Evolution, Science & Religion (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, June 15, 2012, 17:38 (4543 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: The idea that God created everything in 6 days and that the world is only 6k years old IS silly, just as silly as claiming that with all our complexity we were able to go from a single cell (ignoring abiogenesis for the moment) to the complex organisms we are today by pure chance.
> 
> DHW Agreed. So do you subscribe to the version of evolution I have presented above: all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer? This is precisely what David has described in his post of 15 June at 01.20: "...when you have old Earth Creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution." This is crucial to the debate on whether science and religion can overlap ... see later.
> -A designed mechanism within direction and interference, yes. The book I am currently reading, and the foundation of my I am the Walrus post, points to some interesting misunderstandings resulting from the shift in cultural paradigms as well as language when translating the early Bible. One of the misconceptions is that it categorically denies evolution, which it doesn't. Another is that it uses the term day, or a specified time frame, which it doesn't. More importantly it implies that not only was there an initial design, but that 'powers' were set in place to make that design grow, fatten, or to fill up. In other words, the mechanical translation actually lends support, on some levels, to the concept of Evolution. However, it also describes some fundamental differences between different families of creatures. Plants are in one category, fish in another, mammals in another, birds in another, etc etc, implying that no matter how hard science looks, it will never ever find a direct causal link between them. In short, fish didn't evolve from fungi, and mankind didn't evolve from fish. That is a testable hypothesis, and one of those overlap areas that I mentioned between Science and Religion. -> 
> On the subject of religion and science "overlapping", I regard morals (see Matt's post of 14 June at 22.59) as irrelevant. -Agreed. ->DHW: The controversy is over whether science and religion can come to terms in their explanations of the universe we live in. The question always arises as to the extent to which we can/cannot trust science, and our discussion on epistemology has made it clear that we can never be 100% certain of "the truth". -Ironically, this translation of Genesis says the same thing. Humanity is a agency of chaos, and chaos is something that is needed in order for anything creative to happen in a perfectly harmonious and ordered world. -Where I differ from Matt's view is this. As I said in my previous post, science and religion must be in harmony or one of them is wrong. he disagreed saying that they were not related. I disagree because if we suppose that some form of creative agency, regardless of how we identify it, is responsible for existence, science would be studying the what and how while religion studies the who, why, and what for. Philosophy tries to piece it all together into a cohesive harmonious explanation while trying to decipher meaning that is relevant to us. Incongruities in any of these fundamentally handicaps the other, and inconsistencies between them lead to misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and dysfunction. In other words, they must be harmonious. The fundamental basis of science is that the explanation MUST fit the observations, while the fundamental basis of religion is that the who, why, and what for must fit the observations. How can you answer the why or what for if your understanding of the what is incorrect? (or vice versa)
 
>DHW: .. it seems to me that religious people are on very unsafe ground if they dispute these findings. Especially if their only evidence is ancient texts written by unknown authors with little of our scientific knowledge, and passed onto us in versions which themselves are subject to dispute (see your own Walrus post). -The evidence should not only be found in the text. It should also match the observations. Even the bible blatantly states that. -
>DHW: But in my view, there is NO scientific explanation that excludes the possibility of what David calls a Universal Intelligence. Evolution certainly doesn't, nor does the Big Bang. The religious can ALWAYS argue that what we have is too complex to have arisen by chance, and that is the end of the discussion. Where religion falls apart under the scrutiny of science is in its adherence to the pronouncements of its all-too-human advocates, who insist on imposing their own dogmatic theories and interpretations on - or against - the known (as far as anything can be known) scientific facts. Precisely the same criticism applies to the anti-religious!-Agreed. That is why I do not ascribe to a particular religion. Religions are man made constructs. My belief system is comprised of experience, research, and intuition, and is subject to change on a whim if one of the three is not in harmony with the others. I have no place for tradition or dogma. -Yes, you could generically say that I agree with the basic premise that David proposes.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.