Where is common ground between science and religion? Will there always be science vs religion for their opposing views? I think science and religion have a lot more in common than some would like to believe.
"I think both sides will sometimes jump to conclusions in the claim of absolutes to gain followers to their belief."
Unfortunately, the scientific method does not allow one to jump to conclusions. It's simply a method of testing and attaining results of the physical world. It very well may be those results are used by others to jump to conclusions or if it suits their agenda, but that's something entirely different.
How is it something entirely different when you can't trust what science and scientist's say? How do you know the absolute true agenda of what a person is saying? So do you agree that it is ignorant for scientist's to rule out creation?
That is entirely up to the individual to make the effort to learn something themselves, to understand the results and the findings of science so that "trusting" someone is not something they would need to worry about. Simple, really.
lol How simple is it to trust something when little to nothing is absolute?
And, in a universe, where nothing IS absolute but is instead relative, how can you expect explanations to offer the absolute? And, if scientists can trust something as simple and straight forward as Newtons laws to get a probe out to Saturn and beyond, or use Special Relativity to speed up particles to near light speeds, how is that not useful considering there are no absolutes?
I never said i'm not appreciative of honest useful science with no political agendas behind it. I also never said that science isn't good at searching for absolutes when it's not corrupted.
What I see here is a personal view and misunderstanding of what science entails. Science can't get corrupted by its very own built in safeguard of falsifiability and consistency of results. If I do an experiment and get the exact same results as you, we have met consistency. If I don't get the same results, we have met with falsifiability. Both are necessary requirements for science to work.
The oldest spiritual text the Holy Vedas means science.You are correct they have a more in common than some would like to admit.
Maybe the common ground is truth. There isn't one truth for science and a different one for religion. Ultimately, there is one truth, period. With that in mind why can't we have an open minded search for one common truth with both sides refraining from dogmatic stubbornness and go searching together for the long sought "theory of everything."
Just a thought.
I agree. If you keep an open mind to other possibilities and possible variations in your interpretations of science,prophecy and scripture one will find common ground. I see no conflict. The goal of each is truth. It is inevitable that eventually they will be one in the hearts and minds of all. I have reconciled the science of cave men, Earth's age and many other sectors of science with religion. I've reconciled them for myself and I am content. I don't set them in stone as ABSOLUTE because I keep myself open to further discoveries and corresponding interpretations.
I don't understand how you say you are content, but don't set them as absolute. I think content is absolute. Possibly a belief truly open is one that is never absolute never being content with what you already know which could prevent you from learning something you don't know.
I do agree that it is much less stressful and enjoyable when content.
Now, I'm really confused. In another post you said one should not be "swayed by the facts and figures" and that you would promote to shut out anyone or anything that would shake your beliefs. You appear to now be in complete contradiction with yourself.
What is that supposed to mean? The earths age and knowledge of cavemen as it has been discovered is not mentioned in religion at all. There is nothing to reconcile.
Why should their be common ground? There are hundred's of sciences and hundreds of religions. You could play the 'match game' your whole life and never find satisfaction. Religion is based on faith and belief, not scientific fact. Mine isn't I should say. I know what I believe based on the Bible. Science means little in terms of my faith. Its just as easy for me to believe, if not easier, that God created the universe as it is to believe it all happened by accident. Science may vary based on new discoveries, my faith does not.
But, it means a great deal to your everyday life and you take advantage of every single thing science has provided you, your internet connection, your computer and this forum, for example, not to mention countless other conveniences you take for granted.
What has your faith brought you, comparatively speaking?
Yes, it's easy to believe, but it takes effort to understand, and if you honestly can say to yourself that you do in fact understand what science says, then you can compare them to your beliefs and comment intelligently.
But, you'll still take advantage of everything science brings today and will offer by their discoveries tomorrow?
I think there is common ground between the two, well one can only hope...
I think the common ground is that they both know nothing of how our existence began. I think both science and religion use around the same amount of faith.
Just keep a logical mind and stop getting so emotional and faithful when the religious get you angry. I thought science believed logic over emotion in belief. Why do so many scientific minds keep getting banned? lol
Now you're just antagonising me deliberately I don't get 'emotional and faithful' XD I don't just gain faith when I see something I think is ridiculous
And we aren't banned because we're 'scientific', we're banned because we live in the real world
Plus, I'll be honest, I quite like arguing...
You are right, I did write it just to mess with you, but in good fun. lol. I have to agree with you, I gain faith against something as well when I see something said as truth that contradicts finding a truth. lol Thank you for being honest about liking to argue, I do as well. I think we learn more from disagreements.
Religion does while the science of now does not as the soul is incomprehensible to todays science.
Ehh, I kinda agree. I think religious belief adds more emotion and science tries to separate emotion. This doesn't mean that they are successful at separating their personal emotions from what they want to believe. Many scientist's believe theories as absolute simply because it's what they want to believe. I think science attempts to separate faith from logic when sciences uses just as much faith as religion.
Well, let's see if there is some common ground.
One is a method of observing, testing and understanding the physical world around us while the other is a method of indoctrinating people to uphold the myths and superstitions of the Bronze Age.
Where's the common ground here?
I think science and religion are now, and have always been inexricably linked. And I find oppostion of opinion in the Science, just the scientists.
Like relion, Science, has its fanatics. Now combine those fanatics, with the religous fanatics, and we have.... alot of fanaticism.
I do not see an opposition of Science Vs Religion, as much as I see an oppisition of Sientists -Vs- Religionists.
There are indeed fanatical scientists as well, although I'd say probably less than religious ones. No matter though. I never really saw Science and Religion being hugely at odds. There's a bit of an overlap where there might be friction, there's bound to be, but that's more about one trying to limit the other in some way. In reality, religion is more about feeling, believing and personal thought. Science is a practice that seeks truths via evidence, and on an unbiased basis. Of course some scientists can be very biased, and in theory that's not 'good practice' but everyone needs a bit of breathing space
I think both sides are corrupted by money, politics, and wanting power to control through belief. I agree that religion is emotionally based in most cases where science is more logically based.
DSD That is the best articulation on this I have read in a long time! Good Job!
I pretty much agree with most of this. I don't know about the science vs religion compared to the scientist extremist vs the religious extremist. I think the basis of the scientific belief of life is evolution as absolute. I think the basis of religion is creation as absolute. Maybe finding the absolute is somewhere between the two or with both of them or with neither of them. I don't think either know, I think both only have theory meaning that both truly don't know. I think this is great that both do not know as absolute. It allows every individual to form their own belief of how and why we are here.
Actually. No Scientific theories are to prove, nor even speak on God.
The friction comes more from the question of a, "beginning", -Vs- an, "infinite", Universe. (no beginning no end. A closed causal system, without a cause, or end.
or a finite Universe, with a beginning, and end.
A beginning infers a cause.
In that, "A beginning", there is no statement about God's existence or not, but just the thought that there could be, is enough to make alot of athiest scientists jumpy, and alot of religionist feel affirmed in their beliefs and vindicated in their beliefs as not, "stupid", and "delusional",(as some would term them.).
Science in general, (not biblical science.), is not in the bussiness of proving whether "God" exists, or not.
I myself, don't think we as man are capable of understanding God in a full cognitive capacity.
And I doubt our science would be advanced enough too acomplish it, if they were out to prove it.
You have some great thoughts in here. So science claims that the universe is infinate while religion claims finate? I agree on the other part that scientist that are open to creation have been expelled in some cases for their personal beliefs. Pretty ridiculous when science claims to keep an open mind. I do think scientist wants to prove if creation exist's or not. I think this is some of the main motivation and purpose in science. An example would the studies like the hadron collider. I think true science is finding evidence by things which can be ruled out, not by everything that can be ruled in. I doubt as well that science or religion will ever define absolute truth of existence accepted by everyone.
It strikes me that no matter what they get or don't leaves us still questioning..
If they get something interesting in the hadron collider, that it is still, "created", with a, "begining".
By them, and science, in a lab, smashed together.
How did anything gain motion in a closed causal system with no begining??
So it seems not to really answer the question.
If we began?
What if anything that comes from that knowledge of its occurrance, could not be defined as, "creation", or a "creative" process? Which needs a creator.
Then were back to the start.
So an infinite universe it would seem to me, is the only plausable explanation for no creation, or creator.
And I cannot see the universe having no begining
Just a thought.
Wow, I am highly pissed. I just wrote a 5 minute comment and lost Internet connection right as I went to post it and lost everything. lol
Great thoughts again, thanks for adding.
What are your thoughts on what I posted about finding scientific absolutes.
I think true scientific evidence is found by things that can be ruled out, not by everything that could be ruled in. I think it is only ignorant for any scientist to claim that creation isn't possible as an absolute when everything I can think of has a creator/creators along with a beginning and end.
I agree that they/anyone will likely never find the absolute truth of existence for everyone. I think both sides will sometimes jump to conclusions in the claim of absolutes to gain followers to their belief.
It just seems rediculous that one could create the begining, to dispute it, and the creation that follows said begining.
Doesn't the act of, "begining", the process, answer the question?
Sort of like the failed, fake, Miller/Urey "creation of life" in a lab in 53.
Was supposed to prove what?
That you could, "CREATE", life in a lab. It is still created!!
Thats what the religionists have been saying all along.
whooo, man,.. they loose me sometimes.
I never got that.
Sa Toya said... "I think both science and religion use around the same amount of faith"
TM, I would like to throw a theory out on infinate and creation. Possibly one that could be claimed infinate is energy. Perhaps this is where religion got the idea that a creator or creators is infinate. If energy is infinate, I don't think science can logically rule out creation until they find the root of the energy and whats behind it's creation along with everything else in existence. Maybe it is an infinate question for a good purpose so than no one person or people can define every individuals purpose or belief as absolute giving them absolute control.
Physicists and Mathamaticians pretty much agree, the universe had a begining.
All the math and physical laws point to a finite point in the series of expansion within the universe, that when veiwed in reverse. (Meaning if you set up a center, with spokes coming from it, all points converge when tipped back. (or any line of consequence within the universe.) They all point to a singularity.
One finite point of origin, immmensly dense and infernally hot.
So no begining doesn't make sense.
And a closed infinite system, would defy logic and Physics, all consequeces, have a cause. But those relationships are not eternal.
They begin, they end.
I don't see how logic sustains it.
Oh And lets not forget the Big Bounce theory now. I guess it is universe reincarnation. Bang.... suuuuckkkk...... bang...... suuuuukkkkk.... bang.... That cements their belief, eh.
lololol Sorry, thats sounds worse than meant. Keep your minds out of the gutters peeps.
Marine - I apply faith in all the doctrines. It is only through faith and it's application that we may know the truth of all things. Those things that have grown my faith and developed into a firm testimony I hold to. I all other things I utilize personal prayer, faith and reason to find the truths. I do so without pride or prejudice.
Q - I am not swayed. I take all facts and doctrines and weigh them on a scale. I put them into practice using faith and good works.
No cave men and many other things are not "itemized" in scripture, however through scripture we may ascertain the means to find the truths we seek. For myself I have put them both together in a way that does not contradict. I don't hold it as doctrine but at least I find some comfort that science and religion can and does go hand in hand.
Yes, and you would seemingly deny or reject the existence of anything that did not agree with your faith even if it was placed squarely in front of you.
The way in which you evidently find that science and religion go hand in hand is only when something agrees with your religion. If it doesn't, you reject or deny it, regardless. You will firmly place any and all religious beliefs in priority over anything science has to say.
That's not hand in hand, that's tongue in cheek.
Oh Q - Have all my quotes not been entirely accepting of all information. You still picture me as someone who is like so many - set in one way and that's it.
You need to open up a bit. All too often writing on forums gives us false misconceptions of one another even when the words are plain as day.
It's a new year, let's live up a bit and accept that each of us and our individual faiths, or lack of, is not "all knowing". We have much to learn and we must be willing to accept that some of our ideas may not be entirely correct.
Has science contridicted the Bible? Q?
Show me, please.
Cause I haven't seen it in all my wonderings.
The question would only have relevancy if science set forth to contradict the bible. The real question is whether or not the bible contradicts science? And, it does appear that is the case if one were to invoke the supernatural and it's effects on the universe.
I have already stated above science does not set out to do anything for or against the bible Q.
My question is where is it contridicted, minus the "super-natural" part. Do you believe the universe had a begining? or is infinite and eternal?
And some science has been done in the name of the bible and NO contridictions as of yet.
I will keep you posted though.
Since I know your not into reading that stuff and all.
Where in all the provable instances and assertions within the bible, do they not agree?
An yeah. I was swimmin in it. I know. You caught me.
All the evidence we have to date most certainly suggests the universe had a beginning and does not suggest it to be infinite or eternal.
That said, it does suggest the universe is finite, but is infinitely boundless.
We can discuss those findings separately, if you wish, to see for ourselves if there are apparent contradictions or not.
If you're asking my personal opinion, I really have little to offer, but again we can discuss any instances that have come to light, if you wish.
And, if possible, we could discuss the physical aspects of the universe in light of scriptural claims. I'm somewhat familiar with those and could possibly offer some insight.
It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling. The ball is still in play so I won't touch it.
When ever man. I just thought you might have a link or two pointing out some of the inconsistancies and contridictions.
As far as sciences and the bible. Any one thing within in some understanding of science, may not be mentioned or alluded too more than once or twice. But the totality of the coincidences does add up.
Like I said. I don't see it as science against the bible or vice-versa. Science is not in it, to prove or dis-prove God, or any religion.
So why do atheist scientists seem to place it in an adversarial position?
It isn't, after all.
Your belief in science has in the end, nothing to do with God.
The question is irrelivent to you. Is it not?
I was hoping you might provide that.
Exactly. But, most certainly if religions were going to make claims to the supernatural, they should at the very least understand the physical laws that would make it appear their claims may not be justified.
It would appear more along the lines that believers wish to marry religion and science when they are two completely different systems.
I have little 'belief' in science, but instead have a firm understanding of scientific theories and their results, how they affect us and how we can put those theories to useful applications.
I'm not sure where gods would fit into any of that?
Not wishing to butt into your discussion, because you both seem to be getting somewhere with this one, but it seems that for something to be supernatural it would naturally be outside the scope of science, so nobody should expect it to conform to science and I would not expect that a scientist could accept a supernatural act, unless they personally experienced it in an undeniable, unaccountable way, with several witnesses present.
I've been reading this discussion and thought I'd interject a smidge.
I totally agree with you on this one! it must be out the realm of science.
Does your god in any way shape or form have some physical effect on you or your life?
If so, then your god would had to have interacted with our physical universe in order to do so. This then moves into the realm of science.
oops almost see science cannot account for the beginning of the universe let alone life itself. God created all, science does not answer this only God can.
Must you? *sigh*
On behalf of all scientists, scholars, philosophers, etc. everywhere, I apologize in advance for not having the answers to the questions you seek handed to you on a silver platter. You see, it's a bigass universe out there and we still have a lot of work to do.
But hey, we know you can't wait, you need answers now, you're a man of action, so no need to ask further, no need to think or use your brains any longer, just pick up a copy of your local scripture and find solace in myth and superstition.
You sound a lot like a certain banned fellow, but I digress. The problem is you think I'm a Christian because of what I don't know, but in fact I'm a Christian because of what I do know. I know Life only comes from Life from The Law of Biogenesis(note the word genesis) I know 0+0=0(duh), I know animals produce after it's kind(observational zoology), and I know the universe had a beginning(The Law of Causality, and the second Law of Thermodynamics). You on the other hand don’t know or you can’t comprehend these simple facts so you and those other “scientist” are still guessing, and all you got is “goo to you via the zoo“, or “the frog to prince story” with no facts just interpretation of the facts(which is not science). God create all and is not bound by the laws of the universe He created them. You could save yourself some time and pick up the bible and do your own research and discover the truth of God, but you won't. If you still feel the need to vent WRITE A HUB!
http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-You-Handle- … uth-of-God
http://hubpages.com/hub/Seeing-is-NOT-a … an-atheist
The qualifiers of your post reveal little more than a southern baptist ministers sermon on the mount.
Oh man….. I gave you a door you still can't walk through. You have much faith and it leaves a lot to be desired, but again I must ask, If your brain wasn't designed why do you trust it?
Considering it is all we are armed with to take on the universe, I really don't have much other choice for thinking. I mean, look at the mess I'd be in if allowing others to do my thinking for me.
Of course, with all its faulty wiring and inefficiencies, it's still leaps and bounds far better an evolved organ than anything a vengeful, jealous, petty god could muster.
I think there is still some considerable dis-greement in science, as to whether or not "Evolution" could account for the human brain/mind.
Then, I bid you fair sir, "Disagree away"
I am your servant.
Thank you, then. I dis-agree.
Its the "mind", more than the "brain", I dis-agree with.
We know the "brain", (alot of things have a brain. don't get me wrong Q.. i guess I should clearify. Sorry.), is acounted for as a physical structure for regulation of the body, and it's responses and such.
But what of the emotions and the ephemeral things within the mind and psyche of a human. Of what worth are many of the emotions and other, I guess, etheral things we concieve of and feel, and which do affect us, to the evolutionary process.
We know the psychological health of someoone can account for physical ailments of that someone. In some cases, not all, but as an example.
Of what use is all that baggage?
Would you believe those things are constructs of man, in an attempt to define his world around him in some relational terms?
Again you mimic Dawkins he does the "thinking” for all you atheist. I like how cut out what refutes your “arguments” so you can continue to troll. Maybe your brain hasn't evolved enough to realize there is a God.
Again Q your assuming that something by definition that is limitless, has a limit. If God exists and is a limitless being, then God can interact and leave no scientific trace for mere humans to find... IF
That would be correct except for one small problem often overlooked by believers, and that is when they claim the supernatural somehow affect our universe, whether it is claiming to see holy spirits or claiming their god had some influence over their lives, science has every right to step in to test and measure those effects, yes?
I don't think it can be ruled out that faith can't have influence over lives. I think it can be ruled in that it can. The poorest person in the world can have the richest outlook if they have purpose through themselves or their faith. Without faith, I think some can't find purpose. Does it take scientific paperwork to see that some are built or ruined by their beliefs influence?
Of course science has the right to test and measure those effects, assuming science and it's apparatus is available for when they occur, which is a rare situation, because scientists rarely hang out in groups of believers praying, my house, the homeless shelter, out on the mission field,in hospices, on prison blocks, in healing centers.... in other words all the places that Christ and the Holy Spirit often choose to do supernatural events in.
Now if scientist did hang out in those places, well maybe they would see first hand what we talk about,even experience it in their own life situations, and no longer need all those tests and measurements to understand the truth.
Proving that love existed 1000 years ago was beyond sciences ability to prove, does that mean it didn't exist 1000 years ago? No, it means science lacked the ability... There may be effects on the body that science can measure (effects an interaction with God creates) I hope so... But if there isn't, for me that will simply mean that science can't measure it, just like the love they couldn't 'measure' 1000 years ago.
Mikel, a word of advice, sir. We don't use the word "prove" when talking about theories, experiments, etc., we usually only refer to that word when deriving mathematics.
Words we use are "evidence, rigor, test, observe, result, predict" when referring to demonstrating the scientific method, but usually never, "prove"
And, you are absolutely right, we cannot measure something that may have occurred centuries ago. So what?
We can find evidence of civilizations and cultures that existed centuries ago and read their literature or hear their music or observer their art for evidence of love.
Would that satisfy you?
Mikel, seriously, don't you think it a little overboard to create the paradox of measuring something that occurred centuries ago, or do you know personally Mr. Peabody and have used his Way Back Machine?
I think the that we should remember that until about 150 years ago scientists were trying to figure out HOW God created things and how they worked, so I would agree with whoever said that the problem is between scientists and religionists, and I say that as a religionist self recognized!
Will that ever change now?
Well I don't think so, science has now taken a zealous approach to 'science for science sake' and it views religion as the opponent as religion challenges sciences views and THAT is no longer allowed in this secular humanist world, and I do acknowledge that the secular humanists have taken control and rule.
But as a religionist, I also know that these things MUST happen and are part of Gods plan, so they don't worry me.
And yes I do say things that I know will wind up humanists, and likewise they do the same to us believers....
So what, we all seem to enjoy the sport!
I am sure you know as many religion Vs Science sites as I do. And have read just as many of the arguements. So if you have read them and find no value in them, then I cannot add to that.
Sorry. Got tied up with company.
Science vs religion now thats a topic :S
I am not a member of any religion and don't plan to be, so I guess I'm on the side of science.
Nothing against religion, I just don't believe...
This may not go along with the thread , or maybe it does , but what happens to all the puppy dogs and kitty cats , do they get to go to heaven too?
Here is more about the structure of the brain, and evolution.
The link is at the bottom.
This about sums it up, in a more thourough way than I could write right now, Q.
If you can take a minute, its speaks better than I could on it right now.
I am a lil lagging in the sleep dept.
How do scientists explain the evolution of the human brain?
As with other complex biological features, scientists explain the evolution of the human brain through natural selection. However, the human brain presents some unique challenges that must be answered through slightly different methods. There are aspects of the brain of homo sapiens that do not fit Darwin's usual pattern. The time scale allowed for significant change is shorter. The mental capabilities of humans are far above other organisms. The unique nature of man puts our brain in a class by itself.
Scientists explain the apparent change and diversity of most biological systems through naturalistic evolution. The generally accepted theory is that small, random changes in an organism sometimes provide an advantage. This advantage allows the organism to be more successful than those without that "upgrade." Soon, the "upgrade" becomes the norm, and eventually another random mutation will occur. Over millions of years, this results in a completely different organism.
Scientists have experienced problems when applying the normal methods of evolution to the human brain. Paleontologists and neurologists have noted that there is little to no notable difference between the brains of modern humans and so-called Neanderthals, other than a slight change in size. Given the supposedly significant differences in intelligence, social structure, and physical features, this seems strange. Those studying this field admit as much. The coordination required between the brain and the body is another. The development of the human brain is one of the biggest unsolved mysteries for evolution.
The response used by scientists to explain the evolution of the human brain involves a "fast evolution" scheme. Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute concluded that the human brain evolved very rapidly. Their research led them to believe that there was considerable "selection pressure" to evolve the brain into a larger, stronger unit. As human society became more sophisticated, the advantage of a larger brain became more pronounced. This caused the evolutionary process to accelerate, resulting in a quick progression to modern man.
There are some unanswered aspects to these theories, however. As with most other evolutionary studies, there are plenty of reasons given for why a larger, stronger brain is useful, yet no actual biological or physical explanation for how it occurred. It is important to realize that modern science has never observed a beneficial, inheritable mutation that causes a permanent change in a species. Variations from a norm have survived a few generations, but then have swung back to the original form.
The idea that the usefulness of the brain caused evolution to accelerate also seems improbable. If the advantage was very strong, it would seem more likely to see a very clear, steady, uninterrupted evolution. Just because a feature is useful should not make a mutation more likely. To assume that mutation occurred more frequently because the larger brain was "needed" implies intent and intelligence behind the process.
Finally, aligning the development of the brain with the development of the body poses a massive problem for evolutionary scientists. Simply looking at a possible evolutionary event brings the dilemma to light. Imagine a mutation, or series of mutations, that improve the eyesight of an organism. For the brain to be able to process this information, it either must evolve after the eye, before the eye, or at the same time.
Evolving the brain after the eye means that the eye's function is not immediately usable, and so cannot be an advantage. Also, the likelihood of a random brain mutation granting use of the new ability is low once, let alone for millions of mutations over billions of years. Evolving before the eye is similar, in that the brain would have wasted time, growth, and resources on something not useable. This would be a disadvantage, which natural selection indicates is a sign of impending extinction.
Evolving the brain at the same time as the eye is the only explanation that allows the function to be an actual advantage. However, simultaneous mutations in the eye and brain that work together to provide an advantage cannot be expected to occur repeatedly in every species on earth. There is no doubt that this would be a useful event, but that is not an explanation for how it could happen.
Even the terminology used by scientists to explain the evolution of the human brain sounds anything but random: The homo sapiens brain evolution was a "special event." Rapid evolution was "needed." The brain evolved "in preparation" for our complex social structure. Even those dedicated to a random, naturalistic explanation for life cannot avoid using terminology that implies purpose, intent, and intelligence.
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolutio … in-faq.htm
This is the Best post I've ever read.
WOW,JUST WOW.I'm going to read this a few times at least.My compliments...
A poorly written article with a specious conclusion. No, there are no implications towards purpose, intent and intelligence, sorry, I don't buy that for a second.
Frankly, I get my reading material here, not pop sci sites:
There is also a new facility opening for studying the brain that shows to be very promising:
"For instance, Nenad Sestan, a professor of neurobiology, and colleagues reported in a recent edition of the journal Neuron that they have discovered human-specific networks of gene expressions in areas of the developing cerebral cortex involved in higher cognition, speech and language.
Rakic, in this week’s edition of the journal Nature, describes the molecular mechanism that allows for neurons from different classes of stem cells to intermix and form columns crucial to the functioning of the developing cerebral cortex.
Other recent studies include a comparison between gene expression and cellular events at the early developmental stages of human embryos with that of other species."
Thank you. I hope you enjoy it again.
here is the link to the home site. allaboutscience.org
My point it simply the matter of the brain in many respects, is not so easilly explained with Evolution.
There are many ?'s as to its creation.
by janesix 2 years ago
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved"Tim Minchin
by Phocas Vincent 4 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys, thank you.)
by Hujiki 9 years ago
I want to write a blog about Science Vs Religion but can't get any starting points so i though to se
by A Troubled Man 7 years ago
by Josh Wolfson 7 years ago
There must be some way to get the change-desire movements together on things. What can we do? I need debate, issues, and civil discourse. Let's start!
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being guided by metaphysical thinking. The...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|