Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Laughed my ass off, Boss, that was priceless . . .

It may not be a fact to you, but evolution (micro, macro and everything in between) is considered a scientific fact. The physical evidence in support of the modern synthesis (Current Evolutionary Theory) is overwhelming to a vast majority of scientists, and that makes it a scientific fact.

What? Evolution is in no way fact!! It is still a guess, it will never become a fact because you cannot test the past. You can look at stuff all day long, but that doesn't mean that will be able to figure out what really happened.

Do you doubt that Redwood trees grow from seeds just because you were not there to watch them grow? Of coures not. There is enough evidence that Redwoods grew from seeds that we know it to be a fact, even though we didn't see it.

In just the same way, there is enough evidence that life evolved that we know it to be a fact, even though we were not there to watch it.

Rosborne is correct. What scientists accept is what science is.

Arguments about "facts" tend to become futile when one side has different criteria for "evidence". As stated by others in this thread, theists could accept evolution if they were to adopt some sort of God/Vitalism mechanism to drive evolution. But this would imply that they would have throw away their crutches of the literary "truth" of bible and the anthropocentrism it contains.

Simplistic theists need to get their timelines into perpective. What is it now..if the age of the earth is drawn as a line ten yards long, man has been here for the thickness of a fingernail (or something like that)... and we don't specifically need "evolution" for that picture.

It occurs to me that the lifespan of the bible is about the thickness of a layer of nail varnish!

What are you two smoking? All scientists agree that evolution is only a theory, what do you know that they don't?

The term "theory" in science does not mean "guess". Many people make this mistake.

the·o·ry P Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Theory still does not mean fact, otherwise it would be a law.

thunder runner

Sir John Polkinghorne
Dr. Polkinghorne is an Anglican priest, the President of Queens' College, Cambridge University, and former Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge. Polkinghorne resigned his chair in physics to study for the Anglican priesthood. After completing his theological studies and serving at parishes, he returned to Cambridge. During the same time period, he wrote a series of books on the compatibility of religion and science.

Heres a link to Polkinghornes position on evolution
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html

As an atheist I do not subscribe to Polkinhornes views, but you as a theist should take note that someone of his standing makes efforts to embrace evolutionary theory within theism.

You're getting hung up on symantecs. Somehow I don't think that calling it a scientific law instead of a scientific fact would change your opinion much.

The term "law" is applied to scientific facts which are expressed mathematically. Otherwise, they are simply called scientific facts.

For example, it is a scientific fact that a tree is a plant, and it's a scientific fact that a human is a mammal. And in exactly the same usage, it's a scientific fact that trees and mammals evolved.

Did scientists ever have a logical explanation for how the earth was created and how perfect everything was. Im sure there is i just don't know what scientists best argument for creation is. Also people use the human eye and its complexities to argue against evolution. Does anyone know why is it cause it is so complex?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

-- Arthur C. Clarke

This is possibly one of the most misquoted quotes you'll find. It is also one of the most prolific thoughts expressed by a modern author. I typed "sufficiently advanced technology+magic" into the google tool bar, so i could be sure of the exact text of the quote. I got 2,210,000 results.

Science will eventually prove that there is no god.
Atheists don't have to redefine science to show that there is no God because this will be eventually proven. My explanation is this. The universe is infintely small and infinitely large. There is also infintely in time. The medallion on the left symbolizes this. Where would this "God" be? If you consider this "God" to be infinity of the universe, then this "God" has no consciousness. Infinity is neither good nor evil. I don't know what branch of science will prove this, but it will evetnually happen.

thunder runner

I am not going to discuss evolution - although I think that all scientific perspectives are scientific theories, more or less plausible.

I think the problem is in the way you see the Bible. If you take it literally you would have to refuse electricity, sphericity of the earth, heliocentric theory ... all that mankind has discovered since then.
The author (or authors) of the Genesis lived in a non scientific period. They tried to give explanations to the world, according to another way of thinking. Their explanation for the creation has the same value of idea of Hesiodus "marriage" between Uranus and Gaia (Hesiodus was a contemporary of the book of the Genesis).

I cannot understand why people insist on comparing texts that never had any intention - or idea - of a scientific explanation, with scientific theories.
What we can see, among all the myths of creation - every civilization has one - is that there is a persisting idea: God created the world, the reality.
It is the religious answer to the famous question: why there are things instead of nothing? The religious answer is: because God created them.

I am not religious but if I was, I would think that the only essential principle, in this subject, is: God created reality.
But if he did that in six days, with a duck (finnish legend "Luonotar"), or creating the oak that sustains the world (viking legend) are, in my point of view, poetical metaphors that you cannot confront with a scientific perspective.

I found a pretty good article read it and tell me what you think

Evolution debate turns into debate over intelligent design [farcical "debate" approaching]
Kansas City Star ^ | 30 April 2005 | JOHN HANNA


Posted on 04/30/2005 10:08:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry


When Bill Harris examines a bacterium's whip-like tail, he sees a food-finding, poison-avoiding machine the likes of which man can't build. That and other observations lead him to question evolution.

"It's got function; it's got purpose," said Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "In science, you follow where the evidence goes."

Harris is at the center of a contentious debate over science testing standards for Kansas schools. He and other advocates of intelligent design want to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution, particularly conclusions that change over time in a species can lead to a new one and that man, apes and other animals had common ancestors. Many scientists view intelligent design - which says some features of the natural world, because of their well-ordered complexity, are best explained by an intelligent cause - as creationism.

"They're trying to prove God, scientifically," said Denis Lamoureux, an assistant professor of science and religion at the University of Alberta in Canada, who also describes himself as a born-again Christian.

In June, the State Board of Education expects to consider changes to science standards, which currently describe evolution as a key concept for students to learn.

A three-member board subcommittee plans hearings May 5-7 and 12-14, and intelligent design, or "ID," advocates expect nearly two dozen witnesses to critique evolution. National and state science groups are boycotting, viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution.

Intelligent design advocates haven't proposed citing ID in the standards or including it in lessons. Yet ID is under scrutiny because scientists fear there will be an attempt to sneak it - or even creationism - into the classroom. Critics contend intelligent design is a response to court rulings against teaching creationism in public schools.

Backers of intelligent design said opponents are trying unfairly to identify ID advocates with Christians who take literally the Bible's account of a divine, six-day creation. Advocates stress that ID doesn't identify the intelligent cause of creation - or claim that science can.

"You cannot, by seeing something that's designed, know anything about the designer," Harris said. "The data doesn't take you to the God of the Bible, the Koran, or some little green man on Mars. We're not being coy."

Critics of intelligent design scoff at such arguments.

"We're not talking about little green aliens," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa math teacher and former science curriculum designer affiliated with Kansas Citizens for Science. "What kind of designer has been around 4 billion years and has the power to do - literally - God knows what?"

John West, senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports [but doesn't really do] intelligent design research, said ID advocates aren't challenging explanations for changes within species over time. Instead, he said, the controversy is about how new species arise and whether there's a common ancestor for all life.

"From goo to you, via the zoo," Harris said. "That's the big Darwinian picture."

West pointed to the Cambrian Explosion - a sudden appearance of diverse, multicelled life during the Cambrian Period, some 500 million years ago. Where fossils for ancestors of Cambrian life should exist, he said, they are lacking.

"This is turning Darwin's theory on its head," he said.

Richard Schrock, an Emporia State University biology teacher, said the record is spotty possibly because Precambrian seas were more acidic, destroying potential fossils. With advances in genetic research, he said, "It's not causing a problem."

"They're fighting a losing battle," he said of intelligent design advocates. "The universities here, we're not going to be presenting intelligent design in our curriculums, because it has no scientific credence."

Among the 23 witnesses expected to question evolution during the hearings in May are teachers, chemists and biology, religion and philosophy professors.

Lamoureux said while such a lineup can look impressive, most intelligent design advocates aren't well-trained or work day-to-day in historical sciences such as paleontology or evolutionary biology.

"Are they bright guys? No question. Do they have good Ph.D.s from great institutions? No doubt about it," said Lamaoureux, who once planned to participate in the hearings but pulled out. "But if you're a dentist, you can't deliver babies."

West said ID critics "sling mud" instead of defending Charles Darwin's theory and their conclusions about evolution.

Schrock said scientists are frustrated because while ID advocates did not gain credibility among scientists, they were still able to create a political and social debate. He said that's because, "The level of scientific stupidity in America is terrifically high."

Lamoureux said intelligent design taps into the wonder the natural world can inspire - and into people's religious experiences.

"Rhetorically, it's unbelievably powerful," he said. "It's something most people can wrap their brains around."

Wow, your medallion is the answer to everything!!



1)where in the bible does it say these things?

2)the people in the bible did not make these things up, they are from the word of God, not just some idea they had.

Discreet,

Thanks for that article.

IMO the main criticism of ID comes from "systems theory". I think I have already refered to Prigogines work above which demonstrated the spontaneous occurence of "structure" in a dynamic chemical system far from equilbrium, and Lovelock managed to simulate life-like ecosystems with his simple model "daisyworld" which showed basic adaptability and equilibrium as the parameters were changed. Scientists have moved on from simplistic linear causal models. The mathematics of "complexity" allows for the evolution of structure without evoking "a controller".

Some people claim ID to be the golden calf of our time though

Some people claim that Elvis is still alive...just because someone says it, does not automatically give it credibility.

How do you know this?

As you said...