There is a lively discussion in the comments to Is it unscientific to believe in God?, the blog post below this one. I have decided to open it to more discussion. To me, this is a very interesting topic, especially since I have been on both sides of it.
The essential question regarding whether it Is unscientific to believe in God is this:
“How did life begin”.
No matter what your answer is to that question, you must have faith to believe it.
For over forty years, I believed that the origin of life on earth, the arising of the first cell complete with DNA, was the result of a cosmic combination of time and chance. I was led to believe that it was a scientific fact, but scientific evidence has to be testable and repeatable,
I came to the conclusion that if something only happened once, like the origin of life (and DNA), and there is no evidence of how it happened, then how you believe it happened is a matter of faith
After considerable thought, and lots of reading of lots of books over the period of nine months, I came to believe (by a process of elimination) that there was scientific evidence that life required a designer (creator). It is my faith the creator (designer) is God of the Bible.
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive; it’s just matters how you interpret the scientific evidence.
Now, I know you probably think I’m ignorant and ill-informed, and I really don’t mind. I felt the same way until 12 years ago. Nothing you say will hurt my feelings, and nothing you say will change my mind. So, let the discussion continue!
X
PS: I want to re-post this paragraph from the other blog:
I would like to recommend a book. Each chapter is by a different scientist who gives evidence of things in his or field of science that cannot be explained by purely physical and natural means. You can read it for free, online:
In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
PPS:
I made a point in a comment that I want to copy here: (with typos fixed – man I can’t type worth beans):
I do not believe in God as creator because “the Bible tells me so” (a common misconception). I believe in God as creator because, in my examination of the scientific evidence, there is no other explanation for how a computer program with all the instructions to make a living being (DNA) could happen by chance.
DNA is made in the cell, and the cell is made by the directions in the DNA.
If we see a square rock in a excavation, we know it was made by design, a human must have been there. But, if DNA is found in every single living cell, that is thought, by “science” to be a process of chance.
Mainstream science begins with the conclusion that all things happened without the help of a creator, then makes its examinations of the evidence. The results of the examination of the evidence are already tainted because the conclusion is made before the science begins.
X
X-Evolutionist's Space 
Brought up a catholic I did the opposite about turn to you, and at a much earlier age,and some 30 odd years later I am still not convinced that either explanation works. Neither can be proved, although I suspect scientific proof of evolution would be much easier, than proving the existence of god, barring the fact that he may strike me down any minute! As I see it, God is an idea, in which some need to believe, to explain the mysteries of life, because the whole eternity/infinity is beyond the ablity of our the brains to grasp! And who doesn\’t need the all powerful being to help out every now and again There have always been Gods of some description, mostly I think because man, as a species is utter cr*p at getting along with himself and needed a higher power to "smite him" if he got to far out of line! But which God are we talking about, because I believe there are several, very strong contenders!Quote "If god didn\’t exist we\’d have to invent him" (Voltaire – I think)
Ok, X, since you\’ve really opened up the discussion here, here\’s my 2¢ (excellent topic for discussion, BTW)…I would have to say that scientific community as a whole does not have "faith" in the preveiling view of the big bang/evolution creation theory: they have simply drawn the most likely conclusions, based on a widely accepted scientific process, the observation of the evidence, and the research that has been performed. Granted, we\’re talking about something that happened billions of years ago, so there\’s going to be some gaps. And the scientific community is broad and vast; of course there will be a few dissenters (which is not altogether a bad thing, Galileo was a dissenter, and things worked out pretty well for him – at least in the long run). The first tenet of good science is that you cannot believe in anything absolutely, and you have to be willing to change your view based on the evidence. That said, if better evidence came along tomorrow, the community would have no qualms about adjusting their world view. But that just hasn\’t happened yet, in the opinion of the community.On the other hand, biblical creationists tend to work from the opposite end of the spectrum. They start with a core belief (God, Eden, the flood, lots of people begetting other people, etc.), and then try to make the evidence fit into that model, because faith, by definition, does not allow them to step outside that box (not a criticism, just an observation). The Bible is, after all, pretty sketchy on a lot of the details and may be incomplete. Whether or not you believe the Bible was written by man or God, the Council of Nicea (all men) debated about what was important enough to make the final cut we know today, and even that has been translated repeatedly. So it becomes about making the pieces fit into a premise that may be fundamentally flawed in the first place. It\’s like the old addage: when your only tool is a hammer, then all of your problems start to look like nails.For me, it\’s a bit like the CSI team trying to put together the pieces of a crime that no one witnessed. At the scene, they find a body, shell casings, blood stains, and fingerprints. From the evidence and forensic tests they perform, they determine it was a murder. 99.999% of the time, they\’re right. Just because they can\’t shoot someone else to verify their hypothesis doesn\’t make it any less valid. They followed accepted protocols and let the evidence lead them to their conclusion.The fact is that no one can "prove" or "disprove" religion. Like I said before, it\’s a personal choice, either you believe it or you don\’t. It\’s all about choosing the path that makes the most sense to you, whether you use your heart or your mind. I\’m just glad we live in a world where such a discussion can take place.
@Greg ….quote "I\’m just glad we live in a world where such a discussion can take place. " We live in countries, (US and UK) where such discussion can take place NOT in a world where it can (thanks in part to a belief in a god!)
Excellent point, Mandxx. Further evidence why religion and politics do not good bedfellows make.
I added this to the original post than noticed that the discussion was continuing here so i added it here also. I do not believe in the big bang theory by any mean\’s. I believe that God, "The Word" created the heaven\’s and the earth. He spoke it and it happened instantaniously maybe there was a big bang when that happened. The beauty of it is we will all find out when we die, which we will all do eventually. Unless the rapture come\’s first… Hmmm…
I do not believe in God as creator because "the Bible tells me so" (a common misconception). I believe in God as creator because, in my examination of the scientific evidence, there is no other explanation for how a computer program with all the instructions to make a living being (DNA) could happen by chance. DNA is made in the cell, and the cell is made by the directions in the DNA. If we see a square rock in a excavation, we know it was made by design, a human must have been there. Buit, if DNA is found in every single living cell, that is thought, by "science" to be a process of chance.Mainstream science begins with the conclution that all things happened without the help of a creator, then makes its examinations of the evidence. The results of the examination of the evidence are already tainted because the conclusion is made before the science begins.
Explaining that scientific evolution presumes that a functioning cell as we know it, complete with a DNA-based nucleus, mitochondria, etc., evolved from nothing instantaneously is quite a bit of an overstatement. Lots of living things, such as protozoa, lack a lot of the more sophisticated systems of our cells, and yet we classify them as living creatures.Stating that an intact, complex, modern organism just popped into existance would be akin to seeing a modern supercomputer and saying it wasn\’t built on anything more primative. I have a drawer full of old calculators that would beg to differ. And I don\’t think that the current scientific view of evolution makes that supposition in the least.As I remember it from Bio Chem, the scientific theory of evolution involves simple compounds forming proteins, and those proteins forming amino acids, which over time, built into more and more complex structures, and eventually formed simple organisms with the ability to "reproduce" (proably replicate would be a better word) themselves. Some simple creatures found it mutually beneficial to live inside other creatures, and over time they became cell structures such as mitochondria in our modern cells. We\’re looking at the timescale from the reference point of our own time on this planet, which if the lifespan of the planet were a 12-month calendar, would come out to about ½ a second at the end of the last day. When you think about it, 5 billion years is a loooooong time, and it seems that there\’s plenty of time for these changes to gradually build up (or even snuff out completely and start all over again).
But isn\’t that a bit …."A" can\’t be right, so it must be "B" …… because you don\’t understand what can make "A" right,There hasn\’t just been the chance happening of DNA (although I believe RNA is the forerunner to DNA, and a simpler version (simply put)) there has been an awful lot of other stuff going on, changes in the world over billions of years, in atmosphere, pressure, orientation, radiation/mutation, a wealth of conditions that can\’t be copied in a lab. and may never be but because we can\’t recreate the circumstances or conditions that MAY have brought about RNA/DNA doesn\’t mean they couldn\’t spontaneously have happened.And yet you are willing to believe in a god who created us and everything? But from what? What materials did he use? Was he an unimaginably enormous being, larger than the universe, which he created? Or was it all already there and just added life?The answer that is "GOD" …….. just begs more questions? (again, which GOD?)
For all who find this type of philosophy interesting, might I suggest a book called "God\’s Debris: A Thought Experiment" by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame). It\’s a sharp and insightful philosophical view of God, the universe, the mesh of science and ethics, and how we may all have come to be. It certainly doesn\’t ask you to change your worldview (I loathe anything preachy) but it does slip a few zingers (for both sides of the debate) into the mix. You can get a free (legal) PDF copy at http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/. Do yourself a favor and check it out (plus it\’s a short read).
This conversation reminds me of the tale of the four blind men describing an elephant. They each touched a different part of the elephant, and thought the elephant was four different things. None of us really can understand why another of us believes what we believe. We all come from dfferent parts of the world, with different experiences, diffrent teachings, different assumptions, different worldviews. We all feel that our own belief is the valid belief, based upon what we each know to be true. But, we all differ on what is true. I appreciate everybody joining in the discussion! I hope to see more valid points! Thank you all!X
I see I spelled instantaneously wrong oops !! I guess that I do not have the level of intelligence required to participate in this conversation. That is why for me faith is a blessing, I do not have to know everything about DNA/RNA, radiation/ mutaton, how cell\’s form, how old the earth is. I chose to believe, I now have a personal relationship with him, I sought him and to my great suprise found him. I talk to him and he answer\’s in amazing and wonderful way\’s, because of this I know he exist\’s, and no so called "scientific proof" can ever change my mind. When I reffered to "The Word" I meant God/Jesus not the bible, although I do believe the bible is the inspired word of God.
I have noticed the lack of "Evolution" in this discussion, another assumed progression after the"Big Bang" by the scientific community. If evolution was the course taken, why has no recordable evolution of a species been recorded for a long period of time? If evolution were indeed fact what will WE evolve into? because evolution would not just hit on "Human" and stop to evolve, would it? As a topic of discussion this is great, but in the real world who is right or who is wrong is really irrelevant. "Faith" in a greater being or in Science is just that, Faith. Either way we will only know the answer after we have died, until then we direct our "Faith" to our own comfort zone and system of belief that is best for ourselves.At the end of the day a person is going to say,do and believe what makes that day more satisfying. Whatever science or religion or lack of both betters their existence is what they will believe. All and all, religion, Science, evolution, creation or skeptic, It\’s all about "Faith". (and that\’s what George Michael was singing about, you got to have it.)
Robin, don\’t worry, I knew what you meant. John 1:1
Hi Bob, The word "evolution" means different things to different people, so I avoid it. For instance, Darwin\’s finches. All he saw was was finches with different sized beaks. Nothing evolved. That is just variation within a species, the same as with the different breeds of dogs. The peppered moth, also, white moths, black moths, white moths. Nothng evolved. There were always black and white moths, just in different numbers. Most of the evidence for "evolution" can be explained by simple genetics.
@Bob ………We are not trying to change any ones views, here, more trying to understand why they have them, In Robins case blind faith, which of course, can\’t be questioned or answered, given it is just that, FAITH, in X\’s case it seems to be an informed decision, I would like to know why?As for evolution, which tend to happen over VERY long periods of time, I believe there is recordable instances, of insects (fruit flies?) evolving, for human beings, evolution takes much, much, longer, (though we do have our own little pocket of evolution called the appendix) Like watching a very large kettle boil!
Hi Mandxx, I have a website where I talk about why I believe what I believe. Thank you for saying that it is an informed decision. I know that mine is a minority belief, but yes, I do think mine was an informed decision based upon a lot of research on my part. (Reasons Why I Believe in God: http://X-Evolutionist.com/
Hi Mandxx, I know that you\’re not trying to change views nor was I, just tossing something else into the mix to expand on the discussion, which I think is a great one. Being a smart arse with a warped humor I have to mention my laughing at X\’s previous comment, "word "evolution" means different things to different people, so I avoid it." HUH? you name is X-"Evolutionist" me thinks the "avoidance ain\’t working. LOLJust a joke X, I know what you mean.
Wow this has been a popular one. Way to stir up the pot, X!
Bobo, oh you got my number! You know? I never realized how silly that sounds till just now! When I first named myself X-Evolutionist five years ago, I didn\’t yet realize that the word "evolutionist" means so many different things to so many people. X-Abiogenesis is a little difficult for me to say. My tongue gets twisted. Thanks for the laugh!
Yep, Greg. This has been very interesting. Too bad there isn\’t an actual "message board" feature in Live. But, at least we can all get in our two cents, as you would say.
LOL I am not ashamed of my blind faith….. I chose to believe at a young age, since then I have sought proof and read many book\’s nothing presented has changed my belief in a creator. I am informed, but i am not a scientist so I do not always seek proof through science. My interest is biblical Archaeology so I usually spend my free time studying that. I think that it take\’s just as much blind faith to believe in evolution as it does God.
That\’s basically my point, Robin. Whether one believes that life began by a process of time and chance or they believe that life was created by an intelligent designer, they both take faith. There is no proof for either one, so they both take faith. As constitutional attorney Wendell Bird has pointed out: "Evolution is at least as religious as creation, and creation is at least as scientific as evolution."
About my dislike of the word "evolution" because it is meaningless without the definition of the person speaking:For instance, some people use "evolution\’ to explain why some dogs have long ears, and some birds have long beaks. I would look like an idiot in that person\’s eyes if I said I don\’t believe in evolution, because some dogs obviously do have long ears and some birds obvously hav long beaks.
Sorry Robin I didn\’t mean that as a put down! But I still can\’t quite get my head round one point …….. WHOSE god, created what you believe to have been created by god, or is it only one god, and the rest is wrong, and in that case why are there so many with the same belief system and how did he go about the creation?
@Greg, yes it is popular, so popular in fact I am asking X to write my next few posts on my site. See if that draws more visitors. HeHe
Off the topic but kind of still on the topic, did you guys know that Charles Darwin gave a lot of reasons to not believe his theory? In chapters 6 and 9 of "The Origin Of Species" he gave his concerns, the missing evidence, that he hoped would show up in the years to come. Check this out: http://x-evolutionist.com/origin-of-species.html
@greg and Bob …….. So I\’m guessing the next topic will be politics???
@ X – how about a public WL Group dedicated to discussions of Biblical creationism vs. big bang/evolution? Also, Darwin did his research long before Gregor Mendel, so there was little evidence for the cellular mechanism (i.e., genetics) that would power his theory. He just had a really good idea, so we can\’t fault him for being a little doubtful about how it might work. I\’m sure Einstein felt a little crazy at times, too, but it doesn\’t mean he was wrong.
OK, Bobo, you asked for it. I posted a comment about the Cambrian Explosion, with a quote from three evolutionists on your blog. The quote shows that all the basic types of animals were in the fossil record right from the start. Enjoy!Greg, I appreciate your idea. It is my experience that discussions of this sort most often get very hateful and nasty, so I\’m usually not fond of debating. This discussion here has been very cordial, which is very nice. However, if you want to starta group, I will get on board. I do not want to be the owner. Thanks for the suggestion!
Thank\’s Mandxx, I really enjoyed this today and would like to continue, but I have to log off now. Let\’s do this again !! Thank\’s X take care.
Hi Robin, thanks for joining in!
Me too, Robin, enjoyed it and have to log off ………. 24 has started on the box!
Thanks X I will definitely give it a read. "very hateful and nasty," no, no, no X not here on Live. This is a nice place and with all our efforts it will stay that way, Why? Because we can. Let them on wordpress and blogger have all the nasty creatures.
By Manxx…….enjoy the day
rushed and mis-spelled everything….oops
I used to hang out in the Philosophy board on IMDB.com. There were a lot of people who came there just to call creationists names and threaten them. If you promise that a Live Group would be cordial, I\’ll be a part of it. Heck, I\’ll be a part of it anyway.
Bobo, there are no points taken off for spelling. Don\’t worry!
l have to jump in for a sec. Mandxx l just found out about the Baihi religion that proposes there is one God. The one God sent down all of the religions at different times to fill different needs in time. lnteresting belief. So, they don\’t fight – my god, your god.
Hey, Tracey, thanks for joining in.
commercial break ……. @tracey see if I were to believe that would be the one for me!! LOL
honestly! me too, the woman who explained it to me – her daughter goes to a Sunday school where she learns about all the religions. Sounds so interesting to me – they believe everything because it all comes from the same place. They have the usual restrictions unfortunately – homosexual=bad, sex outside marriage=bad. You can look it up on net.
Clarify – they believe everything means – believe all religions have same basic beliefs so no argument is needed between different ones.Also my beliefs: l don\’t believe in any god – it does not make sense to me and hasn\’t since l was a teen. l believe we evolved from a soupy muck in a pool of water, but can\’t wrap my head around the big bang theory. What WAS before the bang? l\’m not sure we are supposed to be able to grasp time/space. But that\’s me, and l\’m no brainiac.l believe in the wonder of the universe, the beauty and bounty of this earth and l believe in the supreme importance of the trees, the water, the grasses and all the creatures who live here. With perhaps the exception of us – my reservations on "us" is of course because we do so much damage.
I believe in adaptation and I do think that all species have adapted to certain environments or conditions, but for me, to believe in evolution would mean that there would be no monkeys only humans. I have only to look at a child being born or a flower growing to know that there is a God! Many scientists say that the number of coincidences that it would take to create life make it impossible that it happened by accident. The way each living thing works is in itself a miracle. A miracle that we are so fragile, yet so strong. I have had many years of doubting God or trying not to believe in God, but I always come back to my faith in a divine being. I have a friend who is an atheist and sometimes I wonder about why he feels that way, but since I am a Christian and he is an atheist we agree to not push our beliefs on each other. I love him even if he doesn\’t believe in God and hope that he loves me even though I do believe. I cannot believe that we came from an accident, our bodies are too wonderful and mystical to have been a flash in the pan, so to speak! Just my two cents!
Thanks for your two cents, Sherri. We have a wide variety of beliefs being represented here today. I have been very pleased with how well everybody has treated each other on this touchy topic. Thanks for joining in!
“Will you come into my parlor,” said the creationist to the evolutionist? Yikes! So, if this question of scientific worthiness of a belief in god is reduced to how life began then I don’t care how you argue either way so long as you are rational about it. However, after reviewing some of the links presented here I find arguments by scientists saying things like the bible is the inspired word of god by quoting a verse in the bible that says it’s truly the word and so it supersedes all other hypotheses. It’s circular. I find that illogical and irrational as I find most biblically based arguments. But even based on faith, the bible taken literally is problematic as it has inconsistencies. So, if one can say the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, to be interpreted literally, perfect and without error, and then one finds an error then the validity of the divinity is questionable. I went googling for such inconsistencies. I am aware of a few such as two versions of the creation myth stories, and one of those websites in one of the posts had a long series of “explaining” apparent inconsistencies. One only needs to search on terms like “biblical inconsistencies“ to find the web chock-full of pages eager to assist. Googling, I discovered this little gem of a free movie at http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com. The first 5 minutes or so the screen is black while there is just talk. And after the first 30 minutes or so I was just shocked. I had no idea! The movie is about the truth. It may be its version of the truth, but it was fascinating. And I think X-Evolutionist was “divinely inspired” to make this topic and steer me to it! And wow – amazing timing with this being the Bush’s last day! I stayed up late to watch it. So for me, any talk of design vs. evolution is fine so long as it doesn’t quote scripture. Anyway, check it out.
Hi Jeffrey, It was the scientific evididence for design that got me to believe that there must have been a designer My Belief in the God of the Bible as the designer came later. I had many Christians preach "at" me over the years before I believed. It wasn\’t until one dared me to read a book about the lack of scientific proof for the things that I believed tht started me on the long road to belief in God.
Jeffrey, your post started with this: “Will you come into my parlor,” said the creationist to the evolutionist? Yikes! So, if this question of scientific worthiness of a belief in god is reduced to how life began then I don’t care how you argue either way so long as you are rational about it. and ended with this:"And I think X-Evolutionist was “divinely inspired” to make this topic and steer me to it!"Thank you!
Warning: Zeitgeist is awesome, but it\’s not for the timid. In fact, it\’s likely to make you shit your britches. It\’s like philosophy, mixed with a dash of paranoia and conspiracy theory, set to a Pink Floyd laser-light show. And it\’s definitely anti-religion (not necessarily anti-spiritualism). Love the George Carlin bits. Like Jeffrey said, it\’s about truth (whose truth I\’m not sure). I don\’t see the need to scare people into believing or not-believing, either way. Bill Maher\’s "Religulous" (decidedly kind of spoofing all religions) or Ben Stein\’s "Expelled" (in defense of intelligent design) are far funnier and lighter fare, although not necessarily as thought-provoking as Zeitgeist. You might want to check those out, just to be well-rounded.
I have seen Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", I can\’t wait till "Religulous" comes to DVD in Netflix, and I I have Zeitgeist paused right now – going to watch some more after I post this.Hey, Greg, this discussion is all your fault. You posted that discussion on All Things Live to post a favorite blog post of the past. When I thought of this one, I also decided to post it again, and here we are. All your fault. Tee hee.Hey, everybody, Join "All Things Live" GroupSharing info about Windows Live serviceshttp://hackmsnspaces.groups.live.com/
LOL, I\’ll take the blame. Religulous was great, I\’d highly recommend it. BTW, if you want to watch Zeitgeist with a much better (DVD quality) resolution, get it as a DivX-encoded AVI on BitTorrent (http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/39502984/zeitgeist+the+movie?tab=summary). I\’m certainly not sponsoring the movie, but it\’s a much better visual quality. Remember that I warned you about its content.
Thank you for the warning, Greg. I\’m not very far into it yet. I can\’t type and listen at the same time. Clarification of my point of view for everybody: Not only Biblical Creationists doubt the origin of life from purely natural means. There are a lot of scientists who are proponents of Intelligent Design, but do not know who the designer is. I have read books that do not even mention God which show that there must have been a designer. One is Darwin\’s Black Box by Michael Behe, a microbiologist. Here\’s his bio, and info on his idea of "irruducible complexity"http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/faculty/behe.htmlIn addition, some even believe in Panspermia, that life is too complex to have happened by chance here. They move the natual arising of life into outer space, and say they seeded life on earth. To me, that\’s not a solution, it only moves the improbably chance if it happening into outter space.On the other hand, life could have been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as some say.
Good grief! That was comment number 50 on this blog. I can\’t believe how many people have posted! I want to read more. Who else wants to be heard?
ANNOUNCEMENT!This discussion is being moved to my new group:Stump the CreationistQuestion my beliefs, or share your own beliefs. Everybody is welcome!http://stump-the-creationist.groups.live.com/
The laws of logic does not apply to God, because God is unscientific, and logic is not. If the laws of logic applied to God, then God would be scientific like us humans. Being scientific is not an attribute of God and is not Godly. You wouldn\’t expect God to be scientific, and have logical thoughts like us. The thing is that God is so unscientific, that people think there\’s a scientific explanation to prove that there\’s no God. But in fact, God is so unscientific, that we humans can\’t imagine it. Logic cannot be preformed without a creator of logic, That creator is God. Logic alone, cannot possibly create anything. If you say logic super seeds God, then logic would be the sole and eternal creator for everything, because then logic would exist before God, which is unscientific, because logic alone cannot create anything. The creator of logic therefore, has to be eternal and self sufficient, meaning that this creator (God) can\’t possibly rely on logic, because if God relied on logic, then logic alone would be higher than God, and logic alone would be the sole creator of everything, which is impossible, because logic is scientific, and for something to be scientific, it\’s sole creator must be unscientific, otherwise you would have creators creating creation, ad infinitum. Therefore, it is scientific to say that ANYTHING scientific cannot be God. Logic is scientific, and therefore cannot be God. It\’s also scientific to say that everything scientific which exists, must have originally come from someone unscientific. We Muslims call that someone: Allah.