Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

Recommended Posts

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had issued the following satements in the WMAP FAQ section. It posted this quote from the National Academy of Sciences regarding the organization's position on religion - particularly, creation - as a response in the FAQ.

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

The last paragraph is most interesting. The belief that God created the universe (also known as "theistic evolution"), is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. "INDEED, it (theistic evolution) REFLECTS the remarkable and inspiring CHARACTER of the PHYSICAL universe REVEALED by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

From that official statement......the National Academy of Sciences is actually officially DECLARING that there are evidences for a God-created universe in numerous areas of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been numerous claims by scientists that science and religion are not incompatible. In fact, several atheist scientists had ended up becoming theists (some converted to Christianity), as a result of their scientific works. Some are prominent in their field thus they can afford to be vocal about it. Yes, there's politics in science - but that's another subject.

If the National Academy of Sciences says there are evidences that support the belief that God created the universe

(Theistic Evolution)

"....many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

.....then you are in contradiction with science when you say that God does not exists, or that God is merely a fantasy, or a fairy tale.

If you can't point to science to support your claim, where do you go from here?

If you don't agree with science, kindly explain the reasonable basis for your belief that God does not exists.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "God", by definition, means "the creator of the universe" or, more specifically, "the force that created the universe" and if the universe does indeed exist, then God exists. Now it is just a matter of determining what sort of thing "God" is.

We can all agree that we exist in a dualistic universe where there is both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The spirit is real, as anyone with a mind of their own can tell you. I think therefore I am. So not only can science prove there is a physical world, it can also prove there is a spiritual one. We can't be sure the "God" that "created" the physical universe is the same "God" that "created" the spiritual life that exists in it, but we can lump all the "creation forces" together and call them "God."

Since we all agree we exist, there's no point in arguing the semantics of our formation. Whether we choose to regard this force as an old man with a white beard or a monster that wants us to blow up children in airports or a complex equation in some really "ground-breaking" software, it's irrelevant. I would argue that our minds are too shallow to ever really get a handle on the reality of this concept anyway. All we can do is follow our conscience and be nice to each other and feed our children and hope for the best. Trying too hard to iron out the details just creates religious factions that wind up fighting and killing each other, which I believe is counter to the objectives of the life/universe-creating force (whatever that force is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up, even atheists agree we exist and that there must be some circumstance that led to our existence. If they just called that circumstance "God" without knowing what "God" is, are they still atheists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "God", by definition, means "the creator of the universe" or, more specifically, "the force that created the universe" and if the universe does indeed exist, then God exists. Now it is just a matter of determining what sort of thing "God" is.

We can all agree that we exist in a dualistic universe where there is both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The spirit is real, as anyone with a mind of their own can tell you. I think therefore I am. So not only can science prove there is a physical world, it can also prove there is a spiritual one. We can't be sure the "God" that "created" the physical universe is the same "God" that "created" the spiritual life that exists in it, but we can lump all the "creation forces" together and call them "God."

Since we all agree we exist, there's no point in arguing the semantics of our formation. Whether we choose to regard this force as an old man with a white beard or a monster that wants us to blow up children in airports or a complex equation in some really "ground-breaking" software, it's irrelevant. I would argue that our minds are too shallow to ever really get a handle on the reality of this concept anyway. All we can do is follow our conscience and be nice to each other and feed our children and hope for the best. Trying too hard to iron out the details just creates religious factions that wind up fighting and killing each other, which I believe is counter to the objectives of the life/universe-creating force (whatever that force is).

A lot of scientists - as the NAS had stated - believe that God created the universe, thus they have a term for it :

THEISTIC evolution. They do not talk about a "force," - in fact, they specifically talk about God the Creator of the universe - therefore there's nothing "specifically" to refer to the Creator (God) as a so-called, "force."

We're not talking about blowing up children, or slaughter, or various factions of religion. This subject is about the National Academy of Sciences' declaration on its position regarding the belief that God created the universe, and its declaration that creation by God is supported by various evidences - REVEALED - by paleontology, cosmology, and other areas of science. Let's stick to the issue.

If Science holds this position, that means atheism is contradictory to science. Therefore, I want to know on what ground do atheists base their belief that God is non-existent, or is just a fairy tale. The very declaration of science points now to the fact that it's those who hold the view that God is simply a fairy tale/pie in the sky/spaghetti monster.....are the very ones that adhere to their own fairy tale. If they can't rely on science, they're simply adhering to their own illusion/delusion! Right?

What's the basis for an atheistic belief that insists God does not exists?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up, even atheists agree we exist and that there must be some circumstance that led to our existence. If they just called that circumstance "God" without knowing what "God" is, are they still atheists?

We know we exists! We're not talking about us! We're talking about those who don't believe that God exists.

Do atheists believe God exists or not? Science says there's evidence for creation by God. What's the atheistic basis for their belief other than their insistence that God doesn't exists?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can all agree that we exist in a dualistic universe where there is both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The spirit is real, as anyone with a mind of their own can tell you.

Science does not deal with the supernatural. According to the National Academy of Sciences:

"Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

My point is substantiated by what the National Academy of Sciences had declared.

I'm basing my argument with scientific findings! Science, is on my side. This is not the first time I'd stated that, too.

As a religious, of course there's no question that I believe in the supernatural (due to sheer faith)......HOWEVER, I'm addressing atheists - those who don't believe in the existence of the supernatural, especially God!

If science disagrees with you, what's the basis of your belief?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can all agree that we exist in a dualistic universe where there is both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The spirit is real,

If science does not deal with the spiritual....can you explain how you've come to the conclusion the spiritual realm is real?

Of course, I'm assuming that you're an atheist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you're getting caught in semantics. Your "God" is another person's "force". We're talking about the same thing, just using different words.

And the spirit is the only thing in this universe I can empirically (scientifically) say absolutely must exist, as it's the only thing I've truly experienced firsthand. The rest might just be my brain playing tricks on me.

And some sort of circumstance must have led to its existence. I don't know what it is, but I'll call it "God" so we're all on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one doesn't believe in the metaphysical. That's like saying I don't believe my mind exists.

Your brain is still a material thing! It's located inside our skulls!

The metaphysical is, by definition, beyond the physical.....so I don't know what you're on about.

Surely you know scientists have been doing research about the brain.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I use the term "metaphysical" I'm referring to how the mind exists within the physical world. There is no discernable disagreement between atheists and non-atheists about how the human mind functions and interacts on a day-to-day basis with the physical world.

We all have a sense of space in our own minds that we perceive as separate but within the surrounding universe. I believe Descartes called it "dualism" (though I took Intro to Philosophy a long, long time ago).

Edited by BubberMiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you're getting caught in semantics. Your "God" is another person's "force". We're talking about the same thing, just using different words.

And the spirit is the only thing in this universe I can empirically (scientifically) say absolutely must exist, as it's the only thing I've truly experienced firsthand. The rest might just be my brain playing tricks on me.

And some sort of circumstance must have led to its existence. I don't know what it is, but I'll call it "God" so we're all on the same page.

Excuse me, but you're simply stating your opinion, which in fact is contradictory to science.

Science is not into the metaphysical or the supernatural or the spiritual!

I can definitely say you're wrong in stating that spirit is scientifically proven. Please support your argument that "the spirit is the only thing you can empirically (scientifcally) say that must absolutely exists."

I've experienced supernatural things first hand, too.....yet I can't say therefore, they're "scientifically" proven.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I use the term "metaphysical" I'm referring to how the mind exists within the physical world. There is no discernable disagreement between atheists and non-atheists about how the human mind functions and interacts on a day-to-day basis with the physical world.

We all have a sense of space in our own minds that we perceive as separate but within the surrounding universe. I believe Descartes called it "dualism" (though I took Intro to Philosophy a long, long time ago).

Our mind exists because of our brain. It may be the most complex structure, but it's something that can be touched, studied, visualized and handled!

If you can't offer anything to support your opinion that the spirit is "scientifically" proven, I won't be pursuing further discussions along this vein with you.

I would like to take this back on topic, my question to atheists, as to the basis of their belief that God is non-existent.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time no see.

If the National Academy of Sciences says there are evidences that support the belief that God created the universe

(Theistic Evolution)

"....many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

.....then you are in contradiction with science when you say that God does not exists, or that God is merely a fantasy, or a fairy tale.

The National Academy of Sciences is not declaring that God is the creator of the universe. They are explaining that god and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You've misinterpreted the material you've quoted to support your agenda.

"Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

The remarkable nature of the universe is revealed by science. God isn't.

None of the material you've provided actually supports the claim that the NAS has endorsed the existence of god or "theistic evolution" as the explanation for the universe. They are simply pointing out that a view-- "theistic evolution"-- exists in which god formed the universe in a way that's not contradictory to the facts science has learned.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but you're simply stating your opinion, which in fact is contradictory to science.

Science is not into the metaphysical or the supernatural or the spiritual!

Actually I'm avoiding stating any opinion and am focusing on what we both agree on: I have a mind in a brain in a head in the physical universe that exists by some circumstance. For the sake of further agreement, I will call that circumstance "God", but that doesn't mean I can presume to fully conceive what "God" is. Edited by BubberMiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time no see.

The National Academy of Sciences is not declaring that God is the creator of the universe. They are explaining that god and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You've misinterpreted the material you've quoted to support your agenda.

"Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

The remarkable nature of the universe is revealed by science. God isn't.

None of the material you've provided actually supports the claim that the NAS has endorsed the existence of god or "theistic evolution" as the explanation for the universe. They are simply pointing out that a view-- "theistic evolution"-- exists in which god formed the universe in a way that's not contradictory to the facts science has learned.

-k

Let's put the full statement so we can see it in its proper context.

......many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed,

(in fact; in reality; in truth; truly (used for emphasis, to confirm and amplify a previous statement, to indicate a concession or admission, or, interrogatively, to obtain confirmation) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/indeed

it (THEISTIC evolution) reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe

revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

-----------------------------------

The usage of the term, "indeed" hammers it in! It's been seen and studied! Revelation is evidence!

Not one or two areas of science.....but many!

Surely the National Academy of Sciences wouldn't be issuing such a controversial statement if they don't fully stand behind it! And to see it quoted in the FAQ section of NASA means that that's the general consensus!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hardly earth-shattering. You cannot look at the complexity of a living cell or the elegance of the cosmos without seeing the power and the glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am focusing on consensus. Now if by "God" they mean "the circumstances responsible for the existence of the universe", then everyone who believes the universe exists is on the same page that God exists. But that gets us no closer to understanding the nature of this "God" and I contend that this is probably beyond our understanding anyway.

Edited by BubberMiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of evolution, I agree that it doesn't necessarily conflict with traditional theism to believe that "God" (i.e., the force responsible for the existence of the universe) "created" an evolutionary universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The usage of the term, "indeed" hammers it in! It's been seen and studied! Revelation is evidence!

Not one or two areas of science.....but many!

Surely the National Academy of Sciences wouldn't be issuing such a controversial statement if they don't fully stand behind it! And to see it quoted in the FAQ section of NASA means that that's the general consensus!

It doesn't say what you wish it did.

It indicates that many scientists believe that god created the universe in a way compatible with scientific observations. It doesn't mean that

Trying to represent that as the general consensus is false. It's purpose is to explain that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible beliefs, not that this is what the scientific consensus is. Trying to make it say more than that is

The quote you've provided is an excerpt from this publication. The first statement after the credits is this:

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations that provided financial support for this project.

The portion you've quoted is from page 7 of this publication, and it's the prefix to a beat-down of young earth creationists, 6 Days creation, Great Flood geology, Adam's rib, etc.

The main message here is: the facts are the facts. The universe is expanding. Evolution happened. You can still believe that god was the ultimate force driving all of this if you want.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can still believe that god was the ultimate force driving all of this if you want.

-k

And by definition, that's what "God" is. So then ultimately the choice is whether or not you want to call that force "God". That seems to be the only disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there may be evidence of God, it is indirect. We see effects and we attribute them to God. There is evidence that the sun goes around the earth. We see it every day. (James Burke: The Day The Universe Changed) If you watch the sun rise and set, there is no way to tell if the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun.

Evidence of God's work is not proof She exists. We do not have enough information, therefore each of us will examine the evidence and come to our own conclusions.

Belief in God(s) is possibly hard wired into our brain. It may be an evolutionary advantage that allows us to overcome the personal survival instinct to behave in a manner that puts the welfare of the many ahead of the few, to paraphrase Mr. Spock.

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...