Paul Davies, a physicist and professor at Arizona State University, isn’t anti-evolution or pro-intelligent design. But he argues in a New York Times commentary that both religion and science are based on faith. In science’s case, he says, it “proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way†— an assumption he says that so far “has been justified.†For example, he argues that physicists “have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin.†He contends that both “monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence,†and that “until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.â€
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
163 Comments
Well a real live physicist who say evolution and ID are just alike. They both depend on the faith of the supporter. Evolutionist claim to be free of ‘faith’ is manifestly bogus.
I bet this draws lots of discussion. Thanks Phillip.
Faith is the charlatan who tries to impose his will and science is the skeptic who stands his ground.If Jesus walked the earth today, he would be a scientist telling the church to go to hell.
Think about it.
” ‘proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way’ — an assumption he says that so far ‘has been justified.’ ”
How can one then justify religions’ view of nature, that it is irrational and beyond human’s intelligibility due to some “supernatural factor” beyond our reach?
I think you missed this rather pointed notation, Ksgrm - please read it carefully:
“In science’s case, he says, it “proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way” — an assumption he says that so far “has been justified.””
“Well a real live physicist who say evolution and ID are just alike.” (Ksgrm)
NO, that is not what it says in Phillip’s lead… Please read it again…
Wiseman is closer to what the “lead” article says.
I can tell this is going to be a whpper of a thread. The anti-scince people are going to take a comment made by ONE scientist and spin it totally out of proportion.
I guess they’ll do anything to support their “cause”.
Pathetic.
“Well a real live physicist who say evolution and ID are just alike.” (Ksgrm)
NOTE: The above mentioned commentator does NOT say evolution and ID are just alike..
What is said is that the U. of AZ. writer is not “Anti-evolution, OR Pro-intelligent design”
Before we get off on some ideological lunacy, let’s at least get the gist of the writer straight… ok??
Excuse me — AZ State Univ. professor…
Wiseman — I like your allegory –at least at 5:42 a.m. and no fresh coffee as yet.. Your comment sort of reminds me of Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple..
Jesus - the Man of Faith - driving out the money changers(those USING faith to make a buck) - Yea, I like that allegory…
When I look a our newest grandchild and see how beautiful and delicate she is I find it much easier to believe that God was responsible for life. I don’t have enough faith though to believe that there was a big bang and “things” just happened or that we “evolved” The “theory of evolution” is jut that, an unprovable theory based on faith.
One small difference here, faith maintains belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. Science does not.
One small difference here, faith maintains belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. Science does not.
Posted by: Doubting Thomas | November 28, 2007 at 06:42 AM
Someone didn’t think that statement out very long or very well.
Yer exactly right, Apophis, it didn’t take long for the “I don’t understand it so it must be God” contingent to show up and show their ignorance of scientific theories.
483rd verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse . . .
“Someone didn’t think that statement out very long or very well.”
I see, attack poster, not point made. Hmmm…
Kansas: “Someone didn’t think that statement out very long or very well.”
DT: “I see, attack poster, not point made. Hmmm…”
Precisely.
Re: Kansas
DNFTT
BTW, your clarification was very well said DT.
It’s worth repeating again.
“One small difference here, faith maintains belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. Science does not.”
“Someone didn’t think that statement out very long or very well.”
I see, attack poster, not point made. Hmmm…
Posted by: Doubting Thomas | November 28, 2007 at 06:48 AM
You had no problem yesterday attacking me twice using the same nic.
If you want to know what’s wrong with your statement, since you can’t figure it out, here it is.
“…faith maintains belief in spite of evidence to the contrary…”
What evidence is being held to the contrary to spite faith?
You state faith is based on belief and in the same breath weigh faith as being evidentially bound. You can’t have it both ways.
As I said last night, all Libs lie because they are liars.
You Doubting Thomas, are just further proof my statement holds true as you attack me twice last night, then this morning you blink your eyebrows oh so innocently to seek sympathy from your fellow Libs. My statement still stands, all Libs are liars.
As I said last night, all Libs lie because they are liars.
Non-trollish statement first:
“You state faith is based on belief and in the same breath weigh faith as being evidentially bound. You can’t have it both ways.”
Evidently, you have a reading comprehension problem. DT was comparing “faith” (I would suspect i.e. religious faith) with science as to how beliefs are effected by evidence. People who strongly hold onto the former (a “faith” based belief) will hold onto that belief even when there is physical evidence that the belief is wrong. A scientist, on the other hand, when confronted with physical evidence that a belief is wrong, will change her beliefs. This is a slight oversimplification of the reality, I would agree, but according to the ideals of both SOME forms of religious faith, and science, that is indeed what happens. Creation verses evolution threads are absolute demonstrations that this is the case.
As for the rest of it:
“You Doubting Thomas, are just further proof my statement holds true as you attack me twice last night, then this morning you blink your eyebrows oh so innocently to seek sympathy from your fellow Libs. My statement still stands, all Libs are liars.”
Re: KansasDNFTT
Evidently, you have a reading comprehension problem. DT was comparing “faith” (I would suspect i.e. religious faith) with science as to how beliefs are effected by evidence.Posted by: ksagnostic | November 28, 2007 at 07:31 AM
Is that “effected by evidence” or “affected by evidence”?
Either way is incorrectly thought out.
The faith of an individual can be stirred or affected some scientific reasoning, however, the foundation of the belief still stands.
The only thing (A)ffected is the that the confidence of the person holding the faith may be tested and depending on the individual, their faith may be suspended entirely or in part.
The topic is not about evolution, but nice try to throw that “one trick pony” into the conversation.
flame bait
I would argue that anyone who believes in Evolution has faith in it.
Just answer this one question:
How did life begin?
If you believe in Evolution you don’t just get to skip that and assume life.
So what is it that you have faith in happening to create life?
Too easy Nathan.
“How did life begin?”
No one can say precisely as there were no witnesses. We rely on science to hypothesize and apply the limits of what we know to this question.
You Nathan, and many others have merely pushed back the question by answering “God did it.”
There you stop. But if we wish to pursue this courageously, we must ask the next question.
“Where did God come from?”
I thought the writer was saying science does not necessarilly discount/deny faith, but tries to understand the workings of physics and the order of the universe.
A set of avenues to pursue in regard to discussing what is ‘given’ to science relates to the mathematics that science sees as one of its bases, yet some wonder why it has had such effectiveness so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-empirical
We ought to wonder how some can be so emphatic about what they know (to the extent that they can make absolute claims about what cannot be - which is not how the scientific method ought to work) given that there is NO observational scheme extant today that does not go back to our little artificial friends (computational systems found every means at being objective and quasi-empirical) whose main basis is that same mathematics, albeit via manipulations of what we know about the physical.
The smart thing is to admit the quandary, let others have their opinion, keep the mouth shut in regard to knowing about things as a whole, and work. Some call that the operational method.
Yet, there may be more to know than we admit to date given the materialistic / reductionistic trappings that have been allowed to cover reason and to dampen the curious (oh yes, that constraining role used to be done by the State and the Church - science does not want to be the new heavy).
Peace, as the season says.
JR,
I readily admit that I have faith in God and that I can’t prove to you God’s existence.
God has always existed. He is not bound by time since he is an omnipotent being.
So what do you “believe” or have “faith” in for how life began JR?
“All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way.”
We have all seen photos of giant radio-telescopes pointed at the heavens as we listen for signs of intelligent life in the universe. What are they listening for? For organized patterns. Because organized patterns of radio waves would indicate that they were made by intelligent beings.
Yet we can look at the incredible and intricate organization and patterns of life and universe and fail to appreciate the monumental intelligence that went into its design.
Science’s leaps of faith where evolution is concerned have been pointed out over and over again. I am glad to see humble and honest recognition of that fact by Dr. Davies.
Anyone with an iota of integrity will admit science and religion both rely on faith. One says, “This is the way it is and don’t even THINK about telling me I’M wrong.” The other says, “This is as near as I can determine, PLEASE show me where I’m wrong.”
About the comment about not understanding the ‘Big Bang’, don’t feel bad, scientists really don’t either. Enough problems with it are showing up that if the Big Bangers aren’t feeling winds of change blowing, at least they’re noticing a slight breeze. Older theories lacking evidence before are beginning to gain more credence as new data is accumulated.
Life, that is living things, are really billions of years of evolved chemistry Nathan.
Someday, probably soon, new life will arise. Right now it is an even bet whether it will take the form of intelligent, self aware computers or chemical life created by human beings based on known or extrapolated organic chemistry.
Now when that happens, it will be proof to me of the absence and lack of necessity for a God. You will no doubt say it only reinforces the implication of a creator.
I don’t wish to deny anyone their faith. I know personally of instances where it brings great comfort. It is the use of that faith as a weapon that moves me.
When I sat down to watch the Chiefs this weekend, I was strong in my “belief” that the Chiefs would defeat the Raiders. Is this “belief” of the same nature as my religious “beliefs” or my “beliefs” as a scientist? No, and it would be absurd to think that the word “belief” is defined the same way in each context.
Davies makes an error of equivocation when attempting to compare the term “belief” as used in science to the concept of “belief” in religious conviction. The words clearly describe fundamentally different philosophical positions when used in these different context.
If Davies would substitute the phrase “substantiated postulate” for his use of the term “belief” when describing science, and replace “belief” with “bold trust in God’s grace” when describing religious convictions, it would be clear that fundmaentally different attitudes are being addressed. For example, his phrase that “physicists…have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin” could be more accurately stated as “physicists rely on the substantiated (to date)postulate that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin.”
However, to reduce religious “faith” to the status of a mere postulate would remove the essence of what is attempting to be described by the term.
I suspect Davies understands his error of equivocation, but proceeded intentionally. He has made a career of melding religious and scientific concepts. In my opinion, his commentary is sloppy and obfuscates fundamentally important distinctions between scientific and religious world views.
JR,I rather like the proposal of the philosopher George Carlin, who said that the Earth needed Plastic and as it’s own means of producing it was inefficient, it evolved us. When a sufficient amount of Plastic has been produced, we’ll be shaken off like a bad case of fleas and the earth will shift to a new paradigm of Earth+Plastic.
JR,
“Life, that is living things, are really billions of years of evolved chemistry Nathan.”
And you can’t prove a word of it either.
The debate here has the flavor that arises from using a natural language. ‘equivocation’ is actually just a multi-valued logic being applied, somewhat, with our usages, sort of, smoothing over the rough edges thereby suggesting more of an inconsistency than might be the case.
Ought we get more technical? Well, that wouldn’t fit the medium here.
But, guess what? As the note above about ‘quasi-empiricism in mathematics’ alluded to, even the basis (supposedly the ‘queen of the sciences’ [Gauss]) equivocates, albeit to a minor degree (or, at least that is the working hypothesis).
It might be interesting to see some of the discussion about definitions (their required operational mode), a major piece of any mathematical and scientific structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
By the way, the ‘duck test’ is probably the most insightful creation of the 20th century, as it can be applied quite well to these types of discussions.
One question for the FSM (okay, off subject somewhat, but non-linearity [albeit with a linear approximation - the earth is round, the world is flat] is the key to happy living) might be whether it can eventually pass a ‘duck’ test; on the other hand, the Pascal question (does this constitute a duck test?) is supposedly ultimately resolved for each individual (concurrent, by the way, with resolution of the FSM test).
Oh, by the way, is pointing to ‘wiki’ out of the acceptable behavior?
And you can’t prove a word of it either.
Posted by: Nathan
And this is where the person shows that this is what can be shown, this is the logic an reasoning leading me to this conclusion, show me my mistakes. And saying, “The person I dump 10% of my income to says it just ain’t so” doesn’t count.
How many here believe that nothing “exists”?
We have a word for nothing.
We can’t really package up nothing.
We can’t point out nothing to a bystander.
However, we have a concept of nothingness.
How can that be?
Paul, come to Kansas. You’ll fit right in. We just love this kind of bi-polar thinking.
Because it is the absense of “somethingness” ?? LOL
JR used an ‘infinite regress’ (albeit with some truncation of the chain) approach to arrive at the question for Nathan: “Where did God come from?”
By the way, that ‘collapsing of what is supposedly out of the question’ operation (thanks, Ockham) may be one trick that has worked for science; yet, do we know the consequences or that it’s not problematic?
In looking at what science deals with (and, insightful religion, to boot) and considering the limits to what we can know (not easily accepted by some more ‘capable’ brains - interesting study in itself), might we not come to some conclusion that there is something outside that needs a label?
So, what is that ’something’ (of which, some might say it’s nothing)? Well, many use ‘God’ (for good reason in many cases, though debates may reign there); others may have another label (which may, in essence, be ‘God’ if we could agree on terms).
The main characteristic is that we cannot put our finger on the thing (or Thing); it’s like going over interminable mountains (oh no, another peak to climb).
So, just as this (thing/Thing) is outside of our perception, and cognition, so too would be any considerations of origin and other attributes (except to some limit that some of us find interesting to ponder). It IS (okay, we can deny It and have ‘faith’ that we’ll get to the terminus [Terminus? which way? up or down?] eventually, as do some). Some actually can vouch for knowing It (such knowing is not necessarily an illusion or hallucination - operationally, there have been sufficient examples, many think).
Now, this determination, on our part, that we have to think beyond a limit is a problem similar to topology.
We just need to bring back into operation a Set that contains Itself alone, yet subsumes us all, plus everything else. Now, assuming such a Set, what may we know about It (even the limited amount that we can accomplish, as the horizon always expands, would be potentially infinite)?
Now, if that Set wanted us to know about Itself, wouldn’t there be evidence, albeit not necessarily an in-your-face type so much due to issues of wanting to emphasize support for search, query, free will, etc. (oh, aren’t these what science claims for itself?)?
Yes, it may be that Science could (may want to) replace God? Yet, the questions of origin (and much more) would still exist. Ah, isn’t it (or It) great?
Because it is the absense of “somethingness” ?? LOL
Posted by: Chas. | November 28, 2007 at 10:20 AM
How can “somethingness” be completely absent without some sort of reaction filling the void?
Laws of Thermodynamics anyone?
If one hits a baseball with a bat and that ball remains in tact while going out of our vision, it still exists, yet the state of energy in the ball has changed, along with the vector, location and velocity.
If that same baseball had no relative markers in which we could judge it’s movement, it would appear to be not moving at all, yet the states of energy would still be changed.
We can visualize in our mind the act of the ball being hit with a bat and a possible trajectory it will take. However, “nothing” outside of our mind happened.
Yet, that physical world context is in error, because something did happen in the biochemical processes of our brain to apply cause and effect for our own visualization.
Because I’m writing this, each reader will come up with their own visualization of a bat hitting a ball - each will vary according to their own experiences and/or desires.
A dog cannot share the experience we have thought about, because it cannot read nor can it read our thoughts.
To the dog, nothing happened because it is outside the realm of its experiences and perhaps capabilities.
Then, can we say that nothing truly does exist depending on the circumstances of an interpretative viewpoint?
If we hold concepts in our minds that transform to theories that really can’t be interpreted from a standard viewpoint, does it really exist or are concepts or should I say conceptualizations reality in of itself.
But that can’t be right, because the dog cannot conceptualize what we apply as theory. There must be some immutable truth that exists in order for our concept of the our universe to work.
As we get closer and closer to the inner workings of matter, it becomes less clear what we are looking at.
The baseball in our mind has a certain color. That color is dictated by the makeup of our eyes, the nerves connecting to our brain and the absolute position of the baseball. (i.e. a baseball moving will appear different in color - grayed out.)
But are we actually seeing the color of the baseball? Science tell us no. Science says we are seeing the resultant wavelength spectrum.
A scientist will state that a chromograph will give us accurate assessment of what we are looking at in the normal vision spectrum.
There are invisible spectrum to the human eye because of the physiological limitations of the human body.
A theoretical baseball on the other side of the universe would behave visually exactly the same as it would here on earth. However, no one would no of its existence and one could only speculate on its absolute position in context with our own position.
We are then set apart from conceptualization and practical reality.
But then, what does pragmatism have to do with science? Isn’t that a human limitation of experience and function?
I said it would be an interesting topic. I haven’t been disappointed. JR’s line “Someday, probably soon, new life will arise.” points out the faith aspect exactly. Some have faith in ID some in evolution. We neither have proof of our ‘faith’ but believe nonetheless.
Many who don’t believe in a omnipotent creator believe as a post above stated that the beauty and scope of our universe and the inhabitants thereupon could not have been an ‘accident’ of evolution.
Chas when you attempt to disprove someones argument don’t accuse them of not being able to read. When you proceed on an ‘assumption’ then you have as much evidence for evolution as I have for faith in a creator. None. It always comes back to faith.
See Kansas? I knew you can do it.
A thoughtful, somewhat snarky but nevertheless almost completely non-trollish post.
“Is that “effected by evidence” or “affected by evidence”?”
Actually, you were right, it should be affected as in the verb (have an effect on).
“Either way is incorrectly thought out.
“The faith of an individual can be stirred or affected some scientific reasoning, however, the foundation of the belief still stands.”
No, you are adding meaning. There are faith based beliefs (e.g., a 6,000 year old creation story must be true for my faith to be true, and my faith must be true) that are directly contradicted by a great deal of physical evidence, and yet there are a lot of people who hold onto that belief in spite of the evidence to the contrary. It is common if not exclusive or inevitable to religious based belief systems (i.e., faiths). Science, as ideally practiced, requires the scientist to disregard a belief that is contradicted by physical evidence and that does not survive falsification. DT simplified this difference in two sentences, and while understanding that it IS simplified, it is also very valid.
“The only thing (A)ffected is the that the confidence of the person holding the faith may be tested and depending on the individual, their faith may be suspended entirely or in part.”
You’re talking about variables, none of which make DT’s point invalid.
“The topic is not about evolution, but nice try to throw that ‘one trick pony’ into the conversation.”
Probable willful ignorance of the history of this thread (check out Brownlee’s opening comments). A classic troll trick.
Re: Kansas (last sentence only)DNFTT
“Chas when you attempt to disprove someones argument don’t accuse them of not being able to read.”– ksgrm –
Ummm I didnt accuse you of not being able to read… I simply suggested to READ IT again!! That way you wont get your points all confused…
Good point Chas. Right back at ya!
A dog cannot share the experience we have thought about, because it cannot read nor can it read our thoughts.Posted by: Kansas | November 28, 2007 at 10:52 AM
You assume that only because you can’t read ITS mind (ok, I’ll remove my tongue from cheek). Didn’t Wittgenstein rehash all that over 100 years ago?
Many who don’t believe in a omnipotent creator believe as a post above stated that the beauty and scope of our universe and the inhabitants thereupon could not have been an ‘accident’ of evolution.
Posted by: ksgrm | November 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM
And some, like me, believe the exact opposite: the universe is accidental reguardless of there being a ‘creator’.
Science’s leaps of faith where evolution is concerned have been pointed out over and over again. I am glad to see humble and honest recognition of that fact by Dr. Davies.
Posted by: outlander | November 28, 2007 at 08:27 AM
This–of course–is something Davies neither said nor even implied.
Nice try, Outie.
There is an element of faith in science. But that in no way means that evolution/science and religious faith are the same things, or equally valid ways of perceiving reality. [This latter point is the aim of the faithful around here, I perceive].
Read this book, understand it, and it might be possible to have a conversation with you on this complex subject.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083
The place of faith in science is that a theory or paradigm (using Kuhn’s word) is accepted so long as data support it. The theory is discarded when data no longer support it, or do not support it as well as new paradigms/theories. Religious faith persists in spite of evidence to the contrary. As an example, ask a fundamentalist like Nathan or Hank how old the earth is. They maintain their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. The faith/assumptions of science are quite different and serve a different purpose than the same named (but fundamentaly different) constructs that are utilized by religion.
The goal in science is to knock down those ideas supported by faith (the paradigm or accepted theory). In religion the goal is to maintain the faith, despite evidence. These ideas/activities are in NO WAY alike. Efforts to compare them derives from either ignorance or dishonesty.
BTW, thank you ksagnostic for your input.
Thomas what an ID believer would point out is whose time frame are you using as your base? When in my lifetime I have seen the carbon date data line redrawn what does this do to the age of the earth argument?
I’m not for teaching ID in schools, exactly the opposite. Just saying as this physicist did that belief in either is based on faith. Some feel the evidence supports the side of evolution and others can make an argument for ID. In the absence of real evidence to the contrary we both have that luxury.
Doubting Thomas,
We don’t believe anything “in spite” of evidence to the contrary.
What you call evidence I disagree with and also have different interpretations of.
I have tried to have a discussion on these things before, but cant seem to get past the mocking and name calling.
At the point of the “Big Bang”, all laws of physics break down.
The article is correct, science is merely man’s way of trying understand God’s unfolding plan.
Most call this theistic evolution.
Arguing about any of it has become boring and spiritually unrewarding.Nuff’ said.
Context is everything Tracy.
“Who’s on first?”
Question 1:
Can Evolution (the idea that all complex life originated from one simplistic organism through random processes) ever be proven wrong based on physical evidence?
Question 2:
If so then through what hypothetical discovery would allow an “unbiased” scientist to disprove evolution?
Question 3:
If no hypothetical evidence will ever permit a believer in evolution to believe that he/she believed incorrectly, how then is evolution not a faith based belief?
Furthermore…
Question 4:
Why does the lack of evidence proving evolution in the fossil record fail to make any doubters out of evolutionists?
See ksagnostic’s post below:=============================People who strongly hold onto the former (a “faith” based belief) will hold onto that belief even when there is physical evidence that the belief is wrong.
Posted by: ksagnostic | November 28, 2007 at 07:31 AM
==============================
I agree ksagnostic.
Paul Davies believes in a god therefore it’s no surprise that he has faith that god is the originator of the laws of physics. This isn’t newsworthy.
Doug is right, and there’s something else that should be noted: While order in the universe is s WORKING ASSUMPTION of science, that’s all it is. Several years back, in a personal communication to my father, physicist Alan Guth noted that though the same physical laws seem to be pervasive throughout the universe, this is not something we know as an absolute certainty.
(Note: Neither faith nor evolution was under discussion, BTW).
If evidence was found that the seeming order was in fact an illusion, the scientific community would have to revise its assumptions. And would.
The persistent mistake cosmology-bashers and evolution-bashers make is concluding that that scientists think the way THEY do–conclusion first, then evidence, discarding all that doesn’t fit into their worldview.
That’s not how it works. If one scientist ignores evidence that devastates their hypothesis, rest assured someone else will point it out!
Rage,
That is not necessarily true. My dad told me this story and it illustrates the point some of us have about how scientists view Evolution sometimes:
A group of scientists were testing a frogs ability to jump.
They placed the frog on the ground and yelled:
JUMP FROG JUMP
The Frog jumped.
They cut off a front leg.
They yelled again:
JUMP FROG JUMP
The frog jumped, not quite as well.
They cut off the other front leg.
They yelled again:
JUMP FRONG JUMP
The frog jumped, a little less well.
They cut off a hind leg.
They yelled again:
JUMP FROG JUMP
The frog jumped very poorly this time.
So they cut off the remaining leg.
They yelled one last time:
JUMP FROG JUMP
Nothing happened
JUMP FROG JUMP
JUMP FROG JUMP
The scientists looked at each other kind of dumbfounded.
They concluded that if you cut all the legs off a frog it made the frog deaf!
So, when are we going to get off the evolution/ID kick, and get back to the subject of the thread?
What happens when the theory of evolution is rightly questioned as being scientific fact?
A witch hunt to show that he/she believes in a god is in full force.
Reference Doug’s post above.
The theory of evolution is not open to debate among its devoted faithfull followers.
rfl,
In several discussions it has been reduced to simply this:
Evolution is the best explanation they have, regardless of it’s true validity, other than saying God created everything.
Evolution has become the standard for Atheists and everyone else who reject God and they are not going to give it up unless there is something other than God to replace it with.
So, when they say science will correct it’s self, what they mean is that when they find something other than Evolution and not God that is more valid then they will turn to that.
It doesn’t matter how valid or reasonable Evolution is now. It is what they have at the moment.
Reference Doug’s post above.
The theory of evolution is not open to debate among its devoted faithfull followers.
Posted by: rfl | November 28, 2007 at 02:07 PM
?????
Doug said this:”Paul Davies believes in a god therefore it’s no surprise that he has faith that god is the originator of the laws of physics. This isn’t newsworthy.”
That neither attacks religion or even mentions evolution. Looks like someone’s a bit paranoid.
Rage,
What it does is summarily dismisses any point Davies had about Evolution by saying he believes in God.
Doug routinely has gone after the faith of those who try to disagree with Evolution and mock them rather than engage in a discussion soley on the merits of Evolution.
Yeah, I don’t even have to post something without people criticizing what I don’t post. Someone must be low on their meds today.
Nathan, that isnt even a dumb joke.. it is assinine!!
Exactly Chas.
And it says nothing about the way science works.
I dont have any problem believing in God, and in Evolution… I just dont see a major conflict here… But then again, that might be too pragmatic for some…
Doug, I think low meds goes along with Full Moon week LOL
Chas,
It says everything about the way a scientist looks at something though and can draw a conclusion from the data which may not be true.
Sigh. . . Nathan, to begin with, your little story could be condensed into one sentence: correlation isn’t causation. When scientists find correlations, they consider plausible causative explanations. This isn’t new. Correlations in evolutionary theory (morphology, taxonomy etc.) are hotly debated, particularly if the causative mechanisms are unclear.
As for your false evolution/God dichotomy (psst!: Paul Davies believes in evolution!), well, that gets to the meat of the REAL issue: since common ancesrry four-and-a-half billion years ago isn’t consistent with a particular “literal” (I use the term advisedly) interpretation of scripture, then such scientific findings are blasphemy, and thus MUST be the work of atheists out to destroy faith.
You can’t really argue with “reasoning” like that. It’s pointless.
But here’s a thought: what if these scientist are generally honest people reaching conclusions based on the highest standards of their profession? Yes, I understand the underlying threat to your beliefs: if we all have commons origins, it removes humans for our place of special grace—at least in the thinking of some.
But going back further, we also have common origin with the other material things–carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. are made of the same elementary particles. Does this mean your shag rug is as important to God as you are?
Just curious.
Ahh yes, Rage… most interesting point… I like that one!!
Chas,
I don’t think anyone who actually believes what the Bible says should believe in Evolution.
However, it has little to do with salvation.
For that you must have faith in Christ.
So I don’t get too caught up in it by saying as a Christian you must not believe in Evolution. I don’t think you should.
Then again, who knows what you believe about Christ when you refuse to talk about that.
So lets not bring up your faith shall we? Wouldn’t want you to get all upset.
cf., Rage’s comment… As I said, Nathan, you little story says nothing about the way science works!
Nathan, all I said is that I have no problem with Evolution, or with Creation. I dont see a conflict!
They are different matters!
Rage,
I believe everything shares the same material, but that it was by design and takes nothing away from our relationship with God.
Again, I am not attmepting to introduce my faith into the discussion of Evolution to refute Evolution.
I can reasonable discuss Evolution without ever mentioning my faith in God. Can you and others?
The only time I start talking about my faith in God is when Doug and others try to use it.
I see Evolution and Creation as two sides of the SAME coin… If you de-value one side, the coin is still worth its face value!
Chas,
Of course you don’t see a conflict. Only someone who actually believes what the Bible says would.
There are several fundamental things which take place which Evolution would counter.
Once again, do you really want to talk about this Chas?
I know how sensitive you are when it comes to talking about your faith.
Nathan, you just SAID you can talk about evolution, without talking about your faith in God!!
You just contradicted yourself AGAIN… Geez…
Chas,
I am already in the middle of a seperate discussion with you on faith and Evolution.
If you want to discuss only Evolution then ok.
No contradiction.
Nathan,I feel like I owe it to every evolutionist to make them use their critical thinking capacities to discover why they believe what they believe. They know just like everyone else that evolution is not proven fact but they will not admit it. Instead they weakly hold on to their faith.
Because their believe is based on faith and not fact, I don’t expect to get any reasonable debate out of an ardent evolutionist. However, every once in a while, someone will engage in thoughtfull debate and stay on topic WITHOUT comments like:
“Looks like someone’s a bit paranoid”-Rage
“Someone must be low on their meds today.”-Doug
Maybe some day we’ll keep only that which is observed in the realm of what we call science.
Meanwhile, Rage is still trying to figure out that this thread is about evolution and faith.
Evolution is not a proven fact, and nobody has ever claimed it is… What is there about this FACT that is so hard to grasp??
Paul Davies is NEITHER Anti-Evolution, or PRO Intelligent Design…
Is there something unclear about that statement?
If there is something unclear about it, then take it word by word, if that makes it easier…
But dont invent what you WANT Davies to say, or NOT say…
Try to stick to the theme here…
rfl, if you see a brief comment about one scientist’s views of the laws of physics as somehow a statement on evolution (let alone the rest of that hallucinated blah-blah-blah), then you’re hardly in a position to lecture others about “reasonable debate.”
Yawn. . . .
Incidently, I could seriously take Davies to take for some of the disingenuous things he REALLY said–but it seems some people are more interested in talking about evolution (note: it was Phillip who brought up evolution, and only in passing—NOT Davies).
. . .take Davies to “task.”
Preview? What’s that?
Evolution is not a proven fact, and nobody has ever claimed it is… What is there about this FACT that is so hard to grasp??
Chas,As often as you post on this Blog, you can’t be serious to make the comment:”nobody has ever claimed it is”
But thanks for clarifying your position.
rfl — suppose you find somewhere where anybody has claimed evolution as a proven fact?? I certainly have never done that!! Nor would I… because it simply is not a proven fact..
So, suppose you either put up, or shut up, or find another thread??
Chas,
Give it time and I am sure some of the usual suspects will give us all the evidence we need.
Chas,
No thanks, I do not care to go dig up every post when someone has said that evolution is proven fact.
If you want to believe that nobody has ever claimed evolution is a proven fact, than so be it.
Evolution is certainly better demonstrated than creation. For the proof you don’t want would require time scales that dwarf a human life span. I can even conduct an experiment and see micro evolution in a few hours or days.
Creation?
God? Hello?
Could you appear a few words here for me? I won’t ask you any tough questions or take you to task on how I think you are sleeping on the job.
Just a word or two?
A bolt from the blue? Give dick cheney size double d breasts?
Crappy day today. A little sunshine in oh say 3 minutes for just a minute?
I’ll be right here.
Who created evolution?
GOTCHA!
Okay, I’m paranoid, low on meds, march in step, whatever…
You people funny
Evolution created the big bang?Created itself?Created physics?Or did physics and science create each other simultaneously?
Chicken or the egg?
Any argument with the RR is pointless. Believing the earth is only, what, 6-7-8 thousand years old takes science out of the equation. Regardless of what method science uses to date life, it will be slammed by the RR as being wrong.
The earth is around 4 billion years old, life started around 3 billion years ago, it evolved, was basically wiped out, started again, and now we got man and a bunch of animals. Man evolved, and God, at some point, if you believe in God, gave man free will. End of story.
The earth is around 4 billion years old, life started around 3 billion years ago, it evolved, was basically wiped out, started again, and now we got man and a bunch of animals. Man evolved, and God, at some point, if you believe in God, gave man free will. End of story.
Posted by: stumper | November 28, 2007 at 03:24 PM
But whose calendar do we use?
Gregorian, Julian, Aztec, Mayan, Jewish, Light years or exactly what does a year consist of? The number of times it takes for the earth to rotate around the sun?
Why must years be counted off in turns of earth’s relationship to the sun?
Don’t the other planets count?
What about galaxy rotation?
Kanass, yer a picken fly shit outa pepper now.Who gives a crap what calender.
The truth is that it’s a hell of a lot older than fundies wanna think.
Let em think
Tracy,
As much as I welcome having you back, maybe you could bring some of the standards you guys talk about on your blog to this one.
i.e. the name calling.
Why do you have to call us fundies?
In order to get fly feces out of pepper, one would need to prepare of solution of proper specific gravity, then spin said solution in a centrifuge. After which, said solution is exposed to certain acids in which the organic material would react and the pepper would not.
The resulting particulate would solve the issue and said particulate could be used to print out said calendars.
Kans,1. A light year os a measure of distance, not time.2. A year is a manageable length of time and the seasons repeat themselves.3. The other planets would count if we lived on them.4. If you really want to count galaxy rotations, were about halfway through our fourth circuit.5. Why on earth does it matter? Even in the bible, the universe has been around longer than we have.
Sorry bout that Nathan, dent no it was a bad wurd.
I think no less of anyone who is fundamentally inclined.
Liberal conservative fundie, whatever.
I’m perfectly fine with young earth creationists, and have no need to demonize them.My brother is one. And a fine christian man.
And I don’t have any standards over on my blog. Don’t need any so far. Anybody welcome anytime.We quit tawkin bout the ugliness over here long ago.
Jed,
May I offer the definition for a solar year.
solar yearn.The period of time required for the earth to make one complete revolution around the sun, measured from one vernal equinox to the next and equal to 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.51 seconds. Also called astronomical year, tropical year.
It appears that our calendar years on earth are based on how much time it takes the earth to travel a distance.
That distance being the time it takes earth to travel around our sun.
And I don’t have any standards over on my blog. Don’t need any so far. Anybody welcome anytime.We quit tawkin bout the ugliness over here long ago.
Posted by: TRACY | November 28, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Wanna bet?
If I showed up, your viewers would drop like flies in pepper. (chortles)
The earth is assumed to be 4.5 billion years due to the Uranium/Lead dating method.
However there are two obvious problems with radioactive dating for geological purposes: 1) uncertainty about the composition of the original sample and 2) possible losses of material during the time span of the decay.
So for the method to be relied upon, it needs to be calibrated.To calibrate the Uranium/Lead dating method, we need to us the method to check the date of rocks of known age (ie known as in the age is determined through observation or from another reliable dating method). One way to do this would be testing rocks that are a product of a “recent” volcano.
Anybody have a link for how the Uranium/Lead method was tested on rocks of known age? I would really like to have that information.
rfl, don’t have a link, but an interesting story.
A few decades ago there was a project to gather as much as pre-WWII lead as possible for dating processes.
I’m assuming the requirement was prior to the Atomic age?
No matter what evidence is presented, some people will always claim evolution lacks “proof.”
This is a convienent stance, as no matter how much evidence is presented, they can always claim that it is insufficient. They therefore insulate themselves from ever having to accept evolution, no matter the type or extent of evidence presented.
Though perhaps comforting to them, this is an inherently unscientific approach, and demonstrates an intellectual attitude that is not suitable for engaging in scientific discourse.
As long as evolution “deniers” fail to explain what they would consider to be sufficient evidence to verify the existance of evolution, their claims of “not enough proof” are meaningless. Instead, they would rather play the role of score keeper in a rigged game. They continually state that “you don’t have enough points (proof) to win.” But when asked “how many points do I need to win? The response is merely, “Ohh, I’ll tell you when you get enough, but you don’t have enough yet.” In the absence of clear criteria as to what would be accepted as proof-positive of evolutionary biology, they are free to continually make claims of “no proof” that won’t ever, and can’t ever, be contradicted in their minds. Obviously, science doesn’t operate, and can’t operate, with such vague criteria for evaluating evidence.
It would be more intellectually honest of them to simply state the truth of their position: they reject evolution because it contradicts deeply held views and opinions, and they will never accept evolution regardless of the evidence presented. For them, evolution cannot be “proven”, for it is not even possible that it exists.
rfl,Uranium/lead dating is usually done on zircon crystals, which can’t form in the presence of lead, but can form uranium inclusions. The rate of decay is a known factor- the halflife of U-235 is 704 million years. So the ratio of uranium to lead will give as precise a date as the measurement, which can be pretty damn precise!
As long as intelligent designer “deniers” fail to explain what they would consider to be sufficient evidence to verify the existance of intelligent design, their claims of “not enough proof” are meaningless.
MW why is it so hard for evolutionists to admit that it is only a theory, not provable, not able to be repeated, etc…
The topic is that both are not provable so are an exercise of faith to believe. Why is that so hard to accept?
What is known today about evolution is absolutely “provable,” and has been repeated many times in order to attain “provable” status. There are facts not yet known, not yet tested - scientists are eager to find those, test those, prove those. It’s a theory that is evolving.
EVERYTHING about intelligent design lacks proof. There is nothing that has been tested, or proven. All of it must be taken on faith.
Common descent is unprovable even if you are one of the wishy washy crowd that believe that God controlled it.
But if you think that it happened on its own, without a guiding intelligence, then you believe that we are all freak accidents of a bizarre process that somehow gained self-awareness. You think that matter organized itself, sparked “life” that figured out how to reproduce itself, and that it evolves from less complex to more complex forms, which also has never been demonstrated. In short, baby, you got faith, because you ain’t got proof.
When one needs to point out potential problems with a scientific theory because they can’t point to any proof of their belief, which is it that must be taken on faith? Proving your point can’t be done by disproving another.
Here we are again with the same ridiculous debate. I’m sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but just because Mr. Davies says it doesn’t make it true. First of all, let’s stipulate for the moment that science does operate on a system of faith; if so, at least it is a faith born of observation, hypothesis, experiment, measurment and testing, with the possibility - indeed the frequent occurence of falsifiability. For example, if I hold a rock in my hand, I can predict that it will fall if I let go. I can then test that prediction. I can test it a hundred times (or a hundred thousand). Chances are it will fall to the ground every time. Scientifically speaking, I cannot say with 100% certainty before I let go that it will hit the ground, but based on experience, experiment, etc., with a untold billions of similar situations, we can predict with an extremely high level of certainty that it will fall to the ground. Some areas of science have higher levels of predictability and some have lower, but they are all based on some kind of evidence, experiment, testing and so on, and all are falsifiable; if evidence is found that demonstrates that a scientific claim is untrue - and the evidence is strong, compelling and, above all, REPRODUCIBLE - then the scientific claim (or fact, theory, law, whatever) can be changed or modified in accordance with the new evidence. This happens all the time in science. I suppose you could call the predictive ability of science a kind of faith. It is NOT, however, the same as religious faith, which has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. There is no basis for any religious claim for the beginning of life, the origin or development of species or even the existence of god.
Two other things: stop using the word “theory” if you don’t understand the scientific meaning of the word. Pro-ID folks love to say things like it’s “just” a theory. A scientific theory is an idea or claim that is overwhelmingly supported by volumes of evidence, which is not the same as the vernacular meaning. Also, since evolution IS supported by evidence and ID/creationism is supported by absolutely NO evidence (even if evolution were only supported by ONE piece of evidence - which it’s not, it’s supported by mountains of evidence, even if the creationsts turn up their noses at it - that would be more evidence than ID or creationism has going for it) the burden of proof is on YOU, that is, the ID/creationist camp to find evidence disproving evolution. Scientific inquiry has produced VOLUMES of evidence demonstrating the validity of evolution; if you don’t find the evidence compelling, it is incumbent upon YOU to demonstrate more compelling evidence to the contrary. Why is THAT so hard to accept?
“they can’t point to any proof of their belief”
Posted by: lindainks55 | November 28, 2007 at 06:28 PM
That’s why they call it belief lindainks55.
“Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove their main contention to other people who may or may not agree.”
What is known today about evolution is absolutely “provable,” and has been repeated many times in order to attain “provable” status.
Linda could you give me an example of these successful times this was accomplished?
TC the validity of evolution has never been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt so why should ID proponents have to prove you wrong?
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt it will no longer be a theory.
No ksgrm, I’m afraid anything I would type here would be useless. It’s all been typed here and elsewhere many times and you still hold that it isn’t proven. I will never attempt to change your belief system. It belongs to you, you own it and it isn’t for me to get between you and your beliefs.
At 3:15, I began an experiment testing creation.
It is now nearly 7.
For now, I’ll just mark “the Lord God” tardy and give him an incomplete. I think I’ll check the little box that says “room for improvement” while I’m at it.
Me too JR I have this pet monkey I have had in a cage for the last 10 years and guess what - he is still a monkey.
Linda I’m not arguing my belief system - the topic as that evolution and ID were both based on faith. I concur in this.
Well I mean gee,
The red sea? The fishes and the loaves? Making the sun stand still?
All I asked was a small demonstration.
God? I’ll be back later. You can just leave your work on my imaginary desk here.
Interesting web site:
http://www.ccn22shop.com/FOTF/ttp_promo_medium.wmv
“I have this pet monkey I have had in a cage for the last 10 years and guess what - he is still a monkey.”Posted by: ksgrm | November 28, 2007 at 06:48 PM——————
That sentence you posted proves positively you don’t understand the theory of evolution. I don’t think you will try to fill in the blanks since you seem well satisfied that you know what you want to know.
I don’t discuss topics I don’t understand or have any knowledge about. Guess you don’t share that “belief system” either.
I have read posts you’ve made for several months on varied topics and haven’t ever seen you admit to a change of opinion, that a post made you think or contained information you hadn’t considered. From this reading I have surmised that you know what you choose to know or will find out more from places you choose. Thus, I admit it is not possible for me to have anything to say that might be of interest to you. I won’t attempt the impossible, but readily admit failure.
Linda,
His comment was made to parody what JR was saying about God.
Yet you choose to nit pick it as if it was Kansas sole conclusion on Evolutionary theory.
What is the point of even posting in the thread if you are not going to defend your statements and then claim it is not worth trying?
As I predicted about 14 hours ago, the anti-science reichwing crowd would go absolutely NUTS about this little piece of spin.
Get it through you thick heads:
ID is just creationism, repackaged, and will NOT be taught in PUBLIC school science classrooms.
We will comntinue to teach REAL SCIENCE whether you like it or not. Evolution is REAL SCIENCE no matter how you try to spin it.
Get over yourselves!
At 3:15, I began an experiment testing creation.
It is now nearly 7.
For now, I’ll just mark “the Lord God” tardy and give him an incomplete. I think I’ll check the little box that says “room for improvement” while I’m at it.
Posted by: J R | November 28, 2007 at 06:45 PM
Linda as you see my post was in direct response to JR’s idiotic post. Sorry if you took umbrage with it and had to go off on a tangent about my posts. I am opinionated. Truth be told - we all are. That is what I found so boring about the Tracy alternative blog. We are different.
Today I’m not arguing the right or wrong side of evolution simply stating that the belief system we all bring to the table is what will affect our opinions.
Some of us by faith believe in a creator and by extension ID. Other by faith accept the theory of evolution.
It doesn’t make you or me right or wrong - just different.
Well here is the old biddy ksgrm taking blind shots at me again.
What was idotic about my post? I don’t remember mentioning you.
Be specific and show your work.
Do that and ya god the performance of “the Lord God” beat on this thread.
“Evolution is REAL SCIENCE no matter how you try to spin it”.
No it’s not. Real science is reproducible. The scientific method demands it. Because evolution change theory depends upon unpredictable mutations, it is clearly not reproducible. Therefore evolution (common descent) is not real science.
Do that and ya god the performance of “the Lord God” beat on this thread.
Posted by: J R | November 28, 2007 at 08:30 PM
Making jokes about something others revere is offensive and idiotic. Shows a lack of good sense in my book. MOHO
What in the world were you trying to say in your last post?
Hey outie tell God I’ll give him her it a make up exam. But I don’t have an eon to wait for it.
Huh, sounds sorta like evolutionary science.
JR, a little friendly advice. Be careful what you ask for bro.
Still waiting for J R to evolve into, well something close to human. He hasn’t morphed into a new species yet either. Still his lonely save the world self.
ksgrm,
As offensive as J R is with his mocking of God, showing disrespect to God and any Christian posters reading - it is best to just to walk on by and not feed the troll (that is essentially what he is when he behaves in such childish manner).
If J R was an adult, he would realize how hurtful and awful the mocking of God is to others, and he would not deliberately try to offend others. In person, he could never get away with it. Further, he would never have the intestinal fortitude to say anything like he posts to your face.
I believe you know this too. But like me, you can only take so many insults to your life time of beliefs. Counting to ten is difficult. Patience is a virtue for a reason.
“Thou shalt not take the Name of The Lord thy God in vain.”
My Christian duty is done. I have faced the evil one and passed the Word.
The rest is between the offender and the Lord. I did my part.
“Evolution is REAL SCIENCE no matter how you try to spin it”.
No it’s not. Real science is reproducible. The scientific method demands it. Because evolution change theory depends upon unpredictable mutations, it is clearly not reproducible. Therefore evolution (common descent) is not real science.
Posted by: outlander | November 28, 2007 at 08:32 PM
Sorry, outie………….evolution is REAL SCIENCE, YOUR FAITH BASED MYTHOLOGY IS NOT. The “scientific method(s) are a process (or processes) science uses to collect data and test hypotheses. Your feeble attempts to make these methods into the current creationist strawman to “disprove” evolution only makes YOU look foolish.
Some folks just don’t get irony.
I was making a point. Since none of the whiners aren’t sharp enough to get it. I’ll line it out for you.
Trying to disqualify evolution as science by stating that it is not observable is a non starter and a cop out. The time scales involved allow us to see only secondary evidence. This is not “faith” in evolution. It is using the observable things that you have to do the science that you can.
The point is it is frankly bigger than humans can see. That doesn’t make it arcane or mystical.
Now that I’ve been nice…
For some of the whiners like “Rev.B”? If your God is so small and defenseless that in your eyes I can hurt him OR you? That’s YOUR problem not mine. Pray on it or something.
Galatians 6:7
Common Tater you have brought a conclusion to this with that very apt verse.
Thanks
Galatians 6:7
Posted by: Comment Tater
The problem with that Comment Tater is that J R is reading the Queen James Version.
The translation in his copy is something about vasoline and live gerbils.
That isn’t punishment. It’s called S&M to J R.
Quietness is my ally. As long as I keep my poise I will do nothing to make bad matters worse.
Not from the Bible but makes a lot of sense!
Reverend B = “kansas”
And oh how very Christian that last post was.
Would that be the bit about “Do not tempt the Lord thy God”?
Ya have to BELIEVE for that to work. I don’t.
And just to show how confident I am in science and trying to be respectful of faith, I will not post this matter further unless directly addressed.
Not hardly J R.
But do keep trying along with CapnAmerica to try and assign every troll that appears on the blog to be me.
You can either believe that Matter has always been in existence or that God has always been in existence.
What caused Matter?
What caused God?
Neither Science Nor Religion can say anything other then: It’s always been.
Faith in Rocks or Faith in God.
You decide.
J R please stick to insulting your rocks.
You got a box of em.
Keeping my word….
Pat dear as much as you’d like to get a hold manually or orally of my “rocks”, I told you, I don’t date con. women.
Pat H, Sorry to intrude. You said, “box.” I think you meant “head.”
JR, (directly!)
Thanks for the laugh! That was a good one! You do good work!
No intrusion apology needed. I meant box. As in J R is a box of rocks.
And J R, I responded to your gutteral sexual fantasy before.
Everyone on this blog knows you do not date. Big callous on his hand.
TC the validity of evolution has never been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt so why should ID proponents have to prove you wrong?
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt it will no longer be a theory.
Like I said, if you don’t understand the scientific meaning of the word “theory,” don’t use it in a scientific context.
First of all, I already explained why it is incumbent upon the ID folks to provide evidence to support their position(s), but for argument’s sake, why SHOULDN’T the ID proponents have to “prove” evolution wrong? Incidentally, I never used the word “prove;” we don’t prove anything in science. However, scientific inquiry has generated a mountain of evidence supporting evolution; ID and creationism have generated no evidence. Also, to outlander: sorry to break it to you, but your blanket statement that “[b]ecause evolution ch