The Can of Worms called Creation and/or Evolution

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Or, Merlyn, it's an appeal to da science crowd to have a little bit of humility, eh?

 

As opposed to creationists, who say the creator of the universe is a personal friend of theirs?

 

Should scientists be humble by saying geocentrists, flat-earthers, or creationists might be right?

 

Is belief in God really that much different than belief in invisible air molecules or mystical "pressure"?

 

Vastly. Notice that airplanes can really fly. Make something fly using just the power of a supposed "god."

 

Or cure illnesses, something gods are supposed to be good at -- if they were at all good at it, humans wouldn't need to develop modern medicine.

 

Or even have everyone agree how many gods there are; astronomers agree our solar system only has 1 sun. Why can't theologists even get that far? How can you even talk sensibly about gods when there isn't even enough consensus on how many there are supposed to BE? It's no better than debating what color hair leprechauns have.

[Gold Winger]

" I'm a Christian, eh? I don't believe in Loki. That means we must be screwin' up da 4,000 years bit somehow."

 

Being a Christian shouldn't preclude belief in Loki. Or Thor. Or Apollo. Or Shiva.

 

Yahweh or told us "have no other gods before me" not "there are no other gods."

 

I believe in Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah but I also believe in tree sprites, wood nymphs and Cronos.

[Beavah]

Ah, now, Merlyn.

 

You're not really gonna claim that astronomers agree on everything, eh? How many different figures are there for da age of the universe? How many different figures have their been in the last 20 years?

 

At da moment, the physicists can't even agree on how many mysterious invisible "forces" there are, eh? Heck, they can't even agree on how many dimensions there are! You'd think they'd be able to get somethin' that simple right, wouldn't yeh?

 

Both science and religion make up theories to try to describe da mysteries of the universe, based on observation and experience. They just come at it from different perspectives, one more focused on da physical world, the other more focused on personal growth and fulfillment/salvation/happiness/service of da community and all that.

 

If you choose to favor one over the other, that's an act of bias, eh? Or, if not, it's an act of Faith.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

You're not really gonna claim that astronomers agree on everything, eh?

 

Of course not, and I haven't. But they agree on basic things like how many suns our solar system has. Theologists can't even agree on how many gods exist.

 

Both science and religion make up theories to try to describe da mysteries of the universe, based on observation and experience.

 

Now you're equivocating. Modern medicine is on par with reading goat entrails, since both are used to diagnose what's wrong with a person. Creationism is on par with evolution, even though only one is a scientific theory.

[Gold Winger]

"Notice that airplanes can really fly."

 

Sorry, it is only your belief that they can fly that keeps them up there. Before Wilbur and Orville, enought people didn't believe strongly enough. Notice how aviation improved as more and more people came to believe in it.

 

Physicists and engineers simply make up rules to explain what they observe. Considering that you have to use their tools to verify their claims, the whole system becomes suspect.

 

 

[Gonzo1]

GW, the airfoil design has been proved to be correct. Air flows over one wing surface faster than the other creating lift.

 

Helicopters on the other hand have rotor blades that beat the air into submission

 

 

[Beavah]

But they agree on basic things like how many suns our solar system has.

 

Well, religious folks can agree on how many Dalai Llamas there are too, eh? That's a fairly direct observable.

 

But as soon as yeh start talkin' about things yeh can't observe directly, those astronomers and physicists aren't any better than da theologians you disparage, eh?

 

They can't agree on how many mysterious, invisible forces there are, can they? Is one force really an aspect of da other forces? Is there a Grand Unified Force?

 

Thinkin' about science as a cut-and-dried, factual description of da world that's somehow "privileged" over other human ideas may be comforting to those who cling to that faith, eh? But recognize it for what it is, eh? Just another system of belief.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

 

Well, religious folks can agree on how many Dalai Llamas there are too, eh? That's a fairly direct observable.

 

Exactly. Gods aren't observed.

 

But as soon as yeh start talkin' about things yeh can't observe directly, those astronomers and physicists aren't any better than da theologians you disparage, eh?

 

WRONG. Eeesh.

 

They ARE better. They make correct predictions; they build up a clear consensus on what has been observed. Theologians do none of this. They can't even agree on how many gods there are, or any traits of these gods.

 

They can't agree on how many mysterious, invisible forces there are, can they? Is one force really an aspect of da other forces? Is there a Grand Unified Force?

 

You're talking about areas of science that are still in dispute. Scientists agrees that the earth orbits the sun -- this was once debated. It isn't any more.

 

Thinkin' about science as a cut-and-dried, factual description of da world that's somehow "privileged" over other human ideas may be comforting to those who cling to that faith, eh?

 

It isn't "privileged," it WORKS. Theology is no farther than where they were in the bronze age. You'd think after thousands of years, theologians could agree on.... well, something.

 

But they don't. It's like arguing over the color of leprechaun hair.

 

But recognize it for what it is, eh? Just another system of belief.

 

So reading goat entrails is just as good for diagnosing illness as modern medicine? Hey, they're both just systems of belief, so they're both equally valid, right?

[skeptic]

Merlyn;

 

Actually, theologians do agree on something. They believe that there is something beyond this life and that there is an infinite something (call it God, Gods, spirit, greater life level. whatever)that is greater than our understanding and ourselves. Also, at the core of most religions is honest concern for others (compare the basic premise of the "Golden Rule" found in most belief structures).

 

Scientists believe the currently proven theories, but fairly quickly move on when another apparently greater theory appears to be valid, abandoning the earlier ideas as outdated, and sometimes even foolish.

 

You may scoff at people with religious beliefs and faith; but it is interesting that a large percentage of the greatest scientific minds admitted having faith in something greater than themselves.

 

 

[evmori]

And I wonder how all those physicists & scientists & other intelligent people became so intelligent?

[CalicoPenn]

"And I wonder how all those physicists & scientists & other intelligent people became so intelligent?"

 

Evolution.

 

[evmori]

"And I wonder how all those physicists & scientists & other intelligent people became so intelligent?"

 

Evolution.

 

Ah but where did it all start?

 

As opposed to creationists, who say the creator of the universe is a personal friend of theirs?

 

And this can't be? Why?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

Actually, theologians do agree on something. They believe that there is something beyond this life

 

Uh, no. There are religions where people keep reincarnating into THIS life. That isn't something "beyond" this life. Some religions don't address an afterlife, like confucianism.

 

and that there is an infinite something (call it God, Gods, spirit, greater life level. whatever)that is greater than our understanding and ourselves.

 

Not true either; Buddhists can be atheists, for example.

 

Also, at the core of most religions

 

"most" means not all agree.

 

is honest concern for others

 

This is not a trait of religions, it's a trait of humans.

 

Scientists believe the currently proven theories,

 

Theories are never "proven;" there are theories that best model current observations.

 

but fairly quickly move on when another apparently greater theory appears to be valid

 

Of course! That's one of the key ways to improve human knowledge -- finding errors and correcting them.

 

it is interesting that a large percentage of the greatest scientific minds admitted having faith in something greater than themselves

 

It's also interesting that scientists are much more likely to be atheists than the general population.

[evmori]

Actually, theologians do agree on something. They believe that there is something beyond this life

 

Uh, no. There are religions where people keep reincarnating into THIS life. That isn't something "beyond" this life. Some religions don't address an afterlife, like confucianism.

 

Actually, reincarnation is something beyond this life. So is heaven and/or hell. Many religions believe there is something after our physical body dies.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

I always thought Bernoulli's Principle came into play with an airplane