I believe that God speaks to us through science

[BruceChris]

That good science is self-correcting, and that bad science is self defeating.

That most of the Biblical literalists out there are Not literal about ALL of the things in the Bible. For one thing, most of them do not know everything that is in the Bible. For another, of course, if they believe that the literal word of the Bible ALWAYS trumps science, then they would have to admit that they believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Even Fred would hesitate to go that far. :sick: :sick:

However, when there is an issue that fear-based Christians feel very threatened by, like evolution, sexuality that is not simply black and white, or when life begins, they get desperate. They either suppress the message, or shoot the messinger.

Thoughts or Ideas? Or is all of this just too evident to most of us?

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Emproph]

Science -ORIGIN Latin scientia, from scire 'know.'

I think it’s a great subject to discuss. From what I’ve learned on the other boards, as usual they all have different explanations for the discrepancies, or like you said, deny them, or attack the messenger.

Related to gays and lesbians, they don’t believe in the science of evolution but when it comes to “proving” that we weren’t born this way they tout about how science hasn’t found a ‘gay gene.’
__

I almost wish that the Intelligent Design fiasco had taken off. The war on science was the EXACT SAME m.o. as with the war on gays and ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), with much of the exact same rhetoric, except it was science that was going to destroy the family and civilization etc. If anything could have shown Joe and Jane American the face of religious insanity it would have been that and they would have seen the connection and similarity with the war on gays.

I’ve got plenty to say on all that but one of my all time favorite “arguments” against the evidence of carbon dating (evolution/dinosaurs = :earth: is millions of years old), was that "you can’t prove that conditions were the same in the past."

As far as I'm aware, carbon dating is about measuring the amount of carbon that is left in something organic. Since carbon molecules decay at a certain rate, the amount of carbon left in something will tell you how long that organic material has been decaying. In the case of dinosaur bones, millions of years.

So their argument against carbon dating and thus an Earth that is millions of years old is that you can’t scientifically prove anything before the science of it existed. In other words maybe dinosaur bones aren’t millions of years old, maybe carbon molecules just used to decay millions of times faster before carbon dating was invented.

So, “we can’t be certain about the past” is the basis of their reasoning behind teaching that the Earth was definitively created in six twenty-four hour time slots about six thousand years ago exactly as the book of Genesis describes.

So like the ‘gay gene,’ absence of evidence DOES equal evidence of absence, and thus “proof” of what they believe -(which is of course different for each one of them).
__

Their timing in trying to implement Intelligent Design helps to prove my definition of intelligence: The ability to recognize the order of importance.

Science proves/disproves via methodology / methodological experiments, as in methods-of-logic.
If they were that intelligent they would have tried to compromise the logic of science first. Instead they started with ERA, then the war on gays and then the new fangled creationism of ID.

Had they invented and implemented ID back in ERA days and thus compromised the ability to know and understand through logic (scientifically), they would have an entire EXTRA generation of voters today who are ready willing and able to implement their every theocratic desire. Imagine that generation EX.. :eek:

Intelligent Design? ID should stand for Ironic Design.

ERA, the war on gays and ID, the three “faces” of Adam and Eve...


P.S. Just to be clear I believe in a created evolution, and a created everything else for that matter... :D

[Steven E. Webster]

Good post, Emproph,

I'm just finishing reading Michelle Goldberg's book, titled Kingdom Coming. It's about how the Christian Nationalists are seeking to make the U.S. a Christian Nation and take political control. One of the things they are attacking is Science. Other examples are the way they twist or reject science about gays (Paul Cameron is a good example) or the way they are attacking effective AIDS prevention efforts and replacing them with ineffective and unscientific "Abstinence Only" programs.

Goldberg sees the Christian Nationalists as embracing a Postmodern rejection of the Enlightenment. (It's ironic that they are embracing Postmodernism since that movement was originally associated with far-left academics.) Goldberg feels we need to defend the Enlightenment--I agree. Reason is not the enemy of faith. Goldberg believes Christian Nationalists are pushing us towards totalitarianism and she quotes Hannah Arendt.

The aspect of postmodernism that I feel we should embrace is the need to be more open to various points of view. But we should not abandon the positive aspects of Enlightenment reason in the process.

Steven Webster

[morningrob]

For another, of course, if they believe that the literal word of the Bible ALWAYS trumps science, then they would have to admit that they believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Even Fred would hesitate to go that far. :sick: :sick:

Do not presume this. I remeber reading an article a few months ago, about when the Dover trial about evolution was in the news, about how the next movement is a push to teach as science that the sun revolves around the earth, becasue that is what the Bible says. The scientific "proof" was just as good as Intelligent Design.

[SolApollo]

By definition, science and faith are different: science is based on facts, and faith is based on belief without proof. However, science can be a lens through understanding God. In Dao(Tao)ism, the universe is God trying to comprehend itself. Thus, through science, we can learn how to understand ourselves, each other, and perhaps the Divine itself.

Personally, I see evolution as a means to understand Creation. Life is so complex in diversity at the micro- and macro-levels of existance. Look at our DNA: a powerful, unique double helix containing the code for life.

Within the same issue, Creationism should not be taught as science - because it is not. It is philosophy. Evolution is proven fact - it is the mechanism of evolution that is theoretical - and thus taught in the classroom.

[Emproph]

{I wrote this a few days ago but didn’t finish it before going to bed, and as often happens in such cases, I thought it was destined for ‘essay purgatory.’}

What leaped out at me regarding this article was the contention that science and “faith” are not separate. I agree with SolApollo’s description of creationism as philosophy.

In regard to its connection or non-connection with science, I believe that philosophy and science ARE connected at some point – as philosophy includes all aspects of faith and/or religion, but not the other way around. This article exemplifies the the principle that science is open to all aspects of philosophy, but philosophy, or "faith" as the article puts it, is not necessarily open to all aspects of science. -Yet it tries to portray the two as equal.

Overall I thought it was good as far as fairness and objectivity (ID/creationism-wise) goes. There were several other things I could have attacked/focused on, but the aspect of faith being connected to science in particular leaped out at me.

To be fair to the author, some of my criticism is extrapolation, but this site was linked from an ID article on Focus on the Family. I mention this because his credentials (footnoted) seem intact enough that he may have (some) answers to my criticisms.

One fundamental flaw in his reasoning though that seems to be a constant is the assumption that “faith,” as he puts it, in the natural (science), negates “faith” in the supernatural (religion/faith).

The nature of science doesn’t negate the supernatural, the "supernature" of creationism-faith however, necessarily negates significant portions of the natural (science). -Science definitions also footnoted.*

http://www.trueu.org/dorms/stulounge/A000000458.cfm

Part 1

It is a faith that believes that physical processes made living things emerge out of non-living things even though the evidence for such a process or event doesn't exist.

So, both ID and Darwinian evolution have a component of faith. One chooses to have faith in a supernatural process; the other chooses to have faith in a natural process. But, the scientific community has made a commitment to consider only physical processes when describing the universe. From this point of view, it is not the presence of faith that makes ID unscientific, but that it has faith in a nonphysical process ... and so a federal judge rules that it is not science and, therefore, not permitted in the classroom.

Part 4

Back to Court

This article series began with Judge Jones and the federal court case in Dover, Pennsylvania. Let's return to his statement about ID:

We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

It is quite clear from this ruling that Judge Jones defines science as the explanation of particular phenomena on the basis of natural causes only. This definition of science may have widespread appeal but it just isn't intellectually satisfying for those who want to deal with reality honestly.

Critics of ID argued that the threat in this court case was the reintroduction of dogmatic beliefs into the school system. The judge's ruling seems to lean in that direction, as well. But this ruling is guilty of being equally dogmatic on the other side of the coin, that is, reinforcing the dogmatic belief in the separation of science and faith.

Cleverly masked, dogma — whether religious or scientific — is the real enemy of any free-minded people. ID presents an openness to the universe and God, science and faith, natural and supernatural explanations for reality.
__

-First, this ruling does not enforce the dogmatic separation of science and faith equally, at least not in the context of the quote provided, as it does not judge the nature of the supernatural reality of God one way or the other. “Faith” in creationism does however “enforce that dogmatic separation.”

Second, if you want to deal with the "reality" of science "honestly" you need to recognize that science is based on natural causes because it is based on what can be known/measured. Thus one could say that the distinction between science and religion/faith, lies in the nature
-of-knowing itself.

The way he put it IS cleverly masked dogma (that one took me awhile), and is certainly NOT equally dogmatic.

This case is about rejecting the dogmatic/religious teachings of faith in creation VS. the teaching of evolution.

By saying it’s an equally dogmatic contrast between science and faith, he portrays the science of anthropology* (origins of man) as equal to the science of cosmology*, physics*, and especially quantum mechanics*.

From what I’ve learned, these three sciences are intimately connected and must by nature of their definitions incorporate the science of anthropology* –and thus ultimately, the “theory” of creationism.

Quantum mechanics* in particular deals with the point where matter becomes energy, or where the natural becomes "supernatural." And they ARE beginning to find intelligence in that design to the point of isolating the influence of the quantum field on us to the extent of determining prods/prompts on us in one direction as opposed to the other.

The reality of oneness in particular (unified field theory) is also becoming apparent.

But not only do they not teach quantum mechanics to our school children, they CERTAINLY wouldn’t want that new age "devil worship mindset" of oneness being taught, not to mention the heresy of the ‘Big bang’ theory.

So I can see why he lumped all sciences together, according to the creationist/ID crowd, unBiblical sciences don’t exist. Anthropology/geology* just happen to be “wrong,” therefore they can be contended with. They just need correction, not wholesale deletion.

If the science of ID is superior to that of evolution, then it would be the responsibility of ID to prove evolution wrong by incorporating its theory and dispelling it. And by 'nature' of superiority itself, it would necessarily have the ability to do so. Another fundamental flaw in their "design."

He’s right though, Science and faith are linked and are becoming “one” as we speak. Quantum mechanics is where they join, and that is the place for Intelligent Design. The science of Intelligent Design is beginning to take shape, they just don’t happen to like the form that it’s taking.

One "faith" or philosophy as it were, seeks the truth of definition, the other seeks to define truth.

It’s not just Intelligent Design they want to teach, they want to teach their brand of intelligence.
____________________

* Science Definitions:

-Anthropology -the study of humankind, especially the study of societies and cultures and human origins.
ORIGIN from Greek anthrMpos 'human being'.

-Cosmology -1 the science of the origin and development of the universe. 2 an account or theory of the origin of the universe.

-Geology - the science which deals with the physical structure and substance of the earth

-Physics -1 the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. 2 the physical properties and phenomena of something.
ORIGIN Latin physica 'natural things'.

-Quantum mechanics - the branch of physics concerned with describing the behavior of subatomic particles in terms of quanta, incorporating the idea that particles can also be regarded as waves.

__
About the author
David J. Hill is an Adjunct Instructor in the adult studies program at Colorado Christian University where he teaches and develops online courses in biology, physical science, and mathematics. He attended graduate school in chemistry at the University of Illinois and did his undergraduate work at Point Loma Nazarene University.