Can you be Religous and a Scientist

[Starman]

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.

Well this explains the Platapus.

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.

Mathematics is Mathematics is it not the reality 1+1=2?

If math supports a theory of possiblity and the theory dosen't work wouldn't it be a fault in the theory and not the math?

Mathematics a unit of measurment can only be that. A unit of measurment.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

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.

David now you are sounding like a scientist. So I ask you this question, how is it possible that 1st century man kind and the Religion they created could be acurate? If I understand what your saying is, that Life is very complex and no one has all the answers.

You sound like you may be a Christian just a guess. It also sounds like you are well educated in some field of science. It sounds like you do not altogether agree with all the text of the bible correct me if I am wrong. And it seems you have gone to greate lengths to make Religion and Science blend to your own understanding. I just have to wonder if your Religous beliefs ever affect your scientific endevors. And if it changes your evaluations of scientific experimentation?

Albert Einstein sounded on the surface like he believed in a God. However he also noted that he was not a great fan of causing violence with his Ideals.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Einstein, Albert

His dying words were.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose
purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human
frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble
souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
[Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]

I would say that AE humored Religion as not to cause conflict, however I do not believe that AE believed in any known Religion.

As for blending Science and Religion AE made this comment.

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws
of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist
will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish
addressed to a Supernatural Being."
[Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source:
"Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann

 

[Hermann]

Who is religious? I don’t believe in Christ and I am not committed to any religion. But still I regard myself as “religious”, because I believe in the existence of a spiritual world and in an individual life after death. What are the criteria for being “religious”?
My belief or weltanschauung is described at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hermann.raith

 

[Cris]

David,

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.

And the key phrase here is “at each step”, where all the steps combine to form a classic evolutionary process, note that watches are still evolving – just what is the intended end product? My point is that there is no example where something complex is the result of intelligence alone.

Improvements are made by an intelligence. New features are added by an intelligence.

But based on what has gone before over time.

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.

Yet none of that is important to this issue. The arrival of something complex, watch or microchip, is the result of an evolutionary process. There is no example of something entirely new and complex appearing from scratch as is being suggested by ID.

The watch is designed with a particular mission in mind - by an intelligence –

But that isn’t true. A particular watch is the result of all the developments that preceded it. Ancient Egyptians who needed to know the time of day were not able to build a watch – why not since they had the same level of intelligence that we have now. While the development of complex man made objects involves intelligence it is without exception within an evolutionary sequence.

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.

Yes indeed. And the primary difference between evolutionary processes that have an intelligence component and those that do not is simply a matter of time. The time from the first abacus to the modern microchip can be measured in centuries, whereas unintelligent biological processes have taken billions of years simply because there is no directed weeding process as you have described.

The complexity of life is far above that of a microchip or a watch.

For the moment I would agree, but both are examples of complexity, and there is no example that shows that either can arise outside of an evolutionary process.

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.

It is only necessary to show that complexity is the result of evolutionary processes and that intelligence on its own is not sufficient for complexity to arise. The only difference between the two types of evolutionary processes is time – undirected biological processes have taken billions of years and those with intelligence occur in millennia or centuries.

With the introduction of genetic engineering and other bio-engineering developments it seems inevitable that our future evolution will now have a strong element of intelligent direction. Where it has taken billions of years for man to evolve to his current highly imperfect state it will likely be only centuries before we undergo significant changes and improvements.