Wednesday, December 5, 2012
On the fundamental question--evolution or creation?--Americans are on the fence. According to one survey, while 61% of Americans believe we have evolved over time, 22% believe this evolution was guided by a higher power, with another 31% on the side of creationism. For some, modern science debunks many of religion's core beliefs, but for others, questions like "Why are we here?" and "How did it all come about?" can only be answered through a belief in the existence of God. Can science and religion co-exist?
Director, Origins Project and Foundation Professor, ASU
Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and author
Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, MIT
Author, What's So Great About Christianity
Author & Correspondent for ABC News
Director, Origins Project and Foundation Professor, ASU
Lawrence Krauss is an internationally known theoretical physicist. He is the Director of the Origins Project and Professor of Physics at the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University. Krauss has written several bestselling books including A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (2012). Passionate about educating the public about science to ensure sound public policy, Krauss has helped lead a national effort to defend the teaching of evolution in public schools. He currently serves as Chair of the Board of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.Learn more
Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and author
Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and Editor of Skeptic.com, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and an Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University and Chapman University. Shermer’s latest book is The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (2011). He was a college professor for 20 years, and since his creation of Skeptic magazine, has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, and Charlie Rose. Shermer was the co-host and co-producer of the 13-hour Family Channel television series Exploring the Unknown.Learn more
Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT
Ian Hutchinson is a physicist and Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He and his research group are international leaders exploring the generation and confinement (using magnetic fields) of plasmas hotter than the sun's center. This research, carried out on a national experimental facility designed, built, and operated by Hutchinson's team, is aimed at producing practical energy for society from controlled nuclear fusion reactions, the power source of the stars. In addition to authoring 200 research articles about plasma physics, Hutchinson has written and spoken widely on the relationship between science and Christianity. His recent book Monopolizing Knowledge (2011) explores how the error of scientism arose, how it undermines reason as well as religion, and how it feeds today's culture wars and an excessive reliance on technology.Learn more
Author, What's So Great About Christianity
A New York Times bestselling author, Dinesh D’Souza, has had a distinguished 25-year career as a writer, scholar and intellectual. A former Policy Analyst in the Reagan White House, D’Souza also served as an Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute as well as a Rishwain Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Called one of the “top young public-policy makers in the country” by Investor’s Business Daily, he quickly became a major influence on public policy through his writings. In 2008 D’Souza released the book, What’s So Great About Christianity, the comprehensive answer to a spate of atheist books denouncing theism in general and Christianity in particular. D'Souza is also the former President of The King’s College in NYC,
62% voted the same way in BOTH pre- and post-debate votes (31% voted FOR twice, 24% voted AGAINST twice, 8% voted UNDECIDED twice). 38% changed their mind (6% voted FOR then changed to AGAINST, 2% voted FOR then changed to UNDECIDED, 7% voted AGAINST then changed to FOR, 2% voted AGAINST then changed to UNDECIDED, 13% voted UNDECIDED then changed to FOR, 8% voted UNDECIDED then changed to AGAINST) | Breakdown Graphic
This vote is deceptive. I was confused as to what for and against actually were. I wouldn't doubt that some of the fores meant against and vise versa. At any rate, Christians consider religion man's attempt to reach God and relationship God's attempt to reach man. Christians beieve in a relationship rather than a religion. How can science disprove that my relationship with God doesn't exist?!
To Shawn G and Anthony K's points:
Recently, even the 700 Club's Pat Robertson has begun to refute the young-earth hypothesis, which is utter bunk. I always got a chuckle from the idea that God put fossils on earth to test humans. This is truly a bizarre conclusion.
Science can demonstrate evolution as a 99% likely true theory, and some religious people will reject it nonetheless.
The difference, I think is the Big Bang Theory because that moment of creation is theoretically compatible with the Old Testament doctrine. But, no Holy books I know even make mention of fossils or young earth, so religious people need not reject those theories.
Most of the scientifically-wrong claims made by religious folks are not textual/ canonical. I.e., it was man-made Catholic doctrine from the Pope - not Abraham, Moses, and Jesus - which rejected Copernicus, Brahe, and heliocentric models of the solar system.
As to Hitler and the Catholic Church: well, there's a reason Martin Luther stood up to the Catholic Church several hundred years ago. Their "sins" and religious warmaking are proofs of human fallibility, not disproofs of science or faith. Athiests like Stalin and Mao were just as effective with their violent state-religions (communism/ socialism) than religious leaders were decades before.
Whilst science may not completely falsify religious claims (or in this case the tenets of Christian dogma), it has certainly exposed it and embarrassed it.
History is full of cases where religion and its authoritative institutions provided the uneducated masses with answers:
Heliocentrism was accepted. Adam and Eve weren't allegories, metaphors, myths or the like, they were real, living beings who were the first humans created in the image of God. The Big Bang was not even considered, for the earth and the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago by the Creator, God.
But of course any semi-intelligent man will tell you that every one of the previously immutable, infallible answers provided by God and his representative body(ies) on earth are now utterly false.
Evolution, Big Bang, an expanding cosmos with the earth in some remote corner of an unimportant galaxy... science has truly shattered the infallibility and power of the Church.
Of course, Apologists can find excuses and reasons such as stating that God 'set these processes into motion', directly contradicting these seemingly pointless metaphors of the OT, but who are they kidding? If I am not permitted to make the claim that "it is illogical to create a 14.7 billion year process of evolution etc." because I cannot come to understand the nature of God, then the theist too cannot come to assume the nature of God.
I could go on about this, but i believe it to be disingenuous of theists to claim that every time something shattering is discovered it's 'God setting it into motion'.... then again, 'god did it' is the best excuse.
If we evolved from apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?
Ofcourse science does not refute faith. Faith is believing in something with no evidence. There is no way to refute that. Example: I have faith Santa clause is real. You can't refute my faith in that fact. What science does do is refute many of the claims religions make. Such as There being a young earth. Or for instance life after death. If you can't recognize your family after a brain injury what's the chances when your brain shuts off completely you will recognize and know everything still? Virtually Non existent. We don't have bodies, we are bodies.
2. Hitler was Roman Catholic. He even wrote in his journals he was doing gods work by exterminating Jews. Every nazi had god on our side written on their uniform. The Catholic Church even use to pray on Hitlers birthday that he live long to complete gods work.
3. How many massacres/wars/mutilations have occurred by religious people? It doesn't matter religious or not some people are insane. That does not change the fact all religions are based on ancient myths. Science proves all of these to be false. But no matter what people will choose not to see that due to "faith". The blind belief in some big with no evidence. Which is Ofcourse what religious claims have. No evidence.
If humanity were suddenly to wake with all of the contemporary scientific knowledge we have today, but with none of the historical and contemporary religious beliefs we've been given since childhood, it would never occur to us to create some human centric male god as having any interaction with us or the universe.
I think as time goes on and science matures, it will compliment god's existence and eventually prove god's existence whatever god is. quantum physics is proving things that were unfathomable just 10 years ago. the fact remains you cannot create something from nothing and yet that is exactly what had to happen for the universe to exist and science cannot get around that fact, and there isn't a scientist on the planet that can tell you anything contrary to that fact. now as far as the various religious books, you can argue those stories, how they came together, whether they are inspired by man or god until the cows come home. that in no way negates the existence of a higher power nor cowers in the face of science.
Of all the 34 comments posted, I found the one by Mary Wellington to be the most juvenile as she attacks the messenger more than the message. I hope she finds the debate worthwhile enough to attend and perhaps as co-sponsor we will have the opportunity to meet.
Science does not refute God or faith. Science is a means for evidence-based substantiation of hypotheses, and theology is not. The two studies speak in different languages and demand different proofs, even if both rely on logic.
In 1951, Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church tacitly endorsed the Big Bang theory as a plausible scientific for the Creation story told in Genesis.
"…[I]t would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies."
"Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, [science] has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!"
So, science laid down the basis for the creation of the universe, and Church theologians used this to substantiate the beliefs they already held. In that instance, science did not refute faith. It simply does not confirm it.
Science is our method of understanding the dimensions of reality that GOD has allowed us to sense while in this stage of existence. Wait and see how D'Souza and Hutchinson destroy this debate.
VIJAY D: Ever hear of Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al? All atheists!
1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics preclude unequivocally spontaneous energy and eternal heat. The universe did not begin and has not been here forever. Unless someone retires the Nobel prize Wed., Krause's formula for "something rather than nothing" is an explicit violation of the 2nd Law..."something" would be eternal.
Krause not incidentally has not even been recognized for consideration by the Nobel committee...but a non-eternal non-originating universe is a pretty good trick. Let's see him start with that...
Everyone has a religion. If you react to anything it is usually because of your beliefs. If you react in a jerk motion such as when you place your hands over your face when someone is throwing something at you then that is a law of science itself ; either way it is to protect you in your infinite amazing-ness. I vote for a creator whom actually designed and cares and has a great sense of humor watching these debates and all of its diversity. .
Judge not lest ye be judged --for doing the very same things! Morality does come from our Creator--and His people do sin -- Dinesh said he didn't spend the night with his fiancee before divorced after 2 year separation -- Few Christians can claim that these days. But he was in the same hotel and the news guy for World said Dinesh told him they DID share a room without intimacy. I believe Dinesh says now he did NOT share a room. in a full hotel. Hotel records should prove, but no one has verified to my knowledge. We don't know anything about his divorce --was his wife glad to see him go -- or broken-hearted --if the latter, he is to blame for breaking faith with her --as though in midlife crisis --or did she dig her heels in and refuse to follow him from CA to NYC position with King's College?? with whom he was supposed to have been praying for reconciliation. All I know for sure is that Dinesh is a great debater for the side of faith. And that grace is greater than all our sin.
Does it interest any of you that determined atheists insist that they HAVE NO SOULS -- no God-parts -- in their being and are, therefore, of no more eternal significance than a similarly soulness rock or block of wood? And is this what any of you truly believe about your own clearly meaningless self, your parentage and your progeny?
JIM GUIRARD -- TrueSpeak.org Justcauses@aol.com
Is this debate going to introduce post modernity? I think religion and science go hand in hand and should be working together to further our understanding of knowledge and reality.
Robert Williams: It's crazy hard to prove a negative, says the person who never took a basic real analysis course in his life.
The one debate I saw Dinesh D'Souza in he was brilliant. As these comments attest, atheists hate him because they hate anyone that does not agree with them and are willing to say so. I'd love to see this one.
It is good that atheist are also interested in GOD, although they want to disprove his exitence. The debater must first of all go through at least some of the prominent religious text like Bhagavad Gita, Koran, and Bible. Then the debate would bring some fruits, otherwise this will just go on and create more confusion in society of human being. Till now as far as I know who ever have gone through the religious text carefully never expressed any doubt on exitence of GOD. Although there is different definitions of GOD among different people.
We should also keep in mind that GOD is not like electron, proton, or galaxy that we can perform a controlled experiment and prove its existence. GOD is a person, he has personality, so its depend on his mercy on the sincere seeker who want to see GOD, GOD will reveal himslef to such person. This fact is known from past examples. If some one wants to prove the exitence of GOD by contemporary scientific method; for such seeker GOD is just this wonderful NATURE. Such people admire and worship the nature without fail, just like our modern scientitsts. If some one wants to rise above the NATURE he has to seek for the blessings of LORD.
This is a near re-match of the debate last March, only with physicist Lawrence Krauss replacing physicist Sean Carroll. Search for 'Ian Hutchinson debate' to see a preview for this one. I've not watched it yet myself, but plan to. I expect IQ2 to provide a better forum for this match-up though, since I've never heard a bad debate here.
I've heard all but Hutchinson speak and/or debate multiple times, including Carroll. I look forward to another great debate with the exception of having to suffer through the blathering on by D'Souza.
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.