science vs. religion

[jacobo]

i'm not starting a flame war, i'm just passing along a paper that i liked. -- yes, it's long... A Critique of Pure Nonsense A Radical Analysis of the Science vs. Religion Debate Intro “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”(Genesis 1:2, NIV Bible). Such a powerful statement, it basically ends the entire science vs. religion debate all by it’s self. Or it would if it weren’t for the fact that the statement lacks any empirical evidence whatsoever. Science doesn’t fair much better though, while it does something that religion doesn’t, i.e. use facts and figures, it’s constantly disproving it’s self and is never quite definite. Despite the obvious flaws on both sides, each school of thought wants to believe that it is the sole authority on the origins of existence, totally writing the other off as farfetched and unrealistic. It hasn’t been until recently however that religion has actually gotten it’s fair share of criticisms, something science has been facing for centuries. The difference is of course that when science was being criticized it wasn’t factual criticisms that were being used, rather it was persecution against the “heretics” and “trouble makers”. Now with the agnostic and atheist populations growing in size, it’s becoming evident that this debate isn’t going anywhere for a very long time. The trouble is that when it comes to beliefs, there is never any give and take. It’s always been reduced to a childish shouting match where neither person even attempts to hear their adversary out. If it weren’t for the arrogance of the two factions, perhaps they would each realize how ridiculous their positions are. On the one hand you have creationism, an age-old theory that has been upheld by every major religion in history. On the other hand you have empiricism, or science, which asserts that god is a fairy tale, and will be until it can be proven with actual evidence. Religion has a hard time convincing the atheist because most religious arguments are built on philosophical or theoretical bases, and the few pieces of real evidence that they use are ambiguous and fail to actually prove the existence of a deity. Science fails to convince the religious because they simply refuse to abandon their faith. Oddly enough both sides view the other as ridiculous and unrealistic. Even more odd is the fact that both for once, are right. * Part I: The Manifest Idiocy of Religion “Religion is the opiate of the Masses”-Karl Marx Before you examine the origin of life, you must first examine the origin of religion it’s self. Now, there are two options that one can choose regarding this subject. The first being: Religion is a creation of man, designed solely as a way to explain the unexplainable (or what science has yet to explain). Man uses religion to comfort himself because he has no way to know the unknown. In which case Atheism is right and after we die we become worm food. The second option is of course: that whichever religion you subscribe to is true. In this scenario you are either reincarnated, attain nirvana, go to heaven, or you go to hell. It would be extremely depressing if the former were true, especially since we’d be losing our very selves, and our existence would somewhat decrease in value. So this gives a lot of credibility to the “religion was a creation of man” contention. Then again if one religion is true, a lot of us are in for a whole lot of trouble, or none at all depending on the particular version of the after life. \"If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything.\" –Blasie Pascal(Atheist’s Wager). This is what is commonly known as “Pascal’s Wager”. Basically the wager states that you should believe in god on the off chance that he/she exists. Why? Because if you believe in god and he/she exists then you are rewarded, if you believe in god and he/she doesn’t exist then who cares, it’s irrelevant because you are dead. Where as if you are an atheist and god happens to exist, you will burn in hell, and if he/she doesn’t exist and you are an atheist, you won’t really have a chance to gloat. So basically for the Christian it is a win/win situation, for the atheist it is lose/irrelevant situation. There is a problem with this theory of course, that being the fact that Pascal only dealt with a Judeo-Christian god. What if however, we all got it wrong it turned out the ancient Greeks had it right the whole time? Zeus would be mighty angry that so many people worshipped some non-existent Middle Eastern god instead of him and the others in the Greek Pantheon. Thus we see that Pascal’s wager suggests believing in God just in case, but it never specifies which god. Apparently the wager takes place on a bigger game board than he anticipated. Because there are so many religions it gets hard to prove which religion is actually correct. So which religion is the correct one? In there lies the problem. You pick the wrong religion and that lands you in the fiery pits of tartarus. Sure one religion could be right, but it’s far too hard to simply select one and hope it’s correct. So if it’s so hard to choose one religion to follow, then how exactly is it possible to argue for creation? The good people at www.trueorigins.org would say that, “Creationism is based upon the foundation that our world and the cosmos itself testifies to an active Creator, still involved with His creation.”(A true Origin FAQ). Aside from it’s tremendous gender bias, this statement brings up a very interesting point. When most people think of creationism, they assume that creationism is synonymous with Christianity, however this is not the case. The statement didn’t specify which creator created the universe, only that it was in fact created. To be fair, True Origins is an obvious Christian site, though they call themselves scientific creationists. Since creationism isn’t exclusively Christian, it becomes a lot easier to present arguments, and does away with the entire “Pascal’s wager” thing. So the type of creationism isn’t really important now. Essentially the position has now become deism. Deism being a religion that states that God created the universe then left it to it’s self, acting only as an objective observer. Granted different religions can add in their own divine aspects, but for general purposes it is deism. * The main problem that religious arguments have is one that is universal to anyone trying to prove something, this being none other than empirical data. There is no factual proof for the existence of a creator. You can’t see him/her, you can’t hear him/her, and you can’t touch him/her, so what do we have to go by? Generally evidence breaks down into something that can be observed with the senses, unfortunately you can’t observe god. Granted some people make the claim that God speaks to them, or that they are possessed by a divine spirit, but that isn’t really evidence. There is no way to really prove any of this. Lots of people hear things, and not to devalue anyone’s religious experience, but without a way to really prove these experiences they can be summed up as a gigantic hoax or rush of passion. Either way this isn’t actual evidence. If I were to say that Allah told me to lead the Palestinians to victory how exactly could I prove this? Having an epiphany isn’t exactly the same as hearing a voice telling me to do something, and even if I sincerely believed I had received a divine mandate, the rest of the world doesn’t exist within my mind, what reason would they have to believe me? So the proof of god’s existence falls down into the individual’s personal faith. This isn’t exactly a concrete case that is presented. Though it seems to be good enough to convince the believers. The individual’s faith is a tricky obstacle to deconstruct, mainly because every person has his or her own opinion. However a great number of people don’t seem to realize that their reasons for believing are highly illogical. That isn’t to say that all of the arguements are illogical, but a lot of them are. One argument seems to be that they can find no other explanation for existence. This is possibly the weakest of the arguments, believing in something simply because you have no other explanation. That’s like saying that since you don’t know a plane works you’ll assume that magic pixies sprinkle it with fairy dust and the pilot thinks happy thoughts. This premise still fails to address the question: “What proof is there for a god”. Simply because you do not believe science does not mean that religion is necessarily right. Religion must still present it’s own case even if the one science presents isn’t acceptable to someone. In this type of debate you do not become a victor by default. Bill O’Rielly, noted Journalist and self affirmed Independent, said that he believes in god because “Nature works, everything that man touches goes wrong”. Thus he asserted that there must be some divine plan because man is not capable of creating anything that works as efficiently as the universe. While Mr. O’Rielly is right in the sense that the universe works, he has in no way proved that god exists. It’s a well-known scientific fact that for the most part the universe operates on general laws of physics. This in no way shows that god actually exists, it only shows that the universe generally acts in a somewhat predictable way. Once again the religious must fall back on faith. Why do the religious have faith though? Or rather, blind faith to be exact. For the most part faith is indoctrinated within people from a very young age. People believe in a certain religion because their parent did. They went to church because they had to. Thus the religion is accepted as truth instead examined objectively. Most people do not question why they believe, instead they listened to their parent and accepted what their parent believed because they were forced to. So what is the real world value of faith? In this particular instance it is no more than simple brainwashing. Of course many Christians do come to the religion by choice, that type of faith is a bit more real. However having faith simply because you were taught to cheapens the entire idea of faith. However faith in general isn’t based on anything at all. One simply decides to believe and does so without any evidence. Now one may turn to god after getting through a horrible situation, a near death experience, or something that is generally traumatizing. But narrowly being missed by a semi-truck doesn’t guarantee that god exists, it just means you got lucky. So what facts can be used to support a divine existence? Perhaps the best known text outlining a religion is none other than the bible. What does this particular book use to prove god’s existence? Nothing really. It simply asserts that God exists, then goes on to talk about Christian lore. Of course some would say that the bible does prove a divine presence because of its historical and prophetic accuracy. To answer this simply, lots of other religions claim to predict events and even more mention historical occurrences. What exactly makes the bible so special? Once again, our little friend called faith. Of course some would actually site the exact parts of the bible that prove that it is historically accurate. For example the biblical flood, this is easy enough for someone to argue. Many other religions also contest that a global flood did exist, so it must have happened…right? Well not exactly, while it’s certainly possible that there were floods in the region where Noah lived, there is no evidence for a large-scale global flood. Historian Adam White argues that the Egyptians had a civilization long before the flood was said to have happened, and that no global flood ever interrupted it. There is simply no concrete evidence for a flood of that nature. Granted there have been several massive floods through out history, but one massive global flood has yet to be proven. Of course there are other historical inaccuracies. The census that was said to have taken place just prior to Jesus’ birth has been discredited. For one no such census has ever been proven during the Roman Empire. Also many historians doubt that the Romans would ever design such a census, not to mention require so many people to travel great distances simply to sign a tax form. Aside from this none of the works from 60 plus historians from around the area that lived in the time between 10 AD and 100 AD ever mention the stories talked about in the Gospels. So then, if the Bible isn’t 100% accurate, what about other religious texts? The claim is also made that the bible has prophetic value. There is an error in this statement though, mainly because scholars find inconsistencies regarding claims as to when the prophetic books were written. The second half of Isaiah was apparently written more than a century after the first. The first half being written before the Babylonian captivity, the second half written afterward. Even more odd is the book of Daniel, which was actually written 450 or more years after the events it allegedly “prophesied” took place. Evidence of divine inspiration in the prophecies of the bible is dubious at best, and even so called fulfilled prophecies aren’t all that reliable. For the most part it’s hard to prove that anything is inspired divinely. The Vedas, the Quran, and other various holy books have yet to be shown as anything more than a book. Until one proves the existence of a creator the lines are clearly drawn, it’s either a matter of faith, or a gargantuan lie. Nichiren Shonin, founder of the Nichiren Schools of Buddhism made various predictions in his writings to the Japanese government that came true, that doesn’t mean that he had some special spiritual power, it simply means he was either really smart or really lucky. The validity of prophecies isn’t exactly provable, unless it is documented by several unbiased sources. Simply going by the source it’s self is useless. Saying that god exists because the bible says so is pointless. Of course the Bible is going to say that god exists, the entire premise of the book is built on god existing. There are very few if any objective sources corroborating scriptural claims, this kills creationist credibility. * Setting aside however the validity of various religions, one would still be skeptical of creationist claims regarding the origin of the universe. There are several “origin” myths, including but not limited to the universe appearing out of chaos, the universe starting as a golden egg, and the universe being popped into existence by a higher power. Now the question isn’t, which creation myth is correct, but is the universe created at all? If these myths were to be taken as metaphoric then they wouldn’t conflict with scientific assertions. However most religions take their creation stories literally. The universe really did appear out of chaos, god did really create all of existence in seven days, and Brahma really did plant a seed in the cosmic water. Where is the evidence for these claims? Simply put there is none. As long as there isn’t any evidence for a creator, there isn’t any evidence for religious creation. Instead of providing evidence for their own claims the modern scientific creationist wants to present counter arguments to their opponents arguments. This is all well and good, but the thing about science is that you are never quite done, so even when one theory is disproved, another quickly takes its place. There still is no evidence supporting an existence of a creator. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative, and they have still yet to prove that the universe was created by a conscious entity. The creationist simply asserts that science is wrong and that they are right, presenting a solid, though not perfect, case against science, but does nothing to support their own arguments other than cite one of their scriptures. * In addition to contending that the creator formed the universe they also assert that life came about through divine intervention. There are two schools of thought regarding this topic. The first being that the creator every being that has ever existed, the second that the creator had a definite plan for the world and used evolution as a tool. However for most creationists they disregard the later belief. Life was created, it didn’t just occur through a process of cause and effect. Once again we see a lack of evidence. Instead of presenting their case they attack that of the evolutionist. Various myths for the origins of life exist, each one asserting that a divine being created all organisms. Man, was also created, but something special was done during his creation. He was made special, different from all other beings. Perhaps the reason for such myths is because we as a people don’t want to be considered as mere animals. These legends are a testament to our incredibly huge egos. One of man’s abilities was his power to reason, his free will. Of course one problem with man’s free will in a religious context is if the deity is all knowing. An all-knowing deity contradicts free will. How can one really have a choice if a god knows in advance what’s going to happen? If that is the case then technically there really was no choice at all. For the god to know what’s going to happen in advance, then obviously it had to happen. If it really were a choice then the deity wouldn’t know in advance. So either the god is all knowing, or we have free will, the two are mutually exclusive. Thus even within religion there is a contradiction in man’s importance in comparison to other beings. Of course from a deist standpoint this argument is irrelevant. God would have created the universe with prior knowledge of how things would generally turn out, but there be no one pulling the puppet strings. Thus we are still above the rest of creation, but not by much, since evolution still could have occurred. * To most creationists however evolution is essentially a massive lie, at least in reference to the origins of man. Where then did the primitive man and early hominids come from then? There are several answers to this question. One being the existence of the pre-adamite earth. “The six days’ work as described in Gen. 1 : 3-31 was the restoration of the earth….to it’s original condition before it was made ‘formless and void’, and submerged in water and darkness. Peter speaks of it as the ‘world that then was, that being over flowed with water, perished.’ 2 Pet. 3: 5-7.” (Larkin, 21). Reverend Larkin asserts that the world we inhabit is not the first that was created. Rather this is the second incarnation of that world. In the book of Genesis it is said that in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth, also noting that the earth was formless and void. Going on to mention that the lord hovered above the waters. Obviously Larkin takes this to mean that “In the beginning…” is a totally separate statement from the rest of the section, it is simply an assertion of what happened in the beginning. The “creation” in Genesis was actually a restoration of what had already been created. Thus the world already existed, only it had been destroyed once already. Larkin goes on to support this contention with more scripture. “ ‘For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.’ 2 Pet. 3: 5-6. It is clear that Peter does not refer her to Noah’s flood, for that world of Noah’s day did not perish, and Peter goes on to add that- ‘The heavens and the earth which are now by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.’ Rev. 20: 11-15.” (Larkin, 24) Interestingly enough Larkin also believes that this earth was inhabited by humans, citing Jer. 4:23-26 as a description of the pre-adamite earth’s destruction. In this passage there is a mention of cities, that apparently were destroyed during the destruction of the first earth. Larkin also suggests that the original earth was chaotic, much as one would imagine a pre-historic earth would be. While Larkin doesn’t suggest that these first men are the early hominids, it is easy to see that it doesn’t take a stretch to connect the two ideas. Another theory on the existence of Early human records comes from Genesis. “ Cain said to the lord, ‘My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me’.” (Gen. 4: 13-14). The obvious question here is, whom exactly is Cain scared of? In the bible only four people have been mentioned thus far, and Cain already knocked off one of them. Some would suggest that savage people, fitting the descriptions of “cave men” inhabited the world. Setting aside the archaeological fallacies of such an argument, this no more valid than any other Bible story. Much of the Old Testament has a striking resemblance to many other ancient myths from various cultures. The creation of man, the fall of man, Cain and Able, Abram(Abraham), Sodom and Gomorra, etc. all have the feel of a myth, passed down by tribes. Taking Genesis literally is more than a leap of faith, the only advantage it seems to have over Greek myths, is that the talking animals is kept to a minimum, and the writing is a bit better. Other religions don’t really develop actual theories regarding primitive men, their myths already give a simple explanation. In many religions there were different ages of men, usually corresponding with a metal (i.e. silver, gold, iron, bronze, led, etc.). Some Hindu legends, as well as Greek mythology has variations on this story. In ancient China it was believed that people were formed out of different types of clay, some being inferior to others, though this may have to do more with racial superiority than early hominids. In the end, religion crumbles down to little more than generic dogma. No actual evidence, only a set of beliefs that are accepted due to blind faith as opposed to hard facts. For institutions that have generally discouraged skepticism religion does a good job of being critical of science. One day perhaps science will destroy it’s self by proving the existence of a god, or maybe this deity will come out of the shadows and take responsibility for all the horrors that have occurred in their creation. Though more likely than not we’ll have to wait until we perish. Of course if Pascal has taught us anything, it may be a good idea to worship just in case, because if you die and there was a god, you are in for a hell of a bad time. * Part II: The Manifest Arrogance of Science “Science is like a blabber mouth that ruins a movie by giving away the ending. Well I say there are some things we don’t want to know…important things”-Ned Flanders © The Simpsons Science is absolutely empiricist, positively materialist, and most definitely the most arrogant school of thought on the face of the planet. Okay, it isn’t a school of thought…anymore, but it used to be. There was once a time when science was actually a philosophy, grouped with metaphysical theories and every other abstract type of thinking known to man. Then scientists started to realize that they could prove their ideas, where as their fellow philosophers only had speculation. Thus science became the definitive authority on how the world worked, or it would have if it weren’t for the fact that religion went basically unchecked for centuries. The few times a scientist did step out of line, they were quickly brought on trial and told to abandon their beliefs, which they usually did. Eventually however religion began to loosen its grip and science ran rampant through the streets. As the old adage goes, “give them an inch and they take a mile”. Now scientists don’t accept anything that can’t be proven without experimentation, leaving philosophy and religion in the category of opinion, never to be taken as fact again. This has made the atheist community somewhat conceited. While I’m sure that you can’t scientifically prove morality, I think the atheists would be better off if they took a lesson in humility. What I’m getting at, is science’s inability to see the other side’s point of view. Once it became clear that religion wasn’t in the least bit scientific that was the end of that, science threw it out like it was a piece of trash. The atheist sees the believer as nothing more than a child believing in fairy tales. If you believe in god, why not Peter Pan, or magic pixies? Without any tangible proof they see no reason to even consider religion as an option. Faith to them is basically admitting that you are closed, if not simple, minded. Why on earth would you believe something you couldn’t prove? It’s not so much that they disagree with believers, it’s the fact that they are so harsh in their criticisms. The materialist asserts that everything that exists is made up of nothing but matter, fair enough. However they completely disregard the fact that not everyone sees the world the same as them, not because they love fairy tales, but because they see a reason to believe in a spiritual realm. Now why they see a reason for it is never quite clear and varies from person to person, but the point is that they do, and they should at least be heard out. To be honest though there is nothing wrong with how materialists, atheists, and empiricists treat the religious, especially after their persecution through out history, not to mention the fact that believers are sometimes just as stubborn. The problem is that they fail to realize the limitations of science. You can not use the scientific method to determine what is truth or what is morally right or wrong. If you rely solely on science as a means of explaining the world you will fall short on many issues. Particularly when it comes to theoretical issues. Science is a wonder tool to use if you need a cure to a disease or if you want to find the age of a star, but religion fills in what science can’t. Religion deals with morality, emotions, and other such abstract topics. However the scientist never wants to concede anything to religion, instead they would rather focus on the physicality of existence, something religion simply can’t do. This isn’t the only problem that science faces, its largest roadblock is the fact that it continually disproves it’s self. Science once asserted that the universe was made up of an elastic material known as “ether”. Then physicists figured out that “ether” didn’t exist, so they developed another theory. When that one didn’t pan out they came up with another one, and another, and another. Science doesn’t really offer definite answers, instead it simply proves the previous idea to be false. Take the example of the big bang, a generally accepted theory in the scientific community. The big bang theory suggests that the universe began as a singularity (an infinitely small particle) and through some occurrence it exploded and began to expand, creating the universe. However even proponents of the big bang aren’t able to offer a solid answer. “While the theorems that Penrose and I proved showed that the universe must have had a beginning. They indicated that the universe began in a big bang, a point where the whole universe, and everything in it, was scrunched up into a single point of infinite density. At this point, Einstein’s general theory of relativity would have broken down, so it cannot be used to predict in what manner the universe began. One is left with the origin of the universe apparently beyond the scope of science.” (Hawking, 79). Despite the fact that Stephen Hawking, possibly the smartest man to ever live admits that perhaps science doesn’t have all the answers Atheists still do not even consider religion as a viable explanation. To be fair Hawking later admits that the only reason the theory of relativity breaks down in the singularity is because Einstein left out the uncertainty principle when writing his theory. However regardless of this there is still the possibility that science may not have all the answers. “ We must try to understand the beginning of the universe on the basis of science. It may be a task beyond our powers, but we should a tleast make the attempt.” (Hawking 79). Still thought it seems that science would rather die fighting than simply give up and use the religion cop out. * What science does have in common with religion is that each has many different approaches to the same subject. There are a large number of religions, but even more scientific theories. While the big bang is widely accepted it is not taken as a scientific truth. There are other theories which try to understand the origins of the universe, but don’t necessarily assert that the universe had a starting point. “Physicists are just beginning to poke and prod at the big implications of superstring theory. That’s what Burt Ovurt of the University of Pennsylvania was doing during a 1998 cosmology conference at the Newton Institute of Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge, England. He asked : If we live on a brane that’s wafting through multidimensional space, why shouldn’t there be other such branes floating around out there? Nothing in the theory ruled out this possibility. And if other branes exist, they could interact….If the interaction between branes was a collision, it would trigger a fantastically powerful reaction…” (Discover, 36). Basically superstring theory asserts that space is really ten dimensional and that our universe is a three-dimensional plane existing in the ten dimensional field. As odd as this sounds, the math actually works out in this theory. Ovurt and others believed that the collision between two of these three dimensional branes could trigger enough energy for the universe to be created. After the collision the universe expands and expands only to cool down and become dormant until another cosmic collision. The math apparently works out for this theory also. Unfortunately for Ovurt and Hawking all they have to go on is mathematics. There is no real way to prove that these things occurred, or can occur. Mathematically they are plausible, but it’s kind of hard to get an eyewitness account of the universe being created. Though mathematics has more bearing than scriptures that have been translated from 5 different languages, they still aren’t exactly what one would call definitive proof. At the very least cosmological theory is exceptionally interesting, but then again so are tales about snakes talking to naked women. The origin of the universe debate is pretty much at a stalemate, though as more and more research is done science seems to be gaining the advantage. However the origin of life debate is still any man’s game. In the right corner you have religion, whose unshakable faith in god leads them to believe that life was created. In the left corner you have science which believes that life evolved from previously existing organisms. Of course religion always pulls out its ace, which came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer is pretenoid microspheres of course. Though it might have been some other type of preboint. The point is however that all life originated from inanimate objects…how uplifting. I am only a few million years removed from being a lab experiment, thanks science, you’ve effectively cheapened my existence. Stanley Miller and a man by the name of Oparin were two biochemists who each did experiments that resulted in amino acids being created. Later other scientists elaborated on these experiments and created cell like structures. The preboints, as they are called, looked like prokaryotes, they used ATP, had some type of genetic information, and had selectively permeable membranes. They weren’t exactly cells, but almost creating life out of some chemicals is still pretty impressive. But there is a problem, no cytosine, one of the nucleotides found in DNA and RNA has been created in any gas charge experiments. “…not the slightest trace of cytosine has been produced in gas discharge experiments, and nor has it been found in meteorites… So ‘prebiotic’ productions of cytosine have always been indirect, and involve the methodology alluded to above. That is, cyanoacetylene (HCCCN) and cyanoacetaldehyde (H3CCOCN) have been found in some spark discharge experiments. Organic chemists have obtained pure and fairly strong solutions of each, and reacted each of them with solutions of other compounds which are allegedly likely to be found on a ‘primitive’ earth. Some cytosine is produced. This then apparently justifies experiments trying to link up pure and dry cytosine and ribose to form the nucleoside cytidine. However, these experiments have been unsuccessful (although analogous experiments with purines have produced 2 % yields of nucleosides),[19] despite a high level of investigator interference.” (Sarfati). How then could DNA come to exist and contain Cytosine if the very experiments used to produce life never contained the nucleotide? Sure cytosine has been produced in similar experiments, but never during the experiments that produced amino acids and preboints. Thus once again science provides an answer, but not a solid one. * However this is getting a little too deep into the beginnings of evolution. What proof do scientists have to back up evolution? Well Darwin used what is commonly referred to as “micro-evolution”, he observed small evolutionary changes in animals of the same species, such as finches and tortoises. Micro-evolution has made a pretty strong case for the changes over time theory, but it has yet to convince a lot of people. Mainly because large-scale evolution isn’t observable, much like the theories regarding the creation of the universe. So instead scientists must use fossil records to piece together a picture from a long time ago. One argument made against religion is the lack of transitional fossils. Skeptics believe that there should be billions upon billions of transitional fossils, showing the changes from one species to the next. Aside from the fact that not every animal will be come fossilized, the scientific community has found various arguments to refute this assertion. “The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets: a) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants. B) The transformation is even and slow. c) The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population. d) The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range. However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allows this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions don't often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region. Once species are well-adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment which alters the selective pressure would then end the \"stasis\" (or lead to extinction). It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant. [N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed. [Darwin 1872, ch. 4, \"Natural Selection,\" pp. 140-141]” (Talk Origins, Claim CC201). The people at talk origins also note that one reason for the lack of “billions” of transitional fossils is that fossilization isn’t a very common process, not to mention there were some periods and areas where the conditions weren’t suitable for fossilization. Even though science can refute creationist attacks they still do not have any theories which are 100% true. A theory can never be proved correct, it can be supported and defended until someone proves it wrong. There is a very slim chance that Stephen Hawking will ever find a unified theory, and it’s doubtful that we’ll ever be able to see evolution in action. Thus it’s a wonder why the science community acts so high and mighty when it’s failed to answer our question’s just as many times as religion has. It’s a wonder why religion continually tries (and fails) to refute science when science continually refutes it’s self. Atheists have no reason to be so arrogant when science can’t offer any tangible evidence that gives us a look at our origins, at least religion offers some interesting stories. * Part Three: In the Beginning of the End “When you do something right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all”-God © Futurama Regardless of how we came to be one thing is blatantly clear, if a god did create this world he/she is extremely sadistic. Not because we live on an immoral planet that is corrupt and inherently evil (though that is a good reason), but because he/she never really gave us a way to actually know how we got here. Instead of giving us real proof we were given ambiguous religious “evidence” and the ability to think. With the religious “evidence” we can place a bet on which god is the real one and hope for the best, and with the ability to think we can keep developing theories and disproving them until we are blue in the face. If that is not evil, I’m not sure what is. Neither side can prove their case, they can only offer vague explanations and poorly thought out arguments. I suppose it’s a test of faith, but if having to live a life without answers is what we face here on earth, imagine what hell must be like. Of course if we are all lucky we’ll be reincarnated. Why? So that we can forget about our past lives and go through the process again and again and again. That way we won’t remember how troubling this entire situation was, and some god can have a good laugh at our expense. Despite the tremendous lack of evidence from either side, it really does come down to your personal beliefs. Neither side is really all that convincing when you think about it, and if you are looking at the situation from an objective point of you, it’s really easy to see just where both sides go wrong. It’s easier to just sit on the sidelines and take in both arguments respectively and reserve judgment for your deathbed. The best choice to make in this situation is to be objective, mainly because both sides are so wrapped up in their own dogma that they fail to see the advantages to their opponent’s arguments, and the flaws in their own. Instead of trying to see how science and religion can work together, they want to draw battle lines and tear the other’s head off. Though at least it’s a fair fight, in this match up of wits, both combatants are unarmed. Bibliography Lemonick, Michael D. “Before the Big Bang”. Discover. February 2004, pp. 35-41. Hawking, Stephen. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam, 2001 Larkin, Rev. Clarence. Dispensational Truth or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages. Pennsylvania: Re. Clarence Larkin Est., 1918 Life Application Study Bible: New Inernational Version. Illinois/Michigan: Tyndal House Publishers Inc./ Zondervan Publishing House, 1986 Wallace, Timothy. “Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution”. True Origins Archive . http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils * (02 September 2002) Wallace, Timothy. “A TrueOrigin FAQ”. True Origins Arcive. http://www.trueorigin.org/faq01.asp (23 September 2002) Barnett, Adrian. “Atheist’s Wager”. Atheist’s Wager. * http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html (26th Feb, 2000) * “Historical Inaccuracies in the Bible”. Islam Answers. http://www.ajnabiz.com/Historical_errors_of_Bible.htm (2003-2004) “The Origin of Life on Earth”. The Origin of Life on Earth. * http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/abiog/virginiaorigin.htm * “Claim CC201”. The Talk Origins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html (2004-3-17) Sarfati, Jonathan. “Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks.” True Origins Archive. * http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.asp (12 June 2002) Shenkman, Richard. Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History. New York: Haper Collins Publishers, 1993. [/b]

[Umbrasquall]

I'll have to say, I'm actually quite disappointed. I expected more clash and deeper analysis then these two writers offered. Though I agree with the point, it just seems that the author of the paper picked two very biased, unprofessional sources to prove his point that the argument is futile. Thanks for the article though Adidas.

[Kaniaz]

Where are the guns? You can't have an argument without guns.

[Xisdence]

If only i could travel back in time about 50000 years and tap into the mind of a caveman, and see what he is thinking, does he have a sense of there being a God?? An experiment needs to be carried out, a person needs to be raised on an island with a few people. Religion and anything that relates to it should never be talked about, and when the person reaches a certain age they should be quized on what they believe about life. None pf us here can really make an unbiased statement, yes including me.im just trying to state an overview The fact is that we are all evolving, my belief is once we begin to space travel, religions will decrease. Time is indirectly proportional to religious belief. Thats all i could think about right now.

[Howie]

Originally posted by Kaniaz Where are the guns? You can't have an argument without guns. On your command Kaniaz > Just a thought. Religous people and scientist disagree because science discoveries usually contradict the Bible. Lets Say that a lot of these events in the Bible took place. Floods, Locus plagues and such. Well they very well could have. But let us think how big their world was to them back then. (It was still flat wasn't it?) My point I guess is that the today these geological events happen still accur around the world somwhere. But to those writing in the Bible their small view of the earth was most likely no bigger than Europe.

[Xisdence]

just a stupid thought, but lets say that humans didnt have eyes, or ears...something like that would science be a different story altogether.....i mean its like experimenting inside a box..then stepping out the box with new mediums *****i also just realized, if anyone needs a bloody good essay to write about, alot of interesting topics exist here on dreamviews ( hey adidas, i just noticed by accident how u posted this today at 10:32 am, and i replied at 10:32pm....cool ey

[Demerzel]

I CAN SEE AN ARGUMENT STARTING HERE!

[Kaniaz]

Originally posted by Techboy I CAN SEE AN ARGUMENT STARTING HERE! Wow, you must be psyhic. How did you figure that out?

[jacobo]

no argument. just discussion.

[Belisarius]

Matter cannot be created within the physical laws of the universe, so there must have been an entity outside of the universe that started it, especially if it is found to not be cyclical. Deism, at least, is more probable than any other belief, whether it be science or zoroastrainism(sp?). Everything else beyond that is mere faith, including believing that the universe has existed forever.

[Umbrasquall]

What about aliens? That could have done it. Just adding suggestions.

[Xisdence]

nah wasnt aliens.........i believe it was a loaf of bread that created it........i mean who else could do such a complicated task..certainly not the

[AirRick101]

Wouldn't physical laws apply to aliens? That is, if I can assume that you mean aliens as in "ET's" Even if it's an accepted theory that there is a God, it doesn't validate any certain religion. Absolute truth would go beyond the brain. I can't say if absolute truth can be studied academically, but I guess that mankind hasn't been successful with that so far.

[YULAW]

I don't think Physical laws would apply to a more highly advanced race than ours. Even if this is the case how can we fully comprehend it if we are not on that level?

[Xisdence]

true.......for example a fish wouldnt know wat its like to hurt ur thumb....cos it doesnt have fingers

[LokisBtch]

Balisaris is right...and I disagree that people lose religion as time passes...it just becomes more "finely tuned"...Energy is neither created or destroyed, and what are human beings...we're matter...what's matter dense dense forms of energy, so were energy, that is one, that can be neither created or destroyed... Your talk about the Bible is closed minded...the first rule of a religious experience with "God" is that it is unexplainable...when someone sees into something of the nature of God, they're not going to have the language to communicate the experience, because language is limitted, especially by culture...the bible consists of human beings trying to convey experiences of a personal nature with God...the ONLY way they can convey it is through their culture and language...this is why the God of the old testament is fierce, jealous, and thunderous, because the Hebrew religion evolved through a culture clash, many actually, and one of those cultures Gods was fierce and thunderous...God changes in the Bible because people and culture change, not because God himself changes...God in changeless because "he" is one in a perfect state of being....just food for thought...

[LokisBtch]

that article is ridiculous!!!! Greek philosophy, you know, the logic of Aristotle, was the first "test" of the LOGIC of religion, from which came theology...human beings are made to be in communion with God, they are made in "his" image and likeness...image in as much as the have rationality and free will, likeness inasmuch as they aspire to the virtue of God, "this makes them [humans] higher than the angels". I can observe God...through every sense that I have, but I can only observe "his" energies b/c God is absolutely transcendant, i.e. "his" nature, his essence, is simply unknowable, that's why we call "him" God...this is where my free will comes in and tells me that through my senses I experience "him", or "her"...and so creation is something that is fluid, and simultaneously happening as time is happening...it doesn't matter what the Bible says...what matters is what we say in this particular moment...I'm a creationist and an evolutionist...the Bible is metaphorical and via culture...most Christians take it too literally...religion is meant to be fluid too, because people are...not static...scientifically E=mcsquared...people are matter, matter is dense forms of energy, energy is neither created or destroyed, energy is fluid, it moves, God is that energy that is neither created or destroyed...people don't "die"...they biologically decompose while their energy becomes parts of other things...and if they have a child, a whole half of the DNA is still alive, halfly whole in a new being...why do you thing our instinct for reproduction is so strong...the essence of the one may seem to be gone, but I think (belief) that the experience we have of singularity as a person is one of the biggest illusions we have to get rid of...we biologically, scientifically, are composed of many many people...this one sided conversation could go on forever...

[evangel]

...the first rule of a religious experience with \"God\" is that it is unexplainable [/b] Men of God (and others) have been doing it for millenia (communicating such experiences). Who's "rule" is that? Yours, I would guess. Ergo - Why would that "rule" (or any others for that matter) be any more authoratative (or true) than those I would find, say, in the Bible? And... that's a whole mouthful of preaching for someone who's quick to criticize others for their "closed mindedness."

[jacobo]

lucius you can kill this if you think it's getting too hot. i just want to say this... they're all theories... all of them. don't argue them because you won't prove them. a christian can’t prove anything, just as an atheist can’t disprove anything. so don't shove theories down our throats because i don't want to hear it. discuss objectively. i will drop a quote on dat ass however. the fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one.[/b]

[WerBurN]

people who are religious/scientific etc. need to learn to be above argueing...if you argue your point for God, nobody is going to convert, if you argue for science, you're only gonna make believers in religions harden themselves towards other points of view...when our opinions are being argued against, we have the capability to overlook small falicies in our arguements/points of view, and this in turns makes us less able to discuss rationally other points of view in comparison to our own, due to the fact that eventuall you end up in the state of 'well, i know my way is right, so im not gonna listen to anybody else's facts anymore, cause im right' however, if you discuss things with people, put ideas out there, without the intent of making someone else believe them, or swallow them, then people think 'hrmm, well that sounds ok' and they might go out there and take that idea and incorporate it...its kinda like love, really...if you try to force it, people are gonna think your a jerk, if you always expect people to come to you, nobody will, but if you put yourself, your ideas out there, then others may come to you...oh, ya, and buddhism, rocks, and if you arent buddhist, you're totally wrong, and are an idiot for not realizing it! ;p j/k

[Daeraug]

The thing is that when people get into these discussions is that they tend to forget that they must respect each others opinions and views. Trying to covert or convince the other person that you are right is not the way to do things. Discussing it in a respectful manner is very helpful, because you can learn something. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Some of the people I work with will talk about religion with me. They are surprised at time at how I don't try to force my view on them. That I just let them know what I believe, and here is the key point, and listen to their beliefs. I am a wiccan, or witch, what ever you want to call it, and the unit I am in is full of christians, even had a muslim for a while. Most respected each others views, though you get the odd one that makes a snide remark, but that is just ignored. Respect. Doesn't mean you have to agree, because if you listen and try to understand the other person. Then it gives more weight to your own views.

[evangel]

adidas you can't expect to be taken seriously when you tell others to "discuss objectively," ...and then proceed to with something like the above quote. It just don't work, esse. people who are religious/scientific etc. need to learn to be above argueing[/b] The idea that arguing is not good is rubbish others, but to say we should not argue is ... well I could think of a few words, but won't write them. Arguing is a good thing. It stimulates individual thought instead of everyone walking around with smiley faces singing the Rodney King theme song... What is NOT good is when people make blanket statements, arguments, stereotypes, or straight out attacks on people \"ad hominem\" rather than critical/logical argumentation with little or no actual research. I try to remain \"objective,\" but because I am passionate about my love for Christ (note: NOT religion), this will inevitably become evident. ... anytime someone makes an argument against (generric or specific), attack on \"religion in general,\" \" Christianity,\" \"creationists,\" etc. I tend not to be satisfied with letting such things slide -at least not without some critical analysis first. Respect. Doesn't mean you have to agree, because if you listen and try to understand the other person. Then it gives more weight to your own views.[/b] I 'gree ...most of the time. Sometimes I am a pompous ass, but I'm learning.

[Lucius]

Well, just a reminder, its indeed OK to argue as long as nobody gets hurt, so if anybody feels bashed, please say so, and remember to argue in a respectful, polite way, dont get aggresive, then it should be ok, and dont hate, and dont call something bullshit , bullshit, when it comes to religion, is inexistant. Again, if anybody feels bashed please say so! PM me or even better tell the person you feel bashed by that you feel so! But be nice, be gentle, dont get aggresive ^_^ Best for both parties =)

[evangel]

Ayyyeeet. 8)

[Joseph_Stalin]

Originally posted by Xisdence If only i could travel back in time about 50000 years and tap into the mind of a caveman, and see what he is thinking, does he have a sense of there being a God?? An experiment needs to be carried out, a person needs to be raised on an island with a few people. Religion and anything that relates to it should never be talked about, and when the person reaches a certain age they should be quized on what they believe about life. This got me thinking about an idea for something I had previously tossed around in my head. We let a bunch of humans live on a reclusive island for their whole lives, without any social interaction from "sensitized" or "desensitized" humans (depending on how you view the media and stuff), and see how they develop the skills to survive, and in a couple hundred (or thousand) years see if they have developed their own language, religious beliefs, ethnic and/or cultural boundaries, empires, governments, sciences...etc. Making the island really small would be good too. Of course, leaving them unchecked could result in trouble if they ever invent shipbuilding and stuff, and once they realize that we're already in space and colonizing it, it's like I would like to see this experiment speeded up like a VCR or something, were I could stop every 10 or so years. The questions to be asked now if such a feat were taken on, are "will their nature be as ours is?" "Will they have multiple gods or a single one? or even more than one religion?" "Will science effect them once they realize how important and beneficial it may be?" Of course there is the irony in that we are using science itself to study a debate comparing it with religion...but not so much. And for some reason this reminds me of that story of the plane that crashed somewhere, and the natives started worshipping it.