Author Topic: Science and Religion  (Read 2561 times)

Dave_Poedel

  • Guest
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2011, 10:44:52 PM »
Oh good....In the beginning God created the.......

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2011, 10:49:26 PM »
James,

So...there be not being enough time to get everything done that needs getting done is nothing new.  That's comforting... I think.

memiller

  • Guest
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2011, 01:48:16 AM »
But no, they wonít stop either. ďThe bigger it is,Ē they say, ďthe faster it burns, but if itís too big it shears off it's own excess mass, but the maximum size star burns in about a quarter hundred million years, much less than the normal amount of time for an average star to burn, but if itís that big we donít think it will go supernova at all then, no, we think it turns into a black hole (or Neutron Star or White Dwarf) in those cases.Ē  And thus, we now see as we assemble out timeline in our notes, it would not disperse the needed elements to form the planets and solar system we need for us to be here within the time frame we have allotted for it. Our problem is back because only supernova stars can disperse the needed heavy elements quickly enough but they don't assemble and burn fast enough to allow for our three generations of star life times.

Basic misunderstanding here. Stars massive enough to form TypeII supernovae (>9 solar masses) go on to form neutron stars if below 20 solar masses, or black holes if above. However, that is just the stiff core of the star, the very central part below the stalled shock. The rest is blown off and becomes a supernova remant, seeding the rest of the galactic disk with heavy elements. A 25 solar mass star will do this within about 10 million years of its formation. Hence there is time for MANY, MANY generations of very massive stars to enrich the galactic disk before our solar system formed.

In other words, it is not a choice between supernova vs. black hole or neutron star - BOTH happen. (White dwarfs only form from less massive stars like our Sun).

Mark E. Miller, Astronomy lecturer, Western Michigan University

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2011, 05:20:23 AM »
Basic misunderstanding here. Stars massive enough to form TypeII supernovae (>9 solar masses) go on to form neutron stars if below 20 solar masses, or black holes if above. However, that is just the stiff core of the star, the very central part below the stalled shock. The rest is blown off and becomes a supernova remant, seeding the rest of the galactic disk with heavy elements. A 25 solar mass star will do this within about 10 million years of its formation. Hence there is time for MANY, MANY generations of very massive stars to enrich the galactic disk before our solar system formed.

In other words, it is not a choice between supernova vs. black hole or neutron star - BOTH happen. (White dwarfs only form from less massive stars like our Sun).

Mark E. Miller, Astronomy lecturer, Western Michigan University

I know nothing of this area (and have never had much interest in dating issues -- uh, dating the creation of the universe, that is), but based on what you just said, wouldn't a 25 solar mass star form a black hole?  How long for a star <20 solar masses take to go supernova?

Paul O Malley

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2011, 09:34:49 AM »
Responding to Pearson on amplifying what I would see as a point of contact between Science and Morality/Law, I drew the comment from the section of Benedict's Encyclical that was quoted by cssml.  If brief that was "moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand."   I'd suppose I "feel," and that the quote implies, that science has its limits.  I further sense that recognition of those limits become an imperative when it comes to the nature of man. 
Paul O'Malley - NALC layman
Supporting the observance of Central Time across Indiana since 1967.

pearson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2114
    • View Profile
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2011, 10:20:34 AM »
Responding to Pearson on amplifying what I would see as a point of contact between Science and Morality/Law, I drew the comment from the section of Benedict's Encyclical that was quoted by cssml.  If brief that was "moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand."   I'd suppose I "feel," and that the quote implies, that science has its limits.  I further sense that recognition of those limits become an imperative when it comes to the nature of man. 

Thanks for responding, Paul.

Unfortunately, the passage from Benedict XVI's encyclical caritas-in-veritate doesn't specify what is meant by saying "moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand."  Are we talking about the critical importance of moral formation for scientists, so that they can conduct their inquiries out of a character of shaped by ethical excellence?  If not that, then what?

Tom Pearson

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2011, 10:53:07 AM »
I find it interesting that in this discussion of Science and Religion, some folks responding seem to be very exacting and specific about defining "religion" as at least "Lutheran Christianity", if not "Lutheran Christianity as defined by one particular Lutheran denomination". "Science", on the other hand, is defined as any vague sort of system of verifiable knowledge and information that is convenient for the sake of making a point. That sure makes it easier to make science look bad.


James Gustafson

  • Guest
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2011, 11:26:43 AM »
But no, they wonít stop either. ďThe bigger it is,Ē they say, ďthe faster it burns, but if itís too big it shears off it's own excess mass, but the maximum size star burns in about a quarter hundred million years, much less than the normal amount of time for an average star to burn, but if itís that big we donít think it will go supernova at all then, no, we think it turns into a black hole (or Neutron Star or White Dwarf) in those cases.Ē  And thus, we now see as we assemble out time line in our notes, it would not disperse the needed elements to form the planets and solar system we need for us to be here within the time frame we have allotted for it. Our problem is back because only supernova stars can disperse the needed heavy elements quickly enough but they don't assemble and burn fast enough to allow for our three generations of star life times.

Basic misunderstanding here. Stars massive enough to form TypeII supernovae (>9 solar masses) go on to form neutron stars if below 20 solar masses, or black holes if above. However, that is just the stiff core of the star, the very central part below the stalled shock. The rest is blown off and becomes a supernova remnant, seeding the rest of the galactic disk with heavy elements. A 25 solar mass star will do this within about 10 million years of its formation. Hence there is time for MANY, MANY generations of very massive stars to enrich the galactic disk before our solar system formed.

In other words, it is not a choice between supernova vs. black hole or neutron star - BOTH happen. (White dwarfs only form from less massive stars like our Sun).

Mark E. Miller, Astronomy lecturer, Western Michigan University

Thank you for taking the time to show me where I can make improvements, I will amend my paper for your corrections.

In my paper I would like to explain how heavy elements might or might not reach the outskirts of our galactic disk and how long they will need to be traversing across the cosmos, but I have had a hard time keeping that material down to a single paragraph and it becomes a whole new paper unto itself, but that is no excuse for blatant errors and so I will re-write that section.

Surely though, you're not suggesting that the universe being as young as it appears to be (13+ billion) hasn't caused quite a disruption in the fields of science are you?  Or even just astronomy itself without consideration to other fields, I continue to submit that the observable universe appears to need to be much older than the alloted time allows.  Such as, the time required for even a small moon to be broken up and formed into Saturnís rings and yet for the rings to remain as they are now (young looking) with the constant decaying forces on them, they must be young (appearances) and simultaneously they must have begun their formation processes before the Universe began (theological creation theories).

Please share your thoughts (universe age, not Saturns rings per se), thanks in advance.

« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 11:36:53 AM by James Gustafson »

peterm

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
    • View Profile
Re: Science and Religion
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2011, 12:23:11 PM »
I taught the science of human (and equine) anatomy & physiology at the college level for 30 years, I practiced as a Paramedic for 19 years and did equine reproduction as a job for over 20 years, I am also a LCMS Pastor.  Rarely did the agnostic or atheistic student protest what I presented in my classroom or lab because I largely stayed away from the topic of "origins" because it is simply not necessary to delve into it.  Our infatuation with origins as the proof for or against the Christian faith is greatly misplaced, in my experience and opinion.

I taught a sense of awe at the marvel of God's creation of the animal body and functions.  That meant that my students needed to learn "parts" and how they interacted with other parts and the environment.  I taught that which is observable and measurable, I also shared my speculation on how unanswered questions might be answered.  I taught that the biggest limitation of science is a lack of ability to observe or measure, and so we hypothesize.  This, in my experience, is where science and theology often collide.  For example, Darwin's theories of evolution are largely speculation because there is no evidence of, say, a species evolving into another species.  There are theories, there is much speculation, but our egos get in the way (even Christian egos) and we insist that we are right.

I am humbled by the fact that much of what I taught on the nervous system in the 80's and 90's has proven to be incomplete or even wrong.  Did I teach unreliable information? my own speculation? Nope, I taught what was known, what the literature said (textbooks are largely useless since the time it takes to publish one makes it out of date before it arrives at the bookstore).  No, I spent hours pouring over the literature to stay current in my field so that my students would have the best and latest information, even where it contradicted the textbook.  Well, discoveries since the 90's have proven that even the best and latest is incomplete and subject to clarification, revision or even disproving.  

God does not change.  When I accepted the Ordination of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Lutheran subset of same I promised to be a "steward of the mysteries", not an innovator.  Frankly, I have little to no interest in research that redefines God, I strive to learn the Tradition which has been revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church.  While Luther "rediscovered" what was always there, he was not an innovator. Rather, Luther was interested in reforming and bringing back to faithfulness that which the Church had buried in human speculation.  Hence the "solas" as attempts to catechize in the foundational Truth of the Gospel.

So, with a long background in teaching science in ways that students becoming nurses, PA's, dental hygienists and others, I strove to make very complex information understandable and usable and received many accolades for doing so well.

Now, as a Pastor/Priest I strive to make the mysteries of Christ and His holy Word and Sacraments available and usable to sinners whom God has sent to me for treatment and health.  These days, instead of intravenous infusions, pharmacological agents and hands on therapies as my tools to promote life and health I use the Word and Sacraments to bring healing and life to critically ill sinners.  Incompatible?  Nah, not if you humbly do it right.

Thanks for this Padre, gives much to think about, and is also I think right on the button
Rev. Peter Morlock- ELCA pastor serving two congregations in WIS