Science and Religion

[mmaestro]

"One cannot ask whether a theory reflects reality, just whether it agrees with observations."
-Professor Stephen Hawking

That was from an interview with Professor Hawking broadcast by the BBC on Thursday (hear the whole thing as an mp3 download here, it's fascinating). He was talking about the prospect of other dimensions, not really relevant here

Comments

[casey_ann]

nicely said, and i agree

[serene_reverie]

I just did a term paper on this for my philosophy of science class as my final. I came to this same conclusion. Though there are scientific aspects to the creationism/intelligent design theory, due to the fact that one of the initial conditions is faith--this negates its scientific merit.

[anorexicbrownie]

We try to press religion into the science classroom where I hope I've at least begun to demonstrate that it doesn't belong (not because it isn't necessarily correct, but simply because it isn't science), and a group of scientific fundamentalists try to justify maligning religion simply because it isn't science. We're both failing when we don't address the key issue here - that one is not the other and cannot by definition address those things the other concerns itself with. Our fights are unnecessary because we are looking at the universe in fundamentally different and incompatible ways.Yes! I find this to be one of the most annoying things when debating creationism vs. evolution. The Bible was not written as a scientific text book. Large and crucial bits of evidence are left out of the creation account. This can be attributed to the fact that to a failure on the part of God or religion or simply that God did not find it important. I obviously believe in the latter, but that's just me

[muffledlaugh]

you just spared me from typing out a comment ;)

[anorexicbrownie]

*bows* ^_^

[mmaestro]

I think the whole point of my post was that this is not necessarily the case. To use a bad analogy, a flea may think a stone a mountain while a man might think it a pebble. Both science and religion are looking at the universe from such different points of view that they can't be reconciled, neither necessarily should they be - a difference of the point of view can make each completely valid within its own preserve.

[sparkofcreation]

If "we all" have the same point of view, and therefore your point of view is the same as mmaestro's, why are you arguing with him? Since your point of view is already exactly the same as his?

[therealhopeful]

mmaestro wrote:
Evolution, on the other hand, can be tested multiple ways, both through the development of cells and fast breeding species in the lab, and real world observations of ecosystems and the fossil record.

Hmm, so what mutations have we seen that benefits the observed species? Or, what evidence in the fossil record is there that supports evolution?

[mmaestro]

Well, we could start with antibiotics as the obvious example of evolution in action. It's easy to observe because of the short lifespan of bacteria - evolution needs time, after all, for creatures to go through many generations.

As for the fossil record, there are plenty of transitional fossils (the problem is we're never going to find all of them, and therefore every time another transitional fossil turns up, those who have an interest in opposing evolution just move on to the next break they can find in the record). Horses are a pretty good example, because we have those developing through the fossil record.

[mmaestro]

I'll reply to myself here.

Again, though, this isn't really the point of my post. Rather, the point I'm trying to make is that when we view the universe through incompatible lenses, we're likely to come to incompatible conclusions. That one way of viewing the universe leads us to one conclusion and another shows us another doesn't necessarily mean that one of those conclusions must be wrong. Rather, each is a tool for addressing our existance in a different way and, as such, is best used in its proper place. I like to think of it as a paradox. I can believe in both Genesis and Evolution, despite the fact they contradict each other, and I don't have a problem with that.

[gunslnger]

Except that all the horse fossils are all still identifiable as a horse. There is no record linking horses to some other kind of creature. Evolutionists just guess at what might have became a horse.