Poll: Science and Religion. Where do you stand?

[kurros]

I voted A. but also have trouble thinking of how one "believes in" science. XD

I assumed he simply meant something like "believes that science is our best, most robust, most powerful tool for learning how the world works".

[Questions11]

Why even read the superlatives in there?  I interpreted it simply believed that science is A good method for blah, blah.

[kurros]

Why even read the superlatives in there?  I interpreted it simply believed that science is A good method for blah, blah.

Well that seemed to be too vague.

[Trinity]

I voted 'other'.

Science is good at what it is intended for, but science is bad at what it is not intended for. Unfortunately, many people attempt science in areas which it is not intended for. I call this the 'hammer mentality'. If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. So you go on hitting religion, philosophy and theology with your scientific hammer.

[Keith_]

I think the poll question may be flawed. 

If you say you don't believe in evolution on this forum, it is likely that you'll hear an atheists start talking about evidence of adaptation. Not even young earth creationists believe adaption doesn't occur, and an ID proponent would likely argue that adaptation is evidence of good design.

Neo Darwinism is evolution as an unguided process, so a theistic evolutionist (for example) answering the question will not mean what most NDs evolutionists believe.

I believe in evolution, but not as an unguided process because that has not been established by the science, but is only assumed. I'm not a theistic evolutionist either, as that also hasn't been established.  Evolution could also be due to ID, and I'm inclined to think ID is necessary to explain the mechanisms of adaptation, but this too is not established.

Sorry to make trouble. (:

-Keith

[False Entity]

I think the poll question may be flawed. 

If you say you don't believe in evolution on this forum, it is likely that you'll hear an atheists start talking about evidence of adaptation. Not even young earth creationists believe adaption doesn't occur, and an ID proponent would likely argue that adaptation is evidence of good design.

Neo Darwinism is evolution as an unguided process, so a theistic evolutionist (for example) answering the question will not mean what most NDs evolutionists believe.

I believe in evolution, but not as an unguided process because that has not been established by the science, but is only assumed. I'm not a theistic evolutionist either, as that also hasn't been established.  Evolution could also be due to ID, and I'm inclined to think ID is necessary to explain the mechanisms of adaptation, but this too is not established.

Sorry to make trouble. (:

-Keith

Science doesn't deal with the question of agency behind the mechanism. But the mechanism by which humans have come into existence has been established. The only question remaining is whether or not the process is a guided one, which is not a question for science. It's not a complicated question to ask whether or not you accept evolutionary theory. There is nothing in it that claims anything one way or the other regarding agency behind the process.

[Trinity]

'' But the mechanism by which humans have come into existence has been established. ''

That begs the question. I don't think any mechanism has been established by which humans have come into existence.

[Keith_]

I think the poll question may be flawed. 

If you say you don't believe in evolution on this forum, it is likely that you'll hear an atheists start talking about evidence of adaptation. Not even young earth creationists believe adaption doesn't occur, and an ID proponent would likely argue that adaptation is evidence of good design.

Neo Darwinism is evolution as an unguided process, so a theistic evolutionist (for example) answering the question will not mean what most NDs evolutionists believe.

I believe in evolution, but not as an unguided process because that has not been established by the science, but is only assumed. I'm not a theistic evolutionist either, as that also hasn't been established.  Evolution could also be due to ID, and I'm inclined to think ID is necessary to explain the mechanisms of adaptation, but this too is not established.

Sorry to make trouble. (:

-Keith

Science doesn't deal with the question of agency behind the mechanism. But the mechanism by which humans have come into existence has been established. The only question remaining is whether or not the process is a guided one, which is not a question for science. It's not a complicated question to ask whether or not you accept evolutionary theory. There is nothing in it that claims anything one way or the other regarding agency behind the process.

I disagree.  Science should not put any conclusion off limits and to be done properly scientific inquiry must follow the evidence wherever it leads.  It used to be practiced that way, but there are political interests today that are so fearful of what might be found that they demonize and ostracize anyone who might suggest a finding supports a legitimate hypothesis such as the  design hypothesis.  Many (virtually all?) academic New Darwinists claim evolution is an unguided process, which is dealing with the question of agency.

-Keith

[pat1911]

I voted 'other'.

Science is good at what it is intended for, but science is bad at what it is not intended for. Unfortunately, many people attempt science in areas which it is not intended for. I call this the 'hammer mentality'. If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. So you go on hitting religion, philosophy and theology with your scientific hammer.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for your insight.

[Jem]

I think the poll question may be flawed. 

If you say you don't believe in evolution on this forum, it is likely that you'll hear an atheists start talking about evidence of adaptation. Not even young earth creationists believe adaption doesn't occur, and an ID proponent would likely argue that adaptation is evidence of good design.

Neo Darwinism is evolution as an unguided process, so a theistic evolutionist (for example) answering the question will not mean what most NDs evolutionists believe.

I believe in evolution, but not as an unguided process because that has not been established by the science, but is only assumed. I'm not a theistic evolutionist either, as that also hasn't been established.  Evolution could also be due to ID, and I'm inclined to think ID is necessary to explain the mechanisms of adaptation, but this too is not established.

I agree with you here Keith. Adaptation in species is seen for sure, but it is a huge leap from adaptive changes in one species to assumption that one species evolved into another. Genetic roadblocks prevent that. All of the experimental "proofs" offered by science do not lead to any species evolving into a completely different "kind".

Wiki's entry on "Speciation" proves that the fish remained fish and flies remained flies. No matter how much time elapses, there is no "proof" that all species evolved from a common ancestor. There is however a lot of guesswork and assumption couched in scientific jargon. Assumptions are not facts, so in essence we have a choice between two "belief" systems. Faith is required for belief in either one.

Intelligent design is demonstrated in all things. Undirected chance had nothing to do with life on this planet.

[lucious]

Christian, believe in evolution. Not sure how one "believes" in science since it does not reduce to a single proposition, but fwiw I am myself trained in science and I accept all consensus theories.


The controversy for me is in the philosophical and metaphysical implications of certain scientific theories, and with people using single scientific theories as if they're grand metanarratives.

[searcherman]

I voted "other", "believe in" was a deal breaker for me.

Carl Sagan said it best:

"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility."

[Jem]

Carl Sagan said it best:

"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility."

Science is NOT "more than a body of knowledge".....it is an ever changing body of knowledge, based on a set "way of thinking". ("There cannot be a Creator....intelligent design cannot be demonstrated in anything.")

Tomorrow's new discovery can quash a century of misinterpretation of the "evidence". Oops.

"Skeptically interrogating the Universe" shouldn't come with arrogance, based on their track record of continually moving the goal posts and stating assumption as fact.

The "fine understanding of human fallibility" includes an admission that today's truth could be thrown out with tomorrow's garbage because of that very annoying fallibility. 

In order to "believe in" something, you first have to assume that it is true. Science cannot disprove the existence of a Creator, any more than I can prove him to someone who doesn't want to believe in him.

That gives us two belief systems....take your pick.

[searcherman]

Carl Sagan said it best:

"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility."

Science is NOT "more than a body of knowledge".....it is an ever changing body of knowledge, based on a set "way of thinking". ("There cannot be a Creator....intelligent design cannot be demonstrated in anything.")

Tomorrow's new discovery can quash a century of misinterpretation of the "evidence". Oops.

"Skeptically interrogating the Universe" shouldn't come with arrogance, based on their track record of continually moving the goal posts and stating assumption as fact.

The "fine understanding of human fallibility" includes an admission that today's truth could be thrown out with tomorrow's garbage because of that very annoying fallibility. 

In order to "believe in" something, you first have to assume that it is true. Science cannot disprove the existence of a Creator, any more than I can prove him to someone who doesn't want to believe in him.

That gives us two belief systems....take your pick.

And yet it saves lives with vaccinations, transplants and blood transfusions. And look, that computer you're using!

Science seems to work to me.

[Jem]

Carl Sagan said it best:

"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility."

Science is NOT "more than a body of knowledge".....it is an ever changing body of knowledge, based on a set "way of thinking". ("There cannot be a Creator....intelligent design cannot be demonstrated in anything.")

Tomorrow's new discovery can quash a century of misinterpretation of the "evidence". Oops.

"Skeptically interrogating the Universe" shouldn't come with arrogance, based on their track record of continually moving the goal posts and stating assumption as fact.

The "fine understanding of human fallibility" includes an admission that today's truth could be thrown out with tomorrow's garbage because of that very annoying fallibility. 

In order to "believe in" something, you first have to assume that it is true. Science cannot disprove the existence of a Creator, any more than I can prove him to someone who doesn't want to believe in him.

That gives us two belief systems....take your pick.

And yet it saves lives with vaccinations, transplants and blood transfusions.

I am suspicious of vaccinations as they do not work like naturally acquired immunity does. Natural immunity requires no boosters. The antibodies stay in the bloodstream for life.

It seems like the more vaccinations they come up with, the more life-threatening illnesses there are to treat.

Transplants can be of benefit, but stem cell repair of your own organs would be a better use of science than suppressing the body's natural immune response to someone else's body parts. Blood transfusions are not as safe they are reported to be. Bloodless medicine is now the choice for many informed doctors.

And look, that computer you're using!

The science of bio-mimetics demonstrates that scientists can mimic the design of many things in nature but they rarely come up with anything "new" that has popped out of their own heads.

That thing inside our skull is a super computer, with carefully designed components that allow us to see, hear, taste, touch and smell. It can calibrate distance, respond to infection with elevated body temperature, calculate thousands of every day activities without any conscious effort on our part. We couldn't even eat without our hand being able to locate our mouth.
Our sense of balance is in our ears, so without it functioning as it was designed, we couldn't even stay upright.
Why do we sleep? Why do we dream? How can science explain even the simple things? The natural laws of the body that tell us to eat, drink, eliminate, procreate, and rest.....that all just happened by undirected chance...did it? 

Science seems to work to me.

Science in the hands of man is in its infancy compared to the wisdom of the Creator who has existed longer than anything or anyone.