Can you be Religous and a Scientist

[David F.]

The trouble is, of course, is that you can only adopt that viewpoint by totally rejecting the Universe as we now know and understand it to be. I now understand the Creation story far better than ever I did before, since I've opened my eyes to the actual primitive viewpoint. But that only serves to impress even further how far Genesis 1 is from the truth. It does not represent in any way the Big Bang, or the formation of the Earth as a spherical object orbiting a star - one star amongst billions. With no conception of space, or the stars and planets being large bodies like our Earth, it's suddenly makes a lot of sense: the Universe consists of formless, chaotic Water. And God put down a lid on part of the water ("Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters"), then he pulled the waters to "one place" and "let the dry land appear". I have never been able to make much sense of these statements in view of a spherical Earth hanging in space. But if the entire known Universe consists of land, sea and the sky coming down on all sides to meet the sea, then it makes perfect sense. It is simply a world view which does not tally remotely with what we have discovered in the 2500 years since that was written. And I'm not really talking about difficult things like the evolution of life on Earth- I mean basic stuff like the spherical Earth, the solar system and the distant stars.

I don't think it is all that different. What you are describing is a difference of perspective. In order to really understand the perspective of the ancients, you have to understand how they talked. In Hebrew, there are 7 heavens (we even say, to this day, when we are very happy that we are "in seventh heaven"). The first heaven is the bowl of the sky, the second is the stars, sun, moon (universe), and from there on it gets more mystical. While the perspective of the bible and its people may be that they are at the center of the universe, and ours may be quite different - all is reletive. (Do you know that the Big Bang theorists actually put us in the relative vicinity of the explosion itself, how interesting?) There is nothing incongruous in these perspectives, only in the amount of knowledge (the math for all the natural laws even works in both cases, but the modern view makes the math MUCH MUCH easier). Their perspective is still correct, just not complete.

Now I have to really start speculating. What if the Genesis account is true? What if there was a "bowl" in the sky which kept half the water above it? From our perspective, the bowl would not be semispherical but totally spherical. The word used in Hebrew means to beat out into thin sheets - which in our science only works with metals. What metal could there be which is transparent, so that the sun, moon and stars are still visible, yet could be formed into a sphere in the sky, and float there, so to keep half the water in the whole Earth above it. This is the scripture picture, now comes the really big conjecture. There is only one transparent metal I am aware of. With the search for super conductors, scientists have developed a version of solid hydrogen. The problem is that this exists only at extremely cold temperatures so it is not much use on Earth. However, it turns out that running a magnetic field through the Hydrogen carries away the heat and keeps the Hydrogen intact – and Hydrogen is a metal and is maleable! Could the Hebrews be telling the incredible story of God creating a fantastic transparent shell around the Earth made out of Hydrogen? Hydrogen, comes from water when subjected to high energy and will form into a crystalline structure. Is it possible that God made ionized Hydrogen come out of the water and follow the Van Allen belt above the atmosphere and form into a fantastic heavenly bowl? Hydrogen is a superconductor so the Earth's magnetic field would concentrate within the structure, both lifting it to the level of the Earth’s magnetic field and causing it to be self-repairing. If so then where is it now? Well, a large asteroid (or a series of them as hit Jupiter a few years back) might destroy such a structure. Then, if half the water in the world was trapped above this fantastic structure came back to Earth as rain, it could well rain over the whole world for 40 days and nights. Solid Hydrogen would not exist on the surface of the Earth, it would literally melt away leaving no traces. I guess the bible does hang together, but then I am just speculating. BTW, solid Hydrogen is not completely transparent, it has a rose or magenta tint – as in rose colored glasses.

There is no clue in the text to how long the gap was, because there is no clue in the text that there ever was a gap. Let's say that you're right. The human brain is not constructed to understand such huge timespaces as 4,600,000,000 years or 15,000,000,000 years. But what would such time periods be to God? Your belief that the gap is not in the billions of years is due to your unwillingness to abandon a human-centred view of Creation. If I were a Creation Scientist, I'd simply accept the scientifically determined age of the Earth and the Universe as a whole and simply not presume to pry into God's reasons for waiting so long.

There is no clue in the text how long the gap was – we are agreed. I presume that such times would be nothing to God. I see nothing in the bible to dispute the idea that the Earth is 4.6 billion, or even trillions of years old. The scriptures do not tell us and I think it would be foolish to try to make such an assessment where the bible is silent. However, I see scientific evidence (not biblical) of a much younger Earth which I cannot just ignore. I have repeatedly refused to say how old the Earth really is. I am still looking at the evidence.

It seems to me, though, that the view which you reject actually has more to recommend it - since it makes use of the parts of creation we know only through Science - such as dinosaurs (and presumably other stuff like the distant stars) which of course is not mentioned in scripture because the people who wrote the scripture knew nothing of those things! It seems to me a more intellectually justifiable position to let science fill the gaps that science knows about, and let the Bible fill the gaps that science can't possibly approach (such as the ultimate origin of the Universe). The ruin-reconstruction even tallies with the current consensus regarding a catastrophic end to the Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.

I doubt the Earth is billions of years old, not because of the bible, but for physical reason. Take for instance the failing magnetic field of the Earth which, if plotted backwards into the past, would be much too high in strength to allow life only a few hundred thousand years ago (the Earth’s field was 40% greater only 1000 years ago). These numbers are in dispute, but the failing of the magnetic field is not. There is also the Erosion problem, and the Moon Dust problem. We can also look at the magnetic halo’s of granite.

I am not speculating about the actual age of the Earth, only that I have doubts as to the immense age currently accepted in scientific circles. No doubt, the Earth is older than 6000 years, which still does not dispute the scriptures, as I have explained. Yes, I am willing to let science fill the gaps it can, but I am going to be skeptical about any and all science until I am assured of its authenticity.

 

[sideshowbob]

I doubt the Earth is billions of years old, not because of the bible, but for physical reason. Take for instance the failing magnetic field of the Earth which, if plotted backwards into the past, would be much too high in strength to allow life only a few hundred thousand years ago (the Earth’s field was 40% greater only 1000 years ago). These numbers are in dispute, but the failing of the magnetic field is not. There is also the Erosion problem, and the Moon Dust problem. We can also look at the magnetic halo’s of granite.

Those are silly creationist fantasies that have been refuted a thousand times.

The "failing magnetic field", for example, most certainly is in dispute. In fact it is completely disproven. The earth's magnetic field is fluctuating - as evidenced by magnetic stripes on the ocean floor. It is not declining at a constant rate, and you can not extrapolate backwards to creation.

If that paragraph is an accurate picture of your scientific knowledge, the answer to the question is : No, David F. can not be a scientist.

 

[David F.]

Bob, I do not dispute that the current weakening of the magnetic field might be a fluctuation. I pointed out in my own post that the numbers were in dispute. Yes, a changing field might be a fluctuation rather than a linear decline. However, if the fluctuation is too large (I'm sorry but I don't know what too large means since I don't know how strong a field life can exist within) then the fluctuations might limit the time life has been on this planet. If the "fluctuation" goes too high - too strong - then it might destroy life on this planet. Further, if the field drops to zero then Earth will lose a shield from cosmic radiation which could be life threatening. If this is a fulctuation, then the field might have fallen to zero before, possibly making the planet non-habitable. Far from being disproved, ths is an established problem for steady-state theory and I note that even you admit that the field is changing.

As I stated, I am still looking at the evidence.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm

 

[sideshowbob]

The constantly-declining-since-creation hypothesis certainly has been disproven definitively, despite the protests of creationist pseudo-scientists.
The other examples you mentioned are even less fact-based.

Your conclusion that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old is clearly based on your rejection of science, not on any objective scientific evidence.

 

[David F.]

The constantly-declining-since-creation hypothesis certainly has been disproven definitively, despite the protests of creationist pseudo-scientists.
The other examples you mentioned are even less fact-based.

Your conclusion that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old is clearly based on your rejection of science, not on any objective scientific evidence.

Why do you insist on attributing ideas to me that I have not written? I have never stated any such hypothesis. I have simply stated that if plotted backwards into the past, at the current rates, the magnetic field might have been life-threatening. If you would like to use a curved plot rather than a linear plot, then be my guest - but show some reasons/data for your curve. I might even agree with you.

There is no doubt that there must be an energy loss and, over long periods of time, the magnetic field will completely fail, along with the dissipation of the planetary core heat. Is the current down tread in field strength a trend to zero or might it somehow rebound, as in a reversal? If so, how long might this take? That is the question in dispuate and I do not pretend to know the answer, yet.

There is no doubt that the current trend is a decline. There is no doubt the field was greater in the past, even in the recent past. Might the field have been life-threateningly large in the past? Perhaps, and you have given nothing to prove otherwise.

Bob, did you read the link I gave, or did you just dismiss it on principle because it conflicts with your world-view? Please enlighten us, Bob.

 

[Starman]

As I stated, I am still looking at the evidence.

David F.

All Religions are man made, do you agree?

All Science is man made, do you agree?

Religion and Science do not agree, do you agree?

So how can a Scientist believe in Religion, when the two are contradictory?

 

[David F.]

The true question is:

1 - What evidence is there that a God did anything?

2 - Assuming a God one now must justify the conclusion by showing if he creted everything that means he created time and sapce. How do you scientifically jsutify a God existing before time-space.

3 - Further you must account for God creating himself. It is not acceptable to content that physical (real things) can or has existed forever. That concept of eternal existance requires that one accumulate an infinite number of time intervals.

Infinity by definiton is greater than any finite number. Put in the most simple terms "Eternal Existance" is an oxymoron. It cannot exist.

On the other hand there is no proof and can never be that there is no God. The choice of beliefs therefore must be based on sound and pragmatic observations.

I have tried very very hard not to say "God Did It". My sole argument has been that the whole idea of Macroevolution is just silly and has no scientific basis at all. Does the fall of Evolution mean you have to accept creation? No it does not! You can wait around for another theory if you prefer.

I do see an immense complexity and what appears to be order and intellegent design. I find that the presence of a watch means there must have been a watchmaker. The concept of a "Blind Watchmaker" is absurd. Richard Dawkins is not even slightly convincing. He appeals only to those who choose to be lead by the Blind Watchmaker - the blind leading the blind.

 

[David F.]

David F.

All Religions are man, made do you agree? No. If God really did appear to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the Hebrew people... then the Judeo/Christian religion is not man-made. Until we can prove the truth of this "IF", we will have to be content with Faith, but that still does not prove that "All Religions are man made".

All Science is man made, do you agree? No, science is the search for and the discovery of the laws of nature. While the history and results of that search is man-made, the laws themselves are certainly not man-made. We just put a description into a man-made language - called mathematics, which is also a description of the laws of nature.

Religion and Science do not agree, do you agree? I think Science and Religion veer away from each other at times, but that is only because IMHO Science makes a wrong turn. No one should dispute that Science occasionally makes wrong turns and no one should dispute that it is extremely difficult to get Science to correct its own mistakes. Someone put a quot from Max Plank on this forum which said something like "the only way to get new ideas into science is for the old scientists to die..." I very much agree. At the same time, I will also say that Religion sometimes veers from its origins. The Vatican for example (noe explaination needed) or when Creationists try to insist that the Earth is only 6000 years old because they do not understand or read their own scriptures. Both come back eventually.

So how can a Scientist believe in Religion, when the two are contradictory?

Science and Religion do eventually agree - we just seem to be in a time of great disagreement.

 

[sideshowbob]

f you would like to use a curved plot rather than a linear plot, then be my guest - but show some reasons/data for your curve.

The whole point here is that you can't extrapolate back to an indefinite time on any curve. You can't determine what I weighed in 1940 by extrapolating from my weight change over the past week.

It is not just a "dispute" over the shape of a curve. The whole principle of extrapolation is wrong, in this example.

Might the field have been life-threateningly large in the past? Perhaps, and you have given nothing to prove otherwise.

It is not up to me to prove anything to you.

The question at hand is: Can you be religious and be a scientist? You are doing an admirable job of demonstrating the fact that the only way for you to be religious is to reject science.

Bob, did you read the link I gave, or did you just dismiss it on principle because it conflicts with your world-view?

I've read that link and stuff like it since before you could pronounce "science".

The intelligent members of sciforums are quite capable of doing their own research without me spoon-feeding them links to my favourite propaganda.

Please enlighten us, Bob.

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Mat 7:18-23)​

 

[Starman]

All Religions are man, made do you agree? No. If God really did appear to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the Hebrew people... then the Judeo/Christian religion is not man-made. Until we can prove the truth of this "IF", we will have to be content with Faith, but that still does not prove that "All Religions are man made".

David F. I did not ask if Faith is man made, and it is. I asked if All Religions are man made. You seem to prefer to go off topic quite easily when you are answering for the most part a simple question. If you know of any Religous organizations that are managed by anything other than Man kind please let me know. If you have any text that has been written by a GOD please let me know and David I am refering to written by a GOD. I am not refering to written by Man and inspired by a GOD.

All Science is man made, do you agree? No, science is the search for and the discovery of the laws of nature. While the history and results of that search is man-made, the laws themselves are certainly not man-made. We just put a description into a man-made language - called mathematics, which is also a description of the laws of nature.

David F. I did not ask if the Laws of Nature were Man made. I asked if Science as we know it today is Man made. This is a simple question that has a simple answer. Yes Science is Man made. As is the definition of Science.

Religion and Science do not agree, do you agree? I think Science and Religion veer away from each other at times, but that is only because IMHO Science makes a wrong turn. No one should dispute that Science occasionally makes wrong turns and no one should dispute that it is extremely difficult to get Science to correct its own mistakes. Someone put a quot from Max Plank on this forum which said something like "the only way to get new ideas into science is for the old scientists to die..." I very much agree. At the same time, I will also say that Religion sometimes veers from its origins. The Vatican for example (noe explaination needed) or when Creationists try to insist that the Earth is only 6000 years old because they do not understand or read their own scriptures. Both come back eventually..

David F. I think you tried to agree to this question but a simple Yes will do.

Science and Religion do eventually agree - we just seem to be in a time of great disagreement.

David F. How can you make this asumption when you just agreed that Science and Religion do not agree? Religion is stagnate and will not change so how do you invision that Religion will ever agree with Science?

 

[Cris]

David,

Consider a different viewpoint. The assumption is that if we find a watch on the beach then that indicates the work of an intelligent designer. And hence anything complex must be the result of intelligent design. But isn’t there a basic flaw in this argument? Was there indeed a watchmaker who designed such a piece of complexity? The answer is no. The modern watch was never designed but was the result of a simpler variation plus a small enhancement and that in turn was the result of something simpler, and so on. That line of actions leads back to the earliest times when man wanted someway to know the time of day and perhaps used the sun or the stars. The essential point here is that the watch was not the result of intelligent design but the result of an evolutionary process. It is true that man’s intelligence played a role but only as one component of an evolutionary process.

If we consider the complexity of the modern computer microchip we see the same result of a long evolutionary process that we can probably trace back to when an early prehistoric man made markings on a rock to count his kills. If the watch or the modern microchip was the result of intelligent design then these things would have appeared from scratch and if man is an example of an intelligent designer then why didn’t prehistoric man spontaneously design the modern microchip millions of years ago?

The argument that an ID creator designed life because life is complex is not supported by the watchmaker argument. Absolutely everything we see around us that we would consider complex and man made has been the result of evolutionary processes.

Where does that leave the ID speculation? Nowhere since I have just removed its basis. If you want to use the example of the watch as a basis for a complex universe or complex life then like the evolution of the watch you must also conclude that the universe and life are the results of evolutionary processes. I guess you could argue that the evolution of the watch had intelligence as a component but then the objective of that intelligence had a purpose. If you want to extend that analogy to the design of life then perhaps you should state and define the purpose of life.

Cris

 

[David F.]

The whole point here is that you can't extrapolate back to an indefinite time on any curve. You can't determine what I weighed in 1940 by extrapolating from my weight change over the past week.

It is not just a "dispute" over the shape of a curve. The whole principle of extrapolation is wrong, in this example.


It is not up to me to prove anything to you.

The question at hand is: Can you be religious and be a scientist? You are doing an admirable job of demonstrating the fact that the only way for you to be religious is to reject science.

I've read that link and stuff like it since before you could pronounce "science".

The intelligent members of sciforums are quite capable of doing their own research without me spoon-feeding them links to my favourite propaganda.

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Mat 7:18-23)​

Before I could pronounce science? I was born in '59 Bob. Do I take it that you were born in '40? I may not be as old as you are, Bob, but I think I am old enough to know better. It certainly seems I am old enough to know more.

I am so glad you think that backward extrapolation is invalid under any circustances . You do realize, don't you, that this invalidates all dating methods as well as extrapolating gene mutations and thus invalidates macro-evolution... These things are extrapolations into the past!

 

[sideshowbob]

I am so glad you think that backward extrapolation is invalid under any circustances

No. I specifically said "in this example".

Let's go back to Grade 3 for a moment:

I weigh 210 pounds today. I have lost 10 pounds in the past year.
How much did I weigh in 1940?
Please show your work and be prepared to quote scripture to explain my birth weight.

(This is the exact same situation as the earth's magnetic field.)

You do realize, don't you, that this invalidates all dating methods as well

Of course not.

Most dating methods depend on direct measurement of isotope ratios, direct counting of tree rings, etc. Only creationists use silly extrapolations.

 

[David F.]

Cris, in every step of your "evolutionary" design process for either the clock or the microchip, isn't the evolution directed by intelegence? Evolutionists insist that every step of their proposed process is not directed by intelegence, but by random chance. At no time in the evolution of the watch or of the microchip is there any element of random chance in the design. Doesn't that make the two - watches and biological evolution - completely different? Aren't you, as they say, comparing apples and oranges?

 

[David F.]

No. I specifically said "in this example".

Let's go back to Grade 3 for a moment:

I weigh 210 pounds today. I have lost 10 pounds in the past year.
How much did I weigh in 1940?
Please show your work and be prepared to quote scripture to explain my birth weight.

(This is the exact same situation as the earth's magnetic field.)

Of course not.

Most dating methods depend on direct measurement of isotope ratios, direct counting of tree rings, etc. Only creationists use silly extrapolations.

Now wait just a minute. You get to extrapolate whenever you want but I don't get to extrapolate when I want? There is almost a thousand years of data concerning the magnetic field strength of the Earth (granted, the more recent data is more reliable since our methods have improved) nevertheless, that is a long string of data. Why should your data be valid and mine is not. It was highly thought of scientists who made the observations.

I never said I wanted to extrapolate backward to infinity. The data actally indicates only a few tens of millenia for the field strength to be too strong for life to exist - a far cry from infinity. I was being kind since I didn't know the relationship between life and magnetic fields so I said hundreds of thousands of years.

In any case, I never said this was true, I simply said it was an indication that the Earth may not be billions of years old and that I was still looking at the data.

You, Bob, seem to think that anything which does not fit your world-view should be discarded! Shame on you Bob. A good scientist looks at all the data, no matter how much it doesn't fit with his pet theory. And, Shame on you for not standing up and being counted among the Lord's Saints. I can tell that you know better.

 

[guthrie]

Hey BOb, now you see why I gave up argying with DAvid F. He seems to be glad to embrace any possibility, but then not actually look at it scientifically.

 

[sideshowbob]

I never said I wanted to extrapolate backward to infinity. The data actally indicates only a few tens of millenia for the field strength to be too strong for life to exist - a far cry from infinity.

Nobody said anything about "infinity". The point is that you can't extrapolate back beyond the known data at all.

Have you calculated my birth weight yet? Do you not understand this concept at all?

You, Bob, seem to think that anything which does not fit your world-view should be discarded!... A good scientist looks at all the data, no matter how much it doesn't fit with his pet theory.

Do you have any mirrors in your house? You seem to be describing yourself very well. (You also seem to be very good at jumping to conclusions about my "world view".)

Shame on you for not standing up and being counted among the Lord's Saints.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

 

[sideshowbob]

Hey BOb, now you see why I gave up argying with DAvid F. He seems to be glad to embrace any possibility, but then not actually look at it scientifically.

I think of it like poking a corpse with a stick. It's a guilty pleasure, but... David F. will tell you I'm no saint.

 

[Cris]

David,

Cris, in every step of your "evolutionary" design process for either the clock or the microchip, isn't the evolution directed by intelegence?

You could only be correct if the final result was the original purpose. But when ancient cavemen started counting they did not have a microchip in mind. Intelligence only operates here once selectable opportunities arise from the previous change. This is how natural selection operates. Remember that man’s intelligence is also a natural biological process.

Evolutionists insist that every step of their proposed process is not directed by intelegence, but by random chance.

No that is not correct. Mutations are random but natural selection is the opposite of random. Evolutionary processes are not random processes. Try these articles that helps explain the misconceptions about randomness in evolution theories.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

At no time in the evolution of the watch or of the microchip is there any element of random chance in the design.

See above arguments about randomness. But even if you were correct, so what? Each progression depends on opportunities being presented by the previous step – this remains a true evolutionary process and not a process of direct spontaneous creation that is being offered by creationist ID.

Doesn't that make the two - watches and biological evolution - completely different? Aren't you, as they say, comparing apples and oranges?

An evolutionary process is one where a result is determined by a series of prior changes over time where at each change a set of alternatives are possible, some will be successful and some will not. In the evolution of computers and watches many models did not succeed and have become extinct. That intelligence has played a role in these evolutionary processes does nothing to deny that the processes are indeed examples of true evolution.

The fact remains that both watches and computers are the result of evolutionary processes. I.e. complexity is the result of evolution and not spontaneous creation. That some degree of intelligence was involved here in no way dilutes the fact that evolution is the primary process.

Cris

Edited to add additional reference.

 

[David F.]

No Cris, at each step, the entire design, either microchip or clock, is reevaluated by an intelligence. The progress is indeed directed and the result is the intended end product. Improvements are made by an intelligence. New features are added by an intelligence. Unlike biological evolution, none of the old design need be carried forward at all unless it is appropriate to the new design. The whole process is created and designed by an intelligence. You are assuming that the old clock is modified to make the new one. This is never the case, just as the old microchip is never modified to make the new one. There is no inheritance at all. Only the knowledge of the basic design ideas is passed forward - by an intelligence - and then only as required. There is no comparison of a watch, which only inherits by knowledge, with mutated life, which only inherits by random mutation.

As I have pointed out before, within the confines of the Evolution theory, you cannot attribute any intelligence to the selection process. Before there is selection, there must first be random mutations to choose from. The selection is only as good as the random mutations it is given to select from.

The selection process between a watch and evolutionary mutation is also not the same. The watch is designed with a particular mission in mind - by an intelligence - and many obviously wrong changes are discarded without trial and error (you would never add a feather pen, or car tire or a bathtub to a watch, it simply doesn't fit) yet evolutionary mutation and natural selection must laboriously try every new mutation without any thought as to whether it is appropriate - and there is nothing which says the same inappropriate idea won't be tried over and over with the same disastrous effects.

Mathematics is sometimes deceiving. Mathematics is not the real world. Mathematics only approximates reality. Reality is always a little different than the mathematical model. Just because something seems to be mathematically possible, does not mean it is or that the mathematical model really fits life.

The complexity of life is far above that of a microchip or a watch. These two ideas, the evolution of an intelligent idea and the evolution of life by random mutation and natural selection, are not even remotely the same. They are not comparable.