Can Science and Religion be reconciled?

[dharveymi]

I can't really buy the transitory species thing, but I would like to talk about this one:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Was Mr. deVries certain that he planted only plants without the variant? What kind of controls were in place? Was the new species viable? Can it still be found today? Has a similar experiment ever been tried again? (I realize this one is a little over the edge, but in order to be science it must be repeatable, otherwise you are just asking me to believe this man deVries who I have no experience with)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can't really buy the transitory species thing,

Of course you can't--if you did, it would mean evolution is correct!

Was Mr. deVries certain that he planted only plants without the variant?

Yes.

What kind of controls were in place?

One of the controls was that de Vries did not pray for God to send him a new species in the middle of his experiments.

Was the new species viable?

Yes.

Can it still be found today?

Yes.

Has a similar experiment ever been tried again?

Yes. But don't bother to look at the website I provided in my last post...it is only for those who want to know the facts.

 

[dharveymi]

Such venom, and I thought we were getting to be friends! Can't seem to locate the web site for deVries, please post again.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm sorry, dharveymi, I didn't mean to spit venom at you. I think we are getting to be friends too.

Here is the website: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scroll down to "Observed Instances of Speciation".

Also, I encourage you to look at the FAQ here: http://www.holysmoke.org/factfaq.htm and see if some of your questions about evolution can be answered there. It is very informative.

 

[paul_an_apostle]

Q - for your personal information (since you perefer personal attacks) I have advanced degrees in Computer Science and Math with minors in Chemistry and Biology. I balso studied Archeology for a few years because I'm greatly interested in it. I'm also a concert pianist and write music. I also read a book a week in addition to reading the entire Bible through every year for the last 4 years. I have taught computer Science classes off and on for the last 10 years and Bible classes for the last 20. And - just for the record, I aosl work out 4 days a week.

I prefer cordial discussion, but every once in a while I run inot someone like you who doesn't understand the rudiments of cordiality.

I don't argue with such as you - I will only discuss with those who really are seeking the truth, not fostering their own agenda.

 

[Green Gaia]

***MOD POST***

Friendly reminder here to everyone to keep it civil, please.

 

[(Q)]

Maize - Fair enough - but its not possible to be civil with someone like Paul who continually piles one fabrication on top of the other. Now he's trying to tell us he has 'advanced degrees' in sciences.

I suppose I'll just ignore his silly rants from here on in.

And for you Paul, I would be happy to go to a science forum and put your so-called 'advanced degrees' to the test.

 

[Green Gaia]

Q - It is possible to be civil, and if you don't think you can do that, we have a nifty ignore button you'll find in your CP. Calling somone a "liar who's posting silly rants" is not good forum etiquette and will not be tolerated. Please, let's stop the personal attacks and get back on topic.

 

[(Q)]

Calling somone a "liar who's posting silly rants" is not good forum etiquette

Sorry, I didn't know calling a spade a spade was considered poor ettiquette.

 

[Runt]

***MOD POST***

Q, enough. Not only are your comments rude, but they are off topic. This is a debate. Debate with people, do not attack them personally.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LOL - There is nothing to know about evolution - it didn't happen. Back to the main subject - -

There is nothing to know about the Garden of Eden - it didn't happen.
There is nothing to know about the Global Flood - it didn't happen.
There is nothing to know about the Exodus - it didn't happen.
There is nothing to know about the Virgin Birth - it didn't happen.
There is nothing to know about the Crucifixion - it didn't happen.
There is nothing to know about the Resurrection - it didn't happen.

Boy, I feel so much better now. Back to the main subject --

Truth backs up truth. What I mean by that is that where there is a valid religeous belief, science will validate that truth, either empirically, or by an objective body of evidence.

One can only assume that the author of a sentence that counterposes empirical information to "an objective body of evidence" understands neither. In any event, to suggest that valid beliefs are validated seems underwhelming, don't you think?

I quess what I'm saying is that Yes, Science and religion are reconcilable - when you are dealing from truth to truth.

Much better - science and religion agree with one another when they agree with one another!

Afterall, 'science' - that is - the laws of science, were originated by God, and everything He did, was done within the rules He set up.

You're certainly entitled to believe so. By the way, did your Christian God(s) create the rules to be followed by the Hindu Gods, or was there something akin to the division of labor envisioned by the early Israelites?

Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." [Jn.20:29]

Actually, you don't really know that. All you know, at best, is that some apologist, writing over half a century later, included some dialogue in his story. Unless, of course, you've done any serious study, in which case you would also know that John is widely recognized as containing inauthentic text. Other than blind faith, you have absolutely no reason to believe that the dialogue is accurate.

================​

Whether science and religion can be reconciled depends entirely on how 'religion' is defined. So, for example, science and religious naturalism are fully compatible, while science and tribal theologies are far less so.

 

[(Q)]

Look here Runt, I don't want to offend you or anyone else, but when guys like Paul make comments like:

LOL - There is nothing to know about evolution - it didn't happen.

... how are we supposed to respond? Quite clearly, Paul has no intention whatsoever to discuss or debate. He is here to preach his gospel and little more and he will do nothing short of lying and making stuff up to push his agenda. I find that offensive and insulting - you should too.

 

[Runt]

Yes, I understand. But responding in kind is also offensive, especially when you have to venture off topic to get back at him. If he offends you, just ignore him! You don't ALWAYS need to respond!

 

[(Q)]

You don't ALWAYS need to respond

Sorry, but I have a tendency to respond in kind when my intelligence has been insulted by those who make definitive statements and then can't back up what they claim, and then proceed to preach their line of gospel.

If Paul wishes to debate science and religion, which is the primary function of this particular forum, then he should step up to the plate or else go to another forum where preaching is appropriate.

 

[Runt]

Sorry, but I have a tendency to respond in kind when my intelligence has been insulted by those who make definitive statements and then can't back up what they claim, and then proceed to preach their line of gospel.

Your intelligence was never insulted. Paul stated his opinion--that he doesn't believe evolution exists-- and that staement was never directed toward you in any way. If his opinion insulted you, that is your problem.

If Paul wishes to debate science and religion, which is the primary function of this particular forum, then he should step up to the plate or else go to another forum where preaching is appropriate.

The same could be said for you. For quite a few posts now, nothing you have said has truly had any relevance to this debate, but only to Paul's character alone. If you wish to debate, stop arguing about this issue, refer back to the last relevant post, and DEBATE.

 

[dharveymi]

I was just listening to a radio broadcast of "On the Media". The piece was entitled, "Medical Malpractice." If you didn't here this, check it out http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/.

They were discussing the problem of biased medical research being published in prestegious medical journals. In particular, I was interested in a quote from Shanon Brownly from the New America Foundation. She cited two problems with the peer review process:

1. The reviewers have no way of knowing what part of the results are not being published.

2. Peer review has no access to contraindicative evidence (the suggestion was that for some studies there can be a lot of it.)

The reporter suggested that many of the results can be influenced by money. I suppose other motivations are involved when other articles are written and reviewed, but this brings me back to my point: any philosophical world view is based on faith more than anything else. To believe in a scientific world view, a person must have faith that the people are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me ... The difference between Christianity and a Scientific world view is simply who you are going to believe.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

but this brings me back to my point: any philosophical world view is based on faith more than anything else. To believe in a scientific world view, a person must have faith that the people are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me ... The difference between Christianity and a Scientific world view is simply who you are going to believe.

I think the main difference is that in a Christian worldview, the only thing you have to go on is what others beleive/tell you to believe. Science has a little thing called "evidence". If the methodology behind science is as meaningless as you suggest, surely no advances in knowledge could be made by choosing to believe all those silly scientists with their agendas and whatnot...and yet, we have computers and telephones. Go figure.

I think you have missed one of the fundamentals of science--you are NOT supposed to "believe" that what another scientist says is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You are supposed to do that in religion, though.

 

[dharveymi]

Back to the evidence thing. A witness is evidence. A firsthand witness is better evidence than second hand witnesses, etc. It's not scientific evidence, I understand that, but most of what passes for scientific evidence is little more than the kind of evidence that christians use, evidence based on the testimony of witnesses.

Experiencial evidence is a different kind of evidence. There are things in science that can be experienced: Astronomical observation can be repeated. Chemical experiments can be repeated, etc. However, there are religious experiences that can be repeated, prayer and meditation, tithing, obeying commandments, etc. Experiencial evidence is not inherently better than other types of evidences, it's just different. Experiencial evidence can be tainted by biases and presuppositions like any other types of evidence.

Concerning believing what religious people say, I understand that most christians believe what you have just said, but I do not. True religious people, like true scientists, don't believe what others say just because they said it. The Bible quotes God as pleading with His people to test Him to see that He is good. God does not want us to blindly believe. He has provided ways that He may be tested to show that what He says is true. It is a misuse of religion, like it is a misuse of science, to believe that influential religious people have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[dharveymi]

You really should listen to that radio piece, it might change your mind about the "evidence" that science uses. At one point, a doctor pleaded with fellow doctor and researcher not to reveal the studies that suggested that a certain drug was ineffective, because the drug was doing so much good. I was dumbfounded. Don't tell me this thing doesn't work, because it's doing so much good? Turns out this widely popular drug is largly ineffective for the purpose they were discussing. What is more astonishing was that the implication was that this kind of thing happens more than not.

Imagine that this same kind of thing is happening in other scientific fields?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Back to the evidence thing. A witness is evidence. A firsthand witness is better evidence than second hand witnesses, etc. It's not scientific evidence, I understand that, but most of what passes for scientific evidence is little more than the kind of evidence that christians use, evidence based on the testimony of witnesses.

You must be careful when using witnesses as evidence, as people's emotions and whatnot can easily fool them and alter their opinions. I disagree that science relies on witnesses. It may appear that way, as in, Dr. Smith 'witnessed' the meteor, but the differece is that ANYONE could then choose to see this meteor for themselves. Christian witnesses have experiences that only they can relate too. Others may claim to be 'feeling' the same thing, or 'seeing' the same thing, when in fact there is a perfectly scientific explanation to take care of it.

However, there are religious experiences that can be repeated, prayer and meditation, tithing, obeying commandments, etc.

I don't see how any of this is evidence. What are you trying to find out? If there is a god or not? Untrue to the popular belief that evangalists circulate, tithing will not help. Obeying the 10 commandments is not going to make god appear and add proof to his cause, and prayer and meditation are personal and cannot be exactly replicated by another person, therefore cannot be considered evidence.

Experiencial evidence can be tainted by biases and presuppositions like any other types of evidence.

This is true, but this is also why experiments are repeated over and over by countless people to ensure they are completely objective.

True religious people, like true scientists, don't believe what others say just because they said it.

Um, yes they do. They believe in what the bible says because the bible says to. Thats about as bad as you can get I think.

He has provided ways that He may be tested to show that what He says is true.

Like what?