Faith vs. evidence

LA Times ^ | 8/6/05

[Crackingham]

Scientists who moaned when they read this week that President Bush favors teaching "intelligent design" along with the Darwinian theory of evolution should be grateful for how far the president has come. In 1999, as Texas governor and GOP presidential front-runner, George W. Bush said much the same about creationism, which tried to force natural history to match the biblical creation story. At least creationism's successor, known as ID to its adherents, makes room for paleontology and human descent from apes.

Beyond that, politicians' support for what they call "balance" still damages both science and faith.

In a broad interview Monday with Texas newspapers, Bush agreed with the idea of teaching intelligent design as well as evolution, saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." If only different schools of thought (say, capitalism versus Marxism) were involved, we'd say, sure, go for it. However, ID and evolutionary theory are not just irreconcilable; they are in realms as distant as astronomy and the polka.

ID posits (quoting from the Intelligent Design Network website) "that certain features of the universe and of living things" — the eye is often cited — "are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection." Its adherents see the "intelligent cause" as a divine one.

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to explain everything, but theorizes that from the earliest life, genetic mutations providing a survival edge were retained and amplified, leading to species diversity and specialized traits (such as Lance Armstrong's lung capacity or fluorescent deep-water fish).

Both are, to a certain point, about biology. But ID also demands belief in the untestable. There it becomes faith, not science.

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

So you started all. The universe, earth, life maybe even God??? Awfully full of ourselves this morning aren't we? LOL

[Tribune7]

Deep inside, I'm a Young Earther. When all is revealed, I'm convinced the Biblical version is going to be closer to truth than the Smithsonian's. This belief, however, is complete faith. There is no way I'd want it taught in a science class.

In fact what I'd insist on being taught is that atomic decay is measurable and these measurements consistantly show that it would take 4.5 billion years for half the atoms in a mass of U-238 to decay into Pb-206, which when based on samples found in nature and samples of other isotopes wtih different rates of decay, leads to a scientific consensus that the age of earth is 4.55 billion years old.

Further, I'd want it taught that measurements in the shift of the spectrum of light to the red of various celestial objects indicate the universe to be at least 8 billion years old.

If a student should challenge -- say by asking how the age could be determined without knowing the initial composition of the sample -- the teacher could say "very good, Bobby. You get a bonus point for thinking." If the student should insist, the teacher could point out the measurments and challenge the student in return to study hard and grow up to try to refute them -- hence encouraging a love of science.

Now, evolution is a different story.

Student: How do single-celled asexual bacteria could evolve into multi-celled sexual creatures.

Teacher: Mutations

Student: What kind of mutations?

Teacher: They were mutations in the genetic code.

Student: Well, how did they happen? How do they work.

Teacher: I just told you. Mutations, so shut up. What are you some kind of anti-science fundamentalist?

And there you have it.

[GoLightly]

Tell you what...you win. You can have ID/creationism/whatever taught in public school science classes.

The latest spark for this discussion came about because of a statement by our President. I would like someone from the outraged science side of this whole deal to show me where science class was mentioned anywhere in his statement. How does anyone know he didn't mean for the schools to add a course that could include something like ID?

[oldfarmer]

Rather, it is a multiple choice question: "What is the first cause?"

Aristotle attempted to answer that question. See his "Metaphysics" for a good discussion of the subject.

[balrog666]

So you started all. The universe, earth, life maybe even God??? Awfully full of ourselves this morning aren't we? LOL

Maybe it was just a dream. Or maybe we are all a dream. Or maybe that answer is as good as any other ...

[LifeOrGoods?]

Evolution is pure faith.

[LifeOrGoods?]

That's because there is no such thing as "scientific truth" or anything like that.

If there is no truth then how can you say this is true....scientifically?

[LifeOrGoods?]

I've never seen that, especially since science has nothing to say about morals.

That's funny, because you think religion is immoral based on science.

[LifeOrGoods?]

Until "God" joins the ranks of the falsifiable...

He has, but your science can't disprove him.

[LifeOrGoods?]

any healthy society needs some sort of morality underpinning it...

What you base morality the definition of a healthy society on? If not science, then what?

[LifeOrGoods?]

The Hebrew word translated in most Bibles here as "Was" is better translated "Became".

What makes you think that?

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

It's fun to propose theories of existence beyond our five senses or rational perception. I've always enjoyed the off the wall ideas, while dismissing them as very unlikely. What if our moments of being awake are really a dream, while our dreams are the ultimate reality? What if both are reality? LOL

I believe in God mostly for two reasons: 1) I've personally been 'shown' the truth by being directed to specific Bible passages and 2) IMHO the very nature of things and their interaction requires a Creator and would be impossible to occur randomly or through osmosis.

Like I've said earlier, God Created evolution. Why can't we all just get along! LOL

[Pipeline]

Science also demands belief in the untestable.

Apparently not or they would not reject ID.


Yes, I realize science is attempting to test the untestable all of the time. The only way science can do it is by allowing for faith in itself, including its many unprovables.


Science seems to have faith in itself to disprove ID as repackaged creationism according to some. Scientists can continue their studies of our surroundings and still acknowledge that the design of our surroundings are quite intelligent indeed, don't you think? I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts, ideas and opinions are generated by basic responses to my environment and when my body ceases to function ' I ' simply cease to exist.

[GoLightly]

Science also demands belief in the untestable.

Apparently not or they would not reject ID.

Just because "they" can not see it, doesn't make it true. That nasty pride business seems to be the insurmountable obstacle.

Yes, I realize science is attempting to test the untestable all of the time. The only way science can do it is by allowing for faith in itself, including its many unprovables.

Science seems to have faith in itself to disprove ID as repackaged creationism according to some.

Those leaping to the repackaged creation argument show little real faith in science. Throwing up ones hands & saying there is no way to observe or test, which they would need in order to disprove ID is like trying to place limits on the playing field, while blaming the limits on the other team.

Scientists can continue their studies of our surroundings and still acknowledge that the design of our surroundings are quite intelligent indeed, don't you think?

I agree! I believe the entire package is far more expansive than what much of science is allowing itself to perceive.

I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts, ideas and opinions are generated by basic responses to my environment and when my body ceases to function ' I ' simply cease to exist.

Again, I agree!

[LiteKeeper]

Guess what? - we already do teach evolution - warts and all. The difference is, we examine ALL of the evidence, not just the supportive evidence. And you now what - it fails miserably, because when it is taught objectively, not as indoctrination, but examining all sides of the issue - the evidence does NOT point to random mutations occuring over millions of years, unguided by anything but chance.

[balrog666]

Now what?

[photodawg]

I think that Faith can start at the beginning.

I don't think it has to start somewhere when we run out of science.
________________________________________________________

Just the opposite. Science can't go far enough. Science is "limited" to the material universe. It takes a "faith" in cause and effect to even understand the scientific method. I'm not saying faith has no role in the material world, only that a belief in God in not a prerequisite for an acceptance of science. And that science will never be able to "prove" the existence of God. Even ID, which exists as an observation of information provided by scientific research, cannot be embraced without a faith in God. ID simply reinforces that faith. Our real problem occurs because science is an integral part of school curriculum while religion is not allowed through the door. The President did not say that ID should be taught in science classes as some type of alternative science, but that it belongs in school curricula. Why should we not teach religion in school? We are not establishing a religion by merely exposing people to various religious thoughts, philosophies, and groups.

[mcg1969]

Will do, oldfarmer. Thanks for the pointer. Of course, Aristotle didn't have the benefit of precise measurements of the cosmic background radiation :)

[Diego1618]

No sorry, I don't see your Quandary because I haven't see proof that your literal days are the same as God's literal days. How about the fact that he planted all the grass and herbs on the third day? He did not put sunlight on the Earth until the fourth day. Do you really think all those plants would live without sunlight for the thousands of years you seem to want each creation day to be?

[Diego1618]

The Hebrew word translated in most Bibles here as "Was" is better translated "Became". What makes you think that? Because the same Hebrew word is translated properly later on in Genesis 19:26 where Lot and his family are fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah. They are told not to look back(verse 17)...but Lot's wife did look back and she "BECAME" a pillar of salt. The reason it is translated in most Bibles as was(present tense) is to agree more with accepted theology about the Earth only being 7000 years old or so. When you read Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 using the proper translation of "became" it allows for billions of years between those verses. This does not agree with mainstream Christianity's theology. See Isaiah 45:18. God did not create the Earth to be empty(or in vain)but to be inhabited. See Daniel 8:9-14 The rebellion that causes desolation....or Satan being ejected from heaven. 1st Corinthians 14:33 God is not a God of disorder but a God of peace. 2nd Peter 2:4 indicates a perfect creation until this sin...also Jude 6 the same. Any Hebrew/English Lexicon will show these words to be the same...it is even footnoted in most Bibles as also translated "became".