Is science 'anti-God'? Really?

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, my highly-detailed step-by-step proof that Australopithecus evolved on what is now the isle of Wight, my own copy of which perished in a freak episode of spontaneous combustion, will never be recovered. Nor will magellan004's technically perfect swan cladogram, or Jim's three-word summary of the history of Biblical eschatology and its relationship to the recent Republican candidate nomination contest. Jorge's 15-post marathon in which he provided the complete text of his thesis might be recreatable, but Tiggy's subsequent elegant admission of its flawlessness surely won't be. And I'll always regret not saving that picture of LPOT with a pancake on her head...

Roy

That's pretty good Roy, so you get an amen for that one.

[Xru]

I think I know who you are referring to and if they are who I think, I find they are quite loony.

You're not thinking of me are you? PM me 'cause I'd like to talk to this person, eh eh, if you'd be so kind. I can keep a secret too.

[Xru]

Try going into NS301, mostly populated by atheists by and large, and challenge their cosmological assumptions such as Uniformity now called Actualism I believe.

Tiggy, phank and their cliche will be on you like fly's on rib-roast and they won't be half as understanding and civil. You will be hounded and pounded mercilessly. You call what you've read on this thread militant and volatile, ha ha ha ha ha.

This got me thinking about science in general and NatSci in particular. In response I analyzed the posts in NatSci for this month:

Note that Atheists were not the only non_Christians included in that total. I would also add that Jorge did not (or could not) post in this period.

There were 175 posts in total. Of these, 77 were posted by Christians, while 98 were posted by non-Christians. In this period there were 11 posts that could be construed as a personal attack or criticism. 5 came from Christians while 6 came from non-Christians.

Based on this sample, I think one could hardly say that NatSci was overrun by atheists, nor a hotbed of personal attack.

I suppose I should comment on this since something I said was quoted . . . and correctly I might add.

My impression of NS301 comments and posting in NS301 is that if certain things are avoided then most discussions can proceed in a civil manner.

There are issues that quickly become very heated . . . . that's an understatement, BTW. For example, Uniformity or Actualism, and especially criticism of TOE. Or propose that TOE is dogma as much as the some Christian theologists. Also, asserting that some dissenting opinions in science especially TOE is repressed, sometime brutally, will get flames and insults flying every which way. I know. I've seen it happen in OP's I've started. This repression is BTW, documented in various books and articles, and personal anecdotes by scientists. That this happens is heatedly denied by every post I've seen in NS301.

I have Tiggy on my ignore list for good reason. And another guy who seems to get drunk then post rather incoherent hate comment for me to ponder in my OP's . .. can't remember his name.

As long as one goes along with the assumption that science is the defining and only way knowledge is perceived a Christian CAN post in NS301 and seem to get along fine.

However, once ya get someone like me who takes a wider view of how knowledge can be acquired, and who is willing to question the philosophical assumptions of science then there will be trouble very fast.

BTW, Christians in general on TWeb who find some of the discussions in NS301 stupid and ridiculous just avoid post in NS301 except for an occasional interjection such as "Who cares about your Cosmological Myths . . . " a post by someone who was reading an thread and obviously thought the comments were . . . well, . . . . . .

Christians on TWeb who would be inclined to take strong issues with many statements in NS301 just don't post.

Maybe I'll start a thread discussing why Christians do or don't post in NS301.

[Roy]

That's pretty good Roy, so you get an amen for that one.

But no picture

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

I suppose I should comment on this since something I said was quoted . . . and correctly I might add.

My impression of NS301 comments and posting in NS301 is that if certain things are avoided then most discussions can proceed in a civil manner.

There are issues that quickly become very heated . . . . that's an understatement, BTW. For example, Uniformity or Actualism, and especially criticism of TOE. Or propose that TOE is dogma as much as the some Christian theologists. Also, asserting that some dissenting opinions in science especially TOE is repressed, sometime brutally, will get flames and insults flying every which way. I know. I've seen it happen in OP's I've started. This repression is BTW, documented in various books and articles, and personal anecdotes by scientists. That this happens is heatedly denied by every post I've seen in NS301.

I have Tiggy on my ignore list for good reason. And another guy who seems to get drunk then post rather incoherent hate comment for me to ponder in my OP's . .. can't remember his name.

As long as one goes along with the assumption that science is the defining and only way knowledge is perceived a Christian CAN post in NS301 and seem to get along fine.

However, once ya get someone like me who takes a wider view of how knowledge can be acquired, and who is willing to question the philosophical assumptions of science then there will be trouble very fast.

BTW, Christians in general on TWeb who find some of the discussions in NS301 stupid and ridiculous just avoid post in NS301 except for an occasional interjection such as "Who cares about your Cosmological Myths . . . " a post by someone who was reading an thread and obviously thought the comments were . . . well, . . . . . .

Christians on TWeb who would be inclined to take strong issues with many statements in NS301 just don't post.

Maybe I'll start a thread discussing why Christians do or don't post in NS301.

Interesting perspective. I would take issue to a certain extent.For example "Uniformity or Actualism, and especially criticism of TOE." I don't think its 'criticism' in the general sense that is the problem, it is the specific criticisms that get things riled up. But lets look at something other than TOE.

Supposing that you were viewing Nat Sci when John Martin was posting trying to 'challenge' the common scientific notion that the Earth orbits the sun. These conversations are some of the most heated in Nat Sci. And you were to then say, "There are issues that quickly become very heated ..... that's an understatement BTW. .... and especially criticisms of modern astronomy and physics".

Now - would it be fair to say that NatSci is intolerant of criticisms of modern astronomy and physics because those who post here find John Martin's attempts to justify scientific geocentrism absurdly ludicrous and because they defend, sometimes hotly, the (correct) notions of the structure of the solar system? Would it not be more fair to say that most of those that post in Nat Sci regard the idea of geocentrism as absurd, and for good reason?

My comment then to you is that you are over generalizing, and casting very negative aspersions on those Christians who post in this forum supporting certain conclusions of modern science in tandem with those incorrect generalizations. The big piece of the puzzle you are missing is that most Christians that post in this forum that are anti-evolution do so using supporting evidence with not a great deal more validity that the kinds of things John Martin uses to support geocentrism. And as such they generally draw to themselves negative attention. I'd personally love to discuss meaty objections to the mainstream opinions. Sometimes this happens on the topic of Global Warming, but rarely in astronomy or evolution. Part of the reason for that is that the data which leads to the conclusions we currently hold scientifically is robust, similarly robust to the data which leads to the conclusions the Earth orbits the sun.

But assuming there are legitimate arguments to be made, one needs to present them, and not arguments that are simply based on ignorance of the data or theories themselves.




Jim

[Xru]

Well, Jim, I'm an inclusivist so I don't believe that people necessarily have to profess faith in Christ in order to receive God's blessing or avoid God's wrath. But it is a basic theological proposition that God rewards the faithfulness of his children. Speaking to Xru on the merits of Christian faith in the presence of doubt, therefore, I feel relatively secure in stating that God appreciates the faithfulness of His adherents.

The question for the inclusivist is not whether people believe what they've been taught but rather whether people act in accordance with God's general and specific laws and callings, to the extent that He has revealed Himself and the extent those people allow such revelation to impact their behavior. As it pertains to Christians, both general and specific revelation are expected to be parsed, understood, and acted upon. As it pertains to non-Christians who rationally disagree with the faith, the question becomes less about specific revelations (e.g., the Resurrection, the Trinity) and more about general revelations (e.g., the Tao — "the Way").

God appreciates faithfulness: if not faithfulness to Himself directly, faithfulness to a righteous cause, to charitable behavior, to a "pulling away" from the self. He can work with that material, found in the theist and non-theist both, and hopefully make something holy, something eternal. It's certainly less about the profession of a belief and more about the practice of a belief.

—Sam

Sorry for the late response to this post . . . but, do you have scriptural citations that might lead one to take this position. I find this position intriguing. Oh . . . never mind. I see it in later posts.

[Xru]

My comment then to you is that you are over generalizing, and casting very negative aspersions on those Christians who post in this forum supporting certain conclusions of modern science in tandem with those incorrect generalizations. The big piece of the puzzle you are missing is that most Christians that post in this forum that are anti-evolution do so using supporting evidence with not a great deal more validity that the kinds of things John Martin uses to support geocentrism. And as such they generally draw to themselves negative attention. I'd personally love to discuss meaty objections to the mainstream opinions. Sometimes this happens on the topic of Global Warming, but rarely in astronomy or evolution. Part of the reason for that is that the data which leads to the conclusions we currently hold scientifically is robust, similarly robust to the data which leads to the conclusions the Earth orbits the sun.

I may have over generalized and if I have I apologize.

There are many Christians who post in NS301 that I have the greatest respect for . . . sorry about the hanging . . . . well, anyway. And there are many atheists, and agnostics that post in NS301 that I have the greatest respect for . . . oops, for which I have the greatest respect.

I understand how poor arguments used in anti-evolutionary arguments attract lots of attention. This is no different than most other forum areas here on TWeb. Good well thought out arguments founded on sound judgement are usually treated with the respect that they deserve.

My skepticism of TOE is not based on the data that is accumulated, or usually on interpretation on what the data means, . Generally, I get miffed . . . well, more than miffed when some assume that the case is closed, and there is little to discuss, or that TOE is FACT, ha ha ha ha ha ha. The history of Grand Theories is that sooner-or-later they are rejected and supplanted with theories that are deemed more accurate and acceptable. I can envision no reason why evolution is any different, that TOE is any different. I'm not saying it is, but that it is entirely believable that it could very well be. It could be that it may not be entirely rejected but modified say 100 years from now to a degree that that will make it look like a Ford model-T compared to a F-1 Formula racing car.

Even now revolutionary discoveries are being made that considerably change the character of TOE like the discovery that organisms gather information from the environment and use that to adapt, something I just became aware of . . . oops, of which I just became aware. This leaves the advocates of slow imperceptible changes leading to evolution of different species in something of bind. This statement will, I suppose, result in some hostility in some quarters as it is my impression that imperceptible changes is considered enough by many to lead to great changes. I'm skeptical.

As far as geocentric goes . . . that the Earth orbits the sun is entirely dependent on the spacial reference that one takes. The sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way which confuses the issue. Or am I getting this wrong?

Might I mention once again that I am an Open-Evolutionist which means that I am indifferent as to whether Evolution is true or not and my interest lays only in curiosity and a love of science.

[Tiggy]

Happy Easter to you Xru.

My skepticism of TOE is not based on the data that is accumulated, or usually on interpretation on what the data means, . Generally, I get miffed . . . well, more than miffed when some assume that the case is closed, and there is little to discuss, or that TOE is FACT, ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Can you please cite an example of where anyone has ever claimed the theory of evolution is a fact? Scientists and the pro-science people on this blog go out of their way to make a clear distinction between the observed fact of evolution (i.e the overwhelming evidence for genetic and morphological changes in populations over deep time) and the theory of evolution that explains the mechanisms of the changes.

The only people I've ever seen confuse the two are creationists, many of whom do so deliberately.

The history of Grand Theories is that sooner-or-later they are rejected and supplanted with theories that are deemed more accurate and acceptable. I can envision no reason why evolution is any different, that TOE is any different. I'm not saying it is, but that it is entirely believable that it could very well be. It could be that it may not be entirely rejected but modified say 100 years from now to a degree that that will make it look like a Ford model-T compared to a F-1 Formula racing car.

I can only think of a tiny sample of cases where theories were completely overturned and replaced with entirely different ones - heliocenticism v. geocentrism for example. In most cases the existing theories are just refined and extended, not completely overhauled. ToE fits in that second category. While small details are constantly being added and/or corrected, the basic ideas of the theory are still rock solid after 150+ years of critical testing and evaluation.

- T

[phank]

The only people I've ever seen confuse the two are creationists, many of whom do so deliberately.

Maybe it's not so deliberate as it seems. After all, according to creationist doctrine evolution never happens, so an explanation of the "mechanisms" of the nonexistent is equally bogus. Much as creationists invariably bring up the big bang when others are talking about heritable variation - the doctrine teaches that everything was poofed at once, so the big bang and the branching of a new species were one and the same event. Which I think is also related to the tendency of creationists to demand absolutes, and complain that if continuing research leads to modifications of theories therefore all theories are totally wrong.

And this is probably the reason why all creationist claims have been refuted a thousand times, and yet continue to be recited ad nauseum. After all, TRUTH doesn't change just because it happens to be completely dead wrong on the merits. TRUTH has no merits, because it's TRUE. Over on Elizabeth Liddle's board someone is now arguing that only creationists have "free will", which is literally defined as the ability to believe despite evidence. Which is considered a Good Thing!

[oxmixmudd]

I may have over generalized and if I have I apologize.

There are many Christians who post in NS301 that I have the greatest respect for . . . sorry about the hanging . . . . well, anyway. And there are many atheists, and agnostics that post in NS301 that I have the greatest respect for . . . oops, for which I have the greatest respect.

I understand how poor arguments used in anti-evolutionary arguments attract lots of attention. This is no different than most other forum areas here on TWeb. Good well thought out arguments founded on sound judgement are usually treated with the respect that they deserve.

My skepticism of TOE is not based on the data that is accumulated, or usually on interpretation on what the data means, . Generally, I get miffed . . . well, more than miffed when some assume that the case is closed, and there is little to discuss, or that TOE is FACT, ha ha ha ha ha ha. The history of Grand Theories is that sooner-or-later they are rejected and supplanted with theories that are deemed more accurate and acceptable. I can envision no reason why evolution is any different, that TOE is any different. I'm not saying it is, but that it is entirely believable that it could very well be. It could be that it may not be entirely rejected but modified say 100 years from now to a degree that that will make it look like a Ford model-T compared to a F-1 Formula racing car.

Even now revolutionary discoveries are being made that considerably change the character of TOE like the discovery that organisms gather information from the environment and use that to adapt, something I just became aware of . . . oops, of which I just became aware. This leaves the advocates of slow imperceptible changes leading to evolution of different species in something of bind. This statement will, I suppose, result in some hostility in some quarters as it is my impression that imperceptible changes is considered enough by many to lead to great changes. I'm skeptical.

As far as geocentric goes . . . that the Earth orbits the sun is entirely dependent on the spacial reference that one takes. The sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way which confuses the issue. Or am I getting this wrong?

Might I mention once again that I am an Open-Evolutionist which means that I am indifferent as to whether Evolution is true or not and my interest lays only in curiosity and a love of science.

Be careful about the "The history of Grand Theories is that sooner-or-later they are rejected and supplanted with theories that are deemed more accurate and acceptable".

When you are talking about 'theories' that were developed from tradition and common perceptions (such as geocentrism) being overturned by later observation based theories that are vastly different (e.g. heliocentrism), you are talking about something very different than an observation based theory (e.g. Classical Newtonian Physics) being overturned by a better observation based theory (Einsteinian Relativity). They are in fact very different things. Generally the latter only affects more fine grained perceptions, and, as in the case of the Newton/Einstein shift, often the older theory retains a great deal of usefulness, despite being 'wrong'.

However, as much as we'd hate to admit it, we still have ideas floating around that are commonly accepted as 'science' that really are more based on tradition that science (I'm thinking of the relatively recent changes in understanding of the source of stomach ulcers). So it is not that one should think 'modern science has it all mostly right'. But when we speak of the ToE, many aspects of the theory are observation based and have been subjected to rigorous debate and analysis for over a century. So anything that updates it or supplants it must explain everything the current theory explains, and more.

So while it is indeed very possible certain fine grained notions related to ToE may be completely wrong, it is VERY unlikely any elements of the theory that form the basis for the typical theology based objections to it will be upended.


Jim

[odis]

My skepticism of TOE is not based on the data that is accumulated, or usually on interpretation on what the data means,

i wanted to comment (not about this passage in particular) but not having any idea what TOE means, i felt it wise to find out before i opened my mouth ended up with my foot in it.

[pancreasman]

i wanted to comment (not about this passage in particular) but not having any idea what TOE means, i felt it wise to find out before i opened my mouth ended up with my foot in it.

TOE = Theory of evolution

[phank]

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is being distinguished here from the FACT of evolution, so that the same term "evolution" is not being equivocated. The fact of evolution is that life forms change over time, while the theory is a set of proposed (and pretty thoroughly tested) mechanisms causing those changes.

[magellan004]

To avoid equivocation we need to emphasise that evolution is the notion that one kind of animal can change into another kind of animal.

[pancreasman]

To avoid equivocation we need to emphasise that evolution is the notion that one kind of animal can change into another kind of animal.

Define 'kind'.