Comments | christianity: Science and Religion

mmaestro in christianity

Science and Religion

Dec 03, 2006 22:28

"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 ( Read more... )

Comments 47

9chambers December 5 2006, 01:15:46 UTC

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 December 7 2006, 12:41:18 UTC

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 January 3 2007, 02:22:39 UTC

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 January 3 2007, 17:29:49 UTC

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."

Thread 8

gunslnger December 5 2006, 07:13:12 UTC

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.

The first two examples are testing microevolution or adaptation and the second two are not testing anything, just making observations. So no, Evolution (or properly, the Theory of Evolution) cannot be tested, in the same way that the Theory of Creation cannot be tested.

prufock December 7 2006, 12:38:28 UTC

The first two examples are testing microevolution or adaptation and the second two are not testing anything, just making observations. So no, Evolution (or properly, the Theory of Evolution) cannot be tested, in the same way that the Theory of Creation cannot be tested.

Many of these tests have shown genetic change in populations of species, and change enough to consider the descendant population a separate species. What percentage of genetic change would you require for something to be considered "macro" rather than "micro"? Since speciation has been observed, is a change in species not enough? Would you demand a change in genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom? What degree of change would cross your "macro"-threshold?

gunslnger December 7 2006, 20:32:35 UTC

Since "species" is an [essentially] arbitrary term and "speciation" is not consistently defined, no it's not enough evidence for macro-evolution. Change in multiple features of a creature, or significant change in a single feature (over time) would be required to show that macro-evolution is a possibility.

prufock December 9 2006, 02:21:11 UTC

It isn't that arbitrary, though you're right that it isn't consistent. The most common definition that I've seen in evolution experiments is interbreeding potential.

Change in multiple features of a creature, or significant change in a single feature (over time) would be required to show that macro-evolution is a possibility.
Change in multiple features has been observed. "Significant" change in a single feature is still undefined. What would you consider significant, and why? Like I said, what percentage of genetic change would be acceptable?

Thread 25

prufock December 7 2006, 12:33:08 UTC

I might be misunderstanding you, but if I'm not, I have to say I disagree with one of your points. You are right in saying that scientific methods are a limited way to reveal the truth about whatever is being studied, but they are limited precisely because they must be to reveal that truth.

You seem to be saying that where scientific methods are limited, religious or spiritual faith can reveal truth about the universe that science can't. The problem with this, of course, is that religious faith can not reveal anything that can be objectively called "truth" in any way.

Any religious adherent or spiritualist would be the first to tell you that under those terms, science is an incomplete reflection of the universe. Those things which are testable and observable do not make up the whole of the universe, nor the whole of the human spiritual experience.I don't disagree with you that this is what religious adherents would say, but again, there is no way anyone can call such unobservable and untestable things of the universe (if they ( ... )