Define control 

Many Christians perceive a conflict between reason and faith. On the one hand, God tells us to reason (Isaiah 1:18). We are to have a good reason for what we believe, and we are to be always ready to share that reason with other people (1 Peter 3:15). So we attempt to show unbelievers that our belief in the Scriptures is reasonable, justified, and logically defensible. The Bible makes sense.

The same can be told for science

Religion doesnt preclude reasoning and logic lol

On the contrary, the whole idea of logic as truth / logos come from religion.

The first idea of rationalism, need for reasoning, understanding come from religion.

There is nit really much that is not based on faith lol

Reread godbel. .

Can say university is also social conditioning at the same title than religion.

Most people who learn science is for social /  professionnal / economic  goals more than anything.

The origin of religion come from need for civilisation.

First religion were in sumer or egypt, they made lot of progress. In mathematics, astronomy etc.

Judaism bring a lot to understanding of universe. They invented numbers  ( sephir / cypher ) from the kaballah.

Writing & mathematics was invented by religion in antiquity.

The concept of monotheism is fundemental to get to the point where the concept of science can emerge.

Christianism made revolution and radically changed society.

The need for religion is to recognize between good person or bad person, when it come to build laws to civilise people.

Historically, all concept of law at core of civilisation come from religion.

Science is not so usefull to understand legal maters. What make people better.

Islam invented many thing, algebra ( book of balance ) is at the root of concept of justice.

Pythagoras could find earth circonference with deduction without measuring it. That's science   that's someone who knew how to use his brain

Einstein could figure time dilation before measuring it. He even said something like if the experience doesnt show the expected result, then the experience is wrong.

Seeing the Apple falling is different from understanding gravity law.

No more than witnessing evolution mean we understand law of evolution.

I can agree that recognition of the Apple falling is the first step. But it's only a first step.

Religion have plenty of application, otherwise there wouldnt be billions of believers and mollah it has probably more short term economic interest than scientific research

The best serie i found showing the gist of the mater is "Marvel agent of shield" .

Can look weird, but I watched this serie with great attention, and it's easy to decode the plot.

Shield = cia

Hydra = nazi ( this one is explicit )

The bad guy who turn people in mind less drones is "communism"

And the plot show that shield wanted to prevent hydra from waking up the dark occult force rampant since dawn of time.

The dark portal is maybe gate to subconscious forces (?)

Albeit they managed to prevent hydra succeeding in this, in the end they still got eaten by the bad guy who form his army of drones.

There is even the passage with Tibet with the hidden refuge in the Mountain, where shield saved them from the "communist". Actually dalai lama have been exiled by cia too against china invasion.

Even the heroin who is criminal hacker who seek of her familly history mixed with shield operation. Kinda sound like true story lol

But now there is not even the need to hacking them, all is in the wikipedia at least can recognize they have the honesty to declassify their mess with administration change

Well it's still hollywood, but I found lot of resonance with the story

It show well how also cia can recruit criminals, and it's full of internal conspiracy, and probably different factions inside of it too.

The story show that ultimately even if it's full of conspiracy and bad guys inside, what mater is that there are still few good apple who are really dedicated to improve things, and it's them who mater.

And it show how the government administration generally is very distant from them,  and doesnt follow all the internal operation closely, until there is some mess with political repercussion.


There is the part with the android invasion, sound similar to the James bond where agents are replaced by ai, not sure what it's supposed to say.

Darwin is quite outdated with current state of things. It doesnt account for much.

If it cant explain something, then it's wrong. Or then what the point lol

Usefulness is more the field of marketing and engineering than science.

Most big advance in mathematics like complex numbers square root of -1 didn't have any usefulness when it was discovered.

Im not into a anti religious crusade or after Nobel Prize.

There are already plenty of Nobel Prize who made darwin obsolete. He didn't even know about DNA.

And im not saying we cant form a good picture of chronology, and how life evolved with time.

But having a chronology of event doesnt mean we understand the link between those events. ( liebniz demonstrate this well).

Science is more concerned with law or rules to explain the chain of events, rather than laying out chronology.


The mollah can find lot of useful application  for religion, it's science then ?

There is not even really "one" theory of evolution

Even if history is to be taken as recent account of evolution in the organisation of cognitive system, it become very hard to really get the "thread" from stonehedge, egypt, Rome etc.

The evolution of semantics, language, culture, philosophy, science, which according to Freud is largely dependent on how it's able to map our physiology , and even for this we often have to rely on art or poetry or metaphor , and yet it's often very hard for us to really convey accurately our own state of mind, and physiological state.

Not even getting into explaining the whole process of how we got there.

Science must not become another religion to get into a crusade against other religion

Need to stick to facts and experimental protocol, and being humble with the subject of study



https://youtu.be/Gs6XkA8fVec and then, just when you think you figured the whole blood damn thing up, death show up. And bla bla bla.

This is the kind of article who demonstrate how intricate this stuff of evolution is with theories of "intelligent design".

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

A much more difficult and confusing situation would arise if we could, some day, establish a theory of the phenomena of consciousness, or of biology, which would be as coherent and convincing as our present theories of the inanimate world. Mendel's laws of inheritance and the subsequent work on genes may well form the beginning of such a theory as far as biology is concerned. Furthermore,, it is quite possible that an abstract argument can be found which shows that there is a conflict between such a theory and the accepted principles of physics. The argument could be of such abstract nature that it might not be possible to resolve the conflict, in favor of one or of the other theory, by an experiment. Such a situation would put a heavy strain on our faith in our theories and on our belief in the reality of the concepts which we form. It would give us a deep sense of frustration in our search for what I called "the ultimate truth." The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well. Hence, their accuracy may not prove their truth and consistency. Indeed, it is this writer's belief that something rather akin to the situation which was described above exists if the present laws of heredity and of physics are confronted.


https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html

Indeed, to generalize, almost all of our experiences in this world do not fall under the domain of science or mathematics. Furthermore, we know (at least we think we do) that from Godel's theorem there are definite limits to what pure logical manipulation of symbols can do, there are limits to the domain of mathematics. It has been an act of faith on the part of scientists that the world can be explained in the simple terms that mathematics handles. When you consider how much science has not answered then you see that our successes are not so impressive as they might otherwise appear.


4. The evolution of man provided the model. I have already touched on the matter of the evolution of man. I remarked that in the earliest forms of life there must have been the seeds of our current ability to create and follow long chains of close reasoning. Some people [11. H. Mohr, Structure and Significance of Science, Springer-Verlag, 1977.] have further claimed that Darwinian evolution would naturally select for survival those competing forms of life which had the best models of reality in their minds-"best" meaning best for surviving and propagating. There is no doubt that there is some truth in this. We find, for example, that we can cope with thinking about the world when it is of comparable size to ourselves and our raw unaided senses, but that when we go to the very small or the very large then our thinking has great trouble. We seem not to be able to think appropriately about the extremes beyond normal size.


And if evolution has to be predicted has a linear system, it also need to take in account natural events, physics because nature is made to understand physics and deal with physical problem, with geometry to understand cosmic cycles, etc.

Even if dna is to be considered as informations system like the article I posted before, it should become easy by some kind of statistic or regression to find the model of evolution. But no such model exists today. And they are crunching this one, but no "law" really emerge from it.

If a model would emerge, it would also incorporate the evolution of climate, of geology, of asteroid, volcano eruptions etc to account for the progression.


I dont have the biology of consciousness anymore, I lent it to someone, but they explain well the problematics involved to find a good model for evolution.

Maybe I will try to find the good part in google.

If evolution is the process of building human brain, we are mostly clue less about the whole thing.

God is more a concept than anything.

He doesnt threat of anything.

No need for a religion to suffer on earth and deal with consequences of actions.

Actually read what jesus say of those who cast stones. He never avocate punishment, but forgiving.

He even say some thief are ok if they are in necessity.

Here is a scientific fact that all scientists agree on :

The number of potential connection between all neurons in the brain is more than the number of particle in the universe.

There is no object known to mankind that reach anywhere near this level of complexity.

And it's not talking about a whole complete living organism fully autonomous, auto reproductive, carrying evolution, adaptive to all circonstance, selecting good partner, etc.

No engineers on earth can build something even approaching this. By far.

The pb for me is religion is a bit double meaning.

There is the first meaning which has to do with the ethymology of "religare" creating bond between people, and it's the cultural / social aspect which is the aspect that is closer to brainwashing, or at least social conditioning.

It's the bad aspect of religion.

But there is the philosophical aspect of it, and in itself it's not really encouraging brainwashing, on the contrary. It touch the infinity, what is beyond us.

I dont know the coran enough, but in the bible it's very clear it take on the basis of socrates, plato, and dont encourage brainwashing at all, on the contrary.

Jesus depicted in the bible is not a good case for showing blind following of social norm

Im sure digging a bit back into it, it's very easy to show how the bible is totally the best anti brainwashing tool available. And it's very explicit at that.

And actually I come from completely atheists background, I have origin from spain civil war, I cannot say religion is very praised in my familly lol

I started to get interested into this in my 30 maybe, and there are still very deep things to learn from religious books.

If you study faith from the social aspect, you are missing a bit the point. Or you are just seeing the lowest part of it who is not very interesting.

But that's very complex topic to study how belief play with social integration etc But cant say the origin of religion is about integrating whatever social norm you are born into.

And I gotcha all the brainwashed "pseudo Christian " or muslim based on their own book that most of them dont even really read or understand.

There is very few atheists great scientists actually.

Most scientists today will agree we understand very little about all this.

Evolution is kinda umbrella term , it's not really a "fact" but 2 billions years of twisted evolution responding to complex environmental factors, with going back and forth, dolphin were once land creature, then went back to ocean.

Darwin cant explain why dinosaurus crashed, it's entierely environnemental.

Evolution is by product of many things.

Darwin was a very smart guys,  and like Freud he is often very misunderstood, and lot of their research and idea are not really published with mainstream academics .

But still the amount of what can be explained by simplistic interpretation of darwin is very limited.

There is really a lot to this topic lol

Even with how dna metylation works, it show the organismes can block some genes "live" due to environmental condition.

The portion of coding dna used will vary depending on condition.

Maybe if it's cold you will grow more thick hairs.

Digestive system adapt to food, to find the good enzymes etc

Imune system is very complex too. And adapt "live" to condition.

Even genetician who works on plants know how weird this whole evolution stuff really is

Some genes can start to get expressed / used at some point without they really know how or why, it's really not so simple

And it's very weird to explain how the whole chain took place, as we call it "evolution" it show a constant progression toward "something", more intelligence etc. And it's almost like the first cell already knew where it was aimed at, to create the good chain of transformation allowing increasing complexity.

We dont even really understand what the purpose of all this.

There is a good book on this "What is life". Not so easy question

Yes im not denying completely the principle.

It can be witnessed on certain species, like some species who disapear and adapt to some conditions. Like some birds develop certain kind of beak to adapt to vegetation, or some butter fly who adapt in color to environnement. Or species who vanish because of change in environment.

But even really we barely understand anything at dna. 80% of junk dna, and even the 20% it's more complex than isolating coding genes one by one to form a protein.

It's still a level of complexity way ahead of what we can really understand today.

Im not denying there is still solid beam of evidence to show how life evolve to adapt environmental condition.

In biology of consciousness they explain very well the complexity involved with studying evolution as a whole. We dont even have the proper framework for this. It's why I posted the article on neural Darwinism before, to show already on the formation of brain and nervous system, how it evolve to linguistic, semantic, art, etc.

Even the imune system is in incredible complexity.

And that's just scratching the surface.

 It's becoming increasingly a field that dig in all area, from physics, geology, biology etc

There is no hard science on this.

 

Jonathan blow exposed this problematic very well.

Saying we dont understand evolution doesnt mean being religious nut. It's just being honest with what we can really assert scientifically on the subject.

Darwin is like Freud, it's more philosophy than "hard science"

If I could understand this, I would postulate for Nobel Prize right now lol

I dont care about "looking" stupid, that just make you look un scientific making judgment based on a priori and insulting people

But you sure seem to put lot of effort into "looking smart" *me not impressed*

From this point, it make it rather pointless to have scientific discussion

But I wont insult you because of this

I obviously read much more about evolution than you

And we still dont have experimental protocol to explain the steps from stone to mozart show me how we do this scientifically

Amin acide, alpha globin is cute, but it's not the pinacle of evolution either. Fluorescent pigs neither.

But maybe you can answer this, or just judging people on their look.

Your link is totally irrelevant to the point.

Science is not collection of annecdots & fact, it's about replicating experimental protocol.

There was a very good article about this on jonathan blow blogs, but I cant find it anymore.

The gist of it was that he has been working on genetic simulation, and no matter what kind of model is picked up, you never get an intelligent form of life emerging from it.

If we pretend to understand something, according to scientific principle, it means it must be replicated by an experimental protocol.

Where is the experimental protocol to prove evolution ?

What is the mathematics model to create intelligent life form ?

There is none of this, and no one can pretend to a scientific explanation of evolution.

Unless you can show the experimental protocol to turn a stone to a bacteria and a monkey to a human. We never see this happening in an experimental protocol in a lab.

There are plenty of experimental protocol to measure speed of light and every bit of relativity theory.

There is none of this for evolution.

What is the metric to measure evolution ?