Des News - Believers Finding God in Science

[_DrW]

Bump for BCSpace.

Time for some straight answers.

[_ludwigm]

Time for some straight answers.

Does straight mean not homosexual?

I'm sorry...

I'm sorry so sorry...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGF41ZSr0cI
.

[_nc47]

There is nothing about the Big Bang Theory that precludes it as part of the creative process God used.

i think a believer need not have any conflict with science, so long as they make their religious beliefs completely subordinate to prevailing scientific theories in every field of study and in every last detail. it's a good strategy for believers to avoid a lot of heartache and embarassment. i recommend it, and it seems bcspace also endorses it to some extent.

There are only a few scientific subdisciplines that have the potential come to loggerheads with religion (cosmology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience). 99% of it is unrelated. Cosmology is traditionally thought to be friendly to religion. Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated a BYU. Neuroscience can cause problems if one subscribes to the prevailing (but by no means universal) belief among neuroscientists that people don't have free will because everything is biologically determined. That's small beans to me.

* Cue some boneheaded redneck to post links to statements made by LDS Leaders about the universe and take them literally.

[_DrW]

There are only a few scientific subdisciplines that have the potential come to loggerheads with religion (cosmology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience). 99% of it is unrelated. Cosmology is traditionally thought to be friendly to religion. Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated a BYU. Neuroscience can cause problems if one subscribes to the prevailing (but by no means universal) belief among neuroscientists that people don't have free will because everything is biologically determined. That's small beans to me.

* Cue some boneheaded redneck to post links to statements made by LDS Leaders about the universe and take them literally.

nc47,

It would be difficult to come up with a more boneheaded statement regarding the relationship between science and religion than the one you just made.

Religionists seem very fond of such statements, perhaps because they make religionists feel better about the nonsense they feel obliged to profess. Unfortunately, such statements are no more than wishful thinking.

Science and religion are (by definition) fundamentally, diametrically, and irrevocably opposed, whether religionists wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Science generates knowledge and understanding through a continuous and iterative process of free inquiry, observation and experimentation. This is followed by hypothesis generation, testing, and selection. Selected hypotheses are continually evaluated for their explanatory power against as new data become available, and modified or discarded in favor of new models or hypotheses when necessary. In short, the scientific enterprise is evidence based.

The enterprise of religion is based on faith. Faith in this context is best defined as unfounded belief. That is, faith is belief held without evidence, or as is more often the case (and specifically with Mormonism), faith is belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Put as succinctly as possible: science seeks answers based on evidence. Religion claims to already have the answers based on faith.

Through history, religion's answers have traditionally been obtained through revelation as given to self selected humans by one or more of hundreds, or thousands, of imaginary magical deities.

Mormonism's massive problems today stem directly from its failure to recognize, appreciate, and adopt into its belief system, certain truths gained from science, preferring instead to stick with the nonsensical beliefs provided by its leaders until such time as these false beliefs became absolutely untenable in the light of societal acceptance of the relevant science.

The unfounded beliefs of Mormonism (and fundamentalist religions in general) help keep them on the wrong side of history on all kinds of issues. Unfounded belief in their fraudulent scriptures also requires faithful Mormons to become science deniers.

The scriptures of Mormonism that are claimed to have come directly from God are filled to the brim with truth claims that are antithetical to science. Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, Garden of Eden in Missouri, Global Flood of Noah, Tower of Babel, Population of the New World starting in 3000 BC by Transoceanic Migration, and "Kolob Cosmology", are but a few of these. The list of the nonsense in Mormon scriptures goes on and on.

In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a religion with scriptures that are more at odds with science than those of Mormonism. Does your "boneheaded redneck" statement above mean that you do not take Mormon scriptures literally?

[_krose]

Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated [at] BYU.

Since they teach evolution as fact at BYU, I can only assume they accept the idea of 'guided evolution,' one of the most bizarre beliefs in existence.

It reduces a supposedly omnipotent deity to a tinkerer, fiddling with countless tiny mutations to DNA over the course of billions of years, all with the long-term goal of ending up with a mammalian body like his own. It is confusingly unclear why an omnipotent deity would opt for such an unnecessarily complicated creation method, when he obviously has the power to instantly conjure humans into existence, Genesis style.

It is no more than a convoluted justification for retaining a belief in a creator god while embracing the undeniable scientific facts. It's the same reason we have odd theories such as LGT, subsumed DNA, two Cumorahs, 'horse = tapir,' and 'steel sword = stick with embedded sharp rocks.'

[Guest]

Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated [at] BYU.

Since they teach evolution as fact at BYU, I can only assume they accept the idea of 'guided evolution,' one of the most bizarre beliefs in existence.

It reduces a supposedly omnipotent deity to a tinkerer, fiddling with countless tiny mutations to DNA over the course of billions of years, all with the long-term goal of ending up with a mammalian body like his own. It is confusingly unclear why an omnipotent deity would opt for such an unnecessarily complicated creation method, when he obviously has the power to instantly conjure humans into existence, Genesis style.

It is no more than a convoluted justification for retaining a belief in a creator god while embracing the undeniable scientific facts. It's the same reason we have odd theories such as LGT, subsumed DNA, two Cumorahs, 'horse = tapir,' and 'steel sword = stick with embedded sharp rocks.'

Nice observation.

Even with such an "evolution by design" concept being taught (if indeed this is what they are teaching now), I have been told that the biological sciences faculty members and the religious fantasy faculty members at BYU are often at odds with one another.

By the way, guided evolution, or evolution by design, is not science - it is simply a form of thoroughly discredited intelligent design. If that is what the biology faculty at BYU is teaching, the religion faculty members should be grateful.

[_nc47]

Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated [at] BYU.

Since they teach evolution as fact at BYU, I can only assume they accept the idea of 'guided evolution,' one of the most bizarre beliefs in existence.

It reduces a supposedly omnipotent deity to a tinkerer, fiddling with countless tiny mutations to DNA over the course of billions of years, all with the long-term goal of ending up with a mammalian body like his own. It is confusingly unclear why an omnipotent deity would opt for such an unnecessarily complicated creation method, when he obviously has the power to instantly conjure humans into existence, Genesis style.

It is no more than a convoluted justification for retaining a belief in a creator god while embracing the undeniable scientific facts. It's the same reason we have odd theories such as LGT, subsumed DNA, two Cumorahs, 'horse = tapir,' and 'steel sword = stick with embedded sharp rocks.'

Have you had a science class before? They don't teach "guided" evolution, they just teach evolution. Whether it's guided is not a topic for a science class.

Your other assertions, well, let's just say I don't like discussing science with people with no scientific background. But I will say this: you are clueless about Mormons and evolution. Eyring, Roberts, Talmage, and Widstoe were debating this stuff long before the smoking-gun evidence for evolution came in from the genome.

[Guest]

There are only a few scientific subdisciplines that have the potential come to loggerheads with religion (cosmology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience). 99% of it is unrelated. Cosmology is traditionally thought to be friendly to religion. Evolutionary biology is not a problem if one is educated a BYU. Neuroscience can cause problems if one subscribes to the prevailing (but by no means universal) belief among neuroscientists that people don't have free will because everything is biologically determined. That's small beans to me.

* Cue some boneheaded redneck to post links to statements made by LDS Leaders about the universe and take them literally.

nc47,

It would be difficult to come up with a more boneheaded statement regarding the relationship between science and religion than the one you just made.

Religionists seem very fond of such statements, perhaps because they make religionists feel better about the nonsense they feel obliged to profess. Unfortunately, such statements are no more than wishful thinking.

Science and religion are (by definition) fundamentally, diametrically, and irrevocably opposed, whether religionists wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Science generates knowledge and understanding through a continuous and iterative process of free inquiry, observation and experimentation. This is followed by hypothesis generation, testing, and selection. Selected hypotheses are continually evaluated for their explanatory power against as new data become available, and modified or discarded in favor of new models or hypotheses when necessary. In short, the scientific enterprise is evidence based.

The enterprise of religion is based on faith. Faith in this context is best defined as unfounded belief. That is, faith is belief held without evidence, or as is more often the case (and specifically with Mormonism), faith is belief held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Put as succinctly as possible: science seeks answers based on evidence. Religion claims to already have the answers based on faith.

Through history, religion's answers have traditionally been obtained through revelation as given to self selected humans by one or more of hundreds, or thousands, of imaginary magical deities.

Mormonism's massive problems today stem directly from its failure to recognize, appreciate, and adopt into its belief system, certain truths gained from science, preferring instead to stick with the nonsensical beliefs provided by its leaders until such time as these false beliefs became absolutely untenable in the light of societal acceptance of the relevant science.

The unfounded beliefs of Mormonism (and fundamentalist religions in general) help keep them on the wrong side of history on all kinds of issues. Unfounded belief in their fraudulent scriptures also requires faithful Mormons to become science deniers.

The scriptures of Mormonism that are claimed to have come directly from God are filled to the brim with truth claims that are antithetical to science. Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, Garden of Eden in Missouri, Global Flood of Noah, Tower of Babel, Population of the New World starting in 3000 BC by Transoceanic Migration, and "Kolob Cosmology", are but a few of these. The list of the nonsense in Mormon scriptures goes on and on.

In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a religion with scriptures that are more at odds with science than those of Mormonism. Does your "boneheaded redneck" statement above mean that you do not take Mormon scriptures literally?

DrW: I do scientific modelling myself, so you don't need to tell me about the scientific method. Mainline Protestant pastors who don't believe much of the Bible literally, do not tell their congregations. I know because I've spoken with some of them. Like Terryl Givens said, everyone needs to take responsibility for their own learning. http://www.tv.com/news/the-newsroom-its ... pid-29046/

[_Bazooka]

DrW: I do scientifically modelling myself, so you don't need to tell me about the scientific method.

Do you mean:
I do scientific modelling myself

or

I do scientifically model myself

[_nc47]

DrW: I do scientifically modelling myself, so you don't need to tell me about the scientific method.

Do you mean:
I do scientific modelling myself

or

I do scientifically model myself

If I were good at English I'd be making a lot less money.