Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

Does his noodliness respect the conclusions of science?

Does my theist God? When did I enter into this?

I would think that my initial argument would indicate that science reveals God, so supposing that my initial argument is.. my theist God... then I suppose, yes. Which is exactly what I was saying from the beginning: That there exists a conception of science and religion such that they can be mutually relevant.

Well, do note: Falsifiable assertions aren't true either (I take that to be what you mean by "real"). They're a set of existential statements that cause one to abandon a general principal. That general principal only has a set of possible explanations -- it doesn't actually say what is. This general principal and those existential statements, themselves, are only accepted when we feel satisfied with them. That's straight out of Popper, which seems to be where you're coming from now by quickly attaching on "Falsifiable" as a criteria, after I gave you a logical explication.

What's more, stating a concept is, indeed, enough to show that the conception exists. I'm not really deep-ending anything, here. Spinoza is pretty well known Philosophy stuff. link

Based on the complexity of life (characterized by a whole boatload of examples), it is reasonable to assert that there is an intelligent designer. This would pretty much explain everything there is to explain about life. Also based on the complexity of life, it is reasonable (though not intuitive) to assert that life came to be through random chance and progressive, minute changes. This could also explain pretty much all of life's components. However, if there is a God (which is reasonable to believe, based on evidence already discussed), it is much easier, logically, to assert that he created life intelligently than to assert that life came about due to random chance. Life accidentally happening is extremely unlikely. Therefore, it requires more evidence/reasoning for support than the more reasonable conclusion of design. If that evidence/reasoning, when inevitably provided, isn't adequate, then evolution automatically becomes less reasonable than the alternative. This alternative (intelligent design) is therefore *more* reasonable to believe.

That said, yes, that is my general defense. It seems like an okay defense to me.

rosborne979 wrote:

The Universe is not fine-tuned for us. We are fine-tuned for it. There is a 100% probability that the life within any universe will observe that universe to be compatible with that life.

I wasn't specifically addressing fine-tuning for us. I was also referring to fine-tuning in general. Such as the fine-tuning that allows the universe to not collapse back on itself; the fine-tuning that makes laws of physics possible; the very fine-tuning that makes the structure of the atom.

Again, you can't explain away that fine-tuning (completely forgetting for a moment about compatibility with life) with random chance, for the reasons I already stated in my previous post.

rosborne979 wrote:

Correct. That's the way it works.

Forgive me, but that sounds like bias, pure and simple. Your statement suggests that even if every single shred of scientific evidence pointed toward the existence of God, good scientists would reject such a conclusion simply because "God doesn't exist, duh." It would be like, in a murder trial, rejecting conclusive evidence just because, "you know, the suspect didn't do it."

rosborne979 wrote:

Because that's not the way it works.

Quite vague...would you explain why you say this?

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm very familiar with Michael Behe. I've been to this rodeo before.
Behe's theories are simply wrong. Besides being based on a flawed premise, they went down in dramatic flames in the Dover trial.

My finite knowledge is (remarkably) limited...believe it or not, I haven't heard of the Dover trial. My apologies; for now, I'll look into it.

rosborne979 wrote:

Of course not. That's creationist propaganda. Evolution doesn't predict that nor require it.

Are you really going to say this? It severely weakens your case. How does evolution NOT require it? If the first cell didn't come into existence by undirected natural processes, then where DID it come from? Furthermore, wouldn't that mean that all other life wouldn't need to come from undirected natural processes, either? Please do explain to me how the evolution theory can hold any water if it claims that the first cell did not evolve or spontaneously come into being.

P.S. Actually, I was a member of the once-standalone Philosophy Forum, which has obviously merged with this site. I come here after being a member of that previous site for what my have been approaching a month. Not that it relates to the current discussion at all...

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? It pretty much wrecks your defense right out of the gate.

The basic principle of what I was suggesting applies to everything, not just "life". We are only here to question the "fine tuning" of things because it's possible within this Universe. How many billions of Universes may have come and gone before without anyone ever complaining about their lack of fine tuning, simply because they collapsed immediately. The probability is squarely in our favor.

You are also conveniently leaving out Selection whenever you mention Random Chance. If Random Chance alone was all that affected the system then you might have a point, but it's not. Far from it. Selection is critical, and powerful.

I'm just reciting the dictionary definition of science. I don't need to justify it.

Cells are too complex to evolve spontaneously. There are also several threads here on A2K which delv deeply into Abiogenesis and how it may happen. The discussions are extensive. I'll try to locate that thread for you as well.

If you're suggesting that evolution is the simpler (and therefore true) explanation, I would sharply contend with that. It requires lots of explanation to explain how random chance can evolve life. I would suggest that evolution is the far more complicated explanation. (Forgive me if I didn't understand your point.)

Just because we're here to question the fine-tuning doesn't mean it's irrational for us to question it. How does the question of "how did the universe become fine-tuned enough to survive itself" not still stand?

I've heard what Dawkins has said about the nature of natural selection, and it seems like nonsense to me. The entire premise of evolution is random chance.

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm just reciting the dictionary definition of science. I don't need to justify it.

Please cite the dictionary you're using, and use the exact wording from that dictionary.

Okay, so spontaneous generation is out of the question for now. You still believe chemical evolution (another name for abiogenesis) produced the first cell?

Because it's not fine tuned. That's just a subjective judgement you are making.

Klope3 wrote:

You still believe chemical evolution (another name for abiogenesis) produced the first cell?

Pretty much.

there are a number of fundamental constants which might easily have been otherwise, and which appear to exist within an exceedingly narrow range, for no reason that science can discern.

But it is nevertheless true that there are a number of fundamental constants which might easily have been otherwise, and which appear to exist within an exceedingly narrow range, for no reason that science can discern. If any of them had been different by a fraction of a percentage, matter would not have formed, and nothing would exist.

Endosymbiosis offers a plausible model for the process.

Endosymbiosis offers a plausible model for the process.

ughaibu wrote:

Endosymbiosis offers a plausible model for the process.

Endosymbiotic theory doesn't address the rudimentary transition from chemicals to replicative molecules, and that's where most challenges to abiogenesis start. Once replication starts, then evolution takes over.