Religion and Engineers

[SSmith]

If you can figure out a way to either falsify or test for the existence of God, then by all means, present your theory.

As soon as you can show me that evolution can happen.

False dichotomy argument.

Just because one side is perceived as 'wrong,' doesn't prove the other side is right.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

False dichotomy argument.
Just because one side is perceived as 'wrong,' doesn't prove the other side is right.

That can't be true because I don't believe either side is 100% correct. I just think that evolution has far more supporting evidence than creationism.

All I was doing with the Theory discussion is to hold both ideas to the same standard. Evolution is testable through currently available technology and techniques. Creationism is not. In the future, maybe the technology will exist to prove the existence of God, and someday technology may reveal that evolution is complete bunk. Neither has happened yet.

 

[SSmith]

That can't be true because I don't believe either side is 100% correct. I just think that evolution has far more supporting evidence than creationism.

I was talking about DVINNY's argument. You were stating your position why you don't think creationism is a theory.

 

[benbo]

Give me a break, benbo! I know you usually just like to argue for the fun of it, so I'll give you that, and play along: If you think that it takes "the ultimate in faith" to believe what I hear from a couple dozen PhD's on both sides of the issue, as reported through a long-running science documentary series on PBS, then you must also have taken that ultimate leap of faith in believing what those *******s in the textbook publishing companies told you about electrical engineering!

It is just as easy for a PhD to have a bias as it is anybody else.

THat said, I'm not sure what exactly you're taking issue with since I said I don't believe in ID being taught as science. And I don't believe I even remotely implied anything about a literal interpretation of Genesis, because I don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Electrical engineering is mathematically based and developed through verifiable, repeatable experiments. Not only is the theory of evolution a theory, it is a particularly weak theory taught as Gospel. It is conjecture based on observation. And it is as full of holes as swiss cheese. What controlled experiments have been conducted to prove anything about evolution?

I just want it taught with the skepticism it deserves. What controlled experiments have been conducted to prove anything about evolution? People found some carcasses of ancient species and postulate a reason. Just like they find a femur of some dinosaur and create 100s of full species of dinosaurs. To me that's crappy science at best.

And as I said, there are wackos on both sides of every argument. Heck, Ben Stein believes in ID. If you said there were a few ID nuts who espouse violence that's one thing. Islamic fundamentalism, or at least radical islamic fundamentalism, is a belief system that is widespread and fully espouses the legitimacy of violence to bring in Sharia law. I don't think there is anything like that with ID

edit: I took out my first line because it was sort of inflammatory and may have implied something I didn't mean. Primarily, I just think these worries about ID are overwrought, and this comparison to Islamic fundamentalism is, in general, hyperbole. I don't suspect watching the NOVA special will change my mind, but if I see it at the video store I''ll check it out.

 

[SSmith]

What controlled experiments have been conducted to prove anything about evolution?

Again, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't prove creationism is right.

 

[benbo]

Again, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't prove creationism is right.

I don't disagree with that. If I implied that I had somehow "proven" creationism correct, that's not what I meant.

 

[engineergurl]

so if my nose is itchy does that mean i'm gonna kiss a fool? I don't think the hubby is a fool so maybe it's about one of the dogs....

 

[DVINNY]

I caught the 2-hour NOVA special about the Dover, KS "Intelligent Design" trial. Very well done episode -

I have found this on YouTube, but it's in 12 parts, and I've only watched the first two so far. I have to argue about it being very well done from what I've seen.

It shows the fundamentalist religious types arguing that the earth is only 4,000 years old or so. They show the ID side only as the 'nutters' as you would call them. This does an injustice in my mind.

Funny thing is, Dover is only about 25 miles from where I grew up.

I don't think the earth is only 4,000 years old, and I don't think man was created as smart and exactly as we are today. Obviously, we are different than the humans that started this country just 200 years ago. We have advanced in technology and many other areas, so over the coarse of 100,000 years, I will accept that we have 'evolved' so to speak.

What I DO NOT accept is that lightning hit something, turned it into an ameoba, then it grew into a fish, flopped on shore, turned into a monkey, then into us today. It's B.S.

And those that say they are enlightened and believe in evolution, etc. but not that there can be a greater force out there are the ones who are close minded and small minded in my opinion.

(How can those small minded people be engineers in our society? wink, wink)

They are small minded in the fact that they think there is nothing greater than us in this universe.

We've all seen the movie Men in Black, where an entire galaxy is hanging from the cat's collar. I'd be small minded to think that our Milky Way galaxy isn't possibly in a speck of dirt on that galaxy hanging from the cat's collar. And if so, how great of a being is out there beyond that?

It's bigger than I can fathom or explain, but of course, I'm not a scientist trying to prove that I know it all.

 

[benbo]

I will agree that there are religious people with ulterior motives who sabotage the valid points of ID theory because their ultimate motive is to press a single religion, in most cases Christianity. And although I am a Christian, I believe that some sort of evolution and an intelligent directing force are not mutually exclusive. I am not trying to prove that external force, I accept that on faith as I have said.

But what I really believe is that this "freak out" over possible religious incursion has the effect of stultifying questions into scientific theories. Constant questioning of theories is part of the scientific method, and can only make the theories stronger. And I believe this questioning should be done at all stages of education, and I don't think it is.

When I previously stated there were no experiments into evolution, I actually know that not to be true. But the experiments often go without significant questioning, IMO. I think it is generally assumed that evolution contends that environmental chemicals in the early atmosphere underwent mutation by some random event, and along with natural selection were built first into amino acids, then proteins, then cells, then organims which ultimately evolved. All of those steps are open to mulitple questions.

Case in point - I am aware of an experiment condcted by Harold Urey where he put together a bunch of chemicals supposedly mimicking the early atmosphere, and zapped it, and produced some amino acids. Now even I will admit that is pretty remarkable. I remember this because he was a professor at my school (much later in life) and had a building named after him. But it turns out there were many questions about this experiment - he used somewhat different chemcals, he produced the wrong kind of amino acids, etc etc. It was still an impressive experiment. But those caveats were never stresed in my classes.

 

[Dleg]

And those that say they are enlightened and believe in evolution, etc. but not that there can be a greater force out there are the ones who are close minded and small minded in my opinion.(How can those small minded people be engineers in our society? wink, wink)

They are small minded in the fact that they think there is nothing greater than us in this universe.

We've all seen the movie Men in Black, where an entire galaxy is hanging from the cat's collar. I'd be small minded to think that our Milky Way galaxy isn't possibly in a speck of dirt on that galaxy hanging from the cat's collar. And if so, how great of a being is out there beyond that?

It's bigger than I can fathom or explain, but of course, I'm not a scientist trying to prove that I know it all.

We may not agree on everything, but that ^^ almost 100% explains how I feel about all of this. I agree that it's awfully small minded to completely reject the idea of a "creator" on the basis of evolution or any other scientific fact that contradicts the Bible (or Koran or Bhudda or whatever). Just as it is equally small-minded to press a literal interpretation of Genesis on others or fight against any science that would contradict it. (in fact, I'd say to those people that the God I believe in is far more powerful than theirs, on the basis of what science has shown us so far, anyway. Ha ha - mine is bigger than yours!).

Once again, I honestly think that an objective, rational, intelligent look at the facts can not rule out the existence of a creator. Those who stop at simply contradicting the Bible to declare "there is no God" are either not fully utilizing their intelligence, or just simply aren't that intelligent to begin with.

Oh, and I agree with Benbo - there is too much stigma associated with holding such beliefs among scientific circles, which of course stifles discussion and triggers over-reactions.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Once again, I honestly think that an objective, rational, intelligent look at the facts can not rule out the existence of a creator.

Nor does it confirm the existence of a creator.

 

[EM_PS]

two things are definitively certain throughout all of history: 1.) You cannot prove the existence of God.

2.) You cannot disprove the existence of God.

Nor does it confirm the existence of a creator.

point made, presumed accepted. . .

:deadhorse:

 

[maryannette]

How do you explain that air exists to a child without any scientific understanding? Air is invisible. A child does not see anything or understand the physics. Yet, most children will have the trust to believe that air is more than nothing.

I guess I'm a child in some ways. I don't have the understanding to prove the existence of a Divine Creator. But, if I pray and receive better understanding through answered prayers, I'm like a child blowing up a balloon and knowing that there has to be SOMETHING inside of it. When I need comfort and get it without any human interaction, it's like a child watching a windmill. Something is moving the blades, but what and how?

I accept that there is a God just like children accept that there is air. I know that there are ways to prove that air exists. Maybe sometime there will be a way to prove that God exists. Meantime, I'll keep praying. And I hope that children keep breathing.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

How do you explain that air exists to a child without any scientific understanding? Air is invisible. A child does not see anything or understand the physics. Yet, most children will have the trust to believe that air is more than nothing.
I guess I'm a child in some ways. I don't have the understanding to prove the existence of a Divine Creator. But, if I pray and receive better understanding through answered prayers, I'm like a child blowing up a balloon and knowing that there has to be SOMETHING inside of it. When I need comfort and get it without any human interaction, it's like a child watching a windmill. Something is moving the blades, but what and how?

I accept that there is a God just like children accept that there is air. I know that there are ways to prove that air exists. Maybe sometime there will be a way to prove that God exists. Meantime, I'll keep praying. And I hope that children keep breathing.

It is just that kind of analogy that infuriates me about religion. If something is currently unexplainable, just chalk it up to God. Why? Why not do some investigation and try to explain it? If the early scientists had been content with the explanation that air/wind simply comes from God, then we wouldn't know that is made up of various elements, or that we need it to breathe, or that plants produce the oxygen component of that air, or any number of other very important discoveries.

 

[SSmith]

Comparing the physical to the supernatural is quite a stretch...

When I was a child, I also thought cartoons were real. So clearly that means god is real.

How do you explain that air exists to a child without any scientific understanding? Air is invisible. A child does not see anything or understand the physics. Yet, most children will have the trust to believe that air is more than nothing.
I guess I'm a child in some ways. I don't have the understanding to prove the existence of a Divine Creator. But, if I pray and receive better understanding through answered prayers, I'm like a child blowing up a balloon and knowing that there has to be SOMETHING inside of it. When I need comfort and get it without any human interaction, it's like a child watching a windmill. Something is moving the blades, but what and how?

I accept that there is a God just like children accept that there is air. I know that there are ways to prove that air exists. Maybe sometime there will be a way to prove that God exists. Meantime, I'll keep praying. And I hope that children keep breathing.

 

[maryannette]

Maybe some people just are not spiritually mature enough to understand that the supernatural or unexplained could be real.

 

[DVINNY]

Mary, I get your point.

Thing is, they never will. Some people don't want to, or simply can't accept that some things can't be explained. At least not in our lifetime they won't be.

Scientists can't explain what's past our galaxy, they can hypothosize all they want. However, unlike wilheldp, I'm not infuriated by it. I accept that scientists don't know, and I move on.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I kinda like the idea that Genesis isn't literal but the general idea behind it is correct. It does reflect evolution in a way.

Evolution can easily be seen in a few generations of bacteria and watching them adopt to environmental changes. Shoot, look at us. we're taller and more robust that we were in the 1850s.

 

[DVINNY]

Once again, I honestly think that an objective, rational, intelligent look at the facts can not rule out the existence of a creator. Those who stop at simply contradicting the Bible to declare "there is no God" are either not fully utilizing their intelligence, or just simply aren't that intelligent to begin with.

We still laugh at this one, but when my daughter was 2 years old, she was saying how monkeys liked bananas. I said, well your Mom really likes bananas too. She said "then Mommy is a Monkey". We thought that was funny. But it shows that a 2 year old can use deductive reasoning like scientists do. It just doesn't make them right.

Oh, and I agree with Benbo - there is too much stigma associated with holding such beliefs among scientific circles, which of course stifles discussion and triggers over-reactions.

You mean they get infuriated?

LOL

 

[DVINNY]

Evolution can easily be seen in a few generations of bacteria and watching them adopt to environmental changes. Shoot, look at us. we're taller and more robust that we were in the 1850s.

But we are shorter, and 30% LESS bone density than cro-magnon

just saying.