• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
muffler dragon;1400722; said:
Max:

Would you mind elaborating on this? I've not heard/read this before.

Thanks.
muffler - I am not really qualified to, but read the excellent book by Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory. (He's a biology prof at Brown University and probably the most capable man in the US at debunking "Intelligent Design." He is also a devout Christian.)
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1400654; said:
Why on earth would you say this? In point of fact, what we have learned in the past 5 years from genomic research would not have been feasible to learn had we not presupposed the truth of evolution.

muffler dragon;1400722; said:
Max:

Would you mind elaborating on this? I've not heard/read this before.

Thanks.

It's a little known fact :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1400912; said:
muffler - I am not really qualified to, but read the excellent book by Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory. (He's a biology prof at Brown University and probably the most capable man in the US at debunking "Intelligent Design." He is also a devout Christian.)

MaxBuck, help me understand the terminology you use here. How can one be a "devout Christian", yet not hold a view of Intelligent Design?

Maybe my understanding/definition of Intelligent Design is scewed because I would assume that theisitic evolution is a form of Intelligent Design. By theistic evolution, I mean that God has either created the mechanism of evolution, guides the mechanism of evolution, or both. That to me would be a version of ID. Is it not?

If theistic evolution is a version of ID, then how can this Dr. Miller claim to be a devout Christian as I don't see how a Christian can believe God intervenes in history as He does in Jesus, but God does not create and/or guide the process of evolution.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1400943; said:
MaxBuck, help me understand the terminology you use here. How can one be a "devout Christian", yet not hold a view of Intelligent Design?
By "Intelligent Design," I refer to the current mantle under which Creationism masquerades. Dr. Miller and I both regard evolution as the vehicle through which God has created the current mosaic of life on earth.

As I've said before, science can only discover the mechanisms; the origins and the intelligence behind them are the purview of faith.
 
Upvote 0
Some excellent discussion here.
I'm curious to hear what people think is more important to them;
The Constitution of the United States or their religion?
Personally I view the Constitution as more important as it protects our individual rights(including religious freedom).
What is more important to you, BPers?
 
Upvote 0
I see this thread is still going strong, while I've been away.

There was mention of Ken Miller's book Only a Theory. Recently the biologist Jerry Coyne reviewed it for The New Republic. It's a long review with a discussion of the creationism vs evolution issue as well as the broader issue of whether science and religion can be reconciled.

Here's the link, which I encourage you to look at if you're interested in the topic: Seeing and Believing

And here's Coyne's conclusion:

Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.

This prompted a discussion and responses by several scientists on the website edge.org which you can find here: Edge: DOES THE EMPIRICAL NATURE OF SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE REVELATORY NATURE OF FAITH? - Jerry Coyne

My favorite response was that of Sam Harris, which I encourage you to read if only for comic effect! Edge: DOES THE EMPIRICAL NATURE OF SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE REVELATORY NATURE OF FAITH? - Jerry Coyne

Here's a couple of excerpts:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is a pity that people like Jerry Coyne and Daniel Dennett can't see how easily religion and science can be reconciled. Having once viewed the world as they do, I understand how their fundamentalist rationality has blinded them to deeper truths...

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Patrick Bateson tells us that it is "staggeringly insensitive" to undermine the religious beliefs of people who find these beliefs consoling. I agree completely. For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticize such behavior as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realize?belatedly and to my great chagrin?that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read. Who am I to criticize the public expression of his faith? Bateson is right. Clearly a belief in the inerrancy of the holy Qur'an is indispensable for these beleaguered people...

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The universe is whole and without contradiction. What may appear like a contradiction at one level of physics or biology is always resolved at higher vibrational energies?or perhaps, as Miller points out, by "miracles." Needless to say, miracles, are precisely the sorts of occurrences that defy rational understanding and which would cause anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the world to doubt their occurrence. Which is to say that if Jesus had been born of a virgin, had raised the dead, had been so raised Himself after a brief interlude, had then ascended bodily into the heavens, and has subsequently nurtured from on high these two millennia an abiding distrust for Jews and homosexuals?these are precisely the sorts of low probability events that people like Coyne, Dennett and Dawkins would doubt ever occurred. Therefore, the doubts of fundamentalist atheist rationalist neo-humanistic secular militants actually render the miracles of Jesus' ministry more plausible than they would otherwise be. Jerry, Dan, Richard?please give this some thought.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1401007; said:
By "Intelligent Design," I refer to the current mantle under which Creationism masquerades. Dr. Miller and I both regard evolution as the vehicle through which God has created the current mosaic of life on earth.

See Jerry Coyne's review and the subsequent discussion for more on this. (My preceding post)

As I've said before, science can only discover the mechanisms; the origins and the intelligence behind them are the purview of faith.

Science can only discover mechanisms? Only? That is a hell of a lot more than any religion ever has.

And why are origins the purview of faith? The origin of life on earth, the origin of the solar system, and the origin of the universe are entirely scientific questions, amenable to empirical study and reason and scientific inquiry. There is no element of faith at all whatsoever.

Just because science has not yet answered some questions, what makes you think that "faith" has those answers? What makes you think that some books written long ago by people who knew far, far less about the world than we do have those answers? And what makes you so sure which "faith" or "religion" has the correct answers?

There is no element of "faith" in origins. Either we know something is true because it is supported by evidence open to everyone regardless of their faith, or we do not know it to be true.
 
Upvote 0
JimsSweaterVest;1401129; said:
What makes you think that some books written long ago by people who knew far, far less about the world than we do have those answers?

Well, there's always the possibility that those books were actually authored by someone who knew far, far more about the world than we ever could. :)
 
Upvote 0
JimsSweaterVest;1401129; said:
Just because science has not yet answered some questions, what makes you think that "faith" has those answers? What makes you think that some books written long ago by people who knew far, far less about the world than we do have those answers? And what makes you so sure which "faith" or "religion" has the correct answers?

There is no element of "faith" in origins. Either we know something is true because it is supported by evidence open to everyone regardless of their faith, or we do not know it to be true.

I realize this wasn't directed to me, but I thought I would interject.

Abiogenesis, for me, is a "process" that holds a lot of faith potential. Now, I realize that, typically, biology doesn't investigate this since evolution is everything post-life's inception. However, abiogenesis is a step on the grand scheme of origins, and that's why I bring it up here. Take it FWIW.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1401177; said:
I realize this wasn't directed to me, but I thought I would interject.

Abiogenesis, for me, is a "process" that holds a lot of faith potential...

Why is there any "faith potential" in abiogenesis? If a certain chemical reaction having to do with amino acids, RNA, or DNA molecules is considered by biologists to be a model for how life originated, then there is no element of faith whatsoever in there. Anyone (who bothers to learn enough chemistry) can check the reaction for themselves. No faith there.
 
Upvote 0
JimsSweaterVest;1401125; said:
Here's the link, which I encourage you to look at if you're interested in the topic: Seeing and Believing

A couple things scream at me after reading through the link you provided above:

1) Jerry obviously is very intelligent.
2) Jerry has very little knowledge of some world's religions.
3) He likes to use fallacies in his empassioned discourses.

I will never doubt the mind of a science professor at the University of Chicago in his area of expertise; however, it appears that he is out of his element when attempting to formulate his truth: that science and religion are incompatible (as he said, "(It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers. )". Talk about a fallacious argument (not the least of which is extremely inflammatory).

Anyway, pundits on both sides of the aisle will have difficulties with attempting to sway, because of the underlying emotionalism that comes through in this discussion. Ultimately, I believe that people can find harmony in science and religion.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1401185; said:
A couple things scream at me after reading through the link you provided above:

1) Jerry obviously is very intelligent.
2) Jerry has very little knowledge of some world's religions.
3) He likes to use fallacies in his empassioned discourses.

I will never doubt the mind of a science professor at the University of Chicago in his area of expertise; however, it appears that he is out of his element when attempting to formulate his truth: that science and religion are incompatible (as he said, "(It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers. )". Talk about a fallacious argument (not the least of which is extremely inflammatory).

Anyway, pundits on both sides of the aisle will have difficulties with attempting to sway, because of the underlying emotionalism that comes through in this discussion. Ultimately, I believe that people can find harmony in science and religion.

Please point out a logical fallacy or two. It'll liven up the discussion and encourage others to check out the link.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be echoing some of the respones from edge.org :)
 
Upvote 0
JimsSweaterVest;1401183; said:
Why is there any "faith potential" in abiogenesis? If a certain chemical reaction having to do with amino acids, RNA, or DNA molecules is considered by biologists to be a model for how life originated, then there is no element of faith whatsoever in there. Anyone (who bothers to learn enough chemistry) can check the reaction for themselves. No faith there.

FTR, I have a degree in Polymers & Coatings with a minor in Chemistry; therefore, I've learned enough to understand the reactions of which you are talking about. Thus, can we move forward in a less aggressive fashion?

In what little research I have read/seen on the matter of abiogenesis, this is one area of considerable unknown. Thus, my statement of "faith potential" arose.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1401193; said:
FTR, I have a degree in Polymers & Coatings with a minor in Chemistry; therefore, I've learned enough to understand the reactions of which you are talking about. Thus, can we move forward in a less aggressive fashion?

What aggressive fashion? :huh:

In what little research I have read/seen on the matter of abiogenesis, this is one area of considerable unknown. Thus, my statement of "faith potential" arose.

You see "faith potential." Others see an exciting avenue for new research to test hypotheses, collect data, and examine evidence.

"Faith potential" is the hallmark of the creationists. (Mind you, I am NOT calling you a creationist!) They thrive on ignorance. They plead: "Don't research away that precious ignorance. Let's throw up our hands in despair, praise the Lord, and say that God did it. Anyone who objects must be dogmatically committed to naturalistic materialism and an enemy of faith."

A question was never answered, and a discovery was never made, by calling it a "faith potential."
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top