[_ Old Earth _] "Science & faith: allies, not enemies"

[MrVersatile48]

Science and Faith: Allies Not Enemies

Science and faith are not necessarily enemies, which is not news to the
folks at Reasons To Believe (RTB), says a release from Christian
Wire Service

Astronomer Hugh Ross, founder and president of RTB, explains

"Attempts by both public educators and church ministers to keep
science and religion in separate compartments ends up castrating both the
scientific and theological enterprises."

Fuz Rana, a biochemist at RTB adds, "Science is a powerful tool for testing different religious and scientific ideas and models. Instead of holding seminars to help teachers know what to say when challenged by their students about evolution, we should be giving them the scientific tools they need to help students dig deeper and put the different models to the test."

RTB scientists are not in favor of teaching intelligent design because it doesn't "identify the designer and consequently cannot produce an adequate explanation for the record of nature," contends Ross.

RTB has spent the past twenty years building a testable creation model, parts of which have been published in several books that have been widely acclaimed by scientists and theologians both inside and outside the Christian community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can hear the feathers fly out there already: I'll start by contending with RTB's contention against teaching Intelligent Design - scientific method has clear limitations - it's limited to what human senses, even aided by high tech, can perceive

As 1 Corinthians 1-2, etc, tell us, the spiritual things of God can only be discerned by God's Spirit, so we need to invite Him into our hearts as Saviour & Lord

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.
27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised thingsâ€â€and the things that are notâ€â€to nullify the things that are,
29so that no one may boast before him.
30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from Godâ€â€that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."[d]

Wisdom From the Spirit - 1 Corinthians 2

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"â€â€

10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though IDT, of itself, doesn't identify the Designer, its overwhelming evidence of complexity of design throughout the universe, & in all species of life, right down to DNA, does expose the absurdity of random chance arguments

Both Romans 1:20 & Romans 12: 1-2 show that, in God's eyes, He has given us so much evidence that the only rational, reasonable response to all the wonderful things that God has done for us is to give ourselves 100% to serve Him

Romans 1:20 (New International Version)

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 12

Living Sacrifices

1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to Godâ€â€this is your spiritual[a] act of worship.
2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will isâ€â€his good, pleasing and perfect will.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over to you...

Ian

 

[ArtGuy]

So what are we supposed to discuss? Whether or not ID should be taught as science? It shouldn't, because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, and only falsifiable hypotheses can be taught as science. Discussion over.

Or are we supposed to argue the point that religion and science can go hand in hand? While I agree that science is not at odds with faith - I certainly have no problems reconciling my beliefs with the findings of the scientific community - the answer isn't to teach them together. Science and religion are exploring completely different things - the "how" and the "why" respectively, and they don't really go well together.

I mean, history and math aren't at odds, but that doesn't mean I want schools to be teaching that 3 x 6 = Napoleon.

 

[reznwerks]

rtb

RTB stands for "Reasons to Believe". When one searches for the 10 reasons they are nothing more than biblical claims of which outside the bible there is not any evidence and some of the claims are even dubious as to actually being prophecies. It appears to be an organization that is trying to walk a fine line between being faithful and recognizing the obvious that science does in fact contradict the belief.

 

[Drew]

So what are we supposed to discuss? Whether or not ID should be taught as science? It shouldn't, because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, and only falsifiable hypotheses can be taught as science. Discussion over.

I'm not sure that things are this simple. I think that Intelligent Design gets a bad rap because the form commonly put forward is obviously not falsifiable. But there could be a form of ID that is indeed falsifiable (Note: please see last para for an imporant qualification on what I have just written).

Consider the model of the electron. It is component of a scientific model of reality precisely because it makes falsifiable predictions about reality. We could construct a model of "intelligent agency" whose predictions are falsifiable. Suppose we posit that this intelligent agent "fits" into our current description of nature in the "slot" presently occupied by quantum indeterminacy - the fact that certain low level events in our world seem to be non-deterministic and are determined by "dice rolls" as it were.

It is entirely feasible that this intelligent agent "weasels" his way into nature in this manner. It is also possible that this intelligent agent is incredibly (and I mean incredibly) subtle. So subtle that his "intelligent" purposes are achieved through "fixing the dice rolls" in a way that eludes our capability to recognize. What might appear to be random outcomes might in fact be "directed". The sequence 0010101011011010110011011 representing binary quantum event outcomes may appear random, but it could result in some outcome at a higher level that reflects the will of this intelligent agent - something along the lines of chaos theory where the decision of a butterfly to flap its wings twice instead of once is the determining factor in the genesis of a monster hurricane.

But of course, the "intelligent agent" idea needs to be falsifiable to count as a scientific model. Having found an entirely plausible "hole" that this intelligent agent could occupy, we need to make this model falsifiable. Well, we could posit that one of the characteristics of this intelligent agent is that he works to ensure that those who cheat on their taxes are punished by always being stricken with leprosy. This sounds a little crazy, but I am not sure that it is. It is a valid hypothesis about the way that this intelligent agent works in the world. It can be tested by gathering empirical data. If all such cheaters are indeed stricken with leprosy, this strengthens the model. If we find a tax cheater who dies without ever being stricken with leprosy, the model needs to be abandoned or reworked.

I suspect that the following objection will be raised: Even if there is such a perfect correlation between cheating on taxes and getting leprosy, the "intelligent agent" model is not valid because we might find some other explanation (e.g. that some gene causes people to cheat on their taxes and get leprosy). Fine. So be it. But such an alternative explanation is only a possibility - we have no justification for being certain that such an alternative explanation can be found.

I just do not see why we can not posit "intelligent agency" as a building block of nature in the same we do do for the electron. Sure the electron is a much simpler construct, but it is not a valid scientific model because of its simplicity - it is a valid model because it makes falsifiable predictions. While the falsifiable predictions associated with an intelligent agent would be more "nebulous" and harder to falsify, this does not these predictions impossible to falsify.

I am "making this up as I go" so there may be a big flaw somewhere in this. I also realize that I am focusing on the idea that an intelligent agent (other than us or the other animals) plays a role in the workings of the world "today". I have not been talking about the notion that the universe was desiged. And as I wrote this last sentence, I realize that I am inclined to agree with Artguy after all - since I think "intelligent design" re the creation of the Universe, is an entirely different beast than what I have been writing about.

 

[reznwerks]

rap

So what are we supposed to discuss? Whether or not ID should be taught as science? It shouldn't, because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, and only falsifiable hypotheses can be taught as science. Discussion over.

I'm not sure that things are this simple. I think that Intelligent Design gets a bad rap because the form commonly put forward is obviously not falsifiable. .

Thats not what science does. What is this "not falsifiable" non sense. That is just a new way of saying you can't prove a negative. ID gets a bad rap because it can't be proved true and just as important there is no reason to believe it might be true. With your approach if something or anything cannot be proved false then it must be true. Truth makes itself evident.Claims stand or fall based on evidence , it's that simple.

 

[Drew]

Re: rap

So what are we supposed to discuss? Whether or not ID should be taught as science? It shouldn't, because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, and only falsifiable hypotheses can be taught as science. Discussion over.

I'm not sure that things are this simple. I think that Intelligent Design gets a bad rap because the form commonly put forward is obviously not falsifiable. .

Thats not what science does. What is this "not falsifiable" non sense. That is just a new way of saying you can't prove a negative. ID gets a bad rap because it can't be proved true and just as important there is no reason to believe it might be true. With your approach if something or anything cannot be proved false then it must be true. Truth makes itself evident.Claims stand or fall based on evidence , it's that simple.

I think you have not understood my piece. I clearly stated "If all such cheaters are indeed stricken with leprosy, this strengthens the model". This shows that I do indeed understand that "claims stand or fall based on evidence".

It is my understanding that a scientific theory (conceptual model) makes predictions about outcomes of experiments -claims that can be positively supported and falsified. This is entirely consistent with what I have written. I have never said anything that remotely could be taken as a claim that "if something or anything cannot be proved false, it must be true".

Where, exactly, did I say such a thing?

It is true that the statement you quoted from me makes no claim about "postive" evidence and only refers to falsifiability. But that is one sentence of the post. The rest makes it abundantly clear that I understand the notion that theories need not only be falsifiable, but also supported positively.

Please do not lump me in with the others whose arguments you do have legitimate objections to.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Put simply, neo-Darwin drivel has been abundantly falsified by the sheer clarity of complex design throughout the universe & its living species

Many scientists have rejected such atheistic brainwashing because they have observed such overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in everything from micro-biology to astronomy

The fact that the educational hierarchy are therefore teaching plain lies - & censoring out all rational criticism - is very sinister indeed

Especially in light of the long history of moves towards global dictatorship

Covert surveillance gizmos did not come about by random chance - any more than cars, planes, washing machines, etc did - they all had designers

& the human being is much more complex than even the biggest super-computer

Some scientists have come to faith in God simply from studying the human hand &/or the human eye as great feats of engineering

Again, no 2 snowflakes are identical

No 2 grains of sand are

Nor are any 2 leaves

All these, & many more, are scientifically observed facts pointing to Intelligent Design by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe

Academia prides itself on freedom of thought

So why force folk to parrot lies to get GCSE's, diplomas, degrees, etc?

In the short time since I posted this, I got news of a new survey - just published by Chuck Colson - indicating overwhelming USA popular demand for a say in how their children are educated & for monitoring dangerous, life-threatening scientific research, in light of the unacceptable arrogance of all too many 'scientists'

Link to 'science should be subject to democracy' thread:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 125#265125

Ian

 

[reznwerks]

brainwashing

Many scientists have rejected such atheistic brainwashing because they have observed such overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in everything from micro-biology to astronomy

No they haven't and no they don't. We have gone over this before.

 

[army_of_juan]

Put simply, neo-Darwin drivel has been abundantly falsified by the sheer clarity of complex design throughout the universe & its living species

Not even remotely close, this would be called an Argument from Ignorance..

Many scientists have rejected such atheistic brainwashing because they have observed such overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in everything from micro-biology to astronomy

Wow, you mean the .15% of biologist who don't accept evolution due to their religion? I wouldn't be so quick to call that "many".

The fact that the educational hierarchy are therefore teaching plain lies - & censoring out all rational criticism - is very sinister indeed

This isn't a fact at all. Could you name one such lie or do you just like believing in conspiracies?

Especially in light of the long history of moves towards global dictatorship

LOL, what?

Covert surveillance gizmos did not come about by random chance - any more than cars, planes, washing machines, etc did - they all had designers

True since none exist in nature.

& the human being is much more complex than even the biggest super-computer

Wait another 50 years or so, that might not remain the case.

Some scientists have come to faith in God simply from studying the human hand &/or the human eye as great feats of engineering

That's evolution for you. Of course you know there are many other animals out there that have better and more efficient vision systems than humans, why would a designer do that?

Again, no 2 snowflakes are identical

No 2 grains of sand are

Nor are any 2 leaves

All these, & many more, are scientifically observed facts pointing to Intelligent Design by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe

I don't see how that follows, does this designer create every snowflake?

Academia prides itself on freedom of thought

So why force folk to parrot lies to get GCSE's, diplomas, degrees, etc?

What lies?

In the short time since I posted this, I got news of a new survey - just published by Chuck Colson - indicating overwhelming USA popular demand for a say in how their children are educated & for monitoring dangerous, life-threatening scientific research, in light of the unacceptable arrogance of all too many 'scientists'

Link to 'science should be subject to democracy' thread:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 125#265125

Ian

Science is not a democracy. The general population is pretty stupid and is prone to irrationality. We don't teach what people feel like teaching, we teach facts as best as we know them. This country is not a Theocracy.

 

[Vanaka]

you have to understand that Evolution IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!!!

anyone that says otherwise could'nt be more blind if the gauged their eyes out


Allow me to explain,

you see,


Science can be broken up into two groups:


Observational Science:

Chemistry, Aerodynamics, Etc.


Historical Science:

Speculation and a combination of the tatters and facts that remain of our history,like some kind of puzzel, this is the stuff Evolution is Spawned from.

where is Creationism/ Christianity spawned from?


a Combination of historical Science and The foundation the bible provides


Acually, Creationism/Christianity, could almost be Called the FATHER of Science.


you may say, OH! but Obervational Science backs up Evolution, And just to save both of us time, I'm going to say prove it.

 

[reznwerks]

sure it is

you have to understand that Evolution IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!!!
Sure it is. They have reliable evidence. You have nothing.

anyone that says otherwise could'nt be more blind if the gauged their eyes out
None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see.


Allow me to explain,

you see,


Science can be broken up into two groups:


Observational Science:

Chemistry, Aerodynamics, Etc.


Historical Science:

Speculation and a combination of the tatters and facts that remain of our history,like some kind of puzzel, this is the stuff Evolution is Spawned from.

where is Creationism/ Christianity spawned from?


a Combination of historical Science and The foundation the bible provides


Acually, Creationism/Christianity, could almost be Called the FATHER of Science.


you may say, OH! but Obervational Science backs up Evolution, And just to save both of us time, I'm going to say prove it.

Evidence trumps belief everyday.

 

[MrVersatile48]

The clear evidence of such complex design throughout the universe & its species points to its Supreme Designer/Engineer/Creator

& makes a ridiculous laughing stock of random chance ideas

It takes BLIND faith to believe neo-Darwin drivel

Millions of changed lives, myriad fulfilled Bible prophecies, as well as detailed observation of creation, make faith in the Creator rational & reasonable - as Romans 1:20 & Romans 12:1 both kinda confirm

Again, academia prides itself on freedom of thought, so Establishment censoring of creationism & Intelligent Design evidence is most sinister

More evidence that the worst global tyranny ever is drawing nearer

See Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13, etc

Ian

 

[Vanaka]

Re: sure it is

you have to understand that Evolution IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!!!
Sure it is. They have reliable evidence. You have nothing.

anyone that says otherwise could'nt be more blind if the gauged their eyes out
None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see.


Allow me to explain,

you see,


Science can be broken up into two groups:


Observational Science:

Chemistry, Aerodynamics, Etc.


Historical Science:

Speculation and a combination of the tatters and facts that remain of our history,like some kind of puzzel, this is the stuff Evolution is Spawned from.

where is Creationism/ Christianity spawned from?


a Combination of historical Science and The foundation the bible provides


Acually, Creationism/Christianity, could almost be Called the FATHER of Science.


you may say, OH! but Obervational Science backs up Evolution, And just to save both of us time, I'm going to say prove it.

Evidence trumps belief everyday.

Really Reznwerks? Acually, we have a little more then you do, he have the Bible, and our Opinions, and Scientific Data,

you have, Opinions...and some Scientific Data...Wait I left one thing out, YOU HAVE FREE AND EASY PUBLICITY!!!!!!!

None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see

That could be Applied to anyone, Even you Reznwerks.

Evidence trumps belief everyday

Gee, the way you make it out, Evidence got it meaning changed to "opinions"

But of course, I'm out of touch with my dictionary so I wouldnt know.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: sure it is

[

Evidence trumps belief everyday.

[/quote]

Really Reznwerks? Acually, we have a little more then you do, he have the Bible, and our Opinions, and Scientific Data,

Well first of all the bible is not a textbook and no one uses it as such and opinions don't count, evidence does. Your scientific data is faulty and not able to be proven so in short it is a lie.

you have, Opinions...and some Scientific Data...Wait I left one thing out, YOU HAVE FREE AND EASY PUBLICITY!!!!!!!
True you have your opinions but your "scientific data" as I said is faulty so you really don't have a lot. As to free publicity , this isn't a discussion on who can get the most votes. This centers on plain old facts and evidence. Do you have any?

None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see

That could be Applied to anyone, Even you Reznwerks.
Not really. All you would have to do is prove that 98% of all scientists schooled in the disiplines we are discussing are wrong. Its that easy.

Evidence trumps belief everyday

Gee, the way you make it out, Evidence got it meaning changed to "opinions"
No not really. Evidence is just that. It is evidence that can be seen , measured, tested etc. Do you have anything yet?

But of course, I'm out of touch with my dictionary so I wouldnt know.
Finally, a statement that I can believe.

[/quote]