Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
How religion affects acceptance of theories
Published on August 13, 2005 By Draginol In Biology

It never ceases to amaze me how blinded some people are by their religion.  They seem to be completely unaware of how their religion has biased them taking a more open-minded approach to scientific research.

Let me give you a tale of two theories.

Evolution is a theory that stipulates a set of principles on how life on earth changes (evolves) over time.  It has a great deal of documented evidence to support it.  However, because evolution contradicts the bible, many religious people try to find ways to discount it. They close their minds to it.  In the bible, life as we know it did not evolve but was rather created directly by the hand of God. This is especially true of humans.  Most religious people either take the stories in Genesis to not be true in the literal sense but try to argue that it is true symbolically (though even that's a stretch).  But the point being, because evolution contradicts an existing deep held religious belief, some people have trouble accepting it.

But compared to the theory of gravity, evolution is rock hard fact.  We actually do not know how gravity works.  We have observed that gravity is related to mass. And we have made some formulas that describe how gravity is related to mass (F=MA for example).  But we still do not have a clue as to what causes gravity.  Why does mass create gravity? No idea (and things get sketchier about strong and weak forces too but we'll hold off that for another time).  But religious people don't challenge the theory of gravity even though it's on weaker ground.  But imagine if the bible had stated something vaguely that God's arms push down on all things to keep them in place on the world. That his infinite arms pushed objects towards bigger objects.

One can imagine the debates we'd be having if the bible spoke on gravity.  Instead of the accepted belief that gravity PULLS objects towards each other, we would instead have people arguing that no, God PUSHES people towards things based on their size or something. We'd have "Intelligent Gravitation" or something like that.  And because of that, we could potentially have real damage done to genuine scientific research because some people would insist on looking for data that supported that some mystical, super natural force was pushing people against objects rather than focusing on mass creating a pull effect (gravity) and trying to figure out why that is.

That's why things like intelligent design are so problematic. Because they're not based on any scientific evidence (no more than the belief that some unknown force is pushing all things towards other things based on their size) it can slow down scientific advancement and cloud education.

I much prefer to have my beliefs be based on the evidence rather than looking for evidence to support my pre-existing beliefs. But religion tends to be pretty dogmatic and blind people to looking at other possibilities.  It's not as if religion doesn't get its shot for explaining the universe.  Most Americans who believe in evolution (statistically) were raised in a Christian household.  That means most of them changed their views because the data supporting evolution was more compelling than the data supporting Creationism. 

Evolution wasn't taught in my high school.  I, like most people, started out believing in the bible's explanation on how humans got here.  It was only over time that I found that the bible's explanation was not plausible.  The earth was simply too old. There were too many extinct creatures. There was too much rather obvious local adaptation by animals to believe that some super natural being (or alien) was sitting around tweaking some caterpillar to look like the local vegetation in South America that had only been growing there for the past 8 million years. 

As time went on, evolution and natural selection became more and more compelling as causes of where the bio-diversity we have came from. And even once I was convinced that the theory of evolution was fact, more evidence still came my way. Just a few years ago when DNA came to be better understood there would be occasional reports on how scientists tweaked some gene in some animal to produce a radically different animal.  Then came Mitochondrial DNA tracking in which we can tell when one species was another and when.

But such evidence doesn't exist in the same form for the theory of gravity.  Luckily, the bible doesn't speak about it (which is odd since gravity is a pretty crucial thing that you would think a super being would want to talk about unless of course the writings were not by a higher being but rather by pre-industrial humans with a limited understanding of their environments but I digress).


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 13, 2005
Draginol, that was an excellent article. It puts it all in perspective.

For the record, I am somewhat religious. I go to the service every Friday evening, sometimes Saturday mornings, and I attend all festival services. I believe in G-d, but I know that belief has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a part of the world that G-d created. If I cannot reconcile that fact with my understanding of the Bible, that's certainly my problem, but it won't change reality.

on Aug 13, 2005
Exactly the point. Excellent.

BTW, you gave the equation for Force, not gravity. Gravity exerts force, but that is a byproduct of the equation. The equation is G = (M1M2)/R^2 where R = the Radius (or distance) between the objects and M1 = the mass of the first object and M2 is the mass of the second object.

Similiarily electricty and magnetism both use the same equation stated differently.

Religion is a guess. Guesses don't matter when you have cold hard facts (like walking on air, when you're falling at 9.8 m/s^2 off the top of a building and the ground is coming at you really quickly...). Throw away the guesses when you get facts and forget the guesses because they're guesses and have either been proven right or wrong, by the facts discovered and thus are now irrelivent. (see other post)

Andrew J. Brehm: Fantastic point of view. Terry Goodkind puts it this way: You're free to ignore reality, but you're not free to ignore the consequences of it.
on Aug 14, 2005
BTW, you gave the equation for Force, not gravity. Gravity exerts force, but that is a byproduct of the equation. The equation is G = (M1M2)/R^2 where R = the Radius (or distance) between the objects and M1 = the mass of the first object and M2 is the mass of the second object.

The classical two-body equation is usually written g = (m1 × m2) × G × r^-2 where g has units of force (Newtons = kg m s^-2) and G is the Newtonian gravitational constant (about 6.67300 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2).
on Aug 14, 2005
The problem I have with ID (and I am a regular churchgoer who believes in the existence of a Creator) is that it's a theory that can't be proved. You'll find various definitions, but most agree that the scientific method is characterized by testable hypotheses, reproducible results, and the ability to make predictions, all lacking in ID's case. BTW, I'm a long time reader of joeuser.com and enjoy Brad's writing, but in this case I believe he's mistaken. We don't know all the "whys" of gravity, but we know a lot about how it works. The theory of gravity has been tested---and modified--over many centuries, and the most famous scientists in history, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, all made important contributions. Science tries to explain why, but it is not essential that it does.
on Aug 14, 2005

The problem I have with ID (and I am a regular churchgoer who believes in the existence of a Creator) is that it's a theory that can't be proved. You'll find various definitions, but most agree that the scientific method is characterized by testable hypotheses, reproducible results, and the ability to make predictions, all lacking in ID's case.

Ah!  But there you are wrong.  For while it may be just a theory or hypothesis, it is being proven in the labs every day.  Man is manipulating plants and animals to suit their own need.  Is that not, at least to the lower class of animals, playing god?  ID my be false, or it may be true.  In the end, if it is true, it will be proven to be true.

on Aug 14, 2005
You cannot prove that some super-being (or alien) was "guiding" evolution.
on Aug 14, 2005

You cannot prove that some super-being (or alien) was "guiding" evolution.

Not at this time, no.  hence it is not a fact.  In the future?  perhaps.  But as we (mankind) start playing God with life, it re-inforces the hypothesis.  it does not prove it.  But it suggests that it is a viable explanation.

on Aug 14, 2005
You wrote

> compared to the theory of gravity, evolution is rock hard fact.

Umm, Draginol, theories of gravity (from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein) have made specific, quanitifiable, falsifiable predictions which were later disproven (in the case of Aristotle) or verified (Newton, Einstein). Care to name a similar specific, quantifiable, falsifiable prediction from the theory of evolution?
on Aug 14, 2005
Care to name a similar specific, quantifiable, falsifiable prediction from the theory of evolution?

Link
Pay special attention to the section "Some Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees" for detailed, quantitative analysis.
on Aug 14, 2005

Not at this time, no. hence it is not a fact. In the future? perhaps. But as we (mankind) start playing God with life, it re-inforces the hypothesis. it does not prove it. But it suggests that it is a viable explanation.

No, even in the future we will not be able to prove that some super being was, over the past 3 billion years "guiding" evolution.

on Aug 14, 2005

Umm, Draginol, theories of gravity (from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein) have made specific, quanitifiable, falsifiable predictions which were later disproven (in the case of Aristotle) or verified (Newton, Einstein). Care to name a similar specific, quantifiable, falsifiable prediction from the theory of evolution?

Ummm (don't you love how people love to start out with that phrase).. Care to address what I wrote in the article -- do you know what creates gravity?

We have equations that describe the EFFECT of gravity.  Do not confuse gravity with the EFFECT of gravity which is what things like F=MA have to do with. Newton, Einstein, etc. have no idea what causes gravity. We have theories that state that mass generates gravity but we really don't know.

Perhaps someday we'll discover that mass creates a sort of indention into the 4th dimension that creates the force called gravity.  But right now, we don't know.  We just know that we can describe the effect of gravity by looking at the mass of various objects.  I.e. My mass pulls the Earth towards me (a tiny tiny bit) and the Earth's mass pulls me towards it. 

As for testing evolution -- there are lots of demonstrates of evolution in effect in controlled environements.  Most of these have to do with studies on insects and plants in which the environment is altered to favor particular traits and by the end of the experiment, those traits are in the latest generation of organism.

on Aug 14, 2005
that's weird. it was only this satuday night that i entered into me 'too much red wine and isn't it weird why matter attracts perplexing dinner part guests who now think i'm a bit weird' zone. must be the the Law of Causative Formation
on Aug 14, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

on Aug 15, 2005
If I recall correctly, the Bible specifically says that one must not test G-d.

So how could one legally prove that G-d created anything?
on Aug 15, 2005
Not at this time, no. hence it is not a fact. In the future? perhaps. But as we (mankind) start playing God with life, it re-inforces the hypothesis. it does not prove it. But it suggests that it is a viable explanation


Aah, now it all becomes clear. In the future man will travel back in time to create life

Seriously though, having the ability to create or modify life does not equate to proof of some other being being able to do the same. The only thing it proves is that whoever is doing it at the time has the ability to do so.
4 Pages1 2 3 4