The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The science of religion > Comments

The science of religion : Comments

By John Warren, published 17/3/2005

John Warren argues that the evolution of religion can be explained by science.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 22
  9. 23
  10. 24
  11. All
Ringtail & Kenny: Those who have nothing constructive to say ridicule others beliefs.You are both sad people. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Thursday, 17 March 2005 7:02:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it important that we look at some of the deficiencies of evolution, or should I be more precise and say random evolution. Mount improbable can be climbed if it is a climb and not a "technical" mountain.

To take a simple example, if we could achieve intelligence by random genetic mutations how come we havn't achieved AI. We should be able to do it by a fairly simle genetic algorithm.

A few more. Flagellum in bacteria needs 50 closely interacting genes. Eye was evolved once and you can't get away without 5-10 simultaneous mutations at a bare minimum.

The alternative to Intelligent Design is an infinite Universe or Multiverse, where something eventually has to happen.
Posted by Ian Parker, Thursday, 17 March 2005 9:22:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How does the human brain resolve the following conflict:

If I believe in a religious God I will be happy
If I believe in a scientific basis for the universe and the things that happen in it, all I get is a lot of confusing scientific ideas that might keep changing.

How does the human brain resolve the following conflict:

If somebody else believes something different to me, it might mean I am wrong about the nature of the universe. If I am wrong about the nature of the universe, then I can no longer be happy.

Does the human brain always have to know everything? Can we be happy if we know that other people think and believe different things than we do? My soulmate in this universe for the past 20 years and the best thing that ever happened to me, can't understand why I would spend one minute watching cricket on television. Can we still be happy together?
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 17 March 2005 9:52:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve just discovered the Forum. Interesting site. Regarding John’s article and the various posts; of course religion is the product of evolution. Once one fully grasps the concept of evolution, EVERYTHING is the product of evolution. We are either the result of the Hand of God or the Hand of Evolution, either way the processes are the same.

It always surprises me to hear people take a “scientific” stand and state with certainty that there is no God (or spiritual existence to life). And in doing so they of course bring along all their mental baggage regarding God and religion. Just because one has wrong ideas of God does not provide evidence that there is no such thing. Yes, there’s no old guy with a white beard nor is there a ghost in the machine but to flatly state from a scientific viewpoint there is no spiritual existence to life is a rather profound statement of fact, based on absolutely no evidence.

The latest attempt to discover the unified theory (M-theory) proposes 11 different dimensions; 3 spatial, 1 time and 7 others. No one has any true idea what these 7 other dimensions are; space/time is hard enough to get one’s mind around. Assuming the theory is correct, I don’t know if we will ever truly be able to understand these dimensions; they are beyond our frame of reference. The same is true about some type of spirituality to life. To boldly state there isn’t this or isn’t that with no real evidence throws the entire concept of science out the window
Posted by jc, Friday, 18 March 2005 1:38:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't John Warren a soccer player? That would make sense since he clearly knows very little about the history of science.

Modern science is largely the result of the Christian worldview. All the great scientists were at least theists if not Christians eg. Pascal, Newton, Joule, Boyle, Farraday, Watt, Kepler, Kelvin, Pasteur etc etc.

Even in modern times, it was Werner von Braun, a Christian and creationist who ran the US space program. It was Christian and creationist Raymond Damadian who invented that medical marvel, the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner. It was, Christian and creationist, Prof. Graham Clarke who invented the Cochlear ear implant.
Posted by Aslan, Friday, 18 March 2005 1:41:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most damaging point to the author's view is that the world's no. 1 atheist - Anthony Flew - has now rejected atheism!

He is not a Christian yet - but he is heading in that direction.

Note that the primary reason he rejected atheism was the scientific evidence against evolution!

You can read his full interview at:
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf

Here are some interesting quotes:

HABERMAS (interviewer): Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?
FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Posted by Aslan, Friday, 18 March 2005 1:45:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 22
  9. 23
  10. 24
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy