[shadetreecountryboy]

Ok. Here we go...
Science and intelligent design work together, not against each other. How? You ask.
Well, this is a new thread and we need to see some questions asked to focus on an answer.
I feel I can do this using the accepted K.J.V. and the N.K.J.V., the 2 versions christians approve for teaching purposes.
Please keep in mind that this thread is NOT a debate for or against ANY religion; just a science oriented "how and why" showing explanations of some of the miracles in relation to science.
Any takers?
I start this thread in total humility, eager to learn, eager to show.

[eye on the skies]

Well, I think that science and religion definately work together. If you think otherwise, then something's wrong with your knowledge of religion or something's wrong with your knowledge of science.

Intelligent design is a theory, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong. All other theories of the universe's origin are the same. They aren't necessarily true, but they have yet to be proven wrong. Isn't it possible that there was someone from another plane of existence who created our own plane of existence before the laws of physics were ever even created, and in fact, he was the one to create them? It is possible.

I don't want to start some long debate, but I just want to take the opportunity to say that when you hear people say that they believe the earth is only ten thousand years old because it says so in the Bible, they are just being ignorant, a perfect example of the type of people whose religious knowledge is wrong. The Bible is meant to be understood on a more meaningful and at times metaphorical level. It is not to be understood as historical facts, rather it is a compilation of religious truths.

[shadetreecountryboy]

eye on the skies, I totally agree.
I think sometimes that one may confuse "in the begining" with the big bang. The bible says in the begining that the earth was void, that means the earth was in existence, it just was not in very good "working order. I also agree with you that this should not be some long debate.
Peaceout!

[UncleAl]

1) Who made the Maker? If the Maker spontaneously arose, who needs the Maker?

2) At any given moment the Earth is exactly 666 years old. Anything else palpable is the work of the Devil. Anybody who disagrees is thereby proven unfit to comment. (You wouldn't believe a coin embossed 400 BC, would you? Then why do you lend any credence a coin dated 400 AD? The Earth is only 666 years old!)

3) (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith
Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be denied. Test of faith! Science and religion are orthogonal.

4) Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India doing?

5) In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission.

6) Don't be ineducably ignorant (stupid),
Google Images
Miller abiotic 4480 hits

[shadetreecountryboy]

Uncle Al:
Please tell ne where you got all of this info so I may study/read it.
Thanks,
shadetreecountryboy.

[pgrmdave]

Well, while Unc may not be the most understandable of our members, I think that he raises at least one good point, faith, by its definition, must defy knowledge (at least by any working definition I've heard). You can have faith that something in the future will occur, but the stronger the knowledge behind it, the less faith is needed. For example, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. It doesn't take much faith to believe that, it's been rising and setting like clockwork since my birth. I also have faith that I will graduate with a degree in computer science. A bit more faith is required as I have not yet completed my coursework and I know things can go wrong, but if things progress as they have been than I will. I also have faith that things tend to work out well for people, and that if you try to be happy, you will be. That takes a lot of faith, because there are a lot of counter examples and no way to prove it either way.

All this means is that if you can "prove" a religion true, then it requires no faith. If it is entirely faith based, then it cannot be rooted in empirical truths. Unc's equation: (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith - is an interesting one in that it admits the possibility that there is a disconnect between reality and the testable reality. It is in this realm that there are the most arguments between science and religion, as science tends to contend that there is very little physical that is not empirical while religions tend to claim the opposite.

[quote]Intelligent design is a theory, meaning that it cannot be proven wrong./QUOTE]

This is patently false - theories can be proven wrong, because they make predictions. Theories cannot necessarily be proven right, but it is wrong to say that they cannot be proven false.

[Thunderbird]

What does this have to with chemisty?

[HydrogenBond]

Here is where religion and science blend. Religion has been around since the beginning of civilization. Unlike today, where we have science, religion was previously part of the human perception of reality, being used to explain things around them. This adds to roughly 8 hours per day for 10,000 years. What this all means, is it is very likely that religion has been engrained into human genetics sort of the way unique animal behavior becomes engrained into the genetic of animals.

If it is in the genetics, it is likely that humans can not fully neutralized those 10,000 years of genetic programming, in a few generations, any more than it can alter other genetic factors, using only the power of the human mind. Religion has tried for centuries to alter instinct with will power, sometimes using repression. But this has not fully removed instinct. All it leads to is repression and sublimation, where the instinct changes form into another outlet. It is also possible, the repression of religious conditioned genetics, will lead to a form of sublimation.

I am trying to be true to science, evolution and genetic theory, using a constant form of forced or voluntary human conformity training of the mind for 10,000 years, setting the parameter for genetic changes. If that is not enough we meet to revise these theories. The analogy that results is sort of an extra arm in the brain, so to speak. The glove has always been religion. We can take the glove off, but that doesn't not eliminate the genetic arm. That arm will still be active, even after 100 years of atheism, looking for another glove. It could take thousands of years until the brain is totally reprogrammed. But in the mean time, the arm is still functional even if it is repressed. The affect can be seen with the constant need of fads. These fit like a glove, but they soon wear out. The arm is still looking for meaning, finding a new glove. That gets discarded, etc. Those with religion can do the same thing without change, because the glove fits for them, so it is not easily discarded.

From the point of view of science and psychology, the genetic change is there. If one wishes to go green and be all natural, one can not use synthetic gloves. One needs to use a natural glove on which it was formed. It would be like hunger. We can eat anything we want including junk food. But the genetics of the human body are optimized for better food. But it can still survive on less, but this could lead to other health issues.

[eye on the skies]

oops. I didn't mean that it couldn't be proven wrong, but that it has yet to be proven wrong. sorry!

[UncleAl]

If one wishes to go green and be all natural, one can not use synthetic gloves.

Buncha crap. What is unnatural about petroleum? What is natural about tanned leather? Where do you place fabricated Hevea brasiliensis latex rubber? Do you think gloves grow on a vine like kiwi fruit (left handed gloves in the northern hemisphere, right handed gloves in the southern hemisphere)?

Gore investment body closes $683m fund
FT.com / Companies / Financial services - Gore investment body closes $683m fund

(1) Gore launches a major campaign to make society go Green, posturing himself as on a noble cause to save the planet;
(2) Gore personally invests in businesses designed to reap profit from the Green movement.
(3) Gore is a liar and a crook, and an arbitrageur for the flow in-between.

STURGEON WAS AN OPTIMIST

"I will glady save your soul next Tuesday if you give me everything of value you own today." Every priest says "Hodie mihi, cras tibi." Only a fool believes in post mortem escrow closing. Enviro-whinerism is the confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance.

A COMPARATIVE GUIDE TO RELIGIONS