Hello Everyone and welcome,

A discussion started on another thread, and we thought it more appropriate to continue this discussion on this off topic forum. However, evolution and various religious arguements have been made in relation to raw foods, so its not necessarily a mutually exclusive 'other' topic.

Please feel free to express your observations, your feelings, your convictions about creationism, evolution, intelligent design or any combination of belief or non-belief about the topic. We hope to hear from you!

What's there to discuss about "intelligent design"?

As far as I can see there is zero evidence for it.

Both Darwinian evolution and the Wolfram's "cellular automata" concept that I've posted on previously are well understood processes that generate complexity from relative simplicity.

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins explains things pretty well.

Cheers,
J

Hmm.. exactly what do you mean by intelligent ?
If you are meaning it in the purely human context with the criteria that we alone attribute to it then there is no question that evolution envolves more than just our human concepts of intelligence. On the other hand if you are meaning having purpose or direction or symmetry then I would say DEFINATELY.

Of corse this can only be a personal opinion also. Does a plant or flower have purpose for growing ? Is it going anywhere ? Do you have a purpose for being alive ?

I think that when one asks themselves these kinds of questions that it is as close to an answer for an evolutionary explaination as an individual will ever get.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2007 11:33PM by Lightform.

I can't fault Jose for posting what he did, because according to his religious beliefs he had no choice.

Jose,
Well, that was an addition, even saying it doesn't have any evidence is a type of discussion.

Some people are combining evolution into their religious belief. Actually some say there never was a conflict in the first place. As ID is presented I agree that it does not present very good evidence. But why do people insist that they still need a god or gods? Especially given that they accept evolution?

I think evolution is definitely true, but I also believe that evolution and intelligent design could co-exist.

Evolution seems like a pretty intelligent way of keeping all of us living beings on the planet for a very long time. If we already know that the purpose of evolution is "survival", then maybe that purpose has an origin - maybe even an infinite origin too difficult for any of us to conceive of. Why DO we all want to survive anyway? Perhaps it's even possible that "survival" is only part of some larger unknown purpose.

Of course - how would I (or any other living being) know?



Thanks Mislu for giving us a chance to sound off on an interesting topic.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2007 06:15AM by suncloud.

Mislu, I thought your question about why we "need" god was intriguing.

Maybe some of us feel alone or afraid without god. We might believe in god because we don't want to take total responsibility for our actions, or because we want to feel a sense of belonging to family or a group of friends, or because we're afraid of going to hell, or whatever.

Of course, "needing" god doesn't make god real, except in our imaginations.

Still, some form of god consciousness could exist, whether or not any of us are able to truly perceive god's form or purpose as it pertains to us.

No one is really able to prove anything one way or another, when it comes to god.

So I just guess.

I guess that god exists, and that god is love. That we are all one, a manifestation of god/love. That experiencing the "illusion" of suffering and separateness has a natural consequence of heightening our awareness, through compassion towards others - over time, and eventually, with conscious effort - of the reality of oneness/love/god. There's more to it, but basically, that's my guess. I didn't make this up myself of course, but it's the theory that I like the best.

I know it's not proven, but it's not disproven either, and I like it.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2007 08:14AM by suncloud.

I don't know how this can be discussed without defining who or what "God" is.

Certainly the evidence for 'evolution" can be seen if you just observe e coli and their genetic adaptations in a very short period of time taking place in a petri dish. When you extend time to aeons, there seems to be less ( though no less compelling "evidence". Evolution simply means adapting to changes in (preferentially) positive ways , by positive, I mean a manner that will behoove the species to continue their existence. Vestigial organs as well as striking embryonic similarities do point in this direction however, there are still a great many grey areas, unearthed areas and poorly connected areas in this theory. For instance, where are the intermediate species ( other than the alleged platypus?)

That being said, it is still a very profoundly valuable subject worthy of pondering especially when we try to understand what is to take place after this life or what happened to those who loved but has passed away. Evolution completely ignores this aspect. Religious beliefs claim to hold differing perspectives. It is human to wish to know what happens to the soul. Is this life all there is? You are born, you amass a bunch of material stuff then you disintegrate into the soil. Some people wonder if there is more to it than that. That is where different spiritual beliefs come in and take root and they are all worthy of thoughtful scrutiny.

I liked that La Veronique.

My thought is this: Just as science believes in the evolution of our earth-bound species, any one of us may also believe in the evolution our earth-unbound souls.

Both forms of evolution may be the result of "adapting to changes in (preferentially) positive ways..."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2007 08:31AM by suncloud.

To me, La Veronique, your post is saying that evolution may answer some questions, but it doesn't answer, or even address ALL the questions.

Evolution definitely doesn't tell us what happens to our souls when we die.

Evolution doesn't tell us whether we have souls or not. And evolution doesn't tell us if god exists or not.

It seems that the question of evolution and the question of god-and-the-soul are two entirely different questions!

------------------------------------------------------

Hm. Can we have a soul if there is no god? Or can we have god if we have no soul? Interesting that most people who believe in one also believe in the other. I think that if either exist, maybe they're the same thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2007 08:56AM by suncloud.

Maybe god invented evolution. Developed it from scratch and tossed it into the cosmos.

But even if somehow the science of evolution could prove that "intelligent design" is impossible, would that prove that god does not exist?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2007 09:48AM by suncloud.

Is time travel possible? If not, all we can experience is the present... the past and future are illusory. The present is what then, an infinitely small point in time/reality that is constantly changing...?

Is tendency toward war "designed" as a fuel for technological advancement?

Is the purpose of global warming so that we learn how to terraform new planets? So that we can explore the universe and eventually create and seed new universes with intelligence?

Is intelligence itself evolving?

suncloud says:


<<Hm. Can we have a soul if there is no god? Or can we have god if we have no soul? Interesting that most people who believe in one also believe in the other. I think that if either exist, maybe they're the same thing.>>

wow, what a concept
i'm going to be thinking about that for a while

jon says:

<<Is time travel possible? If not, all we can experience is the present... the past and future are illusory. The present is what then, an infinitely small point in time/reality that is constantly changing...?>>

interesting.. like implying that time itself is also a form of evolution because like u pointed out, this small point in time is constantly in flux and changing

as for your other questions, it seems like it , doesn't it?

but the last question is most striking :

" is intelligence itself evolving?"

its like asking if DNA is evolving.. well, yeah, DNA is always mutating

but i think you were asking about the force behind DNA ( that is also a form of intelligence) and if THAT is evolving

what a stunning question

>>but i think you were asking about the force behind DNA ( that is also a form of intelligence) and if THAT is evolving
<<

Yes, and not just DNA, but the universe itself seems to be created with underlying intelligence, such that DNA and other living matter would arise.

I forget where I read this but an idea somewhere tripped me out and stuck in my head: "we are the universe becoming aware of itself".

Human technological possibilities are to the point of soon creating autonomous super-intelligent machines/beings. These beings will eclipse our technological sophistication and intelligence, and will continue evolving on their own. They may spawn new universes that will give rise to even greater intelligences. Humans may have just been an intermediate step in the designed rise of super-intelligence in our universe.

But can anything truly evolve if all possibilities already exist and they just have not yet manifested?

I get frustrated when I think about this stuff because there are always unanswerable questions like why is there existence, what made everything first (and what made that). Hopefully, when we die we'll get some answers instead of just turning to dirt. Then again, maybe humans are too stupid to ever truly comprehend all that is (and isn't?).

jono

when u say that the super intelligent automatons will "spawn new universes", do you mean that you believe they might colonize other planets? or do you mean that literally, they will create brand new universes? if so, how? are you saying they are stretching the envelope of infinity e.g. space e.g. "universe"? just wanted some clarification

<<These beings will eclipse our technological sophistication and intelligence, and will continue evolving on their own.>>

what about emotional or spiritual "intelligence". do u feel these uber beings will also have those capacities?


<<But can anything truly evolve if all possibilities already exist and they just have not yet manifested? >>

so, in other words, the word "evolve" may be a misnomer and simply be "manifestation" of what was already inevitable or simply "possible"

that is intriguing... it feintly echoes the idea of predestination ( somewhat,but not entirely)

it is both a disturbing as well as comforting idea

disturbing because it may point to trajectory that it doesn't matter what i do, it was predestined ( whatever i do)

comforting because, if everything is predestined, perhaps i can just sit back, relax and kick up my feet since i can't control whatever is already written in the stars

kind of like babies of all species cannot control how their DNA will manifest when they are an embryo because it is already "written in the stars" e.g. DNA

so, that above idea also points to the possibility that people are also automatons because of their DNA ( at least physiologically and in the crudest sense.... since there is a great leeway in affecting physiology via our own behaviour, food choices, mindest, exercise etc)

but your idea also seems to suggest that we are automatons in other ways as well.. not to say that the idea that "everything is possible" means we are automatons... but you challenged what evolution meant and postulated that

all configurations and transformations of extant species may simply be a manifestation of the inherent possibility that was already there

i just kind of convoluted "possibility" into "programming" as in " programming that already exists" and thought that was an interesting idea

if we are indeed programmed automatons ( which i know you were not suggesting but i was just toying with that idea), it does make sense how people's dreams can be "interpreted" because our psyches house "archetypal symbols' but where do those symbols come from and why are they passed down from generation to generation?

maybe those archetypes were kind of "instilled" like one big super computer
or one big human oceanic psyche

words cannot do justice to the beauty and depth that is out there and within

that spell out "synchronicity" and makes us wonder about the precision, exactitude and stunning choreography of what constitutes life

and what on earth is underlying it all?

i like listening to people's ideas even if they are from different religions
because it seems like those religions are all saying the same thing to me

its like they arrive to the same conclusions but in a different way

well, those who have very staunch views of one particular religion
that is enviable... it makes for less guess work.. well, in fact it cuts down the guess work precipitously and allows you to focus on that ONE path

what if all the religions are in fact ONE
but someone took scissors to the fabric
and they became MANY and now there are wars and bloodshed over the allegedly differing pieces of fabric

the extent of my knowledge is " i don't know"
all i know is that "something is afoot"

that much is obvious to me

i will let others ponder the details of what that something is

Could it be possible that even god is evolving?

If so, then maybe every loving thought and every act of compassion brings the collective god-consciousness into a more advanced state of evolution. (?)

If god is still evolving, maybe that's why there's still suffering in this world.

And where/what/how/why/when was the beginning, and where/what/how/why/when will be the end? Any thought of an ending or beginning begs the question of what lies beyond those borders. Infinity, like god, is a concept that some of us think we know intuitively must exist, and yet we can't conceive of it.



It boggles the mind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2007 07:39PM by suncloud.

It's best to define a few things first:

Intelligent design: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3][4] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be God.[7][8] Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory,[9] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[10]
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[11][12][13][14] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[15] The National Science Teachers Association, an organization of American science teachers and the largest organization of science teachers in the world, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[16] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[17]
..............................................
Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the origin and diversity of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection.[27][28] The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has said that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."[29] In the leaked Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[30][31]
Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer (see: teleological argument). For example, intelligent design proponents argue that an archaeologist who finds a statue made of stone in a field may justifiably conclude that the statue was designed, and may reasonably seek to identify its designer. The archaeologist would not, however, be justified in making the same claim based on an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size. Design proponents argue that living systems show great complexity, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed.
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes ... not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept. In the 20 years since Intelligent Design was first formulated, no rigorous test that can identify these effects has yet been proposed.[32][33] No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.[34]


From [en.wikipedia.org]

As you can see, there really IS nothing to discuss about intelligent design, as there is zero evidence for it. If you have a scientific paper to put forward to back it up I would be happy to read it, but so far there is none.

Darwinian evolution: In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Scientists theorize that evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce.
One definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring. However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the selection of novel traits cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species.[4] The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[1]
While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been accepted since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear.[5] The theory of evolution by natural selection is an explanation of the mechanism by which these changes occur, and was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.[6] It encountered initial resistance from religious authorities who believed humans were divinely set apart from the animal kingdom. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[7] in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[8]

From [en.wikipedia.org]

The God Delusion essentially argues against (mono-)theism (Abrahamic-type religions) [The so-called God hypothesis), in a very wide and comprehensive manner of ways, denouncing its overall negative influence in the world and our way of thinking. It argues in favour of a rational scientific approach to knowledge and behaviour, providing many arguments in favour of this view.

Theism: The belief that gods or deities exist and interact with the universe.
Abrahamic religion is a term commonly used to designate the three prevalent monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam[1][2] – which claim Abraham as a part of their sacred history.

From [en.wikipedia.org]

The God Delusion [en.wikipedia.org]

One last thing, an absence of belief IS NOT a belief. Ie an absence of belief is not a religion.

Religion: A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Atheism; Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[7]
The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[8] With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.

Finally, cellular automata also explain complexity in a convincing, rational, scientific way [en.wikipedia.org]

Cheers,
J

Jose, if the term "intelligent design" is defined ONLY as an "ALTERNATIVE" to evolution and therefore it cannot be used correctly in any context where it is conceived to be CO-EXISTING with evolution, then I would agree that "intelligent design", as defined in your post, is bunk.

But, that doesn't mean that god is bunk, since god may be something else entirely.

If one believes in Darwinian evolution, and the rationality of science, then the theistic gods mentioned above, which are supposed to intervene on a regular basis in the world through prayer, miracles, etc.., would be in complete contradiction with this naturalistic world view. I don't see how science and a theistic god are compatible, as science relies on repeatable empirical experiments as a means to deduce the laws of nature, and a theistic god that intervenes regularly in the world would pretty much scupper that repeatability.

Deism describes a god that basically sets up the universe (a creator) and then lets it unwind unhindered, which is what you might be describing.

Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.
Deism became prominent in Great Britain, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one God. Initially it did not form any congregations, but in time deism led to the development of other religious groups, particularly Unitarianism. It continues to this day in the form of Classical Deism and Modern Deism.

From [en.wikipedia.org]

Cheers,
J

I don't personally believe in the kind of traditional theistic god described above, but I think it's possible that someone who does might still have some reason for also believing in the science of evolution.

Jose, you've noted that some religious groups have opposed the theory of evolution because of their belief that humans are divinely separated from other animals. Take away that one point of opposition, and it opens up a lot of possibilities, even from an otherwise traditional theistic point of view.

Although the theory of evolution is accepted by the scientific community as a biological fact, many (or even most) scientists also believe in god. In fact, I've never heard of any biological evidence presented by science as proof that god does not exist, even though many scientists are Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.

There are multiple factors that influence natural selection, maybe even an infinite number of factors. There's no scientific proof that god has never played a hand in any (or all) of those factors.

Good point about Deism. Deism would certainly be one religion that would allow for god and the science of evolution to coexist.

But there may be MANY "logical" possibilities allowing for the coexistence of god and evolution. For instance, what if our very existence is a part of god? What if god is not a separate influencing entity, but rather WE are god? All of us. Even the little bugs that we tend to think are icky. Even the plantlife. We know that natural selection is accountable to the choices we all make everyday. If we are all a part of god, maybe those choices are god's continuing influence on evolution: god's little miracles. Darwin himself preferred the idea of survival being accredited to successful social interaction over the idea of survival of the fittest (individual). We know as humans at least that social interaction requires choice (we like to presume that in the "lower" animals, it's instinct -not choice, but is it really?)

And what about possibilities that our limited human minds can't even begin to fathom?

We tend to think in terms of a limited set of possibilities. Possibilities that have some relationship to what we can comprehend. We view the most difficult of questions as a multiple choice test, and we have to pick one. All of us are limited by the scope of the human mind, and by the scope of the imagination.

Established religions in particular require an element of simplicity. If they weren't simple, and if they didn't claim to answer all the questions, they wouldn't attract enough followers to become an established religion.

Maybe there's something beyond established religion, and beyond our current scientific knowledge too.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2007 12:49AM by suncloud.

As far as religion goes, I'm in favor of Misluism, Joseism, Lightformism, ThomasLanternism, La_Veroniqueism, and Jonoism. But I'm partial to Suncloudism of course.

LaV, yes I think they may create new universes seeing as our current universe seems destined to freeze or crunch or otherwise become non-habitable at some point. I don't really know how this would work, just seems like it could. Life forms tend to want to continue living, either as themselves, or as offspring of themselves. If our universe is destined to die, and if beings become intelligent enough to create new universes to seed with themselves, I think they will do it.

It could be that what we think of as our universe is just a hologram in our mind.

Some topics worth googling are holographic reality, simulated reality, transhumanism, technological singularity, DNA wave biocomputer...

Yes, something is definitely afoot... I get that feeling every day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2007 04:44AM by jono.

A belief in god could originate from 2 different perspectives: god doctrine and god discovery.

God doctrine requires specific beliefs about god. God is often portrayed as a very powerful entity apart from oneself. Any scientific information contrary to the god doctrine would not be acceptable.

God discovery is a personal seeking for god within oneself, where all possibilities are on the table. Since at the start, the seeker accepts that they don't have the answers, god discovery is mystic rather than indoctrinate. All scientific truths are therefore compatible with a god discovery perspective, although the entire material plane may be considered irrelevant to spirituality, or even illusory.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2007 08:21AM by suncloud.

The point of my above post is that if you view god from the 1st perspective, you may or may not accept the theory of evolution, depending upon the doctrine of your chosen religion.

But if you view god from the 2nd perspective, then all scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are acceptable if they are true.

"something is afoot at Circle K"

Party on LaV!

Hey suncloud,

Quote

Although the theory of evolution is accepted by the scientific community as a biological fact, many (or even most) scientists also believe in god.

I think that statement is not true by many measures, usually it has been found that the more distinguished the scientist, the less likely they are to "believe in god", see for example [www.nature.com] where

[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.
The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:
As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise."

Also, from The God Delusion, p. 100-103

1. Out of 700 Nobel Prize winning scientists there is only 1 theist
2. Only 7% of scientists eminent enough to be in the National Academy of Sciences believe in a god
3. 225 Fellows of the Royal Society were polled and only 12 are theists
4. 45 out of 49 studies in the last 80 years concluded that IQ is inversely related to theism

With references

1. Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle (1997).

2. E. J. Larson and L. Witham, 'Leading scientists still reject God', Nature 394, 1998, 313.

3. R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat - manuscript still in progress, 2006.

4. P. Bell, 'Would you believe it?', Mensa Magazine, Feb. 2002, 12-13.

Quote

In fact, I've never heard of any biological evidence presented by science as proof that god does not exist, even though many scientists are Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.

Firstly, as I've shown, the great majority of scientists are not religious, and the more eminent the scientist, the less inclined they are to believe. Throughout history science has unfailingly shown that what "religion" and their "sacred texts" have to say about the world we inhabit is wrong. From things like the earth being at the center of the solar system, the creation and age of the world, and so on and so forth. Evolution is near the end of a long line of things major religions have got wrong when it comes to Nature. If one believed in the veracity of the "sacred texts" then these contradictions with verifiable empirical fact can quite reasonably account for evidence that the "word of god" is false, or in other words, that "god" does not exist. Of course, nowadays most moderate believers take the point of view that the stories in the "sacred texts" must be taken metaphorically, but that was not always so, and certainly not the original intent, to say the least. This enlightenment through science has been achieved very much in spite of religious intolerance towards science and reason.

Quote

Maybe there's something beyond established religion, and beyond our current scientific knowledge too.

Almost certainly, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cheers,
J

" All I want to know is the mind of God. All else is irrelevant."

Albert Einstein

jono:



" party on LaV!"

i bring the drinks ( greens)
and you bring the tasty flaxseed appetizers

I like La V's quote from Einstein.

Thanks Jose for citing the Larson/Witham survey. Here are a few observations:

I went to your link, but apparently I'd have to make a payment to view the article you cited above, so I passed on it (sorry, really).

I did find an article referring to the Larson/Witham survey (Skeptical Inquirer, Sept.-Oct., l997, by Thomas C. Genoni, Jr.), stating that the Larson/Witham survey found 40% of scientists (not 7%) believe in god, even though, very importantly, according to Larson and Witham, the survey questions were limited to "retaining Leuba's 1916 definition of god - hearing prayers and giving immortality..."

If someone were to ask me if I believed in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" or "personal immortality", I'd answer "no", even though I do believe in god.

Note that the immortality question doesn't refer to "immortality of the soul". It refers to "personal immortality".

According to the Skeptical Inquirer article, "Larson and Witham point out that, based on previous surveys, roughly a quarter of Americans define God as something other than the traditional deity. Since Larson and Witham's questions were narrowly defined, the overall results may be misleading...they (Larson and Witham) also add that their results corroborate a 1969 survey conducted by the Carnegie Commission that found 34 percent of physical scientists were religiously conservative, and 43% of all physical and life scientists attended church two or three times a month."

So what percent of scientists have a nontraditional belief in god? The survey doesn't tell us, but it would seem that at least part of that percent could be added onto the 40% found to have a more traditional belief.

Whatever the case, the beliefs of the majority of scientists do not constitute proof of the existence or nonexistence of god.

In my previous post I brought up the fact that many scientists believe in god. I should NOT have said "(and even most)", since that was just an assumption on my part. I got carried away. But either way, I never meant to imply that whatever the majority of scientists believe, we should also believe. I was just trying to point out that many of those people who have a very good understanding of evolution, also believe in god; in other words, a thorough understanding of one doesn't necessarily exclude a belief in the other.

I tend to think that rejection by science of religious doctrine (like the earth being the center of the solar system) is irrelevant to an inner search for god.

There is no generally accepted scientific theory citing evidence for the nonexistence OR for the existence of god.

Anyways, this is a fun discussion.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2007 11:22PM by suncloud.