National Academy of Sciences says there is evidence for Creation by God

Tosca 1 quote

.

That old statement (1999) concludes with something you seem to have ignored.

And I love this quote

Why do people lift a passage out of articles without reading things like the conclusions reached.

Some of us have spent decades considering all aspects of religions and its relationship with science. And you want us to spend 'a moment, with a beer, and reflect - with an open mind'?
Religion began with the lack of scientific knowledge at the beginning of mans evolvement, and many gods were eventually attributed with aspects of nature and natural experiences like fertility, crops, weather etc. We don't need 'gods' for things that we now understand.

If it were not for indoctrination by the Church over centuries, and by Islam, religion IMO would have had very little following by the 20th Century.

 

The logic thing interests me. Logic is a human artifact. We use it for our own needs. But it has its limitations. Proving or disproving God is one of those limitations. Even the brilliant St Thomas Aquinas used logic (derived from Aristotle) for a proof of God. But it was a proof in name only.

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

 

Science isn't the dictate of an organization. Science is the process of observing trial and error to draw conclusions. I don't really care what the National Academy of Sciences thinks and I regard non-overlapping magisteria as bunk.

 

"God is myth and that is proven fact." You demand proof that God is real, but offer no proof that God is myth. Why don't you offer up some proof for claims, and we can compare 'proofs' and make a logical conclusion. But you don't have anymore evidence that God is a myth, then the believer has that God isn't a myth.

Non-believers say that if God was real, He would 'show himself'. IMO, God shows himself in everything and at all times in all ways. When I fall, I fall down--not up. This is one of ways in which God shows itself. Until we learn the secret of antigravity, we all fall down. So far that law has not been changed.

 

Well finally someone with reading comprehension. You are correct that nothing in the quoted statement says anything whatsoever about the existence of any evidence that proves the existance of God.

 

So when we fall down and hurt ourselves that proves the existance of God?

 

The statement said that many scientists believe that God created the universe. They say that belief - Creation by God (Theistic evolution) - INDEED, reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe........

......REVEALED by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other scientific discipline.



That belief by some religious scientists about Creation by God, has been there before scientific findings gave evidence supporting that belief.
St Augustine is an example! Some were religious to begin with, remember? Therefore....their belief would run along Creation by God.

Scientific findings confirmed their belief.

BUT yes, there are non-religious scientists who ended up believing in the existence of God (and some have actually converted)....as a result of scientific findings. Francis Collins, is an example.

 

Still beating that dead horse, eh?

 

Who says it's the "dictate" of an organization? Read the statement again.


The National Academy of Sciences had declared their official position on this (as an organization/body).....due to scientific findings.
They'd done all those things - observation, analysis, etc... and, came up with their discoveries!

I don't think any member of the NAS (considering their caliber and reputation) would go along with any "quasi" or "pseudo-science" method
and put their reputation on the line.

There's no caveat, or any disclaimers to the NAS statement! It spoke as a body.

 

I was talking about the laws of gravity which we have no clue about. It is the laws of the universe, the laws of the physical world--like the laws of gravity, and the laws of the biological world that I believe best describe God. What makes the sun spew synchrotron radiation? Why does light travel at 186,000 miles per second? What or who defined these laws--an intangible, but awesome God, or did they just happen?

My post about falling down did sound a bit stupid I admit; but let those who have never posted a stupid OP cast the first stone. I am sure that you can cast the first stone though. I'm sure all your posts have been and always will be intellectually stimulating and make perfect sense.

I suspect your an atheist. Maybe you can offer proof that there is no god?

 

Oh.....was I beating you? I didn't realise that.....


Bye for now Bruno. I'll get back to you when you've got something substantial to say.

 

OK! In the meantime, try to keep from lying so much about what people say and haven't said.

You might actually be taken seriously one day!

 

No, it did not. All you did was quote-mined without understanding what you read.


When the NAS speaks about "creationists," it refers to those who take the Book of Genesis LITERALLY,
and/or Intelligent Design.

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7

 

Have you read the last paragraph of page 8 from that booklet?

 

That's not what they say in the Conclusion in Chapter 6.

 

Yes... Belief REFLECTS the inspiring nature of the universe, but it does not provide EVIDENCE to support that belief. Mankind through the centuries has believed (quite logically) in a lot of things that turned out to be wrong, so BELIEF does not constitute EVIDENCE. If there is specific evidence in that document proving that God (opposed to some natural force) created the universe, please quote it here.

 

I see science and 'spiritual' substance (as 'religion' to me is man-made & is man's attempt to worship God on his own terms) is as being just 2-dimensional but having a 3rd dimension added to enhance the 'why' of the universe & it's begriming.

Similar to sex can easily be explained 'mechanically,' but 'romance' adds to the overall act giving it more depth & meaning.

As well as 'awe & wonder" of life, nature and the sky have been around thru all people and all thru the history of documented mankind...

 

I'm not sure.....

What does it say?

 

And?

They're not science because the supernatural is NOT TESTABLE BY METHODS OF SCIENCE!

Science does not deal with the supernatural!


Why do you think the NAS specified the PHYSICAL universe? Here, read it again!

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html


However, the NAS claims that there are evidences that supports the belief that God created the universe (Theistic Evolution), and it named a few specific areas of science that discovered these: cosmology, paleontology and molecular biology. I don't what other "many disciplines of science" they refer to, that's also shown evidences.

 

The belief that God created the universe (Theistic evolution), INDEED, reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe........

......REVEALED by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other scientific discipline.




See those large, underlined and boldened words? That's evidence. They even provided some of the specific areas of science that's shown them.

 

You're just confusing science and religion.

In science, the questions have to do with how things work. And, science just is not constructed in a way to answer questions about God.

So, it's strange to me that you would look at science (microbiology, cosmology, or whatever) and decide to apply that to your religion.

 

Eh?

You're the one who's confused. Go back and read what I've said in previous posts (especially the first 3 ones).

WillReadmore........looks like you haven't been reading at all......

 

Sorry I missed this post.

I'm glad you posted that. Let's analyze it:

What does the NAS mean that science IS NOT THE ONLY MEANS to gain knowledge? That humans gain understanding through RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE?

Science does not deal with the supernatural. However, there are religious experience(s) that are unexplainable, and supernatural.
You find a lot of these in religious personal testimonies of believers who had religious experience of miracles, or the supernatural.
How many times have doctors claim, "It's a miracle," when someone they'd given up for dead suddenly gets healed?

Science has no answers to those, and it can't provide any answers....because those are beyond its realm. Science can only deal with the material/natural/physical.

Philosophy/logic deals with things that are not clearly defined by science. That's why we've got Philosophers giving their input about
God's existence.

The NAS is simply explaining the difference. If science cannot deal with the supernatural - anything that deals with the supernatural is therefore, not scientific. It cannot be science. That's the NAS' position.

The NAS does not claim to have found supernatural evidences that support creation by God.
What they'd discovered were done through scientific methods, therefore they are material and natural evidences (that can be observed and are testable). Thus, the NAS even named areas of science that had made such discoveries about Theistic evolution.



The NAS reiterates that only beliefs that can go through scientific observation, interpretation and experimentation should be admissable as science.


The NAS does not say the supernatural does not exists!

 

Perhaps someone with more expertise in grammar could help out here, but no matter which words you place in bold type, it does not alter the grammar of the sentence. Your source says:

"This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution."
The subject of this sentence is "This belief" (which is not in disagreement with the scientific explanations of evolution). Using your logic I could assert here that this is EVIDENCE that scientific explanations of evolution are correct (but that would not be a valid assertion based on this sentence).

"Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."
The subject of this sentence is the pronoun "it" which refers back to the previous subject "This belief." You can highlight and bold type all you want but anybody reading this post with an understanding of English grammar knows this says the inspiring character of the physical universe leads to BELIEF that God created the universe. And I think we can all agree that belief is not the same as proof.

Using your logic that belief=evidence, I could refer you to statements by a number of respected scientific organizations who BELIEVE that the earth is much older than Genesis would suggest, but in that case I am sure you would agree belief does NOT equal evidence. I just ask you to apply the same rule of logic when you claim to have EVIDENCE proving that God created the universe.

 

Of course, the analogy is silly, as we have great experience in identifying how and why cakes are made - and, it has nothing to do with a supernatural being proposed by religion.

So, that "logic" of yours is pure religion, totally unrelated to science.