Many religious people view science favorably, but reject certain scientific theories

January 29, 2015

A new study finds that many U.S. adults—roughly one in five—are deeply religious, know a lot about science, and support many practical uses of science and technology in everyday life, but reject scientific explanations of creation and evolution.

"We were surprised to find that many people who are knowledgeable about science and appreciative of its practical uses reject certain well-established scientific theories," said Timothy L. O'Brien, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Evansville and the lead author of the study, which appears in the February issue of the American Sociological Review.

"This finding is particularly interesting because these people who view both science and religion favorably—people who hold what we call a post-secular perspective—have relatively high levels of education and income, and many social scientists assume that high levels of education and income, as well as positive views of science are incompatible with religiosity."

But, O'Brien said the study calls that "common assumption" into question. "We find that many highly educated, well-informed, religious individuals accept scientific theories about topics such as geology, radioactivity, planetary motion, genetics, and probability while rejecting mainstream scientific accounts of evolution and the big bang," he said.

Titled, "Traditional, Modern, and Post-Secular Perspectives on Science and Religion in the United States," the study relies on nationally representative data on U.S. adults from the 2006, 2008, and 2010 waves of the General Social Survey. The study considers people who self-identified as Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and followers of other faiths, as well as individuals who did not identify with a religious group.

As part of their analysis, O'Brien and his co-author Shiri Noy, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wyoming, determined that U.S. adults hold one of three perspectives based on their knowledge and attitudes about science and religion. Twenty-one percent hold a post-secular perspective, which values both science and religion, but which rejects science in favor of religion when it comes to topics such as creation and evolution. Forty-three percent hold a traditional perspective, which favors religion over science, and 36 percent hold a modern perspective, which favors science over religion.

"These three worldviews are held across religious groups, political parties, and social classes," according to O'Brien, who said have typically focused on studying people's perspectives on science or views on religion separately rather than looking at them simultaneously.

"Ours is the first study of the U.S. public that examines perspectives on science and religion in tandem," he said. "In doing so, our study uncovers a previously unidentified group of well-informed people who are appreciative of 's social uses, but who are deeply religious and who reject certain scientific theories in favor of religious ones."

Among these post-seculars, more than 90 percent agree with contemporary scientific theories about geology, radioactivity, and planetary motion, but only 6 percent believe that the universe began with a huge explosion. Even fewer—3 percent of post-seculars—agree that humans evolved from earlier animals.

In addition, 48 percent of post-seculars believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, compared to 31 percent of all U.S.adults, 46 percent of traditionals, and 3 percent of moderns. Post-seculars also report the greatest strength of religious affiliation as compared to traditionals and moderns.

"Our findings indicate that post-seculars are the most religious," O'Brien said.

In terms of the study's implications, the research "shows that differences in people's views of and do not necessarily reflect a lack of knowledge or understanding," said O'Brien, who emphasized that "post-seculars are scientifically literate" yet still reject of the origins of human life and the universe.

"This suggests that bridging gaps between different groups of people may have less to do with reducing knowledge deficits among them and more to do with increasing empathy for and awareness of different lifestyles and cultural preferences," O'Brien said.

Explore further: Education affects Americans' religiosity -- but not how you might think

Related Stories

Science and religion do mix

September 21, 2011

Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in perpetual conflict, but a new study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science ...

Americans and religion increasingly parting ways

March 13, 2013

Religious affiliation in the United States is at its lowest point since it began to be tracked in the 1930s, according to analysis of newly released survey data by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, ...

Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study

February 16, 2014

The public's view that science and religion can't work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by ...

Recommended for you

77 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jsdarkdestruction
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2015
We see countless examples here all the time.people like Ren, verkle, jvk, Kevin, viko. Just off the top of my head. This is going to be a bloodbath. Lots of straw man arguments and denial and blind faith passing as science to them.
mscheue1
2.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
There is a 4th group- those who believe that God uses Science to manipulate the universe.

That is, the universe is 13.8 billion years old, the world was not created in only 6 days, and God uses evolution as a tool to create new species. Human bodies have evolved for tens of thousands of years but Adam was the first "Man" to have a soul (about 6000 years ago).

You may not agree with my worldview but it is, for me and many others, a workable mix of Science AND Religion that deals with both the physical and Spiritual parts of the Universe.

My only point here is that the authors are far too confining in dividing human worldviews into their preconceived three, and only three, catagories.
mscheue1
2.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2015
For example, "In the beginning (of time, what else?), God created the Heavens (ie., Space) and earth (Not the planet, but "matter")" There you go. The Big Bang in the first verse of Genesis
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2015
@mschue1
I gave you a "5" not because I share your views but to honor my father and sister. They shared your views and tried to live their Christian faith. They were non judgemental and generous to a fault. Both were very funny, my sister with a quick wit, my father had a an endless stream of jokes he told perfectly.

They were very different than the likes of @Ren.
marcush
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2015
Congrats jsdarkdestruction, you judged it perfectly.

Hmmmm, before 6000 years ago nobody had a soul? The arbitrary convolutions and permutations of the religious mind are truly astounding!

Overall it certainly rings true that many people seem to compartmentalise their brains or bend logic to fit belief when an internal conflict arises. What I fail to understand is why anyone has to have religious faith in anything. I am not sure its going to rain tomorrow. How could I be sure no one had a soul 6000 years ago? Because its written in a an ancient text from the middle east? There are fantastic oral and written creation stories from all over the planet. Has anyone here ever heard of cherry picking??!!

akerren
5 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2015
@Ren82, believe it or not us "humans" belong to the animal group called mammals. Btw. we share 98.7% of our DNA with the Bonobo (and the Bonobo 99.6% with the chimpansee). That's not theory, those are facts.
Have you ever read this book? "The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates", Moral behavior doesn't only belong to humans.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2015
and support many practical uses of science and technology in everyday life, but reject scientific explanations of creation and evolution.

Well, NOMA doesn't work. What else is new?

I don't think the finding is so surprising. When you have an immovable idea that is at odds with reality then you have two choices when confronted with same:
1) Alter the idea (impossible - since it's immovable)
2) Become schizophrenic about reality (which is what happens with people who cherry pick in what kind of science they believe)

Religion - it's really a disease of the mind.

but only 6 percent believe that the universe began with a huge explosion

Expansion. Not explosion. If they asked if people believe in "an explosion started stuff off" then they shouldn't be surprised when hey say "no".
cjn
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2015
FTA:
..and many social scientists assume that high levels of education and income, as well as positive views of science are incompatible with religiosity. ... said Timothy L. O'Brien, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Evansville..


Because you're not an actual scientist, you're a freaking sociologist. There is more than a little cognitive bias here: "I think I am a "scientist" and I think that only uneducated simpletons believe in a mythical sky being, ipso facto science is incompatible with faith."

Again Mr. O'Brien, you're a scientist like Dr Dre is a physician and Capt Crunch is commissioned naval officer.
cjn
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2015
Ren:
As I said faith in the unreasoning emergence and self organization of the universe from some unknown abstract form to today's highly ordered form...


You see the "self organization of the universe" and scientists see the work of the weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. There is no need to introduce an unnecessary hand into the equation when these forces do all the work of ordering matter in chaos.

There are many places of true uncertainty and "theory" in science (e.g.: emergence of sentience, etc..) where one could espouse an alternative influence -as much is conjecture and outside of the record -there is no need to take the approach that "God does everything", science and observation be damned.
akerren
4.9 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
@Ren82. IMO it's a bold assumption (and speculation) that what is written in those holy books really is the word of "God".
I believe in science-facts, all that what is still unclear is stuff that just needs to be explored, that's the beauty of science, finding out how nature works. Keep exploring.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2015
Nowadays, the main task of science is to prove evolution, and therefore are invested a lot of manpower, energy and money.


False. It is already proven with mounds of evidence. Science adds more with time and understanding.

Evolutionary theory removes the responsibility of the people to God, the only supreme authority, introduces the law of the jungle as a norm of behavior in society and business relationships, and lowered status of a person to that of an animal.


This is such an absurd statement I wonder why people keep saying this. The world would be better served it instead we focus on responsibility for ourselves, our family, society and other people. Not a god who can just absolve you of your wrong doing 6 days of the week on the 7th day.

You're just another one of those who are vehemently trying to push down in your mind what you know to be true by clinging onto your preference for reassurance.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2015
@Ren82

I have seen the actions of those "responsible to god". They don't seem to care at all except to show off how responsible they are on Sunday's and the occasional "I'll pray for you" type crap.

There is no need for a god to be a good moral person who is responsible to people who are important than them. Now to be fair, I have seen great turnarounds from people in the dregs of society turn their life around because of their belief in a god or Jesus. If that's what it takes then fine I'm all for it for that person. But the basis of this article is people who say they accept science but reject what contradicts their belief, which is cherry picking and not surprising at all.
Kevin_Schneider
5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2015
Science lets us build airplanes, religion makes us fly them into buildings.
Kevin_Schneider
5 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2015
Science asks questions that might never be answered, religion preaches answers that must never be questioned.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2015
@Kevin_Schneider

Creation can be checked with logic, observation and scientific methods. Why do you think that believers can not deal with science?


Ok can you provide with brevity your hypothesis, what experiments you would run to support your hypothesis and a basis for your observation? I can already tell you that your first roadblock would be the testable part of your hypothesis.

akerren
5 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2015
@Kevin_Schneider

Creation can be checked with logic


What logic?
Thirteenth Doctor
4.6 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2015
@cjn

This is Intentional damage to the psyche of children, which is can be easily controlled. Тhis is the madness of the modern world.


I couldn't describe religion any better than this. Thank you.

Do not forget that we are in the company of cosmic villain who actively care of the failure of God's plan for man since the Garden of Eden.


No according to your scripture, god is omnipotent. Which means according to the myth, he already knew before his creation that Lucifer would rebel and try and destroy man. Which means he already knew HE would fail and that Lucifer is actually just a pawn in his grand scheme to be worshipped.

So, what species do you know that creates and goes through with plans that have a very good chance to fail? Oh that's right Homo sapiens sapiens. Could it be that Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Holy Spirit, God was made in man's image? Find out the next episode of Dragon Ball Z!

Sorry got carried away there.

dr_mabeuse
5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
This doesn't surprise me. Scientific knowledge and religious belief work by different methods: science is rational, religion is emotional. When there's a conflict between the two, it's usually the emotional that wins out.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2015
When there's a conflict between the two, it's usually the emotional that wins out.

I dunno. Try to be emotional about an asteroid heading your way by means of "god will save me"...and see how that turns out.

Reality doesn't really care about our emotional state towards it.
Bob one
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2015
The general theory of evolution has never been observed and is therefore outside the realm of science. Changing a monkey into a human being would require new information and there is no naturalistic mechanism for that to happen. Evolution is a stupid religious myth. The actual scientific data strongly favor the creation science model.

Carbon-14 dating says the earth is very young. It decays within 100,000 years (half-life of 5740 years) so nothing is left. It cannot be used to date something as millions or billions of years old. They are finding it in deposits they previously though were very old. It is made in the atmosphere but has not yet reached an equilibrium concentration indicating the atmosphere is less than 10,000 years old. That means people, plants, and animals are less than 10,000 years old.

You can accept science like the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says all naturalistic processes tend toward disorder or you can believe in the religious myth of
Bob one
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2015
You can accept science like the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says all naturalistic processes tend toward disorder or you can believe in the religious myth of evolution which is the direct opposite. The First and Second laws taken together with our organized complex universe and life logically demand there was a date in the past of special creation.

The odds of evolution have been calculated and it is very very very ridiculously improbable (ten to the minus 40,000). The Big Bang is also a big joke. Check out cosmologystatement.org.
Bob one
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2015
There are two different types of evolution, limited and general, corresponding to two different types of changes. These changes (limited) require no new outside information and generally lose information. These rely on the genetic variation within the kind designed in by God. Things like natural selection, adaptation, and speciation are generally accepted by creationists, consistent with the Bible, and scientifically observable.

The general theory of evolution loved and believed by atheists requires new information from the outside and there is no viable mechanism by which that could happen. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Changes like dinosaurs into birds are speculative beliefs, violate the Bible, and have never been observed which puts them outside the realm of science.

I have degrees in both physics and nuclear engineering.
dtxx
5 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2015
Bob,

They don't use carbon 14 dating for anything past about 80,000 years old. There is more than one type of radiometric dating. Uranium-lead dating uses two separate decay processes to build date consensus. One of the isotopes has a half life of 700 million years and the other's is 4.5 billion years. No one is ever nor has ever tried to use c14 in the way you suggest. I'd love to see you cite sources other than the "they" who are finding this erroneous carbon.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
Changing a monkey into a human being would require new information and there is no naturalistic mechanism for that to happen.The actual scientific data strongly favor the creation science model.


Spoken just like someone who doesn't understand evolution. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the theory states that we evolved along side monkeys and that we share a common ancestor that was neither man nor ape nor monkey.

Things like natural selection, adaptation, and speciation are generally accepted by creationists, consistent with the Bible, and scientifically observable.


Words cannot express how wrong this is. I'd like to see how you guys scientifically observed creation.

Changes like dinosaurs into birds are speculative beliefs, violate the Bible, and have never been observed which puts them outside the realm of science.


This sentence betrays you and shows us how blind you are. Move along.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2015
A very tendentious and scientifically bad [universe as "explosion"] study, trying to make scientific illiteracy caused by religious superstition out as acceptance of differences in lifestyles ("are scientific literate", "post-seculars", "awareness of different lifestyles").

That scientific literacy, caused by participation in education and science, makes for less religiosity is not a "common assumption" but Pew statistics.

On the other hand there is nothing new in deeply religious but studied people holding to conflicting world views. There is also studies that show that intelligent people have more resources to maintain cognitive dissonance for a longer time. Those are the people that we would expect be among the few that do not take to participation in higher education and science.

... aaand already commenter #2 took the opportunity to discuss its idiosyncratic magic ideas instead of science.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2015
I'm not going to respond to anti-science trolls much.

Just let me note that:

- We have many observations on how morality evolves in social animals, and that we have history showing that today's morality (democracy, human rights and freedoms) are secular achievements.

- Organism metabolism (and so growth, reproduction and evolution) are caused by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is energy sources like the Sun and the energy sink that is space that made life emerge and sustain it.

@cjn: "There are many places of true uncertainty and "theory" in science (e.g.: emergence of sentience, etc..) where one could espouse an alternative influence ..."

I can't agree with this. Yes, earlier one could in principle have a duality with both physics and magic. But in the last centuries it has been shown to be impossible. Thermodynamics of closed systems reject magic for starters, so do quantum physics and now cosmology for the entire universe.

That road has closed.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
How do you like the proposal of someone widely known public institutions for early familiarization (from 5 years old) of children with some sexual practices such as masturbation? To me sounds like Satanism. Hidden he idea is to form a mental attitude in adolescents, such that they are mainly interested in deliver to itself carnal pleasures. This is Intentional damage to the psyche of children, which is can be easily controlled. Тhis is the madness of the modern world.

Wrong. Children already understand masturbation, even at the toddler phase. The familiarization proposal is to make them intellectually aware of what that impulse is to better manage future interactions with others.
Your interpretation is evidence of your own fear/mistrust of lack of self control.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
We have many observations on how morality evolves in social animals, and that we have history showing that today's morality (democracy, human rights and freedoms) are secular achievements.

Point to Torbjorn... (tennis reference)
- Organism metabolism (and so growth, reproduction and evolution) are caused by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is energy sources like the Sun and the energy sink that is space that made life emerge and sustain it.

set to Torbjorn...

Yes, earlier one could in principle have a duality with both physics and magic. But in the last centuries it has been shown to be impossible. Thermodynamics of closed systems reject magic for starters, so do quantum physics and now cosmology for the entire universe.

That road has closed.

Match to Torbjorn...
davray700
not rated yet Jan 29, 2015
So, where do I stand? I believe in God and science. Is it possible that one God created the universe as we know it and explained it to us in a way we could understand? Teaching us the values needed to succeed and thrive? Created in God's image: To evolve into a another currently unimaginable species? So many people get angry if they disagree. Yes, there are many wars over religion but the devil inside us will always find a reason for war. I also believe there can't be good without evil.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2015
So, where do I stand?


If you state where you stand with like this, there are no issues, at least with me. I will disagree with your stance but some of the above with this view start attacking science and comparing it to religion. Cherry picking parts to fit their beliefs discard the inconvenient ones are the ones that are met with rebuttal. Yes it is a very polarizing discussion which usually devolves into personal attacks, but the concept of a god to explain the world is getting more insignificant the more time passes.
Bill C_
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2015
notice that the unbelieving scientists are absolutely certain of their explanations and knowledge while the believing scientists says "this is what today's level of science says about this or that" the believing scientist recalls when all matter consisted of earth, air, fire, and water.
It is not the believing scientist or people who have a problem with alien life, because God can do whatever He wants. The atheist scientist and people have problems with aliens because that knowledge doesn't fit into their carefully constructed cage, even if their accepted theories say life must exist elsewhere, their beliefs prevent them from accepting the knowledge OR they go to the other extreme and associate superior knowledge with divinity or the right to accept superior knowledge as entitling those with the knowledge to supreme authority over the unenlightened peons.

Bill C.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
It is not the believing scientist or people who have a problem with alien life, because God can do whatever He wants. The atheist scientist and people have problems with aliens because that knowledge doesn't fit into their carefully constructed cage


Oh well excuse the "Atheist Scientists" for demanding evidence for claims. The nerve of those people! There is no problem scientists have with alien life other than it has never been found anywhere else except on Earth. So until it is found it on a place other than Earth they will never be certain. However most scientists will agree that it is very probable given how they have discovered that stars with planets are a lot more common than previously thought and that life thrives even in the most extreme environments on Earth.

Blind denial requires you to deny even in the face of evidence. This is a denial because of lack of evidence.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2015
My take on all of this? Believe whatever you want, cuz that's what you'll end up with.

And aliens? They'll be in the last place you thought of to look...:-)
JVK
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
Sorry I'm late to the party on this one. Nearly all the science idiots have commented. I'm happy to see "Bob one" and "Ren82"

Hopefully, the science idiots will read my comment to science about the 2015 SICB presenters who linked nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to biodiversity across species of crustaceans to insects. It was published today. http://comments.s...6219.220

I was finishing a blog post and adding another comment because the SICB presenters appear to still be as confused as ever about the difference between RNA-mediated events and what they think are evolutionary events. At least they understand that all crustaceans and insects are organisms of "like kind." It's only a matter of time till they realize that the morphological and behavioral phenotypes are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which links Biblical Genesis to epigenesis and homeostasis across all species.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
It's only a matter of time till they realize that the morphological and behavioral phenotypes are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which links Biblical Genesis to epigenesis and homeostasis across all species.


Well okeedokee Skippy. I will put you down for a "don't view science favorable" and "reject science theories that don't have nutritious dependable aromas" in it.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Does your blog got more gobbledygook than you use over and over here? Why you not put any new gobbledygook up here?

Oh yeah, I almost forget another thing. Are you ever going to tell me how the hydrogen atoms can smell the energies of the other hydrogens like you said they do?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Changes like dinosaurs into birds are speculative beliefs, violate the Bible, and have never been observed which puts them outside the realm of science.

I have degrees in both physics and nuclear engineering.


Nothing violates the second law because the Earth is not a closed system. Did you get your physics degree from the back of a cereal box?
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
I have degrees in both physics and nuclear engineering.


Bennie-Skippy says that lot too but it don't help his case.

He is also fond of saying different equations. Oh yeah, and thermodynamics a lot too, but usually when he says it he usually includes some stuffs that prove he don't know what the heck he is talking about. Sort of like the way you do too. Did you and Bennie-Skippy go to the same pretend science school?

If you are going to tell the BIG lie about all your schooling you sure came to the right place. Everybody here is real easy to fool on that one. Just ask Bennie-Skippy or JVK-Skippy or Really-Skippy, they been fooling the wool over peoples eyes for years around here.

Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
P.S. for you Bob-Skippy. How you are again? I'm fine thanks.

About when I said this, maybe you don't know how I know so much about it.

If you are going to tell the BIG lie about all your schooling you sure came to the right place. Everybody here is real easy to fool on that one. Just ask Bennie-Skippy or JVK-Skippy or Really-Skippy, they been fooling the wool over peoples eyes for years around here.


I am the only idiot on the whole physorg place who is ignorant on most science things and did NOT go to the science schools and get five or four diplomas and such. So I can tell you true, it takes one to know one.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
@ren Creation can be checked with logic, observation and scientific methods.
Fine ren I have a computer program that demonstrates evolution with scattered elements without a-priori assumptions. Where is your computer program to prove a magical being runs everything?

In any case you're correct, from another thread, that worshipers of the golden calf -descendants of Nimrod, control most economic activity on Earth. What bothers me is that you can see that, and yet you are wasting time with a religion THEY created as a cage for your mind
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
Creation can be checked with logic, observation and scientific methods.


What science supports a population bottleneck (down to two individuals) of all species during the flood?
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
Creation can be checked with logic, observation and scientific methods.


Oh, there you are, Ren82 - I was waiting on the other thread and you dropped of without answering, so let's continue the conversation here:

You claim that everything in the bible is a historical fact that can be verified, so starting at the first event recorded in the most common (King James) bible, creation as recorded in Genesis 1:1:

How does one verify that the earth was created before the sun?

How does one verify the existence of day and night and evening and morning before the suns is created?

How does one verify that these had the same length as our current 24-hour day (as opposed to much longer periods of time)?

How does one verify that seed-bearing plants on earth were created before the sun?

How does one verify that all the stars were created on the same day?

Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
I am the only idiot on the whole physorg place who is ignorant on most science things and did NOT go to the science schools and get five or four diplomas and such. So I can tell you true, it takes one to know one.


You forgot me and my "no university" artist thingy...
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2015
In any case you're correct, from another thread, that worshipers of the golden calf -descendants of Nimrod, control most economic activity on Earth. What bothers me is that you can see that, and yet you are wasting time with a religion THEY created as a cage for your mind.

Oooo,,, Chev... that last line gave me a chubby... cuz it bothers me, too...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2015
RS.
Good job... gave me an even bigger chubby than chev's comment...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2015
Startin' to get pissed, here....
I gave you the biggest playground imaginable and rather than allowing use of it all, some of you are saying you can only use part of it because, well, God said so... Because only he or his specified designates has the knowledge to play in a particular spot...
Bullshit...
YOU ALL have the knowledge, cuz I said so...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2015
c'mon, Ira... Only a 4? ...:-)
I'm not GOD, y'know... only A god...
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2015
c'mon, Ira... Only a 4? ...:-)
I'm not GOD, y'know... only A god...


The thing jumped just as I was clicking it. You are the lucky it did not end up being a 1 by my mistake.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015
Only a freak would title a book about religion "Traditional, Modern, and Post-Secular Perspectives on Science and Religion in the United States."
Secular mean a person who is not religious. The freak should have used the term "sectarian" instead!

mscheue1:
"That is, the universe is 13.8 billion years old." Correct, unless we live in a multiverse.
"The world was not created in only 6 days." Incorrect, have you heard of inflation?
"God uses evolution as a tool to create new species." Correct.
"Human bodies have evolved for tens of thousands of years." Incorrect, a lot longer than that!
"Adam was the first "Man" to have a soul (about 6000 years ago)." Incorrect, the multiverse does not evolve around you!

I can see why everybody is all screwed-up.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2015
http://www.npr.or...-science

"Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."

Others are trying to put a stop to this nonsense. They do not want cosmology to become the new evolutionary theory, which defies the logic of using experimental evidence of biologically- based cause and effect to develop a model that explains cause and effect.

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2015
"Compared to those levels of anti-science thinking, evolution is doing quite well. A new pair of surveys by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) finds that evolution acceptance, at 65% of the public, is nearly twice that of acceptance of other well-established biology, such as genetic modification of food, where only 37% of people think it is safe, or pesticides, where only 28% think it is safe, despite the consensus of science and all regulatory bodies. The people that are against agricultural science (and vaccines and energy) are overwhelmingly Democrats."
http://www.scienc...y-152620
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
Neo-Darwinian evolution is finished. Gunter Wagner's group finished it off yesterday with publication of "Ancient Transposable Elements Transformed the Uterine Regulatory Landscape and Transcriptome during the Evolution of Mammalian Pregnancy" http://www.cell.c...)01105-X

Didn't you get the memo? They detailed biologically-based cause and effect without the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and assumptions about how mutations somehow led to biodiversity.

Ecological variation that is linked to ecological adaptations via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding replaced neo-Darwinian evolution with what is known about ecology when we published our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review -- with a section on molecular epigenetics about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man. http://www.hawaii...ion.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2015
JVK says:
They detailed biologically-based cause and effect without the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and assumptions about how mutations somehow led to biodiversity.


JVK, that goes along with your comment:
The biologically uninformed continue to yell: MUTATIONS! (JVK, DEC 18, 2014)


Your words apply to youself, JVK, since you have YET AGAIN introduced that term to a thread.

LMAO!

And the article you cite highlights 377 individual ''exapted'' TEs previously shown to have evolved under strong purifying selection, and that TEs "played an important role" in the genesis of cis-regulatory elements that allowed the genes to be recruited.

TEs (transposable elements) jumping around are DNA nucleotide sequence changes, so the article SUPPORTS selection for DNA nucleotide sequence. And the term in biology for DNA sequence changes is the term that you just introduced into this thread, so your own citation refute you.

Checkmate again!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015
And the term in biology for DNA sequence changes is the term that you just introduced...


If that was true, they would have used the term "mutation" in the context of the evolution of the placenta. The term was defined in the early 1900's by de Vries, I've repeatedly told you that serious scientists do not use definitions and assumptions.

Wagner's group consists of serious scientists, not biologically uniformed science idiots who don't know the difference between a mutation, which perturbs protein folding, and an amino acid substitution, which stabilizes it.

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."
http://www.huffin...211.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2015
I've repeatedly told you that serious scientists do not use definitions


Then you have been repeatedly wrong (but then you should be used to that!).

Serous scientist go to great lengths to use well-defined terms so that they can communicate more clearly and precisely with each other (and when they do use a term in a non-standard way, they usually define how they are using it to prevent confusion).

For example, this paper use TE, for Transposable Element, repeatedly, knowing that most readers would understand the term and that those who didn't would be able to look up the definition.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
Ren,
Is god the most complex being ever?
Even more so than the whole Universe and everything in it?

If so, then you get an hint of the way a human mind works - always complexifying (an evolutionary process, btw). We (or someone did) created him to be all that, so we had a convenient excuse for things we encounter that we don't understand.

If he isn't?
Well, there goes your whole concept...
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2015
this paper use TE, for Transposable Element, repeatedly, knowing that most readers would understand the term


This news report uses the term "genetic parasite" http://phys.org/n...nes.html

What is the definition of those two terms that links the definition of "evolution" of the placenta in fish to the definition of "evolution" of the placenta in mammals via your definition of "mutation"?

RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
@Ren82, thank you for answering on how to verify that the events recorded at the start of genesis are historical facts exactly as described in the bible.

For verifying that the earth was created before the sun, you reply that
the truth, wisdom and righteousness flows from every word of God recorded in Scripture and honest man who has a sense of harmony felt it intuitively.


This is a science site, and science is about finding objective and repeatable ways to verify hypotheses. Claiming that something is true because it seems harmonious to you is hardly verification.

For verifying the existence of day and night and evening and morning before the suns is created, you didn't really answer.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
- continued -

For verifying that before the sun, "day" and "night" had the same length as our current sun-based 24-hour day, you reply that
God did not literally tired of own works, but gave a personal example like everyone responsible parent of what people to do on this day. So God's days recorded in Genesis coincide in length with earthly days.

Since there were no people around before the sun and all we have is a reference to 'days', this would apply no matter what the lengths of the days were so it is not even 'scriptural evidence' that the days were the same length.

(And if you take genesis literally, why don't you take God 'rested from all his work' literally?)

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
- continued -

For verifying that seed-bearing plants were created before the sun and that all the stars were created on the same day, you reply:
in the early days of creation there are no human witnesses. Since God gives the to the people the truth recorded in the scripture with which people can live in harmony and grace with all of God's creations in the universe, there is no need for sense of doubt?


Proclaiming "truth recorded in scripture" is not verification, and neither is saying "no need for doubt".

Your 'verification' that scripture is literally true exactly as written seems to be:
1) it is true because scripture says it is true
2) it is true because in intuitively feels right to you

While these arguments may be harmonious with religion sites, this is a science site.
In the interest of harmony and grace I don't post science on religion sites, so please return the favor and don't post religion on science sites.

Thanks!
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2015
@Whydening Gyre

People are complex beings created by God in his image and likeness and that cause envy and hatred of lucifer. So he fought against God's plan for people here on Earth led by ego and hatred toward God's authority.
The thoughts and minds of people аре created by complex processes and interactions of the various parts of the human brain and has nothing to do with evolution. In this universe things are from the top to the bottom, and not vice versa as claimed by proponents of evolution. God created people, and people create more simple physical structures than themselves.


You didn't answer my direct questions.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2015
So religionists enjoy the trappings of technology, but not the reasoning that makes it. As some people like wealth, but not the work required to earn it
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2015
People are complex beings created by God in his image and likeness and that cause envy and hatred of lucifer. So he fought against God's plan for people here on Earth led by ego and hatred toward God's authority.

What exactly was that plan? To keep us around like pets? (Oh, good! Yea! the Master's home!Will he pet me? Oh yeah!, Oh, yeah!)
Sounds more like Lucifer didn't like that lack of respect for humans and was playing "Robin Hood" by talking Eve into that apple...
The thoughts and minds of people аре created by complex processes

Wait, In your first paragraph you just said we were complex beings in the image of god, not apes...
Oh, BTW - "in the image of" also implies - with the same capabilities...
and interactions of the various parts of the human brain and has nothing to do with evolution.

Those interactions have EVERYTHING to do with it. It's what we evolved to do.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2015
In this universe things are from the top to the bottom, and not vice versa as claimed by proponents of evolution.

Not the way it looks under scrutiny. Are seeds more complex than the organism that grows from them? Things start out complex and then get simpler?

God created people, and people create more simple physical structures than themselves.

A paradigm that seems to be swiftly changing..

Look. The bible is a simple math codex, written in parable/metaphor style. Prob'ly taken from more technical writings of an earlier culture. It has been reinterpreted (maybe even by design) to be taken literally by the masses because it has general applications across the board...
JVK
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
In this universe things are from the top to the bottom, and not vice versa as claimed by proponents of evolution.


Top-down causation: an integrating theme within and across the sciences? http://rsfs.royal...abstract

So religionists enjoy the trappings of technology, but not the reasoning that makes it.


What are you trying to tell creationists?

The bible is a simple math codex, written in parable/metaphor style.


What kind of biologically uniformed science idiot tries to tell others that the math codex evolved in the context of energy jumps defined as "mutations" more than 100 years ago?

Written language doesn't evolve when parts of letters or the letters themselves are randomly rearranged.
JVK
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015
Are seeds more complex than the organism that grows from them?


Is the sun's biological energy required for the seeds to grow? If so, light-induced RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link cell type differences in all plant species to all animal species via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding and physiology of reproduction.

If not, perhaps hens and eggs simultaneously emerged as was recently claimed by Matti Pitkanen after he pirated everything I modeled in the context of RNA-mediated events.

Was ribosome the first self-replicator? http://matpitka.b...tor.html

Excerpt: " It seems that all these structures could have emerged simultaneously. What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously."
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2015
this paper use TE, for Transposable Element...


This news report uses the term "genetic parasite" http://phys.org/n...nes.html

What is the definition of those two terms that links the definition of "evolution" of the placenta in fish to the definition of "evolution" of the placenta in mammals via your definition of "mutation"?



JVK, in case you REALLY not understand the purpose of definitions and how they are used, here is how definitions are supposed to work:

Definitions do not link the evolution of the placenta in some fishes to the evolution of the placenta in mammals - any links that exist do so regardless of whether humans see them or describe. What definitions do is to LET PEOPLE COMMUNICATE more clearly.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2015
- continued -

Humans name classes of things, events, etc. so that they can communicate more quickly. Names can be descriptive, such as 'Transposable Element' for a short DNA section that transposes (moves) itself around the genome, but can also be shortened (transposon) or even abbreviated (TE).

For example the Lynch paper could be titled "Ancient short DNA sequences that transpose themselves from one location in the genome to another, often duplicating themselves in the process, transformed the Uterine ...", and then repeat the specification of that type of DNA segment >40 times within the paper. Fortunately the authors chose to use the name 'Transposable Element' and even to shorten that to TE.

And how does a reader know what the authors mean by 'TE', which is short enough to have many meanings? Because the first time TE is used in the article, the authors define it to mean 'Transposable Element" in the context of the article.

- continued -

RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2015
- continued -

But how can the reader know what the authors mean by 'Transposable Element' since the authors do not define it? The convention is that when a term is define in an article then its standard definition is used, so one can look up the definition of 'Transposable Element' in the context of the fields of the article (genetics, evolution, molecular biology), and find what the authors mean by the term.

The system is far from perfect – there are typically many fairly similar definitions, so one still might not know exactly what the author means, and definitions evolve over time as more is learned about the class of things that they are describing. But if one's goal is to communicate, this is FAR better than people using a term to mean something OTHER than what scientists in that field mean, and then not defining what they mean when they use the term.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2015
- continued -

When in doubt, one can err on the side of clarity. For example, in "Exaptation of Transposable Elements into Novel Cis-Regulatory Elements: Is the Evidence Always Strong?", the abstract starts:
Transposable elements (TEs) are mobile genetic sequences that can jump around the genome from one location to another...


In this case this is probably superfluous because the term is well enough known in the field that almost all readers will already understand it, and the definition given falls well within the range of standard definitions, but defining it ENSURES that any reader then knows what the authors are referring to when they use the term TE in the paper. However if it had been a rarely used term, defining it would have been a nice courtesy, and if it had been used with a non-standard meaning then defining that it with that meaning would have been essential to clear commuication.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2015
- continued -

So in summary the definitions do not link the evolutions of the placenta in fish and in mammals. What the definitions do is to allow us to COMMUICATE about such links, concisely yet without losing much precision.

Hence we can discuss the evolution of the placenta in fish such as the platyfish and in almost all mammals as an example of parallel evolution, and can then discuss whether similar mechanisms underlie that parallel evolution. For the mammalian placenta one of us can say that this has been linked to Transposable Elements, and the other will know what he means by that. Similarly one of us can say that when the genome of the playfish X. maculatus was sequenced and annotated (Schartl et al. 2013), 4.8% of the transcribed genes found to be derived from TE sequences, but that the authors did not determine to what extent these particular genes involved in placental development, and the other will know what he means.

- continued -
RealScience
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2015
- continued -

We could even discuss that the occurrence of the placenta in platyfish species has been found to be nutrient-dependent, and then discuss whether it is the evolution of the placenta, or the development of the placenta that is nutrient dependent, and if it is the evolution, whether the jumping of the transposons is nutrient dependent, or whether it is the selection for some transposon jumps is nutrient-dependent (or whether both are nutrient dependent).

But if we don't mean the same thing when we use the terms placenta, nutrient-dependent, evolution, development, transposon, and selection, we won't communicate clearly and we will probably just waste time in misunderstanding each other.

Do you now see why definitions are important to clear communication, and how they should be used?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2015
Do you now see why definitions are important to clear communication, and how they should be used?


No, but thanks for asking. I see that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot who will probably never be able to link cause and effect.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2015


No, but thanks for asking. I see that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot who will probably never be able to link cause and effect.


Read as: All you guys are WRONG and I'm RIGHT. Now give me my ball, I'm going home!
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2015
Do you now see why definitions are important to clear communication, and how they should be used?


No, but thanks for asking. I see that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot who will probably never be able to link cause and effect.


You should get that 'transference' syndrome checked up, JVK, for your comment applies far more to you than to me.
JVK
2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2015
Viral Virtuosos

New understanding of noncoding RNAs may solve a long-standing puzzle about how viruses orchestrate lifelong infections. http://www.the-sc...rtuosos/
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2015
Viral Virtuosos

New understanding of noncoding RNAs may solve a long-standing puzzle about how viruses orchestrate lifelong infections. http://www.the-sc...rtuosos/


@JVK provided a great link but ruined the experience with his pseudo science babble.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2015

@JVK provided a great link but ruined the experience with his pseudo science babble.


Yes, it is a good article.

Too bad most of his posts are long-winded and wrong instead of short and useful like that one.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.