Des News - Believers Finding God in Science

[_Bazooka]

But I will say this: you are clueless about Mormons and evolution.

Oh, so I'm wrong when I say that most LDS do not accept evolution as fact, and that those few who do accept it believe God used it as a tool for creation? I hope you will lower your discussion standards just enough to explain where this is wrong.

It is a fact that Mormonism teaches that the sum of humanity today, stems back to 8 people who survived a global flood that happened circa 2,300 BCE.
How does that Mormon teaching sync with evolution, you know, from a highly educated scientific perspective?

[_Maksutov]

Atheist intellectuals didn't just blast his style, it was the substance of his book. For example, he didn't know that St. Augustine disavowed Biblical literalism 500 A.D. He didn't know that Young Earth Creationism started in the 1920s. That's quite embarrassing.

Read what I said about the statement again, this time paying close attention to the bolded letters.

I'm paying close attention to what appear to be the wild unsubstantiated statements of a troll. "Atheist intellectuals"...no YEC until the 1920s (ever heard of Ussher?)...and you're waiting for somebody to rise to your standards? You're at the bottom looking up, buddy.

[_Ceeboo]

I love all y'all too!






Isn't an "atheist intellectual" an oxymoron?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_nc47]

Atheist intellectuals didn't just blast his style, it was the substance of his book. For example, he didn't know that St. Augustine disavowed Biblical literalism 500 A.D. He didn't know that Young Earth Creationism started in the 1920s. That's quite embarrassing.

Read what I said about the statement again, this time paying close attention to the bolded letters.

Utterly beside the point.

The question is; do the magisteria of religion and science overlap, or not?

Dawkins claims the two overlap, and he is right. And the overlap is self evident.

by the way, I do not consider myself a "follower" of Dawkins. I was working as a professional scientist, and saw things pretty much as Dawkins sees them, for decades before Dawkins came on the popular scene. His observations about religion and science, and his comments on issues such as NOMA, are nothing really new to most scientists. Dawkins is simply one of those who finally got annoyed enough at all the religioinist nonsense to write about these issues for the lay person.

by the way, have you thought about internal inconsistency in your statement above to the effect that you believe in the methodology of science but want to wait to see how everything fits together (presumably as revealed by the Mormon Man-God in some imaginary afterlife)?

The NAS statement holds that they partially overlap, hence not NOMA. You keep missing that point.

Most scientists do not believe there is any conflict, and that is the position of the National Academy. Only a few outspoken ones do. In fact, many scientists get apprehensive whenever Dawkins opens his mouth out of fears that he will turn religious people off from science.

I enjoy reading Dawkins's science books, and in his area of competency I agree with him more than Gould. He appears to be more quantitatively-minded than most biologists. His earlier books (pre-Devil's Chaplain) are more faith-promoting than not.

[_nc47]

Atheist intellectuals didn't just blast his style, it was the substance of his book. For example, he didn't know that St. Augustine disavowed Biblical literalism 500 A.D. He didn't know that Young Earth Creationism started in the 1920s. That's quite embarrassing.

Read what I said about the statement again, this time paying close attention to the bolded letters.

I'm paying close attention to what appear to be the wild unsubstantiated statements of a troll. "Atheist intellectuals"...no YEC until the 1920s (ever heard of Ussher?)...and you're waiting for somebody to rise to your standards? You're at the bottom looking up, buddy.

YEC the movement was started in the 1920s by George McBreardy. It gained steam in the 1960s.

PS: Would you like a list a atheist intellectuals who have come out and said the New Atheists are just redneck-baiting?

Among the New Atheists, Daniel Dennet is the only on one the list who makes serious arguments against religion.

[_DrW]

Utterly beside the point.

The question is; do the magisteria of religion and science overlap, or not?

Dawkins claims the two overlap, and he is right. And the overlap is self evident.

by the way, I do not consider myself a "follower" of Dawkins. I was working as a professional scientist, and saw things pretty much as Dawkins sees them, for decades before Dawkins came on the popular scene. His observations about religion and science, and his comments on issues such as NOMA, are nothing really new to most scientists. Dawkins is simply one of those who finally got annoyed enough at all the religioinist nonsense to write about these issues for the lay person.

by the way, have you thought about internal inconsistency in your statement above to the effect that you believe in the methodology of science but want to wait to see how everything fits together (presumably as revealed by the Mormon Man-God in some imaginary afterlife)?

The NAS statement holds that they partially overlap, hence not NOMA. You keep missing that point.

Most scientists do not believe there is any conflict, and that is the position of the National Academy. Only a few outspoken ones do. In fact, many scientists get apprehensive whenever Dawkins opens his mouth out of fears that he will turn religious people off from science.

I enjoy reading Dawkins's science books, and in his area of competency I agree with him more than Gould. He appears to be more quantitatively-minded than most biologists. His earlier books (pre-Devil's Chaplain) are more faith-promoting than not.

nc47,

You seem to be a bid confused here. To begin with, I believe I stated that the NAS statement was a form of NOMA. The NAS statement was clearly based on the idea that science and religion were two different ways of gaining knowledge. (Although the *knowledge* gained from religion could be better described as *beliefs*, with the acknowledgment that religious beliefs can depart in dangerous ways from any representation of reality and are notoriously unreliable as a basis of decision-making in the real world.)

Once again (for you and the NAS): either the magisteria overlap or they do not. Likewise, there is either conflict or there is not. Claiming "Partial overlap" is like claiming to be partially pregnant.

You can't have it both ways. If there is overlap, then there is conflict.

You have stated that there is overlap. I agree. Dawkins agrees. According to you, even the NAS agrees.

How can you possibly say, then, that there is no conflict?

[_nc47]

The NAS statement holds that they partially overlap, hence not NOMA. You keep missing that point.

Most scientists do not believe there is any conflict, and that is the position of the National Academy. Only a few outspoken ones do. In fact, many scientists get apprehensive whenever Dawkins opens his mouth out of fears that he will turn religious people off from science.

I enjoy reading Dawkins's science books, and in his area of competency I agree with him more than Gould. He appears to be more quantitatively-minded than most biologists. His earlier books (pre-Devil's Chaplain) are more faith-promoting than not.

nc47,

You seem to be a bid confused here. To begin with, I believe I stated that the NAS statement was a form of NOMA. The NAS statement was clearly based on the idea that science and religion were two different ways of gaining knowledge. (Although the *knowledge* gained from religion could be better described as *beliefs*, with the acknowledgment that religious beliefs can depart in dangerous ways from any representation of reality and are notoriously unreliable as a basis of decision-making in the real world.)

Once again (for you and the NAS): either the magisteria overlap or they do not. Likewise, there is either conflict or there is not. Claiming "Partial overlap" is like claiming to be partially pregnant.

You can't have it both ways. If there is overlap, then there is conflict.

You have stated that there is overlap. I agree. Dawkins agrees. According to you, even the NAS agrees.

How can you possibly say, then, that there is no conflict?

You may want to rethink your two Manichean assumptions.

I believe I've sufficiently explained how they overlap "partially." 99%+ of science does not overlap. So how does the Heat Equation conflict with religion? Wave Equation? Rikitake Model for Geomagnetic Reversals? Lotka-Volterra Predator-Prey Equation? Lotka-Volterra Competitive Species Equation? Is Newton's Cooling Law going to war with my home teaching appointment?

Overlap <> Conflict. A lot of believers say the science they do reinforces their belief (e.g. Kepler).

When I said "no conflict" I meant no inherent conflict. Any conflict is circumstantial. Science is radical and tends to conflict with many established institutions: feudal Japan, secular philosophers during Galileo day who clung to the Aristotelian worldview, Luddites, the church being one of them.

[_Maksutov]

YEC the movement was started in the 1920s by George McBreardy. It gained steam in the 1960s.

PS: Would you like a list a atheist intellectuals who have come out and said the New Atheists are just redneck-baiting?

Among the New Atheists, Daniel Dennet is the only on one the list who makes serious arguments against religion.

I guess details don't matter much to you, eh? You're referring to George McReady Price? And you don't think any defenses of creationism, such as those faced by Darwin, were extant previously? And I'm supposed to respect your "list a atheist intellectuals" as some kind of argument? I don't think so.

I do like Daniel Denett.

[_Sethbag]

I think that what NC47 is missing here is that the "movement" for Young Earth Creationism came about in response to the growing scientific movement which cast the Young Earth beliefs into doubt. Even if the "YEC movement" began only in the 1920s, that doesn't mean that YEC beliefs only started in the 1920s - it only means, in this case, that there wasn't thought to be a need for a "movement" to defend YEC beliefs prior to that time, because they were nearly universally held. It had taken the budding scientific developments going back 200-300 years prior to grow until they had reached some critical mass of YEC-skepticism, before the reactionary YEC movement grew up in response.

The LDS church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on the Earth, and that they lived a mere few thousand years ago. They also teach that all mankind today descend from a family of 8 individuals who were spared in a large wooden boat when everyone else on Earth was executed by drowning by God, again a few thousand years ago.

These beliefs are in conflict with the evidence that scientists have now uncovered as they piece together the scientific understanding of Earth's natural history. The conflict is not subtle.

I think the Des News article is either a smoke, or a mirror, in a smoke & mirrors attempt to distract LDS believers who are starting to see this conflict for what it is. But rather than encouraging them to dig in and really understand the conflict, it seeks to persuade LDS to rest assured that there really isn't a conflict at all. Ie: "smarter people than you don't think there's really a problem here, ergo you shouldn't think there's a problem here either."

[_nc47]

YEC the movement was started in the 1920s by George McBreardy. It gained steam in the 1960s.

PS: Would you like a list a atheist intellectuals who have come out and said the New Atheists are just redneck-baiting?

Among the New Atheists, Daniel Dennet is the only on one the list who makes serious arguments against religion.

I guess details don't matter much to you, eh? You're referring to George McReady Price? And you don't think any defenses of creationism, such as those faced by Darwin, were extant previously? And I'm supposed to respect your "list a atheist intellectuals" as some kind of argument? I don't think so.

I do like Daniel Denett.

Anglican priests and theologians accepted Darwin's theory quite rapidly.

So 1600 years after Jesus some guy decides to count the generations in the Bible and calculate the Earth's age.