Yeah, heard about that movie, but haven't had the chance to see it.

Let me just say this, then I'll stop. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science (by many definitions, including the US Supreme Court).

Why? Because for a statement or proposal to be science, it must make testable predictions. Intelligent Design folk will say this has been designed and that has been designed. Then what? What else does ID predict that we can test?

In contrast, evolution by natural selection makes numerous predictions that are being tested by hundreds (thousands!) of scientists all over the world.

I asked the Center for Creation Research what textbook we would use if they won their court cases and got ID to be taught with "equal time" with evolution. Apparently there isn't any. Why? Because all ID can do is say this was designed and that was designed. Nothing more. That's why they need to point out the flaws of evolutionary theory (yes, it doesn't explain everything and that's why there are many PhDs doing their dissertations on these problems).

If you are interested in reading about a good example of how evolution might work (and an example that creationists like to point out---the origin of the eye), read "Climbing Mount Improbable" which explains how the eye likely evolved. One interesting point made in the book is that the eye is far from the best design for a seeing organ---so much for an "intelligent" designer.

 

Mini sized feet to boot

 

My overall view of how the world "works" is that it is constantly fluid, dynamic, and changing. Evolution fits quite naturally with my way of looking at things. The notion that life forms may have transformed completely over time -- I have absolutely no problem with it. But some people do have a problem with it, and what is the difference between us?

One aspect is that there is a fundamental attitude of seeing the world as dynamic vs static, and I feel different religions and philosophies tend towards one or the other view. I'd put Christianity in the static view and Buddhism in the dynamic. You don't find many Buddhists in an uproar over evolutionary theory. I feel it is also a static view that delayed acceptance of continental drift and other scientific ideas.

When I've talked with people who don't believe in evolution, they bring out arguments that the evidence isn't convincing, but I sense that their true objection is that they feel that the idea of evolution is degrading to the beauty and sanctity of life. I don't happen to feel that way but I think that the nature of some religions will steer followers towards that view. Personally I find evolutionary theory to be convincing and compelling. For those who don't, I feel it is not so much the science but a fundamental clash with some other part of their belief system.

 

Nice!

 

Again, remember that this "group" we have started here is not just made up of Atheists. I fall into the Agnostic category with an Atheist tilt. I am not ashamed or afraid to admit that I just don't know the answers, don't believe that any one human does, and am open to the possibility that perhaps more than one party may in fact be "right" at the same time.

My Atheist/Evolutionist tilt became more pronounced when I became an avid scuba diver some years ago. Spending hundreds of hours studying reef eco systems is not unlike watching evolution in fast forward in some ways.

All that said, my attitude towards MINI cars can certainly be described as religious sometimes. It's kinda hard to define religion. The actual definition of the word itself can be very restricting IMHO.

Here is one of many definitions that happens to fit our purpose..."A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

 

I'm sure you could find someone somewhere who does not believe in a god, but has another explanation for how life came to be. Such a belief might involve space aliens, for example.

However, an atheist is more likely to have a type of belief in evolution that is different than the type of belief common to religions. When something is believed to be true in science, it means that the body of knowledge currently available points to it being true. This kind of belief is open to further evidence altering the belief. Religious belief tends to be more fixed, and less open to modification.

I guess that would depend on the meaning of "Higher Beings." I wont go further because a discussion of whether an extraterrestrial is a god, or whether god is an extraterrestrial, would be discussion of religion, and therefore taboo on NAM.

This depends on how broadly one defines atheism. Generally, I would say that the belief in anything supernatural is not compatible with atheism.

In the movie Star Trek IV, Spok quotes the Vulcan philosoper, T'Plana-Hath, who said, "Nothing unreal exists." This seems to me to be a good expression of what atheism is about.

They don't. Cults are groups who share religious beliefs. That excludes atheists.

This is an old sifi theme. I recall seeing a film with such a plot in the early 1960's and I suspect it was found in novels much earlier in the 20th century.

Evolution is a scientific theory and can be discussed on its own. Creationism is a religious belief. Essentially, what you are saying is that you are incapable of discussing a scientific theory without interjecting religion.

The accuracy of any scientific theory can be discussed without religion coming into it. Such a dialog is pretty much constant in science. A scientific theory, such as evolution or relativity, is constantly being tested. As it is tested it is refined. This is how science works. If a scientist finds evidence to alter or disprove a theory, a paper is published for others to examine. Others then evaluate the evidence, try to reproduce experiments, look for further examples of evidence, evaluate, etc. and contribute what they find. This process continues, and expands our knowledge on the subject. It can lead to a complete discrediting of the theory, a refinement of the theory, or a reinforcement of the theory.

What some people fail to understand is that science is a process, not a set of dogma. It is a disipline designed to try and find the truth about how our universe functions. If a scientific theory, such as evolution, sting theory, relativity, etc. were completely disproved, it would not threaten the process called science.

Since the existence of god/s cannot be proved or disproved through scientific means, then it is outside the realm of science.

 

Here is an interesting article about the "champion of atheism", Richard Dawkins:

In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design......
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this......

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.

Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins belives in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?


Aliens? So how do you think life started?

 

Jiminni, just because there is no current, widely-accepted explanation for the origin of life, it doesn't follow that life must have originated by supernatural cause.

The history of our understanding of the natural world is full of examples of phenomena and events that were once attributed to supernatural causes, but then were later revealed to be quite natural---fire, electricity, disease, mental illness, movements of the planets, and on and on.

Science has several explanations for how life may have originated. There was a recent Scientific American issue on the topic.

I suspect though that even if one day scientists are able to reproduce life in the lab to demonstrate how it could have originated, there would still be doubters who would say that life did not start that way, because they will never accept a natural explanation for the origin of life. (I know someone who doesn't accept that disease has natural causes---it is something that just happens to "bad" people! )

 

I've never understood why the creationists attack evolution because it doesn't explain the origin of life. That's not what the theory of evolution is about.

But then, even if life can be reproduced in a lab, I still don't think that would prove the absence of God.

 

Correct. An no one says it would.

 

haha - I think someone would say it does. I just wouldn't agree with them.

 

A Zen master once sat and listened to a lecture about Christian theology. After two days of listening, he raised his hand and asked,

"So to summarize Christianity...
God against man, man against God.
God against nature, nature against God.
Nature against man, man against nature.
What an interesting religion.... where do I sign up?"

 

Cadenza, that's a great quote. Glad I was able to read it before it gets deleted.

 

Quote of the day ...

"In science, fact can only mean 'proven to such a degree that it would be perverse to deny provisional assent.'" -Stephen Jay Gould

 

God made man, why would he be against it?
God made nature, why would he be against it?

 

Because someone was naughty and ate something they shouldn't have?

 

Watch the movie....there would be many...many...many more scientists that would, "come out" if their jobs would not be threatened. Life started somehow, if the evidence is there let it be spoken. Funny thing is, there has never been a problem between Religion and science until now with the new and meaner, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens.....style atheists. In fact most all major science breakthrus came from men and woman that belived in a higher being.

 

So when your kids disrespect you and disobey you, what do you do?

 

As I stated earlier, these scientists should not be discussing their personal beliefs in a science classroom because any form of intelligent design and creationism is not science. My challenge stands: beyond saying something is created, what else does that idea ("hypothesis") predict that we can test? If that question cannot be answered, it has no place in a science classroom.

"There has never been a problem between religion and science until now..." You're kidding, right?

 

Irrelevant.

 

To be fair, this could be because a lot of the "major" science breakthroughs came during a time when the religious explanation of the natural world had no worthwhile competitors.

I can think of a few great scientific minds who were undoubtedly atheists though. Einstein, Crick, Pavlov, Edison, Freud, Kinsey, Turing, Hall...not to mention the wealth of modern scientists who identify as non-theists.

 

Closed mind I see I can paste the list of Christian scientists and other scientists here but I think NAM would not like the huge amount of info on the site. Here is a good link for you, open it up if you have the courage :http://www.reasons.org/

I'm out, have a blessed day

 

If by "come out" you mean admit to religious beliefs, then you are sadly mistaken. Few, if any scientific jobs are threatened by a scientists religious beliefs.

You need to learn some history. Go read about Galileo.

 

Jim, it is not a matter of "closed minds." Science classrooms should be teaching science. There is no place for beliefs that cannot be tested. Intelligent design can be taught as much as they want in church---that is the place for it. As I will say again, suppose we allow ID to be mentioned in science classrooms. Then what? It is a dead end. It is not science!

Mark Twain said something like (and I paraphrase) "It is dangerous to take things from the Bible and impose them on the natural world, lest science and reason show to be false what you asserted the Bible to have said."

I do not deny that there are many people practicing science who have personal beliefs as well. But that doesn't make their beliefs any more true.

We should have a beer together some time, Jim! Cheers!

 

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven…