An interesting commentary piece on Religion and Science by Shelley Emling, the author of a newly published biography of Mary Anning: The Fossil Hunter: Dinosaurs, Evolution and the Woman Whose Discoveries Changed the World
Religion and Science
- Thread starter Aardvark154
- Start date
To me, evolution as interpreted by Darwin is a crock because it is a tautology: of course the fit survive... because that is what survival means!
And Natural Selection is equally a tautology.
Also, there is no evidence that inheritance of acquired characteristics (which is really Lamarck, not Darwin!) is true... if it were, then after 3,000 years one might expect Jewish boys to be born without a foreskin!!!
On the other hand... what we are learning from quantum mechanics is so similar to what was told by ancients and mystics that it is scary... the ancients seem to have known most of our recent discoveries... the fact that the act of observing by an observer can change the observed, for example... or that mass and energy are but different aspects of one and the same thing and depend on the observer...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Perry
And Natural Selection is equally a tautology.
Also, there is no evidence that inheritance of acquired characteristics (which is really Lamarck, not Darwin!) is true... if it were, then after 3,000 years one might expect Jewish boys to be born without a foreskin!!!
On the other hand... what we are learning from quantum mechanics is so similar to what was told by ancients and mystics that it is scary... the ancients seem to have known most of our recent discoveries... the fact that the act of observing by an observer can change the observed, for example... or that mass and energy are but different aspects of one and the same thing and depend on the observer...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Perry
I don't know where to begin but I'll try on three short points;To me, evolution as interpreted by Darwin is a crock because it is a tautology: of course the fit survive... because that is what survival means!
And Natural Selection is equally a tautology.
Also, there is no evidence that inheritance of acquired characteristics (which is really Lamarck, not Darwin!) is true... if it were, then after 3,000 years one might expect Jewish boys to be born without a foreskin!!!
On the other hand... what we are learning from quantum mechanics is so similar to what was told by ancients and mystics that it is scary... the ancients seem to have known most of our recent discoveries... the fact that the act of observing by an observer can change the observed, for example... or that mass and energy are but different aspects of one and the same thing and depend on the observer...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Perry
Your foreskin comment is so off the mark and I'm being polite, because the elimination of the foreskin is done after birth artificially and not a part of the passing on of a trait by the parents genetically.
Your comment of observing the observed through observation or whatever, is totally absurd and 'might' only be a factor if the subject knows it's being observed. Imprinting on young birds that the first entity they see is usually their parent is not learn it's instinctive, so ornithologist go to great lengths not to be imprinting themselves on young birds as in the training of orphaned hooping crane to survive. If the chick imprint on the human the whole training process is in jeopardy.
The number of things that have been discovered over the last 150 years is exponentially greater than all the knowledge gained over the last 5000 years and so much of that is a direct result of the printing press, the principal of educating the masses, and the ever increasing population on earth. The ancients knew a lot of what is the basis of our knowledge but the shear quantity of knowledge gained to this point could never have been imagined.
Then you start in on the theory of relativity that is study by most junior physics student and should be commonsense any trained observer. That's a whole thread all on it's own.
Thanks for posting it. I have repeatedly posted that there is no conflict
between science and religious beliefs.
Lamarkian evolutionary ideas were thoroughly discredited about 60 or 70 years ago. No one believes them today - so why are you posting that they are not true?Also, there is no evidence that inheritance of acquired characteristics (which is really Lamarck, not Darwin!) is true... if it were, then after 3,000 years one might expect Jewish boys to be born without a foreskin!!!
An interesting piece but some notions are debatable. The idea that if we started over we would wind up the same is could be challanged. For example, had that asteroid not hit the earth 60 million years ago perhaps the dinasours would still be in charge and raptors might have evolved.
The implication in the article that evolution has a plan or a goal or is operating within a certain framework can certainly be misconstrued.
Evolutionary changes are random but they respond to selection pressures. When there are no selection presssures(ie insuffucient food) not much changes. Today, the only selection pressures are disease borne.
I realize it is comforting to believe that religion and science can be reconciled, but except for Deistic beliefs I don't believe this is true. Any belief in an interventionist God is absolutely antithetical to scientific principles and must remain in a mythological category.
It's may be interesting to ponder on why the OP decided on this subject. This section was becoming a little quiet over the last few weeks and maybe a good old fashion discussion on a subject that all but taboo in most polite circles is a way to stir things up a little, or is it two subjects, religion and evolution.
Well done Aartie.
Time will tell if it works.
Well done Aartie.
Time will tell if it works.
Only if you arbitrarily ignore all the parts of the bible that can be falsified and limit religion to the parts that cannot be disproven due to a complete lack of any evidence (e.g. the mythical being part). I think it is a stretch to argue that even through every part of the bible that could possibly be falsified has been, that there is any creditability left for the remainder.
Also of interest is the following link http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
(if you search you can find the original studies it refers to).
Edit: I will save you some time with and post some highlights:
"Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Figures are percentages."
Even when top scientists are religious they tend not to be theists.
One of the things that religions are is an explanation for things that can not be explained at that time.
Zeus using thunderbolts as a way to explain lightning for example, the Ten Commandments to bring order to a small illiterate population.
If you look at them from the point of view that, you ahve a small mostly illiterate population things do become a little more compatable between religion and science.
A small population that has as its only literate members the priest class by default becomes dependant on that class for its history, which over time becomes and institutional memory and then religion.
On that basis religion and science can coexist in as much as religion becomes an institutional memory so to speak
Zeus using thunderbolts as a way to explain lightning for example, the Ten Commandments to bring order to a small illiterate population.
If you look at them from the point of view that, you ahve a small mostly illiterate population things do become a little more compatable between religion and science.
A small population that has as its only literate members the priest class by default becomes dependant on that class for its history, which over time becomes and institutional memory and then religion.
On that basis religion and science can coexist in as much as religion becomes an institutional memory so to speak
I should clarify what I mean by religious beliefs. I do not consider the bible (or any other
documents prepared by religious organizations) factual.
By religious beliefs I only mean the idea that a higher, omnipotent being created the
universe and/or the rules that govern the universe. (PS: that is not to say that
I necessarily believe it myself)
The current bible was " codeified" by a papal commision sometime about 800 years ago. they basically edited it to conform to the "real" version of christianity.
All religious texts have been edited to some extent by the people in charge to conform to the "true" belief system of the moment.
It would be very interesting to see the originals
Basically I posted it, because in my observation conversations here on TERB generally presuppose two things: that all Christians (and by extension all people of faith) are fundamentalists, and that science and religion are incompatible.
I thought the article was interesting as it is written from what in fact is the majority viewpoint.
Ah, so I see. Scientists who are atheists are credible, but scientists who are believers are not?
I wasn't coming down on you at all. Just saying that Religion is a good way to stir up the forum pot, when it's been on simmer too long. I hope people bite down hard.
As the landscaper hands over the hand made paddle and stands clear of the pot...................................
Sorry blackrock... I don't feel a need "to be right" so I am not inclined to engage in an I-am-right-you-are-wrong type of debate with you (or anyone else).
I have expressed some (perhaps controversial?) views that you can accept or reject as you choose... it's up to you and you can take them for what you think they are or are not worth.
On the other hand, I suggest you read a bit on quantum mechanics, whole systems sciences, holism, Heisenberg, holography, cybernetics... you might change your mind about some of your comments... or, again, you may not!
Perry
