B.S. Lewis

I am a Xian, and I definitely have a firm grasp of natural selection, but I (am pretty sure I) am not a liar or deliberate fraud. I get around the supposed conflict in two ways.

One, just generally, science answers questions of "How?" and religion answers the question "Why?" Therefore, there can never really be a conflict--if there seems to be, then you must be using one or the other (science or religion) outside of it's proper context; for instance, as some creationists try to use the Bible to explain geology and biology. That's not the point of the Bible, so your interpretation is to fault for the apparent conflict--rather than either religion or science being at fault.

Two, even when I think I see some definitely irreconcilable point, I tell myself (and others at my conservative church) that whether evolution is true is not really important; the important thing about a scientific theory is that is works (i.e., predicts). So even if evolution was a bunch of crap (I don't think it is, and I freely admit this to those in my church), it would still be important to learn it and apply it, because it is, by about a million miles, the best working model we have to explain the diversity of life.

Anyway, those work for me. I am really an agnostic, but unlike most agnostics, I lean toward thinking theism is probably true, rather than leaning toward thinking it's probably false.

P.S.--I'm staunchly old earth, of course. I don't think the Bible contains anything that cannot be reconciled with an old earth, but if I did find any such thing, it would be my Xianity that would go out the window, not my old earth views. But, for the reasons listed above, I'm pretty confident that won't ever happen.

Ahab

I'm pretty much in agreement with what you say here, Flint.

But if our intellect is really such a flimsy overlay, wouldn't the issue really be empathy and not integrity? Seems to me that the more I come to recognize some of our intellectual and emotional limitations, the less I am ready to blast someone for not having enough integrity or honesty.

Of course, I all too often forget my own insight into this and get pissed off at what I consider some idiotic comment by one of those cretinous creationists.

Flint

Ahab:

Are you asking whether someone has an integrity problem if they are unable, rather than just unwilling, to tell the truth? I'm not quite ready to concede that such a disability is incurable.

Harry Bosch

Hmmm, that is stated pretty well. I couldn't disagree with you very much. But that is also a double whammy for creationism. Maybe atheists with an agenda could be faulted for pre-conceived notions or even doctoring the evidence in order to suit their beliefs. However, I am looking for evidence - want there to be evidence, but can find none. Either there is no God, or he has deliberately made it appear that there is no god. I see no other option.

mirage

So am I. But you aren't a creationist either.

Rogernme

Stinger says: Can’t find none?

The science and evidence currently tells us that the beginning was around 14 billion years ago; and that beginning entropy was inexplicably low—with no explanation and/or natural law(s) explaining how/why. I’d say that strongly implies first cause, no?

Additionally, all the known natural laws are deterministic, except for that irritating measurement problem at the quantum level, and that’s probably due to our lack of knowledge/understanding of things at that level.

So I find it hard to believe that the universe and we are the result of accident/chance; although I suppose one might believe in many universes, but that’s a big leap—no real evidence for such.

And great scientists have said interesting things—

Einstein noted that, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man....�?

Max Plank stated: “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.�?

Roger Penrose has said: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Although it may not be completely clear what these particular scientists have precisely believed, I doubt they are/were atheists.

IamMoose

I agree with the need to distinguish between young and old earth creationism. i have met plenty of old earthers who seem to understand what they're talking about and though i don't agree with them, I suppose they're welcome to believe it. I have met a lot of young earthers who talked pseudo science, but I suspect that most of their arguments would be massacred by people in here.

Asha'man

Howdy neighbor :wave:
Absolutely not. You are presenting an argument from ignorance, not evidence. And I think you either lack some understanding of thermodynamics, or are repeating a claim made by someone who lacks understanding.

Again, you are providing an argument from ignorance, specifically your ignorance. You apparently know nothing of the mathematics of chaos in the macroscopic world (Hint: weather), nor anything about modern quantum mechanics. (Hint: It’s not just a measurement problem.)

Again, this is an argument from personal incredulity. Your lack of imagination does not count as empirical evidence. Also, you’ve failed to understand the most important part of the theory of evolution: it’s not random.

And great scientists have also said very stupid things, based on operating outside their fields of expertise or echoing the common ignorance of the times.

Einstein was quite clear in his beliefs, he rejected all forms of a “personal�? god, leaving open only the possibility of deism.
So are you now trying Argument from Authority?

Rogemme, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but what you have presented here is not evidence, but a bucket load of logical fallacies. Your argument is exactly worthless except as a demonstration of how bad arguments can get.

What counts in the real world is real evidence, evidence that can withstand scrutiny by multiple people, evidence that generates clear conclusions. We want a theory that makes clear predictions, and then a search for evidence that would prove the theory wrong. Only after a theory is tested, after all attempts at falsification fail, can we accept that theory as being provisionally true.

Now, please don’t get upset and leave, like so many others have done. We want you to understand, and we are willing to take the time and effort to help you understand. But learning can only be accomplished with the cooperation of the student. Are you willing to learn?

Harry Bosch

Well, finding something "hard to believe" is not evidence! There are many things in the universe that are difficult to believe, but that doesn’t mean that we give up and say that God must have done it. Scientific evidence must be something that can be empirically tested, must be falsifiable, and subject to unbiased replication. What you are describing is mostly theology and philosophy.

Rogernme

Stinger says: Yes Stinger, well said.

You also say that what I’m describing is “mostly theology and philosophy.�?

Hmmm. I’d say that atheism is a philosophy, a philosophy “hard to believe�? in light of what current science and evidence indicates and/or implies.

I think you’d agree that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads: The universe began about 14 billion years ago; beginning entropy was inexplicably low (and it only increases); and the laws of physics that we know of (except for the unexplained measurement problem) are deterministic. In other words, the available science and evidence indicates that the universe and we aren’t here by chance.

I suspect that your mistake, Stinger, is in your assessment that Einstein, Plank, Penrose, and I “give up and say that God must have done it.�? Rather Stinger, I’d suggest you look at things another way—not that “God must have done it,�? but that chance almost certainly couldn’t have.