The Faith vs. Science War

thoughts from a fence straddler

Published on February 22, 2004 By Angloesque In Blogging

I started reading through some of the religion vs. science posts. Not religion and science, mind you. I wasn't altogether pleased with the tones people took and the words they used to bolster their side of the debate. But then, why does it have to be one or the other? And why do people have to get on other people's backs about it? Neither camp explains everything about how life came to be as we know it today--not yet, at least.

Me, I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Sure there's conflict, and I've stepped off the fence numerous times on each side. But I keep coming back to both, because there's a lot of persuasion on each side. I have a lot of respect for a lot of creationists I know. It's really hard to be constantly bombarded with taunts, facts, and lies and keep one's faith in God. Alternately, it's hard to be a scientist and be told you're going to hell, or whatever, if you don't believe in God. Who doesn't think about an afterlife at some point, even if they don't believe it it the rest of the time? If I could teach kids this stuff, I'd say, "This is what group A believes. This is what group B believes. They're not mutually exclusive and there are lots of questions about both sides." (Insert Venn diagram...)

My church (which states its belief in the literal 7-day creation) is going through huge talks right now because so many science professors in our schools cannot in goodwill say they believe in a six-thousand-year-old Earth, ergo the literal interpretation of the Bible. In the past they've been fired directly if they state that; these days, though, there is church-sponsored dialogue between the theologians and the scientists, which is generally healthy and respectful. It'll still be years, if not centuries, before my church changes its position on evolution, but the change has to start somewhere.

I know one disillusioned professor, though, whose idea of integrating faith and science is to put them both in boxes and believe in them separately. He says that one day it'll all make sense, and for now, they're neatly compartmentalized in his brain. I like that idea.

Comments (Page 2)

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 28, 2004

As opposed to the volumes of evidence for the existence of a being transcending our existence who created the universe and the human race from scratch...?

Just one volume actually.

The God-makes-the-universe-fun-to-look-at principle is fanciful and fun, but is there any evidence for it? Of course not. Spike is following the principles of science: making conclusions based on the best possible observations. Making the leap to God-as-pet-owner is a huge one.

Nor is there evidence there is not a God.

BulbousHead

on Feb 28, 2004

Just one volume actually.

The Bible contains virtually zero material that would constitute scientific evidence.

Nor is there evidence there is not a God.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The default condition is no God; if you claim that he exists, the burden of evidence lies with you, not with the skeptic.

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 28, 2004

I believe in evolution, I do believe as Darwin did, that we evolved from apes. Now as for the story of adam and eve, well I believe that its a story with ideals behind it. Not everything in the bible is to be taken literally, in my opinion.

Could the bible be literally true and still allow for evolution?

BulbousHead

on Feb 28, 2004

Could the bible be literally true and still allow for evolution?

Of course not.

Sherye Hanson

on Feb 28, 2004

When people speak scientifically, they talk evolution, but when you speak about the beauty and design of the universe and all that is in it, evolution seems too shallow. How do you explain beauty? You can say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but who doesn't think that the Rocky Mountains are beautiful and that flowers are beautiful. Wild ones are just as pretty as ones that have been bred for a certain look. Why would things accidentally be beautiful? Human beings plan things and they turn out ugly. How could accidents be more beautiful?

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 28, 2004

Of course not.

Why not?

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 28, 2004

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The default condition is no God; if you claim that he exists, the burden of evidence lies with you, not with the skeptic.

Why not the default be that God exists? Then you claiming that God does not exits makes the burden yours. It all is a matter of perspective. One that you have zero chance of influencing and I likewise.

BulbousHead

on Feb 28, 2004

Why not?

The Bible gives an account of how the various organisms appeared on the Earth. Evolution gives another. They are contradictory.

Why not the default be that God exists?

I knew you would pick on this. The existence of God is an extraordinary claim. YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THERE IS A BEING OR AN ENTITY THAT IS INFINITELY POWERFUL, IS INFINITELY INTELLIGENT, HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, IS IMMORTAL, GENERATED THE COSMOS OUT OF NOTHING, AND MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO GIVE THE HUMAN RACE LIFE. I claim that there isn't. Which of us is making the extraordinary claim?

Guess what, Smitty: I claim that the universe was created by a giant purple pumpkin named Zooby, and whenever there is thunder and lightning, it's because Zooby is clog-dancing in his room with a strobe light on. This is an extraordinary claim. I have to provide evidence for it. I do not get to fold my arms and demand that you disprove it. This is how logic works.

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 28, 2004

The Bible gives an account of how the various organisms appeared on the Earth. Evolution gives another. They are contradictory.

So are you saying the Bible should be taken literally? There is no room or chance for more to a story? Are the red letters in the bible the only words Jesus said?

Not sure what you claim. That some chemicals magically mixed together eventually became life that evolved into us? Rather extraordinary as well. And there is no proof. And if it isn't miraculous then where is the other life? Why, if it works that well then we should be finding martians and other exotic forms of life don't you think? Or is nature limited to only our chemicals in our environment? There is so much that science does not know, and of the many things they have discovered none has disproved God.

Guess what, Smitty: I claim that the universe was created by a giant purple pumpkin named Zooby, and whenever there is thunder and lightning, it's because Zooby is clog-dancing in his room with a strobe light on. This is an extraordinary claim. I have to provide evidence for it. I do not get to fold my arms and demand that you disprove it. This is how logic works.

Glad to see you took the bait. I always love it when this particular illustration arises. You have no one to collaborate your claims either in the present or in the past. At least most of the other religions can claim to have had witnesses to events.

A belief in God requires faith. Faith does not need proof. I realize that many people need proof for everything they believe and if there is none they caim it does not exist. I guess those people know and understand the principles of everything that affects their life. If so, I envy them in their ignorant bliss.

BulbousHead

on Feb 28, 2004

So are you saying the Bible should be taken literally?

I'm saying that the Bible is not a science book and, when it comes to science, should be ignored completely.

That some chemicals magically mixed together eventually became life that evolved into us?

It would be extraordinary if it were magic, but it was distinctly unmagical. What is the big deal about that? Bacteria are complicated chemicals; out of complicated chemicals they arose.

Why, if it works that well then we should be finding martians and other exotic forms of life don't you think?

Because...?

There is so much that science does not know, and of the many things they have discovered none has disproved God.

God does not have to be disproven. His existence is an extraordinary claim and must be defended. Otherwise, the default condition is that there is no God.

At least most of the other religions can claim to have had witnesses to events.

This is the most ludicrous part. You contend that your religion is more credible than my Zooby religion because you have witnesses. But Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and all the others all have their witnesses, and they can not all be correct. Kind of discredits how valuable these "witnesses" are, doesn't it? Makes you wish you had some kind of hard evidence...almost like scientific evidence or something...

A belief in God requires faith. Faith does not need proof.

So your big criticism of evolution is that it hasn't been proven, but ask you to prove that God exists and you say you don't have to. How convenient. (So I guess God is only a theory, then...?)

MyViewsAndMuse

on Feb 29, 2004

I'm saying that the Bible is not a science book and, when it comes to science, should be ignored completely.

That it is not a science book should be obvious. But that does not invalidate it.

It would be extraordinary if it were magic, but it was distinctly unmagical. What is the big deal about that? Bacteria are complicated chemicals; out of complicated chemicals they arose.

Still is just as far fetched to think those those chemicals came together by accident and formed life.

God does not have to be disproven. His existence is an extraordinary claim and must be defended. Otherwise, the default condition is that there is no God.

For some it is a extraordinary claim that makes no sense, the bible says as much 1 Corinthians 2:14.
As for defending it, there is is no need. There are some that will never be able to see God.

I never said that they did not have their witnesses, only that you do not. So the value of the witnesses is not in question. This discussion has not been about the differences of religions and which one is correct and which one is wrong. This discussion has been over the existence of God. As for hard evidence for God, I have it, it is all around you. That you choose to believe that it all simply magically happened at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right quantities is the more ludicrous to me and lacks proof in the face of many theories.

Do I really think that I can convince you or show you proof that you will accept that God exists? No, of course not. As I pointed out before there are those who will remain hopeless. That I play this game with people like you is most likely something I should not do, but we all have our weaknesses and there is some fun in watching the anti-God crowd drone on and on.

Angloesque

on Mar 01, 2004

Frankly, I'm kind of annoyed at both of you. My original post was about allowing for both sides, and you two are going at the polarization of the debate. Knock it off.

messybuu

on Mar 01, 2004

Evolution and Creationism can both be true, although by Creationism I mean the idea that God created the universe and life in general (I don't think a literal interpretation of Creationism with the world being created 6000 years ago would fit). Evolution is just about organisms changing to fit into their environment.

Science neither proves nor disproves God's existence nor does it lean toward any side of the fence on the subject. That's why I sit on the fence.

MyViewsAndMuse

on Mar 01, 2004

Frankly, I'm kind of annoyed at both of you. My original post was about allowing for both sides, and you two are going at the polarization of the debate. Knock it off.

Sorry, I could make the case that Bulby drew first blood. But since this is your blog article and you have asked the debate to end I will stop.

Angloesque

on Mar 01, 2004

Ah, smitty, you're so respectful. I only meant knock off the polarization, the one-or-the-otherism. The debate should always rage (it keeps people on their toes and, hopefully, constantly searching), but here it's supposed to be in the context of whether or not one could allow for both evolution and creation. There were times when the two of you were presenting things thusly, but it was getting out of hand. I don't mind the debate in the context, so don't knock that off.

cheers.

-T.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!