Does science disprove religion?

Please, religion makes scientifically testable claims, so science can determine the validity of them. As for the whole NOMA deal, while there may be limits to scientific inquiry, there is no reason to believe that clergy are any better equipped to provide answers than any other person.

“[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.”

— General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

I don't understand this. Evolutionary theory tells us that human beings, and all other life on Earth, diversified through an unguided, algorithmic process. This means that humans were not created by God. It also means that God did not guide evolution. There seems to be a contradiction here. How can religious people say that there is not a contradiction between belief in a God that created us, and evolution?

While it might be convenient for some people to believe in a theory of evolution that's both supported by evidence and that does not exclude intervention by God, this doesn't seem to fit any legitimate search for truth. If I based my worldview on faith, there'd be no room for evolution no matter how much evidence supported it, because it goes directly against the claim that God had a hand in producing the diversity of life on Earth.

The NAS has a good statement, mostly. Couple things I'd want to tweak though.

Religion's core isn't about "Is there a God." It's about "Do I believe God is out for me?" The existence of God isn't the main point that someone who has a religion deals with.

Yes, science can't address that, and it does address things like evolution and the Earth going around the sun. But it doesn't address if demons cause illness, for, again, this is a spiritual matter, and outside the realm of science, by NOMA. Sure, science can show that genetics or upbringing or a virus cause mental illness. It can not show that they are also not caused by demons. The demonic is a concept outside the realm of science. If a particular faith wants to argue that illness is caused by both bacteria and demons, there's nothing science can say to that; it is a matter of faith.

Please, religion makes scientifically testable claims, so science can determine the validity of them.

As for the whole NOMA deal, while there may be limits to scientific inquiry, there is no reason to believe that clergy are any better equipped to provide answers than any other person.

Evolutionary theory tells us that human beings, and all other life on Earth, diversified through an unguided, algorithmic process.

UAB- I think you may be missing the point. IDers proclaim to their followers that 'belief' in evolution leads to athiesim and that 'naturalism' and/or evolution claims there is no God. It is clear that science can adress some claims made by religion (which is why it is important for religios persons to heed St. Augustine's advice about making these claims) The point of the post is to counter the IDer/creationist/ fundamentalist wingnut tactic where they use devicive languiage to imply that "it's us against them - they are trying to take God away from your children, if you allow evolution in the classroom - your childrem will be brainwashed into becoming athiests - AND BE DAMNED!"

IDers proclaim to their followers that ‘belief’ in evolution leads to athiesim and that ‘naturalism’ and/or evolution claims there is no God.

“[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.” — General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

Henry J: The irony in that is that they are claiming that belief in God conflicts with an evidence-based conclusion. Ergo, they are claiming that there's evidence against God. And as far as I can tell, they're saying this way louder than anybody else even if there's anybody else saying it. Makes me wonder which side they're on. Henry

In their minds, the “word of God” counts as “evidence” too, the most persuasive of all.

UAB: Please, religion makes scientifically testable claims, so science can determine the validity of them. As for the whole NOMA deal, while there may be limits to scientific inquiry, there is no reason to believe that clergy are any better equipped to provide answers than any other person.

Gary F: “[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.” — General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church I don't understand this. Evolutionary theory tells us that human beings, and all other life on Earth, diversified through an unguided, algorithmic process. This means that humans were not created by God. It also means that God did not guide evolution. There seems to be a contradiction here. How can religious people say that there is not a contradiction between belief in a God that created us, and evolution?

HDX-
you are correct, it is an untestable religious claim.

Here's another untestable religious claim (not intended to be a criticism of HDX's claims)- God is omniscient and omnipotent, therefore he he didn't need to fine tune at all - he knew exactly the way that every 'random' event was going to happen and constructed the universe to 'come out' exactly the way it did. (infinite front loading) of course "the Lord works in mysterious ways" so we mere mortals will never find the fingerprints of God - Looking is a waste of time. Instead we should use our "God Given" intelligence/ brains/ reason/ skepticism and apply the best methods we know how to apply (the scientific method) to discover the properties of the universe. It is up to the individual to determine how to integrate knowledge and faith. God DOES throw dice- but he's GOD so he knows the results before he rolls!

jasonmitchell: HDX- you are correct, it is an untestable religious claim. Here's another untestable religious claim (not intended to be a criticism of HDX's claims)- God is omniscient and omnipotent, therefore he he didn't need to fine tune at all - he knew exactly the way that every 'random' event was going to happen and constructed the universe to 'come out' exactly the way it did. (infinite front loading) of course "the Lord works in mysterious ways" so we mere mortals will never find the fingerprints of God - Looking is a waste of time. Instead we should use our "God Given" intelligence/ brains/ reason/ skepticism and apply the best methods we know how to apply (the scientific method) to discover the properties of the universe. It is up to the individual to determine how to integrate knowledge and faith. God DOES throw dice- but he's GOD so he knows the results before he rolls!

Henry J said: I don’t see any logical contradiction between “God caused it” and “the details were left up to natural processes”.

And what happens when life on earth is shown to have begun from natural processes? Of course, religionists will just back their god up, further and further, until all that's left is to claim he was there at the first cause somewhere. Good luck with that.

More to the point is the simple fact that while evolution is based upon an almost uncountable number of observable facts, every religion that ever existed, many of them contradictory, sprang from some person's imagination without the benefit of a single observable fact. Why have there been thousands of religions throughout history? Because thousands of different people have imagined answers for questions they didn't understand. It seems to be possible for some people to think that there is no contradiction between observable facts and someone else's imagination but it doesn't seem like a very rational way to look at things.

And what happens when life on earth is shown to have begun from natural processes?

Bill Gascoyne said: You can at best show that God was not necessary.

So what? You can show that a million other things were not necessary either, what does that prove? This whole argument that faith and fact don't contradict each other merely shows that a huge majority of the current edition of hominids would rather have faith in some unknown person's imagination than in rationality. Personally, I don't think that can be changed, at least not until the next edition comes along.

tomh: So what? You can show that a million other things were not necessary either, what does that prove?

This whole argument that faith and fact don't contradict each other

merely shows that a huge majority of the current edition of hominids would rather have faith in some unknown person's imagination than in rationality. Personally, I don't think that can be changed, at least not until the next edition comes along.

JasonM "God is omniscient and omnipotent, therefore he he didn’t need to fine tune at all - he knew exactly the way that every ‘random’ event was going to happen and constructed the universe to ‘come out’ exactly the way it did. (infinite front loading)"

But that's what fine tuning is. You've argued against fine tuning while arguing for it.

raven:

“[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.” — General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

God invented evolution, mass/energy, and the Big Bang. QED

As science continues to advance, it will produce more complete and more accurate explanations for natural phenomena, including a deeper understanding of biological evolution. Both science and religion are weakened by claims that something not yet explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity.

Does science disprove religion?

"Religion" singular? There are a whole lot of different religions. Science has disproven a great number of them. Only by such unjustified lumping can one use the failure of science to disprove vague deism to provide protective cover for a wider assortment of nonsense. Any religion which insists on a young Earth, a flat Earth, or a geocentric Earth has been disproven. Any religion which denies the germ theory of disease has been disproven. And on and on. The vast majority of religions which are actually believed in by a significant number of adherents have been disproven adequately.

Donald M: But that's what fine tuning is. You've argued against fine tuning while arguing for it.

Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator (see the “Additional Readings” section).

Oh sure. Isaac Newton for example. After his general laws of motion sent a large number of angels to the unemployment line, their tasks in keeping the planets in their orbital paths now obsolete, Newton wrote quite eloquently about how God was still necessary to keep the planets revolving about their axes.

Meanwhile, other scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan have written eloquently about their "sense of wonder," with no need to insert an unnecessary creator to pad the word count. Ockham's bleeping razor.

Donald M: The message of this claim is that in order for something to be explained scientifically that explanation must be completely natural.

[snip] If the actual truth of a matter under investigation is that a cause other than a naturalistic one is the real cause, then science will never, under the a priori restriction, provide an explanation that is both complete and accurate.

That is not to say that some plausible, naturalistic explanation or other could not be proffered, but plausibility, accuracy and completeness are much different things. When it comes to explanations, they may be highly plausible, but also 100% wrong. Any crime investigator can tell you that.

“[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.” — General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

"....(A) central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings were designed and created in the image of God. Darwinism denies this." ---Dr. Jonathan Wells, Yale Daily News, (29 Janurary 2007). *** "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." "Evolution and the brain" (Editorial) Nature magazine, (14 June 2007)

Donald M:
"But that’s what fine tuning is. You’ve argued against fine tuning while arguing for it. "

perhaps I am not being precise in my language - if we assume an omniscient and omnipotent God (ALL knowing and ALL powerful)- he does not need to come in after creation to tweak or adjust (fine tune) along the way, he knows every event that will happen and created the universe in such a way that all events did/will happen in the manner that he built into the system - as he planed them to happen ('defalt'setting = exactly what he meant them to be - God is Perfect!)

"ah", you ask, "but what about free will?" - we mortals have free will but God KNOWS what you will do before you do it - you choose, but God KNOWS what you will choose!

again none of this is scientific/ provable but makes a point that there is a difference between religious clams and scientific ones

FL --- Check what St. Augustine wrote about that. You seem to be several centuries behind the times.

Science does not disprove religion. However, the Scientific Worldview is becoming more and more complete and is thereby THREATENING to make supernaturalistic worldviews obsolete. That is why the supernaturalists are frightened and mounting a "counterattack" against science.

I think the source of the problem is that people who believe that their religion is sufficient to explain all possible questions assume that scientific theories must be able to do the same.

You quickly fall into the naturalistic fallacy if you try to answer ethical, moral and philosophical questions with science alone. Science can inform ethical and moral choices but it is not sufficient by itself.

If you want to know how best to live your life don't expect answers from evolutionary science any more than you would expect answers from thermodynamics or quantum theory.

FL said:
"So, the General Assembly’s claim is now directly refuted."

no - only refuted if you assume that the Bible makes direct historically/ scientific accurate claims. something that only a teeny tiny minority of Christians do. The General Assembly, and the Pope, and everyone else referred to in the original post don't do this. I think only fundamentalists do - so I guess for them there can be no rationality separate from the literal interpretation of the Bible

Chris Noble --- Au contraire, both thermodynamics and quantum mechanics suggest avoiding some of the deadly sins, gluttony for example.

But I certainly agree that this is far from sufficient.

So, the General Assembly’s claim is now directly refuted.

I wonder of FL or DonaldM could respond to the following:

Postulate 1: There is currently no known objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of God. Postulate 2: Faith is belief in or acceptance of that for which there is no evidence.

Postulate 1) leads to three possibilities: 1) God does not exist. 2) God exists and leaft no fingerprints that we will ever find. 3) God exists and left fingerprints that we have not yet found.

It is logically impossible to choose any one of these possibilities at this time. It is and always will be logically impossible to distinguish possibility 1) from possibility 2). The difference between holding to possibility 1) and possibility 2) is the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

Creationism is either a vote for possibility 3) or the rejection of postulate 1). In either case, where is the need for the faith which, according to the Bible, God says is necessary? In the presence of evidence for the existence of God, either faith in the existence of God is superfluous, or postulate 2) is incorrect.

Donald M, science is the only method we have for ensuring the accuracy of claims. What's your system, intuition?

This is precisely why the waters get so muddied. The message of this claim is that in order for something to be explained scientifically that explanation must be completely natural. There is no way that the NAS or anyone else can guarantee that science will produce more “complete” and “accurate” explanations for natural phenomena as long as they adhere to an a priori committment to naturalism

jasonmitchell said: ...only refuted if you assume that the Bible makes direct historically/ scientific accurate claims. something that only a teeny tiny minority of Christians do.

A tiny minority? Not in America, according to Gallup. "About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word." May 25, 2007.

http://anotherpalebluedot.blogspot.com/2007/06/gallup-poll-bible.html

Richard Simons: BTW, now you are here, FL, perhaps you will answer the question you've run away from on other threads and tell us your alternative to the theory of evolution.

FL: Once again, the evolutionary historical claim directly negates and contradicts the Biblical creation claim that God Himself created the first humans in his own image (as directly stated in Gen. 1:27.)

A tiny minority? Not in America, according to Gallup. “About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.” May 25, 2007.

raven said: The vast majority of Xians don’t live in the USA.

No doubt that living in the US causes me to take a provincial view of the matter. But a poster said above, "However, the task at hand is to convince (a small vocal minority within) the religious community to stop screwing up science education."

I don't understand why this misconception is so widespread, that it is just a small vocal minority that wants to screw up science education, when polls consistently show the opposite. Two of three Americans think creationism should be taught in schools. Half of them, or 1 in 3, think it should be taught alongside evolution and the other half instead of evolution.

And what happens when life on earth is shown to have begun from natural processes? Of course, religionists will just back their god up, further and further, until all that’s left is to claim he was there at the first cause somewhere. Good luck with that.

The whole point point that you and the ID/C’ists are missing is this: You can’t show that, you can only show that natural processes were sufficient to begin life. You can at best show that God was not necessary.

This whole argument that faith and fact don’t contradict each other merely shows that a huge majority of the current edition of hominids would rather have faith in some unknown person’s imagination than in rationality

The message of this claim is that in order for something to be explained scientifically that explanation must be completely natural. There is no way that the NAS or anyone else can guarantee that science will produce more “complete” and “accurate” explanations for natural phenomena as long as they adhere to an a priori committment to naturalism.

Well, let’s see now. The Bible specifically states–a very direct historical claim–that the first humans on earth were supernaturally created by God Himself with no ancestors whatsoever. Gen. 2:7 (Adam), and Gen. 2:21-22 (Eve), make this absolutely clear

Flint said ... indetectibly micromanaging reality at the quantum level. Prove me wrong. Use science.

FL said: “So, the General Assembly’s claim is now directly refuted.” (Jasonmitchell replied) "No - only refuted if you assume that the Bible makes direct historically/ scientific accurate claims. something that only a teeny tiny minority of Christians do."

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?---Mark 10:4-5

A tiny minority? Not in America, according to Gallup. “About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.” May 25, 2007.

Evolutionary theory tells us that human beings, and all other life on Earth, diversified through an unguided, algorithmic process. This means that humans were not created by God. It also means that God did not guide evolution.

Nonsense. What prevents me from being rational?

Well, the ‘indetectable micromanagement’ appears to be completely random, with the probabilities determined by quantum mechanics. So I conclude that the micromanagement is random.

Quite correct and perceptive; thanks. Can’t have it both ways, and NO evolutionist has yet explained exactly how God can direct an undirected process.

So either human origination on Earth happened WITH conscious-forethought or it happened WITHOUT conscious-forethought. Period. Can’t have with-and-without at the same time. Not rationally possible.

When you say something is “outside science,” what you are really saying is that is absolutely indistinguishable from fiction, that nothing can ever be done to save it, and only a seriously confused or desperate person would ever make the leap to believing it.

FL - You have offended me so much. Do you happen to be clergy? (I highly doubt it)
Are you speaking for all of Christianity when you say ...

"As for Richard Simon’s request for alternatives to evolution, the alternative explanations of YEC, OEC or ID are all much preferable to evolution, because as it stands now, evolution’s historical claims about the origin and nature of humanity are permanently incompatible with Christianity. Period.

Christians have to make a choice on this stuff. You can always call the Bible a “silly magic book of blather”, as Frank does, and that DOES in fact resolve the situation. But then you might as well just admit that you’re NOT a Christian, (out of sheer honesty), and simply go home to whatever religion (perhaps atheism/materialism) that will keep you happy (at least till Judgment Day)."

You are not speaking for me! Or, I gather, any of these people ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project ...

Did you know that JC himself established the CATHOLIC religion when he was 33 yrs. old?

Do you know that Catholics don't have a problem with the theory of evolution?

Do you believe that the study of evolution will be able to disprove God?

Do you know that science has boundaries? Do you think that God has boundaries?

Is your faith that weak? How sad

"

Flint said: I believe (at least for the sake of discussion) that God engineered the big bang, formed the natural laws, and has ever since been indetectibly micromanaging reality at the quantum level. Prove me wrong. Use science.

Ridiculous. Why should assertions made without evidence require evidence to refute them? I believe that your assertion stems from an overactive imagination. Prove me wrong.

If my belief is correct ...

But it's not, it's just your imagination.

In investigating “natural processes” to the very limits of quantum uncertainly, I am learning the Mind of God.

This Mind of God only exists in your own mind. You have obviously learned nothing.

If God is micromanaging nature ...

Which is just another assertion without evidence. Don't you get tired of that?

But let’s try to grow up and consider the issue being raised here, rather than some silly magic book of blather

The issue here is all about magic and blather. Nothing says blather like "Mind of God."

please, get it through your heads, people:

FL is do or die.
he wants to make his religion irrelevant to the world at large, but keep it special to himself.

the reason pim lets him hang around is exactly because he represents the epitome of the very attitude that is causing all the problems in the US.

you cannot reason with him; stop pretending you can.

If ANY lurker had EVER weighed in, in the entire time he has posted on PT (over 2 years now?), with support for his inanity, I'd be concerned and thinking it would be worth the time to visibly counter his nonsense.

However, they haven't, so evidently EVERYBODY can see what an intractable moron he is.

his comments should simply stand by themselves as perfect examples, at most followed by a link to the ICC, since he says the same shit over and over again anyway.

Scientific advances have called some religious beliefs into question, such as the ideas that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or demons.

But that's not disproving religion though. That's just calling some religious beliefs into question. Maybe it only counts as genuine religion if it's something that science hasn't called into question. Okay science, keep not disproving religion, wink wink!!

This is about control, not about God.

omh writes: “...every religion that ever existed, many of them contradictory, sprang from some person’s imagination without the benefit of a single observable fact.”

That is just your opinion. Many Christians believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus, as recorded by eyewitnesses and close associates of eye witnesses, give a warrant for believing the truth claims of Jesus about the afterlife. Christianity can accommodate any number of views for an explanation of how organic life arose on the earth, including directed panspermia. There is no conflict between science and religion.

M.L. writes: “The Bible specifically states–a very direct historical claim–that the first humans on earth were supernaturally created by God Himself with no ancestors whatsoever. Gen. 2:7 (Adam), and Gen. 2:21-22 (Eve), make this absolutely clear.”

There are a number of Christian views on the creation of Adam and Eve. One view is that Genesis 2:7; 21-22 should be taken as a form of merismus and therefore should be interpreted in light of modern evolution of the species. In this view, the “dust of the earth” is a cosmic metaphor for God creating sentient intelligent consciousness in the first human. See R.K. Harrison’s "Introduction to Old Testament Theology" for an example of this thinking.

How God made the first sentient being may or may not have been through the process of Darwinian evolution. To me, the verdict is still out.

The whole point point that you and the ID/C’ists are missing is this: You can’t show that, you can only show that natural processes were sufficient to begin life. You can at best show that God was not necessary.

Wrong. If my belief is correct, then “natural processes” are DEFINED as “what God does for a living” and all you can show is that you have no way to tell if “natural processes” are being micromanaged. MY god is absolutely essential.

Stacy S. said:
Do you know that science has boundaries?

I don't know of any, do you?

Do you think that God has boundaries?

Obviously. It seems unable to show itself.

Fl is a fascinating example of the sadly numerous people who can't divorce their belief in gods with their belief in the bible as an accurate book about those gods. The General Assembly statement said nothing about the Bible. It spoke of God. It should be obvious that all one need do is say "The Bible is inaccurate", and it is easy to see the strength of the GAs statement. But people like FL can't.

tomh: Stacy S. said: Do you know that science has boundaries? I don't know of any, do you? Do you think that God has boundaries? Obviously. It seems unable to show itself.

FL,

Which version of the Bible is the word of God?

Do you adopt the guidelines regarding slavery and selling one daughter as a sex slave outlined in the Bible? Exodus 21:7-11

The reference to conservative scholar R. K. Harrison’s book, “Introduction to the Old Testament Theology” demonstrates that a Christian can view the Bible as very accurate, but still disagree on how the creation account of Genesis should be interpreted. What to us is blind random chance, could have very well have been God’s intent all along in front loading the "big bang" with intentionality and purpose.

Origins of life researcher, Leslie Orgel, once stated: "Anybody who thinks they know the solution to this problem [of the origin of life] is deluded." However. he also stated, "but anybody who thinks this is an insoluble problem is also deluded." What Christians differ from one another is whether Orgel's second statement is necessarily true - from our human vantage point. For example, if we can explain the likely origin of organic life through lab experiments, it will not refute Christianity. Like I said, the evidence for Christianity is grounded in the testimonial accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, it is not grounded in whether we can't reproduce the evolution of organic life in a laboratory. The creation account in Genesis can be interpreted in many different ways, including a possible Darwinian understanding.

My point exactly - you can’t prove God. But… tell me if I’m wrong here…Science DOES have boundaries - it has to be testable.

Yeah but there has to be a way that people know that there is a god. Otherwise they wouldn't know. I mean, if god is "unable to show itself", and religions claim that god can show itself, then those religions are disproven. So thanks for agreeing with the statement that god is unable to show itself.

Rog,

You ask FL, "Do you adopt the guidelines regarding slavery and selling one daughter as a sex slave outlined in the Bible? Exodus 21:7-11."

This whole "sex slave" view has been answered by Christians many times and it has nothing to do with this thread. See http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html for a proper view of Exodus 21:7-11 and other passages that deal with slavery. FL's position against an interpretation of Genesis that allows for Darwinian evolution is an "in house" Christian argument that the NAS should not even be taking about. It is none of their business.

FL you make me laugh!
I agree w/ the statement that faith and science do not necessarily have to conflict, unless you are among the minority of Christians (mostly fundamentalists) who say that the Bible (King James version?) is literally true/historically accurate/ a source for scientific data/ infallible etc.

I state that most Christians don't believe the Bible is a literal historical/scientific document, as evidence I cite leaders of the Catholic faith, leaders of Presbyterian faith,etc. others have pointed out other assemblies of church leadership that agree with my statement

your reply (I am paraphrasing)

'nuh-uh, cuz' Jesus himself said.. [quotes passage from Bible]

you basically said that I believe the Bible should be taken literally and my evidence is .....quoting from the Bible as if its literally true...priceless - have you ever heard of a circular argument?

I may be using an argument from authority but the authorities I am relying on are hundreds of religious leaders from several faiths (including the Pope)

Jess: This whole “sex slave” view has been answered by Christians many times and it has nothing to do with this thread.

Deuteronomy 21:18 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Raven,

Read the article that explains the passage that explains the passage (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html) and stick with the intent of this thread. There is no conflict between science and religion.

Jess said: The creation account in Genesis can be interpreted in many different ways ...

How convenient. Anytime something in the account is shown to be impossible the account is merely reinterpreted. And, indeed, that's exactly what has happened over the centuries. As piece after piece has been disproven the story just twists in a different direction.

... an interpretation of Genesis that allows for Darwinian evolution is an “in house” Christian argument that the NAS should not even be taking about. It is none of their business.

Now, Jess, even to you that must sound silly. An idea, a thought, that only certain people should be allowed to talk about? What century do you live in?

Raven,

Sorry, I thought you were still thinking about Exodus 21. The passage you quoted from, Deuteronomy 21:18, is part of the ceremonial law that Christians believe they are no longer under. Obviously, because there is no historical or archeological record of piles of small human bones around the city gates of any Israeli city, the evidence indicates that the ancient Jews did not frequently put their children to death.

For a good understanding of this passage from a Jewish point of view. See http://www.jtsa.edu/PreBuilt/ParashahArchives/5762/kitetzei.shtml

At any rate, this discussion has nothing to do with the point of this thread. There is no conflict between science and religion.

"religion makes scientifically testable claims"

It sure does. But its core is about non-testable claims. God is able to twist logic and reality on a whim, and is not accessible to scientific inquiry and its usual rules.

Science does not topple religion but it tends to cut its roots. In my opinion, when you consider what science has done, where it can go and what it can do with its own methods, it's normal to think : what need do I have of a belief I can't even test ? If my ultimate argument is something like "I believe beacause I believe", then what (logical) right do I have to believe ? Better leave those nebulous ideas alone, and stick to thing I can make a reality check on.

People start arguing at cross purposes whenever the subject of NOMA crops up. As I see it this is because NOMA seems to be a vague equivocating attempt at diplomacy between science and christianity.

By saying "science cant disprove god" you mollify christians, who assume that you are talking about Yahweh. And some of the time you don't antogonise atheists/agnostics who usually spot that you are really talking about a deistic god that is purely hypothetical and is not based on any holy books. But in mixed company, the ambiguity can't sustain itself in both directions and a massive argument breaks out, with both side arguing about different "gods".

Then we end up getting down to the nitty gritty. Although science has little to say about the abstract concept of a concious entity creating the universe, science has repeatedly contradicted sections of the bible, christianity's specific account of their particular god's interaction with the universe. So those parts of the account either have to be taken allegorically, or science has to be wrong. And there we have our overlapping magisteria. Although science can't disprove "god", it has disproven christianity's account of their idea of "god". To paraphrase Nietzsche, Biblical innerrancy is dead.

Science says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, science says there was no adam and eve, science says the earth is spherical, science says the earth goes round the sun, science says there was no global flood, science says a lot of other things that contradict the bible.

So while it is valid to say that science and a deistic god reside in non overlapping magesteria, science and the bible only exist in non overlapping magesteria if the bible is good enough to retreat into allegory every time science takes a step forward.

I don’t understand why this misconception is so widespread, that it is just a small vocal minority that wants to screw up science education, when polls consistently show the opposite.

tomh: jasonmitchell said: ...only refuted if you assume that the Bible makes direct historically/ scientific accurate claims. something that only a teeny tiny minority of Christians do. A tiny minority? Not in America, according to Gallup. "About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word." May 25, 2007. http://anotherpalebluedot.blogspot.com/2007/06/gallup-poll-bible.html

Oh, and my other conclusion was : DUD! 8^)

DPR

This is my first post and I think it may not be very
popular,but I have to partly agree with FL.
I would not aurgue about all religions,if infact they are
disproven by science or not.
However, it has been presented to me on many occasions by
avid Xtians that TOE refuetes the core principle of their
faith,this is how it is conceived.

1 No Adam and Eve/No original sin.
2 No original sin/No need for redemption.
3 No need for redeption/No need for a redeemer.
4 No need for a redeemer (Jesus)= No Xtianity.

I am not a expert in theology but the logic seems valid to
me.

Does science prove anything? Proof lies in the domain of logic--->mathematics right? Isn't science about evidence, data, hypothesis, and theory?

FL:

FL said: “So, the General Assembly’s claim is now directly refuted.” (Jasonmitchell replied) "No - only refuted if you assume that the Bible makes direct historically/ scientific accurate claims. something that only a teeny tiny minority of Christians do."

Seems that Jesus Christ did in fact assume that Genesis was historically accurate, including the Genesis texts dealing with the creation of Adam and Eve.

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?---Mark 10:4-5

IVORYGIRL: This is my first post and I think it may not be very popular,but I have to partly agree with FL. I would not aurgue about all religions,if infact they are disproven by science or not. However, it has been presented to me on many occasions by avid Xtians that TOE refuetes the core principle of their faith,this is how it is conceived. 1 No Adam and Eve/No original sin. 2 No original sin/No need for redemption. 3 No need for redeption/No need for a redeemer. 4 No need for a redeemer (Jesus)= No Xtianity. I am not a expert in theology but the logic seems valid to me.

Christians can agree on the problem of sin's existence without tracing that sin all the way back to a specific historical origin. That is, it is only important that sin exists now; how sin first originated is irrelevant. One does not need a belief in a literal Fall to feel they have sinned and need redemption or a savior.

Some Christians believe that the initial chapters of Genesis exist primarily to teach theological and moral lessons. On this view, the entire purpose of the story of the Fall is to convey the need for salvation, regardless of the historicity of the events.

IVORYGIRL -

Read very slowly.

The post that this thread is about shows that many religious people have no problem with scientific reality. It shows this by quoting directly from religious people and religious organizations.

No-one said that there are not some religious positions that contradict scientific reality.

FL holds a position that contradicts scientific reality. He has to either change his religion, or frantically deny scientific reality, and he chooses the latter.

You describe a religious position that appears to deny scientific reality.

So what?

No-one is denying that some religious claims, like FL's, what you describe, or Scientology, for example, are at odds with measurable, scientific reality.

A common problem here, for both atheists and religious apologists, is the seeming inability to grasp that "religion" does not mean merely Anglophone "Biblical literalism".

I'm very sorry if you thought that the people whose views you described represented all the "religous" people in the world.

But they don't, and many people tell me that their own religious views do not conflict directly with scientific reality, and I have no reason not to believe them.

Ridiculous. Why should assertions made without evidence require evidence to refute them? I believe that your assertion stems from an overactive imagination. Prove me wrong.

If my belief is correct … But it’s not, it’s just your imagination.

This Mind of God only exists in your own mind. You have obviously learned nothing.

Which is just another assertion without evidence. Don’t you get tired of that?

The issue here is all about magic and blather. Nothing says blather like “Mind of God.”

There is no conflict between science and religion.

IVORYGIRL: 1 No Adam and Eve/No original sin. 2 No original sin/No need for redemption. 3 No need for redeption/No need for a redeemer. 4 No need for a redeemer (Jesus)= No Xtianity. I am not a expert in theology but the logic seems valid to me.

@ Jess and @ Raven - Why do you think that "Fundies" don't argue about the "Flood" anymore? Is it because science tells us that the people that wrote that story didn't know any better? (I know there are lots and lots of examples - I'll just zero in on this one)

Why do you think that they are capable of "bending the rules" here, in this story, but not the "Adam and Eve" story?

There really wasn't a need to look for other biblical passages to refute FL's point. A literal reading of his Mark passage clearly demands that after marriage men and women must merge in the flesh into one being. Anything even remotely different from that involves a concession to some amount of poetic license.

ivorygirl: However, it has been presented to me on many occasions by avid Xtians that TOE refuetes the core principle of their faith,this is how it is conceived.

Stacy S.: Why do you think that “Fundies” don’t argue about the “Flood” anymore?

I thought that I would add that Bahá'ís also stress the harmony of science and religion.

[QUOTE]If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.[QUOTE/]'Abdu'l-Bah

He also adds:

[QUOTE]Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.[QUOTE/]

Yeah, I know people get all defensive about "materialism" due to the Wedge document. I think the spirit of this quote gets at a healthy recognition of both philosophies. Much like Spock and Captain Kirk. They were stronger together.

raven: Real Fundies(TM) believe fervently in the Noah Flood. Ken Ham's Creation Museum has Jews keeping dinosaurs as pets, dinosaurs on the Ark, and the continents plowing through the ocean at miles per hour speeds.

@hooligans - Exactly the view of Saint Augustine as well.

James writes:

“…Science says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, science says there was no adam and eve, science says the earth is spherical, science says the earth goes round the sun, science says there was no global flood, science says a lot of other things that contradict the bible.”

First of all, the Genesis account says nothing about how old the universe is. It just says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth….” There is enough room in the first couple of verses to insert billions of years and a “big bang” if necessary.

Secondly, how does science prove that there was no Adam and Eve? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we have not found the fossils of Adam and Eve does not mean that they did not exist.

Also, back in Bible times the people of that time believed the earth was spherical. The Greek writers often spoke of this. All they needed to do was look at ships sailing into the sunset, disappearing off the horizon and still be able to come back to tell about it. They were not stupid.

Finally, Christians argue among themselves whether the account of Noah and the flood was a local flood that wiped out the whole area, or whether it was a worldwide deluge. The Hebrew words could be interpreted in both ways.

There is no contradiction between science and the Christian Bible.

Humbert: I disagree with you. The most parsimonious explanation is not the only possible rational explanation. And in practice, the most parsimonious explanation is rarely if ever the correct or complete explanation. Reality always turns out to be much messier than our simple models account for.

When you say something is “outside science,” what you are really saying is that is absolutely indistinguishable from fiction, that nothing can ever be done to save it, and only a seriously confused or desperate person would ever make the leap to believing it.

You have made a serious of assertions here. I agree with the first - that it's indistinguishable from fiction. I don't know what you mean by "save" it.

You can ignore it if you choose. I'm saying it won't alter how I do science in any way.

Finally, your last assertion is frankly stupid. You are essentially saying that people, as a group, are INHERENTLY confused and desperate.

And even if you think this is true, lots of confused and desperate people not only don't realize their condition, but do excellent science.

Are YOU confused and desperate? Evidently so; you seem to believe that making unsupportable and irrational assertions is a rational behavior! And you don't even realize you're doing it! Confused indeed.

ANY statement of faith not subject to scientific investigation is compatible with science.

Jess: There is no contradiction between science and the Christian Bible.

Finally, Christians argue among themselves whether the account of Noah and the flood was a local flood that wiped out the whole area, or whether it was a worldwide deluge.

Actually, every Christian faith "has a problem with evolution" - it refutes the basis of their faith. stop kidding around with this one folks, all of those statements by the different denominations are concessions to facts that they can no longer argue with a straight face. Look at the purpose of the statements, and the timing.
Q; what is the catholic church doing by conceding to Darwin?
A; buying relevance.

@ Dan - You're wrong. You are also feeding the fire.

Stacy,

I am sure that if you try hard enough and broaden your network of those you communicate with, you will eventually run across Christians who believe that the story of Noah and the flood was not a made up fable, but an actual event in history.

One website that works through issues related to a local flood, at the time of Noah is this one: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml?main

There is no conflict between science and the Christian Bible.

Guys,firstly I hope you all understand that the argument
that I presented is not my personal position,it just reflected
many of the people (Xtians) that I have been in contact with
since my recent move from the UK to the USA.
I live in the south (Florida) and most of the Xtians I have
met have been Fundies,and biblical idealists.
Their response to my arguments that the bible in places could
be considered allegorical is this. Who decides which parts of the bible should be considered allegorical and which parts
should be taken literally,if one part is false,then it all may as well be false.

harold said:
IVORYGIRL - Read very slowly.

Was that some kind of intellectual insult?

@ Jess - You didn't answer my question - Why do the "Pseudo-Fundies" have a problem accepting evolution?

I'm not talking about the actual Bible Thumpers that think that the 'Flintstones' is a documentary. I'm talking about the sometimes intelligent people that can disregard some biblical stories when presented with evidence.

Why can't THESE people accept evolution when presented with evidence?

@IVORYGIRL - Welcome to Florida. Ain't it great though? (sarcasm)

@ Everyone -If you haven't figured it out yet - Jess is one of these "Pseudo-Fundies" to that which I keep referring.

Can anyone in here provide me a link to that incredible story of the salamanders in CA?

IG: Their response to my arguments that the bible in places could be considered allegorical is this. Who decides which parts of the bible should be considered allegorical and which parts should be taken literally,if one part is false,then it all may as well be false.

Stacy S. : Why can't THESE people accept evolution when presented with evidence?

Evolution happening before our eyes.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

D P Robin said: I could not find any polls specifically on teaching evolution in schools.

Here's a representative one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

So many people argue that many church leaders accept evolution, though I wouldn't keep listing the Pope, the most anti-science pope in ages. The fact is, as polls consistently show, no matter how they're worded, that over half of Americans refuse to believe they came from monkeys, which is how they view evolution. They want to believe they were created specially no matter what the church leaders say. Show me a poll worded any way you want that shows any different.

As far as court decisions deciding the matter, anyone who thinks there is widespread teaching of evolution in public schools in America is living in a dream world. Over most of the country evolution is carefully avoided, for obvious reasons.

tomh: So many people argue that many church leaders accept evolution, though I wouldn't keep listing the Pope, the most anti-science pope in ages.

... and from National Catholic Reporter ...

"Since we live in a sound-bite culture, let's get straight to the bottom line: Benedict XVI is not a "creationist." He does not believe in a strictly literal reading of the Book of Genesis, nor has he ever made any reference to teaching "creation science" in schools. A member of the prestigious secular French Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques (inducted in 1993 along with then-Czech President Vaclav Havel as one of only twelve foreign nationals), Pope Benedict has no desire to launch a crusade against modern science.

Nor is Benedict XVI really an advocate of "intelligent design" in the American sense, since intelligent design theorists typically assert that data from biology and other empirical sciences, by itself, requires the hypothesis of a designer. Benedict may have some sympathy for this view; he has questioned the evidence for "macro-evolution," meaning the transition from one species to another on the basis of random mutation and natural selection. Ultimately, however, he sees this as a debate for scientists to resolve. His concern cuts deeper, to the modern tendency to convert evolution into "a universal theory concerning all reality" that excludes God, and therefore rationality, as the basis of existence. In contrast, Benedict insists upon the fundamental conviction of Christian faith: "In principio erat Verbum - at the beginning of all things stands the creative power of reason."

"

Stacy, I don't know what you mean by “Pseudo-Fundies." But, I do know that the Hebrew text in Genesis is highly poetic in style.

Within Christianity, there are many different opinions and interpretations of prophecies concerning the future. Even during the time of Jesus there were many different interpretations of prophecies related to the coming of the Messiah. The Genesis account of creation is like prophecy in reverse. There are bound to be different interpretations and opinions on how this symbolic and often highly poetic section is to be understood.

Whether the massive flood mentioned in Genesis is to be understood as a local or global in nature is a matter for historical and scientific research. The evangelical Christian site I referred you to by Hugh Ross, in addition to providing Biblical linguistic evidence for a local flood, gave several major scientific problems with the interpretation of a local flood:

"1.it contradicts a vast body of geological data;
2.it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark;
3.it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a smooth surface; and
4.it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global."

But, for the sake of argument, suppose the Hebrew words in Genesis were unequivocally meant to suggest a global planet wide flood had occurred in the days of Noah. Than there would indeed be a need for Christians to deal with the anomalies that Hugh Ross brings up. Perhaps Creation scientists, who believe in a global flood at the time of Noah, have dealt with these anomalies already in a credible manner with some sort of “unified field’ theory that takes into account the scientific evidence. To be honest, I have not read thoroughly read their arguments, so I really don’t know. However, I would be open to hearing a debate on the subject.

Stacy, you might have missed what I previously wrote. I pointed out how origins of life researcher, Leslie Orgel, once stated: “Anybody who thinks they know the solution to this problem [of the origin of life] is deluded.” However. he also stated, “but anybody who thinks this is an insoluble problem is also deluded.” Orgel’s belief that this is a not an "insoluble problem" is a faith statement that given enough time we can figure it out.

What Christians differ from one another is whether Orgel’s second statement is necessarily true - from our human vantage point. For example, if we can explain the likely origin of organic life through lab experiments, it will not refute Christianity.

Like I said, the evidence for Christianity is grounded in the testimonial accounts of the resurrection of Jesus; it is not grounded in whether we can’t reproduce the evolution of organic life in a laboratory. The creation account in Genesis can be interpreted in many different ways, including a possible Darwinian understanding. There is no conflict between science and the Christian faith.

Flint: David:

Well, the ‘indetectable micromanagement’ appears to be completely random, with the probabilities determined by quantum mechanics. So I conclude that the micromanagement is random.

I despair of communicating. To you, it LOOKS random. You can't prove me wrong by producing calculations, you know. If God determines the "random" pattern, how would you know? You are simply concluding your assumptions.

Stacy S. :

Jess: There is no contradiction between science and the Christian Bible.

I agree with you that there SHOULDN'T be a conflict, but there obviously is. Why do you think these "pseudo-fundies" are willing to bend the rules for some stories but not others?

I asked you your opinion before ... Finally, Christians argue among themselves whether the account of Noah and the flood was a local flood that wiped out the whole area, or whether it was a worldwide deluge.

I haven't met a "Pseudo Fundie" yet that still believes this story to be true. So why are they incapable of accepting evolution?

While science cannot absolutely disprove religion, it can sure suggest-- very, very strongly, mind you-- that religion is false.

@ Ric - I would say to those people (as I did to FL) that their faith must be very weak if they think that science threatens it.

@ Ric - I would say to those people (as I did to FL) that their faith must be very weak if they think that science threatens it.

A very tendentious statement, where both the question and the references are selected for effect. I'm not sure why the authors felt the argument had to be made, but I'm sure the book is weakened by not being neutral.

In analogy with the science discussed, more than "some religious beliefs" have been tested by facts and the corresponding religions either debunked or irrevocably changed in content.

No, if something is not subject to science, then it very well can’t be compatible with science. Compatible means they fit together, work together, cooperatively interact. People are compatible when they get along with one another. When two people must be kept in separate rooms at all times lest they tear each other’s heads off, then they are not compatible. That’s compartmentalization, and it is the opposite of compatibility.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: A very tendentious statement, where both the question and the references are selected for effect. I'm not sure why the authors felt the argument had to be made, but I'm sure the book is weakened by not being neutral. In analogy with the science discussed, more than "some religious beliefs" have been tested by facts and the corresponding religions either debunked or irrevocably changed in content.

FL - You have offended me so much. Do you happen to be clergy?

If it passes all tests for randomness, I’m entitled to call it random

Evolutionary theory does NOT say that the process is unguided by any gods. It says that IF there is such guidance, we are in principle incapable of detecting it.

Ric: While science cannot absolutely disprove religion, it can sure suggest-- very, very strongly, mind you-- that religion is false.

If it passes all tests for randomness, I’m entitled to call it random and view as irrelevant (to science) that it is actually a superbly clever pseudo-random number generator named GOD. :-) No, I am not concluding my assumption. I am concluding that the weight of the evidence confirms randomness, however ‘caused’.

What part [...] confused you.

Hey, I would sincerely like to hear what RK Harrison says about the evolutionist's specific "common ancestor" claim of human origins vis-a-vis the Bible's specific scriptural claims of God supernaturally creating humans (no ancestors) in his image. (The scriptures we discussed earlier).

Could someone provide his explanation for me? (I'd look it up myself but I don't have his textbook.)

FL

FL: On the other hand, it's time for Christians to make a choice. If Darwinism is your Bible, then a serious conflict exists with the real Bible, and its time to get your religion resolved one way or the other. The can't-serve-two-masters thing, as it were. FL :)

Flint OK, then I would say we have no disagreement at all. This was the central point, right? That faith should be irrelevant to science.

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), `That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

Where does the Bible make these claims?

And how do we take these claims to be literal or metaphorically?

Flint said: I would not say compatibility has anything to do with being complementary or in agreement.

In spite of the fact that the first definition in every dictionary I've ever seen is something like,
"Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others" (American Heritage Dictionary)

Compatible to me means, there is no conflict.

Have it mean whatever you like, just expect to have more semantic differences with people you're trying to talk to. A tree and a star are not in conflict but you have to change the meaning of the word to call them compatible.

F.L.

RK Harrison actually does not write about the evolutionist’s specific “common ancestor” claim of human origin. Rather, he leaves it as an open question by pointing out that the "Genesis narrative manifests examples of merismus (Gen. 3:5, 22; cf. Gen. 2:9)..."

After pointing out particular examples, Harrison writes: "the phases of development recorded in Genesis 1 are by no means as unaligned with the findings of modern science as was supposed by earlier writers on the subject."

The Genesis account states that "the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground." To me, especially in light of the poetic concept of merismus, it could be interpreted as a form of synecdoche for a broad teleological process related to the development of organic life into intelligent sentient creatures.

On the other hand, I admit, the Genesis text could also be interpreted in the truncated sense of Adam having no common ancestors. If the truncated interpretation is correct, than I could see why Creationists hold the standards of whether there is compelling evidence for transitional pre-human forms rather high. They would argue that extraordinary claims, that the Genesis account is in error, demands extraordinary evidence.

The extraordinary evidence is well in hand and gets more numerous by the day.

But the evidential burden is clearly misplaced there. The extraordinary claim is that a text --any text-- is without factual error. The literalist only has circular reasoning to support the claim so I think it's safe to say that the extraordinary evidence, if found, will be found in the next world. Funny how it's "the faithful" who seem unwilling to wait.

Zarquon,

Because we don't know the universe as a whole, we have no way of calculating the probabilities for or against particular events, so each event must be investigated ad hoc, without initial prejudice. To me it is a matter of suspending disbelief and checking out the evidence with the care demanded for events in general. We should attempt to formulate explanatory constructs that best fit the facts, and at the same time be willing always to accept facts even if our best attempts to explain them prove inadequate.

Why does biology in general, and evolution in particular, spark so much animosity in religious circles? Physicists know that quantum physics and relativity cannot both be correct, yet their cosmic battle is confined to hurling distant thunderbolts of string theory and quantum-loop gravity in arcane journals.

Of course, religions do make some specific claims that are subject to scientific testability. More deeply, however, recent evolutionary research is beginning to offer fundamental insights as to who we are, why we do what we do, and how we got here. In the past these questions have been the sole province of religion. Unfortunately, this deeper conflict will probably never go away.

In my opinion, science will ultimately “explain” religion. Curiously, this prospect does not seem to bother my own religious faith. But then I personally have always seen understanding as an aid to faith, not as an enemy.

You have not answered my comment about your Mark quote FL. If you drift even a tiny amount from a pure literal interpretation you clearly don't believe the Bible can only be interpretted literally at which point you'd have to use other tools to interpret it including science. So are you committed to the proposition that everytime someone is wed in a Christian marriage they physically fuse together to form one flesh?

We should attempt to formulate explanatory constructs that best fit the facts, and at the same time be willing always to accept facts even if our best attempts to explain them prove inadequate.

fl - your comment (140954 and again 140966) confuses me

" then a serious conflict exists with the real Bible"
which version is the 'real' one? the King James?, the Latin version that preceded it? Catholic? texts in Greek? or Hebrew? (what about if in Spanish? or Arabic?) can all of these all be THE real Bible?

also
"Literal. First, the Genesis creation account is straight historical narrative. There’s no “metaphor” or “allegory” language with the three specific Bible texts (historical claims) that I cited."

are other passages in the Bible metaphorical or allegorical? is there no poetic language at all? or is the question JGB keeps asking you about newlyweds just a translation (into English) error?

CJO write: "But the evidential burden is clearly misplaced there. The extraordinary claim is that a text –any text– is without factual error. The literalist only has circular reasoning to support the claim..."

No, it is not circular reasoning. If Jesus actually died and rose from the dead, than any claim that he makes concerning the reliability of the Hebrew prophets has important epistemic value. It is on this basis that the creation account in Genesis is accepted, by evangelical Christians, as reliable prophecy in reverse - so, to speak.

At any rate, the whole controversy is an "in house" Christian debate on what is called hermenuetics and how a highly poetic account in the first pages of Genesis should be best understood. There is no conflict between science and religion. As Francis Collins remarks:

"In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.”

Jess: At any rate, the whole controversy is an "in house" Christian debate on what is called hermenuetics and how a highly poetic account in the first pages of Genesis should be best understood. There is no conflict between science and religion. As Francis Collins remarks: "In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.”

Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.

I mean, you do must realize that FL is a person who believes that because of the sin of two humans, every bad thing in the Universe, from old age, predation, parasiticism pain, illness, and labor pains to decay, friction and entropy sprang forth.

So are you committed to the proposition that everytime someone is wed in a Christian marriage they physically fuse together to form one flesh?

"be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"

In other words, “science” (evolution) is allowed to dictate that a given biblical historical event within “God’s domain” (e.g. Adam and Eve, the global Noahic Flood, the Resurrection of Christ) never actually took place in Earth’s history. Invalid. Not real.

FL: And that's on top of the spiritual aspects. So, take it literally already. Literal is good. FL

FL:

I mean, you do must realize that FL is a person who believes that because of the sin of two humans, every bad thing in the Universe, from old age, predation, parasiticism pain, illness, and labor pains to decay, friction and entropy sprang forth.

That IS what the Bible (esp. Genesis and Romans) tells us, Stanton. Of course, your bible ("The Gospel According to EvoWiki") says differently. One must always make a choice in these matters.

FL - I'm glad you have identified yourself as a clergyman. Which "flavor" of Christianity are you? Also, would you mind answering the questions I posed to you earlier?

Did you know that JC himself established the CATHOLIC religion when he was 33 yrs. old?

Do you know that Catholics don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution?

Do you believe that the study of evolution will be able to disprove God?

Do you know that science has boundaries? Do you think that God has boundaries?

Is your faith that so weak that it is threatened by the study of science?

FL said: In other words, “science” (evolution) is allowed to dictate that a given biblical historical event ... never actually took place ...
(But religion is NOT allowed to return the favor vis-a-vis evolutionary historical claims.)

Not allowed? Who or what is stopping you? Please, favor us with the refutation of these "evolutionary historical claims" that you speak of.

harold said: IVORYGIRL - Read very slowly. Was that some kind of intellectual insult?

FL: Yes, I am indeed a clergyman. . . . On the other hand, it's time for Christians to make a choice. If Darwinism is your Bible, then a serious conflict exists with the real Bible, and its time to get your religion resolved one way or the other. The can't-serve-two-masters thing, as it were. FL :)

Re genealogy given in Luke:

I wonder if somebody should mention the one given in Matthew?

Henry

FL:

What, exactly, is a literal interpretation of the Bible? To begin, we do not have Jesus' words. The Gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus almost certainly did not speak Greek. At the very least, what you are reading is a translation of a translation. If you are using the King James version, you are reading a bad translation. If you feel that it is the best translation, then by all means produce the original Greek and the various translations, and demonstrate to us how the KJV is superior. Or for that matter the version you prefer. But that is sideshow.

The term "literal interpretation" is, if you actually look at the phrase, an oxymoron. All readings of the Bible are interpretation. Period. Sometimes someone will try to claim a "plain reading", but this merely tries to gloss over the problem by changing the word.

As long recognized in theology, texts can be read with various levels of "truth." For example, the story of the good Samaritan might have been true as an incident. But does it matter? In most people's opinion, no. The point is an allegorical meaning that Jesus is trying to convey. But then again, the parables of Jesus were taught in a cultural context which is unfamiliar to many today. So the meaning might change (and for some in fact does) depending on the intent and culture of the writer, the original audience, and the reader today.

To argue that 1 Genesis -- or any other portion of the Bible -- has no allegorical meaning is ludicrous and theologically bankrupt. In fact, I would argue that to emphasize the literal meaning is to actually cheapen the text. To even the most superficial scholar, the text of the Genesis account clearly conveys a message that God is independent of the material world, transcends the material world, and is not animated within the material world. In other words, God is omnipresent and omnipotent. He is not limited by the material world, and we don't go worshiping rocks and trees and streams etc. As for atonement philosophy, the text clearly states that there is a will of God, and that humanity rejects that will. These theological statements about the relationship of God to the world (God is not a tree etc.) and humanity to God are far more important than the literal truth of the text. Your personal inability to dissociate the allegorical truth of the text from the literal truth of the story is not our problem -- it is yours. Your teaching that the two are inextricably linked is bad theology, and in fact sets people up to loose their faith.

By arguing that the Bible can have no contradictions, and must be literally historically true, you paint yourself into a theological and philosophical corner. As stated by yourself above, and as clearly and unambiguously stated by, for example, Answers in Genesis, you are forced into the position of defining reality on the basis of your personal reading of the text, thereby making your faith contingent on your ability to explain away inconsistencies of the text with itself. To do so, you must de facto reject all evidence, no matter how clear and unambiguous, that might conflict with your internalized version of reality as defined not by the text, but by your reading and interpretation of the text. External to yourself, you now offer an argument to people -- reject science and evidence no matter how compelling, or reject faith in its entirety.

Sadly, the text makes real statements about the material world that are strictly speaking incorrect. You can deny it all you like, but centuries of Biblical scholarship have carefully documented the contradictions. This is why St. Augustine's words are so wise -- he focused on truth as a higher concept, knowing that people who say obviously stupid and factually incorrect things make a poor case for Christianity. If you teach your kids that the Bible must be true in all respects, and that scientific facts are lies, then you set them up to reject religion entirely when they find out that you were wrong. Perhaps the knowledge of this fact is why a preacher we had around here implored people to keep their kids out of school.

Science and religion are not in conflict, unless you deliberately place them so. I am sorry that your faith is so weak that you limit God to simple human words meant to convey an allegorical truth in a simple and straightforward manner. "When we were children, we thought as children." Some of us are terrified to grow up.

An excellent reference for the meaning of the Genesis account is "The meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science," by Conrad Hyers (John Knox Press, 1984) Hyers is Chairman of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota. (Not far from PZ. Heh heh.)

Genesis is 2 accounts, written several hundred years apart by urban exiles about 600 BCE (G1) and pastoral peoples much earlier (G2). The theological context was a hierarchy of gods that kept begetting other gods, until you got down to a god for earwax, another one for weasels, an so on. The purpose of G1 was to emphasize that there is but one God; the sun, moon, and the stars at night are not divine, but are natural objects. In that sense, one might almost say that Genesis enabled science as the study of inert objects rather than divine persons with arbitrary whims.

Science may not contradict or make commentary on religion as a whole. Yeah--some claim this from within the so-called "hard science." And I think this myself. But the problem is that is NOT the take from many prominent scientists and scribblers and social activists who claim to be working on our collective behalf:

Speaking of "you can't make a philosophy out of Darwinism" or "science has nothing to say about religion or religious claims denials, Clarence Darrow and HL Mencken certainly had the gaul to give it the old college try. Darrow spoke fondly, as does William Provine today and hosts of others, on the powerful and disarming legal consequences of Darwin's ideas. For his part Oliver Wendell Holmes ("a man has no more importance than a baboon") gave us this positivist notion of the law still in effect today and getting more powerful in that, like Dewey, he formulated the modernist notions from his understanding of Darwinian descent and what this means to human morals to take it that none of us is actually responsible for anything we do. Nothing. The law can merely restrain. There are no morals per se but social inputs and pragmatic outputs. But then that's the opposite of what religion thinks. Hmmm.

Atheists all: Stephen Weinberg, Sagan, E.O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, BF Skinner, Crick and Watson, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, Richard Rorty, Educrat John Dewey, Francis Fukuyama and of course my favorite piñata to hit, Richard Dawkins, have all made SOME kind of case from one degree or another about the "meaning" of evolution and the strange and even dire consequences for human morals and interaction. And of course they chimed in regularly to make sure we all understand (John Q. Public) that no God looks over us or has any intervention in human affairs. Eugenie Scott may claim what she likes in public forums but of course testifies she's not a believer either and openly mocks faith.

It is indeed bizarre that some would claim that so radical retelling of human descent would mean "nothing one way or the other". They sternly beg to differ, with William Dennett writing an entire book on the REAL meaning of such and that even some of Darwin's modern adherents are simply afraid to face the coarse music here and accept that all nonmaterial notions are just mush and gush and slush. This was the Hume position. The cat is already out of the bag on these guys. But still, the above quote is the more common feeling on this matter. And yes its true that William Provine now gets speaking fees touring college campuses with a projector highlighting things like "life therefore has no transcendent meaning." Others have had a more toned down approach to this, as with Sagan and Gould, who simply say that ethical input must come from "the human experience" and other encounters of pragmatism and compassion, etc.

This does NOT sound like a recipe for domestic tranquility.

In fact I know its not. Behold:

When Sam Harris and some others tour the nation and tell the kiddies and assure their parents that Darwinism means nothing one way or another. Period. Or that Darwinism, again per Harris, is "not a philosophy. It is not even a view of the world. It is simply an admission of the obvious noises that reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified beliefs", we know who's talking through the hat. Their other comments belie this claim. Sam Harris apparently goes to another page in the mind's eye and tells another group that belief in Christianity is like belief in slavery. In this amazing comparison he throws out, he says "I would be the first to admit that the prospects for eradicating religion in our time do not seem good. Still, the same could have been said about efforts to abolish slaver at the end of the eighteenth century." So for Harris, the non-philosopher, it seems some thought has gone into how to make Christianity as oppressive as the Antebellum South.

Elsewhere often one hears of organizations like the ACLU happily suing over God on coinage, the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing the Boy Scouts to have atheist troopmasters, and the like. But this is just droll to some. Did they remind you the backbone of this belief--err, disbelief, is darwinian thought? The real problem comes in when you have this combined with organizations that CLAIM to "merely" be defending "science." The National Science Foundation here in the States claims this, as do dozens of other outfits and tax exempt clubs that have "science" in the letterhead or local citizens councils (so they say) like the South Carolinians for Science Education, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and so forth. What is interesting, as pointed out by writers like Dinesh D'Souza, for example, is that in all this worry and froth over "failure to teach REAL science" in the public schools and how our schools are failing us and religious types get in the way of this, there is something mission. Actually several things. First, a look at just what certain kinds of science are showing results. Second, why are other nations making better use of their resources? Third, you NEVER hear in all this "science" jabber any such thing as a lawsuit to a public school about the meaning of tectonic plate movement, photosynthesis, or the ACLU getting upset over the mishandling of Boyle's Law or Issues in Entropy and meanings for the Universe. Yet ask a high school student about any of these or Einstein's famous equation and you'll likely get little response outside the science team. Yet no lawsuits. Two reasons, says Dinesh. One, education is not the actually goal here. And certainly little about science is what spills beer at the biology conventions. It IS ABOUT Darwinian evolution being taught.

ONLY----that aspect of science. Second, and more importantly, the issue is not so much inculcation of ideas even on this but a way to "mitigate" superstitious "belief" and "supposition", which is exactly how religion is seen by these Enlightenment wizards of public education advocacy. Thus for example, Richard Lewontin, science will establish itself as the only access to reality and source of Truth. All else is mush and gush. Says he "The objective of science education is NOT to provide the public with knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of. Rather, it is the problem of getting them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, science, as the only begetter of truth."

The issue is clear. For the defenders of Darwinism, no less than for the critics, religion, not education per se, is THE PROBLEM, to be overcome.

Paul Blanchard, Darwinian warrior long held in esteem as one of the "pioneers" of public education here in the US and a leading member of the Humanist's association, proudly boasts of education's accomplishment. Singular, it seems. Says he .."we might not be able to teach Johnny to read or write or count to 10, but we've got him for at least 16 years of his life in the (public schools) and that tends to mitigate against superstitious belief." John Dewey, famous educator, John Dunphy, Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes (who once said he saw no difference in the moral attributes of a human being versus a baboon), and Darwinian attorney who helped formulate "positive law" Clarence Darrow of the nonsensical circus Scopes Trial fame (which was also a setup and media fake, BTW), made similar statements up and down his career path of empathy for murderous predators and that fact that all morals are relative. And we don't mean your sister.

Richard Rorty also made similar noises and hopes, per him, that those "fundamentalist" kids entering into college could be turned around in opposition to what mom and dad thought at home and disdains this "quaint notion" that our kids are ours to teach. For Rorty, college will finish the job missed in high school in turning kids to his side of secularism: Rorty notes that students are fortunate to have had people like him around "under the benevolent "Herrshaft" of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents...we are going to go right on trying to discredit (the parents) in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable."

Helen Calderone, as well as Margaret Sanger in her day, (who was, like Peter Singer, big on infanticide and sterilization and sex as the noble path to human salvation) tells us that public education and specifically the ethics of new sex and other orgasmic discoveries (which she says the orgasm is the divine and ultimate goal of human development) asks "what kind of person are we to evolve" and proudly answers that the new "sexual human" should be forcible removed from the negative influences of parents and church and other "oppressions" that teach people to keep their pants zipped until marriage. For Calderone, orgasm is akin to a religious experience and is the prime directive and thus ultimate goal for the human race.

To achieve this, the public schools will be the force, the "anvil" on which (per Sanger), the "rotting corpse of Christianity will finally be crushed and swept away." Sanger's views on racism and euthanasia and eugenics are not often heard today. Nor her hatred of "unfit" classes of human "debris", nor her addiction to Demerol and her promiscuious sex life with multiple "voluntary partners", as she called them. Nor much about her committed Darwinian ethics that included removing undesirables from the earth including those who found comfort in spirituality and not just those of us not qualified to go to Cambridge or Harvard or had too many rugrats to feed at the tenement housing. But now that Planned Parenthood and other spin-offs and brainchilds she began or inspired are in full swing and teach the kiddies that cucumbers are just as good as real men, who cares? As you know by now Richard Dawkins takes no prisoners. In the UK it seems he's issued a set of DVDs called Growing Up in the Universe, based on his Royal Institution Lectures of children. The lectures promote (per one reviewer) "Dawkins secular and naturalistic PHILOSOPHY for life." Popular brain researcher and fellow Darwinian spear carrier Daniel Dennett picks up and urges that the schools finish the job by promoting the idea of religion as a purely materialistic brain phenomenon. Says Dennett, parents just need to step aside here. Privacy, legal norms, and freedoms we take for granted now are passé in the New Liberation: "some children are raised in such an ideological prison that they willingly become their own jailers...forbidding themselves any contact with the liberating ideas that might well change their minds....the fault lies with the parents who raised them. Parents don't literally own their children the way slave-owners once owned slaves, but rather are their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere."

Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey argued in a recent lecture that just as Amnesty International works to liberate political prisoners around the world, secular teachers and professors should work to free the kiddies from the "damaging influence" of their parents' religious instruction. "Parents have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways the personally choose; no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith."

Dawkins' notion of domestic tranquility and parental rights? Similar but more aggressive even than Rorty's:

" Isn't it always a form of child abuse (sic) to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?"

Noting that the Constitutional provisions of the freedom of religion and the privacy of the home and childrearing have upper limits he just can't tolerate, Dawkins follows up by adding that "how much do we regard children as being the 'property' of their parents? It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in ? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"

Strong language of the use of force. Not to be outdone (and guess who can match even this), Christopher Hitchens writes "How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?" One wonders if Hitchens might be a mite damaged in some degree or another. He concludes that "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the 'age of reason'(sic), we would be living in a quite different world."

I'm quite sure he's right. More than he knows. Noted biologist E.O. Wilson wants educators to make sure the kids know from here on out that the brain is the product of evolution only and that "free moral choice is an illusion......if religion....can be systematically analyzed and explained as a product of the brain's evolution, its power as an external source of morality will be gone forever." A prospect no doubt he finds exhilarating. Physicist Stephen Weinberg, popularly quoted favorably in many physics textbooks and covered for nifty quotes, says "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that......if scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."

There went all the claims to scientific neutrality. They just leaped (or more likely got knocked) out the window of the lab.

Carolyn Porco, a researcher at the Space Science Institute in Colorado, at a 2006 conference on science and religion said " We should let the success of the religious FORMULA guide us.....Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome and even comforting than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know"

In a "libertarian" magazine called Reason, Jonathan Rauch applauds a development he calls "apatheism" which he defines as a "disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's" Rauch argues that many self-proclaimed Christians today are really apatheists. It is not a lapse, he says, but rather "an achievement" worth a gold start and he hopes the entire culture will soon follow suit.

Dennet for his part does throw a bone to believers. A gnawed one. And a snide one at that.

He says that like other extinct ritual and culture now enshrined in museums or species confined to zoos now that their world has been bulldozed, religious people should have their churches removed OR turned into repositories--akin to zoos--for the amusement, entertainment and "enlightenment" of non-believers, the so-called BRIGHTS, the rational materialists who can "handle the world with science and not superstition." Note the word "amusement", and not "reverence" or "respect." On Cosmic Log, a site I visit once in a blue moon, one poster chimed in to say religion should be destroyed as it hinders embryonic research that could have saved his grandpa. Others mocked the "Christer types" who are "always getting in the way" and of course George Bush is the new incarnation of the Devil for not allowing forced Federal funding (though private is allowed) for stem cell research if using human zygotes. On and on it goes. The irony here is overwhelming and almost funny if not so dangerous. Dennet's bone (and bones of contention, for that matter) would be somewhat more meaningful if this were true honor of the great strides and respect showed to such that Christianity made to science and development from animism and primitivism to the modern world's encoding of law and justice and reason.

Who wants to place the odds on what kind of "science" the above crew who thinks the Constitution is a little passe' on kids rights and religion hail from?

mplavcan: All readings of the Bible are interpretation. Period.

@ FL:

I'm interested in your take on the differences between the Genesis 1 account and the Genesis 2 account. As far as I can tell one cannot hold to both literally - which one do you hold to? Or if your answer is both, how do you resolve the discrepancies?

One interesting point in a similar vein is that based on Genesis 1, the creation of Eve very much seems to be an ex nihilo event. Then, in Genesis 2, we find out that Eve was not created ex nihilo . The creation of Adam is a similar case: Genesis 1 apparently ex nihilo , Genesis 2, formed from dust.

Thus the "plain, literal reading" of Genesis 1 is shown up to be misleading by Genesis 2. How confident are you that your reading of the other creation events of Genesis 1 do not have more details behind them as well?

No Paul--this means that those things WITH four legs that have those habits are not to be eaten. All the items mentioned with four feet are prohibited. The paragraph unto itself about locusts and the others make no mention of this and are edible

Paul Burnett:

Exactly correct as far as it goes. There are things that are factually incorrect, and there are clear internal contradictions too. But even there you interpret. Does one assess the meaning of the text in terms of its factual validity, or does the text try to convey a meaning beyond the material description? I can write science fiction stories that convey "truth" in many ways. The factual truth of the descriptions in the text might be irrelevant. At issue here is that FL refuses to acknowledge that for the majority of Christians, "truth" in the Biblical texts is something other than the literal historical truth of every sentence. Ergo science as a way of knowing about the material world is not in conflict with many religious tenets.

Science may not contradict or make commentary on religion as a whole.

Yeah--some claim this from within the so-called "hard science." And I think this myself. But the problem is that is NOT the take from many prominent scientists and scribblers and social activists who claim to be working on our collective behalf:

Speaking of "you can't make a philosophy out of Darwinism" or "science has nothing to say about religion or religious claims denials", activist lawyer Clarence Darrow and the acerbic HL Mencken certainly had the gaul to give it the old college try. Darrow spoke fondly, as does William Provine today and hosts of others, on the powerful and disarming legal and anti-religious consequences of Darwin's ideas. For his part, Oliver Wendell Holmes ("a man has no more importance than a baboon") gave us this positivist notion of the law still in effect today and getting more powerful in that, like Dewey, he formulated the modernist notions from his understanding of Darwinian descent and what this means to human morals to take it that none of us is actually responsible for anything we do. Nothing. The law can merely restrain. There are no morals per se but social inputs and pragmatic outputs. But then that's the opposite of what religion thinks. Hmmm.

Atheists all: Stephen Weinberg, Sagan, E.O. Wilson, panda warrior Stephen Jay Gould, BF Skinner, Crick and Watson, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, Richard Rorty, Educrat John Dewey, Francis Fukuyama and of course my favorite piñata to hit, Richard Dawkins, have all made SOME kind of case from one degree or another about the "meaning" of evolution and the strange and even dire consequences for human morals and interaction. And of course they chimed in regularly to make sure we all understand (John Q. Public) that no God looks over us or has any intervention in human affairs. Eugenie Scott may claim what she likes in public forums but of course testifies she's not a believer either and openly mocks faith.

It is indeed bizarre that some would claim that so radical retelling of human descent would mean "nothing one way or the other." They sternly beg to differ, with William Dennett writing an entire book on the REAL meaning of such and that even some of Darwin's modern adherents are simply afraid to face the coarse music here and accept that all nonmaterial notions are just mush and gush and slush. This was the Hume position. The cat is already out of the bag on these guys. But still, the above quote is the more common feeling on this matter. And yes its true that William Provine now gets speaking fees touring college campuses with a projector highlighting things like "life therefore has no transcendent meaning." Others have had a more toned down approach to this, as with Sagan and Gould, who simply say that ethical input must come from "the human experience" and other encounters of pragmatism and compassion, etc.

This does NOT sound like a recipe for domestic tranquility.

In fact I know its not. Behold:

When Sam Harris and some others tour the nation and tell the kiddies and assure their parents that Darwinism means nothing one way or another. Period. Or that Darwinism, again per Harris, is "not a philosophy. It is not even a view of the world. It is simply an admission of the obvious noises that reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified beliefs", we know who's talking through the hat. Their other comments belie this claim. Sam Harris apparently goes to another page in the mind's eye and tells another group that belief in Christianity is like belief in slavery. In this amazing comparison he throws out, he says "I would be the first to admit that the prospects for eradicating religion in our time do not seem good. Still, the same could have been said about efforts to abolish slaver at the end of the eighteenth century." So for Harris, the non-philosopher, it seems some thought has gone into how to make Christianity as oppressive as the Antebellum South.

Elsewhere often one hears of organizations like the ACLU happily suing over God on coinage, the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing the Boy Scouts to have atheist troopmasters, and the like. But this is just droll to some. Did they remind you the backbone of this belief--err, disbelief, is darwinian thought? The real problem comes in when you have this combined with organizations that CLAIM to "merely" be defending "science." The National Science Foundation here in the States claims this, as do dozens of other outfits and tax exempt clubs that have "science" in the letterhead or local citizens councils (so they say) like the South Carolinians for Science Education, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and so forth. What is interesting, as pointed out by writers like Dinesh D'Souza, for example, is that in all this worry and froth over "failure to teach REAL science" in the public schools and how our schools are failing us and religious types get in the way of this, there is something mission. Actually several things. First, a look at just what certain kinds of science are showing results. Second, why are other nations making better use of their resources? Third, you NEVER hear in all this "science" jabber any such thing as a lawsuit to a public school about the meaning of tectonic plate movement, photosynthesis, or the ACLU getting upset over the mishandling of Boyle's Law or Issues in Entropy and meanings for the Universe. Yet ask a high school student about any of these or Einstein's famous equation and you'll likely get little response outside the science team. Yet no lawsuits. Two reasons, says Dinesh. One, education is not the actually goal here. And certainly little about science is what spills beer at the biology conventions. It IS ABOUT Darwinian evolution being taught.

ONLY that aspect of science. Second, and more importantly, the issue is not so much inculcation of ideas even on this but a way to "mitigate" superstitious "belief" and "supposition", which is exactly how religion is seen by these Enlightenment wizards of public education advocacy. Thus for example, Richard Lewontin, science will establish itself as the only access to reality and source of Truth. All else is mush and gush. Says he "The objective of science education is NOT to provide the public with knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of. Rather, it is the problem of getting them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, science, as the only begetter of truth."

The issue is clear. For the defenders of Darwinism, no less than for the critics, religion, not education per se, is THE PROBLEM, to be overcome.

Paul Blanchard, Darwinian warrior long held in esteem as one of the "pioneers" of public education here in the US and a leading member of the Humanist's association, proudly boasts of education's accomplishment. Singular, it seems. Says he .."we might not be able to teach Johnny to read or write or count to 10, but we've got him for at least 16 years of his life in the (public schools) and that tends to mitigate against superstitious belief." John Dewey, famous educator, John Dunphy, Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes (who once said he saw no difference in the moral attributes of a human being versus a baboon), and Darwinian attorney who helped formulate "positive law" Clarence Darrow of the nonsensical circus Scopes Trial fame (which was also a setup and media fake, BTW), made similar statements up and down his career path of empathy for murderous predators and that fact that all morals are relative. And we don't mean your sister.

Richard Rorty also made similar noises and hopes, per him, that those "fundamentalist" kids entering into college could be turned around in opposition to what mom and dad thought at home and disdains this "quaint notion" that our kids are ours to teach. For Rorty, college will finish the job missed in high school in turning kids to his side of secularism: Rorty notes that students are fortunate to have had people like him around "under the benevolent "Herrshaft" of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents...we are going to go right on trying to discredit (the parents) in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable."

Helen Calderone, as well as Margaret Sanger in her day, (who was, like Peter Singer, big on infanticide and sterilization and sex as the noble path to human salvation) tells us that public education and specifically the ethics of new sex and other orgasmic discoveries (which she says the orgasm is the divine and ultimate goal of human development) asks "what kind of person are we to evolve" and proudly answers that the new "sexual human" should be forcible removed from the negative influences of parents and church and other "oppressions" that teach people to keep their pants zipped until marriage. For Calderone, orgasm is akin to a religious experience and is the prime directive and thus ultimate goal for the human race.

To achieve this, the public schools will be the force, the "anvil" on which (per Sanger), the "rotting corpse of Christianity will finally be crushed and swept away." Sanger's views on racism and euthanasia and eugenics are not often heard today. Nor her hatred of "unfit" classes of human "debris", nor her addiction to Demerol and her promiscuious sex life with multiple "voluntary partners", as she called them. Nor much about her committed Darwinian ethics that included removing undesirables from the earth including those who found comfort in spirituality and not just those of us not qualified to go to Cambridge or Harvard or had too many rugrats to feed at the tenement housing. But now that Planned Parenthood and other spin-offs and brainchilds she began or inspired are in full swing and teach the kiddies that cucumbers are just as good as real men, who cares? As you know by now Richard Dawkins takes no prisoners. In the UK it seems he's issued a set of DVDs called Growing Up in the Universe, based on his Royal Institution Lectures of children. The lectures promote (per one reviewer) "Dawkins secular and naturalistic PHILOSOPHY for life." Popular brain researcher and fellow Darwinian spear carrier Daniel Dennett picks up and urges that the schools finish the job by promoting the idea of religion as a purely materialistic brain phenomenon. Says Dennett, parents just need to step aside here. Privacy, legal norms, and freedoms we take for granted now are passé in the New Liberation: "some children are raised in such an ideological prison that they willingly become their own jailers...forbidding themselves any contact with the liberating ideas that might well change their minds....the fault lies with the parents who raised them. Parents don't literally own their children the way slave-owners once owned slaves, but rather are their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere."

Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey argued in a recent lecture that just as Amnesty International works to liberate political prisoners around the world, secular teachers and professors should work to free the kiddies from the "damaging influence" of their parents' religious instruction. "Parents have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways the personally choose; no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith."

Dawkins' notion of domestic tranquility and parental rights? Similar but more aggressive even than Rorty's:

" Isn't it always a form of child abuse (sic) to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?"

Noting that the Constitutional provisions of the freedom of religion and the privacy of the home and childrearing have upper limits he just can't tolerate, Dawkins follows up by adding that "how much do we regard children as being the 'property' of their parents? It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in ? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"

Strong language of the use of force. Not to be outdone (and guess who can match even this), Christopher Hitchens writes "How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?" One wonders if Hitchens might be a mite damaged in some degree or another. He concludes that "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the 'age of reason'(sic), we would be living in a quite different world."

I'm quite sure he's right. More than he knows. Noted biologist E.O. Wilson wants educators to make sure the kids know from here on out that the brain is the product of evolution only and that "free moral choice is an illusion......if religion....can be systematically analyzed and explained as a product of the brain's evolution, its power as an external source of morality will be gone forever." A prospect no doubt he finds exhilarating. Physicist Stephen Weinberg, popularly quoted favorably in many physics textbooks and covered for nifty quotes, says "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that......if scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."

There went all the claims to scientific neutrality. They just leaped (or more likely got knocked) out the window of the lab.

Carolyn Porco, a researcher at the Space Science Institute in Colorado, at a 2006 conference on science and religion said "We should let the success of the religious FORMULA guide us.....Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome and even comforting than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know."

In a "libertarian" magazine called Reason, Jonathan Rauch applauds a development he calls "apatheism" which he defines as a "disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's" Rauch argues that many self-proclaimed Christians today are really apatheists. It is not a lapse, he says, but rather "an achievement" worth a gold start and he hopes the entire culture will soon follow suit.

Dennet for his part does throw a bone to believers. A gnawed one. And a snide one at that.

He says that like other extinct ritual and culture now enshrined in museums or species confined to zoos now that their world has been bulldozed, religious people should have their churches removed OR turned into repositories--akin to zoos--for the amusement, entertainment and "enlightenment" of non-believers, the so-called BRIGHTS, the rational materialists who can "handle the world with science and not superstition." Note the word "amusement", and not "reverence" or "respect." On Cosmic Log, a site I visit once in a blue moon, one poster chimed in to say religion should be destroyed as it hinders embryonic research that could have saved his grandpa. Others mocked the "Christer types" who are "always getting in the way" and of course George Bush is the new incarnation of the Devil for not allowing forced Federal funding (though private is allowed) for stem cell research if using human zygotes. On and on it goes. The irony here is overwhelming and almost funny if not so dangerous. Dennet's bone (and bones of contention, for that matter) would be somewhat more meaningful if this were true honor of the great strides and respect showed to such that Christianity made to science and development from animism and primitivism to the modern world's encoding of law and justice and reason.

Who wants to place the odds on what kind of "science" the above crew who thinks the Constitution is a little passe' on kids rights and religion hail from?

Paul of course context is KEY--and I agree that is what gets muffed many times. And I abhor this modernist notion that the Scriptures were ONLY written for us individually and last Wednesday. They were written in a general sense for all humanity according to the authors input as inspired but this does not mean we can chock a block it however we want. There is that now semi-famous quip about the young man who saw "Judas hung himself" and then went MERELY a few pages over where Christ was teaching and the passage then said "go ye therefore and do likewise"

And so it goes with many other kinds of contextless interpretation.

PVM writes about a global flood and also states: "As to the resurrection of Christ, I doubt that science can say much about it since the body went missing, so to speak...a much larger danger lies in insisting that these are truly historical events."

Did I understand you correctly, that you believe there is a danger in insisting that the resurrection of Jesus is an historical event? If so, that appears to be going beyond the intent of the NAS statement.

I don’t know about all the arguments pro and con for a global flood, but the testimonial accounts - as contained in the New Testament documents - indicate that the followers of Jesus claimed that they could touch him and feel him. They describe him as not having "flesh and blood," but as having "flesh and bones." This was a descriptive phrase used to describe something that was tangible, but not quite the same as a normal human body. They went out of their way to mention that it was not a ghost that they saw. Although, they do claim he came into a room even though the doors were locked. Because it was a unique non-analogous event in history, scientists have no way to examine what happened, other than to ponder the eyewitness accounts contained in the New Testament documents.

Like I said before, because we don’t know the universe as a whole, we have no way of calculating the probabilities for or against particular events, so each event must be investigated ad hoc, without initial prejudice. To me it is a matter of suspending disbelief and checking out the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus with the same care demanded for events in general.

There is no conflict between science and religion, it is simply a matter of faith and the heart. I happen to believe the claims of the followers of Jesus as being true. Others are free to believe differently. There is no compulsion in Christianity. Blaise Pascal writes about his experience with God: "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason."

If Christianity and all other religions are false, than I will die with no memories and no regret. However, if Christianity is true than I have everything to gain by putting my faith in God. What is the danger in that?

Paul, the Hebrews (even if the text is taken out of context for us or mishandled) understood, as do their scholars today, to mean you should be able to eat some bugs but no bats nor lizards.

And that is how the Orthodox among them would have it today.

Many things are mysterious, including the reasons behind dietary laws in some cases. But the reasons varied--some for health and sanitation and lifestyle of the creature.

This is not one of those cases.

--W

PS--not to put too fine on a point on this, but it appears most Asiatic lizards DO in point of fact have ...well...four feet. Bats have four limbs also.

The so called Glass Lizard is legless, but then they aren't in ancient Palestine either.

Wakefield Tolbert:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

FL writes:
"Once again, the evolutionary historical claim directly negates and contradicts the Biblical creation claim that God Himself created the first humans in his own image (as directly stated in Gen. 1:27.) Once again, the General Assembly’s claim is now directly refuted. Would you agree?"

I see this a lot from Xtian creato-babblers. Over the years,
remarks like this have provided some entertainment value for me.

So, FL.. About being created in "God's Image"...

Does God have a penis? I mean, I have one. And if I have one, then
according to you, God must have one.
And if God has a penis, does he need to pee? And
if God pees, what exactly does he pee? Does God need to drink?

Cuz if he doesn't drink, then I don't see why he needs to pee, and
if he doesn't need to pee, then I don't see why God has a penis.

Unless its to have sex with unsuspecting Jewish virgins.

Because it was a unique non-analogous event in history, scientists have no way to examine what happened, other than to ponder the eyewitness accounts contained in the New Testament documents.

If Genesis was written to be taken literally, then Genesis is wrong, and thus proof that it was not authored by an omniscient god.

The literalists deny that that the evidence is sufficient to prove Genesis is factually incorrect. They are deluded. The moderates deny that Genesis was written to be taken literally. They are credulous.

This entire thread is premised on the idea that the second bunch is preferable to the first bunch not because of the strength of their position or the persuasiveness of their arguments, but because they don't pose a direct threat to science.

I don't see why either position needs to be accommodated.

FL Yes, I am indeed a clergyman. On the other hand, it’s time for Christians to make a choice.

If Darwinism is your Bible, then a serious conflict exists with the real Bible, and its time to get your religion resolved one way or the other. The can’t-serve-two-masters thing, as it were.

Zarquon,

You might want to read the New Testament and take a close look at what others who were early followers of Jesus believed about these books. From the first books written in the church, we know that Mark wrote down what Peter saw and heard. It was also in John Mark's house that the first gathering of Jesus’ followers started. So, he most certainly would have been an eyewitness to many of the events. Luke researched a number eyewitness accounts and compiled them together in one account from the perspective of being a medical doctor. Matthew was one of the original disciples of Jesus and John was one as well. So, there is indeed an evidential status to the New Testament.

But, this issue is really irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say, that there is no conflict between science and the Christian faith. Although, FL may disagree, I believe that the Christian faith does not need to have “big gaps” in the transitional forms of evolution to establish its credibility, nor does it need to have evidence of a global deluge. The evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is abundant enough for people to have warrant for belief. Here are a couple of more Pascal quotes that I find helpful:

"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.”

“Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.”

“The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason”

FL: So, the General Assembly's claim is now directly refuted. What sayest thou? Are we agreed? FL

raven said: What happened to the Greek gods. We no longer believe that Apollo Helios drags the sun across the sky every day in a chariot.

And yet there is just as much evidence for the Greek gods or any other ancient gods as there is for the current Christian god. Why is it considered so much more advanced to think there is just a single god, Christian or Muslim, or whatever? They are all part and parcel of the same package with this monotheism business just being the current fashion.

Tomh writes: "And yet there is just as much evidence for the Greek gods or any other ancient gods as there is for the current Christian god."

Have you studied ancient Greek mythology and history? If so, to begin with, which manuscripts from the Greek period dealing with the ancient gods are better attested in classical antiquity than the New Testament documents?

Here is one more quote from Pascal:

“Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”

If so, to begin with, which manuscripts from the Greek period dealing with the ancient gods are better attested in classical antiquity than the New Testament documents?

First of all, the Genesis account says nothing about how old the universe is. It just says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth….” There is enough room in the first couple of verses to insert billions of years and a “big bang” if necessary.

Fair enough. I forgot about that - but science does say the human race is a lot older than 10000 years, which is a definate contradiction of the bible, thanks to its list of begats.

Secondly, how does science prove that there was no Adam and Eve? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we have not found the fossils of Adam and Eve does not mean that they did not exist.

Science says we descended from apelike ancestors. This is not absence of evidence, this is evidence of a contrary position. Also because of the list of begats, Adam and Eve should have lived around 6000 years ago, and there are countless examples of human remains that are way older than that.

Also, back in Bible times the people of that time believed the earth was spherical. The Greek writers often spoke of this. All they needed to do was look at ships sailing into the sunset, disappearing off the horizon and still be able to come back to tell about it. They were not stupid.

I totally agree. This is even worse because writers of the old testament were not greek, and did not know the earth was spherical, hence the fact the bible says the earth is flat in more than one place.

Finally, Christians argue among themselves whether the account of Noah and the flood was a local flood that wiped out the whole area, or whether it was a worldwide deluge. The Hebrew words could be interpreted in both ways.

Which is handy because it allows the bible to be reinterpreted in the face of science, which it has done, another example of the overlapping magesteria. I think we aer both in agreement that a lot of science/bible contradictions can be cured by reinterpreting the bible, but this smattering of examples we've gone through here is really just the tip of iceberg, and the bulk of the contradictions cannot be sidestepped without "reinterpreting" to the point that you arbitrarily write off chunks of the bible as allegorical stories. Once you get to that stage you have to ask yourself, what if jesus was an allegorical story? How credible is any of this book?

FL is clergy eh? Splains so much.
As the spokesperson for the 'teaching all sides' argument, we can all rest assured FL ends every sermon with, "on the other hand, everything I just said could all be silly superstition, the bible could be full of errors, heck it could all be just wishful thinking on the parts of some disgruntled jews, have a good night everyone!"
"Don't forget, Hindu friday tomorrow, study your vishnas...

We should ask the Florida Board of Education that, if it inserts language concerning "strengths and weaknesses" of any theory it should not be confined to evolution alone or science alone. We should also teach the strength and weaknesses of the historical evidence about whether or not Jesus actually existed and whether or not he was actually resurrected.

We should demand that they teach English Bible is actually a translation of a (latin) translation of a (greek) translation of a lost original that was not compiled until 200 years after the alleged death and alleged resurrection of the alleged person named Jesus.

Let us take the fight to civics and leave science alone.

Zarquon writes about comparing the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to evidence of the Greek gods: “It’s not the documents themselves that are important it’s the contents. The discovery of Troy by Schliemann gives the Homeric epics and their contents as much evidence…”

So, what are the multiple eyewitness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of a Greek god that you are thinking about?

James, Christians disagree on how the genealogies should be understood. There are clearly gaps in the genealogies and sometimes long periods of time are given in synecdoche forms in other Biblical genealogies. For example, Jesus is called the Son of David in one of Gospel. So, Christians can’t know for sure when Adam and Eve existed.

Sure, there are places where phenomenological imagery of a flat earth is used, much like today when we distribute flat maps of the world around us and use compass points of north, south, east and west – all without denying the earth is a sphere. Keep in mind that the word for “world” in Bible times was the same as the area that they live. For example, in the New Testament states that the “whole world was taxed” by the Roman Emperor. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever actually address the shape of the earth in a non ambiguous manner.

In the first century, Pliny the Elder in his book, “Natural History” claimed that everyone agrees on the spherical shape of the Earth. The early writers of the Greek Epistles, etc. had no problem with interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures in light of a belief in the spherical shape of the Earth. Otherwise, they would have written about it.

You also write about interpreting the flood of Noah as a massive regional deluge:

“Which is handy because it allows the bible to be reinterpreted in the face of science, which it has done, another example of the overlapping magesteria.”

No, the data points in Scripture are evaluated in light of science and new models of interpretation take that into account. The data of Scripture does not change; rather it is how we connect the dots in interpretive models that may change. The task of theology is not so much the expansion and introduction of new concepts, but rather the constant excising of foreign concepts.

The bottom line is that reasonable people, both Christian and not, understand that science and religion are seperate, but not exclusive fields of study. Several very well informed posters have expounded on that point above.

Unfortuneately, it is always the fringe elements in any debate that argue the loudest. It is clear to me that those who discount evolution as a process (sorry FL) are letting their faith get in the way of their reason. It is very possible to believe the Bible is 100% true without demanding that it be 100% of the truth. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve. In one account, that's all the details we get- in the second we get little more. There is no reason to believe that God didn't through in some "intermediate steps."

Likewise, those who think that science will ultimately destroy religion are similarly foolish. Religion is about faith. If I believe that God is omnipotent and that I am not, then God can create a world to appear however He wants. Just as religion can never be proven, it can also never be disproven. ID proponents scare scientists because some try to push ID as a science. It isn't- and I agree with those who wish to keep it out of science classrooms. But nothing in the ID doctrine goes against what we know about evolution. In fact, ID provides a compelling possible explanation for the problem of "irreducible complexity" and the wildly huge improbabilities of life being created in the first place. As a believer, the theory of ID makes perfect, logical sense. That doesn't make it science- it makes it a theory that combines what I believe with what I can verify through science.

The Bible should not (and cannot) be considered the only truth. Imagine how confusing the Genesis account would have seemed 2000 years ago if it included the Big Bang, Darwinistic evolution, quantum mechanics, natural selection, plate techtonics, the effect of plant life on creating a breathable atmosphere, the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, etc... The first chapter of Genesis would go on forever-- and no one would understand it. Besides, as others have pointed out, the Bible is not a science textbook. It was not meant to be. That doesn't make it any less important, or even prevent it from being taken literally (after all, I do belive that God created Adam and Eve).

As Jess (via Pascal) pointed out, religion is such that those who desire to believe can find good reason to, while those who wish not to believe can similiarly justify their position. My personal belief is that this is how God wants it. If I could definitively prove that God exists and the Bible is the truth, what choice would I (or anyone else) have but to believe? Such proof eliminates the need for faith and the key element of free will. How blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe?

But nothing in the ID doctrine goes against what we know about evolution.

An amazing statement, which is explained by the ignorance shown in the very next sentence.

In fact, ID provides a compelling possible explanation for the problem of “irreducible complexity” ...

Someone is still beating the dead “irreducible complexity” horse? Did the Dover trial teach you nothing?

Someone is still beating the dead “irreducible complexity” horse? Did the Dover trial teach you nothing?

But nothing in the ID doctrine goes against what we know about evolution. In fact, ID provides a compelling possible explanation for the problem of “irreducible complexity” and the wildly huge improbabilities of life being created in the first place.

As a believer, the theory of ID makes perfect, logical sense. That doesn’t make it science- it makes it a theory that combines what I believe with what I can verify through science.

Marcus Gioe: The bottom line is that reasonable people, both Christian and not, understand that science and religion are seperate, but not exclusive fields of study. Several very well informed posters have expounded on that point above. Unfortuneately, it is always the fringe elements in any debate that argue the loudest. It is clear to me that those who discount evolution as a process (sorry FL) are letting their faith get in the way of their reason. It is very possible to believe the Bible is 100% true without demanding that it be 100% of the truth. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve. In one account, that’s all the details we get- in the second we get little more. There is no reason to believe that God didn’t through in some “intermediate steps.” [. . .] As Jess (via Pascal) pointed out, religion is such that those who desire to believe can find good reason to, while those who wish not to believe can similiarly justify their position. My personal belief is that this is how God wants it. If I could definitively prove that God exists and the Bible is the truth, what choice would I (or anyone else) have but to believe? Such proof eliminates the need for faith and the key element of free will. How blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe?

CJO: As for IC and the perceived "wildly huge improbability" of abiogenesis, IC is not a great problem for standard evolutionary theory, which actually predicts that such structures will evolve, and not enough is known at this time to arrive at an estimate of the probability of life arising. There are some who believe that given the right conditions, the origin of life is an inevitable emergent process.

Not sure which "doctrine" you're talking about here. But, for instance, the published output of both Wm. Dembski and Michael Behe quite explicitly "goes against" evolutionary theory. You may be thinking of a position similar to what is called Theistic Evolution, of which Ken Miller and Francis Collins are proponents. "Finding Darwin's God" by Miller might be something you'd like to look into. Also, if you are this misinformed about what ID actually does and says, "Creationism's Trojan Horse," by Barbara Forrest, and "Why Intelligent Design Fails," by Taner Edis, would be worth a look. As for IC and the perceived "wildly huge improbability" of abiogenesis, IC is not a great problem for standard evolutionary theory, which actually predicts that such structures will evolve, and not enough is known at this time to arrive at an estimate of the probability of life arising. There are some who believe that given the right conditions, the origin of life is an inevitable emergent process.

A good scientist should be able to say “That’s an interesting theory. However, it’s not a scientific one. It’s not falsifiable, nor testable. Therefore, it is not science and should not be taught as such. But I don’t see any reason why it also couldn’t still be true. It’s simply not my job to figure that out.”

Al Moritz: "The issue of chirality, among others, has been touted by creationists as a "huge problem" for the concept of an origin of life by natural causes. Allegedly, only a miraculous intervention by God could have solved the problem. Yet the above findings are a typical example for why the "God-of-the-gaps" concept does not work: science rapidly closes the gaps that previously might have been thought to be reserved for miraculous intervention. This is exactly what should be expected if either the material world is all there is, or if the world was created by a God who, as primary cause, chose to create through secondary causes – precisely those natural causes that science studies. In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as "tinkerer" who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world. From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world." I prefer to believe in a God who performs miracles when he wants to, not when he has to. Al

Marcus,
Yes, what you describe is Theistic Evolution more than ID, which is "Creation Science" repackaged in a feeble attempt to misdirect the federal courts. Not being a theist, I do not subscribe, but it is not a problematic position for me. My only point of disagreement with what you say is in regards to, "Science gives us one explanation, religion another."

This calls for conflict. As I understand TE, it does not proffer "another explanation" as such. Rather it embraces evolution, as explicated by standard theory, and ascribes to it the status of "God's method" for producing the diversity of life on Earth. It was put to me like this one time: "God did it" does not add anything to a natural explanation. However, having a natural explanation doesn't mean God didn't do it.

Flint: I agree with you here, except that goddidit is NOT a "theory" in any sense of the word. It is an assertion of religious doctrine. And hopefully you understand that MAGIC is open-ended, and can be used to explain anything and everything while telling us absolutely nothing.

CJO: Marcus, Yes, what you describe is Theistic Evolution more than ID, which is "Creation Science" repackaged in a feeble attempt to misdirect the federal courts. Not being a theist, I do not subscribe, but it is not a problematic position for me. My only point of disagreement with what you say is in regards to, "Science gives us one explanation, religion another." This calls for conflict. As I understand TE, it does not proffer "another explanation" as such. Rather it embraces evolution, as explicated by standard theory, and ascribes to it the status of "God's method" for producing the diversity of life on Earth. It was put to me like this one time: "God did it" does not add anything to a natural explanation. However, having a natural explanation doesn't mean God didn't do it.

I have no interest in a holy war. However, it should be noted that in no cases has color preference led to oppression, wars or crusades. Many religious beliefs are not as benign as yours, and many religionists lament the fact that unbelievers and heretics are also free to make their own choices.

CJO: I have no interest in a holy war. However, it should be noted that in no cases has color preference led to oppression, wars or crusades. Many religious beliefs are not as benign as yours, and many religionists lament the fact that unbelievers and heretics are also free to make their own choices.

CJO: I have no interest in a holy war. However, it should be noted that in no cases has color preference led to oppression, wars or crusades. Many religious beliefs are not as benign as yours, and many religionists lament the fact that unbelievers and heretics are also free to make their own choices.

I’m more of a supporter of the theory that as we learn more and more about the world we live in (through science) it becomes clearer to me that such an amazing and complex world is more likely the work of a Creator than not. Again- it’s a matter of faith, and if you chose not to believe, it’s okay with me. Just don’t tell me I’m silly for believing.

Marcus Gioe: For a Christian to discount science is silly- but for a scientist to discount even the possibility of God (and therefore, ID) is also similarly ridiculous. A good scientist should be able to say "That's an interesting theory. However, it's not a scientific one. It's not falsifiable, nor testable. Therefore, it is not science and should not be taught as such. But I don't see any reason why it also couldn't still be true. It's simply not my job to figure that out."

Flint: So while I don't think you are silly to believe, I think you have not thought through the evidence for your belief. Amazing complexity is what we'd get WITHOUT any gods. It's a statistical inevitability, unless someone is tampering.

H. Humbert: It isn't the job of science to go out of its way to avoid offending you. It shouldn't have to lie and say "interesting theory" when it is no such thing. It's just your average, run-of-the-mill irrational superstition. Science is under no obligation to validate such magical thinking.

I never once demanded, or even asked, science to validate my “magical thinking.”

Marcus Gioe: Imagine we both are attempting to bake a pie. You have ingredients, and I have ingredients and directions. It is most likely that many of your attempts at making pie this way will be complete disasters. Eventually, however, by chance, you will create a pie that is exactly like the pie I made using directions. There would be no way for a third party to tell which pie was created by chance and which was created by design. All the evidence would look the same.

Marcus Gioe:

H. Humbert: It isn't the job of science to go out of its way to avoid offending you. It shouldn't have to lie and say "interesting theory" when it is no such thing. It's just your average, run-of-the-mill irrational superstition. Science is under no obligation to validate such magical thinking.

I never once demanded, or even asked, science to validate my "magical thinking." I simply am attempting to point out that science, by design, cannot invalidate such thinking. Any person who thinks science can prove that God does not exist is not a very good scientist. (Likewise, any religious believer who thinks that religion can supersede science is similarly deceived.) To accuse a person of lacking sense because they hold an understanding of what science can and cannot prove is childish and laughable. I appreciate those (CJO and others) who can disagree with my religious beliefs while still demonstrating understanding and maturity. I pity those who have the mistaken impression that a person cannot be both intelligent and Christian.

Marcus Gioe said: Any person who thinks science can prove that God does not exist is not a very good scientist.

Can you point out any scientist who has ever said such a thing? That they can "prove that God does not exist." Not likely. Just another creationist strawman.

Science can and does disprove religion we just have not gotten over those religious qualms about it. The theists are only saying it does prove nothing because they are afraid of what science has done to religion. Nothing in the bible actually happened and nothing ever will it is just impossible. Look the truth is that science always tells the truth and what does religion always do? I will tell you it always feeds you nothing but a bunch of bullshit.

Al Moritz:

Marcus Gioe: Imagine we both are attempting to bake a pie. You have ingredients, and I have ingredients and directions. It is most likely that many of your attempts at making pie this way will be complete disasters. Eventually, however, by chance, you will create a pie that is exactly like the pie I made using directions. There would be no way for a third party to tell which pie was created by chance and which was created by design. All the evidence would look the same.

I guess that quite well characterizes the debate of single, designed universe vs. random multiverse without a designer. If the laws of nature can shuffle randomly in a multiverse of trillions of trillions of universes (which are all in different space-time domains than ours and thus in principle unobservable by us) then it would be no surprise that one of the universes has observers that ponder the amazing laws of nature in their particular universe that made their existence possible. I personally find the designer theory more credible.

H. Humbert: You asked that it be respected and labeled "interesting." Even those paltry accolades are far beyond what your religious beliefs deserve. I trust that you are capable of understanding that.

PvM: For clarity sake you should add any person who thinks science can prove that God exists is not a very good scientist.

PvM: Is the concept of a designer theory not a contradiction in terms? What exactly does this theory state, predict, describe? Perhaps what you meant to say is that you have accepted personally by faith that there exists a designer?

PVM- Agreed. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.

tomh- The sentence you quote was a response to H. Humbert's attack on my statement that scientists should not be bothered by religion, assuming that the religious beliefs in question don't violate scientific principles. The fact that no real scientist would attempt to prove that God does/does not exist is exactly my point. The idea is that when H. Humbert dismissed the possibility of God existing, he was not doing so from a scientific standpoint. A statement, either for or against the existance of God, is not science. It is religious.

John Wright- I'm sorry you feel that way. I'd discuss your concerns separately, if you'd like, but I don't think your statements are really the topic of this thread.

PvM (again)- At this point, that's kind of seimantics, isn't it? But yes, I would argue that what Al is saying is that he (and I) believe by faith that there is a Designer.

Al Moritz:

PvM: Is the concept of a designer theory not a contradiction in terms? What exactly does this theory state, predict, describe? Perhaps what you meant to say is that you have accepted personally by faith that there exists a designer?

I did not mean the concept of designer to be a scientific theory, which should have been obvious from the context. I used the term "theory" in the loose, everyday sense.

PvM: Exactly why one has to be careful in educating people about the scientific meaning of the word theory. [. . .] Given the confusion the term theory causes, using 'fundamental concept' seems quite accurate.

Marcus Gioe: Your continued attacks on religion are missing the point of the discussion. It is not a question of if God exists- clearly, I think He does and you disagree. The discussion at hand is about the ability of science to disprove His existance. And on that point, good scientists and I are in complete agreement- science cannot disprove religion.

Imagine we both are attempting to bake a pie.

PvM said: For clarity sake you should add any person who thinks science can prove that God exists is not a very good scientist.

And yet the possibility of this does exist whereas the possibility of disproving does not. Any number of proofs could come to light including the possibility that this god you speak of could show itself. That would be proof indeed.

H. Humbert:

Of course science doesn't "disprove" the existence of god, but how that's supposed to be a comforting idea is beyond me. There are an infinite number of bad ideas which science cannot disprove, whether because they are so ill-conceived or disconnected from reality to be untestable in principal or some other fatal flaw. So whether science can "disprove" a particular proposition is a terrible standard by which to make a judgment, since science doesn't rule anything out. It rules things in. And since science can't rule your god in *ever*, by your own admission, it is doomed to the scrap heap with all the other bad, failed ideas which science will never totally disprove. Cling to that precarious ledge if you must, but be sure to duck as the teapot in orbit around Pluto whizzes past your head.

So I take it that you prescribe to the belief that science explains everything and that anything that it doesn't (or can't) explain is complete rubbish. As Al Moritz pointed out previously, this attitude completely eliminates philosphy. It also makes it impossible to answer questions like "why are we here?" or more important "scientific" questions like "If everything came from the Big Bang, where did the stuff to make the Big Bang come from?" We live in a world where science does not and cannot provide all the answers. That doesn't make science bad or useless. It's just important to point out that science does have its limitations. It's also important to note that religion is the one thing that science can never even partially disprove. By definition, religion deals with those things that science cannot- the immaterial vice the material. Any belief that deals with this "realm" is a religion, and cannot be proved or disproved by science. All other seemingly ridiculous claims (the moon is made of cheese, unicorns exist, etc...) are claims of a different sort- claims that can be disproven or at least have cases built against them. As for teapots orbiting Pluto, I'm not too worried. Scientifically, I know that the odds of an object the size of a teapot breaking orbit around Pluto, intersecting Earth's orbit, surviving re-entry into our atmosphere (assuming said teapot was earth-made and at one point exited our atmosphere) and then whizzing past my head are pretty small.

Martin M --- Yes, but in this particular case, Ockham's Razor comes down on the side of no explanation at all! For there is nothing testable regarding anything outside the merely observable universe.

The only hope I see for such fundamental physics is the emergence of laws, a theory if you will, which is so compellingly beautiful that it is simply taken as the preferred one on aesthetic grounds.

Perhaps future generations will be able to articulate further aspects of the scientific method to properly treat some difficult questions in a way that provides reliable information. I don't see anything on the near horizon...

tomh: PvM said: For clarity sake you should add any person who thinks science can prove that God exists is not a very good scientist. And yet the possibility of this does exist whereas the possibility of disproving does not. Any number of proofs could come to light including the possibility that this god you speak of could show itself. That would be proof indeed.

And since science can’t rule your god in *ever*, by your own admission, it is doomed to the scrap heap with all the other bad, failed ideas which science will never totally disprove.

— Humbert

H.Humbert-

Actually, religion varies from all other "bad, failed ideas" in that it can never even be partially disproved. Other "bad ideas"- the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, Santa Claus exists, etc... these are all things that we can at least partially disprove. Religion requires faith- that's the whole point. I understand that you don't get it (and/or don't want to) but the entire point of the original posting and all the following discussion is that science requires proof and religion requires faith. If you demand to judge religion with science's standards, I would agree that the results do not make sense. From a religious standpoint, this makes sense. I believe that God created me with free will so that I could choose to love Him. If He created a world where it was clear that He was in control, it eliminates the need for free will and choice as now there is no need for faith. But this is a philisophical arguement, not a scientific one. Science has nothing to say on the subject of religion.

As for teapots oribiting Pluto, I'm not too worried. I doubt they'd survive re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, and even if they did, they'd be just as likely to whiz past your head as compared to mine.

MartinM:

Imagine we both are attempting to bake a pie.

Ah, but what if I don't like pie?

I would counter that the odds are so stacked against anything other than total randomness that amazing complexity seems pretty divine.

Flint-

A valid arguement, but you are missing the point. I agree, that given enough time, you will eventually make a very fine pie. Assuming that you have sufficient knowledge in baking, you may even make that pie using the iterative process you describe. But my point was that once your pie is made, you can't tell it apart from my pie.

Obviously, it is possible for the universe to exist without God- as mentioned earlier, if God was so heavy-handed as to make his presence so obvious to everyone, it kind of defeats the purpose of free will, faith, etc... The point is that since the universe already exists and we are already in it, it is impossible for us to use science to deduce how the universe was created. The universe is exactly what we would expect to see if no one was meddling- but it is also exactly what we would expect to see if someone was. God (if he exists) doesn't have to leave fingerprints- that's what makes Him God.

I'm not trying to argue that science proves the existence of God, or even that sicence shows that the existence of God is likely. I'm arguing that we are stuck inside our pie, and there is no way of us knowing how it got baked.

Marcus Gioe: If you demand to judge religion with science's standards, I would agree that the results do not make sense.

From a religious standpoint, this makes sense.

But this is a philisophical arguement, not a scientific one. Science has nothing to say on the subject of religion.

H. Humbert: Good. At least we agree on this much. However, you're missing the conclusion that science's standards are the only valid standards by which anything concerning external reality may be judged. Science is *it*.

The entire purpose of science is to dispense with faith.

Actually, the purpose of science is to replace uncertainty with certainty. Faith and certainty are completely different.

Marcus Gioe: Agreed. The problem is that- like I mentioned in other posts- we are "stuck inside the pie" so to speak. So since we can't use the standards of science to judge something (the creation of the universe) that we cannot observe, then science is ill-suited to make any judgement about how the universe was created.

Therefore, any belief about how the universe came about is a faith-based belief, not a science-based one.

Bill Gascoyne:

Actually, the purpose of science is to replace uncertainty with certainty. Faith and certainty are completely different.

WHAT!!??! You've seemed more or less reasonable until now. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with certainty. In fact, the scientific method could not operate in the face of certainty. Everything in science is open to question and testing; in other words, it is uncertain and needs continuous verification. Faith, OTOH, is the path to (internal mental) certainty. Having faith means NOT questioning.

H. Humbert said:
"However, you’re missing the conclusion that science’s standards are the only valid standards by which anything concerning external reality may be judged. Science is *it*."

This is a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one. And I don't share it. I might agree if you would put "observable material" in front of "external reality".

Also, since scientific observation cannot extend beyond the visible and the particle horizon of the universe, the ultimate origins of the universe cannot be probed by science, e.g. whether the Big Bang came out of the background of a wider material reality.

Thus, an atheistic view that the universe had a naturalistic origin, is necessarily a philosophical conclusion - a naturalistic explanation is *not* automatically a scientific explanation.

Atheism may be an extrapolation from scientific observation, but this extrapolation in itself is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

Atheism is ultimately without scientific evidence, just like theism. Yes, atheism is compatible with the scientific data, but so is non-fundamentalist theism. I have no problem with an atheistic world view, but please don't pretend that it's "scientific" rather than philosophical. If you do, you have understood neither science nor philosophy very well.

Again, a naturalistic explanation is *not* automatically a scientific explanation.

Al

Marcus Gioe said: Science cannot prove how the universe was created.

tomh:

Marcus Gioe said: Science cannot prove how the universe was created.

Such certainty. Two hundred years ago you would have had complete faith that science would never prove what goes on inside the sun. Or what stars are made of. Or a myriad of other things that science has proved beyond any reasonable doubt. In another two hundred or two thousand or twenty thousand years, who knows what science will prove. It may very well pin down the exact origins of the universe. Your certainty, or "faith" if you prefer, is really quite funny.

Marcus Gioe: It's not a matter of what science does or does not know (or will or will not know), it's a matter of what science can and cannot knows.

H. Humbert - Once again, I'm not claiming that religion has "special access" to anything. I'm simply pointing out that when it comes to certain questions (i.e. the orgin of the universe) strict science *cannot* provide a valid explanation. Therefore, even if you believe that my particular religious beliefs fall under the category of "any-fool-thing-you-can-dream-up," no other expanation that we as humans can provide is any better (or worse). All explanations fall equally in the scientifically unprovable category. Therefore, the question of the origin of the universe is, as Al pointed out, a philosophical one, not a scentific one. As I mentioned before, Al Moritz's latest post explains this point quite eloquently.

In other words, "It's turtles all the way down."

Marcus writes: "You could perfectly explain every aspect of how life got from nothing to me, and it still would not invalidate the theory of intelligent design."

I think that is a good point. I once heard William Dembski argue that intelligent design does not necessarily negate the possibiliy of layered causality. If I understand him correctly, such a view of layered causality would mean that we can discover the science behind how organic life began on the earth. So, there appears to me to be a couple of different views on intelligent design. One view, first popularized by Charles Thaxton (?), makes intelligent design an inference based upon our lack of finding scientific explanations for the origin of organic life, while another view allows for layered forms of causality to be discovered and factored in - but, by doing so, makes a philosophical appeal that a logical inference can be made that points to an ultimate outside causation.

H. Humbert writes: “Science has everything to say on the subject of religion. Science is applied skepticism...The entire purpose of science is to dispense with faith.”

Augustine had a definition of miracle as something that which is “not contrary to nature, but contrary to what is known as nature.” The English word miracle derives from a Latin word miraculum, which is related to a verb miror, “I am amazed.”

An example of a miracle might be the parting of the Red Sea. According to the Bible, was caused by a “strong east wind” blowing all night (Exodus 14:21). The event is a providential ordering of natural causes for the benefit of the people of God. A bunch of scientists at that time could have studied climatology and come up with a reasonable explanation for how it happened, but it would still be considered a providential miracle by people of faith. So, there is no conflict between science and religion when it comes to making inferences on what is miraculous. In the Bible miracles are defined by the phrase “signs and wonders.” To me the phrase “wonder” has a certain ambiguity contained in it. For example, if I were hanging out with Moses during the paring of the Red Sea I would be thinking, “I wonder if that was coincidence or not?” Did he know that there was going to be a wind storm? While another thought would be, “It must be a sign from God.” Once again, I think Blaise Pascal had it right: “In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.”

Jess- a caveat- given the choice, I would change the words "intelligent design" in my quote to "theistic evolution." We had the discussion further up in the post that TE is a narrower and less controversial explanation of what I was trying to convey than is ID, which is much harder to defend when separating science and religion.

Marcus Gioe said: Somehow, you know exactly what I would have believed without even asking me.

As Al explains ... the ultimate origins of the universe cannot be probed by science

tomh:

Marcus Gioe said: Science cannot prove how the universe was created.

Such certainty. Two hundred years ago you would have had complete faith that science would never prove what goes on inside the sun. Or what stars are made of. Or a myriad of other things that science has proved beyond any reasonable doubt. In another two hundred or two thousand or twenty thousand years, who knows what science will prove. It may very well pin down the exact origins of the universe. Your certainty, or "faith" if you prefer, is really quite funny.

tomh: As Al explains ... the ultimate origins of the universe cannot be probed by science

The old truism is amply demonstrated here, that logic and reason don't work on religious believers, otherwise there wouldn't be any religious believers. You have a pleasant facade of reasonableness, but in the end you're just another creationist time waster.

Marcus I think science has a lot more to say about a great many things than you are willing to give it credit for.
Just because science hasn't filled in every little detail does not mean the details we have should be considered on par with any old idea, religious or otherwise. Some things can be more correct than others, to say otherwise is just silly.

For example, the origin of the universe. You are aware that we did not even know there were other galaxies beyond the milky way until some 80 years ago? Religious faith has nothing to say about this. Science does. Hey look, an expanding universe, maybe the universe isn't static after all... perhaps it has a beginning, an origin, hmmm all the galaxies are traveling rapidly away from each other, its all very sciency. And very illuminating. Study further we shall...

What's that over there squirming in the corner? That's religion trying to reconcile with the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around it.

Science can provide answers that carry more validity than any religious or philosophical position, in science an expanding universe means something, its one of those 'paradigm shifts' that ID keeps hoping for.
But for religion, why look for evidence in a universe allegedly built on faith? Seems contradictory to me.

No science cannot disprove religion, but where religion attempts to make assertions that intrude into the realm of science, then religion risks its own integrity. Especially religion in denial.

Also, ultimately, science revels in one idea or another being proved wrong, that 'potential' is what makes science flourish. Religion not so much. In fact it's a show-stopper.

Science has flexibility, it changes, religion has dogma. And faith. Although the anti-evos would insist the truth is the other way around.

MDPotter: For example, the origin of the universe. You are aware that we did not even know there were other galaxies beyond the milky way until some 80 years ago? Religious faith has nothing to say about this. Science does. Hey look, an expanding universe, maybe the universe isn't static after all... perhaps it has a beginning, an origin, hmmm all the galaxies are traveling rapidly away from each other, its all very sciency. And very illuminating. Study further we shall...

What's that over there squirming in the corner? That's religion trying to reconcile with the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around it.

When contemplating the origin of the universe, let's not confuse "universe" with the "space-time that we live in". If there's more stuff outside this space-time, then that stuff is part of the universe as well.

Henry

Science has not shown that there is more stuff outside our own space-time. Until it does, "the universe" remains a valid scientific term for "our space-time".

This is about atheists now? I thought it was about science using evidence to provide more or less validity to one idea or another. That a religious person makes philosophical observations that may or may not be born out by later scientific discoveries only means they are coincidentally correct or incorrect. If scientists had discovered the universe to be static then that is where the paradigm would shift, and a theologian off to the sidelines saying 'told you so' means nothing.

Martin M — Yes, but in this particular case, Ockham’s Razor comes down on the side of no explanation at all! For there is nothing testable regarding anything outside the merely observable universe.

I hope you are a teacher. If not - you ought to be :-)

MDPotter: This is about atheists now?

Al Moritz: Science has not shown that there is more stuff outside our own space-time. Until it does, "the universe" remains a valid scientific term for "our space-time".

I’m arguing that we are stuck inside our pie, and there is no way of us knowing how it got baked.

Also, since scientific observation cannot extend beyond the visible and the particle horizon of the universe, the ultimate origins of the universe cannot be probed by science, e.g. whether the Big Bang came out of the background of a wider material reality.

Also in the current standard Big Bang cosmology time still did have a beginning.

Henry J:

Al Moritz: Science has not shown that there is more stuff outside our own space-time. Until it does, "the universe" remains a valid scientific term for "our space-time".

No, it doesn't. That would be conflating the two concepts merely because we can't distinguish them at this point, and doing that can cause confusion that can be avoiding by not confusing the two concepts. Henry

MartinM:

Also in the current standard Big Bang cosmology time still did have a beginning.

But nobody actually believes the standard Big Bang model.

Al Moritz: Then please show me the percentage of scientific literature in high-level journals that does not vs. the one that does use of the term "universe" in the "old-fashioned" way.

Henry J:

Al Moritz: Then please show me the percentage of scientific literature in high-level journals that does not vs. the one that does use of the term "universe" in the "old-fashioned" way.

Yeah, I know that lots of people, including scientists, use "universe" to mean this space-time instead of the literal meaning of the word "universe" ("all that is"). My point was that this usage leads to confusing "creation of this space-time" with "creation of the universe", when they might or might not be the same thing. Henry

MartinM: But particle horizons move.

But if on one hand we have a physical process which could in principle produce cherry pies, and on the other hand we have a chef capable of making any kind of pie under the sun, the observation that we find ourselves inside a cherry pie strongly favours the former.

Marcus wrote: And what’s on the other side of the particle horizon, moving or not? I tell you man, it’s turtles all the way down! (infinite regression) My personal belief is that you can solve the infinite regression paradox by coming to terms with an omnipotent/omnipresent creator, which you can in turn justify using Aristole’s theory that there are things which just “are” and do not require justification. Again, though- that’s a philosophy/religion- definitely not science.

J. Biggs: I want to preface my statement by saying I really have no desire to undermine anybody's faith or lack there of. However, Marcus, your belief in a omnipotent/omnipresent creator in no way solves the infinite regression problem. Sure now we have a hypothetical first cause for our space time, but we have now shifted our infinite regression onto an unobservable God. What was the first cause for God? Is there a God that created God creator of our universe, and so on? So you see, you can say its turtles all the way down or Gods all the way down but infinite regression remains a problem either way. Also, Aristotle's view's could also be just as easily used to justify philosophical naturalism.

My personal belief is that you can solve the infinite regression paradox by coming to terms with an omnipotent/omnipresent creator, which you can in turn justify using Aristole’s theory that there are things which just “are” and do not require justification.

fnxtr: Again, parsimony asks, why not just apply "it just is" to the universe itself? Why take it back an extra step to a creator? As you say, a philosophical argument.

Different suggested sources of the observable universe include:

Big Crunch lead to Big Bang;

Quantum virtual vacuum energy became actual;

This is a black hole interior;

...

There are many of these in the cosmology section of arXiv. Last time I looked (about 3 years ago) none seem to have then led to testable (i.e., observable) consequences which would tend to confirm or disconfirm one or the other of the ideas. So long as this situation obtains, these all remain mere speculation, not yet rising to the status of hypothesis.

Marcus Gioe, The key point I was trying to make is that science cannot solve the riddle of irreducible complexity.

My personal belief is that you can solve the infinite regression paradox by coming to terms with an omnipotent/omnipresent creator,

The key point I was trying to make is that science cannot solve the riddle of irreducible complexity.

Marcus Gioe The key point I was trying to make is that science cannot solve the riddle of irreducible complexity.

MartinM: But if on one hand we have a physical process which could in principle produce cherry pies, and on the other hand we have a chef capable of making any kind of pie under the sun, the observation that we find ourselves inside a cherry pie strongly favours the former.

Robin: It is therefore logical to conclude that our current pie is merely the arrangement that came up, not because there's any truth to the stories found from 5000 - 2000 years ago.

Marcus Gioe: How that cherry pie came to be is not a question that we can answer-

Cosmologists and theoretical physicists are still working. It may be that a properly done "theory of everything" will establish that the universe, in some form or other, has existed forever. Or something else. See my previous post on these matters. You simply cannot rule out future advances...

Marcus Gioe: But I can (and do) understand the limits of science. A theory of everything may in fact arise, and it may appear to fit all observable data. Nevertheless, we cannot scientifically draw conclusions about the creation of the pie. ... you are well outside of what science can prove. To take one unconvential example, let's assume that we eventually develop a theory that shows the universe "just is" and has been around forever. So now we have a thing (the universe) that operates outside our understandings of time, matter, and energy... Moreover, it's not a theory one can prove. Scientifically speaking, everything has to come from something. Scientifically, you cannot understand a system from within that same system. ... but true scientific proof is impossible. Any question science answers definitely ...

David B. Benson: If it appears to fit the observable data (together with certain internal principles) much better than another hypothesis, by Bayesian reasoning (inductive logic) we may conclude that the theory of everything is confirmed as opposed to an alternate hypothesis, which is disconfirmed.

I can't believe there are still people who consider "magic man dunnit" a serious philosophical argument.

H. Humbert: I can't believe there are still people who consider "magic man dunnit" a serious philosophical argument.

And what’s on the other side of the particle horizon, moving or not?

MartinM:

And what's on the other side of the particle horizon, moving or not?

Well, it seems to me that there are two possible answers to that question. 1) more pie like ours, or 2) not. Now, you can of course reject assumption 1) - but then you have to reject the fine tuning argument as well. One can't really be amazed to find cherries if one proposes non-cheriness beyond the horizon. The entertaining thing about multiverse models is what they tell us about the conditions of the pie beyond our cherry horizon. You'd be forgiven for thinking that multiverse models are based on case 2), but in fact they're based on case 1) - the pie beyond obeys the same laws as the pie here. But what those models tell us is that those laws don't - in fact, can't - result in cherry pie everywhere. Rather, somewhere beyond our horizon lies a region of lemon pie, somewhere else there's apple, some lucky gits have banoffee. But cherry pie is what we need to survive, so cherry pie is all we could possibly see.

In short, as long as there are physical models which predict what we observe, theistic models can only succeed by mimicry. It's no different to proposing that angels push the planets around in their orbits. To compete with the theory of gravity, we could simply insist that the angels really like Kepler's laws. But that fails on parsimony grounds.

MartinM: In short, as long as there are physical models which predict what we observe, theistic models can only succeed by mimicry. It's no different to proposing that angels push the planets around in their orbits. To compete with the theory of gravity, we could simply insist that the angels really like Kepler's laws. But that fails on parsimony grounds. And that is why theistic models are always inferior to physical ones.

In my previous post,

...wins on the level of parsimony “because it stays in the realm of physics”.

should have read:
...wins on the level of parsimony “because it stays in the realm of physics” and thus does not need to introduce new unknown entities.

Infinite regression is not a puzzle, it's just a possibility. I have a hard time understanding the attitude that "It can't just go on forever!". Why not? Because we can't explain it (yet)? That has a familiar ring to it.

Marcus Gioe: Ahh.. but by what logic do you measure how much "better" your hypothesis fits the observable data?

David B. Benson: We were considering a hypothetical TOE in which the universe has existed forever: Big Crunch leads to Big Bang. If properly devised, it might be explanatory and more confirmed than various alternatives. So far, all these attempts are just speculation, valuable in the attempt to set future research directions. I only brought forth this particular idea since it ought to squash your 'infinite regress' problem (whatever is problematic about it for you; it is not for me).

Al Moritz: But what started the first crunch, followed by the first expansion, or the other way around?

I know about the dark energy measurements, which question the eternally cyclic universe anyway - I just didn't want to bring up that additional complication.

Your model still doesn't work. f there is only one crunch followed by one expansion, matter obviously is not eternal. The universe had been contracting forever - from what initial point? What caused that initial point to be what it is?

And as long as you have to postulate an initial point of the universe, it cannot be eternal.

Sorry, "f there" should be "If there".

Al Moritz --- No, no! In this conjecture, let t=0 be the moment of the big bang. For all negative times, the universe was contracting. For all positive times it is expanding.

There are no cycles and there is no initial time.

As an analogy only, suppose the size of the universe is given by the equation

size(t) = a + kt^2

for some constants a and k. I hasten to repeat this is only to show that at all times, t, the universe has a size, shrinking for negative t and expanding for positive t. It is not meant to be that realistic, just enough to demonstrate the lack of cyclic behavior and the lack of a starting instant.

Positive constants a and k.

fnxtr: Infinite regression is not a puzzle, it's just a possibility. I have a hard time understanding the attitude that "It can't just go on forever!". Why not? Because we can't explain it (yet)? That has a familiar ring to it.

Your model still doesn’t work. f there is only one crunch followed by one expansion, matter obviously is not eternal. The universe had been contracting forever - from what initial point? What caused that initial point to be what it is?

Popper's Ghost:

Your model still doesn't work. If there is only one crunch followed by one expansion, matter obviously is not eternal. The universe had been contracting forever - from what initial point? What caused that initial point to be what it is?

If the universe can expand forever, then matter is eternal. The contraction forever is just the expansion's mirror image -- duh. There is no initial point, just as there is no final point.

Marcus Gioe: ... once you get to an infinity (on either end of time) As soon as you say "it will just go on forever" or you postulate the the universe was always contracting before it the Big Bang, etc... you are postulating something that science cannot test. How do we know that the universe will expand forever? Science doesn't deal in proofs, or absolutes. ... an absolute theory (anything involving infinite time/size/etc...) is nothing more than science's way of saying "we don't know" or "that's just the way it is."

Al Moritz: If there’s just one cycle, something or somebody must have put matter there to perform that one cycle.

David-

I find it hard to believe that you (clearly, an intelligent, well-educated person) are clinging to a belief that a first grader could disprove. This isn't meant to be an insult- let me explain.

As anyone dealing with young children knows, kids love to ask "why?" Unfortunately for science, it cannot develop a theory of the universe that explains every "why" question a child would ask. Eventually, science is forced into answering "that's just the way it is." That's infinite regression, and regardless of whatever model you use, the problem will exist.

Your attempts to explain away the possibility of a supernatural being using parsimony and inductive logic are likewise foolhardy. A "which of these is simpler/more likely" test requires the ability to assign a probability to the existence of "god." In fact, it also requires the ability to assign a probability to an inherently unmeasurable/untestable scientific theory. So the end result is an attempt to choose the most likely of two scenarios with arbitrarily set probabilities. Such a choice is ultimately meaningless and is always skewed by the inherent beliefs of the person making it. This doesn't even account for the fact that Ockham's razor says only that the simplest solution is probably (as opposed to always) the correct solution.

I am not trying to prove that God exists- I'm simply attempting to explain why science cannot provide any useful insight into the possibility. Ironically, your statement about Hinduism is the closest you've come to understanding my point. If, as you say, Hindus believe that the universe has "just existed" forever, that belief is not based on science- it's based in philosophy. And you are right- it's not lacking in common sense. It may even be true. But it's still a philosophical belief- not a scientific one, and always will be.

David B. Benson:

Al Moritz: If there’s just one cycle, something or somebody must have put matter there to perform that one cycle.

Not so. It is not a 'cycle'. Look again at the example equation I offered in an earlier post.

Marcus Gioe: Your attempts to explain away the possibility of a supernatural being using parsimony and inductive logic are likewise foolhardy. This doesn't even account for the fact that Ockham's razor says only that the simplest solution is probably (as opposed to always) the correct solution.

I would never argue that the scientific method can prove/disprove the existence of any God.

If we get a working cosmological model that suggests the universe is shaped like Benson's formula describes, well... if it works, it works.

Whether a Prime Mover is/was necessary may always be unknowable.

In one of his saner lectures, Chomsky compared us to lab rats. If the maze is complex enough, the rat will never solve it. There may be limits to human understanding. He was applying the metaphor to the mind/brain relationship, but cosmology may end up being another one of the too-complex mazes.

Empirical analysis may disprove certain claims made by religious texts/sects, but not the possibility of deities. Deities constantly become less and less necessary to explain our world, is all.

fnxtr: I would never argue that the scientific method can prove/disprove the existence of any God. If we get a working cosmological model that suggests the universe is shaped like Benson's formula describes, well... if it works, it works. Whether a Prime Mover is/was necessary may always be unknowable.

Marcus Gioe:

fnxtr: I would never argue that the scientific method can prove/disprove the existence of any God.

David- the problem with your parsimony analysis is that assuming you have your hypothesis (H) and existence of a "god" (G), you also have an uncertainty (U).

David B. Benson: Marcus --- No, that is not how Bayesian reasoning goes. Instead, we have a body of evidence, E. A hypothesis H establishes the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis, P(E|H). Now P(E|H) = P(E|(H+G)) as so on the grounds of parsimony, H is to be preferred. The uncertainty is given in the single probability. Thus G is an entirely unnecessary appendage, cluttering the exposition.

All very nice and dandy, but there is nothing in known physics from which a putative mechanism to produce multipies can be deduced or tested. This is pure conjecture, naturalistic metaphysics (in that context, I like your choice of the term “entertaining” for multiverse models).

And since we now have left science and have to compare things in the realm of philosophy, I personally don’t see how the postulate of trillions of trillions of universes to create our fabulous multipie could win against the simple postulate of of one designer and one universe on grounds of parsimony.

And since we don’t even know about the existence of the postulated fabulous new physics required for the multiverse and don’t even have a mechanism that might account for the generation of such physics *), please don’t tell me that the multipie wins on the level of parsimony “because it stays in the realm of physics”. *) Yeah, string theory has some ideas about that, but string theory in itself is at this point pure untested (and so far untestable) speculation. Talking about a misapplication of the scientific term “theory”.

Also, a friendly reminder that the scientist who did not believe in angels pushing around planets according to Kepler’s laws and developed the theory of gravity, Isaac Newton, was a religious scientist who wrote more on religion than he did on science. So much for the justification of your “angelic” sarcasm.

But the physical model doesn’t just “predict what we observe.” It predicts everything- including what we observe. The chef theory, on the other hand, could either predict the exact same thing (everything) or specifically, exactly what we observe.

Then both (H) but also (H and G) explain the evidence equally well: Bayes principles cannot distinguish the two.

But the physical model doesn’t just “predict what we observe.” It predicts everything- including what we observe. The chef theory, on the other hand, could either predict the exact same thing (everything) or specifically, exactly what we observe.

And since chefs tend to have a purpose behind their baking (and the chef in this particular question is all-powerful), it is no great stretch of the imagination to assume that this “cherry pie” is exactly what the chef intended to bake. Thus, “chef + cherry pie” wins over “multipie with us happening to be inside cherry pie” on parsimony grounds.

On the matter of infinite regress; if you don't like it, there are plenty of finite, unbounded cosmological models instead. Still no 'starting point' as such, though.

This is a link to coverage of yesterdays debate at Stanford "Atheism vs. Theism".

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/1/28/hitchensKnocksIntelligentDesign

I have to say that you guys here are having a much more intelligent debate. You went WAY over my head about 20 posts ago! :-)

I have to read everything VERY slowly and multiple times, but this is the best thread ever!

Thank you!

MartinM:

Then both (H) but also (H and G) explain the evidence equally well: Bayes principles cannot distinguish the two.

You're conceding too much there. Occam's razor is built into Bayesian induction. To the extent that G makes our priors more diffuse, it's penalized.

Marcus Gioe: The argument I am trying to make is that a belief in the existence of "god" (G) is a replacement for a belief in ultimate uncertainty (U). Essentially, I choose to replace random chance ("that's just how it is") with supernatural will. It is not an addition to the "equation"- it's a substitution. Or: P(E|(H+U)) = P(E|(H+G)) The (G) (willful purpose of a supernatural creator) replaces the unobservable, untestable premises left over after you create a "theory of everything" (U). Since there will always exist some (U) regardless of how complete a theory we develop, this relationship is always true, and unsolvable (due to the arbitrarily established likelihoods of (U) and (G).

Stacy S.: I have to read everything VERY slowly and multiple times, but this is the best thread ever! Thank you!

Stacy S.: I have to say that you guys here are having a much more intelligent debate. You went WAY over my head about 20 posts ago! :-)

Then G=U and it's once again a "god of the gaps" argument.

MartinM: Then we can add in the effects of inflation, which naturally produces truly enormous spacetime manifolds, that make our little corner look positively tiny. Inflation has already passed major observational tests; the patterns it produces in the angular power spectrum of the CMB have been observed to a good degree of accuracy.

The process which produces these patterns is fundamentally based on physics taking place on super-horizon scales.

Martin,

or did you simply mean with "process" the one of inflation, and with "fundamentally based on", the model of chaotic inflation?

MartinM: That's just circular reasoning. You're using the observed cherry pie to update your prior - that is, ruling out lemon pie chefs and suchlike, in favour of a cherry pie chef - then using the match between the 'cherry pie chef' hypothesis and the observed cherry pie as confirmation.

fnxtr: Then G=U and it’s once again a “god of the gaps” argument.

David B. Benson: Well, you are failing to make any point at all. P(E|H) = P(E|(H+U)) since U adds nothing which explains the evidence. Therefore the principle of parsimony required removing it. I also point out that your (G) is different than the G hypothesis that I originally proposed. Indeed, if H includes a universe which exists forever, there is nothing for the 'supernatural creator' to do. Thus on logical grounds your (G) needs be removed from the explanatory hypothesis.

Marcus Gioe: But one of them must be true. ... And there is no science that can figure out if (U) or (G) should be preferred.

David B. Benson: On what grounds? Both could be false.

Then neither (U) nor (G) is a scientific hypothesis, since there is no possibility of experiments which tend to confirm or disconfirm either. Thus: leave such out of science.

Marcus Gioe: Either what we see and cannot test is chance, or it is not. However, neither are testable or observable, and thus add nothing to science. The end result is that science does not (and cannot) "disprove" religion.

David B. Benson: Science disproves nothing, only disconfirms every more strongly with increased evidence. (Ever seen an apple fall up?) So long as 'religion' makes no claims about observable, measurable reality then there is nothing for evidence, together with hypotheses, to disconfirm.

Marcus Gioe: Exactly. That's my point. One or the other must logically/philosophically be true. However, neither are testable or observable, and thus add nothing to science. The end result is that science does not (and cannot) "disprove" religion.

I HAD to put this in here ... from Wikipedia -

"Agnosticism states the inability to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Theism is the belief in God. It can be said that an agnostic theist has no way of proving or disproving God but has a "feeling" that He does exist. An Agnostic theist has Faith in God. Many agnostic theists are either on and off believers or lightly religious people who have an extra dimension of spirituality. An example of an agnostic theist argument is as follows: either God created the universe and always existed, or the universe always existed, leaving both scenarios equally possible since one had to be there from the beginning. He or she goes on to state his faith and personal experiences and logic or faith; for example, can life exist from nothing?"

For those interested in what science can and cannot claim, the borders between science and philosophy, and what science can say about multiverses (not much, really), I recommend the follwing paper by the prominent cosmologist George Ellis: "Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology", at:

http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/enc2.pdf

It is the best article that I have read on the subject so far. You can skip the mathematical formulas if you want.

Thank you Al. (I will definitely skip the formulas - (they make my brain want to melt) :-)

Al Moritz --- Thank you! That was an interesting way not to do any work this afternoon. :-)

You're welcome guys. David, glad you found it so interesting :-)

"Master of things. Master of light.
Songs cast alight on you. All pure chance.
Hark thru dark ties. As exists cross divided.
That tunnel us out of sane existence. In all encircling mode. In challenge as direct. Oh closely guided plan.
As eyes see young stars assemble. Awaken in our heart.
Master of soul. Master of time. Set to touch. Setting sail..." (Yes, Awaken Lyrics)

"“For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me’, which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. This new consciousness ruled and illuminated the whole organism, flooding every part of it with light, and was not, like ours, limited to a selection of the movements going on in one part of the organism.” - C.S. Lewis, "The Problem of Pain."

“Adam was, from the first, a man in knowledge as well as in statue, He alone of all men “has been in Eden, in the garden of God: he has walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.’ He was endowed, says Athanasius, with “a vision of God so far-reaching that he could contemplate the eternity of the Divine Essence and the cosmic operations of His Word.’ He was ‘a heavenly being,’ according to St. Ambrose, who breathed the aether, and was accustomed to converse with God ‘face to face.’ His mental powers,’ says St. Augustine, ‘surpassed those of the most brilliant philosopher as much as the speed of a bird surpasses that of a tortoise...To you or to me, once in a lifetime perhaps, would have fallen the almost terrifying honor of coming at last, after long journeys and ritual preparations and slow ceremonial approaches, into the very presence of the great Father, Priest, and Emperor of the planet Tellus; a thing to be remembered all our lives.” - C. S. Lewis, “A Preface to Paradise Lost.”

If evolution is true, than the above is the stuff of faith that does not conflict with science.

Jess --- I suspect that anthropologists would tend to disagree with your conclusion.

Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me’, which could look upon itself as an object,

Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me’, which could look upon itself as an object,

David,

How would anthropologists be able to refute what Lewis wrote? Are you thinking about the paleoanthropological claims about the Shanindar site?

What Lewis wrote is a a faith position, based upon a temporal time revelation that I suspect is unable to be refuted by any our current historical scientific abilities. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case. The fact is that science is really unable to touch upon issues related to the Genesis account, as there are far too many variables on how it should be interpreted and our ability to reconstruct historical data from that time period is very fragmentary.

Henry,

Why would the survival of such a being be a problem? As Lewis points out, "his mental powers,’ says St. Augustine, ‘surpassed those of the most brilliant philosopher as much as the speed of a bird surpasses that of a tortoise." Lewis makes the point about Adam being the great Father on the planet Tellus. Indeed, Lewis describes Adam in a way that makes him sound much more evolved than what we would call a typical Homo sapien today. Once again, science and religion do not conflict.

Jess --- I know almost nothing about Shanindar cave except that Homo neanderthalensis remains were discovered there.

More relevant is the ethnographic studies of modern hunter-gatherers, but also see

R. Dale Guthrie,
The Nature of Paleolithic Art,
The University of Chicago Press, recent,

and any good, recent book on human origins, for example Carl Zimmer's The Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins.

Anthropologists are beginning to use Bayesian reasoning, wherein no hypothesis is refuted only disconfirmed by the weight of the evidence.

Putting this altogether, the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that before agriculture, religion had little or no role to play in daily life, in communal celebrations, or in art.

C.S. Lewis seems to be making the claim that 'Adam' was the first Homo sapiens sapiens to understand the 'I' or 'me'. But Koko the gorilla showed evidence of self-awareness. C.S. Lewis also seems to claim that 'Adam' was the first to 'know God' and to possess some form of knowledge C.S. Lewis claims was not available earlier. Hmmm, just when was this?

Homo sapiens sapiens seems to have first appeared in Africa about 175,000 years ago, for some to have first migrated to Southwest Asia about 135,000--125,000 years ago and some went on to Southeast and East Asia before 80,000 years ago.

The Mt. Toba super-eruption of about 74,000--71,000 years ago appears to have resulted in a population decline followed by the spread of new gene lines, including back into Africa. This is closely associated, in time, with the development of a new, superior tool kit. So was this the time?

Pictorial representations of humans only appear late in Paleolithic art, and about at the same time from Europe across to the Kamchatka peninsula. So was this the time?

By 30,000 years ago, humans were capable of long sea voyages; to Taiwan for example. Was this the time?

By 16,000 years ago the semi-settled, but proto-agriculturist, Jomon jin made pottery, thousands of years before the introduction of pottery in the Middle East. Was 'Adam' one of the Jomon jin of the Japanese islands and the nearby Amur River basin?

The earliest evidence for religion is, AFAIK, from Bronze Age Middle East, after the establishment of agriculturally based civilizations. So late for 'Adam'?

The modern concept of 'self' does not seem to have appeared until the wide-spread availability of quality mirrors. So no 'Adam' before the 17th century?

I see a progression in newer genes, successful ones spreading thoughout the growing population. I see, since about 70,000 years ago, a steady progression in technique: tools and knowledge. I don't see any single locality, much less person, who was 'first'.

To the extent that whole peoples were first, then it seems that the Southeast and East Asians peoples were first in technique. Others adopted or re-invented later.

David,

The story of the "self-awareness" of Koko the gorilla is very interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. It reminds me a bit of the movie Planet of the Apes.

The actual quote from C.S. Lewis is a bit more comprehensive:

"...in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me’, which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past."

If Christianity is true, than at some point after the origin of Adam, there was a type of spiritual de-evolution. This might explain the lack of religion in the cases you bring up. At any rate, it just goes to show that there is no conflict between science and religion.

Jess : David, The story of the "self-awareness" of Koko the gorilla is very interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. If Christianity is true, than at some point after the origin of Adam, there was a type of spiritual de-evolution. This might explain the lack of religion in the cases you bring up. At any rate, it just goes to show that there is no conflict between science and religion.

Richard,

Thanks for bringing up the initial Koko illustration.

The quote from C.S. Lewis was actually from his "non-fictional" book "The Problem of Pain." It was this "theistic evolution" interpretation of the Genesis account that I combined with his description in literary book analysis called "A Preface to Paradise Lost." His actual description of Adam may be taken as "fictional" only in the sense of how he describes it as "an account of what may have been the historical fact." I would call it a "common field theory" of sorts.

Whether you believe the revelation of Genesis is true or not is irrelevant to this thread. What I am trying to communicate is that there does not appear to be a necessary conflict with a "theistic evolution" interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis and the current anthropological evidence. I could be wrong of course, so that is why I am in this discussion.

I don't know what you mean by the "sun standing" still? If you are thinking about the passage from Joshua 10, I recommend reading the following discussion from a Christian point of view (Scroll half way down): http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html#longday

Jess: What I am trying to communicate is that there does not appear to be a necessary conflict with a "theistic evolution" interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis and the current anthropological evidence. If you are thinking about the passage from Joshua 10, ...

But we have to some somewhen and use the weight of the evidence to confirm or disconfirm to some degree whether the process under test is a random process.