Does science take a position on the god question?

[BurtWorm]

I say it doesn't. I say it's totally pigheaded to argue that it does, can or should. The Kansas Board of Education disagrees with me. But I agree with The Questionable Authority, who states what the KBoE is up to very well:

http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/08/kansas-boe-wants-to-lie-to-students.html


I'm going to start with an addition that demonstrates true chutzpah. (For those of you not familiar with the Yiddish term, it is difficult to translate directly, but can best be described as the quality displayed by a man who craps on his neighbor's doorstep, then knocks and asks to borrow some toilet paper.) Kansas' contribution to the art of chutzpah is found on page 78 of the standards, which are available as a pdf file on the Kansas Department of Education website:


Additional Specificity: a. Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal.


That "additional specificity" is one of the items added to the standards by the Board of Education. Not satisfied with merely adding all sorts of completely false "evidence against evolution" to their curriculum, the KBoE has apparently decided to follow up by redefining evolution in a way that makes it explicitly atheistic. Apparently, they aren't sure if lying to their students with their bogus examples of "evidence against evolution" will be enough to convince everyone to abandon this "atheistic science", so they have decided to bear false witness about what evolution actually is, means, and implies.

[Canuckistanian]

1. No! Science seeks to understand observable phenomena

If God suddenly becomes visible, audible or somehow detected with any kind of instrument, then God will become a subject of science.

Until that time, all is speculation and a 1500 year old book that presents no empirical data, as far as science is concerned.

[KittyWampus]

16. Wrong. Science Often Uses Indirect Observation. Astronomy, For Example

Just because you can't pin Consciousness down onto a lab table and dissect it doesn't mean that it can't be studied Scientifically.

In fact, Consciousness and the Mind has been studied Scientifically for thousands of years.

Your statement is basically just an attempt at making the MATERIAL the only thing that Science may address.

However, since Consciousness is an integral part of Nature, it therefore follows it may be studied.

Science as practised by the Western World today completely ignores or belittles Consciousness.

[Terran]

27. I believe the poster was referring to

"Science as practiced by the Western World today", i.e, using the Scientific Method. I would agree that consciousness has been studied "rigorously" for thousands of years, but "scientifically"? No, I don't see how that's true.

And do you not agree that psychology is at least an attempt to study consciousness?

[BurtWorm]

28. Science can address consciousness as it relates to material.

I disagree that it belittles consciousness. In fact consciousness is one of the hot areas of new research, isn't it? (But maybe you think "Consciousness" with a capital C is something different?)

[SteppingRazor]

2. Of course not.

Science must, by definition, be limited to what can be known. As god is an unknowable, science should be neither for nor against the existence of God. Science is god-neutral :)
\

[etherealtruth]

31. Touche`

[Finder]

56. Agree n/t

[jim3775]

3. No, the Philosophy world has it covered. n/t

[Beaver Tail]

4. science as a rule does not take a position when it comes to god

The responsibility of science is to test things that can be quantifiably measured. You cannot quantifiably measure theology.

As for the "evidence against evolution", it is correct to say it IS bogus. There is a link to that somewhere but I cant remeber where it is.. will post if i can find it.

Anyhow, science nither endorses nor condmens religion. In this aspect science is neutral.

[Igel]

5. Science, no.

Scientists, yes.

[ismnotwasm]

15. Yeah what you said. nt

[HereSince1628]

6. Actually, most scientists have a position on God and such things.

Science, particularly western science as it is practiced in the United States, directs its investigations and explanations toward the observable realities of an empirical universe.

So, generally the empirical universe is called the physical universe. Gods, ghosts, demons, tree spirits and other spriritual sprites are OUTSIDE the universe of empirical things for which the methods of science are based.

Consequently, many scientists (whether they are believes in gods, God, or not) say these metaphysical things are not suitable for the epistemological approach known as Science.

Moreover, most scientists find that although the invocation of God as a causativce agent can be asserted to explain ANY phenomenon, such explanations provide no summative or predictive information needed to address or advance the study of empirical questions in either reductionist or integrationist modes.

Indeed, in an empirical sense, scientists have always found such explanations reduce to naked assertions.

[0rganism]

7. What is the "god question"?

If it's, "Is the sun actually the wheel of Apollo's chariot as it travels across the sky?", then I'd have to say that yes, science as we know it does take a position on that.

If it's, "Was the earth created in seven 24-hour days at some time in the last 10,000 years?", then I'd have to say yes, current science has something to say about that as well.

If the "god question" is, "Is there a supreme being who guides events in the universe He created?" then I'd say no.

[BurtWorm]

12. It's the last one.

More broadly stated, is there a supernatural realm in the universe?

[0rganism]

50. And which one does the KBoE think it is?

I think they're more interested in the second question, which is really the problem here.

[understandinglife]

8. No. It wouldn't be science if it did.

Peace.

[K-W]

9. It depends what you mean by God. EOM

[longship]

10. Natural vs Supernatural

The spectacular success of science in predicting events and providing a model of the universe is only exceeded by the spectacular failure of theology to do the same. Plus, people generally don't kill each other in the name of science. The sooner we put aside childish beliefs and inane religion, the sooner mankind will live in peace and in harmony with the world.

[KittyWampus]

19. Actually, Science Doesn't Seem Very Good At Predicting The HUGE

number of deaths caused by the "medicine" its adherents create and sell in a billion dollar industry.

Modern Medicine is a leading cause of death. That's taking Medicine AS PRESCRIBED.

[BurtWorm]

38. Big Pharma is not an adherent of science.

It's an adherent of capital.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. Damnit, Jim, I can't work with this equipment! 20th century

medicine is little better than witch-doctors chanting over a fire!

[longship]

42. Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha

:rofl: :spray:

[longship]

43. Well, that isn't really science, is it?

What do you expect when drug companies release drugs for stupid things, like "lose weight", "keep your dick hard", or other nonsense. There's so much money in pills and things like that. Of course there's excesses and abuses.

But one can certainly *not* blame science for that anymore than you can blame carpentry if somebody murders with a claw hammer.

If medicine is a problem I suggest you look towards the corporations which run the medical system in this country. Blaming science is inane.

[hfojvt]

39. maybe not in the name of science, but much science

is harnessed to improve the "arts" of killing and destroying.

"We must be prepared to recognise that 'truths' do not stand together on a high and lofty pedestal: some are important and some are trivial, some are innocent and some are dangerous, and while the pursuit of truth is a good in itself - and complete freedom in that pursuit is a sine qua non of a good social life - certain departments of investigation may need to be offset and corrected by work in other fields. In a modern western European community, a sociological insight into the causes and conditions of war and peace is a needed corrective to the crudities of applied physical science and without such correction the mere increase of scientific knowledge, of which we boast so vacuously, may be highly inimical to the practice of the good life in the community." Lewis Mumford

[BurtWorm]

44. Money corrupts science as it corrupts everything else.

But science in itself does not corrupt.

[longship]

45. Okay.

For instance, one could argue that the U.S. didn't have to develop atomic weaponry. It may have been wise to withhold it once it was discovered. But I don't think it's wise to second guess the past with which we must now live. Certainly we live in a world in which the A-Bomb exists. Wringing hands about it serves the purpose of guiding our future, which is good, but little else.

But to blame science for a political decision is terribly misguided. Many scientists were horrified about the A-Bomb. Many of them saw the whole thing as a monumental mistake. After the war, Szilard and Bronowski left their fields (physics and mathematics, respectively) and pursued research in medicine. But in 1942 there were compelling reasons to support development.

[hfojvt]

54. it is not just about the bomb

it is about the Gatling gun, mustard gas, napalm. The whole mindset which reduces everything to a "scientific" question - How? How do we solve this technical problem? Economics reduces everything to one question - "does it make money?" The scientific philosophy reduces everything to one question - "does it increase power?" Of course, you can theorize that science does not have to be that way, but I am talking about science as it is actually practiced in this country, not some Platonic ideal of science.

Science sets itself up as the sole arbiter of truth. Want to discount something? Just call it "unscientific". Wisdom, then, because it cannot be quantified or bottled or placed on a scale, is devalued in favor of scientific truth. I still think the following is true, even if it cannot be proven scientifically: "At present, there can be little doubt that the whole of mankind is in mortal danger, not because we are short of scientific and technological know-how, but because we tend to use it destructively, without wisdom. More education can help us only if it produces more wisdom."

But how horrible to put wisdom ahead of scientific truth, eh?

[TayTay]

11. I saw someone with a unique perspective on this last week

(Guy) Consolmagno, born September 19, 1952, in Detroit, Michigan, obtained his bachelor of science in 1974 and master of science in 1975 in Earth and Planetary Sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his Ph. D. in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona in 1978. From 1978-80 he was a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer at the Harvard College Observatory, and from 1980-1983 continued as postdoc and lecturer at MIT.

http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/GConsolmagno.html

Brother Consolmagno is a Jesuit. He has some interesting things to say on what belongs to science and what belongs to theology. I saw him last week and he seemed very level-headed on this discussion. (And he hates the Intelligent Design people. They are not serving either religion or science.)

AM: And why does the Vatican fund this research? (on meteorites and on exploration of the origins of the universe.)

GC: There's a political reason. It's a simple one, that they want the world to know that the Church isn't afraid of science, that they like science, that science is great, this is our way of seeing how God created the universe, and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn't contradict truth, that if you have faith, then you're not going to ever be afraid of what science is going to come up with. Because it's true.

And the one time in history that they screwed up on this, the Galileo affair, the Church was wrong. And we've admitted it was wrong. How many times has science abused the Church? How often have you heard a scientist apologize to the Church?

AM: Do you think that was the only time in history that it happened?

GC: The whole scientific enterprise really does coincide well with Christian theology. The whole idea that the universe is worth studying is a Christian idea. The whole mechanism for studying the physical universe comes straight out of the whole logic of the scholastic age. Who was the first geologist? Albert the Great, who was a monk. Who was the first Chemist? Roger Bacon, who was a monk. Who was the first guy to come up with spectroscopy? Angelo Secchi, who was a priest. Who was the guy who invented genetics? Gregor Mendel, who was a monk. Who was the guy who came up with the Big Bang theory? Georges Lemaître, who was a priest. There is this long tradition; most scientists before the 19th century were clerics. Who else had the free time and the education to gather leads and measure star positions?

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article966.html

[BurtWorm]

14. Has he ever answered his own questions

about science's alleged church-abuse? When did science ever abuse the church? Or is he asking that rhetorically to underscore that science has no need whatsoever to apologize to the church?

[TayTay]

17. Yup. He's a real interesting guy.

He has the scientists need to see pure data and to go where that data takes him. I really liked the guy.

This was not posted by me to take sides. It was posted to show that not all Christians (or members of any other religion) are anti-science. The folks who are afraid of science are a distinct minority.

I would advise you to check out the bottom link on my post up-thread.

'When did science ever abuse the church? Or is he asking that rhetorically to underscore that science has no need whatsoever to apologize to the church?'

Rhetorically, I think. This is a person who has spent his life in service to both science and religion. He doesn't see the conflict that fundies go ballistic over. He (not me, I specifically posted this as a unique perspective that I might not share) sees pure science and scientific research as a search for truth. He doesn't see science as removing God, he sees science as a means of further exploring Creation and finding the truth behind that creation. (In other words, pure science doesn't contradict religion. Neither is it the same as religion. But the two can coexist.)

[BurtWorm]

21. I liked what he said about truths not being in conflict with truths.

The problem for theology, of course, is that its truths are less demonstrable than science's. That disparity of demonstrability may be the crux of the creationists' problem with evolution.

[TayTay]

33. It is also very interesting that a Catholic Bishop ...

is coming out in support or partial support of teaching ID in the schools. Does he even know that he is not taking the Catholic position? Does he even recognize the historical role the Church has taken. Do Catholics even know their own faith and what it teaches or are they drinking the kool-aid of the right-wing media?

As you can tell, my emphasis is on countering RW bullshit about an absolutist position on what religion teaches. (And the odious notion that religious opinion is monolithically opposed to science.) This is bunk and introducing Catholics who are scientists as well as good Catholics helps. I do not concede this debate to the nutjobs. It is possible that there are more sides than the media chooses to show.

[BurtWorm]

35. Boniface is slightly antirational, isn't he?

I thought I'd read that the Austrian bishop was encouraged to argue for ID partly because of a conversation he had with Boniface when Boniface was Ratzinger.

[TayTay]

36. Yup. And I think they have made a devil's bargain

ah, pardon the pun. There are a number of conservative members of the Church who are ready and willing to jump into bed with the RWers. Disgusting.

It doesn't have to be this way. Science is not threatening to religion, just to people, as the good Brother Consolmagno says, with weak faith. Truth is a good thing and shouldn't be feared.

[eallen]

48. "The idea that the universe is worth studying is Christian." What BS!

That overlooks centuries of Greek and Roman science.

[BurtWorm]

51. I didn't even see that.

Roger Bacon, I know, got in serious trouble with the church for trying to suggesting that "creation" was as fit a place to look for truth as scripture.

Tom Paine is very amusing on the poverty of the scripture writers' knowledge of how nature works. And he wasn't the only one who noticed this.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason35.htm

<<As to the doubtful jargon ascribed to Paul in the 15th chapter of I. Corinthians, which makes part of the burial service of some Christian sectaries, it is as destitute of meaning as the tolling of a bell at a funeral; it explains nothing to the understanding — it illustrates nothing to the imagination, but leaves the reader to find any meaning if he can. "All flesh (says he) is not the same flesh. There is one flesh of men; another of beast; another of fishes; and another of birds." And what then? — nothing. A cook could have said as much. "There are also (says he) bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial; the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." And what then? — nothing. And what is the difference? nothing that he has told. "There is (says he) one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars." And what then? — nothing; except that he says that one star differeth from another star in glory, instead of distance; and he might as well have told us that the moon did not shine so bright as the sun. All this is nothing better than the jargon of a conjuror, who picks up phrases he does not understand, to confound the credulous people who have come to have their fortunes told. Priests and conjurors are of the same trade.

<<Sometimes Paul affects to be a naturalist and to prove his system of resurrection from the principles of vegetation. "Thou fool, (says he), that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die." To which one might reply in his own language and say, "Thou fool, Paul, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die not; for the grain that dies in the ground never does, nor can vegetate. It is only the living grains that produce the next crop." But the metaphor, in any point of view, is no simile. It is succession, and not resurrection.

<<The progress of an animal from one state of being to another, as from a worm to a butterfly, applies to the case; but this of a grain does not, and shows Paul to have been what he says of others, a fool.>>

[FreedomAngel82]

13. I don't think so

Science isn't about God or religion. I'm Christian and love science and all that stuff. You can't prove God had a hand in anything. You can't prove God didn't. With science you make a theory and you study it. If your theory is right it's right. If it's wrong then time to go back to the drawing board. I have not heard any scientists say they believe in Intelligent Design can be proven etc. Even Bush's own science advisor told him that it's not science.

[KittyWampus]

18. Absolutely, And All The No's So Far Indicate The Extent Of DU'ers Bias.

But this prejudice goes very deep into Western, Industrialized Culture.

It's unbalanced and a sickness.

Science as practised by most of the Western, Corporate World only accepts the Material World as real.


And attempt to point out the significance or role of Consciousness will be shot down forthwith.

And to suggest that CONSIOUSNESS might be not only an integral part of the entire Universe and perhaps even the PRIMARY STUFF OF REALITY is heresy. Any proponents of this perfectly reasonable approach WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, let alone seriously considered.

[BurtWorm]

25. The point is that science has nothing to say about anything but nature

and material. It has something to say about consciousness, however, and the primary stuff of reality (though not consciousness as primary stuff of reality, since there's no evidence for that, whether it really is or isn't).

[hfojvt]

34. and about the additional specificity

"Additional Specificity: a. Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal."

On page 6 of this biology text which was in its 3rd edition in 1983 and was published from 1967-1983 (and probably beyond), it says "Second, Darwin declared that natural selection determines the course of the change, and that this guiding factor can be understood in completely mechanistic terms, without reference to conscious purpose or design."

Welcome to the machine. Prepare to be assimilated.

To postulate that the world is entirely mechanistic seems like an unwarranted, unscientific assumption. It goes far beyond being descriptive and predictive.

[BurtWorm]

37. The language is very important, and you're not giving it its due.

"Darwin declared that natural selection determines the course of the change, and that this guiding factor can be understood in completely mechanistic terms, without reference to conscious purpose or design."


This is a way of saying that reference to conscious purpose and design is not essential to understanding how natural selection works. Would it add anything to our understanding of the mechanism of natural selection to make reference to conscious purpose or design?

[hfojvt]

52. actually I think it might

I think they need to move beyond the purely mechanistic. To reduce life to a machine is to eliminate consciousness as anything but another chemical process. Imagine if you were to describe "a day in the life" of any person. You can trace him/her moving about from room to room and building to building throughout the day. Doesn't it increase your understanding of what is going on if you realise that these movements have purposes?

So, if you are looking at human life and history, you might lose something if you leave out conscious purpose or design. They also seem to ignore perhaps observable evidence of non-mechanism or design. Again, it seems to go beyond science to consider only mechanistic explanations and to exclude the possibility of design.

[BurtWorm]

53. But why should science concern itself with trying to discern purpose?

Do you want science to do everything? Why not let it stick with doing what it does best? Why criticize it for not doing what it isn't meant to do?

[hfojvt]

58. because of what it does

it looks at life and reduces it to a "mechanism". It looks at billions of years of history and says "there is no need for design or purpose". I would say that purpose and design are observable phenomenon in social sciences, and therefore not to be discounted, but rather than asking "science to do everything" I think I am asking science to do less. That it is not the province of science to promote an atheistic or mechanistic worldview. Oparin's theory of how life arose "spontaneously from non-living matter" may have wide support in the scientific community, but it is hardly settled fact or verified theory. Nor is the idea that life can be "understood in completely mechanistic terms". Those are philosophical more than scientific questions. Science has at least as much business trying to discern purpose as it does asserting that "there is no need for purpose".

[BurtWorm]

59. How does science promote an atheistic worldview

any more than playing horseshoes does? :wtf:

[hfojvt]

60. Horseshoes???

You hedonist. You should be praying and reading your Bible! :spank:

I believe I have already quoted the evidence on that. "Not until the latter part of the 19th century was the theory of evolution able to account for the origin of species without invoking a supernatural agency. Can 20th century science do the same for the origin of life itself?" Oparin's theory is "widely held by scientists" and it suggests that life "could and did arise spontaneously from nonliving matter".

So maybe life is not a malfunction, just an unhappy spontaneous accident.

[BurtWorm]

65. But again you seem to be distorting the language.

It says "able to account...without invoking...." This doesn't mean taking a position about whether or not a supernatural agency is ultimately behind it. Science is not able to say anything about the supernatural one way or the other; the supernatural is not science's domain. Nature is science's domain.

[Solon]

63. Sorry that is NOT what science...

which is a process to begin with, postulates. "there is no need for design or purpose" is NOT a scientific theory, or even ground rule, at best, science would say "there is no evidence, at this time, with current methods and equipement, of an overall design or purpose of the Universe".

Science is not supposed to answer the questions of "WHY?" But the questions of "HOW?" Leave the first set to theologians and philosophers and the second to scientists, please.

On a last note, there is this, why do so many people think that a purpose is necessary for the entire Universe? Why not make our own purposes, stick to them, and improve our well being as well? I'm a very religious person, and even I'm puzzled at this opposition to a tried and true method, that is all science is after all, that improves our lives so much. Maybe, after all is said and done, that is what the Gods intended after all, for us to use our brains, and come to a greater understanding of the Universe, without the need of their guidance all the time. Maybe, like most parents they realized we grew up and want us to learn on our own, with only occasional words of advice from them, of course. :)

[hfojvt]

64. that is sorta the theme of the movie "Oh God"

that we can make it.
And the science textbook wrote: "Darwin declared that natural selection determines the course of the change, and that this guiding factor can be understood in completely mechanistic terms, without reference to conscious purpose or design."

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. "...this guiding factor can be understood in completely mechanistic terms,

without reference to conscious purpose or design."

It doesn't say it can ONLY be understood, or that it MUST be understood w/o reference, only that it CAN be. If someone wants to attach a god to the equation, fine. It is a null factor which doesn't alter a thing. You can take it or leave it.

[BurtWorm]

67. I've been trying to explain that.

I'm not sure it's getting through.

[LeftyMom]

20. The concept of deity can't be tested at this time

and you can't prove a negative so science should be neutral. There's no evidence for it and none against. Unless and until evidence exists, the question is not a matter for science.

However, the cretion stories and other mythologies of many specific gods and goddesses are demonstrably false.

[immoderate]

32. Can you prove that you can't prove a negative?

I always wonder, because people assert that negative so positively.

--IMM

[LeftyMom]

41. Not at this time

It is funny how that works. ;)

[immoderate]

46. Hear it all the time.

And very few people see the self-contradiction. Now you can pass it on.:hi:

--IMM

[eallen]

49. Many negatives can be proved.

"No map requires more than four colors to keep like colored regions disjoint."

"No mammal has an exoskeleton."

The notion that you can't disprove a negative is rather silly. I suspect most people can't even well-define what counts as a negative statement. Think it's easy? Which of these is a negative:

There are no gods.

Every conscious being is mortal.

[0rganism]

57. Do you require exceptional claims to be backed by exceptional evidence?

For example, if someone were telling you that your dog was an axe-murderer, you would probably brush it off as prima facie ridiculous unless they had some very convincing video evidence, and maybe backed that up with solid forensics showing your dog's toeprints on the murder weapon. It is an exceptional claim -- i.e., it excepts that which we typically observe, like dogs not using tools which require opposable thumbs. Without good evidence, you'd be reluctant to give such assertions any credence whatsoever, even if your dog is known to display some psychopathic tendencies from time to time.

On the other hand, if someone told you the local megastore was having a sale on housewares this weekend, you'd probably believe them up front whether it was true or not. Stores have sales, stores have housewares, it's not uncommon that the two would coincide over a weekend.

If this distinction makes sense to you, would you say that the existence of one or more "standard" dieties (supernaturally powerful, all-knowing, and intimately concerned with human affairs) is more like the exceptional assertion or the ordinary assertion?

[jokerman93]

22. isn't it simple to say...

Isn't it simple to say that the parameters of science are limited only to phenomenon we've developed the ability to measure and test up to this point?

One hundred years ago, the postulates of quantum physics would necessarily have been regarded as metaphysics and outside the purview of science. That has changed with advances in technology. I see no reason to believe that such a pattern won't continue into the future. As it is, there are countless observable phenomena in our universe we've yet to develop adequate measures for.

God?

Well, as "It" is often defined by more mature religious thinkers, is by nature without form. Therefor it can never be directly observed, measured, or proved to exist. However, optimistically, one would be justified in believing that any phenomenon (or created thing if you will) might eventually come within our capacity to measure, study and understand.

So, if you can prove God exists, then it ain't God. Thank you very much. Stay out of my classroom and go back to your church pew. And while your at it, do some penence for your hubris.

[BoneDaddy]

30. True

True, but even Einstein had a great respect for the God concept and it was not mutually exclusive as it is with alot of people.

The bottom line is we do not know. There certainly is an order to the cosmos that is seen in everything. The problem lies with our definition of God.

If it is a question about accepting a mythology of a specific culture, like a male old man with a staff, then absolutely not. But if you are talking about a phenomenon of consciousness that is the entire universe, well yes, I can buy that for now.

[Finder]

55. Einstein was an atheist..

as anyone of his intellect would be.

[eallen]

47. Quantum mechanics started in 1900.

That was when Planck theorized energy was quantized, to explain blackbody radiation, whose divergence from the predictions of classical physics was a 19th century problem. The photoelectric effect was another problem of 19th century physics, solved by quantum means, in a famous paper by Einstein in 1905.

By my calendar, that was all a hundred years past. :)

If someone with a time machine picked up Neils Bohr in 1940 and carried him back to 1850, I suspect he would have no problem demonstrating quantum mechanics to the physicists of that time. While there is a sense in which QM is the physics of the subatomic, in a larger sense, it is the underlying physics of everything. There are edges where classical mechanics breaks down, and in retrospect, knowing where to look, a 20th century physicist could demonstrate those edges to physicists of a century earlier, and show how QM explained them.

[Lexingtonian]

23. It depends on how your religion defines 'God'.

In Kansas they still subscribe to the old pagan European Nature deity/deities, as syncretized at Christian conversion of their pagan ancestors into the forms of Christianity they adhere to. Since their Wotan/Pater Dyeus (though they pretend they adhere to the Israelite El or YHWH, which on careful scrutiny they do not) is a physical Creator deity and still acts through physical Nature and The (physical/psychological) Laws Of Nature, in championing him they're going to keep on running headfirst into what Science has to tell about physical Nature.

If your God is not a Nature theist variety of deity, it tends to be easier to reconcile Him/Her with Science. Modern Anthropology might be another hurdle He/She/It collides with, though.

If your God is nontheistic, is ambiguous but most clearly manifest in human creativity and accessed by the mental faculties we term, very inadequately, Mind and Imagination and such, there is no trouble with Science. The mystics of all religions, and religions that are more or less organized efforts at mysticism (e.g. Zen), find this the only worthwhile God to speak of (though they say God may not be an adequate label for the Other they endeavor to reach). In Ancient Israelite religion this is the aspect of God that is transformative of human life from within and given the label YHWH.

P.S. (on edit): the name 'God' itself is from Germanic for a deity whose name was originally pronounced something like 'Gaut-h', and gave rise to a variety of derivative place and people names, e.g. 'Goth', Gotland, etc. This deity is associated with the western side of the Baltic Sea- perhaps he was an ocean deity. It's possible he derives from the memory of the most traumatic natural event of the region, the ocean breakthrough between what is now the islands of Denmark at the end of the last ice age, drowning a hugh region of lakes and pine forests.

[LiviaOlivia]

24. Future test questions in science and math in Kansas public schools..

Question: What does DNA stand for?
Answer: God.

Question: What is 21 divided by 7?
Answer: God.

Question: Which came first, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Answer: The Bible.

from: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/08/kansas-attacks-evolution-again.html

[eallen]

26. Depends.

A religion that posits a god who created earth 6,000 years ago, or that teaches taht man is biologically unrelated to other life, does indeed conflict with current findings of science. A more circumspect religion that doesn't try to take a stand on empirical issues can steer clear of science.

I think it is a mistake to say that science begins with an assumption of naturalism, and definitely mistaken to say it begins with the assumption of materialism. The more accurate statement is that science doesn't have much to say about beliefs that lack empirical content.

[ShockediSay]

29. I say it does. It's just that most don't fully understand -

don't fully understand science or God, not that anyone does. What I've come to understand recently is this:

The one random infinity that comprises and surrounds everything in existence, including time and space, including dimensions we haven't even discovered yet, are all connected (string theory). If The One Random Infinity is not God, I don't know what is or even comes close.

Stephen Wolfram ("A New Kind of Science") demonstrates that if you give random infinity a chance, it develops its own patterns, a mind of its own, if you will.

With this infinity "all things are possible" (Scripture).

What they don't understand about God in Kansas, is that God created evolution, and the vast majority of truths in Scripture are not literal, but metaphoric. "But without a parable spake he not unto
them" Mark 4:34; see also Matthew 13:13 and the prophecy of Esaias.

Anyway, that's just my theory and what I've found. Do with it what you will.

"Seek and ye shall find"

[manic expression]

61. Not really, however...

science does find the truth in the physical world, that is constant throughout existence. For instance, the fact that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is palpable not only in material physics but in history, in morality, in everything. In this way, the truths of the world around us are within everything.

If there is smoke, one knows there is fire; in this way, one knows there is a deeper level, a higher meaning, the reality of everything.

(here we go again... :D)

[Wizard777]

62. Science and religion were as One in Alchemy.

As an Alchemist, I must represent that their bond was dissolved by the Universal Solvent. They were a yin and yan. They stifled each others growth and development with their territorial bickering's. So the heart of yin was placed in the body of yan and the heart of yan was placed in the body of yin. This was to keep them from killing each other in their constant disputes. Then they were sent their separate ways. The birth of a paradoxical paradigm.

For thousands of years religion dominated science. It wasn't until the establishment of America and the first amendment that science was finally given an equal and separate footing in Customary Law by our Charter. Now the right is trying raise religion above science and take America back to the dark ages of Copernican Theory. Religious beliefs cannot be Constitutionally used as a road block to science. Nor can science be used as a road block to religion. This is regardless of what the majority of America thinks, believes, or knows.

Science is about thinking proving, and knowing. Religion is about thinking, worshiping, and believing. There are burdens of proof that don't exist in religious belief. beliefs are simply accepted or rejected at face value. Very much like advice. But science must be proven. Knowledge can both Confirm and Destroy Beliefs as true or false. But a person can never be forcefully deprived of Beliefs or Knowledge. Belief is a path and Knowledge is it's destination. One is useless without the other. They are most effective when they work together as equals. So therefore the dictates of religion should not be forced upon a person. Neither should the dictates of science. A Free Thinker living with Free Will must be free to choose what they will believe and know. Anything else is mind control or white slavery's invisible chains. You can create a Mindless Zombie you can also create an Educated Zombie. Both are the mind controlled slaves of their masters. Neither Master is benevolent. Even if the Masters that rule by Knowledge can be said to be kind and generous in their givings of enrichment. They are still masters of slaves. Just like those who rule their slaves by the ignorance if the mind they destroyed. Freedom only exist in a personal choice.

In this day and age science is proving some of the ancient religious beliefs to be true. Like hair being a form of memory, the upward spiraling creative force of God, and Jacobs Ladder. In terms of DNA this is now known and proven to be true. Yet the beliefs still exist for some, other accept both, and some have left the path of belief to stand squarely upon the destination of Knowledge. Eventually science will prove the existence of God. It may step on some false beliefs in it's quest. But religion is not opposed to casting down false beliefs thar lead to false Gods. But by the decree of the Universal Solvent(God ;) )The scientist shall not mention his name in their exploration of his creation and it's workings until they can find no other explanation for His creation. We are not even close to that. So let the Thomas' do their doubting. Let them continue to ask for miracles to analyze, come to understand, and reproduce. Do not reject these gifts of the Maji. They are in reality God's gifts to mankind. A reward for reaching a destination closer to Him. :)

[TWiley]

68. Since the "Intelligent Designer" could NOT have been Designed

by a different Intelligent Designer without loosing his Intelligent Designer status, then the conclusion is that the intelligent designer must have EVOLVED.