Science evolving into Religion?

[truthguild]

since they are 2 different theories, i'll have to answer them seperately (also, being a biology major and not a cosmology major, i can answer on evolutionary theory better).
the big bang theory, in short, is the expansion of space-time from a singularity to what we currently have - and still expanding.

life from 'goo' is abiogenesis, and we still don't have a comprehensive explanation for it, although a great deal of progress has occured in terms of discovering how complex organic chemicals can form from simple compounds, eg. solutions of hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and water have resulted in the formation of polypeptides (the building blocks of RNA and DNA).

evolution involves a combination of random factors (random mutation and genetic drift) acted upon by natural selection (which is extremely non-random) resulting in a diversification of life from simpler forms.

do any of these prove or disprove the existance of a god? not at all. in science, whether there is or is not a creator is irrelevant - we aren't looking to understand who did it, but rather how it was done. this is why the scientific community consists of many religious as well as nonreligious people.

 

[Agenator]

ah, that makes a little more sense and its good that people are trying to explain how it happened, which makes since because you can view these two different views from either side, God caused it to happen/chance caused it to happen but all scientists are trying to say is that it did happen. If thats as far as scientists go I'm fine with it but if they start to try to disprove the existence of God or for that matter prove the existence of God they begin to step on peoples toes and thats when imo they would start to become a religion in their own right. Has this happened yet? no Will it? maybe. Thanks for the explanation it was very enlightening, since I'm still in High School I haven't really learned much about this topic.

 

[jaco_don]

Do visit India once ... Gods own country

 

[Dan]

Please when posting in this thread from now on, make sure that you are not just repeating what someone else has said and make sure you are not just posting a one liner such as 'Science is nothing like religion'. Posts should be more like what nearly all of you have written, at least a paragraph.

 

[Xenjin]

we don't put away the idea. it just useless in science to use the supernatural as an explanation for what is currently not understood - a 'god of the gaps' argument.

So we simply just say "We have no proof that there is no God, so therefore there is no God"?

atheists don't believe in any god or gods, nihilists posit there is no god. this is also totally irrelevant.

What if there is, but we simply don't have the tools to prove it? (or are using the wrong tools?)

...that isn't a reason to posit the supernatural. human knowledge and understanding is continuously expanding - through research and hard work; the supernatural has never improved our understanding of anything.

I can understand this position. However, what if what we're trying to find out here is not something that we can quantifiably understand? Our physics breaks down towards the singularity event. M Theory doesn't really help the cause because it does more to validate the existence of a supernatural state than anything else.

we know perfectly well where we came from - our parents. this can go back all the way to the origin of life. there are currently a few ideas on how life began on earth, some having fairly strong evidence, but none yet having quite enough to constitute a theory.

Understood. However, that doesn't solve our infinite recursion problem. Do you believe that the universe is finite or infinite? I would be most interested in finding out what you believe.

we call this the Big Bang

And what caused the big bang?

supporting evidence? preferably peer reviewed.

Check this site: http://www.tenthdimension.com/ <- and watch the Flash Video. It's highly simplified for the lay man.

no, we know of exactly 4 forces, gravity, the strong molecular force, the weak molecular force, and the electromagnetic force

...and Dark Matter... and a number of others they currently have theorized.

again, evidence for that posit? esp. since we have a fairly good naturalistic explanation that has been quite successful in it's predictions.

Successful to a point. It still doesn't explain the beginning and that's where all sciences break down. Chemistry fails to explain how biological creatures came to be. The primordial pool theory doesn't stick (this is what led to Intelligent Design theory) because it doesn't explain how the simple complexity of some creatures (like some bacteria) evolved from something any simpler, as nothing simpler can exist. The laws of physics fall down for exactly the same reason. In fact, the laws of physics fall down as they pass through a wormhole or any type of phase-matter singularity. It points to the fact that our tools of science aren't enough. We're talking about something here that transcends our understanding of the universe.

My argument is, just because we can't prove it exists, it doesn't prove that it doesn't exist - you follow me?

 

[truthguild]

So we simply just say "We have no proof that there is no God, so therefore there is no God"?

no - we say that we make no comment on the supernatural.

What if there is, but we simply don't have the tools to prove it? (or are using the wrong tools?)

if there is, there is. if there isn't, there isn't. either way, it's irrelevant to science.

I can understand this position. However, what if what we're trying to find out here is not something that we can quantifiably understand? Our physics breaks down towards the singularity event. M Theory doesn't really help the cause because it does more to validate the existence of a supernatural state than anything else.

what if nothing really exists and it's all a figment of my own imagination? without evidence, it's a worthless speculation.
m theory neither supports nor refutes the supernatural - that would violate the philosophy of science. it is also irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

Understood. However, that doesn't solve our infinite recursion problem. Do you believe that the universe is finite or infinite? I would be most interested in finding out what you believe.

your still using an argument to ignorance fallacy, however, as i pointed out, there still isn't a comprehensive explantion of how life originated (which is irrelevant to evolution anyway). abiogenesis has some good evidence, but nothing comprehensive enough yet. as far as i'm aware, there is no evidence that the universe ever not existed.

And what caused the big bang?

irrelevant to evolution, but...
causation requires time (ie. the cause must occur/exist before the effect). time, as we understand it, would not begin until the big bang (ie. the expansion of space-time). therefore, logically the big bang cannot be caused.

Check this site: http://www.tenthdimension.com/ <- and watch the Flash Video. It's highly simplified for the lay man.

obviously - no sources nor evidence is presented in it.

...and Dark Matter... and a number of others they currently have theorized.

dark matter is not a force, and as far as i'm aware there are no other forces being theorized within the scientific community.

Successful to a point. It still doesn't explain the beginning

it's not intended to.

and that's where all sciences break down. Chemistry fails to explain how biological creatures came to be.

so far - but is getting quite close

The primordial pool theory doesn't stick

evidence?

(this is what led to Intelligent Design theory)

intelligent design is not a theory.

because it doesn't explain how the simple complexity of some creatures (like some bacteria) evolved from something any simpler, as nothing simpler can exist.

another argument to ignorance as well as being wrong.

The laws of physics fall down for exactly the same reason.

see above

In fact, the laws of physics fall down as they pass through a wormhole or any type of phase-matter singularity. It points to the fact that our tools of science aren't enough. We're talking about something here that transcends our understanding of the universe.

which is why we still have science. keep in mind, there was a time that lightning was believed to be spears thrown down by the gods in anger because they transcended our understanding of the universe.

My argument is, just because we can't prove it exists, it doesn't prove that it doesn't exist - you follow me?

this, however, is not how science works. the positive assertion needs to be supported by positive evidence. let's follow your argument to it's logical conclusion.
just because we can't prove the evil galactic lord xenu exists doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
just because we can't prove the invisible pink unicorn exists doesn't mean she doesn't exist.
just because we can't prove the great juju under the sea exists doesn't mean he doesn't.
just because we can't prove the great green arkleseizure exists doesn't mean he doesn't.

you follow me?

 

[MadameSkylark]

It makes far more sense to look at a lack of proof and say "It does not exist" than it does to look at the lack of proof and choose to still believe in something.

Sure, there COULD be a pink and blue bunny in your sock drawer. There really could. Heck, you have a book that tells the grand stories of the pink and blue bunny that lives in people's sock drawers. Thousands of people have testified to the great things that the sock bunny has done for them.

But, if you open your sock drawer and don't see any evidence of said bunny...and none of the people who have claimed the miracles of the sock bunny have any proof...continuing to believe in the sock bunny is a pretty dumb thing to do.

No, lack of proof does not mean something doesn't exist. But since believing in something without proof is illogical, it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense to NOT believe in something for which there is no proof.

 

[Xenjin]

...as far as i'm aware, there is no evidence that the universe ever not existed.

Then whence came the big bang theory?

causation requires time (ie. the cause must occur/exist before the effect). time, as we understand it, would not begin until the big bang (ie. the expansion of space-time). therefore, logically the big bang cannot be caused.

That's an assumption you've made. You don't know that nothing pre-existed the Big bang. If the big bang happened, then something caused it. Furthermore your argument is not quite logical. Time (as we understand it) is just a tool for our puny human brains to comprehend the passage of moments. Time is not a thing in and of itself. Therefore it does not functionally determine anything in the universe or anything before it.

obviously - no sources nor evidence is presented in it.

Such is science - until it is inexorably proven wrong by some later discovery. This doesn't stop people from believing in it. Does it? Certainly not. So my argument still stands. You have faith in the evidence. But the evidence could be misinterpreted, couldn't it? Even you must admit that this happens in science all the time.

intelligent design is not a theory.

- Oh? 9 million hits in Google sez you're wrong.

another argument to ignorance as well as being wrong.

- Not because you can prove it's wrong, but because you are compelled in your own mind to believe it is.

keep in mind, there was a time that lightning was believed to be spears thrown down by the gods in anger because they transcended our understanding of the universe.

- You're actually proving my point. Thanks.

this, however, is not how science works. the positive assertion needs to be supported by positive evidence.

- Now you're missing the point of this whole discussion. What if the positive evidence is being wrongly interpreted? You should note that one of the many fallacies in science was to assume that sequence implied causation. This has been disproven many, many times. So who's to say that our assumptions on what we think we know now is positive evidence? I still need an answer to my question. What if we're wrong?

 

[whitebus]

intelligent life is a paradox, or at best a pseudonym.

science, and by extension the scientific method, leads us to the conclusion that in the beginning the universe was lifeless, but cannot explain how the universe was created in lifelessness.

religion in general on the other hand gives us an hypothesis that the universe is an extension of life eternal without the cumbersome testing and proofs required.

if the nature of the universe and god could be rationally explained then intelligent life would be able to rationally explain it. Since that is not the case we are led to one of two conclusions: Intelligent life cannot exist. Or, intelligent life can exist but we are not it.

 

[truthguild]

Then whence came the big bang theory?

Georges Lemaître

That's an assumption you've made. You don't know that nothing pre-existed the Big bang. If the big bang happened, then something caused it. Furthermore your argument is not quite logical. Time (as we understand it) is just a tool for our puny human brains to comprehend the passage of moments. Time is not a thing in and of itself. Therefore it does not functionally determine anything in the universe or anything before it.

no assumption - time is a requirement of pre-existence. measurments and calculations show that time would not exist.

Such is science - until it is inexorably proven wrong by some later discovery. This doesn't stop people from believing in it. Does it? Certainly not. So my argument still stands. You have faith in the evidence. But the evidence could be misinterpreted, couldn't it? Even you must admit that this happens in science all the time.

again, wrong. all claims in science must be supported by evidence, and be able to withstand peer review. otherwise, it is just a belief and not a theory or explanation. and no, i have no faith in anything. faith is a belief without, or in spite of, supprting evidence.
if the evidence is misinterpreted, sooner or later new evidence will show that - then we are free to change our ideas; but it will always be based on the evidence.

- Oh? 9 million hits in Google sez you're wrong.

google in no way is representative of the scientific community. to qualify as a theory, the model has to meet certain criteria. it must be well supported by evidence, be falsifiable, explain a natural phenomenon, make accurate testable predictions, be in accordance with all revelevant facts, be contradicted by none, and - in the event of being a replacement theory - be in accordance with the correspondence principle. intelligent design meets none of these criteria. quite frankly, it can't even fit into a scientific discipline.

- Not because you can prove it's wrong, but because you are compelled in your own mind to believe it is.

again wrong. every alledged instance of 'irreducible complexity' has been successfully demonstrated to be able to come from simpler systems

- You're actually proving my point. Thanks.

only if your point is that blaming the supernatural is scientifically worthless

- Now you're missing the point of this whole discussion. What if the positive evidence is being wrongly interpreted? You should note that one of the many fallacies in science was to assume that sequence implied causation. This has been disproven many, many times. So who's to say that our assumptions on what we think we know now is positive evidence? I still need an answer to my question. What if we're wrong?

if we're wrong, later evidence will discover it and we'll change our views. until then, an unsubstantiated idea that is not supported by any evidence is not a viable replacement. even if we're provent wrong, unsubstantiated ideas not supported with evidence will not make a viable replacement. so, back to my question - what evidence do you have to support intelligent design?

 

[jms.chapman]

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, just how it advanced. Personally I cant agree with it, mutations generally destroy genetic material not enhance it. and then looking at current theories of how the world was created from a scientific viewpoint makes me laugh to quote one bio teacher, "and then another meteor that was made up of ice crashed into earth.

Overall this topic proves you dont need drugs to do your head in

 

[truthguild]

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, just how it advanced. Personally I cant agree with it, mutations generally destroy genetic material not enhance it.

not a problem when you consider that an ameoba has a genome roughly 100 times the size of ours, with gradually decreasing sizes between.

and then looking at current theories of how the world was created

couple corrections - there aren't theories, just a theory. in science, competing theories can't exist, since a theory is, by definition, the best explanation we have. if there is more than 1, then none is truly considered the best and none are theories. secondly, there is no evidence to say the earth was created - just formed.

from a scientific viewpoint makes me laugh to quote one bio teacher, "and then another meteor that was made up of ice crashed into earth.

you shouldn't be asking a biology teacher for explantions of cosmological events - try a cosmology professor - you'll get a much better answer.

Overall this topic proves you dont need drugs to do your head in

hunh?

 

[Sohail]

I don't think it's becoming a religion, but maybe it can prove one of the religions already in existence, I've heard that there were many statements in the Qur'an regarding prophecies which have only been discovered in recent days and proven by science.

 

[truthguild]

I don't think it's becoming a religion, but maybe it can prove one of the religions already in existence, I've heard that there were many statements in the Qur'an regarding prophecies which have only been discovered in recent days and proven by science.

religions are of the supernatural (gods, souls, etc) and are by definition outside of science.
islam and christianity have lately been trying to sport things in their holy texts as being proven by science, but this is inherently wrong. everything that thy claim has been proven is either things people already knew, or are bizarre stretches of interpretation of the lines involved. also, proof doesn't exist in science - only evidence and degrees of confidence, so anytime you hear someone claim anything proven by science, your BS detection should immediately alert.

 

[mattura]

Back to a point at the beginning, the creation of the universe is ALL ABOUT particle physics, which has been essentially made up to fit what we can observe as scientists. The more basic level, the more we must guess! How can the smallest particle be measured when the measuring equipment is made of larger particles? We can only observe the effect of things and make a guess!

 

[truthguild]

Back to a point at the beginning, the creation of the universe is ALL ABOUT particle physics, which has been essentially made up to fit what we can observe as scientists. The more basic level, the more we must guess! How can the smallest particle be measured when the measuring equipment is made of larger particles? We can only observe the effect of things and make a guess!

there's a lot more to it than just making guesses. a theory allows scientists to make testable predictions - if it was just a guess, the preditions would be wrong. however, they are repeatedly correct.

 

[Twinkie]

This is a very far fetched idea, but we as scientist have failed to prove that we, or any other creatures is "alive" by anything more than a collection of chemical reactions. Who is to say that the reason we cannot create life is that we are not smart enough to create our own stable creatures. Who is to say that is some super genius assembled all the right materials for life, and gave it that spark of energy that we could not make life out of non-living things. If that were possible, it would be a major possibility that life just spawned under the right circumstances after billions of endless years. We can already make copies of existing creatures by cloning. On a side note, it has been proven that when you die, you immediately lose 2 pounds, could that be the soul?

 

[mattura]

a theory allows scientists to make testable predictions

Yes, these are the guesses I'm referring to

they are repeatedly correct.

how do we know this for sure? Correct according to our test equipment only. And on the level of particle physics, it is very difficult to get reasonable test equipment!

it has been proven that when you die, you immediately lose 2 pounds, could that be the soul?

I think that might have been phrased incorrectly... there are chemical changes after you die, new reactions etc, and these can release gases (sometimes making the body bloated), so it's not surprising that the weight changes. But 'immediately' is not a word that should be here!

 

[Twinkie]

I think that might have been phrased incorrectly... there are chemical changes after you die, new reactions etc, and these can release gases (sometimes making the body bloated), so it's not surprising that the weight changes. But 'immediately' is not a word that should be here!

"Immediately" is what I heard of. Aside from correcting people, what is your opinion of my post?

PS: I could not tell where half the quotes you posted were from.

 

[mattura]

Well, your post presents a standard argument, not really much to say about that.
As for the soul, I believe if it had weight, we would be able to find it as matter, therefore it does not have a weight.

PS sorry, they were the post above yours, ie 2 above mine