Evolution? How?

For my part, whether anyone asked me or not, the difference between the belief to which Ros refers with regard to naturalism, and that which underpins the rantings of the god squad is quite simple. To beleive in naturalistic explanations is to believe in a system of thought which is coherent and consistent, and from which accurate predictions are not only possible, they are common. Naturalistic explanations entail being able to predict chemical reactions, biological reactions, the reactions of bodies and energetic reactions in physics . . .

One "believes" that oncoming traffic will stop at a red light, and acts upon the belief, the majority of the time without incident. The occassional "accident" which occurs when someone fails to stop at a red light does nothing to either reduce or invalidate the continuing belief that oncoming traffic will stop at a red light.

Theism, however, requires faith, which is a belief absent any evidence. One cannot predict the results of "divine" action, to which the palliative answer is that "god" moves in mysterious ways. The difference between two such belief sets is stark. The one provides a framework for making reasonable estimates based upon experience which is again and again confirmed, independently of the prejudices of the observer. The other requires belief without evidence, and an adherence to the dictates of scriptural exegesis which claims that written passages mean what they patently do not say.

Here's another downer for religionists. In today's San Jose Mercury News, front page article, "Power of prayer flunks major medical test." Here's the result of the study's patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and complications suffered by:

51% of those who were not prayed for.
52% of those who were prayed for but didn't know about it.
59% of those who were prayed for and knew about it.

This was one of the most scientifically vigerous invstation of whether prary can heal illness involving more than 1,800 patients.

As this study shows, prayer is dangerous, because it increases expectations of healing.

So God moves in mysterious ways? So they are unconcievable by us? We could never understand? Well THAT make most Theist's contrary to themselves because no theist is claiming that they don't understand, they cliam that the understand what they can never explain.

rl. my "take" is that we strive for natural explanations and dont have any way of factoring in "supernatural" factors. If everything were explainable with supernatural causes (of course assuming that evidence even allows this to be a valid concept) Then I suppose much of the NATURAL sciences would be out of anything to do.

If we had NO EVIDENCE regarding evolution o atomic theory or magnetism, then Id say that supernatural could be just as feasible an explanation. However, we have all this troublesome evidence that weve gotta deal with somehow.
Does God sit around snickering about how she keeps leaving evidence and we keep coming up with mew technologies to investigate these evidence? Is she an old trickster? I thought that was one of Satans pen names.

The latest New York Times article shows that prayer does not work. This conclusion was made after a rigorous investigation that shows people who knew they were prayed for ended up with worse health problems.

The invisible friend that many pray to have nothing to back their premise that prayer works; just the opposite.

To call this a scientific test is ludicrous.

Were all of the sick who are compared with one another at the same degree of illness? Obviously not, some were much worse off at the beginning than others so you are not starting off with an equivalence in your test subjects.

Did each one of them undergo exactly the same medical procedures, take exactly the same medicines, and follow the same regimen as regards diet, exercise, cessation of smoking, etc. Again obviously not. Probably not two of them out of hundeds were alike.

Did each of the persons praying receive the same instructions regarding how to pray for the sick? Obviously not, they were from diverse religious groups and probably have a wide variance as to what is believed regarding prayer and specifically prayer for seriously ill persons, and each one followed their own manner of prayer.

They were not told to pray all in the same way, nor were they standardized in any manner.

So on both sides of the equation -- the sick and the pray-er --- you probably don't have any two alike, no standardization before or during the test, just the attempt afterward to draw a conclusion based on a faulty method.

You're gonna call this a 'scientific' test?

I believe that c i was having a little fun. Hes such a scamp.

rl, You'll have to contact the New York Times about this article. I'm just reporting what the "scientists" found in this investigation. You can poo-poo any scientific finding you wish, but you need to back up your opinion with facts and figures like the scientists. They investigate 1,800 patients. How many did you investigate? As for similar or equal illness, there is no such animal; scientists can only go by similar symptoms and medical invervention for same.

However, it is overreaching to dub it ludicrous. It's only one study and the patients were alike in their illness and the remedy. I'd like to see more. Perhaps as it does not work well for the underdog football team, it doesn't work well for medical patients either.

Yeah he's quite a card. I think he needs to be dealt with.

rl, Start dealing.

This is veering off topic -- I think I detect some prayers that Creationism or ID is real. Let's see what kind of outcome that relinquishes.

I don't think prayers can help those two. Creationism and ID is a fatal afflictions. They're dead ideas walking.

I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.


Oh, that "Prayer doesn't work" study ... its just the latest, and the most scientifically rigorous, of a number of studies that have found the same. No study demonstrating the efficacy of prayer ever has been published in any reputable journal.

timber, We're all going to wait a very long time.

Hell, if it really exists, will freeze over.

Get in line, i've never gotten any proof, circumstantial or otherwise, for a creation. I'll not surprised to have more of the "Oh Yeah? What about this stuff science can't explain?" crapola, though . . .

They teach them well don't they? Once it's embedded into their brains, nothing else can penetrate it.

It's the sin of omission. They point out niggling details of evolution that haven't been absolutely proven yet and that's their proof that the whole science is wrong. Certainly wouldn't want any of them working for me.

The crucial detail is that when alleging a fault in the science, or a lacuna in scientific explanation (about which they are so frequently wrong), they intend to assert that since science can't explain it all, their religion must be the correct answer, because it can explain it all--as in, "god" did it.