Aetheist biologist now believes science points to God

Now I usually steer clear of religious debates because I know they can be somewhat contentious. But in this instance I thought I'd share something I read this morning with fellow ATSers to see what people think. Hopefully I'll avoid offending anyone

Andrew Parker is an Australian zoologist at Oxford university. He comes from an atheist background, but has recently started to change his mind.

He's written a book titled "The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate", and claims that whilst writing it he's become more and more convinced that the bible does in fact describe the origins of the universe quite accurately. Given that no-one had a clue about the Big Bang or evolution when the bible was written, it does raise certain questions.

The best quote in the interview was this one:

Are science and religion irreconcilable?

The atheist movement argues that with science there’s no more room for religion. So you either have faith in religion with no rational backing whatsoever or you follow science – and science dictates there’s no room for God, which isn’t true. There are things beyond our realm we can’t solve with science.

What do other people think? I haven't read his book so I'm not sure exactly what his arguments are. But I agree that science in no way disproves the existence of God. The reason for the existence of the universe, and life on Earth in particular, are questions that science can never answer satisfactorily for me.

The full text for the interview can be found here.

reply to post by mattpryor


One more scientist who is trying to sell books is nothing remarkable. Many scientists do not believe in any specific god, but ALL of them realize that there are limits to current science. They just don't use that fact to proclaim something as radical and inaccurate as "Science points to God!"
They keep their beliefs private. Because, you see, most of them aren't trying to sell books about it.

Originally posted by '___'eviant
reply to post by mattpryor

 

One more scientist who is trying to sell books is nothing remarkable. Many scientists do not believe in any specific god, but ALL of them realize that there are limits to current science. They just don't use that fact to proclaim something as radical and inaccurate as "Science points to God!"
They keep their beliefs private. Because, you see, most of them aren't trying to sell books about it.

Heh, fair point

And it also has to be said that "the Metro" is not the most upstanding of scientific sources (or news sources for that matter!)

But there are scientists such as Dawkins who claim that science and evolution explicitly disprove the existence of God, and I thought it was nice to see an opposing viewpoint.

reply to post by mattpryor


Here is a better quote from a better scientist.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
~ Albert Einstein

That sums it up for me.

reply to post by mattpryor


I think Dawkin's only sees what he wants to see. For reasons of his agenda. Like a great deal of others on both sides of the debate. But in the end this fellow will be ignored, multiple times called unscientific, and etc etc etc. As with an scientist that speaks about anything resembling spirituality in a positive or realistic light. But talking about reality being a computer simulation is ok.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

The book will be out in October. Wise people will wait for that, read it, and then form their opinions.

The man's point, incidentally, is that the Book of Genesis (in his view) accurately reproduces the order of the evolution of life on Earth over four and a half billion years. He says the chance of the book's Bronze Age authors getting that right is slim, so it is likely the book was divinely inspired.

However, to do this he has to interpret 'Lights in the sky' as 'Let there be eyes'. The universe, including the sun, moon and stars, already existed by then - but not to life on Earth, which had no eyes at the time and couldn't see.

A strained interpretation to say the least. And the fact that Dr. Parker is taking the Templeton Foundation's shilling is a little offputting. Still, we must reserve judgement.

In the meantime, Dr. Parker wishes to make clear that

'It would be a great shame if my findings were either misused in an attempt to suggest that scientists themselves are unsure about science, or pounded out of all recognition into support of the seven-day creation premise.' Source

The following snippet from the OP linked interview is also worth noting:

Q:You say creationism is harmful to both religion and science. Why?

Dr. Parker: Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions.

Q:Creationists say evolution and the Big Bang are just theories. What do you think?

Dr. Parker: The problem with calling them theories is that anything can be called a theory. It doesn’t suggest the probability of it being right. On probability, you have creationism at something like 0.0001 per cent and evolution at 99.9999 per cent so it’s not fair to put them in the same category.

Has anyone else noticed correlation between science coming closer to the possibility of God, and the increase in vociferous antitheism? Death throes of a doomed supposition perhaps?

Science is getting closer to God the more we learn. Intelligent design is a well respected theory and makes alot of sense when you take the time to actually learn about it and not just shun the believers.

and science dictates there’s no room for God, which isn’t true. There are things beyond our realm we can’t solve with science.

Wow he clearly does not understand science. It is not some atheist domain. Just because it explains things does not rule out a deity hand in it.

I dont remember the quote but something like "there are no unknowns, just things science has yet to explain". I think so. I think anything can be understood with enough time and effort.

It is literally impossible to disprove or prove something I usually categorise things as 'established fact' instead. One can not know that god exists, and certainly not that he doesnt. People often say well what if a giant hand comes out of the clouds? Ha that could be hundreds of things. Does not prove it is god. Could be superior technology, hallucination, hologram, zeus, demon, alien, anything really.

Intelligent design could really just be due to mathematical law take effect... or the most logical evolutionary addition... or cuz god thought it looked cool only one certainty in life...
The only thing I know is that I know nothing

Originally posted by mattpryor
Now I usually steer clear of religious debates because I know they can be somewhat contentious. But in this instance I thought I'd share something I read this morning with fellow ATSers to see what people think. Hopefully I'll avoid offending anyone

Andrew Parker is an Australian zoologist at Oxford university. He comes from an atheist background, but has recently started to change his mind.

He's written a book titled "The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate", and claims that whilst writing it he's become more and more convinced that the bible does in fact describe the origins of the universe quite accurately. Given that no-one had a clue about the Big Bang or evolution when the bible was written, it does raise certain questions.

The best quote in the interview was this one:

Are science and religion irreconcilable?

The atheist movement argues that with science there’s no more room for religion. So you either have faith in religion with no rational backing whatsoever or you follow science – and science dictates there’s no room for God, which isn’t true. There are things beyond our realm we can’t solve with science.

What do other people think? I haven't read his book so I'm not sure exactly what his arguments are. But I agree that science in no way disproves the existence of God. The reason for the existence of the universe, and life on Earth in particular, are questions that science can never answer satisfactorily for me.

The full text for the interview can be found here.

Science is the faculty of man - our entire collective rational, logical thinking approach to describe the world we live in, how it operates, the fundamental mechanics, its origins etc, religion on the other hand is an ALTERNATIVE to science as it posits that GOD made it - science does not claim to know why we are here, or how exactly we came to be here - it claims that it would like to know and will try and find out - religion on the other hand DOES claim to know why we are here and how we got here - the are diametrically opposed at the very core to the very peripheral of their positions. Of this there is no doubt.

So where you posit that science can never answer these questions - you are mistaken as you can not know this - science is moving faster and making greater discoveries every day - secondly you assume that because you have dismissed science that the alternative , God, must therefore be true - how ridiculous.

God does not exist - fantastic claims of imaginary beings DO NOT NEED TO BE DISPROVED - I have no need to disprove the existence of fairies, goblins, trolls or any other fantastic being - I certainly do not have to disprove these things in order for science to be acceptable.

Thanks

I have a simple question.

Did God create mathematics?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
I have a simple question.

Did God create mathematics?

No, humans did. Mathematics is just another language that bears no direct relationship to physical experience.


Science isn't logical, or rational. It involves a leap of faith at the very first juncture. The more scientists realise this, the more they concede that science cannot disprove the existence of metaphysical entities, and indeed relies on the existence of them at various points in order to be what it is.

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: WTF?

Q:You say creationism is harmful to both religion and science. Why?

Dr. Parker: Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions.

Q:Creationists say evolution and the Big Bang are just theories. What do you think?

Dr. Parker: The problem with calling them theories is that anything can be called a theory. It doesn’t suggest the probability of it being right. On probability, you have creationism at something like 0.0001 per cent and evolution at 99.9999 per cent so it’s not fair to put them in the same category.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So creationism is totally unfounded with a probability of 0.001%
Then please tell me whether the Big Bang was an act of CREATION or not?
What does the current paradigm of science have to say about that!

Big Bang: Creation as proposed BY SCIENCE! RE: The THEORY!

CMB: Cosmic Microwave Background. Evidence of what was proposed above [i.e. CREATION!] BY SCIENCE! RE: The PROOF!

:shk: EPIC FAIL Dr. Parker! For him not to realize that the Big Bang is direct proof of creation [i.e 100% reality & NOT just a probability,] is to be scoffed at!

So Creationists say evolution and the Big bang are just theories! NOPE! EPIC FAIL to the person Questioning Dr. Parker.
As I fully believe in Science and the Big Bang and Evolution and Creationism and Intelligent Design and I also Experience the REALITY of all these things, then me just pigeonholing them as just theories would be disenfranchising the truth! And to discount ME from the demographic [RE: Creationist!] identified by the Questioner is to disenfranchise ME!

Personal Disclosure: mvirata hit the bullseye with the perfect quote! Star for them!

P.S. My answer to Dr. Parkers statement that "There are things beyond our realm we can’t solve with science." is that that is a victim mentality and is hardly productive at all and would ask that he amend his statement to include the word "YET" to the end, as this would allow the influence of time to be fully considered!

EDIT: Oops I forgot my Disclaimer! :shk: me a

[edit on 7-8-2009 by OmegaLogos]

I think it's nice to hear an alternative opinion.
I'd read the book

Humans are very humanocentric. So it's very interesting that in the Judeo/Christian bible we are created last, almost as an afterthought. And this guy is right in that the Genesis story follows the timeline of the Big Bang to the rise of man. It doesn't discount evolution, but neither can evolution discount Genesis.