Are you trying to say “Eureka” ?
It is a fundamental difference. Science is not a pursuit of “truth.” It’s a system of categorizing observable facts, articulating explanations, and rigorously testing competing explanations through experimentation and peer-review.
It is not a path, it is a process. It has no end goal, and nothing is ever held as certain, perfect, or ultimate.
If you fail to understand this and the implications of this approach, you will fail to ever be able to meaningfully debate science on anything other than a skewed, superficial level.
But back on page 3 you said:
and
But now you are saying that proving evolution would prove God? Is it just that it needs to be proved on your terms? Or are you talking about ‘proving’ intelligent design, which is not the same as evolutionary theory in any way at all?
Intelligent design is even worse than creationism, IMHO. At least creationists are upfront about their religious motivation. The intelligent design proponents are trying to get religion back into schools and general society via a sneaky back door method, and it’s very annoying. The entire basis of intelligent design seems to be the notion of irreducible complexity, but there is no such thing - every structure is the result of decent with modification caused by natural selection. We don’t need to bring ‘magic’ into the equation. In fact, describing God as a ‘designer’ just makes it seem like he was either colossally inept or a huge jerk, neither of which are very complimentary.
Incidentally, I am studying genetics right now (closely tied to evolutionary biology), and nobody has ever asked me if I believe in God or not. It has literally never come up in any conversation or group discussion. There is no requirement that we cannot believe in God, and to be honest I have no idea if my colleagues do or don’t. Your faith (or lack thereof) in God has literally nothing to do with understanding or studying evolution unless you choose to conflate them.
It’s really worse that that - the idea that you can reliably distinguish designed objects from undesigned objects by just looking at them completely falls apart when you try to argue that the entire universe is designed, and there are thus no undesigned objects to serve as the background against which the designed object supposedly stand out. The argument refutes itself.
So no midnight rituals at which God must be renounced?
That’s an interesting point, I never thought of it that way.
My university is sadly lacking in midnight rituals of any kind, I’m afraid.
I was inspired in a way by this quote from Gene Wolfe’s “Book of the New Sun”
"“What struck me on the beach and it struck me indeed, so that I staggered as
at a blow - was that if the Eternal Principle had rested in that curbed
thorn I had carried about my neck across so many leagues, and if it now
rested in the new thorn (perhaps the same thorn) I had only now put there,
then it might rest in anything, and in fact probably did rest in everything,
in every thorn on every bush, in every drop of water in the sea. The thorn
was a sacred Claw because all thorns were sacred Claws; the sand in my boots
was sacred sand because it came from a beach of sacred sand. The cenobites
treasured up the relics of the sannyasins because the sannyasins had
approached the Pancreator. But everything had approached and even touched
the Pancreator, because everything had dropped from his hand. Everything was
a relic. All the world was a relic. I drew off my boots, that had traveled
with me so far, and threw them into the waves that I might not walk shod on
holy ground.”
That’s a darn shame…
Quothe Kanicbird
snip… As for your last question, God gave us imperfect bodies so we can try things out before we get our eternal ones.
So when they say god made us in his image, that was a typo and they really meant “his garage”?
My statement is if we really knew evolution, how it works, how things changed, you would be looking at the hand of God itself. I don’t have high hopes for the actual proof of evolution, but if we discovered it, we would see that:
1 - Life it way too fragile to make it.
2 - Life makes it everywhere and thrives in most places.
The conclusion would be if the above is correct is life gets help, and that I strongly believe would be the conclusion to evolution theory, thus discrediting the theory as it stands and requiring a helper (god).
Intelligent design may include what you said, and as used it is a political tool of sorts, which is not what I am talking about.
I also would like to define for this thread (and one I use often in this context): Religion is not what I am about. Religion is a set of man made rules and regulations that is suppose to mimic the relationship with the spiritual, and used just like the political, educational power systems to control the population on the basis that those in power know better how to run your life. Religion is also training wheels of sorts that when no longer needed are thrown out. You can not know God personally and be religious IMHO.
Jesus had a body as we did, it broke down and faltered on the cross. It was a imperfect body in as such as it failed and could be confined. His eternal body Jesus also has, which goes on forever in glory. Even in it’s imperfect state however His carnal body and its suffering and destruction was made perfect in God’s plan.
So yes we are made in the image of God, yes we have been given temporary imperfect bodies and in their dieing will be made perfect by God.
The real reason it’s so viciously opposed, as opposed to say quantum mechanics, is because it directly contradicts and spits in the face of the idea that humans are special snowflakes. Thus the age old one liner “I’m not a monkey” or “My grandpappy wasn’t a gorilla!” Anyone who responds by pointing out that chimps and humans share a common ancestor is missing the point to a comical degree.
And pointing out to them that wishy washy liberal Christians who are half a step away from atheism also believe in it doesn’t help much either.
Just to add I also believe one would see that sometimes the environment would change to accept the new ‘evolved’ life instead of the new ‘evolved’ life adapting to a changing environment. A hand of a loving parent to its new child.
Thanks for all the brilliant replies… Ignorance is a bliss, imo.
Right up until something you are ignorant of kills you…
I wonder if it has to do with some kind of…bigotry? Racism? I don’t know. In Christianity, there are the sons of Seth and the sons of Ham. (The Curse of Ham is an AWESOME book.) I kind of wonder if people are scared of this (false) image of evolution because it makes them think of stereotypes. They want to think they’re special and atheists are morons.
Why does early modern man always look like Chuck Norris?
If certain religious people are more likely to believe in ‘clades’ :rolleyes: in humans, don’t you think that evolution is offensive to them? It’s not just about God anymore. It becomes a real identity crisis.
Edit: aaaaaaaaaaaaah. religion and racism. Link here.
Because God was afraid of Chuck, and so created man in Chuck’s image.