Marriage, Procreation, & Related Topics

[thestoat]

Oh dear ...

[Crackpot]

Shows how far the sciences have sunk in some areas of the country doesn't it?

[thestoat]

I'm not sure science has much to do with it ...

[Crackpot]

That's my point. There is a huge difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory. That fact is lost on a large number of the population. Especially those who call themselves "creation scientists".

[dgs49]

Although I haven't done much reading on the subject recently, it is interesting to consider the points of biologists and such who find "holes" in the common understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Time lines that don't work. Biological features that cannot be explained by natural selection, and so forth.

Just as interesting is the fact that most Libs, who are profoundly non-scientific and adamantly atheistic (and therefore MUST embrace Evolution), refuse even to contemplate the implication of those "holes" - i.e., the possible existence of a Creator - in a way that is, well, religious.

Like the so-called phenomenon of "Climate Change" (nee, "Global Warming"), we are told that it is past the point of discussion, and only flat-earthers question it.

[thestoat]

God of the gaps

[Big RR]

most Libs, who are profoundly non-scientific and adamantly atheistic

Care to post some data on this? Most "libs" I know are fairly well educated and include many scientists and those trained in the sciences; likewise many profess and follow a religious faith. Or are you just saying it is atheistic o embrace science and understandings achieved through it (if so, you are in good company with many like-minded individuals throughout history).

[dgs49]

Define: educated.

Define: scientist.

My long and rambling career (16 jobs since being discharged from the Army in 1971) has exposed me to thousands of coworkers, both in the public and private sectors. I know of two or three engineers and/or scientists (e.g., metallurgists) who were liberal. They were extremely rare. My personal acquaintances and extended family are the same way.

Religious liberals have found themselves on the silent back burners, what with their compatriots fighting for gay rights, abortion rights, porn (disguised as "free speech") and such.

Non-believers are in an ideological corner w/r/t "Evolution." If not Evolution,then what? Which is why they become hysterical when people point out flaws in the great mural that Evolution proposes.

[Andrew D]

People have been pointing out inadequacies in evolutionary theories for a long time. That's how science works: Evidence comes along that is contrary to a postulated theory, and the theory has to be changed -- or, in some cases, abandoned -- to account for that new evidence.

There are disagreements among scientists right now about evolution, just as there are disagreements among scientists about cosmology and a host of other things. Eventually, additional evidence (assuming that we can find additional evidence; in the case of figuring out what goes on in black holes, for example, finding additional evidence might present insurmountable obstacles) will support one theory and undermine another. That's the progress of science.

There is a crucial difference between science and creationism. The scientist can always imagine evidence that would falsify a theory: If the theory says that the stuff in the test tube will turn red, the scientist can readily imagine that the stuff in the test tube will turn green instead. And if that happens, the theory will need work (or abandonment).

But to the creationist, there is no imaginable evidence that would falsify the "theory" that God did it. If the stuff in the test tube turns red, then God did it. If turns green, then God did it. If it turns some other color, or if it does not change color at all, or if it explodes -- no matter what happens, the answer is always that God did it.

That is what -- or, at least, a big part of what -- makes a scientific theory a scientific theory: One can imagine evidence which, if it were actually adduced, would falsify the theory. Creationism -- the "theory" that God did it -- is not scientific, because there is no imaginable evidence which, if it were actually adduced, would falsify the claim that God did it. No matter what the evidence shows about how it happened, the answer is always that God did it. Period.

That, of course, does not make creationism false. Many things may be true, even though they cannot be scientifically demonstrated. I believe it to be true that my wife loves me, but I know of no way to prove that scientifically. All of the behavior of hers that indicates to me that she loves me can also be explained in a way consistent with the hypothesis that she does not love me: No matter what she does, the explanation could be that she is merely pretending to love me.

Creationism may be true; evolution may be false. But even if creationism is true, it is not a scientific assertion; and even if evolution is false, it is a scientific assertion.

Creationism has a place in public school curricula -- right alongside Buddhist beliefs about the origins of the universe, life, us, etc.; right along with Hindu beliefs about such things; right along with Shinto and Zoroastrian and Santeria and Shamanist and all other beliefs about such things. But until creationists come up with some imaginable evidence -- evidence of a type which scientific inquiry is capable of producing -- which, if it were actually adduced, would persuade creationists that creationism is false, creationism has no place in a science curriculum.

[thestoat]

Andrew - excellent answer.

[dgs49]

I agree completely with what you say, Andrew.

What percentage of the American adult population believes the literal truth of Genesis? 2%? In 12 years of Catholic education, I never met either an educator, a priest, or a student who took Genesis as anything other than allegorical.

The interesting question is about the nature of "faith." Faith is believing something which cannot be proven empirically. The fact is that in order to accept "natural selection" in the face of its many, many "holes" requires a bit of faith. Darwin himself pointed out that there is no way that natural selection can explain the evolution of the eye.

OTOH, to believe in God and creation - however you conceive it - requires more than a little bit of faith, in spite of the many impressive attempts to "prove" God's existence.

[loCAtek]

faith is not proven but cultivated.

[thestoat]

The fact is that in order to accept "natural selection" in the face of its many, many "holes" requires a bit of faith

But as Andrew implied, it is a different kind of faith. Scientific theories are holding patterns until they are proved correct (and thus accepted as fact) or shown lacking (in which case they are discarded or improved) when new evidence arrives. Not so god. When new evidence arrives he is always placed at at the top with the "god is ultimately responsible" argument. To try to equate faith with scientific theories is too simplistic, imho. Even children have faith in father christmas eventually lose that faith.

Darwin himself pointed out that there is no way that natural selection can explain the evolution of the eye.

That may well be - lots of scientists cannot explain everything their theory suggests when they first develop them. Those theories are improved upon or new knowledge found with successive generations of scientists. I am going out on a limb here because I don't know much about evolution ...

Has not the evolution of the eye been observed now? I have heard lots of frankly stupid arguments (imho) from creationists about the evolution of the eye saying nonsense like "we haven't found a creature with half an eye". But we have found examples of eye evolution examining simpler creatures with eye membranes that can barely see, etc. As I say - not my field - be interesting to hear other views on that

[thestoat]

faith is not proven but cultivated

Does that mean the word of god changes over time? Or does it mean our understanding of it changes over time?

The former must be impossible, but the latter holds some pretty scary implications too ...

[Sean]

Does that mean the word of god changes over time?.

Actually it does if the Catholics are anything to go by...

Unbaptised babies don't go straight to limbo anymore apparently and it's okay to eat meat on Fridays.*




*The pope must have had a real cheeseburger craving one Friday and decided to change the rules

[rubato]

Darwin himself pointed out that there is no way that natural selection can explain the evolution of the eye.

In Darwin's time we could not explain transmission of photons, the structure of the atom, aromaticity, and we had not even seen the photoelectric effect.

And Darwin could not say that we could -never- explain the evolution of the eye by natural selection. He could only say we could not at that time. For example we now know that there is a genetic sequence which says "make an eye here", a sequence which is the same for humans, snails, and fruitflies (there are further sequences dictating the details of the differences); powerful evidence in favor of natural selection.

Darwin did not know about genetics and he even made a false start in intuiting the way a mechanism of heredity might work by allowing for infinite blending.

There are facts about the fundamental forces of physics which we do not know today; we cannot explain gravity, one of the 4 forces of the universe. Only an idiot would suggest that this 'proves' that physics does not work, that it is full of holes, that our belief in it is based on 'faith', or that we should replace it with superstition.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

faith is not proven but cultivated

Does that mean the word of god changes over time? Or does it mean our understanding of it changes over time?

The former must be impossible, but the latter holds some pretty scary implications too ...

Now, don't create false choices. Our cultivation is of our understanding of God; the change is our growth in wisdom.

[thestoat]

Now, don't create false choices

Sorry, lo - I am genuinely not trying to. Thus the questions. so if

Our cultivation is of our understanding of God

Does that mean that it is this understanding of his word that changes over time? And is the inference that his word is immutable?

[Crackpot]

Does that mean that it is this understanding of his word that changes over time? And is the inference that his word is immutable?

In a word. Yes.

Both to our detriment and "his glory" (I hate religo terms) on one side we tend to view his word through the filter of the times we live in. (which is a major reason we bristle at much which is in "the law" (first 5 books for those who don't know)) at the same time distance often offers the ability to look at things in the larger sense.

In a way that is often a boon as well a a detriment. by allowing time to hone our belief we can come to a greater understanding (and there is more than a little evidence that we're not supposed to get it all at once) and by forcing constant study should inform us that we don't know everything. On the other hand it allows for multiple interpretations and many debatable issues that adds to confusion, as well as, the general impression that the religion is totally subject to the whims of those reading it.

The real answer is somewhere in between but the human race has never been happy with vagaries.

[loCAtek]

ThX CP very Zen, or as the Buddha put it,

"There are as many different forms of Buddhism as there are Buddhists."

...which I believe is the same as the Christian concept of seeking your own 'Personal God'. Approach faith as it is best perceived by you.