Is Darwinism compatible with Religion?

[(Q)]

Really? Why couldn't there possibly be design in life? I'm not talking about evolution, but abiogenesis, you know the molecular machines in cells, etc...

Science is naturalism, it can't say that there is a intelligent cause by default, it has to say it happened by some "unknown naturalistic means" even if there's no evidence for it

You make a good point. However, once again, one has to appeal to the supernatural as kick-starting life, which doesn't really explain anything and adds many layers of complexity to already simpler explanations.

Currently, experimental evidence demonstrates that the building blocks of life, amino acids, the structural building units of proteins, can be reproduced. So, it would appear there is more evidence to suggest a natural development of life as opposed to design.

 

[Sarkus]

Really? Why couldn't there possibly be design in life? I'm not talking about evolution, but abiogenesis, you know the molecular machines in cells, etc...

There could - but it boils down to evidence (or lack thereof) and thus (ir)rational conclusions and/or belief.

Science is naturalism, it can't say that there is a intelligent cause by default, it has to say it happened by some "unknown naturalistic means" even if there's no evidence for it

Not true.
If science was used to examine a computer, it would come to the conclusion, through evidence, that it had an intelligent designer.

However, in the absence of evidence for a designer, Occam's Razor will go with the simplest explanation... and the Intelligent Designer is NOT the simplest - it just pushes the issue back a level - and in fact raises additional questions (who are these designers, where did they come from, who designed them etc?)

So science can say there is an intelligent cause - there just needs to be evidence for it. In the absence of such evidence the default position (via Occam's Razor et al) is one of "naturalistic means".

 

[wsionynw]

ahahaa, pretty funny, so how does this contradict what I said? Life could have an intelligent cause, but atheists can't come to this conclusion (that would be horrible), and you know it, stop lying to yourself and just admit that you don't want to believe anything that favors religion

Hardly, to suggest that life had an intelligent cause begs the question as to who or what created the intelligent designer...........

 

[VitalOne]

You make a good point. However, once again, one has to appeal to the supernatural as kick-starting life, which doesn't really explain anything and adds many layers of complexity to already simpler explanations.

Currently, experimental evidence demonstrates that the building blocks of life, amino acids, the structural building units of proteins, can be reproduced. So, it would appear there is more evidence to suggest a natural development of life as opposed to design.

Yeah, it demonstrates amino acids, but ever since that (1953) that was all that was discovered, none of the actual molecular machines have ever been shown to spontaneously arise...but having no evidence doesn't matter for atheists in this case, we know it could've possibly happened, and as long as it has nothing to do with God why not believe it, thats the atheistic logic

There could - but it boils down to evidence (or lack thereof) and thus (ir)rational conclusions and/or belief.

Yeah and all the evidence shows complex design, whether or not this design came about naturally or by an intelligent cause is the argument, for instance you can reprogram bacteria in a very similar way that would reprogram a software program, you change the RNA codes in the bacteria (which contains all the instructions for the bacteria) and it changes the behavior of the bacteria, bioengineers have even found that the on a genetic level bacteria uses many of the same tricks as modern computers

Not true.
If science was used to examine a computer, it would come to the conclusion, through evidence, that it had an intelligent designer.

No it is true, SCIENCE IS NATURALISM,

If scientists had examined a computer, with no knowledge of the design process, they would HAVE to say that it was caused by some unknown naturalistic means only appearing designed

However, in the absence of evidence for a designer, Occam's Razor will go with the simplest explanation... and the Intelligent Designer is NOT the simplest - it just pushes the issue back a level - and in fact raises additional questions (who are these designers, where did they come from, who designed them etc?)

No one's saying to prove a designer, you're asking more questions in order to preserve the athesitic faith and escape a theistic conclusion

All you have to prove is some type of intelligent cause which can be anything (aliens, God, a mind, etc...), what thiis intelligent cause is is irrevelant

So using Occaim's Razor the simplest conclusion would be an intelligent cause, not an intelligent designer, so it would still work

Ofcourse using Occam's Razor abiogenesis isn't the simplest conclusion, its the most unlikely conclusion

So science can say there is an intelligent cause - there just needs to be evidence for it. In the absence of such evidence the default position (via Occam's Razor et al) is one of "naturalistic means".

No it can't, scientist refuse to admit this, because it might have some supernatural implications, which science cannot allow by default,

Hardly, to suggest that life had an intelligent cause begs the question as to who or what created the intelligent designer...........

So what does this have to do with anything? Something begging a question doesn't make it irrevelant, making your argument pointless

 

[iceaura]

If scientists had examined a computer, with no knowledge of the design process, they would HAVE to say that it was caused by some unknown naturalistic means only appearing designed

But instead they would, as you would, recognize it had been designed by somebody and try to figure out who and how.

Creationists have an odd habit of telling scientists how science has to be done, and what scientists have to believe.

ex: A fair number of scientists are looking for such artifacts now, in the form of sophisticated signals from distant beings. They are not assuming that any sign they discover was not created by an intelligence, simply because they wouldn't know how it was created.

 

[(Q)]

Yeah, it demonstrates amino acids, but ever since that (1953) that was all that was discovered, none of the actual molecular machines have ever been shown to spontaneously arise...but having no evidence doesn't matter for atheists in this case, we know it could've possibly happened, and as long as it has nothing to do with God why not believe it, thats the atheistic logic

The "molecular machines" you refer did not spontaneously arise, a lot of time had to pass.

But, I'm more concerned with your other statement - you appear to be stating that if something isn't concerned with god, for you, then you have no interest in it, even when you or anyone else cannot demonstrate gods exist? Curious?

 

[davewhite04]

The "molecular machines" you refer did not spontaneously arise, a lot of time had to pass.

But, I'm more concerned with your other statement - you appear to be stating that if something isn't concerned with god, for you, then you have no interest in it, even when you or anyone else cannot demonstrate gods exist? Curious?

What is the mission statement of science?

 

[(Q)]

Science is a method to understand how things work, it has no mission statement.

 

[VitalOne]

But instead they would, as you would, recognize it had been designed by somebody and try to figure out who and how.

Creationists have an odd habit of telling scientists how science has to be done, and what scientists have to believe.

ex: A fair number of scientists are looking for such artifacts now, in the form of sophisticated signals from distant beings. They are not assuming that any sign they discover was not created by an intelligence, simply because they wouldn't know how it was created.

I'm not telling you how science is done, thats how it is done, ofcourse now in our modern times we wouldn't say it was a natural cause because we have computers

As for signals from other worlds, this is irrevelant

The "molecular machines" you refer did not spontaneously arise, a lot of time had to pass.

Yeah, also no evidence for this hypothesis. Abiogenesis is such a failed hypothesis they can't even show the supposed stages in between from which matter changed into bacteria..., they have basically no evidence that it ever happened all we know is that "some how some way it could've possibly happened" but there's no evidence of anything besides amino acids (building blocks), which would be equivalent to me saying the material the Great Pyramids are made of arise naturally, so it must have naturally arisen...

But, I'm more concerned with your other statement - you appear to be stating that if something isn't concerned with god, for you, then you have no interest in it, even when you or anyone else cannot demonstrate gods exist? Curious?

Uhm, the reason no one can demonstrate that God(s) exist is because NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED evidence BY DEFAULT, obviously, any supposed evidence BY DEFAULT is a "god of the gaps", just the same reason there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation, because right now nothing can even be considered evidence for it, there's no way of gathering evidence, etc...

 

[shaman_]

I'm not telling you how science is done, thats how it is done, ..

lol

Yeah, also no evidence for this hypothesis. Abiogenesis is such a failed hypothesis they can't even show the supposed stages in between from which matter changed into bacteria..., they have basically no evidence that it ever happened all we know is that "some how some way it could've possibly happened"

You are discarding abiogenesis due to what you see as a lack of evidence. So what you are really saying is evidence causes something to be true.

Isn't that irrational atheistic faith or something....

Uhm, the reason no one can demonstrate that God(s) exist is because NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED evidence BY DEFAULT,

.. or perhaps he/they never existed? Is your mind open to that possibility?

 

[Roman]

Here's the conclusion of this article

That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the laws of physics. Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with moral imperatives. But if this is what you believe, then instead of having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.

You're right. Science and superstition are incompatible.

 

[lightgigantic]

You're right. Science and superstition are incompatible.

yes, scientific belief necessitates that religion be superstition

 

[lightgigantic]

Science is a method to understand how things work, it has no mission statement.

given that such 'science' is more accurately 'empiricism' it definitely does have a mission statement - sense perception is the truth, the light and the way

 

[Sarkus]

Yeah and all the evidence shows complex design,

:roflmao:
What evidence?
Every claim for ID has been systematically dissected and shown to be drivel.
"Design" by its very definition implies "designer". Evolution has no designer.

whether or not this design came about naturally or by an intelligent cause is the argument...

First you need to prove the "designed" element.

If scientists had examined a computer, with no knowledge of the design process, they would HAVE to say that it was caused by some unknown naturalistic means only appearing designed

You talk drivel like it is going out of fashion!
Science would say that natural means could NOT have created the computer - concluded that there WAS a designer - and then sought to find and understand that designer.

No one's saying to prove a designer, you're asking more questions in order to preserve the athesitic faith and escape a theistic conclusion

Pathetic.

All you have to prove is some type of intelligent cause which can be anything (aliens, God, a mind, etc...), what thiis intelligent cause is is irrevelant

And... your proof is... ?

So using Occaim's Razor the simplest conclusion would be an intelligent cause, not an intelligent designer, so it would still work

Now you're just playing with words and being ridiculous. Deliberately so? I don't know.

Intelligent Design and Intelligent Cause are synonymous.
Can you think of an intelligent cause that is not also under the banner of intelligent design?

Ofcourse using Occam's Razor abiogenesis isn't the simplest conclusion, its the most unlikely conclusion

Only if you have no real understanding of Occam's Razor. Oh look - I guess that includes you.

No it can't, scientist refuse to admit this, because it might have some supernatural implications, which science cannot allow by default,

You really believe what you'r saying?
Science follows the evidence - wherever it leads.
But there just simply IS NO EVIDENCE for Intelligent Design that can not be more rationally explained.

Your entire evidence seems to be because you say so, and your arguments stem from personal incredulity and a lack of understanding of the position of your opponent.

 

[(Q)]

Yeah, also no evidence for this hypothesis. Abiogenesis is such a failed hypothesis they can't even show the supposed stages in between from which matter changed into bacteria..., they have basically no evidence that it ever happened all we know is that "some how some way it could've possibly happened" but there's no evidence of anything besides amino acids (building blocks), which would be equivalent to me saying the material the Great Pyramids are made of arise naturally, so it must have naturally arisen...

The material for the Great Pyramids DID arise naturally. Everything did. Abiogenesis is only a failed hypothesis in the minds of fundamentalist theists who believe gods created the universe. What evidence is there of that?

Uhm, the reason no one can demonstrate that God(s) exist is because NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED evidence BY DEFAULT, obviously, any supposed evidence BY DEFAULT is a "god of the gaps", just the same reason there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation, because right now nothing can even be considered evidence for it, there's no way of gathering evidence, etc...

And no evidence for evolution? Gravity? Internet connections? Computers?

You should at the very least stop lying to yourself - you can't demonstrate your god exists simply because he doesn't exist.

 

[(Q)]

given that such 'science' is more accurately 'empiricism' it definitely does have a mission statement - sense perception is the truth, the light and the way

Wrong again.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wrong again.

scientific knowledge in many areas is so well-developed that acceptance of it as a starting point can be taken as a criterion of rationality. Accordingly, we can treat a denial of the factual authority of the natural sciences as a whole as a case of empirical irrationality, the denial of well-verified facts.

- Dr. Frank Salter (Max Planck Institute, )

:scratchin:

 

[VitalOne]

lol

You are discarding abiogenesis due to what you see as a lack of evidence. So what you are really saying is evidence causes something to be true.

Isn't that irrational atheistic faith or something....

Nope, trying to get me on this one with my own quote? Try again

There's no evidence present when there should be evidence present, as opposed to God, which is no evidence present when there shouldn't be evidence present, we have all the resources to show that abiogenesis occured, instead nothing, nothing at all, just goes to show you that atheists will believe anything as long some scientists say it's true, with or without supporting evidence

.. or perhaps he/they never existed? Is your mind open to that possibility?

Not until its verifiable obviously

ROFL great atheistic tactic

 

[VitalOne]

The material for the Great Pyramids DID arise naturally. Everything did. Abiogenesis is only a failed hypothesis in the minds of fundamentalist theists who believe gods created the universe. What evidence is there of that?

Yeah, I know the material arises naturally (like I exclusively stated)

My point was the fact that the building material arises naturally doesn't show the design arises naturally, obviously anyone could pick that up, the design of the pyramids isn't natural but the material it's made of is natural...the design had an intelligent cause

And no evidence for evolution? Gravity? Internet connections? Computers?

You should at the very least stop lying to yourself - you can't demonstrate your god exists simply because he doesn't exist.

ROFL...you should stop lying to YOURSELF, the reason I can't demonstrate that God exists is exactly what I just said, NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE, otherwise tell me what can be considered evidence and not a "god of gaps"? See you've got NOTHING, ahahaa, thanks for proving my point

YOU SHOULD STOP LYING TO YOURSELF

 

[VitalOne]

:roflmao:
What evidence?
Every claim for ID has been systematically dissected and shown to be drivel.
"Design" by its very definition implies "designer". Evolution has no designer.

No one's talking about evolution , what a fool

First you need to prove the "designed" element.

First you need to open up your thick atheistic skull and understand the difference between abiogenesis (inorganic matter to life) and evolution (a change in species overtime)

I wonder how hard it might for you to open your thick skull

You talk drivel like it is going out of fashion!
Science would say that natural means could NOT have created the computer - concluded that there WAS a designer - and then sought to find and understand that designer.

Yeah, they would now, so why don't they say that the molecular machines in cells had an intelligent cause? You just proved my point, thanks

The molecular machines read genetic information, interpret it, translate it, and carry out instructions based upon the information

To quote a bioengineer:
"At the genetic level, bacteria use many of the same tricks as computer circuitry. In a typical genetic circuit, one gene produces a protein that turns a corresponding gene on or off, much the way a computer inverter turns a 1 into a 0 and vice versa. Switched on, a gene might produce a chemical signal that directs an organism to seek out food; switched off, it helps the organism conserve energy. By plugging in proteins and genes, Weiss can activate or deactivate chemical signals on command."
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/1246c4522fa84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

And... your proof is... ?

The proof is the design features found in cells that cannot be shown to arise naturally...thats the proof, obviously

No naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause

Now you're just playing with words and being ridiculous. Deliberately so? I don't know.

Intelligent Design and Intelligent Cause are synonymous.
Can you think of an intelligent cause that is not also under the banner of intelligent design?

Its not a word game...you can have an intelligent cause and no intelligent designer, who or what the intelligent cause is is irrelevant until you prove that there definitely is an intelligent cause

Only if you have no real understanding of Occam's Razor. Oh look - I guess that includes you.

No I understand it, but you don't...

You really believe what you'r saying?
Science follows the evidence - wherever it leads.
But there just simply IS NO EVIDENCE for Intelligent Design that can not be more rationally explained.

Your entire evidence seems to be because you say so, and your arguments stem from personal incredulity and a lack of understanding of the position of your opponent.

No it doesn't, SCIENCE IS NATURALISM, don't you know anything? Go look into history on what science is

Science DOES NOT go where the evidence leads, science only seeks naturalistic explanations...otherwise intelligent design would be allowed in science but it isn't