Reconciling faith and science

John, I agree with you. I believe in evolution but also in some form of creation. I just don't believe in creation as many do.

I'm willing to accept the logical such as the fact that we have evolved somewhat because we didn't always look like we do now but I get stuck somewhere in the middle because it seems like a constant tug-of-war that if you believe in creation you can't believe in evolution and if you accept the evolution theory than creation is ridiculous.

I try to hear everything and than take what resonates or makes the most sense to myself. I find there are too many egos in the world and sometimes instead of being wiling to hear everything we have a tendency to have selective hearing as to what supports our notions and beliefs.

0 Replies

You don't have to believe in Evolution.
It does not require belief.

0 Replies

Heliotrope wrote:

You don't have to believe in Evolution.
It does not require belief.

But it does take some degree of belief to the whole theory, the parts that are inconsistent or vague.

0 Replies

Like those where a gigantic pyramid of logic is posited upon the length of a bone from a pigeon somebody strangled in a Kentish cottage extension and boiled and applied a micrometer to compared to a similar bone from one that had got itself stuck in some mud a couple of hundred million years ago (approx) whilst diving in on a parched pea a bit clumsily.

0 Replies

azure wrote:

Heliotrope wrote:
You don't have to believe in Evolution.
It does not require belief.

But it does take some degree of belief to the whole theory, the parts that are inconsistent or vague.

No.
None at all.
If there are gaps in the hypothesis it would never have made it to the status of a theory.
None of it is vague. None of it is inconsistent.
It is all very clear and straightforward.
No "belief" required because there is nothing you are asked to accept as true without evidence, observations and huge amounts of backup data.
In any case the Theory Of Evolution, Darwinism, Natural Selection etc... has more than enough evidence and experimental proof to be elevated to the status of a Law.
Hence the Law of Evolution and the Law of Natural Selection.

Remember, you can go out and verify the principles of Natural Selection yourself should you choose to.
All you need to do is go out an observe the natual world for a few decades.

0 Replies

I never said "Gaps" I said inconsistencies.

You said if there were gaps in the HYPOTHESIS it would have never made it to theory?

That sentence in itself is a contradiction because a theory is a hypothesis which is an educated guess. There are many theories that don't hold water regarding the theory on the whole.

I would not tell you that Crick's theory should be a scientific law when I know that it's simply a theory with probable inconsistency that we might never know because we have not observed the origin of life. I give much more weight to DNA research then to evolution quite honestly. Likewise there are too many things that are infact theory in science that have not been proved beyond a resonable doubt scientifically and should we all just believe every plausible scientific theory that seems to make sense?

This is why I do not like to argue the subject. There are too many people who are heartfelt and not willing to see the other side. Maybe this would be selective will.

I should go out and observe natural selection? Dear I hate to tell you this but I've been attempting to observe my own life for many years and I still don't get it! Very Happy

0 Replies

azure wrote:

I never said "Gaps" I said inconsistencies.

Quite.
However unless you wish to get into the depths of recondite semantics I suggest you accept them as being generally similar and thusly meaning roughly the same thing. Gaps. Issues. Problems. Holes. Incosistencies. Anomalies. etc...
I trust I make myself clear ?

Quote:

You said if there were gaps in the HYPOTHESIS it would have never made it to theory?

Correct.
I did.
A Hypothesis cannot be a Theory if it has inconsistencies or other holes.

Quote:

That sentence in itself is a contradiction

How so ?

Quote:

because a theory is a hypothesis

Incorrect.

Theory
Noun (pl. theories)
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
2. An idea accounting for or justifying something.
3. A set of principles on which an activity is based.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theory?view=uk

Hypothesis
Noun (pl. hypotheses /hipothiseez/)
1. A supposition made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. (Philosophy) A proposition made as a basis for reasoning.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hypothesis?view=uk

Quote:

a theory is a hypothesis which is an educated guess.

Incorrect.
A Theory is as close to being a fact that it makes no difference.
It is becked up by all the experimental evidence, mathematics and observation that humans are capable of expending upon it.

I suggest you check your definition of theory rather more carefully before using it.
99% of the ill-educated buffoons out in TV land equate Theory to what is actually known as conjecture or speculation.

Quote:

There are many theories that don't hold water regarding the theory on the whole.

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.
It is illogical.
Would you mind recasting it in an understandable form please ?

Quote:

I give much more weight to DNA research then to evolution quite honestly.

You are expressing your opinion. Not a position which is in accordance with the data and observations.
Personal opinions are irrelevant in this context.

Quote:

Likewise there are too many things that are infact theory in science that have not been proved beyond a resonable doubt scientifically

That's correct. There are indeed many things that have not been proven beyond resonable doubt.
These things are referred to as Hypotheses or Conjectures.
The things that have been proven beyond a resonable doubt are referred to as Theories.

Quote:

and should we all just believe every plausible scientific theory that seems to make sense?

Belief in a Theory is not required.
There is no further point in continual references to belief where the facts are concerned.

Quote:

This is why I do not like to argue the subject. There are too many people who are heartfelt and not willing to see the other side.

The sides are delineated by the facts. Not by people's desires to see a particular outcome.
Any other behaviour is simultaneously irrational and illogical.

Quote:

Dear I hate to tell you this but I've been attempting to observe my own life for many years and I still don't get it!

Well.
Quite.

0 Replies

Gaps and consistencies...fair enough.

However I think I'm well aware of the defintion of hypothesis versus theory. A hypothesis is an idead with limited evidence where as the theory of evolution must not be so as you were previously staing it should be law.

In regards to theories not holding water for the theory on the whole, you wanted it stated more understandable?
The evolution theory for one. In short one example would be; life generated from non-life matter? This in itself violates the law of biogenesis which states that life can only come from life. Am I expected to believe that life did come from non-life but just that once? After that one time it never happened again in the history of earth? Hence I don't believe it and it can't be proven.

Personal opinions are irrevelant in this context? you were commenting on my personal opinion to begin with and your rebutting with your opinion that evolution should be made into law.

Belief is required as to where I am asked to believe certain aspects of a theory that have not been and can never be proven. I'm not saying I don't believe in facts, I'm clearly stating I don't believe in certain aspects of the theory that have not been proven to be factual.
For example...it's a fact the world is round. However before it was proven people either believed it was flat or round.

Facts are one thing but in the end we don't have all the facts. We have missing pieces that are explained by scientific opinion and thats all. They have not been proven and yet are called fact in means of debate. Infact I might never understand this.

0 Replies

azure wrote:

However I think I'm well aware of the defintion of hypothesis versus theory. A hypothesis is an idead with limited evidence where as the theory of evolution must not be so as you were previously staing it should be law.

There is more than enough evidence and observation for Evolution to be a Law.

Quote:

In regards to theories not holding water for the theory on the whole, you wanted it stated more understandable?

Yes please.

Quote:

The evolution theory for one. In short one example would be; life generated from non-life matter? This in itself violates the law of biogenesis which states that life can only come from life.

That is more understandable ?
I fail to see the correlation between more understandable and quoting a speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
The "law of biogenesis" ?
What law ?
Life on this planet came from organic compounds. It did not come from life.

Quote:

Am I expected to believe

You are not expected to "believe" anything at all.
The facts are there.
Go look for them.
If you choose not to accept them you have two options.
1) Retreat into fundamentalism.
2) Go verify the information for yourself.

Quote:

... that life did come from non-life but just that once? After that one time it never happened again in the history of earth? Hence I don't believe it and it can't be proven.

Who said anything about "just once" ?
No one.
Life is generated whenever appropriate conditions exist. It is illogical and irrational to assume a single instance of that generation on this planet or anywhere else in the Universe.

Quote:

Personal opinions are irrevelant in this context? you were commenting on my personal opinion to begin with and your rebutting with your opinion that evolution should be made into law.

I was not rebutting with my personal opinion.
I rarely state my own personal opinions unless directly asked what I think or forced to make myself clear in order to separate my personal viewpoint from that of the facts.

Quote:

Facts are one thing but in the end we don't have all the facts.

True.
That's what the scientific enterprise is all about : To go and find out what is and what is not.

Quote:

We have missing pieces that are explained by scientific opinion and thats all.

Incorrect.
Opinion does not enter into it.
Opinion is a personal viewpoint biased by all that makes you you.
If there is not enough data to come to a conclusion then that is clearly stated. If there is enough data to come to a tentative conclusion then that is clearly stated too. If there is enough data to come to a conclusion then one can start to form a hypothesis and define experiments which could be performed in order to back up the hypothesis.

Quote:

They have not been proven and yet are called fact in means of debate.

Things that have not yet been proven are not called facts.

Quote:

Infact I might never understand this.

Well, quite.

0 Replies

Faith a view as too the why or purpose behind creation and existence pre-supposing a guided and powerful, inteligent creator rather than random chance.

Science a view or model of the mechanisms deployed to best achieve and sustain creation and reality thereafter, where its was a random chance or giuded process.

Neither proves nor disproves the other, unless science tries to act like god or faith tries to play at science, both of which acts tend to fail and make the originator look rather foolish.

0 Replies

Reconciling faith and science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know