Register to reply

Religion disproving Evolution and proving Creation through Science?

Share this thread:
nautica
#1
Nov20-03, 12:52 AM
P: n/a
Why must Religous leaders attempt to disprove evolution and prove creationism through science???

A Biology instructor, I once had, made the comment: "This is science class, in science class we play science and in church we play religion" Much like dribbling a basketball during a football game. It just doesn't make since.

Science does not prove nor disprove creation or the existance of God nor does it attempt to. A true scientist would not say God does not exist, b/c he can not prove that he does not. We have tons of evidence suggesting that the earth is 4.8 billion years old, but if God could create the earth, he could, also, place the evidence to suggest such an age (to test our faith, I guess???)

So, why must Religous leaders, try to use science to disprove science, when clearly, they do not know what they are talking about or they are trying to mislead, their followers.

For example, I was reading some literature, just the other day, and it stated that evolution does NOT exist, b/c entropy is constant and evolution goes against entropy. Which is true of course on a closed system, but what he failed to do was mention the SUN, which provides the external energy needed, at least on this system.

What really bothered me, was the fact that this indivual, seemed to be very well educated and intelligent. He understood so much about certain things, but conveintly left out the important parts.

Religion is based on faith, why can it not be left at that. If you truely believe, you do NOT need proof. No matter what science says you should stay true to your beliefs, but, please, don't try to create a theory, which can not be proven.

Nautica
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Scientists develop 'electronic nose' for rapid detection of C. diff infection
Why plants in the office make us more productive
Tesla Motors dealing as states play factory poker
Another God
#2
Nov20-03, 04:43 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
Another God's Avatar
P: 1,026
Religious leaders should use science to its full extent. Unfortunately, as you observed with the Entropy case, they rarely do. What they do, is present a biased, skewered view and claim it to be science. They start with their chosen conclusion, and then look for evidence that backs that conclusion up. This is not how science...well, not how it should work.

I don't agree that religion shoudl stay a matter of faith. If people want to search for the truth, then they should be able to. You should be able to both believe in God, and seek to prove that God exists. I believe America exists...one day I may even prove it to myself and go there.

As for religious leaders trying to 'disprove' science: You can't disprove science. Science isn't a theory open to scrutinization. It is a method, an idea, a philosophical approach of how to come by truth. Now if religious leaders wish to use that method, then they may do a lot of things, but one thing they may not do, is disprove it. What they are actually trying to disprove, is commonly held scientific theories.

This pursuit isn't always such a bad idea. Advancement in science is made by criticising the current ideas. The most obvious problem in the criticisms that come from the religious ones though, is that they are criticising the new theory, favouring the old theory. Evolution replaced creationism because evolution explained stuff which creationism just fudged over. Evolution is a theory, creation isn't. Evolution replaced creation because it is better: Going back to the worse model, is not a likely way to move forward. It's not entirely impossible....just incredibly unlikely.

Even the intelligent design theory suffers from many of the problems that Evolution fixed up in Creation. Int design still doesn't really explain HOW it happens: it just fudges the facts and says "Because god willed it..." Evolution, as we currently hold it, explains everything without any vague references to unknowns.

But anyway, I am digressing. I am all for people trying to disprove evolution theory. What I am against, is people holding preconcieved ideas, deciding that they are the truth beyond reproach, and then claiming to use 'science' to prove that their irreproachable truth is correct: Ignoring any arguments to the contrary. (it's easy to ignore arguments against something that you believe is irreproachable.)
nautica
#3
Nov20-03, 05:07 AM
P: n/a
Sorry, that was a typo when I said use science to disprove science, what I meant to say was to use science to disprove scientific theories. Not b/c one should not do this, but b/c they do not actually approach it scientifically, but through either ignorance or decietfullness they act like they did.

I do have to disagree with you about proving there is a GOD. You can someday go to America and you believe it is there, not through your heart but through evidence, much like seeing the sun come up everyday - you know it will rise tommorrow. Once again - GOD is based on faith and if you have faith and believe the bible is literal, you will not search for proof b/c the bible says that we will not and should not try to understand - so they are contracting themselves by trying to prove God exist, either that or they do not really believe and must prove it to themselves.

And as far as people disproving evo theory, that is great, but if one does not believe b/c of faith, then he should no attempt to disprove it, b/c he will be baised. What he should do is continue his faith and leave the proving and diproving for people who truely seek the truth and not for those who want to make the evidence fit their beliefs.

Personally, I would feel better, if a Religous Leader came out and said - yes there is plenty of evidence suggesting that evolution explains life as we know it and yes evidence suggest that the earth is over 4 billion years old and not 6000 years old. But, I believe in my heart that this is not true b/c I have faith in the bible.

Nautica

Another God
#4
Nov20-03, 05:35 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
Another God's Avatar
P: 1,026
Religion disproving Evolution and proving Creation through Science?

Plenty of religious people have said that. They just aren't the most public ones. And besides, no one really cares when they do, because that is just their beliefs...not anything important to the argument.

I do have to disagree with you about proving there is a GOD. You can someday go to America and you believe it is there, not through your heart but through evidence, much like seeing the sun come up everyday - you know it will rise tommorrow. Once again - GOD is based on faith and if you have faith and believe the bible is literal, you will not search for proof b/c the bible says that we will not and should not try to understand - so they are contracting themselves by trying to prove God exist, either that or they do not really believe and must prove it to themselves.
This sounds like the argument of someone who already has the belief, and isn't willing to scrutinise that belief .

Belief in god is based on faith
Faith doesn't need to be proven
Anyone who tries to prove it, doesn't believe.

And yet you seem happy to accept that I, even though I have never seen it, believe that america exists on account of the fact that I may one day be able to prove it. But using the argument above, if I went to prove it, then that would prove that I didn't actually believe in it.

That isn't really consistent.

I believe america exists because of various bits of evidence that I think are convincing.
Although I don't feel a need to 'prove' the existence of America, one day I might.

Many people believe God exists because of bits of evidence that they think is convincing.
Many don't feel a need to 'prove' the existence of God, but some do.




Hmmm... Hopefully my point is sorta being made. I know that I have one, but I am not convinced that what I have said so far is expressing it the best.

Putting it more simply: Belief in anything which you ahve been told about: whether it be God, Hippopotamus', the dark side of the moon, Black holes or pluto all have the same degree of faith in them until they are proven to you. Some things are easier to prove than others. This doesn't mean that those things which are difficult to prove (so difficult that they perhaps haven't been proven yet) do not belong in the category of things which can be proven...

Does that make sense?
Royce
#5
Nov20-03, 07:54 AM
P: 1,476
This, of course, is only my opinion; but, it has been reached by years of thought, study and observation.

Organized christian religion in the U.S., probably all organized religion, is all about thought control, controling the minds, thus the pocket book of it's parishioners, and their loyalty. This may be thought of as saving their souls; and, I am sure that there are some who are sincere in their belief and practice of their religion.

Their belief or faith is so weak, or they believe that their parishioners faiths is so weak that it can not stand up under any scrutiny. Thus they must believe absolutely in the literal interpretation of the bible without question or their whole belief system and power base will fall apart.

This is absurd at the outset because the bible, King Jame and American Standard versions at least, contain a number of contradictions, at least two in the first book of Genisis. It contains two different and inconsistent versions of creation in the first two pages. Yet they must profess to believe in it as it is the only proof or basis of their belief in God, Jesus and his teachings.

They therefore feel that they must counter or disprove any and all theories that contradict the bible and the theory of evolution is the mose basic and vunerable of the lot as it stricks right at the heart of their belief in their own religion. The theory of evolution also has no hard evidence to support it; but, only observation and speculation (We dig up or find bones tens of thousands and millions of years old, we study and observe them and try to relate them to lofe as we know it, then speculate that the bones are from earlier less evolved versions of life as we know it now. Yes the is tons of evidence to support the speculation including DNA, but no proof.)

Those of stronger faith or conviction, those who have experienced God and/or Jesus personally, those who are not into thought and mind control but believe in voluntary belief and worship have no need or desire to prove or disprove anything. They feel, as I do, that their is no conflict between religion and science. The advancement of science is also an advancement in our ability to know and see the mind and hand of God at work. The bible is a book of stories and wisdom that contains truth and morals, allegory and metaphor as well as parables. It is not necessary to believe literally in every word to benefit from the reading and study of the bible. As such it is to be interpreted, our personel truth gleened from its pages and accepted for what it is, a collection of works written by numerous different people and interpreted from three seperate ancient languages into english. These people may or may not have been devinely inspired; but it doesn't matter. It, the bible, does not have to be literally word for word true to guide, teach and inspire us.
nautica
#6
Nov20-03, 09:04 AM
P: n/a
"This sounds like the argument of someone who already has the belief, and isn't willing to scrutinise that belief"

Now, your jumping to the conclusion that, I have faith, which is fine, but I never said I did or I did not. I am only using those arguments b/c they are based on religion, much like a religous person using science.

"And yet you seem happy to accept that I, even though I have never seen it, believe that america exists on account of the fact that I may one day be able to prove it. But using the argument above, if I went to prove it, then that would prove that I didn't actually believe in it.

That isn't really consistent.

I believe america exists because of various bits of evidence that I think are convincing.
Although I don't feel a need to 'prove' the existence of America, one day I might.

Many people believe God exists because of bits of evidence that they think is convincing.
Many don't feel a need to 'prove' the existence of God, but some do."

BUT, if your belief in America told you that it was beyond your comprehension and that in order for you to get there, you must only have faith and believe - NOT prove - b/c really, if it were proven that America existed everybody would believe and it would be a very crowded country. If of course, it is the country you believe it to be.


"Hmmm... Hopefully my point is sorta being made. I know that I have one, but I am not convinced that what I have said so far is expressing it the best.

Putting it more simply: Belief in anything which you ahve been told about: whether it be God, Hippopotamus', the dark side of the moon, Black holes or pluto all have the same degree of faith in them until they are proven to you. Some things are easier to prove than others. This doesn't mean that those things which are difficult to prove (so difficult that they perhaps haven't been proven yet) do not belong in the category of things which can be proven...

Does that make sense?"

Yes, it makes sense, but I want to point out one last time, the belief in God itself, tell you that you should not prove b/c you can not, so you must have faith and believe - that is your ticket to America (I mean Heaven).

Nautica
Another God
#7
Nov20-03, 09:31 AM
Emeritus
PF Gold
Another God's Avatar
P: 1,026
that is one particular form of one particular religion which says that you shouldn't try to prove God. You can't put all people into the one religious basket. Most christians even would disagree with the idea that you shouldn't try to prove God.
Fliption
#8
Nov20-03, 10:32 AM
P: 1,032
Originally posted by Another God
Even the intelligent design theory suffers from many of the problems that Evolution fixed up in Creation. Int design still doesn't really explain HOW it happens:
I just wanted to point out that neither does science. Evolution only explains how one species evolves into another. It doesn't say(nor does any other theory that I'm aware of) how it is possible for those species to even exists to begin with. Not yet anyway. So these 2 ideas( creationism and evolution) don't attempt to answer the same questions. Science may have a better answer than creationism to some questions but on others it can only shrug.
FZ+
#9
Nov20-03, 06:14 PM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
It doesn't say(nor does any other theory that I'm aware of) how it is possible for those species to even exists to begin with.
If you mean speciation, then it most certainly does. If you mean abiogenesis, then that is a lot more iffy. But a lot of work has been going into this, especially with mathematical complexity theory, which predicts the natural emergence of self-organising systems.

Hell, any discussion of creationism makes the UK sound like a paradise... (Which it is not... )
nautica
#10
Nov20-03, 06:37 PM
P: n/a
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life - only speciation.

Nautica
Fliption
#11
Nov21-03, 08:32 AM
P: 1,032
Originally posted by FZ+
If you mean speciation, then it most certainly does. If you mean abiogenesis, then that is a lot more iffy.
Yes, I meant Biogensis.

But a lot of work has been going into this, especially with mathematical complexity theory, which predicts the natural emergence of self-organising systems.
Good, then we should expect to see a demonstration of this in the near future.
Another God
#12
Nov21-03, 05:57 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
Another God's Avatar
P: 1,026
Originally posted by Fliption
Good, then we should expect to see a demonstration of this in the near future.
ahhh...of self-organising organic molecules....maybe not wihtout some coercing. See...scientists can be very determined: But "world wide" x "billions of years" worth of determination doesn't come about easily.

And test tube x a few years cant be expected to give an equivalent result.
FZ+
#13
Nov21-03, 08:52 PM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life - only speciation.
Well, not just speciation, but the whole development of life...

But it all depends on your definitions. Dawkins would maintain that evolution, as ultimately an account of the distribution of persistent patterns, must neccessarily stretch back to the stage of so-called chemical evolution. In which case, life (as we know it) is still an evolved product.

Good, then we should expect to see a demonstration of this in the near future.
Well... Just note that a big problem would be to identify if it is actually alive.
Les Sleeth
#14
Nov22-03, 05:52 PM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Originally posted by Another God
ahhh...of self-organising organic molecules....maybe not wihtout some coercing. See...scientists can be very determined: But "world wide" x "billions of years" worth of determination doesn't come about easily.

And test tube x a few years cant be expected to give an equivalent result.
I have never been convinced by the reason you give for the failure to reproduce biogenesis in the laboratory. For one thing, scientists commonly theorize that biogenesis took place almost as soon as the Earth settled down from it's own rugged origination. We have evidence of bacterial life as far back as 3.5 billions years, and evidence that this life was already thriving in temperatures, and in an atmosphere, similar to now.

Foremost life scientist Lynn Margulis suggests that the temperature and atmosphere which allowed such early bacterial life was actually readied by even more primitive bacteria. She says, “By responding, life seems to have succeeded in cooling the planetary surface to counter, or more than counter, the over-heating sun. Mainly by removing from the atmosphere greenhouse gases (such as methane and carbon dioxide) which trap heat, but also by changing its surface color and form (by retaining water and growing slime), life responded to prolong its own survival.” (“What is Life,” page 27, by Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan)

If Earth originated 4.6 billion years ago as is believed, and it took awhile for it to cool and establish an atmosphere; and assuming the most primitive of bacteria took some millions of years to “tame” that methane and carbon dioxide mix, it seems biogenesis occurred within millions of years, and not the billions you and others say.

Also, the excuse of “how can we expect to replicate biogenesis in a few years what it took nature x numbers of years to achieve” is contested by yet another aspect. In nature, biogenesis depends on utter spontaneous self-generation; but in the laboratory, that biogenesis is being attempted through a conscious, planned, educated, skilled effort, and so not at all like the conditions which are said to originally exist. If we factor in the advantages of conscious assistance, then how many years should that take off how long it should take to replicate biogenesis?

Take something simple, for example, such as the see-saw dynamic. Put a board, a fulcrum, and two rocks of equal weight in a pit someplace that has constant earthquake or volcanic activity so that the forces of nature regularly give them a tossing about. How long will we have to wait for the board, fulcrum, and two rocks of equal weight to spontaneously bounce into the configuration of a see-saw in that pit?

Now, let’s say it takes 3000 years. Then let’s predict how long that see-saw arrangement will last. Will it survive the next earthquake? Should we expect the next upheaval to create some new organization on top of the see-saw, or should we expect the see-saw to fall apart?

Yet with life, self-originating advocates say it began spontaneously. They say it continued self-organizing within an incredibly hostile environment. They say it continued developing over billions of years.

Okay, but if so, then a dynamic that forms so quickly, and which is so tough it can survive the intensity of Earth’s geophysics for billions of years . . . should it really be THAT hard to reproduce? I say, if you are going to say spontaneous biogenesis is what most likely explains the origin of life, then show us how that is done or admit there is just as likely another unrecognized principle at work in life.
Another God
#15
Nov22-03, 07:52 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
Another God's Avatar
P: 1,026
OK, I concede It is quite possible that it took millions of years. But seriously, that doesn't change anything.

I actually did mean efforts that attempt to re-create the early conditions, and let it go for years to see what 'grows', not the consciously driven attempts to create life (because I dunno if that really counts as Abiogenesis.) While that is an interesting and valid pursuit of its own, there is also something quite interesting and meaningful to be said by an experiment which attempts to just let life (of whatever form) self-organise out of basic molecules.

As for the Lynn quote, I don't think the bacteria stage have anything to do with the formation of life. I mean, in my opinion at least, bacteria are a long way off the formation of life. I could be wrong, but I think it is highly unlikley that something as complicated as bacteria came about for a long time after the formation of simple replicative devices trapped inside lipid bodies.... (or whatever it was)

As for the see saw thing, thats not even an analogy. Life is not as random as that, even the spontaneous formation of it isn;t like that. The term spontaneous generation isn't meant to be taken literally as 'absoultely nothing, and then spontaneously every component required jumped together'. perhaps a better analogy would be to place a see saw factory next to the hole which keeps dropping various bits and pieces of the seesaw into the pit. Eventually some of the right bits will fall together, or the huge pit full of pieces will be mixed up by the earthquake and it will happen.

Of course, you will criticise the factory point, but the factory in life's story is only enzymatic action, synthesising parts of a 'living' organism to be...
FZ+
#16
Nov22-03, 08:13 PM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
which is so tough it can survive the intensity of Earth’s geophysics for billions of years . .
Recent studies show that not only was the early earth more temperate than thought, but that some of the conditions previously thought harmful (eg. uv irradiation) actually help primitive RNA molecules to polymerise.

If it would self-organise, there is still no reason it will self-organise in the same way it did, creating life as we know it. In many cases, we don't even know what we are looking for. (Eg. in the thing you gave, the claim that life appeared almost immediately has since been disputed, as it appears that rocks previous thought to be extremely old proto-bacteria were simply mineral formations.)
Les Sleeth
#17
Nov22-03, 10:38 PM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Originally posted by Another God
OK, I concede It is quite possible that it took millions of years. But seriously, that doesn't change anything.
Well, that was one of my main objections your argument . . . the claim that biogenesis can’t be reproduced now because of the time Earth had to do it.

Originally posted by Another God
I actually did mean efforts that attempt to re-create the early conditions, and let it go for years to see what 'grows', not the consciously driven attempts to create life (because I dunno if that really counts as Abiogenesis.) While that is an interesting and valid pursuit of its own, there is also something quite interesting and meaningful to be said by an experiment which attempts to just let life (of whatever form) self-organise out of basic molecules.
Yes, but all experiments have consistently produced exactly the same results. What you can observe is progressive self organization for a few steps, and after that incessant repetitive self-organization of the original pattern. No one has EVER witnessed self-organization take off and develop by creatively adapting to the environment as a living system does.

Originally posted by Another God
As for the Lynn quote, I don't think the bacteria stage have anything to do with the formation of life. I mean, in my opinion at least, bacteria are a long way off the formation of life. I could be wrong, but I think it is highly unlikley that something as complicated as bacteria came about for a long time after the formation of simple replicative devices trapped inside lipid bodies.... (or whatever it was)
That wasn’t my point. My point about evidence of functioning bacteria was to reduce to a far smaller figure the time you gave for the billions of years of waiting for life to develop.

Originally posted by Another God
As for the see saw thing, thats not even an analogy. Life is not as random as that, even the spontaneous formation of it isn’t like that.
I admit it’s not the best analogy . . . Earth’s chemistry holds far more potential for a variety of spontaneous formations. Yet at some point, chemistry always hits a self-organizing dead end and then becomes subject to the same kind of randomness of accidental self-organization that the see-saw analogy falls victim to.

Originally posted by Another God The term spontaneous generation isn't meant to be taken literally as 'absoultely nothing, and then spontaneously every component required jumped together'. perhaps a better analogy would be to place a see saw factory next to the hole which keeps dropping various bits and pieces of the seesaw into the pit. Eventually some of the right bits will fall together, or the huge pit full of pieces will be mixed up by the earthquake and it will happen.
I don’t think spontaneous generation means absolutely nothing jumps together. I think it means the chemistry and conditions necessary to form life processes are present, and that, if possible, from those conditions and processes life will spontaneously organize.

Originally posted by Another God . . . perhaps a better analogy would be to place a see saw factory next to the hole which keeps dropping various bits and pieces of the seesaw into the pit. Eventually some of the right bits will fall together, or the huge pit full of pieces will be mixed up by the earthquake and it will happen.
You are indulging in pure speculation. But if you say you are not, then please demonstrate chemistry that “keeps dropping various bits and pieces,” as you say, which just so happens to be useful in building a life form. AND THEN, show those bits and pieces spontaneously organizing themselves into life. No one is even close to showing chemistry is capable of the first part, much less the second part.

Originally posted by Another God
Of course, you will criticise the factory point, but the factory in life's story is only enzymatic action, synthesising parts of a 'living' organism to be...
I can’t help but wonder if those who say such things feel any need to demonstrate it’s possible. You know, it’s not like string theory where so much of what’s predicted is unavailable for observation. In life, every single bit of it is right before us. We know just about all the chemistry involved in life, and we have the actual blueprint of how it’s put together.

So when you say chemistry can spontaneously form “factories” that generate enzymatic and synthesizing parts for living organisms . . . then you should, given all the living guidance we have to help us, be able to actually produce this and prove it is possible. As of now, it’s all talk.
Les Sleeth
#18
Nov22-03, 11:12 PM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Originally posted by FZ+
Recent studies show that not only was the early earth more temperate than thought, but that some of the conditions previously thought harmful (eg. uv irradiation) actually help primitive RNA molecules to polymerise.

If it would self-organise, there is still no reason it will self-organise in the same way it did, creating life as we know it. In many cases, we don't even know what we are looking for. (Eg. in the thing you gave, the claim that life appeared almost immediately has since been disputed, as it appears that rocks previous thought to be extremely old proto-bacteria were simply mineral formations.)
Well, no matter what excuses you make, the fact is that no one can demonstrate chemistry spontaneouly self organizing in such manner that it will lead to life . . . forget about actually getting to a living system. Just show me the sort of self-organization that will eventually get to life and I will be satisfied with claims that auto-chemogenesis is most likely the cause of life. As far as I can see, people who believe in auto-chemogenesis have no more evidential support for their opinion than people who believe the universe was created supernaturally by God. All of it is propaganda of philosophies believers hope are true, but who lack evidence to make an objectively convincing case and so hype up what evidence they do have.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Religion = product of evolution ? General Discussion 5
LOGIC proving/disproving general laws Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 1
Proving/disproving n^2-n+11 is prime, i think i got it Calculus & Beyond Homework 4
Religion imposed by Evolution General Discussion 19
Evolution and Creation General Discussion 141