Evolution and global warming: Who dares go against science's orthodoxy?

"How does the spin of the earth not create centrifugal force and throw us off instead of hold us down?"

It's because of Ilbs - God of Gravity, he's the second cousin of Aqua - the God of Water. Yep, witout Aqua around, water wouldn't flow, it would just sit there. How can we be sure the Mississippi is flowing towards the Gulf of Mexico, maybe the north American continent is actually flowing north, and the water is just standing in place. I know that water really flows, for my Aqua tells me so.

"Maybe, though, I pray that no large truck pulls out in front of me." So if a truck does pull in front of you some day, I guess your prayers were ignored, your God has forsaken you, and you're doomed to live eternity burning in hell.

'I just find it hard to believe that these things “just happened.”' I know, it's just so far-fetched. I mean, if you believe that, you'd believe that some dude lived in a whale, another dude built a boat with 2 of every animal species on board, end the earth is only 6000 years old.

"I just don’t think we should discount the possibility (probability to some of us) that there is a God."

Come now, Ross, just how do you think science discounts that possibility? While I know there are individual scientists who might be of the opinion that there's no God, science itself, being limited to natural explanations, simply is silent as to that super-natural question.

There's absolutely no inconsistency between belief in God and a conviction that the scientific theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for how observed phenomena hangs together.

As for the centrifugal force of the spinning earth, it's countered by the force of gravity, which is contingent on the mass of the earth. Same works with a small sphere, but the gravitational force of a much less massive object is much less. Basic physics. Every single object in the universe, including you yourself, has gravity, which is a factor of mass.

Try really reading my post Devin. Where did I ever say that science was useless and evil? Actually I love science and especially technology. I just don’t think we should discount the possibility (probability to some of us) that there is a God. One doesn’t have to exclude the other.

Let’s take your large truck scenario; of course I slam on my brakes. I don’t depend on prayer to stop my car. Maybe, though, I pray that no large truck pulls out in front of me. So far none have. I can’t explain that through science, can you? So maybe I feel safer by evoking the help of God AND my brakes. Is that so terrible?

I just have questions about Darwinism and other like theories. For instance: if I were to accept the whole theory of evolution all the way back to the first single cell living organism, where did that organism come from? Where did the LIFE come from? I mentioned gravity before. How does the spin of the earth not create centrifugal force and throw us off instead of hold us down? I checked the web and I cannot find an example of this being duplicated with a spinning sphere.

I just find it hard to believe that these things “just happened.” I don’t think it is unscientific to acknowledge the possibility of a God who had a hand in our creation.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

"Instead I saw scans of different surfaces. Nice pictures but not of an actual atom. I stand by my comment that no one has seen an atom."

By that standard, we've seen neither the surface of Mars, the dark side of the Moon, or the wreckage of the Titanic lying on the Atlantic seafloor.

I submit to you that you've more than amply proven that you're full of hot air (and a bit more besides), and, as I've noted time and again, the quality of your submissions to this website raise serious questions about the standards (or lack thereof) the Star sets for its Midwest Voices "columnists."

Ross,
you're entitled to your opinion, but I wish you would be consistent with it. If science is so useless and evil, why on earth do you use the internet? Without investigating how the world works, we never would have learned all the things that make the internet possible. Your car you surely use on a regular basis? Wouldn't work without science. Ever taken any medicine? Yep, that's science at work.

In a modern society, people depend upon the bounties of scientific endeavors in all aspects of life. And some choose to give thanks to a god who apparently is against all of these amazing inventions they enjoy. Of course, when a large truck pulls in front of your vehicle, my guess is your first instinct is to slam on the brakes (which the predictive power of science says will stop your vehicle) rather than simply pray for your car to stop (of course, no study has ever demonstrated prayer to be capable of stopping a vehicle, but don't let that triviality get in your way).

Any god that opposes science is doomed in this day and age. Of course, a more rational approach would be to accept a god that works through science and experience both the tangible benefits of science and the intangible benefits of faith.

Before you give a web link you should make sure it helps your case. The one you gave does not. I looked at it and found no pictures of atoms. I saw no nuclei with protons or electrons orbiting them. Instead I saw scans of different surfaces. Nice pictures but not of an actual atom. I stand by my comment that no one has seen an atom.

I submit to you that since nobody was here to witness the big bang (if it really happened) and it is certainly only a theory that nobody can prove, then the idea of a creator is just as plausible.

You say, “the predictive power of a scientific theory.” Give me a break will you, science can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather accurately much of the time.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

OK, let's assume for a minute that we allow science to simply chalk up unexplained phenomenon to the supernatural. Where would this lead us? Every time we can't figure something out, we just chalk it up to this god or that god and science becomes just another part of the ongoing religious debates.

Debates over religion have given us no new knowledge in the history of humanity. Religion may be useful for personal and social purposes. It helps people find meaning in their lives and helps forge a group identity. However, it teaches us nothing about how to cure diseases, grow enough food to feed the mass, or produce energy. At best, religion offers us the ability to cope when various tangible needs are not met.

The mechanisms behind abiogenesis (i.e. the process of turning inorganic molecules into something that can ultimately evolve into your grandchildren) are actually quite well understood. In laboratory conditions that simulate earth before it had an atmosphere, the process of molecules self-organizing into complex molecules capable of self-replication has been observed. Of course, this doesn't mean science has proven what occurred, or that all steps in the process of evolution from crystal to grandchild are perfectly understood. However, the pursuit of understanding this process has given us incredible amounts of useful knowledge and will continue to bear more fruit. Who knows, something learned along the way may be useful in treating a disease that afflicts you or your grandchildren.

I understand the perception that dismissing the supernatural is an inherently biased approach. Maybe you're right, but starting with the belief that this god or that god created everything just as we see it and we should not question that has given humanity nothing for thousands of years. In the last few centuries, after removing the supernatural as an allowable explanation, science has given us incredible amounts of new knowledge. In fact, the knowledge gained through the non-supernatural approach is probably responsible for the fact you're still alive to see your grandchildren. Fortunately, science is not jealous as I presume your God is. Science will not punish you for enjoying its fruits without offering proper gratitude and sacrifice in return.

Exhibiting the same misunderstanding of science as Garrett.

Atomic theory is an explanation of observable phenomena -- surely you don't deny this?

[sigh] Your attempt to "refute" my point that scientific explanations deal with natural phenomena is, simply put, inadequate.

Science deals with the creation of replicatable models that give us a framework to predict how the world works based on what we've observed. Look at the move from geocentric to heliocentric theory -- the latter prevailed because the idea that the earth moved around the sun rather than vice versa gave us a simpler model that was much more useful for predicting planetary movements in the sky.

Atomic theory (and quantum theory) works in the same way. It is a set of models that, when empirical data is plugged in, enables us to fairly accurately predict how the world will be in the future, given the current state of events. To the extent that the predictive power is proven inaccurate, the theory is modified.

The question you pose, "Is it even remotely possible that there is a God that played a significant role in our being here?" is based on an incorrect assumption, that science is even attempting to address such questions. It isn't -- it's silent as to the existence of God. That's the realm of theology, not science, which deals with the observable world and testable hypotheses about the world we observe.

It simply doesn't add anything to the predictive power of a scientific theory to say "God did this." There's no way to test that theory -- and scientific theories are testable by plugging in the data we have. There's no "God data," short of plugging in everything in the universe, which is impossible, and which I doubt would capture the essence of what we mean by God anyhow.

Don't quit your day job, Ross.

Oh, for the record, the most powerful microscopes do indeed show us atoms. Here's a link to a little online article on the Scanning Tunnelling Electron Microscope, complete with pictures.

http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/microscopes/scanning/

One again you are way off the mark. In fact if science only dealt with “observable phenomenon” there wouldn’t be nearly as much science.

Let me give you one example: Do you believe in atoms? No one has ever seen one. Even the most powerful microscopes aren’t powerful enough for us to see atoms as they are. Still science studies them. We believe they are there because of all the things that can happen because of atoms such as nuclear power but we’ve never “observed” an atom.

In fact much of science deals with trying to explain things that we cannot “observe.” Scientists form theories and hypotheses in an attempt to explain things and then go about trying to prove the theories and hypotheses.

One thing that good science (and good posting on the blog for that matter) should allow for is the possibility that other opinions might be correct. Is it even remotely possible that there is a God that played a significant role in our being here? If you are open minded as liberals claim to be then you should acknowledge that possibility exists. There are many things that cannot be explained easily. Why do we have gravity? Why doesn’t the spin of the Earth create centrifugal force and fling us all into space.

If you have a strong belief one way or another then prove or express it logically rather than attack the person with a view different from you own. Your constant attacks against anyone who writes something differing from your opinion is getting (yawn) so boring.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

"is wholly dependent upon: (1) Avogadro's law; (2) the council's current evaluation of radioisotopes, (3) integrated mathematical formulae, and (4) numerous other misconceptions and invalid assumptions."

Not just dumb, but hilarious, too!