evolutionary science

[WillyD]

lcaillo wrote:

Actually, like I said, many do express belief in a higher power. About 40% in most studies. Many more are agnostic, not assuming that God exists or not. Look at the greatest scientists in history and you will find that a higher number than currently believed in God or were religious in some way.

If anything, the great scientists of the past were afraid of being considered not religious due to severe persecution or discrimination. The church was much more powerful back in the day.

[WillyD]

Sonnie wrote:

Would evolutionary science include discussion about the Big Bang Theory?

Would physics include discussion about the Big Bang Theory?

Why not? Its usually phycists working on the big bang theory anyways. And of course the big bang theory ties in to evolution.

[SteveCallas]

I've often wondered what the athiest or agnostic scientist believes "started" everything. There is decent evidence supporting an event like the big bang, but what would have created the ultra dense ball of mass before the bang? Think about taking things back as far as they could go - things had to start somewhere with something initiating them. Belief in God and the big bang doesn't have to be contradictory. Wouldn't an instantaneous creation of everything in the universe by an all powerful being lead us to theorize an event similar to the big bang occured if we didn't know or believe an all powerful being created it?

I agree with drf that the more one looks into and studies some of the leading research, the more they will find ties - not contradictions - to many of the things in the bible. Something else I find troubling in addition to the forced macroevolution theory are some of these television shows on what I consider a respected network like National Geographic dealing with issues like "miniature humans" or "hobbits". Some researchers find a collection of bones from what they believe to be 3' tall early humans around New Zealand, and before their findings get scrutinized or accepted by the scientific community, they are already making a show about it, pushing it as fact that miniature humans were one branch of evolution from early man. I don't buy it and I think it's poor science.

[WillyD]

I've often wondered what the athiest or agnostic scientist believes "started" everything.

And I've often wondered how the monotheists believe their god was created. He/she/it couldn't have come from nowhere, right? This type of discussion could go on forever and go nowhere.

I agree with drf that the more one looks into and studies some of the leading research, the more they will find ties - not contradictions - to many of the things in the bible.

Ties such as?

I don't buy it and I think it's poor science.

As you shouldn't. I think it is in everyones best interest to be a skeptic.

[drf]

WillyD wrote:

If anything, the great scientists of the past were afraid of being considered not religious due to severe persecution or discrimination. The church was much more powerful back in the day.

Historians don't portray them as such. Heres a small list of scientists, some of thenames might ring a bell:

Robert Boyle (1627-1691) - important chemist and physicist
George Washington Carver (1864-1943)
Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) - European explorer who reached Americas in 1492
Kenneth H. Cooper - "father of aerobics"
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Jim Irwin (1930-1991) - astronaut, Ark Hunter
James Clerk Maxwell - influential mathematician and physicist
Samuel Morse (1791-1872)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) - inventor, scientist
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Hugh Ross - physicist
Francis Schaeffer - theologian and thinker (1912-1984)
Carol Swain - political scientist, author of Black Faces, Black Interests and The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (a convert to Evangelical Christianity)
Wright Brothers - invented airplane

And I think you will find the church is almost as powerful today, It still pleases the majority of voters and can leverage government with its immense charity operations, it just isn't an autonomous dictatorship anymore. In many ways thankfully so!!

Sonnie wrote:

Would evolutionary science include discussion about the Big Bang Theory?

Evolutionary science does include BB theory, but I think only because evolutionary science is a process theory that can be applied to anything and everything from single cell amoboe to latest generation computer chips.

Sonnie wrote:

Would physics include discussion about the Big Bang Theory?

depends on your definition of physics, but yes by its scientific definition.

A good book about the Big Bang is "The Source". It is a look at the scientifical facts of the universe and origins, It really does put a ot of the scientifical jargon into laymens terms.

WillyD wrote:

And I've often wondered how the monotheists believe their god was created. He/she/it couldn't have come from nowhere, right? This type of discussion could go on forever and go nowhere.

Most monotheists' accept that God is omni present, both in time and space.
so an atheist will lie in the grass staring at the night sky and ponder how far the universe goes and whats on the other side? While the christian lies beside him pondering when exactely time began and did God do it, seeing as he was already there?

[WillyD]

Historians don't portray them as such. Heres a small list of scientists, some of thenames might ring a bell:

Of course it wouldn't portray them as much, thats my point. But I'll play too, here is a list of Nontheists, some of the names might ring a bell:


-Francis Crick, co-discovered the DNA molecule with
-James D. Watson
-Marie Curie, She was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity, the first twice-honored Nobel laureate (and still the only one in two different sciences) and the first female professor at the University of Paris.
-Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis.
-John Dewey, was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, whose thoughts and ideas have been greatly influential in the United States and around the world.
-Carl Sagan, was an American astronomer and astrochemist and a highly successful popularizer of astronomy, astrophysics, and other natural sciences. Pulizter Prize winner.
-Robert G. Ingersoll - was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism.
-Albert Einstein

And there are more, of course. But a non-theist attempting to use other peoples beliefs as supporting evidence for his own is just as foolish as a theist doing the same.

And I think you will find the church is almost as powerful today, It still pleases the majority of voters and can leverage government with its immense charity operations, it just isn't an autonomous dictatorship anymore. In many ways thankfully so!!

I certainly will not. Its nowhere as powerful today as it once was. It had unparalleled influence in the government and over the lives of the citizens throughout much of the past two millenniums. Thankfully, its power has diminished, and we can enjoy living in country which does believe in the separation of church and state.

Most monotheists' accept that God is omni present, both in time and space.
so an atheist will lie in the grass staring at the night sky and ponder how far the universe goes and whats on the other side? While the christian lies beside him pondering when exactely time began and did God do it, seeing as he was already there?

And the latter is supposed to make more sense than the former?

[Mitch G]

For me, these discussions always seem to be based on whether one's model of the universe includes a conscious, active God or not. If one's model has an active God to whom one can pray to for help or one who decides who makes it safely to work, then it's a logical conclusion that God created life and creates macroevolutionary changes and generally manages things.

On the other hand, if one's model doesn't have a conscious God, then it falls more in line with science where "God" is that next mystery to be solved as the model of the universe is explored and refined. For example, a long time ago, the scientific model of the universe was based on 4 elements - earth, wind, fire, water (or something like that). That changed over time to be based on atoms which by definition are the smallest, indivisible objects around. But that was shown to be wrong and evolved to protons and electrons which moved on to quantum mechanics and quarks and leptons, etc.

And, there are variations on the unconscious God where God starts the universe (i.e. big bang) and creates its natural laws and then lets the experiment run on its own. But, this variation would still except evolution as a valid explanation for all the diversity of life since by definition, God is not tinkering in this model.

Regardless, each person picks the model of the universe that best works for him or her. And, I would argue that neither model is better than the other in terms of helping individuals live their life.

And, for the most part, neither model precludes the scientific method. Over the past several thousand years, science has progressed even in cultures that clearly accept a conscious God. But, by definition when it comes to evolution and the creation of life one must pick one of the models and that's why these discussions never come to a conclusion.


Mitch

[Sonnie]

Well said Mitch.

We all have free choice to believe whatever we so desire to belief and I will always respect everyone's choice.

No offense to Drf or anyone else, but it's probably better that we try to keep these types of discussions away from here so that we don't end up offending someone because of our beliefs. These kinds of discussions are very controversial and tend to end up in heated discussions, as Chrisbee eluded to earlier. Thankfully we have remained civil thus far.

We will probably be rewording the forum description to make it focus more on physics as it relates to audio and video technology.

I think it's best if we close this thread... again, no offense to anyone who has posted.

I would appreciate everyones understanding on this decision as I feel it's best for the Shack to try to avoid subjects that can lead to potential problems.

Thanks!

[Sonnie]

Since we changed the forum title and description, I'm moving this to Off Topic Chat Box for reading only.