The Genius of Charles Darwin

[Evie]

Oops! Sorry for being imprecise.

I was speaking specifically with regard to his position on science vs religion.

 

[Mise]

@Mise: Well if Cosmic Background Radiation is energy then yes (and we both agree that CBR is there, and so you understood me).

CBR did not cause planets to form...

Played a part as in it helped, contributed, etc.

Saying that "energy contributed" is meaningless. It's as if you told me that money played a part in me becoming rich.

And I know evolution had no direct effect on planetary formation, but if you believe God created the planets then you don't bother with a theory to explain it so that theory I outlined is the theory that evolutionary scientists have come up with.

Evolutionary biologists did not develop the theory of the Big Bang.

Could you get a source for this? I think it is partially incorrect. gravity attracts items directly towards each other, not around. If an object has enough speed though it will orbit.

If gravity didn't exist, objects wouldn't orbit each other.

 

[nihilistic]

As far as I'm concerned, the sort of quote given by Nihilistic - the sort that hold that science and theism can never coexist- only serve to make atheists as a whole look bad, and to strengthen the position of religious fundamentalists who want to claim science is the enemy of God.

Nihilistic, see my edit, it explains where the comparison lies.

That's not exactly what he said, but even if he had said that, how would it be a lie? The ability of certain scientists to compartmentalize contradictory concepts doesn't mean the ideas themselves do not contradict. He didn't say "science and theism can never coexist", especially not the "never". He even concedes that the religious hypothesis, the existence of the supernatural, does in principle have the possibility of being true. What he said is, that any scientific theory that includes the supposition of the existence of the supernatural will necessarily be fundamentally different than one that does not have such a supposition, even if it is in practice not easily distinguishable. Where is the lie?

 

[Zebra 9]

I didn't say CBR created planets, I was saying that I didn't doubt that it could have had some effect, but that it did NOT create planets.

That's right. The Big Bang explains what set the planets in motion.

Evolutionary biologists did not develop the theory of the Big Bang.

I have been referring to your earlier post regarding planets, not biology. I know that biologists didn't develop the Big Bang, instead an astronomer did (or group of astronomers).

Large objects orbit each other as a result of gravitational attraction.

Could you get a source for this? I think it is partially incorrect. gravity attracts items directly towards each other, not around. If an object has enough speed though it will orbit.

I was saying that gravity alone does not cause orbits. You must have speed other wise the objects will just fall strait towards each other.

 

[scy12]

Your hero-worship of him doesn't make his position correct.

As far as I'm concerned, the sort of quote given by Nihilistic - the sort that hold that science and theism can never coexist- only serve to make atheists as a whole look bad, and to strengthen the position of religious fundamentalists who want to claim science is the enemy of God.

Nihilistic, see my edit, it explains where the comparison lies.

Theism and science can not coexist . Or if they can coexist one of them must be completely ignored. If science proves theism to be true then it is not "Theism" any more. Scientists can be theists of course but their scientific knowledge and discoveries are independent of their theism.

And a scientist let's say Newton may say this :Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.

One of the two claims , Newton has used evidence to back it up. The other he did not. Scientist today do not attempt to mix theism and science in their scientific papers. Whether they are theists or not they know that it is a personal choice and theism should not be mixed with science.

And i can't see how it makes atheism to look bad.

Your hero-worship of him doesn't make his position correct.

I am not hero worshiping him. I would even claim i know less about him than you do. But i do think that my conclusion is correct in this case.

 

[Zebra 9]

I don't think scientists should mix the two. For one religion tends to be more subjective (people tend to interpret it). Where as true science is much less subjective, any subjective conclusion made in science is either proven or dis-proven.

 

[Evie]

Then it appears I misread your paraphrase.

To me, it sounded more like Dawkins insisted that if one believe in God, then one should necessarily include that supposition in their theories. That doesn't seem logical to me.

Scy - We may diverge in how we view coexistence. To me, the two of them existing independently of one another - theology viewed as wholly separate from science - IS a form of co-existence.

Certainly I don't think one should let their theological opinion inform their scientific position, and I don't think that one should expect science to confirm or infirm the existence or non-existence of God.

 

[scy12]

I don't think scientists should mix the two. For one religion tends to be more subjective (people tend to interpret it). Where as true science is much less subjective, any subjective conclusion made in science is either proven or dis-proven.

So theism and science does not mix and should not mix and you agree with me. That is good.

I was saying that gravity alone does not cause orbits. You must have speed other wise the objects will just fall strait towards each other.

I am not much of a Physicist but does not Gravity cause Speed . (Or is it the other way around ?)

 

[scy12]

Then it appears I misread your paraphrase.

To me, it sounded more like Dawkins insisted that if one believe in God, then one should necessarily include that supposition in their theories. That doesn't seem logical to me.

Well do you have the exact quote and the context in which he said it ? I think if we find how he was lead to say that , we may know more clearly what he meant.

 

[Evie]

No, unfortunately, I don't - I was going from the paraphrase Nihilistic posted (and my general knowledge of Dawkin as one of the more outspoken, religion-challenging atheists)

 

[scy12]

No, unfortunately, I don't - I was going from the paraphrase Nihilistic posted (and my general knowledge of Dawkin as one of the more outspoken, religion-challenging atheists)

Ah OK then...

 

[Mise]

I didn't say CBR created planets, I was saying that I didn't doubt that it could have had some effect, but that it did NOT create planets.

What effect are you referring to?

I have been referring to your earlier post regarding planets, not biology. I know that biologists didn't develop the Big Bang, instead an astronomer did (or group of astronomers).

Evolution is a biological theory that has nothing to do with the creation of planets. If you were referring to my earlier posts regarding planets, then there is no reason to mention evolution.

I was saying that gravity alone does not cause orbits. You must have speed other wise the objects will just fall strait towards each other.

The Theory of Gravity explains why objects orbit each other. You said that heat caused objects to swirl into orbits - this is patently untrue. Heat has nothing to do with it.

 

[Zebra 9]

Well gravity can cause speed, but in order for 1 object to orbit another one of them must be traveling fast enough to keep itself from falling into the other.

So theism and science does not mix and should not mix and you agree with me. That is good.

I didn't say that, I said scientists should not mix the two, not that the two should not be mixed. Basically I don't think a scientist should mix a subjective item with a mostly non-subjective item.

 

[Mise]

Well gravity can cause speed, but in order for 1 object to orbit another one of them must be traveling fast enough to keep itself from falling into the other.

Yes - this is all described by the Theory of Gravity.

 

[Zebra 9]

The Theory of Gravity explains why objects orbit each other. You said that heat caused objects to swirl into orbits - this is patently untrue. Heat has nothing to do with it.

It explains why and how, but it doesn't say that gravity starts the orbit. The heat would cause the gases and debris to move (the heat comes from the inward pull of gravity) slowly starting the orbit which would be sustained by gravity.

 

[Zebra 9]

The effect I'm referring to is the creation of planets and the placing of them into orbits.
Well I always thought that since the universe evolved from a speck to an incomprehensibly complex mechanism that it was evolution. Its probably just a YEC misconception. So what would you call it?


Sorry about the double post, I posted before I was done and the thread is moving to fast for an edit.

 

[scy12]

It explains why and how, but it doesn't say that gravity starts the orbit. The heat would cause the gases and debris to move (the heat comes from the inward pull of gravity) slowly starting the orbit which would be sustained by gravity.

Is there any source that verifies (agrees with you) that The heat causes the gases and debris to move starting the orbit and generally what you are saying ?

 

[nihilistic]

Large objects orbit each other as a result of gravitational attraction.

Could you get a source for this? I think it is partially incorrect. gravity attracts items directly towards each other, not around. If an object has enough speed though it will orbit.

He was essentially correct except for a few technical points:

1. Gravity works on small objects too. It's just that at a intermediate scale electromagnetism rules and that in the extremely small scale nuclear force rules.

2. Gravity attracts objects with masses towards each other. Technically the earth constantly in a free-fall into the sun, but the fall is counteracted by a momentum perpendicular to the force.

3. Technically, gravity is not truly 'attract' anything. Technically, matter actually bends the space around it towards it with respect to time. This theory (general relativity in a nutshell), was needed to explain why gravity affects light, which has no mass.

I posted and you had posted alot, so I would like to say this. Science is not the enemy of God, only a nut would think that.

It is definitely diametrically opposed to the theory of an interventionist god, i.e., any god that you can pray to. The kind of god that science does not oppose, the one that Einstein sort of alluded to, the abstract representation of the grandeur of the universe, is decidedly non-interventionist is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.

 

[Mise]

The effect I'm referring to is the creation of planets and the placing of them into orbits.
Well I always thought that since the universe evolved from a speck to an incomprehensibly complex mechanism that it was evolution. Its probably just a YEC misconception. So what would you call it?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution describes how species evolved through natural selection. It describes life on Earth.

The process that describes the "lifecycle" of a star (such as the sun) is sometimes referred to as "stellar evolution" or somesuch. The word "evolution" is a common English word, and can be used in a number of situations (to describe a process of change or development). In this thread, we are referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution (note the capitals), which is specifically about the evolution (note the lower-case letters) of life on Earth.

 

[Evie]

I'm not certain science necessarily contradict an interventionist God (though I certainly do not believe in one). Admitedly it contradict most of the common interpretation of the interventionist God.

Depending of course on how you define interventionist God.