Isn't it fair to say that science dosen't contradict any of our beliefs? (Evolutionist/Naturalist/Creationist) That only based on our assumptions with the data in front of us we draw different conclusions and asssumptions of what happened in the past. When we cannot historically prove any of it, we are left to assume what happened based upon "evidence" which can support/deny a theory but it cannot prove it to be wrong or right.
Can we agree that our "evidence" is motivated by our assumtion of what happened?
I just don't see how any intelligent naturalist can logically say there is not God and that our world has evolved period. I understand that some may believe there is no way to know, I'm speaking to the people who asert the obscurity that there is no God, when logically it dosent hold up.
2006-08-09 03:39:45 · 5 answers · asked by ESPforlife 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Just a note i'm speaking that origin-science is heavily based on assumption. As for biology, physics, etc. They do not need a definition of having a god or not, it only arises when we think of our existence or natural laws.
2006-08-09 04:44:12 · update #1
You idiot, I never said that mutations and natural selection don't occur or exist, that would be foolish. That still dosen't explain the therory of evolution to be correct nor logically deny there being a God.
2006-08-09 06:29:57 · update #2
I agree absolutely with helene.
Do not let creationists convince you that science is "anti-God", or that it attempts to prove that there is no God. Science does nothing of the sort. Many scientists, which includes the vast majority of scientists who accept the theory of evolution, have some strong religious belief in God.
That said, it is sad to suggest that nobody can ever know what occurred in the past. We cannot "prove" that the Egyptians built the pyramids at Giza under the reign of the 4th Dynasty pharaoh Khufu ... but based on the archaeological "evidence" that seems to be the case. It is a conclusion based on inference from the evidence. And this is exactly how we try to draw conclusions about the origins of life, about its evolution; about the origin of the universe, and of matter; the origin of the solar system, and the earth; etc.
We can never "prove" anything about the very old, or the very small, or the very distant, but we can develop theories that we accept with a constantly increasing degree of confidence.
If God did not intend us to look at the world, and draw conclusions about it based on the "evidence" we gather with our eyes and our instruments, then why did He give us brains?
2006-08-09 04:29:36 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Scientific evidence makes a particular theory strong , though it cannot ever fully establish a theory as correct.
Similarly, scientific evidence can show a theory to be weak. And other evidences supporting a "weak" theory, when looked at carefully can often be shown to be weak evidences - evidences which require adhoc assumptions, evidences where data is suspect etc.
Sometimes experts may color interpretations of data to suit theories they have an affinity to. But then, on close scrutiny, one should be able to find chinks in the experts' analysis which would expose his/her bias.
The question of the existence of God is, I agree, undecided. I think at present science cannot say whether God exists or not. Saying categorically that God does not exist is thus not logical.
At best, we do not know if it exists. But if it does exist, then it is not very clear what its role in the universe is.
Most events in the universe can be attirbuted to cause and effect. Evolution is just cause and effect and does not require invoking God. The forming of galaxies, of stars, of planets, of life are all effects of causes governed by natural laws (and the business of science is to understand these natural laws).
Of-course, one might ask who made those natural laws? Who started the universe ?
The answer can be "God". Or the answer can be that "we do not know". Or the answer can be anything else our minds might wish to conjure up. Until we establish for a fact who (or what) started the universe we cannot say that any answer is right or wrong.
And it is not very clear if Science can ever establish who / what started the universe. And even if it does, then the next logical question would be ... who made that which started the universe.
Its fair to say that science does not contradict our beliefs about the existence of God. But it doesn't validate them either.
2006-08-09 04:26:18 · answer #2 · answered by RM 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't have to believe in evolution any more than you have to believe that matter is made of atoms and that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. The only thing that can be proved are mathematical theorems.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory, i.e. it is supported by scientific evidence. Just like the theories about atoms and the solar system. If you think that a literal interpretation of the book of genesis should be given more weight than thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles, that's fair enough. Just don't confuse religion with science.
The theory of evolution by natural selection does not say anything about how the Earth and the Universe were created, nor does it say that God does not exist. Christians should have no problem with science.
2006-08-09 04:09:32 · answer #3 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. I think that evolution makes sense, but there are
too many miracles happening all around us for it just to be circimstance. I believe that evolution did, and is, occuring, but a hgher power set it in motion.
2006-08-09 03:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by for_always_groban 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is yet no room in Science for God. God is an unnecesary figment of our imagination which is still advocated by people low in self esteem.
2006-08-09 03:55:29 · answer #5 · answered by ag_iitkgp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋