mcclark:Just could not resist commenting on your comment: science is
proven right every time.That makes me laugh. How many
theories of the atom were thought up by scientists in the last 100 years? Which
theory do you accept for the universe? String or particle? What is the speed of
light? etc stc. Science has been wrong more times than it has been right.For those that think faithful people believed the world was flat ought
to do some research on where that myth came from. It was invented in the
1800's by an American author trying to make religious Europeans look dumb.
No one ever believed the earth was flat.
I, too, found this article and some of the comments depressing. You see people
saying that fish should magically turn to mammals without more than the tiniest
fraction of a percent of the time required for such a process. Maybe they
believe in pixies and unicorns, too. In short, all around, you see far too many
religious people declare, in word and deed, their utter contempt for the
scripture "The glory of God is intelligence, which is light and truth."
When so many Christians can't be bothered to look up actual facts but CAN
be bothered to utter nonsence in public like it's fact, is it any wonder
that atheism is growing? The closeminded, arrogant ignorance of many religious
people is driving SO many away from Christianity, and I have trouble blaming the
atheists too much. We canot return to the Dark Ages just because some are too
ignorant to understand anything from Darwin to DNA, nor can mere scientific fact
alone give us the deep truths found in Sacred Writ. Pitting one kind of truth
against another is NOT and will NEVER be a part of the Gospel of Christ.
"When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can’t argue
against faith," Duke University biochemist Robert Lefkowitz, who won a Nobel
Prize in 2012, told The Associated Press. He called faith
"untestable."Are you calling 15+ million people liars?
People who have tested Moroni's promise, which requires faith, are lying
when they share their testimonies of what they know to be true?If
you think tests require something tangible, you will only get to the tip of the
iceberg. Our view of the world is limited and we cannot see all things yet. But
the time will come where, if you have faith, you will see what Moses, the
brother of Jared, Nephi, and, most importantly, God can see. You will see how
everything works, why things happen.This is what science is. It is
faith and research about how things work in the universe.
I don't think it's relevant to ask if someone believes in the Big Bang
or in Darwinian Evolution. What's the point? Is it some kind of litmus test
for the new state religion or something?As an engineer, I use
science that is useful. I don't have to "believe" in it, I just
need to know what works. Newton's laws work fine if I'm designing a
bridge, but fail miserably if I'm designing a GPS satellite. That
doesn't mean they're right or wrong, it just means they're
applicable to specific situations. I expect when we make it to the other side
we'll find that we've oversimplified everything scientific, that what
we call "fact" and "scientific truth" are nothing more than
simplified models that happen to be useful in some circumstances.The
Big Bang, Darwinian Evolution, and AGW happen to be examples of really poor
science. Our grandchildren will laugh at us for having given them so much
credence. As for me, I'll reserve what few neurons I have left for the
useful stuff and the stuff that makes sense.
All I can say.What the?...
"To be fair, Roger Bacon was the first to articulate an early form of the
scientific method, but it was not fully fleshed out and put to use until around
1600" The scientific method he learned from studying older Islamic texts.
A really narrow view of science considering a lot of the things they
discovered and wrote about are still the basis of today's science. How do
you discount their scientific achievements, because the word was not used until
the 1800s? Trying to disassociate science from mathematics is a weak argument at
best. You can't understand chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, or any
other science without understanding mathematics. Maybe your
argument is why so many people treat science as a religion, because they
don't see it having an existence that predates the modern era. I'm out.
@CandideThe God of the bible never taught the world was flat.The God of the bible never taught that disease was caused by sin or
demons. But you certainly can avoid some diseases following his teachings.God of the bible never taught that all earthquakes were his wrath,
though he has caused then as punishment after warning sinful people.All the things the faithless people say that is negative about religion, do
not come from the God of the bible.But from men who are ignorant or who
have an agenda.__Science may have propose evolution as an
explanation but it is a very bad explanation.Not based on hard
science,but on the science of assumption and suppositions, weaving
fantastic stories based solely on just possibilities (may haves, might have,
possibly could haves), invented and imagined relationships. It's all very
creative, but not hard science.With evolution everything is
possible, but nothing is actually provable.Very clever, but very
deceptive.Science is NOT opposition to faith,True
religion and faith is not in opposition to science,men are in
opposition to faith and science,Science and faith are just different
side s of the coin of truth.
@jsf – “Yes science is only 400 years old. Really.”Yes, really…Again, we’re talking about the difference
between the scientific method - which ignores tradition in favor of logical
methods, observation, experimentation, testable hypotheses, and verification -
and speculations coupled with crude observations. All of those guys you mention
(and others) were smart, admirable and important but none were scientists in the
modern sense of the word.Prior to modern science these speculations
most often relied on tradition and authority (which was often church authority)
which is why many of Aristotle’s speculations about the natural world
– and Aristotle was considered THE unquestioned authority for centuries
– were easily toppled once modern science was applied… around 400
years ago. To be fair, Roger Bacon was the first to articulate an
early form of the scientific method, but it was not fully fleshed out and put to
use until around 1600 – coincidentally, around the same time the church
stopped burning “heretics” for challenging authority (church,
Aristotle, the Bible, etc…).And let’s not confuse the
issue by bring in math (deduction) as science (induction).
@mcclark "Galileo, among many others, would dispute what you have to
say."You mean he would dispute the idea the church and the consensus
of scientist were trying to censor him.
The major difference is that science is an inherent natural element of the
universe while religion is a man organized institution to help man cope with his
fears of the unknown and provide collective reassurance .
Thales (640-546 BC), dubbed the "father of sciencePythagoras was the
first to postulate that the Earth is spherical.A concrete instance of
Pythagoras' law was recorded, as early as the 18th century BC: Leucippus (5th century BC) introduced atomism, the theory that all matter is
made of indivisible, imperishable units called atoms.Kiddinu's value
for the solar year is in use for today's calendars. According to the
historian A. Aaboe, all subsequent endeavour in the exact sciences—depend
upon Babylonian astronomy in decisive and fundamental ways.Ancient Egypt
made significant advances in astronomy, mathematics and medicine. The
Edwin Smith papyrus is one of the first medical documents and still might be
seen as the very beginnings of modern neuroscience. Leucippus (5th century
BC) introduced atomism, the theory that all matter is made of indivisible,
imperishable units called atoms.Archimedes used the method of exhaustion
to approximate the value of π.Aristarchus was the first known person
to propose a heliocentric model of the solar system,Eratosthenes
accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth. Yes science is only
400 years old. Really.
Hopefully, God is more like Reed Richards than Sheldon Cooper.
JSK I think Galileo, among many others, would dispute what you have to say.
"an we believe he will yet reveal many great and important truths
pertaining...."There are such things as absolute truths. Some
that might even appear to contradict with each other. Our understanding of them
continues to grow each day. I like proven scientific principles but
I would not accept that they will prove that there is no God. It will be our
understanding of science and God that will allow us to say "so that is how
it was done. For those faith believers who are inflexible and limit
knowledge to a strict interpretation of the bible (world created in six 24 hour
days) rather than accept interpretations / symbylisms that allow science and the
bible to agree ( world created in distinctive creative periods) make it harder
to show the logic that faith in God includes. I do not believe we
are only highly evolved cockroaches or apes and when we learn how science fits
into the creation narrative,we will be glad to say, Oh, so that is how he did
it. And since it was God how did it that way, however it happened it will be
good and right.
@jsf – “these were the observations of the scientists of those days.
The church had concurred with the consensus of the scientific body”Except there were no scientists until about 400 years ago…What they were doing prior to that was mostly speculation (with a
smattering of crude observation) and the speculations that agreed with religious
dogma were considered knowledge, and were the only speculations supported by the
church & state (which used to be synonymous). And yes, science
is often superseded by better science, but what is key to note here is that
science is never superseded by religion (i.e., name one fact about the natural
world for which we once had a scientific explanation but now have a better
religious one).@Sasha Pachev – “If we cannot do it in a
lab we are in a weak position to argue that this happened randomly.”Not sure how that’s possible without altering the time constant by
a factor of about a million. That said, without evolution life on earth is an
utter mystery – with evolution it’s very explainable.Anyway… I find this article incredibly depressing.
Yeah sometimes we just have to re-evaluate our conclusions about what we
believed. I was struggling with the BOM,but Bro. Terryl Givens spoke at one of
our firesides and said you do not have to believe in a literal BOM to be a
faithful member. This was a great peace for me as I never bought into the whole
I think we would do well to divide the science into two parts - "We think we
understand it and we can make it work" vs just "We think we understand
it". The real hard science you do not argue with should be the first kind.
The second kind should be considered a scientific candidate and remain in that
state until there is at least a working example of some sort. So our knowledge
about electromagnetic waves, gravity, and the shape of the earth for example
would be in the category of hard science. Evolution has not yet earned the right
to be there. We should not call it hard science until we at the very least are
able to artificially create a primitive living organism out of raw elements or
via genetic engineering make one species evolve into another significantly
different, e.g fish to mammal. If we cannot do it in a lab we are in a weak
position to argue that this happened randomly.
Faith usually wins, and it shows. In our production of engineers. In our school
results versus other countries. In our day to day thought process and
conversation. We've given up holding ourselves to a standard that requires
proof or thought.
"Where to start, the world is round, not flat, the earth revolves around the
sun, not the other way around. I could go on an on," Note, these
were the observations of the scientists of those days. The church had concurred
with the consensus of the scientific body. When individuals dared to disagree,
the scientific consensus and the church sought to censor them. So it is a false
argument to claim that just the church was disproved. It was both science and
the church. Just like when science stated the atoms where the basic
building blocks, no wait electrons, protons, and neutrons were the basic
building blocks, no wait, still looking for the god particle which is the basic
building block.Science is often disproved as new information becomes
Another pointless article trying to divide us as "rational" vs.
"faith-based" human beings. We're more complex than that, people. I
encourage and teach my kids to learn all they can about science AND religion.
For me, the abundant life is a rich combination of both. Both bring me great
intellectual and spiritual satisfaction and help me understand the world around
me and the people in it and inform how I want to live and treat others, as well
as my respect and awe for the universe. To me, we are making an artificial
divide.We live in this life by faith. When we die and faith is no
longer necessary, we will view these arguments as something just for this time.
I want to keep learning and finding out how everything works. Personally, I believe in man-made global warming, evolution as a part of
creation, and that neither Science nor Religion can completely explain
everything, but together, they aid our pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Science seeks to find natural causes for things that happen in our world.
Religion sought and still seeks to explain certain phenomena with supernatural
causes. In the long history of the world every time a religion used a
supernatural explanation for something scientific examination found that there
were in fact only natural causes. There has not been a single event in all of
history where people believed something had a natural cause and then after
investigation found a supernatural one instead. The record is literally billions
to zero.I realize people still believe in a supernatural being
despite this fact but for the life of me I can't understand why. This is
why I can't believe Badgerbadger's comment was serious. Every time
religion has ever proposed a supernatural explanation for anything natural ones
were found. God is continually shrinking, he has become the god of the gaps and
those gaps get smaller everyday. God explanations for events have lost every
single time to actual investigation and I'm betting that record will
I'm not at all surprised by the response to the survey. Faith has the easy
answers. Science is more complicated. Too many people just don't have the
patience for complicated answers.
Badgerbager Where to start, the world is round, not flat, the earth revolves
around the sun, not the other way around. I could go on an on, but what you
said is 180 degrees wrong. Science has been proven right every time.
I think that scientists and creationists alike are going to be shocked when they
realize that God is a scientist, not a magician.
Science seeks to explain and define the natural world around us. It is focused
on observable, repeatable phenomena.Faith is concerned with much
larger issues, such as our origin, the purpose of life, etc. These are all
things science cannot address.Science cannot prove Faith wrong, just
as Faith cannot prove Science wrong. They are not concerned with the same
thing. One is of the natural world, the other is of the eternal realm...
@BebyebeI believe that scientific observation works to the extent that
instruments can measure. God works through natural laws, but He is quite capable
of occasionally superceding them.Where faith and science differ is
that some scientists believe that there can be no God. I suggest that their
instruments are not yet up to the task of making this observation.
"The story of the cosmos and the Big Bang of creation is not inconsistent
with the message of Genesis 1,”I absolutely agree. In fact,
the more I know about cosmology (the science of the beginning of the universe --
or should I say the 'creation' of the universe) the more I understand
that science is not able to prove or disprove God being present in a parallel
universe which is a part of the bigger multiverse.The best theory I
have heard for why the gravity force is so incredibly weak relative to other
funamental forces, - electricity, magnetism, the weak and strong nuclear force
is that gravity is leaking in from a parallel universe. So that opens up the
idea of the other universes where the force constants are different. So then
the bronze age idea of visions and spirits, may be bronze age ways of talking
about parallel universes where the force constants are different and things,
like gravity for example, are leaking into our universe.An
evangelical who does not believe in the Big Bang is not more faithful or pious.
He/she is just not good at science, that's all.
If you don't think science works then step away from your computer. It and
everything else around you are the result of science.
@Badgerbadger What science and history books are you reading?!To the
believers credit, I don't recall God explicitly dictating any scientific
laws. However, not believing in science simply because of a "I don't
want it to be true because that makes me believing in my religion harder"
mentality is quite simply foolish.Separate your religion from
science if you need to, but don't discredit science simply because of what
was written in a book a couple thousand years ago. Humanity didn't even
have telescopes back then!
A few thoughts. PI is not equal to 3.0. There is no physical evidence of
Noah's flood (and that the animals unique to Australia are still there is
evidence against it). If the Creator is still guiding things today, He was also
guiding things during the 140 million years of the dinosaurs (and what a bloody
time that was). With Google Earth, one should (Bibically speaking) be able to
find the Garden Of Eden. It seems to be missing.
Faith may be more popular, but in no way is it winning. That the world was flat,
that disease was caused by demons or sin, that earthquakes were the wrath of
God, those things were based on faith. Science lets you talk to someone on the
other side of the world, cures polio, and sends people into outer space. The
latest Pew study shows the "nones' are growing. Those are the atheists
or those with no religious affiliation. It is my hope that within 50 years
current religious dogma will be viewed the same way as Zeus, Thor, Ra, Odin,
Quetzalcoatl, and Baal.“There is a cult of ignorance in the
United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has
been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life,
nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is
just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov
-When global temperature data is missing, dummied up, or fabricated from
"computer modeling"-When scientists are demanded by the IPCC to
rewrite their assessments or they will not be included in the final paper;-When the so-called scientists assert the debate is over despite considerable
disagreement within the scientific community and the very basis for scientific
inquiry demands continuous questioning of the current consensus;-When
Nobel prizes are awarded based on the "potential" for progress, as in
Obamama's "Peace Prize;it's no wonder people have more
confidence in their ministers than in their magistrates.AGW is not
science; it is a religion.
Oh what fun! History shows us repeatedly that when science makes
conclusions which oppose God's teachings, down the road we find out science
was wrong. No one has proved God is wrong, ever.Happy to
know there are still a lot of smart people in this country.BTW I am
not hostile to science. I love science, but it doesn't trump God.