Does Science Piss Off God?

[P_Marlowe]

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement) that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'.

I would suggest, that you cite in context, the snipet

of my statement referred to"evolution theory".

 

And I did also not claim, that you said, that you

believe in "Intelligent Design".

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hotShot]

Creationists took an Article from Homer Jacobson published 1955 in "American Scientist", as a scientific prove for their theory.

 

He did not know that, but when he found out what they made of his publication. He reread it and asked the editor to correct it although 52 year have passed.

Acting like a true scientist.

 

Homer Jacobson's new statement

[mrdct]

I just wanted to quantify your statement (not my statement) that one theories explained it ok, with some open issues

I never made such a statement. Nowhere in this thread have I expressed a belief in 'Intelligent Design'.

I would suggest, that you cite in context, the snipet

of my statement referred to"evolution theory".

The same holds true for the evolution theory. I haven't made any statement that suggests either theory "explains it OK".

[mikeh]

Wow...  Spend a few hours in bed and suddenly you're four pages behind in a brand new thread.

 

Here's a few (quick) comments.

 

1.  As other's have already commented, the theory of Evolution does not provide a definitive explanation for every possible question that a scientist might pose.  It is still a work in progress.  At the same time, the Theory of Evolution is the definitive paradigm with the Biologicial sciences.  There are no credible alternatives.

 

2.  Intelligent design isn't science.  I strongly recommend that people who question this watch the Nova documentary that was mentioned earlier in this thread.  The development of the Dover trial does a wonderful job demolishing the claims of the Intelligent Design proponents.  I also recommend that folks familiarize themselves with the so-called "Wedge Document" developed by the Discovery Institute.  The Wikipedia has some good background material.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

3.  I am very much opposed to the "Teach the Controversy" concept that MrDct is advancing.  In principle, in a perfect world, I can see value in such an approach.  In practice, I think that this would be an enormous mistake.  On purely practical grounds, I don't think that most schools have enough time or resources available to add this type of material in to the curriculum.  More importantly, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would spark political fights the likes of which you've never seen.  The"Controversy" over intelligent design was deliberately manufactured by religious fundamentalists.  Intelligent Design is not, in any way, Science.  Done right, a "Teach the Controversy" unit would turn into a concerted attack on Intelligent Design and through that, Creationism.  While I might find this highly amusing, perhaps even valuable, I don't think that its worth the cost.  (Nothing galvanizes the nutjobs like the perception of persecution)

I agree 100%

 

I would add that, based on my extensive amateur readings (natural history being one of my major preferred area for reading) evolutionary theory is now about as well proven as most scientific ideas. While intelligent design is clearly claptrap.

 

BTW, I strongly suspect that Dave literally has NO idea of what he is talking about. He repeats the basic premises of the ID school: that there are aspects of biology that are too complex to explain by evolutionary theory: the eye is one such object that is always brought up by the ignorami who spout nonsense, often while purporting to value ID and evolutionary theory as comparable in terms of logic and plausibility.

 

Let me suggest to those of that ilk that they actually READ some of the books on evolution.

 

They will learn that eyes have developed (evolved) in several different ways. They will learn HOW such complex structures can evolve over geologic time (one of the problems we, as humans have, in assessing the intuitive plausibility of complex ideas is that we have no real sense of big numbers... including just how long 3.5 billion years is!

 

In addition, it is nature's 'mistakes' that offer some of the best evidence against ID and in favour of evolution. The human eye is a classic: we are literally wired backwards: if we were intelligently designed, the optic nerve would terminate behind the eyeball, not in front of it where it actually interferes with our vision (altho the brain processes it to appear otherwise, just as it processes the saccades so that we don't notice them. Nature is full of examples of second-best choices, a bit like many players still use standard signals in bridge.... the game inherited those methods from earlier card games, while an intelligent designer of bridge, starting with a blank slate, would have used udca :D

[Fluffy]

Hey mike!, was disappointed to miss you on the first pages of teh thread :D

 

Probably Gerben will correct me here.

 

When scientist started studying particles, nobody knew how it was possible that atoms had 'eternal movement' with electrons flying around, but losing no energy.

 

Then came Bohr who said something like: electrons don't lose energy as long as they are flying at certain orbits.

 

Noody beleived that theory, even Bohr. But the important thing was that the model that came from it worked!. So everyone started using the model.

 

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

 

 

It doesn't matter if the spaguetti monster keeps deceiving your tests upon a matter as long as he doesn't stop doing so, adn you can predict it.

 

The Evolution model works.

 

 

There were also models of solar system planets rotating around Earth (with a non circular, but heavilly complex orbit resembling rotation around the sun actually) wich worked better on certain predictions than models of rotation around the sun.

 

 

But the fact that it works DOESN'T MEAN IT IS RIGHT!. You should never forget there are possible alternatives, to evolve you have to be wrong sometimes. And teaching that is also important.

[helene_t]

But the fact that it works DOESN'T MEAN IT IS RIGHT!. You should never forget there are possible alternatives, to evolve you have to be wrong sometimes. And teaching that is also important.

Absolutely. But this applies to science in general. The atomic theory, the periodic table of the elements, Mendelian genetics, evolution, you name it. No reason to single out evolution.

[mikeh]

Hey mike!, was disappointed to miss you on the first pages of teh thread :D

 

Probably Gerben will correct me here.

 

When scientist started studying particles, nobody knew how it was possible that atoms had 'eternal movement' with electrons flying around, but losing no energy.

 

Then came Bohr who said something like: electrons don't lose energy as long as they are flying at certain orbits.

 

Noody beleived that theory, even Bohr. But the important thing was that the model that came from it worked!. So everyone started using the model.

 

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

 

 

It doesn't matter if the spaguetti monster keeps deceiving your tests upon a matter as long as he doesn't stop doing so, adn you can predict it.

 

The Evolution model works.

 

 

There were also models of solar system planets rotating around Earth (with a non circular, but heavilly complex orbit resembling rotation around the sun actually) wich worked better on certain predictions than models of rotation around the sun.

 

 

But the fact that it works DOESN'T MEAN IT IS RIGHT!. You should never forget there are possible alternatives, to evolve you have to be wrong sometimes. And teaching that is also important.

I suppose that, in one sense, you may be right... but only in a narrow sense that renders all discussion meaningless.

 

Any attempt to understand existence requires that we accept, as valid until proven otherwise, certain axioms. Religion, when it ventures into the realm of science, accepts, as axiomatic, that there is some being or power that has consciously chosen to create the universe and, this being the sole (soul?) reason for religion, US!

 

Science doesn't need that axiom (that hypothesis as Laplace called it). Science doesn't yet claim to explain the universe, until some billionths of a second after space-time came into existence, nor has science yet settled on a TOE.

 

But that is a strength of the scientific method: that it doesn't purport to explain things for which we have no compelling fact or evidence based explanation. Invoking God may make us feel more important, in a universe in which every major advance in science makes us more obviously a contingent branch of biology and, at its root, something very close to random chance. Invoking God may make us feel more secure. It also, of course, allows us to deal with the idea of our own death. By creating a God and a soul, we can imagine life after death.

 

Accepting that there is no God means accepting that there is very little likelihood that there is any after-life, and that scares us, as a species (and me, on occasion).

 

So a great deal of energy is spent trying to convince ourselves that God exists.

 

The fact that every culture has invented its own set of Gods (usually more than one), demonstrates that perhaps the evidence upon which we rely to create and believe in these gods is ambiguous. Those of a religious bent, when asked where the evidence is of their god, will often point to the world we live in. But if that world is evidence of their god, how come so many other humans misinterpreted the evidence and thought that the world proved that some other set of imaginary entities existed?

 

The scientist can (now) explain the day-to-day manifestations of the world by invoking physics. But there is not yet a full understanding of all of the universe, and it seems to me entirely plausible that our brains will prove incapable of ever understanding everything... even today, with our limited knowledge, there are aspects of the world that seem counter-intuitive: the wave/particle nature of electrons for example.

 

BTW, in my view, a good test of whether someone's world view is valid, or a close approximation to the 'truth', is whether use of the world view allows successful physical manipulation of the world.

 

With that in mind, compare the scientific view (which underlies evolution: evolutionary theory is a great example of the scientific approach at work) and religion. Look around your home or your office. Consider even the way in which we are communicating on this forum.

 

No priest or minister ever, by prayer or the application of theology, created a computer, or a laser or a radio or a vaccine or an antibiotic or ... the list goes on.

 

Religion affords no real explanation of the world. If it did, then prayer would be shown, experimentally, not anecdotally, to work (of course, prayer MIGHT work in some cases by virtue of the placebo effect). Real miracles would happen if the devout needed them.

 

Science works... of course, some of the applications of technology have unfortunate side effects, but I am not speaking of moral issues here. Religion, moral or otherwise, and certainly much religious practice over the known history of man would now be seen as immoral, doesn't 'work' in that sense at all. So how vaild an explanation can it be when it doesn't lead to anything? And leading to salvation is not leading to anything: since the reasoning is perfectly circular and non-testable.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

No priest or minister ever, by prayer or the application of theology, created a computer, or a laser or a radio or a vaccine or an antibiotic or ... the list goes on.

<snip>

They did.

 

For that matter, at least with regards to europe,

the church was the main responsible institution,

for ensuring that the knowledge of the Greeks and

Romans survived the dark Ages.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

 

Science is about prediction, not proof. Scientific theory about microevolution can be used to make predictions...about how closely related one animal is going to be to another prior to checking their DNA, about mutations of bacteria, and so forth. Some of the predictions it makes about things such as life on other planets have yet to be shown true or false, but it at least makes a projection.

 

On the other hand, Intelligent Design and the Spaghetti Monster predict...what, exactly? If they aren't useful for making predictions, then they're religion, or history, or something, but they aren't Science.

[mikeh]

<snip>

No priest or minister ever, by prayer or the application of theology, created a computer, or a laser or a radio or a vaccine or an antibiotic or ... the list goes on.

<snip>

They did.

 

For that matter, at least with regards to europe,

the church was the main responsible institution,

for ensuring that the knowledge of the Greeks and

Romans survived the dark Ages.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

give me an example. I accept that there was (and maybe still is) a tradition that saw clerics work in the field of natural science, and so a cleric may have produced or played a role in the production of some scientific or technological advance, but did they do so through prayer or through application of scientific principles?

 

 

As for the role of the church in the preseration of roman and greek knowledge, my understanding is different. While some vestiges of knowledge were preserved by the church, my understanding is that far more was preserved in the Arab world: the renaissance, in large part, came about due to the rediscovery of the works, especially, of the ancient greeks through contact with the islamic scholars.

 

The church was far from a progressive institution: it was dedicated to maintenance of the status quo, along with efforts to assert/promote the primacy of the papacy... and was rife with internal and external intrigue and power struggles (there were even, for a while, two popes at once...each denouncing the other).

[blackshoe]

Disclaimer: I'm an engineer, not a philosopher.

 

The Roman Catholic Church used to preach that the Earth is the center of the Universe - because, iirc, it was the place God created for his Children to live.

 

Then Galileo came along and said that his scientific observations suggested a different theory - that the Sun was at the center, and the earth moved around it.

 

The Church told him he was wrong, and furthermore if he didn't admit he was wrong, he would be excommunicated - not a pleasant fate, in Galileo's day. So he recanted in front of a curia (a Church court). Rumor has it that as he was leaving, he whispered under his breath "it still moves". :(

 

Later on, Newton suggested that Galileo's theory was wrong in some details, and proposed a new theory. Later still, because some observers had seen things that seemed to contradict Newton's theory, Einstein proposed a newer theory. So far, Einstein's theory hasn't, afaik, run into any major stumbling blocks, so it's still current. That's how science works. When somebody comes along with a better theory, Einstein's will be replaced.

 

Darwin's scientific observations led him to postulate his theory of evolution. That theory provides a better description of the observed phenomena, on the whole, than does creationism or intelligent design. Yes, there are holes. So what? Faith based "science" doesn't do a better job of explaining the overall observations than does evolution, it does a worse job. When some scientist comes up with a theory that explains the holes in evolution, and provides at least as good an explanation of the things evolution explains well, that new theory will supplant Darwin's. As it should.

 

Neither creationism nor intelligent design is a new theory. Both are more closely akin to the Curia's ultimatum to Galileo. Or, as Gary Gygax put it when describing why the magic system in Dungeons and Dragons works the way it does "it's that way because I say so. Now shut up." Mr. Gygax can perhaps be permitted that luxury - after all, he (well, along with Dave Arneson) created D&D. But the people who claim creationism or intelligent design aren't God, nor has God told me that they speak for Him. So perhaps we can be forgiven if we decline to believe them, particularly when their "evidence" includes, in effect "God said so". Did he? Can you prove it? Nope, you can't.

 

In a free society, continued freedom, indeed the continued existence of the society itself, depends on the ability of its citizens to do their own thinking, not be told what to think by others. The system by which such a society teaches its children must teach them to think for themselves - and that they should value ideas -- theories if you will -- that allow and require them to do so. Evolution is such a theory. Creationism and intelligent design are not. To require schools to teach those things as if they had the same value as evolution is not only nonsense, it is folly of the worst kind.

[mike777]

This whole thread seems to assume public schools. Do people still attend those things? I assume a private school can teach this stuff?

 

btw many seem to assume that the students know that the earth orbits the sun, this seems way too big an assumption. Let us all back up. :(

 

Evolution, geez can we get people to know the basic stuff first?

[Al_U_Card]

:( What are the chances that the intelligent design was....evolution? B)

[matmat]

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

 

Science is about prediction, not proof.

Someone shoot me...

 

The goal of pure science is to figure out how things work. The test of the theories that originate from science is to be able to predict effects, phenomena etc. The science can then be _applied_ to make stuff, build stuff, design stuff and so forth. But the fundamental goal is to understand how things function.

[han]

on average?

 

does that mean 50% of the time it is less?

 

Yes, and 50% of the time it is more!

While I don't doubt that Gerben is approximately correct, this is not what the word "average" means so the answer to mike777's question should have been "no".

[han]

In real ife you don't care how real things work, you just want to be able to predict it.

 

Science is about prediction, not proof.

Someone shoot me...

 

The goal of pure science is to figure out how things work. The test of the theories that originate from science is to be able to predict effects, phenomena etc. The science can then be _applied_ to make stuff, build stuff, design stuff and so forth. But the fundamental goal is to understand how things function.

I certainly agree with this.

 

On the other hand, most scientists will understand that the theories we have are mostly models for how things really function.

 

Matmat can correct me if I am wrong, he is a scientist and I am not.

[han]

Also, it is my impression that evolution theory serves as a very good model and it is my opinion that having a basic understanding of evolution theory will enhance one's understanding of how the world functions. Therefore, I think it is a must that all children are taught the basics of this theory.

 

I also think that having a basic understanding of religion enhances one's understanding of how humans work and having some basic knowledge of christianity is necessary to understand some of western history. As such, I think that the basics of christianity has to be taught at schools in the US.

[matmat]

Also, it is my impression that evolution theory serves as a very good model and it is my opinion that having a basic understanding of evolution theory will enhance one's understanding of how the world functions. Therefore, I think it is a must that all children are taught the basics of this theory.

 

I also think that having a basic understanding of religion enhances one's understanding of how humans work and having some basic knowledge of christianity is necessary to understand some of western history. As such, I think that the basics of christianity has to be taught at schools in the US.

I am not going to go as far as that there is no place for religion in school (and we're talking elementary school here). But I feel there is _NO_ place in school for solely christianity. If you are going to have a religion class, you have to include at least the other major religions and there need to be checks to make sure that whatever is being taught is done from a philosophy/culture perspective rather than in belief oriented manner.

When I was in the equivalent of high school in Poland, were were forced to choose between a Religion (read: roman catholic) class and an Ethics (read: catholic ethics) class. I attended a few lectures of the latter and it quickly became clear that they were angling to teach RC to non-believers, thinly disguised and interleaved with some greek philosophy (the teacher was a priest) . I did manage to get myself out of there into a programming class -- much better use of my time.

[Winstonm]

It is odd to me that so much time, energy, and money is spent simply challenging the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has been tested now about 150 years and in each case has passed the test - it as good of scientific theory as there is.

 

ID is not a testable theory but simply a negative argument. But then, because it requires no proof or testing, it is simpler to convince the unthinking of its rightness.

[Winstonm]

Let me add that the great animosity toward the theory most likely stirs from the concept of "common ancestor" - but so far all the evidence supports this concept and none refutes it.

 

On the Nova show, it was put eloquently: genetics had the ability to invalidate the concept of "common ancestor" due to the difference in number of chromosomes between humans and the great apes. Great apes have 24 pairs while humans have 23 pairs. Evolutionary theory predicted that a fused set of chromosomes would be found, and if NOT found, would invalidate the theory.

 

Genetics found that human chormosome 2 had all the charateristics of having been fused - thus the evidence once again supported the theory.

[Winstonm]

Evolution is not a water-tight theory and like 'Intelligent Design' it can't be definitively proven.

 

I have to differ with this statement.  Of course evolutions is not a water-tight theory - no scientific theory is; however, evolutionary theory has been put to the test now for about 150 years and has not failed once.

 

On the other hand, ID cannot even be tested - if there is no way to test a theory then it is simply NOT a scientific theory.

 

The fact that neither can be 100% proven does not make them equally valid.

 

Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here

 

There is zero evidence supporting intelligent design - and that is its problem. ID does not contain a predictable model but instead relies on negative inference to reach a conclusion - the flagellum is too complex to be the work of random events, hence intelligent design was involved.

 

Sorry - that is not science but supposition. It's not even a good argument.

[mikeh]

There is zero evidence supporting intelligent design - and that is its problem. ID does not contain a predictable model but instead relies on negative inference to reach a conclusion - the flagellum is too complex to be the work of random events, hence intelligent design was involved.

 

Sorry - that is not science but supposition. It's not even a good argument.

Especially, as I understand matters, a plausible evolutionary explanation for the development of the flagellum has been suggested.

 

There are two central tenets to the ID should be taught along with evolution by natural selection.

 

One is that ID is a scientific theory, which no rational person, familiar with the English language and the concept of scientific theory can accept, and

 

The second is that evolution is merely another competing theory, which remains unproven.

 

In support of the last proposition, they argue (often using examples for which plausible natural selection mechanisms have been demonstrated) that there remain 'holes'... areas of inquiry where they say E.T. has not yet come up with an explanation. The eye and the wing, and the flagellum are examples.

 

Yet no-one I know of disputes quantum mechanics with the same zealotry and unthinking, instinctive anger and passion. There are more unsolved issues behind quantum mechanics than there are behind evolution by natural selection (ET), as far as I can tell from my reading.

 

The difference is that QM doesn't directly attack our need, as a species and as individuals, to see ourselves as immortal. If ET is correct, there can be no meaningful distinction between humans and bacteria: the Vatican's efforts to conflate acceptance of natural selection and the existence of a uniquely human soul cannot satisfy even the most devout RC without indulgence in a willing suspension of disbelief.

 

QM is shown to be a reasonable approximation of the way the universe operates: and we get proof of this every day in many ways: every time I turn on the cd player in my car on the way to the office, I get the benefit of a laser: a device that required an understanding of quanta to be created. So QM is accepted despite its practitioners acknowledging that it is probably merely a stage along the way to a TOE, and evolution by natural selection is 'just a theory'. If religiously motivated ignorance were not so fundamental to so many of the wrongs in the world, it would merely be amusing.

[mrdct]

Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here

 

There is zero evidence supporting intelligent design - and that is its problem. ID does not contain a predictable model but instead relies on negative inference to reach a conclusion - the flagellum is too complex to be the work of random events, hence intelligent design was involved.

Theories can be tested in number of ways. One method is ask yourself what observations you would expect to see if the theory held true and then go out and make those observations and compare those observations to what your theory predicts. In the case of 'Intelligent Design' if the theory were to hold true, the expectation would be that extremely complex organisms would exist. The fact that extremely complex organisms exist is not a proof of 'Intelligent Design' but it is evidence that is consistent with the 'Intelligent Design' theory. It is incorrect to say "there is zero evidence supporting intelligent design'.

[Winstonm]

In the case of 'Intelligent Design' if the theory were to hold true, the expectation would be that extremely complex organisms would exist. The fact that extremely complex organisms exist is not a proof of 'Intelligent Design' but it is evidence that is consistent with the 'Intelligent Design' theory.

 

Surely, you do not believe this but are only trying to bait.

 

I may then say that spacemen from Planet Q introduced food to the earth and claim that finding a delicious, yummy taco on my plate supports my theory.

 

By this same non-theory theorizing, you may claim a theory that god created the heavens and the earth, and the fact that you can find oceans and dry land on earth supports that theory - while my theory is that the inhabitants of Planet Q like to surf and then dry off on land, so they sucked out the excess ocean water into an inter-steller siphon hose and deposited the excess water at the edge of the galaxy in a gigantic slurpy cup. The oceans and the dry land support my theory, as well.

 

You may have a hypothesis with ID, but scientific inquiry does not support it, and in no way is it considered by a theory by the scientific community.

[mrdct]

... my theory is that the inhabitants of Planet Q like to surf and then dry off on land, so they sucked out the excess ocean water into an inter-steller siphon hose and deposited the excess water at the edge of the galaxy in a gigantic slurpy cup.

I think your theory is in much the same category as Genesis 1:1 and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nobody can disprove your theory, but if your theory holds true one would expect to observe certain things, such as oceans and dry land. The fact that we can observe those things is evidence that supports your 'Planet Q' theory but it certainly doesn't prove it.

 

The inter-steller siphon hose and the gigantic slurpy cup components of your theory would probably give rise to other expected observations that could be tested and when found to be not observable might provide some evidence to debunk your theory.