July 17, 200917 yr Are these people scientists? I might look at an engine and diagnose a problem, but an actual mechanic might see if differently. I am just telling you my beliefs. To me, it was almost an epiphany, learning of the two separately then realizing that they actually went hand in hand. Sure, there are creation scientists. The data everyone sees is the same...however, the presuppositions they start with aren't. Thus, if you're an atheist, you interpret the data independent of God...if you're a Christian, you interpret it in light of the Bible. The view you start with affects your conclusion. I don't have a problem with that. I just don't like the idea of a minority view being ridiculed simply because more people see it another way...
July 17, 200917 yr Sure, there are creation scientists. The data everyone sees is the same...however, the presuppositions they start with aren't. Thus, if you're an atheist, you interpret the data independent of God...if you're a Christian, you interpret it in light of the Bible. The view you start with affects your conclusion. I don't have a problem with that. I just don't like the idea of a minority view being ridiculed simply because more people see it another way... "Creation" is not science, so I don't know where there are creation scientists, though some probably do call themselves that. Creation is a biblical belief. The view you start with affects your conclusion, too. You've decided that evolution is wrong, yet as earlier posts show, you're opinion was based on misconceptions as to what evolution is - the popular mantra of the anti-evolutionists. Two final things. I, too, believe that science points to God. Secondly, I'd like to see more detail about what you mean by this: I get the impression that you are trying to take the majority opinion on science and explain faith in such a way as to make them compatible...
July 17, 200917 yr I think this is a probably a good start to answering the question. Scientists are smart people collectively, but they have been trained in a specific way that relies exclusively on testing hypotheses with measurable variables. God isn't measurable. I would hazard a guess that if one polled other groups who have the stigma of being "smart," especially those who don't operate in the culture scientists do, one would find an increased belief in God. Though, that would be interesting to look at. As far as evolution, it is my understanding that there are two types of evolution studied: macroevolution and microevolution. With the latter, there is the fairly undeniable change within species through adaptation and natural selection, like animals with bones they don't use any longer, humans with useless organs, different shapes and figures in past species, etc. Whereas with macroevolution, which from my understanding is more along the lines of life and humanity developing from chemical pools and evolving from a globular of cells do what we have today, and is far less concrete and indeterminate, especially at that first stage. Anxious to hear more from TB&G on this one. Habib, I'm no expert on evolution. My scientific expertise is in chemistry, physics and astronomy. However, from my understanding, you are correct. Evolution is driven by genetic variation, sometimes arising from mutation, sometimes (though more slowly) by genetic transfer from one generation to the next. Less theory exists about the mechanism and steps involved in macroevolution, though experiments, such as the Urey-Miller experiment, chemical evolution (organic substances being formed from non-organic substances) can be demonstrated using conditions similar to what the early earth was like.
July 17, 200917 yr Habib, I'm no expert on evolution. My scientific expertise is in chemistry, physics and astronomy. However, from my understanding, you are correct. Evolution is driven by genetic variation, sometimes arising from mutation, sometimes (though more slowly) by genetic transfer from one generation to the next. Less theory exists about the mechanism and steps involved in macroevolution, though experiments, such as the Urey-Miller experiment, chemical evolution (organic substances being formed from non-organic substances) can be demonstrated using conditions similar to what the early earth was like. :thumb: Thanks. I should probably do a little more research on macroevolution.
July 17, 200917 yr This is an awesome discussion! 1) I agree there are many great minds who are not believers in God. 2) I will submit that there have been are are as many great minds that do believe in God...St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas Merton, St. Ignatious of Loyola, St. Thomas More, Alexis de Tocqueville, Thomas Molnar to name a few. (Forgive the Catholic theme...It's what I'm most familiar with) 3) Some Catholic scientists of note: Louis Pasteur, Gallileo, Nicholas Copernicus and Descartes, who is thought to have proven the existance of God with near certainty. 4) Some great Catholic authors: JRR Tolkein, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Oscar Wilde, Ernest Hemmingway, Ann Rice, Chaucer, F Scott Fitzgerald, Dean Koontz are some. I don't think the absense of faith is a factor in the agnostic/atheist intelligence. I don't believe it validates their findings an more soundly than the findings of the 7% who do have faith. I also don't think that science and religion are exclusive, nor that believing in evolutionary theories negates one's faith. The facts are that there is evolution, but that doesn't mean there isn't a Supreme Being, a God. I do feel strongly that eveloutionary theories are much more sound than Creationism theories. They can be proven, and evolution is still occurring even today. We aren't what our ancestors were, and we will be the ancestors of a further evolved human race.
July 17, 200917 yr Who created the football? That's the more important question that seems to be getting overlooked here. Also, since all of you are in a very philosophical mood right now, consider this: Was the game of football invented, or was it discovered? Discuss.
July 17, 200917 yr Who created the football? That's the more important question that seems to be getting overlooked here. Pig
July 17, 200917 yr I don't believe any science counters religious beliefs. Much of Darwin's work is theory. It is not fact, despite frequently being presented as so. The assumptions that have to be made to believe in evolution require a much bigger leap of faith than believing in God. Why do the majority of scientists deny the existence of God? I don't know. But, I have a feeling the answer to that question may be more philosophical than scientific. While Darwin's work may be considered "theory", scientific theory and what many people consider theory are two very different things. In science, something is not labeled a "theory" unless there is a lot of evidence to support it. I do agree with your first sentence though.
July 17, 200917 yr Who created the football? That's the more important question that seems to be getting overlooked here. Also, since all of you are in a very philosophical mood right now, consider this: Was the game of football invented, or was it discovered? Discuss. It had to be a Catholic. In fact...Galileo played football!
July 18, 200917 yr It had to be a Catholic. In fact...Galileo played football! I am pretty sure we honor Peter as the first Quarterback.
July 18, 200917 yr Scientists also disprove postulates and theorems, former. How about this, then. The postulate is that there is a God because right now it is the only adequate manner to explain the origin of the universe. Now, prove God doesn't exist.
July 18, 200917 yr Author Scientists also disprove postulates and theorems, former. How about this, then. The postulate is that there is a God because right now it is the only adequate manner to explain the origin of the universe. Now, prove God doesn't exist. I have a hard time buying the postulate that an imaginary being is the only adequate way to prove anything. Sorry.
July 18, 200917 yr Scientists also disprove postulates and theorems, former. How about this, then. The postulate is that there is a God because right now it is the only adequate manner to explain the origin of the universe. Now, prove God doesn't exist. As I'm sure you are trying to point out, a theory is only scientific if it has a test for wrongness. You can't prove something doesn't exist, only that sometime does.
July 19, 200917 yr We generally regard scientists as very intelligent people...yet 93% are atheist or agnostic. If these scientists are so intelligent why do the majority have a disbelief in god? Would a mod please edit my thread title to say "Why are 93% of scientists atheist or agnostic"? I didn't finish typing before I posted. Thanks. So believing in God is madatory to being inteligent?
July 19, 200917 yr As I'm sure you are trying to point out, a theory is only scientific if it has a test for wrongness. You can't prove something doesn't exist, only that sometime does. The bolded should read: You can't prove something doesn't exist, only that something does.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.