There have been a couple threads floating around where theists are coming off as very anti-science.

While I am atheist and very pro-science, I know many pro-science theists (even if they disagree with a scientific conclusion, they want more research & peer-review, rather than ignoring the study all together).

All you theists here on RfM, reply with a quick pro/con-science and why you feel that way.
I think it will surprise your fellow theists that so many of you are pro-science, & hopefully make them a little less scared of it.

If you are against science, please be sure to state why. I myself have many criticisms of modern science, & while I don't think abandoning science is the answer, I do think that criticisms are not only viable, but merited.

Thanks,
--Rob

P.S. NOTE that I am NOT saying Evolution vs Creation, but whether or not researching and using the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, test, repeat, conclude, peer review) is valid, trustworthy, worthwhile, etc...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 05:27PM by justrob.

I am a theist and definitely believe in science.

Theist who believes in the scientific method

"For Those Scientists Out There Doing the Fist Pump for God, Good Luck. An Overwhelming Majority of Pre-eminnent U.S. Members of the National Academy of Sciences Aren't With You"

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,770428



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 06:31PM by steve benson.

I don't think anyone is going to come out and say they are anti-science.

It's only logical and rational, Captain.

I'm with Spock.

I don't see a conflict, at least for me.

One of the most disturbing conversations I had was with a public middle school science teacher who was also a devout Christian. She didn't believe in evolution for religious reasons. Arrgh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 07:30PM by summer.

I'm pro science. The pure scientific method is awesome.

I don't believe the study of evolution in the past is a science, though. It's a religion based on educated guesses and assumptions.

Biological evolution and genetics is done in the present time, so these are excluded from my defition that "study of evolution" in the past is a religion of sorts.

"Biological evolution and genetics is done in the present time, so these are excluded from my defition [sic] that "study of evolution" in the past is a religion of sorts."

Good grief. Apparently you are not remotely aware that evolution IS the entire backbone of modern biology.

I'm cringing for you. That's all I can say.


As for the topic...

I know when I was a believer, I had a profound respect for the process of scientific experimentation. Ultimately it was a contributing factor for my disbelief but I maintained a belief for 2 decades while establishing myself in a scientific field.

There are believers who view science as the "how" and use religion for the "why." It seems to work for them but when the overlapping areas challenge them, they might go either way.

The study of evolution has contaminated every area of science. The study of evolution omits two steps of the scientific method, disqualifying it as a science. Real scientific analysis is for the now, today, not for the past or the future. It requires all eight steps of the scientific process to be followed. I don't care if every scientist in the world disagrees with me, they are definitely in error and made some very bad judgment to water-down the processes. It created bad science. I have worked with processes in business for 25 years, and so, that is the perspective I'm looking from. They monkeyed with the scientific process to get biased conclusions (pun intended), rigging the science deliberately, making it impossible to prove false, even if it is wrong.

Let me put it in context. I poster in here implied the power of evolution is amazing because it has never been proven false in 160 years. This poster obviously does not undertand that the 8 step scientific method has been altered in the study of evolution, and therefore, the theory can never be proven false, even if it is false. It's a rigged philosophy and process that is literally invisible in its logic. So, it will never lose a logical argument. Ever. It's not becuase of reality, but because of a manipulated and biased method of study.

You are claiming that they skipped 2 of 8 steps.
Admittedly, there are several slightly varied scientific methods that are documented, but I have no idea what steps you are assuming are in the scientific process, and what steps you are claiming they skipped.

Please expound, or I will simply assume that you are incorrectly linking things (like you did with Atheism and Science/Evolution).

As most people explain the scientific method:
1) Observation/Question- Darwin observed similarities between species, paleontologists observed similarities and gradients between fossils.

2) Hypothesis- because of repetition, this grew over time, but the basic and provable piece is that species can change over time, even becoming drastically different and a distinct species usually no longer capable of interbreeding with the species it originated from.

3) Test- Originally it was as simple as dissection and pigeon breeding (pigeon and dog breeds are excellent examples of drastic change within a species, but has been too short term to prove any thing but drastic variance).
--Eventually it was as complex as predicting that an animal with certain features must exist as a missing link between 2 species and should be located in a particular geographic region, then excavating and finding an animal that met those predictions
???link???
--Then it grew into predicting that DNA sequences should be shared between related species, testing monkeys, apes & humans, and finding AMAZINGLY LARGE portions of shared DNA sequences. This was done with many species, but I mention monkeys, apes, & humans as it is one of the most complex and applicable examples.

4) Analysis/Conclusion- Species are capable of drastic change. We can find gradated fossils from species A to B to C to D (I am no longer aware of which is the largest documented chain of species through gradated fossils, but in humans the chain is several species long), and the more recent species, like humans, share DNA sequences in direct correlation to their skeletal similarities. Therefore macro evolution exists beyond reasonable doubt.
--Obviously there is a possibility that a god could have created all these variants, brought them into existence at seemingly chronologic intervals, and then snuffed them out as well... but there is no evidential reason to suspect such a complex con. It is unnecessary, inelegant, and unsubstantiated.

5) Peer Review- evolution, and subsets of evolutionary claims, have been peer reviewed extensively. Their claims have been verified by carbon dating, geologic stratification, DNA Sequencing/similarity/deterioration-over-time, paleontology, and Anthropology/Archaeology (as long as they take a liberal definition of "human"), biology & zoology (real time changes in species)

Good luck getting a meaningful answer, I tried for some time yesterday...

He tried everything:
- Avoidance - just would not answer questions, talked incessantly about everything else, but never would answer the question, when he finally did...
- Logical fallacies - false dichotomy, incorrect linking, etc
- Bad science:
- Assumptions are OK for God, not OK for Evolution
- Made up issues, with no basis in reality to create supposed "problems" with the age of the earth
- Misunderstanding the science used to tell the age of the earth
- Misunderstanding the science of evolution and not realizing that the age of the earth doesn't matter. (though he tried to come up with a reason why it mattered, it just didn't work)
- "Conclusions" drawn to fit the needs of his hypothesis instead of letting the evidence speak for itself (i.e. The earth is 6000 years old, There are fossils on a mountain in Utah, this is not the result of thousands or millions of years of geologic movement, no... the rate of decay for the fossils is inexplicably variable, the farther you move into the past the faster bones fossilized. So, 6000 years ago, bones rapidly fossilized, and water came sprouting up from the center of the earth to wash them on the beaches. Geology, biology, archaeology and "science" doesn't matter, the earth is 6000 years old, so that's what happened, oddly no time machine is required to prove the variation in organic fossilization, nor to prove the variable rate of carbon dating techniques but it is required to prove evolution.)

Look, you're just not going to get him to see reason. He has his "stable belief system" based on one chapter in the Old Testament that involves, immortality, an improvable god that, like a child, got upset with the Israelites and took his ball and went home (taken all evidence of himself with him).

Homeless is doing everything he can to save this world view. This includes disputing evolution, stating that atheists are part of God's plan (even while mocking them), and ignoring the facts that are before him and his own hypocritical statements.

He just can't do it. He is a TBM to his own religion, a cult of one, and until he's ready to see how the real world works, he just can't.

When you make claims without supporting them (like evolution = religion) I tend to discredit your opinion, especially when I am very knowlegeable in that arena.

While much of paleo evolution is based on guesses, those guesses are growing smaller, and being validated, more and more through paleontology. Later, but still ancient, evolution is verifiable not only through fossil records but there is DNA to also corroborate the theory of evolution.

So, while this thread is not on evolution, nor it's validity, the claim that evolution falls into a psuedo-science or a religion is far from true.

I concede that there are individuals who treat evolution with a ferver usually reserved only for religion, but the science itself follows the scientific method.

So either your definition of the scientific method has some caveats that you have not voiced (like tests must take place on living things, or something [even then, we could discuss controlled experiments on evolution of microorganisms in real-time]), and that the majority of people do not concur with, or your claim that it isn't a science is incorrect.

Justrob,

I explained why the study of evolution is a religion not a science, because by nature of dealing with billions of years in the past, it violates two steps of the scientific process, and then by definition, it is not a science. I assume most of the posters here already have heard the argument, and so, I didn't repeat it. Sorry.

Science redefined and changed the rules, making the current processes of the study of evolution invincible to being proven false. It's not because of the evidence. It's because science modified the scientific process to fit into the new religion.

You must have missed that discussion.

Link please?
I cannot attempt to understand your claims unless they are explicit.

Theist and pro-science. Dad was a physicist. Brother a physicist. I went to MIT. Actually, my father went to MIT and taught physics there. Both brothers also went there (other brother is an engineer). I believe in evolution but that we are also children of God.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 08:54PM by 2humble4u.

While I'm sure anyone who is anti-science would have an uphill battle, I assure you that I would both take the seriously, and likely share in many of their criticisms.

I have MANY criticisms, but I will just share 1 example:
--When dealing with large frames of time, scientists make the absurd assumption that our universe has remained constant
--So, when discussing relativity, people talk about the fabric of space playing a large role on gravitation
--Why should you assume that this fabric is static? It is very likely both dynamic and inconsistent (simply because the odds of consistency are less than the odds of variance)
--So when looking at the relative speeds of Galaxies, we make assumptions about mass, when in all honesty those assumptions only hold true if the fabric of the universe way over there is the same as the fabric of the universe near us
--This also plays a crucial role in the speed of light, which notably was calculated differently by Einstein that it is now by us
--While most scientists would simply chalk that up to Einstein not having the technology/capacity to measure accurately, there is another possibility (though unlikely) that the fabric of space is deteriorating over time, causing light to travel at different speeds (similar to a sound wave in air vs a sound wave in water). If Einstein did not miscalculate minutely, then this fabric changes rather quickly.

Other examples include:
--Our base 10 math biases
--3 Dimensional math biases (we have lots of other dimensional math, but this is our strongest biased)
--Precedential assumptions (this is especially true with Einstein. People make assumptions of truth around even minute things he said, when many of those things were not meant as law)
--Failure to peer review across physics paradigms (i.e. Looping theorists and string theorists don't tend to check each others work, because it only works in that one paradigm)
--etc...

So, if you are anti-science, feel free to chime in.
You will have to be bold, and withstand some flaming, but I will do my best to quickly analyze your claims for anything I may agree with.

I become more and more skeptical all the time about God, but I can say that I don't feel that anything science has to offer disproves the existence of God. That said, I do feel that it definitely disproves the Bible or at least many parts of it.

However, until science has proven explanations for everything (and those explanations exclude any reasonable possibility of God), I will likely tend to feel that there must be something divine in human beings. And that belief does tend toward me being a theist. However, it also tends toward me abhorring much of what religion has done to mankind throughout history.

What about, "Until Religion can prove God exists, then he doesn't. " For me it goes the other way also. I won't believe in the Easter Bunny just because it can't be disproven. God, is the same. Until it can be PROVEN, it is illogical and not supported by science.

A perfect quote for this;

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual." - Marcello Truzzi

Religion is left with the burden of proof, not the other way around. Saying there is no evidence for god, does not require evidence, as that is exactly what you are saying.... Religion or theism however, does claim something extraordinary, and this is why, until the proof is supplied to me that there is a god (No, emotional responses are not valid proof) I will not believe there is one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 12:18AM by intjsegry.

No one can prove that God doesn't exist, because it's not falsifiable. Things that have no evidence of existing can't have evidence of not existing.

"I have a dragon in my garage. He's invisible. You can't throw flour on him and see him either, because flour goes right through him. You can't feel him with your hands because he's not feelable. ... etc."

Religion is man made. Of course it's going to be horrifying and abhorrent on a number of levels

Another theist for science, here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 09:58PM by frogdogs.

You mentioned corruption- and I wanted to echo this complaint in modern science.

Peer review was meant to prevent corruption, and it does a decent job... but the way many scientific studies are popularized both have no need for peer review, and often put up a peer review that has the same potentially corrupt link.

On the positive side, when an institution makes the opposite claim of what its investors want to hear, you can be quite sure that they were both rigorous and thorough (like the Koch Brothers Climate Change study).

But where money comes from does affect both the hypotheses and the test methods (which are frequently poorly documented when compared with the conclusion).

Right.

There have been a lot of scandals concerning peer review and medical research lately. Private ownership of the "results" as intellectual property is creating havoc in many fields.

(RIP, Aaron Swartz)

Human

This topic reminds of my time in the hospital for something that acted like spinal meningitis but wasn't responding to the normal medications.

I was running a high fever of 104-105 and was delirious when some minister came in to my room and said something like "what is so hard to believe that creation just happened?"

He left the room when I said what difference does it make to me, at this time if it was creation or evolution, it doesn't really change anything now.

How does things that happened thousands of years ago make any difference to life today?

To me that is short sighted. While the people who first research fringe things may not see any applicability for them originally, the applications invariably come.

For example, without the theory of evolution, we never would have realized that turning on and off DNA sections in Rats could trigger/prevent diseases, and that those same strands exist, in part, in ourselves.

Without hypothesizing aobut the big bang, we never would have discovered the red-shift that showed the universe to be expanding at an increasing rate, which could become crucial to energy production on earth at some future point (something like solar sails to harvest that kinetic energy).

Without trying to see things smaller than our eyes can see, we never would have discovered germ theory and prevented as many diseases as we have, and even eliminated several.

Sure, at this moment in your life, String Theory is pointless, as is research into multiple dimensions through attempting to observe theoretical gravitrons... but when we know more about it, there will be applications that could save your great grandson's life, or possibly, save or provide for the entire planet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 12:14AM by justrob.

There's a problem if you are a theist (Christian type) who believes in science because that means you accept a big bang 13.7 billion years ago, our solar system forming 4.5 billion years ago, and a god who wasted his time with dinosaurs for 160 million years, then waited 95,000 years after modern humans arrived only to make contact with one of the most isolated and backward tribes on earth while completely ignoring the civilizations in Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia, and North and South America, providing people with nothing to go on besides some conflicting documents written decades after the events occurred and which were heavily edited and altered along the way to our present day versions. This story smells very fishy to me!

I agree with all you say...except the part about the big bang. It's a popular theory, not proven yet, and still in dispute. Physicists argue about stuff like this.

I also have several qualms with the big bang.
It is obvious that there is a center of our universe, and that everything is expanding from there.

But the singularity required to cause an explosion resulting in this expansion isn't mathematically sound (yet. We might figure out a way to make it work, but currently as we understand gravity, anything unstable enough to explode like that wouldn't have been stable enough to have ever existed).

String theory has also made some interesting hypotheses about our universe being a bubble, and that the evidence that led us to hypothesize a big bang could actually point to the formation of that bubble from unstable space to a self-contained sphere of relative stability.

...it's not that I'm saying Big Bang is wrong and this subset of String Theorists is right, but just that you should be aware that there are competing hypotheses about the evidence for the big bang, and many are increasing in popularity among scientists (& could easily become the next ubiquitous assumed truth about the formation of the universe).

Theist and supporter of science

Modern science was created primarily by theists. I find it amusing when atheists try to lay claim it. Its not your baby.

I get your point, but I see it as backward.

As an atheist I would claim to be the son of science, not science's father.

The Theists against science debate tends to go back to Islam and the massive amounts of math and science that ceased because of it... so I can see some atheists making the claim you mentioned.

Just as it is ridiculous when theist try to claim morals, they aren't yours to claim either. Also, think about the people who "created Science' and the time they lived in.

Religion was our first, and worst explanation. While expanding thought, religion (or better put, superstition) was already very well routed in the society... just because religion came first, doesn't mean it is right. Just because science was "started" by theists, doesn't mean theism can claim it. Especially when the majority of scientist now have "Grown out" of theism. Just because science was "second" or came after theism, doesn't mean it is right either... however, evidence supports it, and that makes it correct.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 12:20AM by intjsegry.

It might be interesting to point out on this thread that the current presiding bishop of the Episcopalian church, Katherine Jerrerts Schori, studied biology at Stanford and went on to earn a Ph.d. in Oceanography before studying Divinity.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/biography-katharine-jefferts-schori