who genuinely delights in the company of we His children.

God created you just as you are and with a you-specific purpose.
Your intelligence, personality, and talents are all God given.
God delights both in you as a person and in all you do with your giftings to positively impact people and situations.

Each of us is God's purposeful blessing to the world.
Through Jesus and only through Jesus is all our greatest potential reached.

If you understood, really understood, how completely Jesus loves you, you would love Him back.

[angel_luv]

really? so that goes for all Christians?

who needs penacillin when you have prayer

I also fail to see where it says "and since the Lord hath created man and all things, there shalt ne'er be a need to figure this stuff out"

When people are sick, they go to a doctor, right?

People know they have a need and they have entrusted their well being into their doctor's care and so follow the prescription he gives them.

I know in a broad sense what antibotics are but I am not nearly as educated about medicine as a doctor is, so I choose to yield to what I believe is his better judgment.

It is the same way for me with Jesus. Only God knows the end from the beginning and the heart and intents of all men.
There is much in and about the world which I do not understand, but I have faith and am confident in entrusting my life (yielding myself) to Jesus.
I know Jesus has the answers and will always guide me in the most prosperous direction.

[Blake]

When people are sick, they go to a doctor, right?

People know they have a need and they have entrusted their well being into their doctor's care and so follow the prescription he gives them.

I know in a broad sense what antibotics are but I am not nearly as educated about medicine as a doctor is, so I choose to yield to what I believe is his better judgment.

It is the same way for me with Jesus. Only God knows the end from the beginning and the heart and intents of all men.
There is much in and about the world which I do not understand, but I have faith and am confident in entrusting my life (yielding myself) to Jesus.
I know Jesus has the answers and will always guide me in the most prosperous direction.

anyone else wanna take this one?

[angel_luv]

Jesus said: "I am the light of the world. If you follow Me, you won’t have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life.” (John 8:12)

[DarkReign]

Cmon, really?

The All Powerful Omniscent Force that has the ability to create universes so large that the speed of light is entirely too slow for we small denizens of Earth to see further than ~13 billion years into the past, has somehow taken a real interest in what we are doing?

Does that not strike you as egotism? So, lets consider this for moment.

What if other life is discovered? Maybe its the methane on Mars, and we find some sort of bacteria (or whatever).

Thats a planet that is less than a nanometer away in universal terms. It could be logically assumed life is not only somewhere else, but that it is quite abundant, and that one day, we might even consider life a natural progression of developed, atmospheric planets.

Ive never really thought of God as the precursor of Johnny Appleseed, but whatever floats your boat.

Is there a God? Dont know, will know soon enough. I certainly dont begrudge people who fervently believe (anymore).

But passing off religious texts as fact, or even that they closely resemble fact or science, in an attempt to downgrade science's purview into the nature of the universe is something I hold in contempt.

The universe is expanding. It has a center. The exact physics required to explain these two facts is something humanity has not reached (yet). It is highly unlikely anyone here will see that day, but that day will come (if we, God's children, dont kill ourselves before then).

[DarkReign]

Jesus said: "I am the light of the world. If you follow Me, you won’t have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life.” (John 8:12)

I know youre a good Christian and a very sweet person with nothing but the best intentions, but could I suggest not bringing passages of the Bible into these sort of conversations?

They dont apply or have any sort of argumentative value in that most who disagree with "God created everything" hold contempt for that specific text.

If anything, youre just perpetuating a stereotype.

Take the advice for what it is, but I certainly am not trying to be mean in any way.

[angel_luv]

About that last verse I posted, I subscribe to an "encouraging verse of the day" e-mail .
After posting my doctor themed post...

I went to my e-mail inbox and found the Scripture e-mail with the John 8:12 verse there.

I know many of you will call that a coincidence.
But I know that Jesus, knowing I was going to be in conversation with Blake this afternoon, led the e-mail publisher to use a verse that I would find especially encouraging today.

It's a tangible testament to what I said earlier: God is indeed a loving Father who cares and that Jesus is an ever present help.

[Blake]

About that last verse I posted, I subscribe to an "encouraging verse of the day" e-mail .
After posting my doctor themed post...

I went to my e-mail inbox and found the Scripture e-mail with the John 8:12 verse there.

I know many of you will call that a coincidence.
But I know that Jesus, knowing I was going to be in conversation with Blake this afternoon, led the e-mail publisher to use a verse that I would find especially encouraging today.

It's a tangible testament to what I said earlier: God is indeed a loving Father who cares and that Jesus is an ever present help.

so basically you are saying that searching for truth in the universe is a waste of time because all we have to do is trust in Christ to provide.

hmm....You are obviously not Amish since you are using the internet.....

be sure to tell your local researcher thanks for not listening to you

[angel_luv]

I am saying that God is a good God who always provides for me. This time He used the internet.
If next time God wants to send me a verse via a messenger pigeon, I gratefully receive it that way too.

[Blake]

I am saying that God is a good God who always provides for me. This time He used the internet.
If next time God wants to send me a verse via a messenger pigeon, I gratefully receive it that way too.

so did God create the internet or did man (Gore)?

[angel_luv]

so did God create the internet or did man (Gore)?

All man accomplishes is due to the intelligence which God has invested in us.

So with the internet, and everything else, man can be credited for using the brains that God gave him.

Of course, men can misuse their God given intelligence and through free will choose to do evil. The internet is a great example of that.

[Blake]

All man accomplishes is due to the intelligence which God has invested in us.

So with the internet, and everything else, man can be credited for using the brains that God gave him.

Of course, men can misuse their God given intelligence and through free will choose to do evil. The internet is a great example of that.

now I forgot what we were discussing

thanks God

[angel_luv]

While I have your attention, Blake, I like your new avatar. Very clever.