DocWagon
02-10-2005, 01:44
I’ve reached the conclusion that the evolution vs. creation, big bang vs. prime mover, and similar arguments are pointless. The reason for this is that we are expecting too much from science and too much from religion. Here’s my logic. Science’s power lies in its ability to predict. Religion’s power lies in its ability to explain “why” and “what is.” Usually there is no conflict, but when matters of ego come into play there seems to be the tendency to set it up as a “science vs. religion” debate.
As an example, no one debates Newtonian physics vs. “hand of God.” As an example, let’s take one of Newton’s Laws of Motion. A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Science PREDICTS that a ball rolled on a level, frictionless surface will roll forever and in a straight line. It doesn’t say why, and more importantly IT DOESN’T MATTER WHY for the theory to be useful. It doesn’t matter if an angel is pushing the ball, some “natural” tendency to movement in inherent in all mass, or a 4th dimensional space-time warp keeps it rolling down a hill we can’t detect. The Law of Motion predicts the movement of the ball without knowing or caring why it moves. Religion can answer the question of why the ball will act like this, but without resorting to science cannot predict future movements of future balls.
The compliment is this: If God created the universe, He created it in such a manner as consistent rules are universally followed. This is outstanding design, because if the rules changed at a whim, or ability to understand, predict, and adapt to the universe we live in would be crippled. How could you fly a plane if the laws of physics were variable? If Bernoulli’s principal was revoked, your plane would fall out of the sky. Science allows us to discover and exploit these rules so we can understand, exploit, and predict phenomena in our universe.
Now let’s look an example where the human ego is possibly threatened. One that now seems ridiculous, because of the distance of time, is the debate between the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the universe. Now we realize that both were wrong, although the heliocentric was a significant step in the right direction. Removing Earth from the center of the universe was a blow to the ego of man, who had always assumed we had a special and unique place in the universe. It was a scientific advance, however, as it improved the ability to predict the movement of the planets. Since egos were threatened when the Sun took over the center, a religion vs. science argument broke out, a scientist was imprisoned, and a church ended up with a rather embarrassing mark in its history.
So, let’s look at evolution and creation. This is one of the most misunderstood and purposefully obfuscated debates, especially recently. As an example, which of the following is true?
1) Darwin invented the Theory of Evolution
2) Darwin was an atheist
3) Evolution says man is descended from monkeys
4) Evolution is racist, because it assumes one race is more evolved than another.
The answer? None of them are true.
1) The theory of evolution was being debated before Darwin began his career. Darwin’s theory is the Theory of Natural Selection. Prior to Darwin, evolution’s major debate was gradualism vs. catastrophim. (If changes occur at a steady pace over long times or if they take fits of rapid change and long lulls.)
2) Darwin’s own writings and writings of his contemporaries’ show that he believed in a divine intelligence. He saw no incompatibility with his theory and his beliefs (which is a rather new inconvenience)
3) Actually, it suggests we share a common ancestor. In the same way you are not descended from your cousin, we are not descended from monkeys.
4) “More evolved” simply means, “more adapted to your environment.” It does not imply smarter, stronger, or more advanced. Only if you think the statement “dark skin is more adapted to extremely sunny environments, resulting in less skin damage and instances of skin cancer” is racist can you say evolution produces racism.
Now, I’m not going to start an evolution vs. creation debate here, there is already a thread for that. My point is to show some of the IRRELEVANT SIDE ISSUES that typically cloud the argument. All four points have zero influence on which is correct.
To deny that life forms change over time is to deny that all the new breeds of dogs don’t really exist, or to deny the cause of worry over antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Creationism (religion) cannot predict how life forms will adapt to their environment, thus is it not science. Evolution (science) cannot explain what life really is or why it formed, thus it is religion. The argument of one or the other is flawed, not because one must be right and one must be wrong, but because we are confusing the roles of two different theories.
Let’s define the theories as this:
1) God created life
2) Evolution is the process that allows creatures (those created) to adapt to their environment.
Until this last century, there was no major debate over the statement “God creates life and uses the process of evolution to change his creations.” It’s the same as physics vs. hand of God. Evolution can be the framework God uses for his work so that we can understand and predict.
The point is this: If you believe in God, a prime mover, or the number one (as Pythagoras did) as the creator of all things it is irrelevant to the power of prediction of the evolutionary sciences. Let’s say I have a bunch of white moths that have an occasional genetic flaw that makes them black. Natural Selection Evolution predicts that if their environment changes to black, a better-camouflaged moth will survive and breed, and white moths will become the flaw and black the survivors. It doesn’t matter if you think God changed the moths to their new environment or if it’s just some inherent quality THE MOTHS CHANGE ANYWAY, and they change in accordance with the predictions generated by the scientific theory.
Now let’s look at a new one that hasn’t been so popular lately. Prime Mover vs. Big Bang. Let’s say God invented the universe. Why could he not have created it with a Big Bang? Even if it all appeared instantly, it was created in such a way as to be perceived as being created with a Big Bang. The predictions of levels of hydrogen in the universe, background radiation, etc. have all been proven true. The Big Bang theory has the power of prediction, thus it is a valid scientific theory. It does not eliminate God. It does not say what the universe is, why it was created, or even the real “How if was created.” What is says is this is the process that was used to create it. No one believes hammers build houses, but no one denies that driving nails is a process of creating a house.
Let’s assume God created the universe. Let’s even say he created it 5,000 years ago. He created it in such a manner that we perceive it as much older and as such it is older to us. The perception is actually the universe we have to live in, that allows us to predict its behavior, and to understand and exploit its phenomena. From a predictive (scientific) point of view, it’s irrelevant who or what created the universe.
I realize that this won’t stop the debates, but perhaps we can pull back a bit and look at the bigger picture. This applies equally to those letting religon spill into the realm of science and those substituting science for religion. It can be heard, especially with all the propoganda surrounding certain issues.
We don’t have to stop supporting science to support religion, and vice versa. After all, you can still pray for someone who’s seeing a doctor, can’t you? The doctor isn’t the bad guy because he uses science to heal, and a biologist isn’t a bad guy because he creates the base science for the doctor.
As an example, no one debates Newtonian physics vs. “hand of God.” As an example, let’s take one of Newton’s Laws of Motion. A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Science PREDICTS that a ball rolled on a level, frictionless surface will roll forever and in a straight line. It doesn’t say why, and more importantly IT DOESN’T MATTER WHY for the theory to be useful. It doesn’t matter if an angel is pushing the ball, some “natural” tendency to movement in inherent in all mass, or a 4th dimensional space-time warp keeps it rolling down a hill we can’t detect. The Law of Motion predicts the movement of the ball without knowing or caring why it moves. Religion can answer the question of why the ball will act like this, but without resorting to science cannot predict future movements of future balls.
The compliment is this: If God created the universe, He created it in such a manner as consistent rules are universally followed. This is outstanding design, because if the rules changed at a whim, or ability to understand, predict, and adapt to the universe we live in would be crippled. How could you fly a plane if the laws of physics were variable? If Bernoulli’s principal was revoked, your plane would fall out of the sky. Science allows us to discover and exploit these rules so we can understand, exploit, and predict phenomena in our universe.
Now let’s look an example where the human ego is possibly threatened. One that now seems ridiculous, because of the distance of time, is the debate between the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the universe. Now we realize that both were wrong, although the heliocentric was a significant step in the right direction. Removing Earth from the center of the universe was a blow to the ego of man, who had always assumed we had a special and unique place in the universe. It was a scientific advance, however, as it improved the ability to predict the movement of the planets. Since egos were threatened when the Sun took over the center, a religion vs. science argument broke out, a scientist was imprisoned, and a church ended up with a rather embarrassing mark in its history.
So, let’s look at evolution and creation. This is one of the most misunderstood and purposefully obfuscated debates, especially recently. As an example, which of the following is true?
1) Darwin invented the Theory of Evolution
2) Darwin was an atheist
3) Evolution says man is descended from monkeys
4) Evolution is racist, because it assumes one race is more evolved than another.
The answer? None of them are true.
1) The theory of evolution was being debated before Darwin began his career. Darwin’s theory is the Theory of Natural Selection. Prior to Darwin, evolution’s major debate was gradualism vs. catastrophim. (If changes occur at a steady pace over long times or if they take fits of rapid change and long lulls.)
2) Darwin’s own writings and writings of his contemporaries’ show that he believed in a divine intelligence. He saw no incompatibility with his theory and his beliefs (which is a rather new inconvenience)
3) Actually, it suggests we share a common ancestor. In the same way you are not descended from your cousin, we are not descended from monkeys.
4) “More evolved” simply means, “more adapted to your environment.” It does not imply smarter, stronger, or more advanced. Only if you think the statement “dark skin is more adapted to extremely sunny environments, resulting in less skin damage and instances of skin cancer” is racist can you say evolution produces racism.
Now, I’m not going to start an evolution vs. creation debate here, there is already a thread for that. My point is to show some of the IRRELEVANT SIDE ISSUES that typically cloud the argument. All four points have zero influence on which is correct.
To deny that life forms change over time is to deny that all the new breeds of dogs don’t really exist, or to deny the cause of worry over antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Creationism (religion) cannot predict how life forms will adapt to their environment, thus is it not science. Evolution (science) cannot explain what life really is or why it formed, thus it is religion. The argument of one or the other is flawed, not because one must be right and one must be wrong, but because we are confusing the roles of two different theories.
Let’s define the theories as this:
1) God created life
2) Evolution is the process that allows creatures (those created) to adapt to their environment.
Until this last century, there was no major debate over the statement “God creates life and uses the process of evolution to change his creations.” It’s the same as physics vs. hand of God. Evolution can be the framework God uses for his work so that we can understand and predict.
The point is this: If you believe in God, a prime mover, or the number one (as Pythagoras did) as the creator of all things it is irrelevant to the power of prediction of the evolutionary sciences. Let’s say I have a bunch of white moths that have an occasional genetic flaw that makes them black. Natural Selection Evolution predicts that if their environment changes to black, a better-camouflaged moth will survive and breed, and white moths will become the flaw and black the survivors. It doesn’t matter if you think God changed the moths to their new environment or if it’s just some inherent quality THE MOTHS CHANGE ANYWAY, and they change in accordance with the predictions generated by the scientific theory.
Now let’s look at a new one that hasn’t been so popular lately. Prime Mover vs. Big Bang. Let’s say God invented the universe. Why could he not have created it with a Big Bang? Even if it all appeared instantly, it was created in such a way as to be perceived as being created with a Big Bang. The predictions of levels of hydrogen in the universe, background radiation, etc. have all been proven true. The Big Bang theory has the power of prediction, thus it is a valid scientific theory. It does not eliminate God. It does not say what the universe is, why it was created, or even the real “How if was created.” What is says is this is the process that was used to create it. No one believes hammers build houses, but no one denies that driving nails is a process of creating a house.
Let’s assume God created the universe. Let’s even say he created it 5,000 years ago. He created it in such a manner that we perceive it as much older and as such it is older to us. The perception is actually the universe we have to live in, that allows us to predict its behavior, and to understand and exploit its phenomena. From a predictive (scientific) point of view, it’s irrelevant who or what created the universe.
I realize that this won’t stop the debates, but perhaps we can pull back a bit and look at the bigger picture. This applies equally to those letting religon spill into the realm of science and those substituting science for religion. It can be heard, especially with all the propoganda surrounding certain issues.
We don’t have to stop supporting science to support religion, and vice versa. After all, you can still pray for someone who’s seeing a doctor, can’t you? The doctor isn’t the bad guy because he uses science to heal, and a biologist isn’t a bad guy because he creates the base science for the doctor.