NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[MarchHare]

It's not a proven theory, it's just a theory

[...]

It's an unproven theory that many scientists have put their faith in.

(Btw, I have a science degree and am classified as a scientist for my occupation. I'm not debating this from an anti-science point of view.)

I've mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it really bothers me when someone dismisses something in science as "just a theory". The word 'theory', in science, does not mean the same as the words 'hypothesis', 'postulate' or 'conjecture', even though all of those words are often used synonymously in popular English usage. This is something you ought to have learned at some point during your science degree -- if not at the high school or middle school level.

Also, scientists don't "put their faith" in anything. That's the exact opposite of the scientific method. They choose to accept the best current theory backed by empirical evidence until such a point that a better theory emerges.

From wikipedia:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

I think one of the biggest issues in this debate is scientists have a very precise definition of what something means when they call it a theory (described in the first quoted paragraph above) while popular usage means something quite different (the second paragraph). That's what leads to people dismissing well-developed scientific principles such as evolution or the big bang as "just a theory, not fact".

As Hakan correctly noted above, nothing is ever proven in science.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Cheese

As far as "good Christian ethics" goes...would you care to cite a few of these specific ethics attributable to Christians?

I think it would be pointless for me to start repeating what is well documented in the literature. A good source for this would be Wikipedia.

You seem to be particularly concerned with the effect of religion on children. As I mentioned in another thread, I am a former Sunday School teacher of a youth group in the United Church of Canada. In our teaching we used to emphasize 3 things:

1. Love - God, themselves and their neighbour

2. Serve or help others, especially those in need. Here we used the 3 "t"'s. They could do this by giving their time, talents and treasure (money).

3. Always tell the truth

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it really bothers me when someone dismisses something in science as "just a theory". The word 'theory', in science, does not mean the same as the words 'hypothesis', 'postulate' or 'conjecture', even though all of those words are often used synonymously in popular English usage. This is something you ought to have learned at some point during your science degree -- if not at the high school or middle school level.

Also, scientists don't "put their faith" in anything. That's the exact opposite of the scientific method. They choose to accept the best current theory backed by empirical evidence until such a point that a better theory emerges.

.

And you should know that for something to be considered scientifically valid, it has to be observable and reproducable. The Big Bang theory is neither. It's not like evolution theories that are observable by forcing selection. The Big Bang, as well as the Big Crunch are 2 theories that cannot be proven (not even close in fact). Do you disagree with that?

I'm not saying that "it's just a theory". I am completely aware of scientific method and how it derrives theories. What I am saying is that within the scientific community, the Big Bang does not have enough evidence to be considered science fact (even NASA agrees, yet you don't for some reason). Despite this, it is generally accepted. That is faith my friend.

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.

While very few researchers now doubt the Big Bang occurred, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models.

The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, the formation of galaxies—are derived from many independent observations including Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae, and can hardly be doubted as important and real features of our universe.

Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various exotic physical phenomena that have not been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, dark energy and dark matter are considered the most secure, while inflation and baryogenesis remain speculative: they provide satisfying explanations for important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.[39] Explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.

And there is much evidence that doesn't support it (such as the horizon problem, and the lack of dark matter).

Like I said, the Big Bang theory is full of hypotheticals. Since many aspects of it do not meet the laws of physics as we know them, scientists have pretty much stated that "if" laws of physics were slightly different at the beginning of exapansion, then that would account for the horizon problem and lack of dark matter.

But the thing is, no one has yet come up with theories that explain why or how those properties would be different... yet to make the Big Bang theory work for them, they have calcualted that into their models. Again, that is a faith issue, not a science one.

New Scientist magazine had a little bit on this a couple of years ago that explains it better:

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...mg18524911.600

[troutman]

dark energy and dark matter are considered the most secure, while inflation and baryogenesis remain speculative: they provide satisfying explanations for important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by evman150

FlamesAddiction, this one's for you:

"Anything you don't understand you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it."

****, I mean why even bother trying to understand something when obviously we can't? "It's not a proven theory"....you sound like those moronic evangelicals who say that about evolution. Let's all just live in caves and communicate with grunts.

And for a "scientist" (I'd like to know what you do and what your degree is in, just because my interest is piqued), you seem pretty anti-science.

Why is that for me? I don't used God to explain anything about the natural world. I don't even follow a religion. I'm agnostic.

My degree is in Environmental Science with a concentration in GIS if you must know.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think it would be pointless for me to start repeating what is well documented in the literature. A good source for this would be Wikipedia.

You seem to be particularly concerned with the effect of religion on children. As I mentioned in another thread, I am a former Sunday School teacher of a youth group in the United Church of Canada. In our teaching we used to emphasize 3 things:

1. Love - God, themselves and their neighbour

2. Serve or help others, especially those in need. Here we used the 3 "t"'s. They could do this by giving their time, talents and treasure (money).

3. Always tell the truth

Funny, I don't there there is a "GOD" and I teach my children,

1. Love - themselves and their neighbour

2. Serve or help others, especially those in need. Here we used the 3 "t"'s. They could do this by giving their time, talents and treasure (money).

3. Always tell the truth.


No need for me to inject a god or any other unifying force to teach my children how to be good people.
________
VAPIR OXYGEN

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

dark energy and dark matter are considered the most secure, while inflation and baryogenesis remain speculative: they provide satisfying explanations for important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.

Exactly my point. Too many hypotheticals to be fact at this point. I actually do believe the Big Bang theory until something better comes along, but I would certainly never say it is fact.

So wouldn't you say that believing in something that is not proven as fact does not require faith?

[MarchHare]

And you should know that for something to be considered scientifically valid, it has to be observable and reproducable. The Big Bang theory is neither. It's not like evolution theories that are observable by forcing selection. The Big Bang, as well as the Big Crunch are 2 theories that cannot be proven (not even close in fact). Do you disagree with that?

As I noted above, nothing in science is ever proven. Your question is invalid.

And as troutman and others have posted, there is ample empirical evidence to support the big bang theory.

the Big Bang does not have enough evidence to be considered science fact

Again, there's no such thing as "science fact". By your standard, atomic theory and quantum mechanics would also be unacceptable, since we can't observe the interaction of electrons and other sub-atomic particles directly.

even NASA agrees, yet you don't for some reason

I'd like to know who wrote that quotation you posted from the NASA website. Was it a scientifically-trained astrophysicist, or was it an administrator appointed by the Bush administration? It certainly doesn't sound like something a scientist would say; it very much sounds like something a Bush flunkie who doesn't want to offend the Religious Right would say.

Despite this, it is generally accepted. That is faith my friend.

It most certainly is not "faith". Scientists are prepared to very quickly abandon the big bang theory if a better alternative model emerges that is supported with empirical evidence.

[MarchHare]

I actually do believe the Big Bang theory until something better comes along, but I would certainly never say it is fact.

And every scientist would agree with you. Where have any of us said anything to the contrary?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Exactly my point. Too many hypotheticals to be fact at this point. I actually do believe the Big Bang theory until something better comes along, but I would certainly never say it is fact.

So wouldn't you say that believing in something that is not proven as fact does not require faith?

I don't "believe" in Big Bang Theory. I understand it is a theory supported by ample evidence. This is nothing like religious faith.

On "faith:"

http://skepdic.com/faith.html

Those of us who are atheists and believe that everything evolved from natural forces, nearly universally maintain that theists and supernaturalists have a very weak case for their belief, weaker even than the case for Bigfoot, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus. But, more important, we are convinced by the overwhelming nature of the evidence that natural forces have brought about the universe as we know it. Thus, our disbelief in a supernatural creator is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists. However, if Christian apologists insist on claiming that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith.

[metal_geek]

I don't "believe" in the Big Bang Theory, is the END of mankinds evolution of knowledge, I "believe" it's the next logical step for mankind after using the countless past theorys of all powerful "Creator(s)".
________
Life Saber Vaporizer

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And every scientist would agree with you. Where have any of us said anything to the contrary?

My point is that it takes a degree of faith to believe something is true even if it is not proven. I used the Big Bang as the easist example because not only is it lacking in evidence compared to most other scientific theories, but it is full of "ifs" that put it in a completely different group altogether.

And if you don't like the NASA quote, then look at the one I put from New Scientist. It basically says the same thing. The BB theory relies on changing the nature of physics in order for it to work. For me, that makes it at the very least a pseudo-scientific theory. Not quite supernatural, but not quite science either. The bottom line is that in order to make the BB theory work, scientists have to assume without evidence that the laws of physics were different at one point. I'm perfectly fine with that idea, but what it the difference between that and faith (or a flying spaghetti man)?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

This I have a problem with... language evolves as does knowledge. For God to use modern day terms when speaking with the Jews 2000+ years ago, no one would have understood what he was saying. Instead he used words that had meaning then and have meaning now. The jist of it is the same, the specifics change. Why weren't dinosaurs in the Bible? (As an example...) Well, they'd never seen dinosaur bones. Why confuse them?

Is it changing the dogma, or is it using the things we now KNOW (that'd be where science comes in!) that we didn't know before to help explain what is written? You've apparently already decided it's changing the dogma, but perhaps that's too narrow a view of the Word.

In Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, Dan Barker writes:

There is a place in the Bible where God says, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15-16)
To the fundamentalist, liberal Christians are worse than atheists. I remembered having despised liberals who have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” and who offer more of a temptation away from devout faith than any atheist could pose. At least with atheists, you know where they stand. Attempting to learn what a liberal Christian believes is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

Or this...

Brian Flemming, the director of the documentary The God Who Wasn’t There posted his thoughts on a debate he had with some other panel members, “a mix of conservative Christians, liberal Christians and freethinkers.”

Liberal Christianity, despite being non-hateful and on many issues even ethical, is hopelessly incoherent, however. Liberal Christianity says a perfect God wrote a perfect book–but he made mistakes. Or, alternately, liberal Christianity says the book is an extremely flawed and even disgusting work written by men–but special attention should still be paid to it. Liberal Christianity says religion shouldn’t stand in the way of science–but a dead man did really rise from the dead. Probably. Or, at least, it’s not unreasonable to believe that he did (or that he turned water into wine and walked on water). Liberal Christianity says the love of Jesus is the only way to Heaven–but if some people don’t believe that, it’s fine to let their deluded souls go off to Hell without even trying to stop them. Or maybe Heaven and Hell don’t exist at all–but it’s still very, very important to praise this figure called “God.” For some reason.

[MarchHare]

My point is that it takes a degree of faith to believe something is true even if it is not proven.

I think we need to define what each of us mean when we use the word "faith". For me, it is a non-rational belief in something which lacks empirical evidence. For example, a Christian might say, "I know there is no evidence concerning the existance of God, but I have faith that he exists."

So by my definition, it most certainly does not require a degree of "faith" to accept that the big bang theory is the best available model to explain the origin of the universe, since there is ample empiricial evidence to support it. No, it is not a complete theory, and yes, there are areas where further research is necessary, but nobody has ever claimed anything to the contrary.

As for the principles of physics breaking down at the big bang, that itself is an entire field of study, one to which Stephan Hawking (most famously) has persued for his entire scientific career. It is postulated that creating a theory that combines general relativity with quantum mechanics could explain this, but as of yet, no theory has been developed.

troutman's last post with the below quoted text (which I will repeat for emphais) accurately describes how I view the concept of "faith".

Those of us who are atheists and believe that everything evolved from natural forces, nearly universally maintain that theists and supernaturalists have a very weak case for their belief, weaker even than the case for Bigfoot, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus. But, more important, we are convinced by the overwhelming nature of the evidence that natural forces have brought about the universe as we know it. Thus, our disbelief in a supernatural creator is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists. However, if Christian apologists insist on claiming that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think it would be pointless for me to start repeating what is well documented in the literature. A good source for this would be Wikipedia.

You seem to be particularly concerned with the effect of religion on children. As I mentioned in another thread, I am a former Sunday School teacher of a youth group in the United Church of Canada. In our teaching we used to emphasize 3 things:

1. Love - God, themselves and their neighbour

2. Serve or help others, especially those in need. Here we used the 3 "t"'s. They could do this by giving their time, talents and treasure (money).

3. Always tell the truth

As mentioned above...none of what you say here can be attributed specifically to Christians...as an ex Sunday School teacher why cant you explain further what I asked before?

As far as "good Christian ethics" goes...would you care to cite a few of the specific ethics attributable to Christians?

I certainly go out of my way to help my fellow man, neighbor, or stranger, always.
I serve many by volunteering on a regular basis and Chairing more than one organization that help thousands of individuals. I also donate to Charity regularily.
I try to tell the truth always. (There are times when you must bend the rule slightly if it might actually hurt someone)

None of this is an attribute of any theistic dogma...it is standard morals we are born with and good upbringing....oh and yes, children are my number one priority.

What are the "well documented" Christian attributes?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is absolutely no evidence out there that will 'disprove' the existence of God.

You can't argue 'facts' about something that requires 'faith.'

Also, there are a lot of religious people that change their viewpoint. Just like there are a lot of atheists that find a belief in God.

Zealots exist on both sides....idiots exist on both sides. Only arrogance would keep you from realizing that.

We can certainly agree on the lack of evidence for God, and the "fact" that one must have "faith" to believe in something that lacks proof? As mentioned above that certainly does not fall on the shoulders of an atheist to explain.
Christians who change their viewpoint usually change because the flavor they have chosen doesnt satisfy their idea of what God should be. (See my comments to Firefly regarding thoughts on Liberal Christianity). There certainly are FAR fewer Atheists turning to Christianity than the other way around.
Zealots certainly do exist on both sides...I guess it depends what you are arguing? Faith or Reality?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

In Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, Dan Barker writes:

There is a place in the Bible where God says, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15-16)
To the fundamentalist, liberal Christians are worse than atheists. I remembered having despised liberals who have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” and who offer more of a temptation away from devout faith than any atheist could pose. At least with atheists, you know where they stand. Attempting to learn what a liberal Christian believes is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

Or this...

Brian Flemming, the director of the documentary The God Who Wasn’t There posted his thoughts on a debate he had with some other panel members, “a mix of conservative Christians, liberal Christians and freethinkers.”

Liberal Christianity, despite being non-hateful and on many issues even ethical, is hopelessly incoherent, however. Liberal Christianity says a perfect God wrote a perfect book–but he made mistakes. Or, alternately, liberal Christianity says the book is an extremely flawed and even disgusting work written by men–but special attention should still be paid to it. Liberal Christianity says religion shouldn’t stand in the way of science–but a dead man did really rise from the dead. Probably. Or, at least, it’s not unreasonable to believe that he did (or that he turned water into wine and walked on water). Liberal Christianity says the love of Jesus is the only way to Heaven–but if some people don’t believe that, it’s fine to let their deluded souls go off to Hell without even trying to stop them. Or maybe Heaven and Hell don’t exist at all–but it’s still very, very important to praise this figure called “God.” For some reason.

Not sure what that has to do with what I wrote about. If you had the hours it would take me to explain my beliefs, you'd know that they're quite nailed down.

Do you think fundamentalists outnumber 'liberal Christians' or is that just the perception due to how loud and ignorant they are?

This 'panel'... how many peopel were on it? It seems to me that if it's a panel, it's probably a rather small sampling of people which would not be an accurate representation of the Christian population as a whole.

But then I've never claimed to be your average 'liberal Christian'. Maybe I should get a whole new category?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

Funny, I don't there there is a "GOD" and I teach my children,

1. Love - themselves and their neighbour

2. Serve or help others, especially those in need. Here we used the 3 "t"'s. They could do this by giving their time, talents and treasure (money).

3. Always tell the truth.


No need for me to inject a god or any other unifying force to teach my children how to be good people.

I don't doubt you are doing a good job, as a parent, in teaching your children how to be good people. However, you and I both know this does not always happen in the home, for whatever reason. Often kids are left to develop a less desirable sense of ethics and morality through exposure to bad parenting.

Whether they learn the things outlined above in the home, with or without God, or at Church with God, I'm alright with.

My point is that Church's do good things for children, especially for those that are disadvantaged by poor conditions at home.