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

[9chambers]

I'm going to go ahead and wait until something turns up to remove all doubt. The current fossil evidence leaves plenty of room for debate and it's not like we've dug up even close to 1% of the Earth.

What is found in the lower strata in America could just represent the groups that multiplied and migrated to what was a remote region before the rest of the animals got here. Dig in Mesopotamia more. That's where you guys say life began. Dig in the Sahara.

[prufock]

I'm going to go ahead and wait until something turns up to remove all doubt.

Such as? What would be a monumental-enough discovery for you to consider all doubt removed?

I don't know if you are Christian or not, but why do you think religon is free of this sort of scrutiny by most believers? I understand that religion is faith-based, but why is faith a good enough reason?

[9chambers]

I think you are severely overestimating what has been found.

>I don't know if you are Christian or not, but why do you think religon
>is free of this sort of scrutiny by most believers? I understand that
>religion is faith-based, but why is faith a good enough reason?

I'm not really sure what assertion you're trying to pin on me there. Are you asking if I don't expect Christians to question their beliefs? Are you trying to imply that they don't? ...

[prufock]

I think you are severely overestimating what has been found.
If anything, there has been a lot more found than that of which I'm aware. Of course, you didn't really answer my question.

You said I'm going to go ahead and wait until something turns up to remove all doubt. I was asking why you think it's okay to hold religious belief without "something... to remove all doubt."

1

[9chambers]

>If anything, there has been a lot more found than that of which I'm aware

Re: 1

[prufock]

Everyone is going to believe something. People don't just walk the Earth devoid of all opinion or thought. You believe what makes the most sense to you. You believe in what you've seen work. The moral teachings of the Bible make sense. Don't kill, steal, cheat on your wife, etc. The institution of church is often very flawed but the premise works. The concept works. The idea works.

Devoid of religion does not equal "devoid of all opinion or thought." Especially opinion. I've yet to hear anyone present their faith as "opinion."
Yes, you believe in what you think you've seen work. That's why people think rabbits' feet can make them successful at poker.
The moral teachings make sense (some of them), but would they cease to exist without all the supernatural hooplah that goes along with them? I don't think so. Most of the cultures around the world have many of the same moral rules.
"Works" for what?

Also, every bit of archeology or documented history supports the history found in Biblical texts. Every city is where they say it

[9chambers]

[continued

[prufock]

So, really, these guys were our contemporaries. In fact, modern skeletons have been found in lower strata. They aren't evidence of evolution. Taking them away from the body of evidence for human evolution you've got pretty much nothing but australopithecines. Of course, more "modern" australopithecines have been found in lower strata than robust versions and looking at the skeletons it really isn't clear that the whole lot of them aren't just an extinct species of ape. Outside of those two ... you've got scraps.

I fail to see how a common ancestry of 2 species is NOT evidence for evolution. Wouldn't Homo sapiens neanderthalensis suggest that they were a subspecies of Homo sapiens? I think the DNA evidence contradicts that. Anyway, if the ancestor of both is Homo erectus, that in no way contradicts evolution.
What about all the other Homo species? Would you just discount those if H. neanderthalensis is not an ancestor of H. sapiens?

Evolution is based on only a few foundations when you break it down: 1. Stratification, 2.