Nor should you be convinced based on the anecdote I just gave ;), if that's all it took for somebody to believe that life changes over time I'd suggest they give it a little more thought and questioning.

As would I.  It was just a thought I had.

Read Genesis 1:2.

Its perfectly reasonable to assume from that there was a Previous Creation that predated the Biblical account, which would explain all the fossils. And their great age since they could be billions of years old and the second Biblical Creation happened say 10,000 years ago.

Read Genesis 1:2.

Its perfectly reasonable to assume from that there was a Previous Creation that predated the Biblical account, which would explain all the fossils. And their great age since they could be billions of years old and the second Biblical Creation happened say 10,000 years ago.

There are a lot of theories out there but at this point I can no longer deny that evolution seems to be essentially proven, but I also very much believe in a Creator.  The more I study these things the less I am convinced that the two need to be at odds with each other.

As Sciencemile points out, not everything has a direct evolutionary explanation.  Much of out traits are things that evolved because they were advantageous for one thing, but we've "put it to use" for something entirely different--sometimes for something that's not advantageous anymore.  An example might be we like sweet foods, and fatty foods, because at one time, when calories were limited, they were a great food source for us.  Now, though, we've still got that desire for sweet/fatty foods, but it's no longer really the best food for us, because we live in a situation of abundance.  So, for things like an appreciation of beauty, I'd hesitate to look for a direct evolutionary benefit.

That said, ability to judge "better" or "worse" in things would clearly be advantageous.  Being able to select, with some degree of accuracy, the best mate (in an evolutionary sense) out of a crowd would be an advantage.  Being able to tell, at a glance, how good or bad a location would be as a place to live would certainly be helpful.  So a feeling of goodness or quality or approval or whatever in response to visual stimuli would be beneficial, and would probably be part of the origin of appreciation of beauty.

Also, humans are very much social animals.  Our survival/reproducibility was likely very strongly linked in the past to our ability to get along with and work with our tribe-mates (or whatever you want to call a group of proto-humans).  Adopting and reacting to shared culture is something we do naturally, and appreciation for things that are deemed beautiful by society at large is probably tied to that to some degree.

Another aspect of some types of beauty is something akin to awe, which has a component of fear or at least respect.  A stark, craggy cliff face or mountain range could evoke a bit of awe, and perhaps cause our ancestors to avoid a dangerous place?  things that give us a sense of our own mortality or smallness often seem beautiful to us, perhaps because our ancestors benefited from a healthy respect for such things?

This is all speculation on my part.  I haven't looked for any research on the topic yet.  Though, I'd guess it'd be a hard thing to study, due to a lack of a firm understanding on just what an "appreciation for beauty" actually is, and what physically gives rise to it.  The link between brain states and qualia is still not super well understood, at least as far as I know.

My best guess (and it's very much a guess on my part) would be that the explanation would be something along the lines of this:  Seeing some things as "better" than others (such as mates, places to live, etc.) would be advantageous.  However, somethings that weren't directly beneficial/harmful to us would likely also get "ranked" by us using the same ability once we had it.  Attraction to good mates would be the immediate benefit, say, but an appreciation for certain landscapes might be a neutral side-effect that comes along with it, simply because we'd gained the ability to compare the "goodness" of the appearance of things at an instinctual level.

Although far from dispositive, you should watch Ben Stein's "Expelled."  It brings up interesting points to further your pursuit of these questions.

Although it does take quote from the Origins of Species and pull it out of context, implies that Charles Darwin was the creator of Social Darwinism, etc. (it was still a very good film though)

I'd recommend a Biology Textbook over Dawkins, Stein, or Charles Darwin.

Just like I'd recommend an Economics Textbook over Eisler, Rand, or Adam Smith.

The goal of the former are to convert you to their way of thinking, the others are books that no longer represent anything other than a philosophic approach to the topic as it stands today.

Meanwhile, a Textbook is usually designed to inform you; it presents information about how things work, the meaning of terms, etc.  It does not come at you with opinions.

If I had the money to throw around, I'd be more than happy to mail anybody who asked a copy of Biology 101 (cuz we're real good buds here, but I need a job first).

There is no greater gift than a book you've never read.

EDIT: Err, not implying that nobody's read Biology, sorry if it sounded that way.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:01, Thu 22 Oct 2009.

From a collection on Evolution in relation (category: rebuttal) to Creationism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

And still one wonders...

If some sort of high speed micro-civilization arose in loaf of bread in the oven, would their philosophers divide into two camps, one of which believed that science explained the formation of the bubbles in the bread, the hardening of the crust, and the chemical changes that could be traced back in time to the primordial "dough", while the other side denied all that, and claimed that it was all the Will of the Baker?

It happened with the Germ Theory of Disease's criticisms by believers in Spontaneous generation, rats coming from grain, maggots from rotten meat, and demons being the source of all illness.

In case Spoonk, Silveroak, or anyone else wants to discuss further.

My Opinion:
---
Just like to note that whether or not a god exists, and whether or not the primary mechanism of evolution is natural selection, as the current Theory suggests, this doesn't somehow mean that Evolution doesn't take place, or doesn't exist.  Evolution is an observable fact like any other natural phenomenon.

The people who wish to create a war between knowledge and faith only project such a false dilemma in order to profit off of the resulting discord and confusion.

Because the fact is that the majority of people hold both propositions as true.  (In the U.S. the figures are skewed the other way, to the detriment of our country's future as an economic superpower.)

I would say that there is conflict between science-knowledge and *some* faiths. There are, after all, people who believe that the earth is flat because of biblical texts describing the sun standing still rather than the earth ceasing rotation. And there are also- in any faith - groups who are manipulated by charismatic leaders, and these people often find it easier to prey on those who are ignorant.

I agree with Sciencemile on this.

I have to disagree with silveroak to the extent that religions are not about facts.  (Yes, I have made this point before.)  People may hold to certain facts, true or not (the earth was made in 7 days, the Flood covered the whole earth, etc.), but those are not religion.  They are mythology.

Mythology demonstrates factual beliefs by incorporating religious principles into stories or facts.  They can be shown false without destroying religion, though they can certainly destroy someone's foundational belief in the religion.

So I am happy when science confirms or defeats a factual belief I hold that is based on trying to interpret my religious beliefs.  If my factual belief was wrong, then I know my interpretation of the religion was wrong or turned something symbolic into something literal, or something along those lines.  Or perhaps the religious principle was not even accurate because someone said it a long time ago but it was just their opinion and somehow got canonized.

So there is no conflict between "science" and "faith" any more than there is conflict between math and art.  They are two completely different things that can work in harmony but cannot be at odds by their very definition.

Strange that so many have conflicts between science and faith since they cannot be at odds.  That would make the above statement something other than a fact.

I do agree that science and faith can be separate but many people rely on faith far more than science and take issue when science casts a skeptical eye on the claims their religion makes.

A fact can be proven true or false.  Someone's faith in something cannot.  Even when presented with evidence that their belief is not a fact people, many times, cling to the belief.

The conflict is because most people do not understand the difference, neither scientists nor believers.  There is no "conflict," only misapplication of the facts to misinterpretations of beliefs.

The idea of trying to fit the two together is silly in my opinion.  If you disagree, tell me a "religious fact" that science can disprove.  You will find that it either isn't a religious fact (but is instead a personal interpretation of the individual) or the science is trying to prove something that is not the belief at all.

Evolution?  Nothing in the Bible precludes evolution.  Evolution won't prove the Bible or anything it teaches true or false.  Those who say differently just have a personal interpretation they want to defend.  That's fine, but that's their interpretation; that is not "religion."

So I think your point is valid to the point you say it's "science vs. personal intepretation of religion."  But not "science vs. religion."

I am learning in philosophy about the concept of Mere Belief.

There is a difference between regular beliefs and mere beliefs, since regular beliefs have some sort of foundation on which the belief rests or falls, and shapes this belief accordingly.

But while a mere belief, having no foundation, cannot be undermined, it is the foundation of a belief that renders it of any value to others.

Ah, the old "they aren't reading it right" or "they didn't translate it right" excuses.  When something is disproven, just pick a different definition.  Was it conception without sex or was it defined as a perfect and holy conception?

I would play the game but the goal posts keep being redefined.



Once again, strange that so many Christians fight evolution then.  They must believe that their religion is under attack by the fact of evolution.  Your definition of religion is interesting considering it seems that only you understand the texts and what they "really" mean.

Your interesting definition aside, most people believe their religious interpretations to be religion.



Nah.  My point is valid in saying that science disproves many things that people's religion states as a fact.  Science can be proven, religion doesn't need to be.  That is why it is faith.

But you do bring up and interesting point: where can I find a religion untainted by "personal interpretation"?  The Bible for Christians?  The Koran for Muslims?  Where is this religion free from someone applying their own meaning to it?  I am quite curious.

For something to be less open to reasonable interpretation (aka "It's just a Theory" doesn't count), it has to have a wide range of technical terms that have context-specific meanings defined ahead of time.

The more symbolic and technical something is, the less open it is to interpretation among people who are aware of the terminology.

I imagine, since this works well for things like Mathematics, Logic, Medicine, and most Sciences, it would work for a religion seeking to eliminate ambiguity.

Let me draw two lines on this point:
1) If it was possible to determine scientifically whether or not jesus walked the earth and rose from the dead, i would say that is a fact on which a religion certainly relies- if false it would shatter the faith as it currently stands, if verified it would be hailed as the ultimate endorsement of teh religion as true.
2) with specific regards to evolution, the issue to faith is not so much the 7 days but the idea that 'hath not the potter power over the clay' if man arose by accident then what right does God have (assuming he still exists) to condemn us? What is the point of salvation if the judgement itself was unjust?
Now certainly there are those who reconcile these concepts- a form of non-accidental evoltion where God plays the part of a time traveler or someone whose concept of time is radically different to make adjustents and steer evolution as a part of the design process, but that simply addresses the issue, it does not mean it was not an issue to begin with.

Heath, I think your argument is entirely semantic.  People have beliefs that they consider very important, foundational to their religion, etc., and which are of a factual (ie, objectively either true or false) nature, and those beliefs can come into direct contradiction with scientific findings.  You say we shouldn't call those beliefs "religious" or "religion," but that's purely a labeling issue.  It's not describing what can happen, it's merely describing what can happen.

So yes, under your definition of "religion" it is tautologically true that science and religion cannot disagree.  You've defined religion as being limited purely to that which cannot be regarded as objectively true or false.  It makes your argument not particularly interesting or meaningful, as its merely a result of using such a restricted definition.  People who don't agree with your definition will reach the opposite conclusion.

At the end of the day, people hold many beliefs which they consider to be religious in nature, which can be (or perhaps could be in the future) tested scientifically.  Whether you consider those beliefs to be "religious" in nature or not is really besides the point.  They considered them to be religious beliefs, and their religious beliefs (under your definition) will change if this "non-religious" (again, your definition) beliefs do.  You might feel that they shouldn't care whether Jesus really actually existed, you might feel that Joseph Smith making up the entire book of Mormon as a joke wouldn't lessen the value of Mormonism in the slightest, you might tell people that the bible containing factual errors shouldn't affect their view of it, but they don't agree with you.  To the vast majority of people, the objective truthfulness of the stories in their religion are of critical importance, whether you think they should be or not.  To pretty much all Christians, if Jesus didn't really exist that would mean their religion was false.  Again, you feeling that Jesus' existence isn't the important part, and not really a "religious belief," but almost nobody agrees with you on that.  So when you say "religion can't be contradicted by science," your statement doesn't represent what most people consider to be the case, because you've used a definition of "religion" that doesn't match theirs.

It's a bit like me saying "cars can never have four wheels," and you saying, "wait a minute, look at that Ford right there, it has four wheels."  And I say, "Ah, but that's not actually a car.  Cars actually are vehicles with 3 wheels.  A lot of people think otherwise, but they're simply wrong."  My statement might be true given my definition, but my definition is so far removed from what the rest of the world is using the world to mean, that it makes my statement somewhat pointless.

The bottom line is that people have beliefs that they consider to be religious and which are factual (again, meaning objectively true or false) in nature, and which could be contradicted by scientific findings.  As far as I know, we all agree on this.  What we disagree on is whether those beliefs are accurately described as "religious" or not.  And I'm pretty confident that in this case, you're in a tiny, tiny minority in holding that they're not.

It's not really something for debate, its just a definition issue.  You're not telling us what can or can't happen (though your claim makes it look like you are), you're just telling us what words we can use to describe it.

The Devil's in the Details, really.  Certain aspects of dogma and tenants that have built up around the main essence of the religion may be peeled away; Special Creation, not Creation itself, was rendered an unlikely idea by the Natural Selection Theory of Evolution.

But it's irrelevant to, in my opinion, the only important part of any religion; its moral messages.  Of what relevance is the nature of the messenger, when it is the quality of the message that is most important.

Well if you are following the LDS threas I would say the case of teh value of the messanger is well documented tehre, as a messanger who lacks credibility brings a lack of credibility to the message.

I don't think credibility can even be applied to messages.  Perhaps statements of fact, but depending on the independent evidence, criticizing the credibility of the person making the argument rather than the argument itself is the Ad-hominem fallacy.  Then again, arguing the truth of a thing based almost solely on the credibility of the source is also an appeal to authority, which may also be fallacious at times.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:17, Sat 30 Apr 2011.

If life were a forensic debate that would be true. however it isn't and that is not how people see it. If I stand up before the peoples of the world making a moral claim such as 'it s a moral obligation to provide universal health care' then the wieght of that statement is judged by who I am- am I a Dr working in a street clinic or thrid world country? A highly paid surgeon in a private practice? A homeless person or one of the 'underemployed'? An executive in a pharmacueticals firm, or an executive in a non-health care firm? For the same message that issue becomes to most people the deciding factor in how to weigh it's value. Indeed this is allowed in courts of law as well, where teh credibility of a witness may be called into question. Evolutionary biology even suggests that teh first signs of what we consider intelligence in humans orriginated along the social scale- the ability to weigh the credibility of other people.