Science Minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If you're going to pretend that you actually have an understanding of science (which you clearly don't), it would help your ruse if you referred to it by its correct name, thermodynamics.

Simply awesome.

A belief that "stuff" simply has always been is just as appropriate.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by T@T

How many years did it take the Catholic Church to accept that? Fact is they had too, they looked like total idiots in refuting it. If it works for you then great! but it doesn't for me.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. By path of least resistance I am meaning the path of least conflict and most reconciliation between people and their beliefs.

My point in bringing this up was to show that even if the upper echelons of one of the most ancient and historically hardline religions of our civilization can change and learn to accept new ideas or possibilities or ways of thinking, that other religions can too.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If your imagination is big enough to believe something came from nothing or order from disorder why can't you see the possibility that one religion out of the million plus on this planet might be right or even they are wrong and God is unrevealed? Doesn't current scientific observation conflict with something coming from nothing or order arising from chaos?

There are three possibilities:

1. Everything came from nothing(hardly compatable with science)

2. Stuff has always exist and is merely changeing and becoming more complexed and ordered (means the law of thermal dynamics is wrong)

3. Something beyond our observation made the order we now see(unproveable scientifically)

Being convinced of any of these requires trust in an unknown. Your evolutionary theory and my faith are built on a trust in one of these. One or two is required as a foundation for evolution. Your world view is built upon it. Three naturally is the foundation of my world view. My observation of the natural world is built upon that foundational belief.

Uh, no. Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe was created, it doesn't matter where 'everything' came from. Evolution merely discusses how life continues to evolve and change.
Technically, the theory of evolution doesn't even care how life was created to begin with; I can believe that life on earth was created by Nazi Germans who built a time machine and took bacteria back 3.5 billion years into the past; taken by itself this belief doesn't contradict anything within the theory of evolution. See, the problem that Creationists have when they look at evolution is that they assume that it's one big answer to all the questions. That's not the way science works. Evolution answers a very specific set of questions, and answers them extremely well.

And you're completely misusing the laws of thermodynamics; I'm guessing that you're referencing the second law (about the entropy of a closed thermodynamic system)? Life on earth is not a closed thermodynamic system. If you're referencing a different law, I'd be curious to know which.

[Canada 02]

nvm

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If your imagination is big enough to believe something came from nothing or order from disorder why can't you see the possibility that one religion out of the million plus on this planet might be right or even they are wrong and God is unrevealed?

I don't think it's a question of imagination being big enough or not big enough, I'm sure everyone can imagine a God that created the universe. There's simply no good reason to believe so.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Doesn't current scientific observation conflict with something coming from nothing or order arising from chaos?

Something coming from nothing and order arising from chaos don't conflict with science at all, in fact science predicts these things and they are demonstrated experimentally.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are three possibilities:

1. Everything came from nothing(hardly compatable with science)

2. Stuff has always exist and is merely changeing and becoming more complexed and ordered (means the law of thermal dynamics is wrong)

3. Something beyond our observation made the order we now see(unproveable scientifically)

This is a false dichotomy (well a false trichotomy). There are far more possibilities than you propose.

Science doesn't claim everything came from nothing by the way, and things becoming more complex and ordered doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Being convinced of any of these requires trust in an unknown. Your evolutionary theory and my faith are built on a trust in one of these. One or two is required as a foundation for evolution. Your world view is built upon it. Three naturally is the foundation of my world view. My observation of the natural world is built upon that foundational belief.

Your concept of convinced may require trust in the unknown, however that isn't a scientific kind of knowledge. Read what I posted earlier: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

In science all knowledge is provisional. So it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of going where the evidence leads.

You seem to conflate evolutionary theory and cosmology and physics all together as if they are all the same thing; they aren't.

Evolution doesn't require something from nothing, it also doesn't go against the 2nd law.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Your argument fails to Occam's razor. You're trying to "explain" something -- that is, make a simplified account of its workings -- by postulating an even more complex unknown -- God -- that you do not explain at all. No matter how much you try to make that sound scientific by throwing around big words and sounding conciliatory, it is not.

It is also not falsifiable, unless I'm missing something. Frankly I think of most religious claims as falsifiable in the sense that we postulate a more rational, provable claim and then verify it, which by extension casts extreme doubt on the "God did it" explanation.

Fair enough. Here's my point: we cannot travel back in time to test either supernatural or natural creation.

Highly intelligent theoretical physicists are working on it, obviously from a natural perspective. This makes sense. This is commendable. But, it's still theory. And last I checked, I don't understand it whatsoever -- that's frustrating! (And if you don't understand how God could: create the universe, deem it "good," create humanity, grant humanity free will, allow humanity to disobey him, allow the Earth to become "fallen" due to humanity's sin, give humanity many chances to follow Him, and eventually give humanity the ultimate chance, His Son, Jesus, who came and died and will one day come again once and for all [slightly abridged version of some of my beliefs] ..... then maybe we have something in common. Confusion!)

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Are you an expert on theoretical physics?

No, I am not.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

No? Shocking. You can "personally put" anything you want on par with anything else you want, but it doesn't make you an expert nor someone that anyone should listen to as an expert. There are people who've devoted their entire lives to the study of these ideas and to denigrate them with your armchair, recreational "well what ifs" is insulting to them and to the real study of science.

At what point did I say I was an expert?

Further to the point, on what grounds are you any more of and expert in this field than I am? Why should someone listen to what you say? You defend those who devote their whole lives to theoretical sciences as though they need defending. I threw my viewpoint out there for the world (admittedly, less articulately than I would've liked) with the hope of some decent discussion, and you respond somewhat defensively. If you felt as though I was attacking you, well, all I can say is that I was not.

I did not insult the work of theoretical physicists anywhere. I have nothing against them or their work. I can understand how some people have a hard time believing in supernatural creation, and by default defer to the expertise of these many unseen, toiling geniuses. I get it. The thing is, and I will say it again, in my opinion ... in all their genius (goodness knows it's a lot), if they cannot come up with an explanation I can understand, why should I be interested? Should a person require a master's in theoretical physics in order to hold a plausible theory for "creation" they can accept? I think not. Others can make up their own mind.

Until something big changes, or I'm way behind here, the fact remains: those who believe in but don't understand the innerworkings of theoretical Big Bang science put faith in those who do that it is a.) plausible, and b.) "correct". Those who believe in supernatural creation put their faith in (often some combination of) centuries of belief and critique, holy books, oral tradition, spiritual feelings or encounters, theologians, preists, bishops, pastors, monks, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Yeah, maybe "God" caused the Big Bang. For that to be a worthwhile explanation to anyone, you have to then explain what God is and what created God. The only argument I ever hear about that is "well he just IS" or "it says it in the Bible", at which point it is no longer scientific and no longer useful in a scientific context. You're free to think what you want but you can't dress it up pseudo-scientific lingo and parade it about as scientific. It is not.

OK. It isn't "scientific". Did I even imply that it was? Obviously, none of this is proven or even 100% provable... that's the whole reason people still discuss it so regularly and so fervently. Or are you suggesting that the Big Bang Theory is proven?

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Scientific discovery brings progress to our world via its unyielding principles. It has brought us to where we are because it doesn't compromise and go "well I can't quite get this, must be God". It doesn't posit wishy-washy, feel-good conciliatory theories with no basis in reality. You're free to hold those opinions but it doesn't make you rational or scientific, so stop pretending like you are. You're making Faith-based claims, end of story.

Yes I am. I absolutely did not intend to represent my position as doing anything other than. If it came off that way, I'm gladly admitting to my mistake right now. My question in response is, "So, what?".

My original post was trying to deal with a discrepancy I noticed in some users' arguments. Basically, the crux of it was squashed quite thoroughly with fishman's expertly succinct touch. The portion that you deemed 'pseudo-science' was a VERY GENERAL possible scenario, nothing more.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by T@T

To save time I'll just refer you to this website for your answers.

http://www.skepticreport.com/creatio...onistshate.htm

That appears a list of things that "literal creationists" hate, of which i am certainly not. And then at that, the things on that list (I didn't read the whole list) only apply if your read the Bible even more literally then the "literal creationists" do. Seriously, things are problems only because they aren't mentioned? That's taking the literalism pretty far - further then any literal creationist I've ever heard.

[photon]

Originally Posted by OBCT

Until something big changes, or I'm way behind here, the fact remains: those who believe in but don't understand the innerworkings of theoretical Big Bang science put faith in those who do that it is a.) plausible, and b.) "correct". Those who believe in supernatural creation put their faith in (often some combination of) centuries of belief and critique, holy books, oral tradition, spiritual feelings or encounters, theologians, preists, bishops, pastors, monks, etc, etc.

Well actually I would disagree, those who believe what science says aren't having faith on what science says, they're accepting the strength of science itself.. science doesn't say things lightly or without support, so if something has passed through peer review and attained the status of a theory, I know that it has explanatory power, has made predictions that have been confirmed, etc.. So there's no faith involved.

Originally Posted by OBCT

OK. It isn't "scientific". Did I even imply that it was? Obviously, none of this is proven or even 100% provable... that's the whole reason people still discuss it so regularly and so fervently. Or are you suggesting that the Big Bang Theory is proven?

No theory is ever proven, proof is for mathematics, not science.

Big Bang Theory is VERY well supported.

The common misconception though is that the big bang is about the origin of the universe; it isn't it's about the history of the universe from very early in time to now. We don't have any good theory about the origin of the universe (lots of hypothesis), and we probably won't until we have a good theory that incorporates both quantum theory and gravity.

[MarchHare]

those who believe in but don't understand the innerworkings of theoretical Big Bang science put faith in those who do that it is a.) plausible, and b.) "correct". Those who believe in supernatural creation put their faith in (often some combination of) centuries of belief and critique, holy books, oral tradition, spiritual feelings or encounters, theologians, preists, bishops, pastors, monks, etc, etc.

I don't put my faith in people, I put my "faith" in a tried and tested process.

I might not be able to read Stephen Hawking's latest scientific journal publication about cosmology and understand all of it, but I trust that there are other expert physicists who can. Through the process of peer review, those experts will then pick apart his findings and determine if his methodology and conclusions are logical and sound. That's the beauty of science: it's self-correcting. If a theory is wrong, other scientists will eventually figure that out, and that's why I trust the scientific method.

[Edit]
photon beat me by less than a minute!

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Just because he finds an idea to be unpleasant doesn't make it any less true.

I'm shocked that he finds the idea of non-life producing life to be too large of a leap of faith, but he now (apparently) readily accepts as fact the existance of an invisible all-powerful magical space fairy who created everything without there being any evidence whatsoever to support that claim. One would be hard-pressed to find a worse example of intellectual dishonesty than that.

Intellectually dishonest is not something Lee Strobel is, his story should confirm that, even to the biggest skeptic. He was an atheist (as mentioned) who set out to prove Christianity wrong - he went REALLY deep into all the facts, perhaps deeper then all but a few have ever gone, and he came out of it realizing that he could not in good conscience remain an atheist, as the facts he found were far too much in favour of the alternate. His quote posted here is a very short summary of all he researched. If you would read his books, he would explain these things I assume (I've read some of them).

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Intellectually dishonest is not something Lee Strobel is, his story should confirm that, even to the biggest skeptic. He was an atheist (as mentioned) who set out to prove Christianity wrong - he went REALLY deep into all the facts, perhaps deeper then all but a few have ever gone, and he came out of it realizing that he could not in good conscience remain an atheist, as the facts he found were far too much in favour of the alternate. His quote posted here is a very short summary of all he researched. If you would read his books, he would explain these things I assume (I've read some of them).

Most scientists are Athiests, but most Athiests are not scientists.

His research does not necessarily mean much if he does not possess the educational background necessary to fully understand it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't put my faith in people, I put my "faith" in a tried and tested process.

I might not be able to read Stephen Hawking's latest scientific journal publication about cosmology and understand all of it, but I trust that there are other expert physicists who can. Through the process of peer review, those experts will then pick apart his findings and determine if his methodology and conclusions are logical and sound. That's the beauty of science: it's self-correcting. If a theory is wrong, other scientists will eventually figure that out, and that's why I trust the scientific method.

[Edit]
photon beat me by less than a minute!

We can get in a plane and feel safe, even though most of us don't understand all the science about how a plane works. You still have to have "faith" in people - ie that the pilot knows what he is doing.

[REDVAN]

I found this website online, it deals with whether there are any gods or not....

THE OFFICIAL GOD FAQ

edit: I am an agnostic, but I am bordering on atheism because I think religious zealots need to be shown that they are wrong. I have nothing against people who are moderates.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Most scientists are Athiests, but most Athiests are not scientists.

His research does not necessarily mean much if he does not possess the educational background necessary to fully understand it.

He has degrees in journalism and law. Certainly a educational background enough to understand more than enough, and to research what he doesn't understand.

I should say that I don't even really care for his books, they are too modern (rather than postmodern) for me. Too much trying to "proove" scientifically, when like it's been mentioned, it's not possible.

[photon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Intellectually dishonest is not something Lee Strobel is, his story should confirm that, even to the biggest skeptic. He was an atheist (as mentioned) who set out to prove Christianity wrong - he went REALLY deep into all the facts, perhaps deeper then all but a few have ever gone, and he came out of it realizing that he could not in good conscience remain an atheist, as the facts he found were far too much in favour of the alternate. His quote posted here is a very short summary of all he researched. If you would read his books, he would explain these things I assume (I've read some of them).

Lee Strobel also isn't a scientist, he's an apologist. Great if you are interested in apologetics but not so much if you are interested in science.

Calgaryborn's quote of Lee Strobel's would indicate he's woefully uninformed in that area.

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

We can get in a plane and feel safe, even though most of us don't understand all the science about how a plane works. You still have to have "faith" in people - ie that the pilot knows what he is doing.

I know via evidence that the airline has ensured that the pilot has had adequate training, is rested, isn't drunk, etc.. And that the government has regulations in place to ensure the airline does these things.

To have faith would be to grab a random person off the street and believe it's going to get where it's supposed to go.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

He has degrees in journalism and law. Certainly a educational background enough to understand more than enough, and to research what he doesn't understand.

I should say that I don't even really care for his books, they are too modern (rather than postmodern) for me. Too much trying to "proove" scientifically, when like it's been mentioned, it's not possible.

Journalism and Law are not Theology and Physics.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

He has degrees in journalism and law. Certainly a educational background enough to understand more than enough, and to research what he doesn't understand.

Because someone has education does not directly mean their voice has weight in this matter.

Having a solid understanding of the issues does.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

Calgaryborn's quote of Lee Strobel's would indicate he's woefully uninformed in that area.

Again, the quote is just a brief summary of a much in depth book. Is the quote simplistic or maybe a little bit of hyberbole? Sure. That doesn't mean he's uninformed in the area.

[MarchHare]

He has degrees in journalism and law. Certainly a educational background enough to understand more than enough, and to research what he doesn't understand.

I wouldn't trust brilliant physicists like Einstein or Hawking to have expert knowledge of genetics and evolution, so why would I trust a lawyer/journalist to have an expert opinion about cosmology?