Another Thread on Evolution and Creationism, but from a bit Different Perspective

[JimBowie1958]

The theory of Evolution is mostly true, but this false dichotomy of Evolution vrs Creationism is not true at all and only appears to have validity under the spinmeistering of people that make money off promoting one side of this false conflict or the other.

1. Creationism is a theological concept. It is not science no matter what some MINORITY of Christian theologians may think. The Bible is a collection of books from the Ancient world written in various literary forms, from historical chronicles to poetry to apocolyptic mysticism. Not a single one of those books were written in the form of a modern scientific journal of any sort. Modern science would have been considered presumptive by most people in the Ancient world, though there were some who held to ideas that would later form the core of scientific principles.

2. What many think of today as 'Creationists' are merely people who do not understand the historical background of the Bible and the natural limits of its scope of authority which is morality and cosmology. This is similar to the mistake made by scientists who try to base morality on lab experiments. Creationism in its historical context simply asserts that God created our universe and looks at cosmological issues that would come from that, such as the Universe being mostly orderly. I think the people who try to promote Creationism as a replacement for Evolution are better describes as neoCreationists, because they are promoting a new and unsupportable view of the scope of Creationism extending into science.

3. This notion that the universe is orderly and understandable by man and expressable in human cognitive thought is one of the key assumptions of science that science itself cannot prove as it is a question beyond the scope of scientific analysis. But one can look around today at the success of the scientific Method and most would agree that it is a good, workable assumption in general. The idea of 'Intelligent Design' is a Creationist idea that is a very general nonscientific view of science. But it would explain why we have a universe that appears to be finely tuned for the existance of life. It is not a provable theory, but the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it is convincing to most people who would rather not toss it all off to mere chance. Scientists like Behe think they have proven ID by showing things that would seem to indicate ID but dont really because one can always toss out a different theory, however implausible. But the most plausible theory being ID and Evolution being part of that cosmology is understood by few, and the evolution-Creation debate has polarized everyone into opposite camps.

4. Scientific theories do change, as the authors of the following video admit. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc&feature=player_embedded"]Militant Atheistic Evolution Rant[/ame]

But they kind of gloss over the evolution of the Theory of Evolution itself when they say it has never been disproven. Elements of the theory of Evolution have been disproven, but like all good scientific theories it then changed to accomodate these new observations and test results. For example a gradual uniform evolutionary process called 'phyletic gradualism' was once part of the generally understood theory of evolution, but this was disproven and a better theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' has replaced phyletic gradualism. Phyletic gradualism is still a valid scientific theory and a revision of it may one day displace PE, but that hasnt happened yet, if it ever does. Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Piltdown Man 'fact' has been disproven for decades now, though at one time mearly every biologists in the Evolutionary camp embraced it as definitive proof of evolution. Now only neoCreationists bring the topic up, generally, as an example of the Theory of Evolution being disproven, a statement that shows their lack of understanding of what the theory of Evolution is. The Theory of Evolution and all science evolves as it strives to reach a perfect rational limit but never quite gets there.

5. Science is WRONG. Its theories are always wrong in some way as yet not understood and a good scientist knows that FACT. No current theory as we understood science in 1900 has survived intact, unchanged to our day, and it is likely that few if any scientific theories today will be unchanged in the year 2100. But that is how science is SUPPOSED to be. It is nothing more than our best attempts to describe our universe in an orderly way. Not only is orthodox Christianity not in conflict with science, it is the basis of Western scientific thought and spawned the whole modern scientific view of the universe when it embraced the notion of a universe that is orderly and conceivable by the mind of mankind and then made it a religious dogma. This is why the vast majority of scientific thought prior to WW2 was done by Christians. But the hostility of the major science institutions toward religion, especially Christianity, in part due to the false dichotomy between science and religion, have caused most Christian scientists (not the denomination) to keep their faith to themselves. The hostility by the scientific establishment is so harsh that there have been cases of people being fired for simply expressing a belief in Intelligent Design and Creationism, as items of faith, not science, which properly understood are not in conflict with Evolution or science.

 

[itfitzme]

I would like to add the following, which is meant to augment though there are a couple of definitions that are intended to refine.

Faith is based on a probability of less than 5%, refering to it with absolute certainty. *Science is based on a probability of greater than 95%, refering to it as highly likely.

Still, supporters of creationism or genesis hold science to a standard of 100% probability while holding themselves to no standard at all. *Science holds itself and creationism to the identical standard.

Faith and belief are, by the standards and language of science, a hypothesis. *

A scientific "Theory" or "Law" as used in "Theory of Relativity", "Theory of Evolution" and "Law of Gravity", are fully consistent descriptions of all demonstrated and demonstratable facts. *They represent a collection of all facts and are, in essence, "Super Facts".

As scientific evidence mounts, the level of confidence continues to increase, a hypothesis is elevated to a Theory or Law. *A Theory or Law increases in confidence level from the initial 99.9% probability to 99.999999% and beyond.

Religion does not distinguish between faith, belief, facts, theory, and laws. Those that believe take Religious laws on faith and "know" that scientific is theoretical.

Both science and religion are conservative in nature.*

Science is conservative in requiring that new hypothesis be credibly demonstrated to the same degree of certainty that the mature scientific Theory has been demomstrated.

Science is self sustaining by continually accepting *and explaining evidence that represents that missing less than 5%.*

Creationism is self sustaining by rejecting the 99.9999% of evidence that is incompatible with it's hypothesis or belief. *

Every scientific endevour is grounded in initial belief, belief that the hypothesis is provable to a degree of certainty greater than 95%. *Only when that hypothesis has been demonstrated to meet the standards of scientific fact is the hypothesis elevated to a position of scientific truth. *

Science requires that scientific proofs be questioned. *Religion requires that religious faith be accepted without question.

Science, and most of those that study it, are well aware of religious teachings, having read, studied and understood basic religious teachings. Religion, and most of those that adhere dogmatically to it, have not studied and understood basic science.

Science approaches religious belief with the same open mind and healthy sceptisism it approaches all hypothesis. Religion rejects science from the outset. *Science explains religion. Religion rejects science.

Credible science makes no special claims to moral insight, leaving that to the realm of the justice system and religion. *Religion makes special claim to revealing the truth of nature.

 

[itfitzme]

The following is interesting.

Misconceptions about evolution

The general problem is mistaking the implications for the the theory. *Scientific proofs prove what they prove, not what we may think they imply. *I am as guilty as any of not knowing the difference.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I would like to add the following, which is meant to augment though there are a couple of definitions that are intended to refine.

Faith is based on a probability of less than 5%, refering to it with absolute certainty. *Science is based on a probability of greater than 95%, refering to it as highly likely.

Still, supporters of creationism or genesis hold science to a standard of 100% probability while holding themselves to no standard at all. *Science holds itself and creationism to the identical standard.

Faith and belief are, by the standards and language of science, a hypothesis. *

A scientific "Theory" or "Law" as used in "Theory of Relativity", "Theory of Evolution" and "Law of Gravity", are fully consistent descriptions of all demonstrated and demonstratable facts. *They represent a collection of all facts and are, in essence, "Super Facts".

As scientific evidence mounts, the level of confidence continues to increase, a hypothesis is elevated to a Theory or Law. *A Theory or Law increases in confidence level from the initial 99.9% probability to 99.999999% and beyond.

Religion does not distinguish between faith, belief, facts, theory, and laws. Those that believe take Religious laws on faith and "know" that scientific is theoretical.

Both science and religion are conservative in nature.*

Science is conservative in requiring that new hypothesis be credibly demonstrated to the same degree of certainty that the mature scientific Theory has been demomstrated.

Science is self sustaining by continually accepting *and explaining evidence that represents that missing less than 5%.*

Creationism is self sustaining by rejecting the 99.9999% of evidence that is incompatible with it's hypothesis or belief. *

Every scientific endevour is grounded in initial belief, belief that the hypothesis is provable to a degree of certainty greater than 95%. *Only when that hypothesis has been demonstrated to meet the standards of scientific fact is the hypothesis elevated to a position of scientific truth. *

Science requires that scientific proofs be questioned. *Religion requires that religious faith be accepted without question.

Science, and most of those that study it, are well aware of religious teachings, having read, studied and understood basic religious teachings. Religion, and most of those that adhere dogmatically to it, have not studied and understood basic science.

Science approaches religious belief with the same open mind and healthy sceptisism it approaches all hypothesis. Religion rejects science from the outset. *Science explains religion. Religion rejects science.

Credible science makes no special claims to moral insight, leaving that to the realm of the justice system and religion. *Religion makes special claim to revealing the truth of nature.

I agree with almost all of it except the bolded portion.

Depending on the religion, some religions have more tolerance for outside sources of information, some have less, some almost none.

There is rational faith and blind faith.

Rational faith is what you have when you have seen a person not only walk a tight rope hundreds of times to where you have little doubt they will do it again, but faith is when you let the tight rope walker carry you across the wire.

You have no absolute proof that you will make it across, but you have enough that you take action and let them carry you.

Most main stream Christian religions are rational and accommodate science. Some do not if they perceive science as outside its bounds or they think it contradicts a religious source that is outside questioning.

Science has more certitude, but it has less scope for use in daily life. When you read the paper, check the calendar or step onto an airplane to fly, you have faith that things are in proper working order or put together appropriately.

We have to have some faith in science. For example, a group of scientists can do a series of experiments and to accept the results, you have to trust the people involved.

 

[itfitzme]

Religion does not distinguish between faith, belief, facts, theory, and laws. Those that believe take Religious laws on faith and "know" that scientific is theoretical.

I agree with almost all of it except the bolded portion.

Depending on the religion, some religions have more tolerance for outside sources of information, some have less, some almost none.

Thanks for the scrutiny.

Good catch as that would be the one place where I had someone in mind and had relaxed my sample size and certainty level a bit. *

It might have been better to have said "some radical, overly zealous Christian conservatives." Still, I didn't want to go getting all that specific and go pointing fingers. *

I was doing some research on the Vatican's view. While I cannot find an official statement, there are some personal statements by prominent leadership that suggests the argument resides with a small percentage of followers and the Church is simply being conservative.

Still, the one clear statement by the Church, that I could find, indicates that the Church it adhering to that double standard.

I don't recall the words "theory" and "hypothesis" occuring in the bible and get the impression they don't. *I hesitate to say on "fact" either way.

**If a dictionary of only words that occur in the bible were printed, how big would it be? *

Still, I do get the sense that there is a language confusion that is partly responsible.*

I did my best to keep each as tight as I could.

A goodly portion of people will often say that they are spiritual and say they are not "religious". *It is an interesting distinction.

Never-the-less, while I initially had an insufficient sample size, due to lack of education and experience, to have a significant confidence level, as the years have progressed my confidence in the science of the experts in the fields has reached the level of proof and knowledge. I know, easily, that 95% of peer reviewed scientific papers will be correct, will stand the test of time, and would happily put money on them.

 

[itfitzme]

Rational faith is what you have when you have seen a person not only walk a tight rope hundreds of times to where you have little doubt they will do it again, but faith is when you let the tight rope walker carry you across the wire.

You have no absolute proof that you will make it across, but you have enough that you take action and let them carry you.

That just tickled me. *I don't have that much faith.

So if I pack and repack my parachute three times, is that a lack of faith, practice, or OCD?

 

[itfitzme]

I don't trust claims of cold fusion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Rational faith is what you have when you have seen a person not only walk a tight rope hundreds of times to where you have little doubt they will do it again, but faith is when you let the tight rope walker carry you across the wire.

You have no absolute proof that you will make it across, but you have enough that you take action and let them carry you.

That just tickled me. *I don't have that much faith.

So if I pack and repack my parachute three times, is that a lack of faith, practice, or OCD?

All three, but the faith trumps the rest when you jump out of the airplane.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't trust claims of cold fusion.

Neither do I.

Ever read about muon catalyzed fusion?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Religion does not distinguish between faith, belief, facts, theory, and laws. Those that believe take Religious laws on faith and "know" that scientific is theoretical.

I agree with almost all of it except the bolded portion.

Depending on the religion, some religions have more tolerance for outside sources of information, some have less, some almost none.

Thanks for the scrutiny.

Good catch as that would be the one place where I had someone in mind and had relaxed my sample size and certainty level a bit. *

It might have been better to have said "some radical, overly zealous Christian conservatives." Still, I didn't want to go getting all that specific and go pointing fingers. *

I was doing some research on the Vatican's view. While I cannot find an official statement, there are some personal statements by prominent leadership that suggests the argument resides with a small percentage of followers and the Church is simply being conservative.

Still, the one clear statement by the Church, that I could find, indicates that the Church it adhering to that double standard.

I don't recall the words "theory" and "hypothesis" occuring in the bible and get the impression they don't. *I hesitate to say on "fact" either way.

**If a dictionary of only words that occur in the bible were printed, how big would it be? *

Still, I do get the sense that there is a language confusion that is partly responsible.*

I did my best to keep each as tight as I could.

A goodly portion of people will often say that they are spiritual and say they are not "religious". *It is an interesting distinction.

Never-the-less, while I initially had an insufficient sample size, due to lack of education and experience, to have a significant confidence level, as the years have progressed my confidence in the science of the experts in the fields has reached the level of proof and knowledge. I know, easily, that 95% of peer reviewed scientific papers will be correct, will stand the test of time, and would happily put money on them.

It is crucial when studying the Bible to remember that it is not *a* book, but rather a collection of books written over the course of thousands of years. And it was written by people who came from all sorts of lifestyles and backgrounds.

It also has very different literary styles from one book to the other.

Some are old dusty histories recorded at the time, some are collections of old myths that the writer gave some form of metaphorical Truth to, some are collections of poetry, lyrics and lamentations, and still others are personal letters and others are appocalyptic visions.

IT is a fundamental requirement to look at the historical and cultural time of each book and who the author likely is and what their world view is. I can promise you that not a single one of them wrote any literary form that included modern scientific treatise.

So it would be a shock to see texts from the Bible that would mention anything of the sort as scientific theory or theorems.

 

[itfitzme]

Mathematics and measurement of the circumfrence of the earth predates Christ by at least a half century.