Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 187

Thread: The equivalence of religion and science?

  1. #1
    Registered User Beowulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Beoverse
    Posts
    7,985
    Rep Power
    13

    The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Ok, so here it is one last time..

    <snip>

    The Harmonized Evolutionary And Creationistic Theory


    I like the idea of The Harmonized Evolutionary And Creationistic Theory .. Perhaps the earth evolved in 7 days

    Can't rep you here .. sorry

  2. #2
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    The equivalence of religion and science?

    This comes from the thread that has gone outside, so many of you may not have seen it. I know it's arrogant for me to suggest that it's important to have a read through, but I'm researching a book on this subject, so your feedback would help - hence the thread.

    It's long but hopefully readable - please have a go and tell me what you think. Is it too complicated? Do you think it's rubbish? OR Do you think it has value?

    Ok, so here it is one last time..

    Firstly, let's establish a few things. Literal creationist do not accept evolution theory, and I know that – I mean how could they believe the Universe was created in 7 days when evolutionary theory works over much longer timescales, so they are poles apart. BUT if they adapted the theory of creationism to evoke relativity they could make it work. They of course wouldn’t because their dogmatic approach does not allow them too… but none the less.

    Most scientists likewise, do not accept the literal creationists view because it ignores all the evidence that shows that the Universe was most definitely not created in 7 days. However, scientists should know that by evoking relativity, which is a theory grounded in scientific methodology, they could make the two compatible if they wanted to. BUT of course they don’t want to, hence the problem.

    As regards the concept of teaching creationism in schools (which is what was at the start of this thread): Well, no sane person would argue against the concept of choice would they? However, choice can only be exercised if ALL the theories are explained within the same time frame and within the same format, so that individuals can objectively compare them side by side. On this basis it IS wrong to just offer evolutionary theory as the only ‘true’ explanation of the creation of Humanity. What would be wrong however, is if either faction, who by definition may have a vested interest, seeks to exercise this right for political gain or to exclude other interpretations to gain dominance.

    On this basis I would advocate that ALL children are taught about literal creationism, evolutionary theory and the hybrid I’m proposing (I don’t know… let’s call it) The Harmonized Evolutionary And Creationistic Theory. THE ACT. All the theories would be given a fair and equal hearing and every child in conjunction with their parents (or maybe exclusive of their parents if need be…) would have the information to make their OWN minds up without being subject to the propaganda, misinformation and political machinations that currently cloud these issues.

    That’s fair enough isn’t it?

    So, to the theory:

    Firstly, we have to establish what the term ‘day’ actually signifies. On this basis, if we accept that God didn’t personally write the Bible, then the term ’day’ is open to interpretation. Humans, who were the writers of the Bible, translated the Word of God from either thought, expression, vision or whatever… could therefore have only interpreted the term ‘day’ based on their own experience. BUT, because God is a super natural being (in the eyes of religion) that exists outside of the Universe, His experience would have been different – and as we are not God we would have no way of knowing what that experience was/is. Relativity tells us that each observer experiences their ‘reality’ in different ways relative to others AND that this experience can exist in the same ‘apparent’ timeframe – although, that as time is not a fixed value, each will have a different perception of the amount of ‘time’ that has passed. You cannot therefore refute the fact that it’s possible that God’s day maybe equivalent to 3 billion years on Earth. Unless you are God you cannot be certain of his experience, but as you are human you can be certain of yours – and that’s where the problem lies. To accept this concept of relative experiences being different, but essentially the same, one has to step out of our personal experience and imagine what it may look and feel like from God’s perspective.

    The majority of course can’t do that, but some can. Either way, again, what we can say is that this kind of relative equivalence is possible.

    If we therefore agree, for the sake of discussion, that a ‘day’ does not have a fixed value of time and is instead relative to the observer, then we can say that God’s day (however, it helps you to define the word ‘day’) could be equivalent to Humanity’s perception of 3.5 billion years. So, when God says that he created all life forms, including Man, in one day he means it. What he hasn’t done is defined that system of ‘creation’. In other words that by creating DNA He knew that it would create all of life on Earth and which in turn would lead to the creation of man by the evolutionary method of biological diversity accounted for by natural selection... Why doesn’t he say that? Ummm… because it is a little complicated. Instead what we have is the symbolic and beautiful representation of creation as described in Genesis – which, let’s face it, was written at a time when no-one could have possibly understood the concept of relativity, the Universe and the Space-time continuum.

    It’s a great sales tool – adapt your pitch to the customer’s level of understanding.

    Now, Genesis DOES not say this – and creationists do NOT believe this, but my point is that you could certainly argue from a religious perspective that is what He intended if you re-wrote some aspects of the Bible and taught it in this way. Likewise, scientists don’t have to abandon any part of their doctrine on evolution to accept this possibility either. They wouldn’t of course, because it admits the possibility of God being the organizing force that set the whole system in motion rather than the (to be frank) slightly unbelievable concept that it all happened spontaneously and without direction.

    If you accept that all this is possible, it is therefore also possible to adapt both the religious and scientific view points to incorporate it – of course, it’s never gonna happen, but if it did this is what it might look like.

    Adapted Religious Summary
    God created all of Life on Earth, including Man, in 1 day. In God’s domain His day is long, and from His experience He gave unto us the perception of history, so that we could more readily understand our existence within our domain. In His divine wisdom on this day He created DNA and allowed all of life’s seed to burst forth and occupy the Earth. In time, Man strove for dominion over this realm and through the divine experience of biological diversity and natural selection he made it so. God, created this cycle of birth and renewal and God, in His wisdom, also created only One life form, DNA, so that ALL of life would experience connection and harmony. And low it was that from Adam’s ‘rib’ He created Woman and from their joining they begat Humanity. (Please excuse the cod God language…just having a bit of fun, that’s all).

    Adapted Simplistic Scientific Summary
    Life on Earth began only once and all of life is derived from the same basic DNA structure. Over 3.5 billion years this structure evolved into Humanity by utilizing a system of biological diversity and natural selection. This system is called Evolution and it is possible that the system was initially generated spontaneously and without direction. However, at this stage it’s important to note that the timescale of 3.5 billion years is purely a term used to define Humanity’s relative experience with regard to the passage of time experienced on Earth. In the case of supernatural beings existing outside of the Universe it should also be noted that although there is no current proof of such entities, if one or more were to exist, their perception of time relative to their experience would be different to ours. Therefore it is possible, when using Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as a guide, to assert that 3,5 billion years on Earth could be equivalent to 1 day for such entities. It is also possible to assert that if such beings existed that they may have implemented the system of Evolution, as previously described.

    Conclusion.
    If both creationism and evolutionary theory were adapted in this way they would become equivalent and self supporting – and the choices we make regarding the conflict of Faith and the sciences by reference to our day to day experiences would be easier to reconcile.

    Of course I’ve only touched on ONE area of religion here, so bear that in mind!

    In essence though, what I have explained is already part of the intuitive understanding of the Universe described in many Eastern Religions. If it touches a cord with you, I would suggest having a look at Buddhism because there already is much equivalence with Buddhism and Science, and in particular Quantum Mechanics.

    And finally:
    Please don’t take this apart piece by piece and quote it back at me expecting me to answer you because I really have had enough of going around in circles! In creating this text I accept that there may be some errors and/or omissions, but then I have only been concerned with delivering an overall pictorial concept rather than trying to examine each pixel that makes it up. In doing this I know you may have a different view point and that’s fine. All you need do is read it with an open mind and make a decision in your own mind as to whether or not the concept is possible.

    As I mentioned at the start, ideally just try and restrict your comments to a reply based on whether you think: it's too complicated. It's rubbish. OR It has value. By all means you can then explain why you think that if you want to. These are important issues and I do think we should examine our personal view on them on regular basis devoid of the propoganda that normally clouds this sort of discussion.

    I would much appreciate you all being part of this experiment!
    Finally, I’ll leave you with a quote from the great Albert Einstein:

    ‘Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious’.

  3. #3
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    I think it is reasonable to teach in state-supported schools the beliefs held by large numbers within a society, and the bases of those beliefs. That is what should be done in religious education classes. By "beliefs" and "religious" I am meaning those views which are dependent on "faith" rather than "science", ie they are views held independently of scientific evidence/knowledge as held by the majority of scientists/experts in the field, and/or they relate to morality, ethics etc on which "science" probably does not have a view.

    However, when the subject is a "hard" or technical topic relating to physical / chemical matters which are subject to experimentation and evidential testing, then even if the current state of scientific thinking is incomplete, (as it always must be until someone develops and proves the Theory of Everything) then the teaching should be based on the current scientific understanding. That is what should be taught in "science" classes, otherwise we do our children a disservice.

    I say this even although inevitably scientific knowledge at any moment is superseded by later scientific knowledge - we know the world is not perched on a giant tortoise, we know that things burn because they are exposed to heat and oxygen, not because they contain phlogiston. And at one time the "official scientific" position was that the earth moved around the sun, and the heretical (but true) position would not, on my basis, have been taught in the schools of the time. But these wrong states of knowledge were not superseded because of some more enlightened "faith" system, they were superseded because advances in experimental testing, and the genius of individuals who dared to challenge the religious establishment, proved them to be false.

    Please don't try to mix up religious beliefs with scientific understanding, otherwise you may need (in a PC world) to give equal status to other creation theories based on belief-systems. Then we really might be back to the giant tortoise!

    AND, having read some of the Rocky v Barry stuff in the other thread until it went outside, I don't intend to add to the above. I've had my say!

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Kilbride, Sco
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Rocky, after yesterday this argument has become so f***ing boring; this is the cerocscotland.com forum, it should be about DANCE related subjects not about you or Barry trying to impress each other !!!!!

    Please join a simple chat room and practice your extensive vocabulary elsewhere and leave us to discuss dance, music and anything else related to cerocscotland.com.

  5. #5
    Registered User SilverFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Balham, SW London
    Posts
    887
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Doolan View Post
    Rocky, after yesterday this argument has become so f***ing boring; this is the cerocscotland.com forum, it should be about DANCE related subjects not about you or Barry trying to impress each other !!!!!

    Please join a simple chat room and practice your extensive vocabulary elsewhere and leave us to discuss dance, music and anything else related to cerocscotland.com.
    Hey Brian, why not tell us more about that familiar dance related subject called QR Codes

    I found it totally fascinat.....

    Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    just try and restrict your comments to a reply based on whether you think: it's too complicated. It's rubbish. OR It has value.
    Since you want that type of response: it's rubbish, it's too complicated, but it's not valueless.

    It's rubbish because it fails to line up the creation stories in Genesis with the scientific facts as we know them. For example, according to Genesis, Grass was created on the third day.. This messes up your 3 billion years => 1 god day relativistic conversion factor. How do you intend to reconcile this?

    It's too complicated because there's a much easier way of reconciling Genesis with scientific fact. This can be expressed in one sentence: "The creation stories in Genesis are poetic Truth, not literal truth.".

    It's not valueless because any attempt to bridge between science and religion, however ineffectual, helps counter the either-or attitude present in extremists on both sides.

  7. #7
    Registered User Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Astral
    Posts
    3,209
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Since you want that type of response: it's rubbish, it's too complicated, but it's not valueless.

    It's rubbish because it fails to line up the creation stories in Genesis with the scientific facts as we know them. For example, according to Genesis, Grass was created on the third day.. This messes up your 3 billion years => 1 god day relativistic conversion factor. How do you intend to reconcile this?

    It's too complicated because there's a much easier way of reconciling Genesis with scientific fact. This can be expressed in one sentence: "The creation stories in Genesis are poetic Truth, not literal truth.".

    It's not valueless because any attempt to bridge between science and religion, however ineffectual, helps counter the either-or attitude present in extremists on both sides.

    I'd go more like this

    Here's a religious viewpoint (probably currently taught in RE)
    Here's a scientific viewpoint (probably currently taught in Science)
    "A viewpoint does not equal truth" (probably currently taught in History)

    It's the last one I'd want the effort spent on though

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Kilbride, Sco
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverFox View Post
    Hey Brian, why not tell us more about that familiar dance related subject called QR Codes

    I found it totally fascinat.....

    Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
    QR Codes can be used to produce advertisements for many things, including Ceroc etc. events, maybe you're not smart enough to understand that though ??

  9. #9
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

    Here's a religious viewpoint (probably currently taught in RE)
    Here's a scientific viewpoint (probably currently taught in Science)
    "A viewpoint does not equal truth" (probably currently taught in History)
    Thats quite reasonable, though i would expect - rather than "viewpoint not equal to truth" science classes would explain the scientific method and what it actually means. They managed to do that at my school so I don't know what needs to change now - if anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    This comes from the thread that has gone outside, so many of you may not have seen it. I know it's arrogant for me to suggest that it's important to have a read through, but I'm researching a book on this subject, so your feedback would help - hence the thread.
    Thats a reasonable request - I disagree with a lot of your text for the reasons in the other thread but that reads as a lovely intro paragraph donchaknow.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverFox View Post
    Hey Brian, why not tell us more about that familiar dance related subject called QR Codes

    I found it totally fascinat.....

    Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
    Cruel, but fair!!

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    All I can do is point to the length of Rocky's post and say that this is, in my experience, what happens when you try to incorporate science into dogma. You have to make continual adjustments to the dogma - "OK, well I'll add this bit to cope with that problem; and then that to cope with that problem; and now those two additions cause another problem so I need to add another bit here to deal with that..." Und so weiter.

    And before you know you need ten bibles worth of text to explain how science fits alongside holy scripture.

    But my most insistent thought is this - why bother?

  12. #12
    Commercial Operator Gus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    York
    Posts
    5,203
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Doolan View Post
    Rocky, after yesterday this argument has become so f***ing boring; this is the cerocscotland.com forum, it should be about DANCE related subjects not about you or Barry trying to impress each other !!!!!

    Please join a simple chat room and practice your extensive vocabulary elsewhere and leave us to discuss dance, music and anything else related to cerocscotland.com.
    Sorry ... I missed this before and must admit that Rocky's post gave some food for thought. Don't know if I agree with it but its interesting nevertheless. Actually, its also very interesting that Rocky, that well-known one dimension Ceroc/Evil Empire Storm trooper, actually has something about him ... who'd have thought it.

  13. #13
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    I'm writing a book too you know. I'm not researching it though, I'm making it all up. Less effort.

  14. #14
    Registered User Isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,398
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I'm writing a book too you know. I'm not researching it though, I'm making it all up. Less effort.
    I'm using a ghost writer. That'll be even less effort.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Carnoustie
    Posts
    1,044
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I'm writing a book too you know. I'm not researching it though, I'm making it all up. Less effort.
    Who do you think you are? Gillian McKeith?

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Can I just recommend that all of you also keep an eye out for the Pope's forthcoming book on sexual techniques and George Bush's book on constitutional safeguards.

  17. #17
    Lovely Moderator ducasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    10,015
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Rocky, your thesis is interesting, if not original. But as pointed out by others, it does tend to skim past all the other things he did in the other days, which don't seem to fit quite so nicely.

    Then there's the segue from the 7-days creation into the story of Adam & Eve which is going to be a bit rough...

    That said, I support the search for a good answer to how we got here, and I don't think that either the mainstream science or religious bods have it all worked out.
    Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story

  18. #18
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by batnurse View Post
    Who do you think you are? Gillian McKeith?
    Actually, Yes. Yes I am. And it's "DR" to you.

  19. #19
    An Eclectic Toaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,042
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by batnurse View Post
    Who do you think you are? Gillian McKeith?
    There was an advert in the Mail on Sunday for her latest money making venture, which described her as "Britain's leading expert on nutrition". My other half's a dietician and couldn't stop laughing - McKeith's a complete fraud. Who only gets away with it because she's married to a pugnacious lawyer.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beowulf1970 View Post
    ...I like the idea of The Harmonized Evolutionary And Creationistic Theory .. Perhaps the earth evolved in 7 days ...
    No, it is that evolutionists were created, and creationists evolved.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •