Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

Originally posted by Boniouk06
Noobfun, you say that the world is 3d now and that even though were upto 11 dimensions the world will always be 3D. thats naive to think we wont advice or learn of new theories which could disprove this. Spritituality, quantum physics, lots of things could prove that we are in 5d or such. To say we will always be 3d is the same as someone DUMB, hundreds of years ago saying the world will always be flat.

the rest of ur post was quite good, thanks.

You might like this

This essay was originally given as an address to a bemused congregation at Evensong a few years ago.

When fragments of the Shroud of Turin were recently subjected to scientific analysis in order to assess their age, I was seized by an almost childish enthusiasm. I felt that it would be wonderful if science could somehow "prove" the Shroud’s authenticity. I also began reading about the strange discoveries of modern physics - both at the sub-atomic level of quantum mechanics, and in the theories of cosmology concerning how the universe has evolved - hoping to find support there for my religious beliefs. I then realised that I had been making the assumption that science was the only true judge of the way things are, and also that I had a nagging doubt that Christianity was somehow "unscientific". (It was said of Michael Faraday that when he went into his laboratory he forgot his religion, and when went to church he forgot his science.)

Polkinghorne
So I was very glad to come across the works of Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne in that repository of human knowledge, the St Peter’s Church library. This essay is based on his ideas and if you find it interesting but incoherent, or want to find out more, then I would recommend his books to you. Polkinghorne is well qualified to discuss the relationship between science and theology, as he worked for much of his life as a theoretical elementary particle physicist, became Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge, and was appointed a Fellow of the Royal Society. More recently he has become an Anglican priest, which goes to show how one can get on in life. (Since this article was written he has been elected President of Queen’s College, Cambridge.) His ideas strike a chord in me which makes me feel that he is not far from the truth. They are also entirely consistent with orthodox Anglican belief. However I must warn you that there is no proof - ultimately an act of faith is required. But I hope to be able to show that it is perfectly reasonable to believe in God in a scientific age - and to show that science, too, requires its acts of faith.

A mechanical universe?
In the nineteenth century great strides were taken in understanding the physical world. The laws of mechanics, electro-magnetism and evolution were discovered. It seemed only a matter of time before the power of Reason led to a complete understanding of an objective and determinate world. There seemed to be little place for God in such a mechanical universe. It is perhaps fortunate that hardly any of that description of the world remains intact today.

Science…
In the simple view of science, a theory is proposed which is then either confirmed or disproved by experiment. Thus incontestable truth is gradually established. In fact, all experiments involve interpretation and judgement about what the results actually mean. And the more we know, the more we realise there is to know. Atoms were found to contain nuclei, nuclei were found to consist of protons and neutrons, which in their turn are now thought to be made of strange objects called quarks and gluons. Scientific theories have to be corrected in the light of later discoveries - an ever-tightening grip on a reality which is never completely understood. Moreover, we need to make assumptions. All of science assumes that the world is rational, ordered, and capable of being understood. We expect that under the same physical conditions an experiment will always give the same result. If we drop a stone from the Leaning Tower of Pisa we believe it will always to fall to the ground. But these assumptions cannot be proved by logical means. Even in mathematics there have to be acts of faith, for Gödels’ theorem demonstrates that there are many important mathematical propositions which cannot be proved. So even in the realm of science, much that is true cannot be proved. There is also much that goes against the grain of what we call "common sense". Some of the facts about quantum theory are quite bizarre. Apart from the well-known fact that we cannot know both where a particle is and what it is doing (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle), it is also true that two sub-atomic particles - once they have "interacted" - influence each other no matter how far apart they have travelled. (This is because in quantum mechanics, many properties of a particle are "fuzzy" and do not become fixed until we measure them. It is possible to produce pairs of particles that have to be "mirror images" of each other. If we later measure a certain property of one of a pair of particles, it becomes fixed at a certain value. The same property in the other particle instantly becomes fixed at the opposite value, even if it is by then "at the other side of the universe".) So the scientific view of the world is full of surprises.

…and religion
Religion, on the other hand, is not just a series of arbitrary assertions which the faithful must believe at all costs. Theological ideas, like scientific ones, must be corrected if they do not fit the facts. St Anselm spoke of faith seeking understanding. Theology is an attempt to reflect on and explain the religious experience of men, women and nations through the ages. It must produce an account which is

coherent, so that the theories all "hang together"
economical with its concepts, not using ten where one would do
adequate to explain all matters of concern
and consistent with actual experience.
This is very similar to what scientific theory tries to do. But there is a difference. In physics we study matter, which can be put to the test. In theology we study something which transcends us. God is unknowable, but we believe that he acts to make himself known. Our knowledge of God cannot enable us to predict what he will do next (just as we cannot predict what a friend will do even if we know him very well). But that does not mean that we can make any statement we like about him, because we believe that he is constant and faithful.

Creation
Why then might we believe in God? Many scientists have felt that there is more to this world than meets the eye. Einstein said "the only incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible". Science does not tell us why the world is like this, because it assumes that the world is comprehensible as its first premise. Furthermore, our minds can understand it. The abstract concepts of mathematics have been found to describe perfectly both the sub-atomic world and the behaviour of objects travelling near the speed of light. Evolution cannot explain this, since such understanding has no survival value. But we can envisage a rational Creator who guarantees the rationality of both the universe and our minds. The old Arguments from Design, which used the complexity of structures such as the eye to "prove" that there must have been a designer, have been superseded by the insights of cosmology, biochemistry and evolution. These explain how life has developed over the past fifteen thousand million years, by the interplay of chance and necessity on the original matter of the universe. But this does not explain why the original matter (with its extraordinary potential) came into existence in the first place, nor why the physical laws of the universe are set exactly as they are. Because the exact setting of these laws was crucial for life to develop. Just after the explosion of the Big Bang, the balance between the explosive energy throwing matter apart and the force of gravity trying to pull it back together again, had to be exactly balanced. If it had been an infinitesimal fraction either way, matter would either have flown apart too quickly to allow the stars to form, or it would all have fallen back together again long before life could develop. In a similar way the ratio of certain inter-atomic forces was crucial - just a little one way and there could have been no water in the universe, just a little the other and there would have been no carbon available. This is sometimes called the Anthropic Principle - that the whole universe had to develop exactly as it did in order for life to have developed on this planet.

A personal God
We may be able to conceive the existence of a Creator God who has called the world into being with the potential for intelligent life to evolve, and who continues to guarantee the unchanging nature of physical laws. But we are a long way from the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who continues to interact with his creation, who cares for us, and to whom we can pray. Can we believe in such a God in a scientific age? It seems that the advance of science has made us expect less of God. Where we used to pray for rain, we now merely give thanks for the weather we have already received. The first thing to say is that we must be true to our experience, however hard it is to understand. In the nineteenth century it was proved beyond doubt that light was a wave of electromagnetism. At the beginning of the twentieth century Einstein proved, also beyond doubt, that light was made up of tiny particles which he called photons. For a while these two facts were irresolvable - it seemed impossible that light could be both. Yet no good would have been done by denying half the evidence. Eventually Paul Dirac discovered quantum field mechanics which explain mathematically how light can be both. In the same way, if our religious experience leads us to believe that Jesus Christ was both man and God, we must not be swayed from this belief by the intellectual problems it raises. In both science and theology it is better to have a confused theory that fits the facts rather than an oversimplification which distorts them.

Prayer
But can God really interact with our world and with us? Are we wasting our time when we pray to him? It seems quite reasonable to pray for inner strength, for we realise what a complex and deep thing the mind is. It is fairly easy to imagine God as a persuading, sustaining and transforming presence within us. But is it reasonable to pray for rain, or for healing? When we pray for these things we usually add "if it be thy will", perhaps not just in recognition that God may know better than we what is best for us, but maybe also to give him a sort of "escape clause". In a scientific age we find it hard to imagine him in direct control of things. How might he act in our world? The best analogy is ourselves. We know that our bodies and our brains are subject to the same physical laws as the rest of the universe, but we also know that we have free will. We have room for manoeuvre within the physical laws of matter. If God has allowed us to be free to act while obeying the laws of nature, why should he not allow himself the same freedom? Furthermore, we do not live in a clockwork universe. We now know that at the sub-atomic level events occur randomly without any cause, but even at the everyday level things are not predictable. The predictable physical systems described by Newton, such as pendulums and planets in orbit, are unusually simple ones. Most dynamic systems in the world are extremely complex - everything affects everything else, and the behaviour of such systems is open and unpredictable. We can imagine God affecting what is to be in systems where minuscule differences in the trigger have large effects in the outcome. But we should not expect him to break the laws of nature for our benefit. As Origen pointed out many centuries ago, it is useless to pray for summer to be turned into winter (though perhaps he did not have experience of the English climate).

Miracles
What about miracles? The religious problem is not so much whether they can occur, but why they do not happen more often. Why does an omnipotent God not act frequently to save his innocent children from unmerited suffering? It seems that he will not act against his own nature, so that his action in the world is always consistent and physical laws are not broken. Some miracles, such as Jesus quieting the storm, could have been arranged by what Carl Jung called synchronicity. The storm was going to quieten at that moment anyway, and its quieting coincided with Jesus saying "peace, be still". But this will not explain all miracles, and it will certainly not explain the Resurrection.

Resurrection
Science can offer a pointer here, because we know that physical laws are only constant when the physical régime is the same. Objects travelling near the speed of light are subject to different laws than those which govern them at slower speeds. Some metals, when cooled to very low temperatures, suddenly lose their electrical resistance. This so-called superconductivity was a complete surprise when it was first discovered, and it took fifty years before it could be adequately explained by theory. So it seems reasonable that under conditions which we do not normally experience, the laws of nature may change. When, exceptionally, God himself enters our universe we may expect the laws of nature to change, so that we get a glimpse of a deeper reality which is usually hidden from our sight.

There is nothing special about the particular atoms of which we are made at any one time. After a few years of nutrition, growth and repair, most of the atoms of our body have been replaced by different ones. It is rather the pattern of those atoms which defines our mind and body. There seems no reason why that pattern, dissolved at our death, should not be "remembered" by God and recreated elsewhere in a different environment. It is the Christian hope that in the Resurrection of our Lord we see a glimpse of this possibility, the first example of what will be for all men. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Michael Leuty, June 1989

nottinghamchurches.org...

I know and im not trying to take the place of opposing debater, im trying to debate everyone who states anything as fact. Simply because i think we can learn lots more as a species. 11 dimensions, quantum physics, spirituality, power of the mind. I dunno noobfun, i know comparing a flat world which is straight out false, to a 3d world is a bit of a poor argument, but maybe in years we will think the same about a 3d world and what we know then.
you seem bright though, maybe you could tell me more about dimensions like height depth width, and where the dimensions of time fits into that? if in future we can control the dimension of time, would that have any affect on dimensions and 3d?

Look up "crossing the event horizon" its a very long although AWSOME video...... knock and the door shall be open unto you.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Look up "crossing the event horizon" its a very long although AWSOME video...... knock and the door shall be open unto you.

Yes I have seen it and although I had some problems with some of it, all in all it is well worth taking the time to watch. Science is often thought to be the enemy of the Believer when in fact Religion uses it to explain creation the same way Atheists use it to explain it away. This is why calling either evolution or ID Science is sillyness to me.

They BOTH act as zealots in defense of their respective religions or anti- religions. Both fight hard to have a place in our worldview with having the acknowledgement of the word that IS Science. I think if we are honest however, neither is science but philosophies behind the guise of science.

Some may agree while others disagree but the similarities between them is one of the reasons this argument will never get resolved. I think one without the other is dangerous as we may become an overbearing theocracy or have a tendency to gravitate towards a state God or new stalinism without opposing ideas and forces or worldviews keeping the other in check of moving to its extremes a direction I see either of them going with just as much passion and dogmatic determinsim as the other.

Originally posted by Boniouk06
I know and im not trying to take the place of opposing debater, im trying to debate everyone who states anything as fact. Simply because i think we can learn lots more as a species.

most certainly when we stop learning or trying to its time to give up our spot on the planet and leave it to someone/thing else to have a good try

11 dimensions, quantum physics, spirituality, power of the mind. I dunno noobfun, i know comparing a flat world which is straight out false, to a 3d world is a bit of a poor argument, but maybe in years we will think the same about a 3d world and what we know then.

its not so much the universe is 3 dimensional but its a way to explain how we interact and percieve it becasue it has those 3 qualities of measurment in how we observe and interact with it

even quantum physicis works within the 3 dimensions of length width and bredth, it can do some eally strange things in them but it still interacts within them

you seem bright though, maybe you could tell me more about dimensions like height depth width, and where the dimensions of time fits into that? if in future we can control the dimension of time, would that have any affect on dimensions and 3d?

we already have the dimension of time within our universe but time isnt tangible and doesnt have shape and mass or measurments

if we had the ability to alter time at will condense energy to matter and back and teleport 1/2 way across the cosmos we would still be in a universe containing tangible measurable shaped things, as long as theres anything in the universe that has size and shape were stuck with it

unless the universe fundamentally and completley alters in some insane way that would kill us all and would then prove a god exits for it to suddenly change so dynamically and drastically and destory its natural constants like gravity etc

[edit on 1/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Boniouk06
I know and im not trying to take the place of opposing debater, im trying to debate everyone who states anything as fact. Simply because i think we can learn lots more as a species. 11 dimensions, quantum physics, spirituality, power of the mind. I dunno noobfun, i know comparing a flat world which is straight out false, to a 3d world is a bit of a poor argument, but maybe in years we will think the same about a 3d world and what we know then.
you seem bright though, maybe you could tell me more about dimensions like height depth width, and where the dimensions of time fits into that? if in future we can control the dimension of time, would that have any affect on dimensions and 3d?

Agree with you more than anyone else. It is so important this debate, isn't it. It has zero impact on science, business, racing cars, football, it really does not matter sociologically, but we can believe,

1. Designed.
2. Not so.

What an exciting debate. How relevant. And if churches are clinging to this, not such a surprise that people are 'failing' to turn up anymore.

3. Do you think that Paedophile Priests are part of Assisted Design? I imagine the perverts will dodge that one.

they are of god just as all of us are.. but they neither love nor know god. their actions are teh symptoms of that disease.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
they are of god just as all of us are.. but they neither love nor know god. their actions are teh symptoms of that disease.

If you're talking about the megan's law paeds, the church defends them to the point of corruption, so either the 'priests' were all convincing the 'church' that they are all always innocent despite evidence, or the 'church' by defending them is as you say 'they neither love nor know god. their actions are the symptoms of that disease.' Either way, the 'church' is hardly the guardian of much that is good.

I dont know if i could put it in such absolutes as that because i dont know this situation deeply, aka wasnt there. If they protect lies then they also have the disease.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

You might like this

yes i did but the irony wasnt lost on me

didnt you say earlier anyone who believes in evolution cant be a christian, if they believe in evolution they are just pretending to be

The old Arguments from Design, which used the complexity of structures such as the eye to "prove" that there must have been a designer, have been superseded by the insights of cosmology, biochemistry and evolution. These explain how life has developed over the past fifteen thousand million years, by the interplay of chance and necessity on the original matter of the universe.

so he disredits ID (the argument from design) and says they have been superseded by better research which shows evolution was the way ..

if my anglican priest had been more like this guy i might go to church more often, still wouldnt believe but the conversations afterwards would be most interesting

I like debates like these because i was raised as a catholic, but then as i got older i loved science and stuff. So i researched into alot of stuff and found that religion may not be everything i was taught. I then looked more into religion and realised that maybe the Catholic church isn't the best place to look for God's word exactly as it was written in the Bible. The Catholic Church seems to make up its own rules. As i stand now, i love science and what it teaches us, and so it does test my faith quite a lot, but at the same time the Bible seems to ring true deep down within me and i have had some personal experiences that make me stick with it... but then can the power of faith alone make our brains do wonderful things? That would make my own personal miracles nothing more than power of the mind that i pass off as my faith showing me the way.... the end product is that im TOTALLY open to anything i learn.

As for this argument though, i think anyone who wants to "discuss" it is admirable and intellectual. I think anyone that wants to try and solve it and end it, is clearly very bitter and naive.

Originally posted by Boniouk06
I then looked more into religion and realised that maybe the Catholic church isn't the best place to look for God's word exactly as it was written in the Bible. The Catholic Church seems to make up its own rules.

i think that goes for all sects of a perticular religeon

they all have thier own way to interpret scripture to fit the way they want it to be, so sooner or later they all end up making thier own rules

but at the same time the Bible seems to ring true deep down within me and i have had some personal experiences that make me stick with it... but then can the power of faith alone make our brains do wonderful things? That would make my own personal miracles nothing more than power of the mind that i pass off as my faith showing me the way....

thats a whole topic and lengthy discussion in its self

Qualiasoup has some interesting videos on psycological processes and how we miss use and abuse them uk.youtube.com...

The problem with anecdotes, The faith cake, It *could* just be coincidence and The superstitious pigeon

Absolutely... not, is interesting and touches on the morality of religeousness rather then the possible psycological factors that could be involved

rather then side track the thread well discuss it another day in another thread

actually while i think about it 'Skewed views of science' gives a very good explenation for what we find quite often in the evolution/creationism discussions

By my personal miracles i dont mean mere coincidences that could be passed off as coincidence if they happen, and forgotten if they dont. I mean things that happen and make you believe in a higher power because that is the ONLY explanation.

Originally posted by Boniouk06
By my personal miracles i dont mean mere coincidences that could be passed off as coincidence if they happen, and forgotten if they dont. I mean things that happen and make you believe in a higher power because that is the ONLY explanation.

are they anecdotal experiences or varifiable testable objective experiences?

as you say many coincidences are recognised as things and the numerous others where nothing happened get blanked off and forgotten to leave only the ones that support the belief, could not you be doing the same and using confirmation bias to rule out other possible explenations?

like i say i dont really want to discus this as its not like pointing out contradictions or oddness in the bible its messing in someones head directly with thier personal beliefs and convictions that are a part of who they are [and not somthing i like doing its your head if you want to change it then you do it], which generally means tempers are quick to flare and often people will defend them beyond measures of reason to avoid changing them as its a part of who they are (speaking from personal experience here with my own beliefs i held)

so dont answer the questions just think about them, maybe it will give you somthing to go research and draw your own conclusions from, wether you change your belief or not doesnt really matter as long as you looked at it honestly and learn from the experience happy hunting

creationism is quite literally lunacy as it goes against evolution and the big bang and the age of the earth. the big bang, evolution, the age of the earth are scientific FACT. there is no arguement to be made here. science disproves creationism.

my god, i honestly cant believe that creationism exists in this world despite all of our scientific knowledge and understanding

[edit on 3-1-2009 by SlayerRock]

back to theistic evolution denouncing ID i watched an interesting discussion yesterday between Richard Dawkins and Father George Coyne

its the full interview that part of it appeared in "The Genius of Charles Darwin"

the full discussion can be found here uk.youtube.com... its about an hour but the last part fits this discussion



This guy has a great working model of what god is to him,

he did start to make the first mover argument and i was about to roll my eyes thinking your a physacist you should know better this argument disproves its self, but than did a very interesting thing he qualified his answer not as a logical scientific statement which people usually try when they make this argument but switched it to a philosophical answer starting with a sceintific question

The issue of "Evolution" over "Creationism" is a misleading tangent from what should be the real focus of our attention. Creationism may be said to indulge the writings of New Testament authors and cannot realistically be associated with the "real" word of God.

(1) Evolution has a greater volume of evidential, scientific theory and proof behind it than Creationism.
(2) Evolution precludes Creationism as declared in the Bible.
(3) Evolution does NOT preclude the concept of God.

It is the final point that should be on all of our minds. Those that would argue the case for Creationism are as "guilty" of the charge of "conceit of mankind" as the scientific community in that they place their faith in a man-written book to justify their claims.

This is based solely on the premise that the book was "divinely inspired". So it may be said that Evolution is solely inspired by scientific principles. However, where principles may be held accountable, testable, proven within a specific context, "divine inspiration" is a lot harder to justify.

Evolution in no way dismisses the concept of a supreme entity, but it does cause us to question the validity of our findings. Such is the scientific way, to question the status quo. How can divine inspiration be held to accountability?

Our efforts would be better placed to understand that "science" does work - it defines a method, a way of understanding the physical nature of our Universe. If God may manifest as a physical entity then maybe we are closer to understanding God, can tis be such a bad thing?

The Creationist theory is that of a wilful child that demands to have things a certain way and no other, without regard to he realities of life. It proffers no change or advancement or even an opportunity to get closer to God - surely this is in direct contrast to a fundamental meaning of life?

What God would ordain that man should be ignorant? I prefer a God that would give man the opportunity to understand the Universe - through the intellect that has evolved as a product of the mechanics of the Universe that surely, a supreme entity could have created.

Let it be so and so it shall come to pass.

What really annoys me is that if you do not accept the Darwinian theory of evolution in its current form - then you are instantly called a creationalist - with implications that you categorically believe that the earth was made by God in seven days.

I wish people would not think in terms of black or white - there are so many interesting grey areas inbetween.

Originally posted by suziwong
What really annoys me is that if you do not accept the Darwinian theory of evolution in its current form - then you are instantly called a creationalist - with implications that you categorically believe that the earth was made by God in seven days.

I wish people would not think in terms of black or white - there are so many interesting grey areas inbetween.

the problem is not everyone bieng labeled a creationist its the fact they all use exactly the same arguments

creationists of all denomaintaions islamic,christian,hindu all use exactly the same tricks and misrepresntations

ID with the leaking of the wedge document showed it for what it is, an attempt to get religeon into science and gain extra support from people who believe aliens had somthing to do with it (and later once it was in discredit all notions of aliens) so it could be later altered to reflect creationism (its a trojan horse) and again uses exactly the same arguments

if people just make exactly the same statements and dont qualify what it is they believe we can only go on the arguments they use, which invariably lead back to creationism in one guise or another



[edit on 4/1/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by suziwong


I think that SuziWong is correct in the assertion that not everything is black and white, and in truth, the theory of evolution is not cast in stone as actuality. The general thesis is that plants and animals exist in a reactive state to their environment and changes can occur to differentiate these accordingly.

As a general concept this is not so bad. yes, there are questions of how "great" changes are made. How are species differentiated to sub-species? What part does DNA aberration play? Is there a level of cognition in the evolutionary cycle that we are unaware of? Is natural selection the sole driver to evolution in plants and animals?

These are questions that needs answers and, of course, these are being investigated. The key factor here is that there is plenty of grey within the general premise of "evolution" and this is a good thing because it supports the scientific notion of how things should be done.

Creationism leads to nowhere except blanket acceptance. The rigour of falling into line to believe that an ancient "book" contains the only truth required.

Creationism is a world of dictates, of rigid rules. The world constantly displays the opposite to this and science tries to encapsulate the "moment" of our understanding but accepts that this may change as we learn more.

Evolution is a world of discovery and one that may bring us closer to understanding the concept of a supreme being.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by SugarCube]