Science and religion

[jstrodel]

Do you think that people will accept evolutionary theory in its exact present form in 1000 years with zero modifications? Can you name any theories from 1000 years ago that are understood exactly the same way with zero modifications?

I am unsure if evolution is the best way to understand life because it is an incomplete theory, it rests on unproven elements (abiogenesis) and the nature of science is that science tends to overturn itself fairly regularly.

What? Abiogenesis is a completely different theory than evolution. Evolution only concerns itself with what happened after life arose. God could have created the first life and evolution still be true.

I don't see what is retarded about this. It is just a value system. What makes trusting in science more rational than trusting in other sources of authority?

Science values evidence and provable assertions, religion does not. And...science works. If it weren't for science, you wouldn't even be able to post this. Try praying a post onto this forum, see how it works out for you.

When you say "ignorant" do you mean "ignorant of controversial issues in science?"

Controversial!?! Anyone who still thinks evolution is controversial is ignorant of science.

Do you know who Richard Smalley is? He is a noble prize winner who discovered Buckey Balls. He rejected evolutionary theory. Do you think you are a better scientist than he is? What about Raymond Vaham Damadian, the inventor of the MIR machine who nearly won a nobel prize.

You have confidence in a popular level understanding of science. You may be right about evolutionary theory, but many people in the science world have been completely convinced about issues in the past. The fact that you accept evolutionary theory, which is a mainstream theory that has dominance in the biology world and many application in pharmaceuticals, some call it a cornerstone of modern biology, does not make you an authority on the natural world.

It is true that evolutionary theory is a very significant paradigm by which people understand biology. There have been other paradigms in the past, such as Newtonian physics that have since been replaced.

There is nothing foolish about suggesting that mans present state of understanding is likely not the final understanding. History has proved that to be the case.

As for abiogenesis, it is absolutely related to evolutionary theory. Evolution stands of falls based on a certain number of conditions that are created through the origin of life and other factors. Evolution cannot explain these things, whether it is true or not, it has no ability to deal with the issues that support it.

As a theory that cannot explain fully the nature of life or how it originates, it should be treated as such, not as a catch all theory that replaces God, because evolution cannot do any such thing.

Evolution is certainly a controversial issue that has many dissenters. It is a mainstream scientific paradigm, but it is not universally accepted. It is not necessarily a sign of a lack of knowledge of science to question evolutionary theory, as some of the brightest scientists have.

How many nobel prizes do you have?

---

And that is the problem with your "objective" morality. You presuppose that he exists and is legitimately the ultimate moral authority, despite the fact that there is evidence to the contrary.

There is not a shred of legitimate evidence anywhere against God's existence. What do you have? Post it. Why do you make naked assertions?

Of course, if you blindly accept that he is, then slavery must be okay, and stoning people who work on Sunday is too. Those laws may not apply now, but god said them before, and why would an omnipotent, omniscient god change his mind?

This displays an extremely superficial knowledge of the two covenants in scripture. God does change his mind, why else would God give two covenants. The nature of the Israelite theocracy is very different from the nature of the modern world. What makes it wrong to stone people to death for working on Sunday? Can you make an argument? That is not self evidently wrong to me, it is different from modern culture, which seperates political life from religious. Also, what is wrong about slavery, absolutely, that makes slavery wrong even in circumstances where people that would be enslaved would either die of starvation (in a famine) or would be slaughtered (in a war). What makes slavery evil?

I should add that Christians today are ending slavery against the world and Christians have been some of the main participants involved in created the modern free secular societies which you benefit from. Christianity is a flexible and adaptable application of spiritual principles that happens through history.

The one constant is that the central teaching of the Christian faith is to love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:17). This is what all ordinances in the Bible center themselves around, whether ordinances to care for the poor and widow and orphans, ordinances to sanctify, ordinances that regulate slavery in a limited context and even ordinances that establish religious norms and punish deviance with death. They all come out of a desire to have a society that is ruled by God's love.

Look around today. How many people keep the sabbath? How many people are set apart to God. Not many. The law has a purpose. God is good.

---

God created evil.
What happens when we do 'evil' things? We're just using his creation, right?

People have libertarian free will. When we do evil things, we use God's creation to separate ourselves from God. This angers God.