Evolution

[angus]

jmfcst,
Glad to hear the good book approves of Thermodynamics.  Interesting passages.  I'll definitely keeps romans chapter 8 in mind if any controversy over Entropy ever arises 

"scholars" = the small handful of priests I know, and the one rabbi and one protestant minister I know personally.  None claimed to know more than anybody else, including the figures of the old or new testaments.  One is in your neck of the woods:  Francis Xavier Burleton, from the Diocese of Beaumont.  Look him up. 

[Bugs]

I've been wanting to put my two cents worth into this thread for several days now but haven't had the time to read the whole thing, so I'll just do it anyway.  Sorry if I'm covering ground that's already been covered or refuted.

Can it be proven scientifically that God exists?  I maintain that it cannot.  The scientific method makes use of observations that are perceivable by the use of the five senses.  God is spirit (that's in John chapter somethingorother) and can't be perceived directly by the five senses.  Science is inadequate for studying God.  Knowing him requires understanding our own spiritual make-up.  Refusing to do so doesn't prove that he doesn't exist.  Carl Sagan believed that there was nothing beyond the physical realm, no afterlife.  If there is an afterlife, Sagan's disbelief didn't mean that there wasn't one.  It just means that he was suprised when he got there.  Just because John Lennon imagined that it would be possible to have no religion didn't mean that there really wasn't any God.  Imagine being murdered and finding out that you were wrong about God, both on the same day. 

As for whether God and evolution can both exist, Yes they can.  God could have chosen to create the life on earth by the use of evolution.  I don't happen to believe that he did, but he could have if he wanted to. 

As for the teaching of evolution in schools, that's more difficult.  It used to be easy when everyone was at least a nominal Christian.  Even most of the people who didn't go to church didn't object to prayer and bibles in school, and probably didn't believe in evolution.  The few athiests were in a closet not too far from the one the homosexuals were in.  Things are different today.  These people, and many others, have a voice, and need to be treated fairly, as does everyone else.  Wouldn't that be nice.  Unfortunately there is no way to satisfy everyone, and we probably ought to accept that.  Teach evolution as an unproven theory.  Teach creation as an unproven religion, just don't promote it, since the Constitution says we can't promote it.  At least that's what I've heard.  Where does the Constitution say anything about separation of church and state?

I'd better shut up now. 

[??????????]

The Theory of Evolution draws a conclusion that our presense here is the result solely of natural processes.  It concludes that there is no need or purpose for introducing anything supernatural to explain why this corner of the universe suddenly came to be populated with intelligent beings with dreams and desires, who create art and music and war and literature and think of things that will never be.  It is the end of all religion.  The ultimate conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is that we are here only as a result of some blind cosmic accident, and there is no higher purpose to our existence.  That conculsion in and of itself constitutes a belief system - that of that of Orthodox Naturalism.

Actually, the idea that we are here solely because of natural purposes is an assumption of the theory of evolution, not the conclusion.

The fundamental problem some people have with science is that there is no place for God in it. Science is based on repeatable experiments yielding predictable results. If God was consistently stepping into our lives science would not exist.

Science and the church have had a very close history prior to the middle ages.

[Bugs]

The Theory of Evolution draws a conclusion that our presense here is the result solely of natural processes.  It concludes that there is no need or purpose for introducing anything supernatural to explain why this corner of the universe suddenly came to be populated with intelligent beings with dreams and desires, who create art and music and war and literature and think of things that will never be.  It is the end of all religion.  The ultimate conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is that we are here only as a result of some blind cosmic accident, and there is no higher purpose to our existence.  That conculsion in and of itself constitutes a belief system - that of that of Orthodox Naturalism.

Actually, the idea that we are here solely because of natural purposes is an assumption of the theory of evolution, not the conclusion.

The fundamental problem some people have with science is that there is no place for God in it. Science is based on repeatable experiments yielding predictable results. If God was consistently stepping into our lives science would not exist.

Science and the church have had a very close history prior to the middle ages.

That's because the church controlled the scientists, or the scientists stayed within their beliefs, which happened to agree with the church, and they were both often wrong. 

[John Dibble]

The Theory of Evolution draws a conclusion that our presense here is the result solely of natural processes.  It concludes that there is no need or purpose for introducing anything supernatural to explain why this corner of the universe suddenly came to be populated with intelligent beings with dreams and desires, who create art and music and war and literature and think of things that will never be.  It is the end of all religion.  The ultimate conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is that we are here only as a result of some blind cosmic accident, and there is no higher purpose to our existence.  That conculsion in and of itself constitutes a belief system - that of that of Orthodox Naturalism.

Actually, the idea that we are here solely because of natural purposes is an assumption of the theory of evolution, not the conclusion.

The fundamental problem some people have with science is that there is no place for God in it. Science is based on repeatable experiments yielding predictable results. If God was consistently stepping into our lives science would not exist.

Science and the church have had a very close history prior to the middle ages.

That's because the church controlled the scientists, or the scientists stayed within their beliefs, which happened to agree with the church, and they were both often wrong. 

Either that or they ended up like Galileo.

[Gabu]

Can it be proven scientifically that God exists?  I maintain that it cannot.  The scientific method makes use of observations that are perceivable by the use of the five senses.  God is spirit (that's in John chapter somethingorother) and can't be perceived directly by the five senses.  Science is inadequate for studying God.  Knowing him requires understanding our own spiritual make-up.

That depends.  The theory can't be disproven that there is perhaps a way to construct something that allows us to perceive "spirit" with one of the five senses (or that allows us to do so with an additional latent sense that we didn't know about), so it can't be conclusively said that it's impossible to scientifically prove that God exists.

Of course, it may be.  I'm not saying that it is possible, either.

[Bugs]

Sounds like Mr Spock talking about "some science that we don't yet understand."    But it's also impossible for an athiest or anyone else stuck in the material realm to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who has any experience in the spiritual.  It would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a four year old.  The four year old wouldn't say, "Why is one uranium isotope stable and another one unstable?"  He'd say, "Huh?"

[Inverted Things]

Sounds like Mr Spock talking about "some science that we don't yet understand."    But it's also impossible for an athiest or anyone else stuck in the material realm to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who has any experience in the spiritual.  It would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a four year old.  The four year old wouldn't say, "Why is one uranium isotope stable and another one unstable?"  He'd say, "Huh?"

All uranium isotopes are unstable.

[Bugs]

Sounds like Mr Spock talking about "some science that we don't yet understand."    But it's also impossible for an athiest or anyone else stuck in the material realm to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who has any experience in the spiritual.  It would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a four year old.  The four year old wouldn't say, "Why is one uranium isotope stable and another one unstable?"  He'd say, "Huh?"

All uranium isotopes are unstable.

Huh?

[Inverted Things]

Sounds like Mr Spock talking about "some science that we don't yet understand."    But it's also impossible for an athiest or anyone else stuck in the material realm to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who has any experience in the spiritual.  It would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a four year old.  The four year old wouldn't say, "Why is one uranium isotope stable and another one unstable?"  He'd say, "Huh?"

All uranium isotopes are unstable.

Huh?

from http://greennature.com/article1104.html:

All isotopes of uranium are radioactive, with most having extremely long half-lives.

Half-life is a measure of the time it takes for one half of the atoms of a particular radionuclide to disintegrate (or decay) into another nuclear form. Each radionuclide has a characteristic half-life. Half-lives vary from millionths of a second to billions of years. Because radioactivity is a measure of the rate at which a radionuclide decays (for example, decays per second), the longer the half-life of a radionuclide, the less radioactive it is for a given mass. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25 thousand years.

[Mikem]

I see no reason why God and Science cannot coexist.  I went through a period where I was a firm athiest, having been educated in engineering among other things, but have reformed my views.

I absolutely believe in the laws of physics, and that they are the forces that shape our world.  I also believe, however, that God, whatever that is, created these laws and now his creation run free.  I do not believe that God interferes at all with the universe.  I think that he created a framework, then stepped back to watch.  With this point of view there is no reason that science cannot exist alongside God. 

As for teaching of evolution in schools, strongly strongly agree.  I think that learning evolution teaches much more than just how we got here.  It teaches children that our world is shaped by a progression of logic and chance, the abstract concept of which I believe is far more important than how fish grew legs.

[Confabulator]

Firmly agnostic, but evolution is unquestionable.  Really, if you knew the evidence behind it, there's not one bit of question as to whether or not it occurs. 
From all evidence as of now, it seems like, if there is a god, he is very very unobtrusive.  I.E., he stays very far behind the scenes, and everything runs on real laws of physics.  It makes sense, really.  If you want someone to choose to believe in you or do good acts, you don't just reveal yourself to them, you allow them to make the choice. 

[??????????]

Firmly agnostic, but evolution is unquestionable.  Really, if you knew the evidence behind it, there's not one bit of question as to whether or not it occurs. 
From all evidence as of now, it seems like, if there is a god, he is very very unobtrusive.  I.E., he stays very far behind the scenes, and everything runs on real laws of physics.  It makes sense, really.  If you want someone to choose to believe in you or do good acts, you don't just reveal yourself to them, you allow them to make the choice. 

Yes, God gave us free will to do as we please.

[J. J.]

Firmly agnostic, but evolution is unquestionable.  Really, if you knew the evidence behind it, there's not one bit of question as to whether or not it occurs. 
From all evidence as of now, it seems like, if there is a god, he is very very unobtrusive.  I.E., he stays very far behind the scenes, and everything runs on real laws of physics.  It makes sense, really.  If you want someone to choose to believe in you or do good acts, you don't just reveal yourself to them, you allow them to make the choice. 

Yes, God gave us free will to do as we please.

Evolution could be the ultimate expression of free will.  :-)