Nice slip o' info into the comic..

[Msd22000]

I have to agree with the argument made earlier FAITH and SCIENCE are not mutually incompatable. The existence of evolution is firmly rooted in scientific observation and factual observations. However, the existence of evolution does not require the starting point to be random. I see no contradiction in an all powerful being creating the starting point, and using evolution as a regulating mechanism to make sure that the beings created continue to thrive. Please note that I am not arguing that the starting point was complex organisms. Simple one cell life is a sufficent starting point.
Faith is the belief in the unknowable, the unseeable, and the unverifiable. Science is the examination and understanding of the quantifiable, the repeatable. Both faith and science evolve over time. One hundred years ago no one could envision something everyone here takes for granted. The idea of people in widely seperate parts of the world being able to carry on a discussion with each other through "letters" left in a common area. The participants reading and responding to these letters without having to leave their own home. Yet here we are doing right now in this forum. Science provided the mechanism for us to do this. Faith has undergone a similar evolution, although because of its very nature that evolution is slower that that of science where things can be more readily understood.

Both faith and science interact with each other. Science shows us just how incredibly complex our universe is. If anything this should increase our sense of wonder and faith. Faith allows us to believe in something greater than ourselves. It allows us to know that there are truths that can not be quantified. Even if science was to prove that every event in the Bible did not happen it would not invalidate the belief in a higher being or the belief in these truths. The Bible, or any other holy book for that matter, was written through the world view of people who lived in a different time and who did not view the world in the same way that we do. What is important are the core truths that they were trying to convey, not the exact wording. Also, things may have been added, removed, mis-translated, or mis-understood by people over the generations. Just as science has had things added, removed, mis-translated, and mis-understood, phrenology is a good example.

Personally, I believe that there probably is a God, but I also believe that unfortunately most major religions have been corrupted to serve the secular needs of the ruling class, the priests. This is NOT to say that the major religions have not done a lot of good, they have. This is NOT to say that the people who follow these religions are bad, dupes, or fools. And it is definately NOT to say that what they believe in is wrong. What I am saying is that too much energy seems to be spent on making sure that everybody toes the doctrinal line. Osama Bil Laden says that it is the holy duty of people to kill Americans. The Rev. Falwell says that God deliberately allowed thousands of people to be killed because we have strayed from his version of the straight and narrow. These are not statements of faith, they are not loving and understanding your fellow man. They are hatred and loathing dressed up in religious clothing.

Faith is a matter of the heart and spirit, science is of the mind and external world. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. After all God had to set up some sort of regulatory mechanism for the world, just as he set up regluatory mechanisms for the human spirit through the various holy books of the world. Why can evolution not be one of the worlds regulatory mechanisms? Why is it that just because some one views God differently so many people automatically say that he/she is wrong and doomed to eternal torment?

[RHJunior]

One small comment about the odds Ben spoke of:

The odds are astronomical, yes.

However......

The odds that a person buying one ticket for a large lottery, winning that lottery, are even greater.

Yet over the years people have won HUGE lottery prizes, even though they only bought 1-3 tickets.

Not too many, but a couple have.

I think you misread the stat.

It wasnt one out of 34,000,000.

it was one out of 10^340,000,000.

*Or 1 followed by 340,000,000 ZEROES.*

[Archae99]

One small comment about the odds Ben spoke of:

The odds are astronomical, yes.

However......

The odds that a person buying one ticket for a large lottery, winning that lottery, are even greater.

Yet over the years people have won HUGE lottery prizes, even though they only bought 1-3 tickets.

Not too many, but a couple have.

I think you misread the stat.

It wasnt one out of 34,000,000.

it was one out of 10^340,000,000.

*Or 1 followed by 340,000,000 ZEROES.*

One last thing.

Those odds are irrelevant to evolution science.
(SCIENCE, not religious dogma.)

I found this article, that completley demolishes creationist garbage.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... =1&catID=2

Here's one part, referencing those odds you mention.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a
protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.


Evolution is a science.

Creationism is "God dun it!"

[Archae99]

Just saw this little bit of news:

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk19.html#discovery

[Rennen]

An excellent article Archae- I've read essentially the same thing many times before, but this one reduced it nicely to a more palatable set of "sound bites" for those, shall we say, less inclined to read it.

Like this, at the end:

They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Is that an Aria I hear?

And Solarfox gets it; Like I posted previously- if there's no prior template, what would life look like?.

Yes, the odds of Us, in this combination, at this time, were astronomical- though I'm quite certain that Junior's quoted number (for which I still can't find a reference) assumes a starting point of bare rock and an ending point of Modern Man and the planet's current biodiversity.

But as I said earlier- the chances of ANY sort of life, popping up on ANY of a hundred billion planets, at ANY time over the course of ten to fifteen billion years, are actually very high. Vegas betting odds, in fact- possibly as high as around a hundred to one. Or a hundred orders of magnintude more likely than Junior's presumed odds.

Rennen

[ZOMBIE USER 12759]

You know, I like evolution. I like it a lot as a matter of fact. Frankly, I like physics, quantum mechanics included a great deal. Lets see... Universe starts with massive explosion... Coalesces into big flourescent lightbulb..... Congeals into little thermonuclear bombs..... Forms small chunks of rock, and then SLAMS balls of ice into them creating water (and a saturnlike ring around everybody's favorite ball of rock, MAN what would I give to have seen that! ) , said ball of rock, which has a core consisting of nothing less than a fissioning ball of uranium, spews molten pieces of itself into the air, and coincidentally, creates life. Frankly, the whole debate on science vs. religion is a CRIME. The universe is far to incredible to ignore, and frankly, life is too short to sit around being unhappy. Obviously cooperation between the two is a better choice than this "one or the other" attitude some people adopt today.

[Chaser617]

*raises hand* Question, why does it have to be that if you beleive in God, all scienvce must be evil, and inherently wrong.

Personally, I do beleive there are some flaws in evolution, but let me put this on the table right here, right now, I am no science major, absolutely not, my degree is in History Education from a liberal arts private Christian school.

However, I also beleive taht strict crationsit cry that the world was created in six days, and that the bones in Arizona and other places that we have discovered are tricks of teh devil to make us beleive in Evilution, and not the 'true path'. I personally find that insulting to not only scientist, but other people of faith as well. I see it as a bully tactic by some to be honest.

My beleif is, why must the Almighty and science collide and be as matter and anti-matter? Why cannot the God of Ages CREAT science as the RULES on which his universe runs. He is after all, a God of order and justice. Why must we beleive 'seven days' when the bible was written in such aligorical language to make the concepts so unfathomable to us, as mere human beings who do not have the proper framwork to imagine the scope of His glory and accomplishments. 'Days' according to the theology class we all had to take at our school was an aligorical term, used to mean a 'period of time' not, a twenty-four hour cycle. For all we know, that first day could have taken a few billion years. Yes, to awnser strict creationists, God could have created teh world instantly, he could have created the world in seven days, but on the same toke, couldn't he have just as well 'taken his time?' We tend to forget that the God of Ages is OUTSIDE the Ages, he is not temporal as we are, he experiences all there was, all there is, and all there is to come as a moment to him. That really is something so unfathomable that we really do not have the proper language for it, especiallyin English, though Greek and Hebrew come much closer. What we experience is just a fleeting moment, but God Allmighty experiences ALL fleeting moments of ALL people EVERYWHERE in an instant.

In the end, though, I know I have most likely come of preachy, I wanted to make the pointed that things do NOT have to be creationist versus evolutionist, heck, they don't even have to be science versus theology. they CAN coincide, and I freely beleive they DO as God ment the laws of science to govern his creation in an orderly way.

[Arctyc]

Booyah.

Darwinism does not imply atheism, nor does it imply there is no designer of parts of the universe or of the whole shebang. Darwinism is not a competitor with Intelligent Design because they are not incompatible. Many people who accept the Bible as the infallible word of God, as Galileo did for example, accept the notion that fallible men reading the Bible can misinterpret it. Many who accept the Bible also accept evolution. There is no conflict between science and the Bible; there is a conflict between those who think the Bible teaches them about physics and biology and what real science has discovered.

That was a nice article, if a bit harsh. And it reinforces the concept stated by Chaser above, the harmony that would be implied by the creation of science itself by God.

[ZOMBIE USER 12759]

YAY!!! Somebody agrees with me!!!!

Anyway, that reminds me... Today in class, my Bio professor asked me what I got on the Bio SAT, so I told him (780 btw...) and then do you know what I said??? That's right-

BOOYAH!!!

[ZOMBIE USER 12293]

So much for the "let's not go there" comment I made earlier. Not the first time I've been ignored (has a minor self-esteem complex then continues).
I think that reconciling the difficult problems and disagreements between empirical evidence and the teachings of faith is a fine way of dodging. The argument still boils back to a simple question: Was there an intelligence at work in our (or, even more collectively, "everything's") existence? Or, for those who need it even more simply: Is there a God?
Most people, myself included, need an answer to this question because it sets up just about every other important question we have about our lives: What's my purpose? How do I matter? Am I more than just a skin-bag with a warranty... I mean, I'm gonna not be here eventually and I'd really like to know if there isn't something more to this "life" business?
Well, all the number crunching and extrapolating and (what I've seen most on this thread) quoting other sources out of context won't give us a suitable answer to the question about God. I personally side with the camp of atheists here because I can't find a suitable explanation for God, and frankly, I have grown tired of searching for it. I can't see (feel, taste, smell or hear) Him, so I don't think He's there.
(I would ask that you politely refrain from noticing my use of capital letters for the very basic reason that I admit that I could be wrong about there not being a God, and I don't feel like being disrespectful to the one who made everything. That and some religious folk take offense when you don't hit the caps key for their deity. Just being civil is all, so save those hierocracy bombs for later)
The mistake that I don't make (anymore) is to insist to others who do think He's there that He isn't. I haven't any desire to ram my opinion down anyone else's throat and have a difficult time with people who do. To my fellow non-theists I ask humbly (okay, maybe that's a stretch) to let it go. Some people want to believe in God? Fine, good for them. Let them have a belief that makes their lives better. The only time you need to worry about someone else's belief is when they decide to come at you with a sharp stick, gun or crash airplanes into your office building while screaming, "DIE! You horrible infidel!" Then we have issues to work out between the religious (and non-religious). So long as they don't mind me declining to read their pamphlets, I refuse to take issue with those who claim truth from faith. Most religious teachings offer a good moral structure (though I will admit that there are a few 'teachings' that seem a little less friendly towards certain people). Most of the time, the teachings are directed towards being decent to one another and showing compassion and love. Ya know something? I think we can use as much compassion and love as we can get our hands on in this life.

Noa