Evolution or Creation?

[Sneaksuit]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

Hawkins theory does not give an answer of why the universe came into existence.

the conflict between science and religion doesn't and never has stemmed from the scientific point of view,

Not true. The conflict stemmed from religion and continued until the enlightenment and shortly after. The 20th century has plenty of examples of nervous scientists in fear their losing their jobs because of science's "religious" attack on belief.

The myth of the mechanical universe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gw4yQx-QnA

[Necro]

If there was nothing to begin with, there wouldn't have been gravity either.

Hawking does not deny nothingness, nor does he contend that nothingness never existed, and there is a difference between the non-existence of matter and the non-existence of physical laws, google is your friend.

Hawkins theory does not give an answer of why the universe came into existence.

why does the universe need a reason?

won't even bother with your second "point", and I use that word sparingly.

[Sneaksuit]

I don't understand how you can say evolution isn't a science, it's based on evidence and is measurable.

Science is a tool that's helped us discover evolution - a critical understanding of our origin. However, evolution does not represent science. It could just as well represent faith too in the argument that evolution would not manifest for no reason.

[Poindexter]

[ The myth of the mechanical universe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gw4yQx-QnA

That has to be computer animation, there is no way someones face actually moves that way.

Anyway, I took in a bit and much like religion he makes some rather large leaps trying to pass off unsubtatiated claims as fact. He uses arguements such as, "doesn't make sense."

Sorry I need a little more than someones choice of reason to say human intellegence and the universe is by design.

Besides, I doubt many current scientists still feel the universe is a machine. It's far more complex than simple gears but you could certainly see why during the industrial revolution that comparison was made.

[Poindexter]

[
Science is a tool that's helped us discover evolution - a critical understanding of our origin. However, evolution does not represent science. It could just as well represent faith too in the argument that evolution would not manifest for no reason.

If Science is the tool that helps us discover the universe, then it stands to reason that religion is the obstacle. How else can you describe a belief system that says the original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge?

[Glacier]

If Science is the tool that helps us discover the universe, then it stands to reason that religion is the obstacle.

Science is not the opposite of religion. The two are completely compatible because you can be both religious AND a strong believer in science.

If you look around the board, you can find the religion and non-religious divided on pretty much every issue. If religion were the antithesis of science, then we would find that it's mostly the religion preaching Chem Trails and Conspiracy Theories. This is not the case; there both nut cases and rationalists on either side.

It may be your opinion that religion and science are opposites, but if you were to examine your opinion scientifically, you'd change your mind.

I'm not sure there is an opposite to science any more than there is an opposite to mathematics. There is of course an unscientific way of doing science (at which case there is no longer science). If there is an opposite to science, I would say it's called dogma or preconceived notions. These can be religions, political, or other.

[Sneaksuit]

If Science is the tool that helps us discover the universe, then it stands to reason that religion is the obstacle. How else can you describe a belief system that says the original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge?

Good discussion Poindexter. I concur that religion has been an obstacle to understanding the universe. But the Bible is not religion, it's a compilation of writings depicting only tens of writers' beliefs that sprouted several religions. I would say there are many things that are obstacles in the same way, including politics, economics, and all institutions that perpetuate stagnate thinking and behaving; even the enterprise of science hurts progression is some ways.

Because belief is a human characteristic common to all cultures, it has certainly been one of the biggest obstacles of social, economic, and technological evolution. But for the same reason that it's ubiquitous, it's a rich source to understanding the human condition, and is therefore valuable. Understanding the phenomena of religion means understanding the human brain, to say the least. As an analogy, war is terrible, but isn't that more of a reason to understand it, rather than saying "i hate it" and disregard any understanding of ourselves by studying it? For this reason it could argued that our religious history has taught us the dangers of belief and how we are all susceptible to wrong belief, be it deism, Marxism, or scientism.

A humbling notion...human belief has always changed. So any belief that anyone on Earth has now will be considered wrong one day in one way or another.

[Hendrixfan]

If the question is whether one believes in local evolution, like the colour of wings changing etc, then yes. There is no doubt that creatures can change in small ways.

If the question is whether one species evolved into an entirely different species, like ape to man, then NO!!

If that type of evolution is true, then why only man?

I find it funny that so many people put their trust into a man that wrote a book on evolution without having the first clue as to what actually goes on within a cell.

Funny enough, I remember about 20 years ago "learning" in biology class that ALL fetuses in the womb of every mammal starts out identical. Propaganda dies hard, I supppose.

[Necro]

Science is not the opposite of religion.

that's right, religion offers unsubstantiated claims founded upon the bases of intillectual laziness.

The two are completely compatible

except for the fact that Science is based upon observable, peer reviewed, data, unlike the bible, upon which religion finds its base.

If religion were the antithesis of science, then we would find that it's mostly the religion preaching Chem Trails and Conspiracy Theories.

godditit sounds rational to me.

It may be your opinion that religion and science are opposites, but if you were to examine your opinion scientifically, you'd change your mind.

please provide links supporting your argument that, in any way, religion is supported by science.

I'm not sure there is an opposite to science

of course there is, it's called blind faith, or goddidit.

So any belief that anyone on Earth has now will be considered wrong one day in one way or another.

wow, I can't believe you just said that outloud.

..

[zzontar]

Hawking does not deny nothingness, nor does he contend that nothingness never existed, and there is a difference between the non-existence of matter and the non-existence of physical laws, google is your friend.

It is impossible for nothing to exist, as this would include physical laws, time, and matter, as those are all something (let common sense be your friend.) If you believe everything in the Universe began from absolutely nothing with no outside force, then that's a bigger leap of faith than anything IMO.

[Poindexter]

Good discussion Poindexter. I concur that religion has been an obstacle to understanding the universe. But the Bible is not religion, it's a compilation of writings depicting only tens of writers' beliefs that sprouted several religions. I would say there are many things that are obstacles in the same way, including politics, economics, and all institutions that perpetuate stagnate thinking and behaving; even the enterprise of science hurts progression is some ways.

Because belief is a human characteristic common to all cultures, it has certainly been one of the biggest obstacles of social, economic, and technological evolution. But for the same reason that it's ubiquitous, it's a rich source to understanding the human condition, and is therefore valuable. Understanding the phenomena of religion means understanding the human brain, to say the least. As an analogy, war is terrible, but isn't that more of a reason to understand it, rather than saying "i hate it" and disregard any understanding of ourselves by studying it? For this reason it could argued that our religious history has taught us the dangers of belief and how we are all susceptible to wrong belief, be it deism, Marxism, or scientism.

A humbling notion...human belief has always changed. So any belief that anyone on Earth has now will be considered wrong one day in one way or another.

Word for word I couldn't agree more. Very well said. I don't believe science and religion are opposite or mutually exclusive. Humans self awareness of our impending death is unique among known species. Trying to make sense of this nasty pill we all have to swallow has inspired both science and religion, equally, to come up with an explanation. But religion alone feels threatned by the other and through time attempted to stamp it out. To this day many kids are home schooled thinking the bible is a scientific journal.

Human belief has always changed, correct, and thats why I'll choose science over belief every time. It moves forward bit by bit, growing and learning from it's mistakes. Not firmly entrenched, defending at all costs a notion that they knew more about the universe and science 2000 years ago, than we do now.

[Glacier]

please provide links supporting your argument that, in any way, religion is supported by science.

Where did I say religion was supported by science? Hint: I never said that. I said that religion and science are two different topics, that are not mutually exclusive. Someone can be dogmatic around their religious beliefs, just as people can be dogmatic around their political beliefs. But just because you have political beliefs or religious beliefs doesn't mean you cannot investigate things scientifically (actually, everyone has political and religious beliefs of one kind or another).

You can make generalized statements up the yin yang, but as Mark Twain said, "all generalizations are false, including this one."

I agree that blind faith is bad, but according to the Bible faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In other words, if you don't see evidence for what you believe, then that's not faith. Rather, it's blind faith which is not faith at all (AKA wishful thinking).

[Necro]

Where did I say religion was supported by science?

thank you, you just put an end to this entire discussion.

[Necro]

It is impossible for nothing to exist, as this would include physical laws, time, and matter, as those are all something (let common sense be your friend.) If you believe everything in the Universe began from absolutely nothing with no outside force, then that's a bigger leap of faith than anything IMO.

wow, way to "cherry pick"

seems ignorance really is bliss.

[fluffy]

IMO, it's best not to fall into the trap of thinking that evolution represents science and if you don't believe it then you only have one other choice - religion. One day we will know much more about our origin thanks to the tool of science but also to the human experience which uses it.

Ah, but you supply a third choice right there Sneaksuit. We can have the humility to accept that the real answer is so far beyond the grasp of our present knowledge as likely to remain unknown well beyond our lifespan, and that when found may well contain aspects of both science and spirituality. Science is fixated on the quantifiable and yet life as we know it contains much that defies analysis., yet exists anyways. Religion wants so much to believe its own version that it remains purposely blind to what is proven fact. "I don't know" is a phrase that's awfully hard for some people to pronounce, but strangely liberating once learned.