Is Faith/Creationism compatible with Science?

Post Reply
Jonas
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:53 am

Post by Jonas » Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:10 pm

For me, Gelin remains a special case.

I don't understand how a geneticist like GELIN would believe in the mumbo jumbo of the "creation theory".

Why is it that the DNA of a chimpanzee is about 99% of the DNA of a human?

While we are at it, why is it that the majority of Haitian protestants subscribe to the retrograde (in my view) fundamantalism of American protestantism?

Trough the ages, protestantism was a very progressive creed, the European strain anyway, particularly the German one with Luther and Calvin.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:37 am

For me, Gelin remains a special case.

M ap rale ti chèz ba mwen, paske mwen toujou renmen wè Jonas ak Gelin kap "djab" youn ak lòt ("djab" meaning "jab" in English, not "the devil" as is the more common meaning in Haitian Creole). Men sepandan, anvan Gelin reponn Jonas, mwen ta vle fè remake ke Jonas louvri 2 liy diskisyon mwen ta pito wè kontinye nan 2 lòt kategori fowòm lan. Kidonk, Gelin kab ede m nan sans sa, avèk repons li yo.

I don't understand how a geneticist like GELIN would believe in the mumbo jumbo of the "creation theory".

Why is it that the DNA of a chimpanzee is about 99% of the DNA of a human?

Good observations, Jonas (;-0) However, you should probably advance them in a continuation of this thread, Was Charles Darwin a creationist?[/b:] or perhaps Punctuated Equilibrium, the two threads where Gelin and I have extensively discussed our views on the "natural" evolution (or creation) of Life on Earth (fascinating threads, really, if I may say so. I wish that more people would participate in them. At the very least, you'll have fodder to side either with our resident creationist Gelin or with me, who supports a different point of view. If you have not done so, I urge you to read those threads, and realize that science is a legitimate topic of discussion among Haitians as well.)

While we are at it, why is it that the majority of Haitian protestants subscribe to the retrograde (in my view) fundamantalism of American protestantism?

Trough the ages, protestantism was a very progressive creed, the European strain anyway, particularly the German one with Luther and Calvin.

Well, I am staying outside of this once (at least for the moment) -- I am usually eager to participate in most discussions on this forum, but I recognize that one should first listen to those who are more knowledgeable in the matter of religion history and current development.

However, those questions posed by Jonas would better be discussed in the forum on Spirituality and Religion, so we can continue here with the matter of Artificial Intelligence (oddly prefaced by my own tale about the creation of the world, which will probably stay not commented about, for obvious reasons).

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:30 am

For me, Gelin remains a special case.

Jonas, touse ponyèt ou...nou pral fè kèk lesefrape...amikalman!

gelin

Jonas
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:53 am

Post by Jonas » Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:06 pm

Gelin,

Lè m pale de wou, kou yon Ka espesyal, se pa dega m vle manke w non.
Se ke mwen gendwa di ke plis 90% moun ki nan "field" ou yo, kwè nan evolisyon.
Se pa mwen k ap di w, ou konnen ke pa gen preske okenn diferans ant yon makak ak nou.
Byen ke se pou yon lòt diskisyon, mwen ta renmen ou eksplike m, poukisa se pwotestantism ameriken an, ki pran pye ann Ayiti?

Se fòm sa a, mwen te toujou wè, lè m ta grandi ann Ayiti.

Byen ke, lè m ap di pwotestantism ameriken an, gen yon pa de egzajerasyon ladan l, paske nan Nò Etazini an, gen "Lutheran Church", ki "liberal" anpil nan entèpretasyon la Bib lan (plis pase legliz Katolik menm).

Mwen rete la, paske diskisyon sa a se sou yon lòt "thread", li ye.

Epi frè m, nou pa bezwen fè lese frape.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:06 pm

Gelin, Lè m pale de wou, kou yon Ka espesyal, se pa dega m vle manke w non....Epi frè m, nou pa bezwen fè lese frape.

Non monchè, lè m pale de lesefrape a m vle di brase lide, menmjan m abitye fè ak Jaf/Guy sou gwo kesyon sa yo. M ap vini....

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:54 am

For me, Gelin remains a special case. I don't understand how a geneticist like GELIN would believe in the mumbo jumbo of the "creation theory". Why is it that the DNA of a chimpanzee is about 99% of the DNA of a human?


Jonas, here what I see as far as education/science and religion/faith are concerned:

1. some people want only science and education, and nothing related to faith or religion. you can find examples...

2. other people want primarily faith and religion and little or no science and education. you have many examples...

3. a group would be happy with a lot of science/education combined with faith/religion. there are examples...

4. finally we have those who just want to live their lives with no faith/religion and as little education/science as possible. Examples are easy to find...

And it's true for christianity, islam, hinduism.....and any other faith you can find. For many many many people, faith and education are not necessarily antagonistic. One relates to the brain, the other to the heart and soul of the individual. And we have both, don't we?

I'll come back to the genetic similarities between man and the chimpanzee. I will also mention a few names where science and faith have lived together in harmony. Actually, many scientific discoveries were inspired by religious ideas...


gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:08 am

Jonas:

On the campus of Iowa State University, there is a bldg that bears the name of George W. Carver</B>, an african american former slave scientist. This man is in a class all by himself for all his scientific discoveries. Google him. Here an interesting story: <I>A Congressman once asked Carver where he learned all these things. He said from an old book, the Bible. The Senator was amazed that the Bible told about peanuts. Carver replied that it didn't, "But it tells about the God who made the peanut. I asked Him to show me what to do with the peanut, and He did."</I> Later in his life, Carver left ISU to go to Alabama for the Tuskegee Research Institute.

Next, you can also do a search on the father of genetics himself, the famous Gregor Mendel</B>. Mendel was a catholic monk, teacher and researcher. He discovered the basic genetic principles we all know today, but his work wasn't recognized or re-discovered until years a
fter his death. He was also a man of faith.

I guess it's not good to bring faith-related ideas under this thread for science and technology. So, let's leave it at that for now.


gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:27 am

It's okay, Gelin. This important discussion can be carried out here, since it involves our concepts of science as well. A problem usually occurs when we start new lines of discussion within older, loosely related threads with subject titles that do not at all reflect the content of the discussion. It's a problem because not everyone who comes to the forum reads everything. Some visitors pick only the subject titles that interest them. That's why I work so hard to place any major new discussion line under a subject title and forum category that are fairly indicative of what is being discussed. This is important for a good maintenance of the archives also, to facilitate research into what has already been written about. What I do, as the librarian of this forum, requires more work than most people would imagine. But I consider it important, because the forum may indeed serve in the long run as a tool of education and a tool for further dialogue. That's why I keep at it every day. Everyone can help in that regard by appropriately choosing the subject titles for their contributions and switching to a new topic or a new forum category, when appropriate.

That said, you made some general comments about the coexistence or non-coexistence between education/science and religion/faith in the minds of specific individuals. That is fine, but when I look back, I see that Jonas had referred specifically to " creation theory" in particular. In other words, Jonas did not advance the argument that faith and science cannot coexist. That may or may not be his position on the matter. What he specifically said was this:[quote]I don't understand how a geneticist like GELIN would believe in the mumbo jumbo of the "creation theory". [/quote]
That George W. Carver and Gregor Mendel, two eminent scientists, believed in God, is a counter-argument in search of an argument that
was not previously made. At least that's the way it appears to me. However, you are free to broaden the discussion if you please, but it's always good to address first the cards that are already on the table.

Finally, I want to point out that, in my opinion, faith and religion should not be so glibly associated because they are two very different things. People of religion are not necessarily people of faith, and people of faith are not necessarily people of religion. In the same way, I think that "creation theory" is basically a tenet of faith (this is how God created the Universe or Life on Earth, or so we would like to think, because it conforms more readily to biblical tales) and not of science.

The "creationists" like to point to phenomena not fully explained by the theory of evolution, while they comfortably fall back on what has been written in the Bible. Nothing wrong in that per se, except that they seem to forget that the Bible projects faith and is not a book of science. So there is truly nothing scientific about "creationism". It is FAITH, not SCIENCE. And no matter how creationists will attack the theory of evolution (and science itself, unlike faith, invites skepticism... a healthy dose of skepticism has ALWAYS propelled science to greater heights), those attacks will never advance creationism as a science, simply because it is not. I hope that you and I will agree on this: creationism IS NOT science. It is simply the fervent wish of people who would like to see natural phenomena align with whatever the sacred books have taught them.

Now, to address the larger issue that you raised, I do not think at all that faith and science are incompatible. It's often religion that gets in the way.

T-dodo

Post by T-dodo » Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:10 am

Good observations, Jonas (;-0) However, you should probably advance them in a continuation of this thread, Was Charles Darwin a creationist? or perhaps Punctuated Equilibrium, the two threads where Gelin and I have extensively discussed our views on the "natural" evolution (or creation) of Life on Earth (fascinating threads, really, if I may say so. I wish that more people would participate in them. At the very least, you'll have fodder to side either with our resident creationist Gelin or with me, who supports a different point of view. If you have not done so, I urge you to read those threads, and realize that science is a legitimate topic of discussion among Haitians as well.)


I enjoy a lot the discussions on those threads beween Guy and Gélin and now Jonas and Gélin. I wish I could join in. Unfortunately, I must admit that my readings in this area have been
very limited. I am comfortable sitting on the fence here and enjoying the "lesefrape" between you guys. Keep them coming!

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:59 pm

The original question would be why do I believe in the 'creation theory'?

Well, maybe because I was already a man of faith before I got into science and genetics. I put my faith in the scriptural Jesus when I was still in high school in PauP. Or, it's because I have not come across any scientific fact (not its mere interpretation) that points to the contrary. But, up to now I feel very comfortable with the idea of an original creation by a personal God and I can bring some good arguments for that particulat view.

Now, when I offered those scenarios about religion/faith and education/science, and when I offered the examples of Carver and Mendel, I wanted to stretch it a bit in an attempt to show that the two can "live" together in harmony. And I went further by saying that it's also the case outside of christianity. Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scientists do exist as well as Christian scientists, and that's ok.

Both evolut
ion and creation can be seen as mere theories. In that case, there should be nothing wrong to believe in either one of them. After all, isn't it what theories are for?

Maybe it's time to address the chimpanzee vs man thing......:o)

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:07 pm

Finally, I want to point out that, in my opinion, faith and religion should not be so glibly associated because they are two very different things. People of religion are not necessarily people of faith, and people of faith are not necessarily people of religion.

But the problem is that you must have a way to express your faith. And when you do, people call it religion.

In the same way, I think that "creation theory" is basically a tenet of faith (this is how God created the Universe or Life on Earth, or so we would like to think, because it conforms more readily to biblical</B> tales) and not of science.

But, not all creationists are christians who believe in the Bible.

...the Bible projects faith and is not a book of science.

This statement is powerful and means a lot. True, the Bible is not a book of science
and people need to be reminded of that when they read it.

...I do not think at all that faith and science are incompatible. It's often religion that gets in the way.

I agree. But as I said earlier, whenever you express your faith people will ask about your religion.

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Wed May 04, 2005 10:17 am

...Why is it that the DNA of a chimpanzee is about 99% of the DNA of a human?

That claim came originally from a paper published in 1987 by Sibley and Ahlquist in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. Although many evolutionists (among them S.J. Gould) were eager to spread the good news, others (evolutionists also) were unable to repeat the expreminent with similar results (a good requirement in science). Several reports seem to indicate that this claim was incorrect, meaning that the genetic similarities (as reported) were actually not there.

If necessary, we could look at some details...

gelin

Post Reply