"BELIEF IN GOD IS NOT SCIENTIFIC."
I love throwing this little gem into conversation when I'm around a group of dubs.
The rising of hackles and blood pressures is palpable.
After I get done with a brief review of what the Scientific Method actually is, everyone usually grumbles a little and goes back to their alcohol and safe little "mental cocoons".
Open Mind
Shattering the Sacred Myths
by nvrgnbk 34 Replies latest jw friends
-
Open mind
-
Open mind
Nvr said:
"Not only do we need to show sensitivity and respect in order to appreciate the better qualities of each belief"
Good point Nvr.
I gave the Cliff Notes version of how I do this. And it sounded more brutal than how it really plays out. Here's a longer, more realistic and sensitive version.
"You know a lot of 'the friends' (gag) will read something like last October's Awake on Creation that interviewed a bunch of JWs who work in scientific fields and come away with the conclusion that belief in God is 'scientific'. But that's not technically true. (Anxiety levels start to rise) These JWs use science in their jobs, but their belief in God isn't because they used the "scientific method" to get there. They feel a belief in God is 'reasonable' but not 'scientific'. (Anxiety levels start to subside) If it were 'SCIENTIFIC' that would mean we'd have to be able to somehow put Jehovah 'under the microscope' and that's not going to happen. At least it hasn't yet." (Oh, Ok, Open Mind's just blathering about "words". No big deal. Now where'd that pitcher of Margaritas go?)
How's that Nvr?
As I go through a little statement like that I can see the anxiety levels rise and then subside when they realize I'm mainly just talking semantics in defining what the word "scientific" means.
But, I'm hoping it might get some people to rethink what they think they "know".
Open Mind -
nvrgnbk
I didn't intend that for you, buddy.
It was coincidence that I posted it after your post.
Keep up the good work!
-
greendawn
Refering to the statement that we can no longer see evolution in action today or since at least 200 000 years after homo sapiens appeared supposedly out of homo erectus, what I find logical is that with so many millions of species in the world there should be some mutations and evolution going on somewhere and this doesn't seem to be the case.
I mean something on more advanced kinds of animals not metabolic changes in bacteria which are the most primitive forms of life. So why has the process of speciation through mutation and natural selection ceased? Why are there no new species appearing even out of evolutionary changes that began let's say 10 million years ago and could be getting completed today, if that's the time scale we need.
-
cognizant dissident
Greendawn:
Well, that's exactly the point of the evolutionary theory. The species that you do see all around you, existing today, are the completion of evolutionary changes that began millions of years ago. You are looking at the results when you look at the existing species! We just don't recognize it because we weren't around to observe the changes as they happened. I should clarify that it is technically incorrect to say they are the completion because that implies that evolution has completely stopped. A more correct statement would be that they are the current results. Everything will continue to evolve and adapt to changing conditions. The millions of extinct species are evidence of what happens to organisms that cannot adapt to changing conditions.
The latest Tyrannosauraus Rex find actually had preserved DNA in the bone marrow that scientists were able to analyze. They had long believed that modern day birds were evolved from dinosaurs due to the skeletal formations of the bones. When they were able to analyze a sample of actual dinosaur DNA, the results confirmed that Tyronasaurus rex is genetically very similiar to modern day birds. Is this proof positive? No. It is firmly established evidence though, that SUPPORTS the theory of evolution. New evidence is being gathered daily. To say that no evidence exists is either ignorance, or as Terry suggested, intellectual dishonesty. In the case of JW's, generally, I do believe it is mostly due to ignorance as they are trained not to look at all the evidence. From childhood on, they are trained to only look at evidence that supports their beliefs. That is NOT the scientific method.
I purposely used the example of the simplest life forms to demonstrate evolution precisely because they are so simple (not really, but compared to us) and self replicate so quickly that evolutionary changes are readily observable in our life times. The more complex the life form, the more complex are the evolutionary changes are that have occured. Because I gave a very simple example it does not automatically follow that more complex examples do not exist. They really are just not in the scope of my technical knowledge and I will not pretend they are. Also, to explain them full would take up the pages of an entire book! However, I know there are very detailed textbooks available outlining the more complex theories of evolution, natural selection through genetic inheritance, etc. I intend to study them further as I have time. Anyone who is so inclined, can avail themselves of this information.
One who really wants to know "the truth" should fully examine all the lines of evidence before they come to a conclusion. How many years did most of us spend studying the Bible? For me it was 40 years. Most of us probably are experts on what the Bible says and its many different interpretations. Then we spend a couple of hours learning about evolution from the very strongly biased perspective of the WTBTS and call ourselves fully informed on both sides of the argument? When we have spent years thoroughly examing all the information available on evolution, from the perspective of the people who have actually done the scientific research, then we might be able to comment and point out, with some credibility, where the arguments are flawed.
Cog
-
Awakened07
what I find logical is that with so many millions of species in the world there should be some mutations and evolution going on somewhere and this doesn't seem to be the case.
I mean something on more advanced kinds of animals not metabolic changes in bacteria which are the most primitive forms of life. So why has the process of speciation through mutation and natural selection ceased? Why are there no new species appearing even out of evolutionary changes that began let's say 10 million years ago and could be getting completed today, if that's the time scale we need.
Evolution doesn't have an end goal for completion. The species you see around you today are the results of evolution, but they are not the pinnacle or completion of evolution. Changes in their environment affect them every day, and if a beneficial mutation comes along (beneficial in that current environment), the population may change. But it most likely won't be an abrupt, large change from one generation to the next.
Human beings are not the "final product" of evolution, just because we're this intelligent. Even though it's true to some extent that nature becomes more and more complex, evolution doesn't have a goal of perfection. Again, that would be... God. But I would say that the longer an environment is stable, the more 'perfect' (for that environment) the life forms living there will be over time.
I'm a little sad that you didn't watch the video I linked to, although I don't blame you because it's so long and may seem boring. All of those HHMI videos are great for education about this, though (there are links to the others around the video I linked to).
Whales and dolphins have vestigial hind legs and pelvic bones that are of no use to them today. Some cave-dwelling and subterranean animals have non-functional, vestigial eyes, sometimes beneath the skin. Manatees have toe nails on their flippers, toe nails that are similar to an elephant's, and seem to share a common ancestry when we compare DNA. These are all living creatures today, not fossils. In the fossils though, we can find the links between the various forms (as you would have seen if you had watched the video).
Bacteria are often cited because they change so fast. They multiply at a ferocious speed.
You have to be willing to educate yourself on this subject to gain knowledge - evolution can't be summed up in a few cliff notes here. Creation can: "God wanted there to be life, so he created life". On the contrary, you'll have to want to educate yourself about this. A few years ago, I thought I was doing research, but what I was really doing, was reading what science said, and when that clashed with what I believed, I would search for answers from "anti-science" (pro-Bible creation) websites, they would give me a contrary answer, and I could 'relax': "Those darn scientists were lying all along after all. *phew* ". Turns out though, that those "anti-science" people will go to any length to 'prove' the Bible right - even if it involves lying or presenting 'proof' that has been refuted years ago. Of course there are also scientists who lie and create fraudulent work to gain fame and money, but since science is a process of testing again and again, they will in most cases be caught at one time or another.
[edit] Hmm... this post turned out to be almost a copy of dissident's post - that was not my intention. Great minds think alike, I guess. Well - not that I have a great mind... [/edit]
-
tetrapod.sapien
interesting thread.
and although i have personally had what i define as ecstatic mystical experiences by setting my mind upon the existential implications of evolution (chain of causation), i still see a paradox in "evolutionary metaphysics".
what we know of biological evolution is come upon via scientific method, which is inherently a literal thing about our literal world. and yet metaphysics is a mystical understanding that all seemingly exclusive physical things are related (inside is outside, there is here, then is now). which is certainly true for living things on planet earth. and while all physical things are related, it's not the theory of evolution that sheds light on that relatedness, but physics. so perhaps a contradiction. evolution is about literalness. metaphysics is meta. metaliteral.
hardcore reductionists and materialists will usually deny, on principle, that evolution (and science in general) is a modern system of mythologicalization. and while i agree in principle, i also know that people who turn to science to discover the "explanations" that are closest to "reality", are in turn making myths themselves based on the implications found in the data (actually found in themselves). i have done it myself. so whether science ever intended it or not, there are new stories with new mythological motifs because of science.
i mean, i look in the mirror and i understand that my genome is the one in control of my form and most of my brain. it is the historical survivor, not me. i learned this from science. and yet i do not define myself with my form. this comes from mystical knowledge, not scientific knowledge. afterall, i don't think it was ever the intention of our genomes to give us brains so powerful that we came to understand evolution. and yet, here we are talking about it. definately falls under the auspices of "transcendent". and maybe i am wrong. perhaps the organism / ecological niche relationship is not the ultimate duality. perhaps it's the ultimate monad. perhaps the genome and it's relationship with the cosmos (via earth) is actually father and mother in one. perhaps at the base of the tree of life is the same light that that is at the root of all. the tree of life (evolution) is but a branch on the tree of the cosmos anyways.
tetra
-
RAF
Wow Tetra : Now that was very well balanced !!!
-
mkr32208
Evolution is happening and can be proven to be happening. Do some research on darwin's finches. The finches that he described and preserved and drew are no longer the same bird. They have evolved noticeably in just a few short years!
Their beaks are longer and considerably thicker. It's a small change but it's clearly a change. If that is a change noticeable in 140ish years imagine at 1,400, at 14,000, at 14,000,000?
-
nvrgnbk
Interesting excerpt from Chapter 6- Christianity:
The Trinity
Trying to define the exact relationship between Jesus and God became the most serious problem facing the early church. The commandments of Judaism clearly state that there can only be one God, but the Son of God seemed to be a separate lesser God. Even the bishops were confused, and many of them were drawn into bitter and sometimes bloody disputes. Eventually the concept of the ‘Trinity’ was devised to cloud the issue behind a mysterious word.
There were many different sects among the early Christians, each sect having its own unique beliefs and preferring its own choice of scriptures. Some sects insisted that Jesus was just a man. Others encouraged freedom from sexual restraint. Eventually one sect gained political power and all other sects were persecuted out of existence. Any writings not favored by the prevailing sect were banned or destroyed. Few of these banned writings have survived.