Tell me why yes or no and what is your background.
My opinion: I don't think it should, basically because it has already been refuted, so in those terms it can be taught as part of "History of Science", but nothing more. The theory of evolution on the other hand not only explains many of the observations made in the past but also predicts what things we might be able to find. Science is not "truth" is just the search for truth and as many theories in the past this one might start crumpling down in the future...which is OK, because that means we are getting closer to the truth. Science is full of uncertainty, but I find that exciting. Unlike religion which can tell you all the answers (even if they are not true).
There really isn't anything to debate here.
Of course it isn't science. End of story.
If there isn't anything to debate, then why there is still more people believing in creationism and wanting it to be taught along side evolution than people who understand creationism is not a science? Just because in your mind the issue is so clear doesn't mean its clear in everybody's mind.
| natilovesmike wrote: |
| If there isn't anything to debate, then why there is still more people believing in creationism and wanting it to be taught along side evolution than people who understand creationism is not a science? Just because in your mind the issue is so clear doesn't mean its clear in everybody's mind. |
That is a separate issue. We can debate why people would want to hold delusional views, but I suggest that would best be done in the philosophy and religion forum. The question was whether creationism is science or not. It isn't.HELL NO!
Should I say more?
The reason creationism isn't a science is because it is faith-based. Science is observation-based, and scientific knowledge is obtained through a rigorous methodology that was not employed by people who developed creationism.
I'm not even sure why I should take this question seriously anymore.
No, it is not a science and neither is intelligent design. These ideas should be taught in religious classes, along with many other religious stories. They do not belong in a science classroom.
Yes, creation is part of science.
There are several previous posts which say that creation is not scientific? Should we now assume that the answer is not possible? To pick an answer simply because a majority says it is one way over the other is simply not scientific.
The first post said it very clearly what science is. Science is the search of truth, not the truth.
It is important in any research not to exclude any factors or information out of equation simply because it is popular to do so. If people consider science to be only something that can be proven for example then that is an insult to science and perhaps the pursuit should be called factual studies instead.
Wonderful science is just full of wonderful theories that are not factual at all.
I am just wondering if postism, strong opinionism, ismism or any other ism is responsible for a distorted insight, instead of pure science?
When we create a possibility it should be based on our ability to reason that something is possible even though we can not see it regardless if it seems popular. Albert Einstein for example had many biblical beliefs that supported his science.
A theory of evolution (not necessarily according Mr. Darrin) and a study of creation need not be so apart as what many scientists imply but have solid agreements.
The reason that any study of creation is indeed scientific is because we seek the truth and not assume that historical records do not have any insight into science because we do not have the courage to ask that question.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Yes, creation is part of science.
There are several previous posts which say that creation is not scientific? Should we now assume that the answer is not possible? To pick an answer simply because a majority says it is one way over the other is simply not scientific. |
You seem confused. The question was about 'creationism' not 'creation'. Creationism is commonly defined as the literal interpretation of Genesis meaning that the universe was formed in 6 periods. Young Earth Creationists believe those periods were standard 24 hour days. Old Earth Creationists believe the periods were longer. Neither is scientific in any sense. | Bluedoll wrote: |
| Yes, creation is part of science. |
No, it's not science by any definition of the word.
| Quote: |
| There are several previous posts which say that creation is not scientific? Should we now assume that the answer is not possible? To pick an answer simply because a majority says it is one way over the other is simply not scientific. |
We aren't picking an answer because of a majority - we're picking an answer based on the correct definition of science. What's the use of having a language if people can just change words to fit their agendas?
| Quote: |
| The first post said it very clearly what science is. Science is the search of truth, not the truth. |
Science uses what is called the scientific method - Creationism does not. Science follows this pattern: gather data, form hypothesis, test hypothesis, and then come up with a new hypothesis if the old one is proven wrong. Creationism follows this pattern: come up with hypothesis, ignore half of the opposing data, lie about the rest of the data, learn nothing, do nothing useful.
| Quote: |
| It is important in any research not to exclude any factors or information out of equation simply because it is popular to do so. If people consider science to be only something that can be proven for example then that is an insult to science and perhaps the pursuit should be called factual studies instead. |
What in the blue Hell are you talking about?
| Quote: |
| Wonderful science is just full of wonderful theories that are not factual at all. |
Oh! I get it... You're joking right (I really hope you are because I would like to think that nobody would actually say that)?
| Quote: |
| I am just wondering if postism, strong opinionism, ismism or any other ism is responsible for a distorted insight, instead of pure science? |
No. Everything in science is based off of the evidence. Your opinion isn't worth crap unless it's backed up by evidence.
| Quote: |
| When we create a possibility it should be based on our ability to reason that something is possible even though we can not see it regardless if it seems popular. Albert Einstein for example had many biblical beliefs that supported his science. |
Albert Einstein had very little biblical beliefs - if any at all. He may have been a deist at most. I thought that was fairly common knowledge these days (although apparently not because that seems to be brought up on this forum quite frequently). But even if he did believe in God - then so what? That still doesn't mean that religion has any place in science.
| Quote: |
| A theory of evolution (not necessarily according Mr. Darrin) and a study of creation need not be so apart as what many scientists imply but have solid agreements. |
The theory of evolution is so completely different from a study of Creation that they need to be separated. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about Creation or how life originated on Earth. Evolution is the study of the biodiversity of life. It's also supported by evidence while Creation is contradicted by evidence.
| Quote: |
| The reason that any study of creation is indeed scientific is because we seek the truth and not assume that historical records do not have any insight into science because we do not have the courage to ask that question. |
I already covered that nonsense earlier in this post. Creation is not science because it does not use the scientific method.yes it is a science, the cause is god and effect is universe/life. whts the problem?
I think that it is very important to teach evolution and creationism side by side. This is a debate where non-scientific arguments are used to disprove science. Understanding creationism will allow you to counter the arguments with approprate biological facts. Then the fun begins: challenging the creationist to refute direct observations.
| supernova1987a wrote: |
| yes it is a science, the cause is god and effect is universe/life. whts the problem? |
The problem is that it is not science. God is not science. There's no debate about that.As an alternative explanation of the world, yes. As a science, no.
| Voodoocat wrote: |
| Then the fun begins: |
I really appreciate some frih posts and a good debate.
quote=Afaceinthematrix
”What in the blue Hell are you talking about?
"You're joking right (I really hope you are because I would like to think that nobody would actually say that)?
"Your opinion isn't worth crap"
"I already covered that nonsense"
Afaceinthematrix are you angry?
I think it is ok to have strong opinions but when I study, using scientific method I do not use bully rudeness to make a point.
It is your writing style which is not even close to a scientific method.
It is ok to debate but not ok to insult. Stop it! My opinion does matter. If you continue to post in this way I’ll report you as abusive.
quote=Afaceinthematrix
”What's the use of having a language if people can just change words to fit their agendas?
I am not changing words to suit my agenda, I am using words to explain. My agenda is to post to give and accept information for the purpose of study.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| As an alternative explanation of the world, yes. As a science, no. |
I love science. I also love God. The two do agree. Why should I need to separate the two?
“For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
I do not agree with the mainstream use of the label creationism. Creationism is a modern day word and I think ‘ism’ is way over used these days. It may be true that some religious people have misbehaved in relating to science but I am not one of them.
What I am clearly saying is this label is inaccurate.
Also the "theory of evolution" and evolution are not the same.
A theory is a branch of scientific study that is not fact!
Evolution is change in the inherited traits from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.
**************************************
This Topic is about:
Do you think creative interpretations can be regarded as Science?
Purpose:
Compare unbiased science with a biblical interpretation
Observation:
biblical texts do exist
not all textual interpretations are the same
scientists do make hypotheses
not all testing of theory and hypotheses prove correct
Method:
compare biblical statements with scientific facts
test theories on both scientific and biblical interpretations
consider all the possibilities being presented
Conclusion:
There are agreements between science and biblical references. Bias does exsist in both religious circles and scientic communities.
Although science has not been able to open many doors to very difficult questions, the possibility of older texts having a scientific merit is forever possible. | Bluedoll wrote: |
| A theory is a branch of scientific study that is not fact! |
Err...no, You don't seem to understand the usage of 'theory' in a scientific context. What you are doing is applying an everyday use of the word (ie something not proven) to the specific scientific understanding of the word (ie a model which explains observation and has been repeatedly tested). The two uses of the word are different - in science EVERYTHING is theory.
| Quote: |
Observation:
biblical texts do exist
not all textual interpretations are the same |
That is a rather meaningless comparison. The book Moby Dick exists. There are numerous editions of it. Some people interpret it in different ways and think Melville was saying such and such with his imagery. Does that mean it can be considered scientifically or as an historical account?
| Quote: |
scientists do make hypotheses
not all testing of theory and hypotheses prove correct |
Which is why we use the word 'hypothesis' and NOT 'theory'. Any theory which is proven incorrect (falsified) ceases to be accepted as a valid theory. The same cannot and does not apply to scripture.
| Quote: |
Method:
compare biblical statements with scientific facts
test theories on both scientific and biblical interpretations
consider all the possibilities being presented
|
Already done. Biblical statements from Genesis fail miserable.“In science everything is theory.”
I do agree. I do not agree with everything being presenting here however.
If someone were to hypothesis that Melville (not saying he did) was doing just that and started making scientific theories to that effect, yes it could be refuted. It could if the hypothesis were strong enough be true as well.
What I am saying is that the theory that biblical statements fail miserably is not valid.
It is rather the interpretations that fail.
“a model which explains observation and has been repeatedly tested”
Reflecting thoughtfully, our scientific model is a creation in itself.
I hypotheses that it is possible that previous generations did have knowledge.
In science, we can procure everything for investigate so why not scripture? If we were studying early Egyptian building techniques, would we look at writing from that time period as a source for research or simply account all as historical accounts and not valid?
*************
I am one of the ten.
thank you for your inputs
| Bluedoll wrote: |
“In science everything is theory.”
I do agree. I do not agree with everything being presenting here however.
If someone were to hypothesis that Melville (not saying he did) was doing just that and started making scientific theories to that effect, yes it could be refuted. It could if the hypothesis were strong enough be true as well.
What I am saying is that the theory that biblical statements fail miserably is not valid.
It is rather the interpretations that fail. |
The statement that the Genesis account fails miserably is not a theory, it is an observation. The Genesis account is completely incompatible with modern scientific understanding (and common sense). Therefore either:
a) The statements are unambiguous and invalid or
b) The statements are not scientific because they are ambiguous. Scientific theories are not based on ambiguity.
If you take the genesis account literally then it is simply wrong - no ifs or buts or maybes.
If you don't take it quite literally (for example you allow each 'day' to be several millenia) then it is still wrong (the order is wrong).
If you take the whole thing as a metaphor then it is simply a story with no more scientific validity than Moby Dick.
| Quote: |
| In science, we can procure everything for investigate so why not scripture? If we were studying early Egyptian building techniques, would we look at writing from that time period as a source for research or simply account all as historical accounts and not valid? |
That is not science - it is history, or, at best, engineering. It is highly unlikely that anything in the bible has anything scientifically new to say. It may contain a few references to historical events, but so do many novels.Many concepts presented in scripture has been analyzed scientifically. They don't tend to hold up to reality. While some creation stories or interpretations do jive with what has been scientifically supported, to say that they are therefore scientific in nature is folly. At best creation stories provide anecdotal support of scientific theory; they do not provide data, nor explanation for the study of reality... they provide claims without evidence. This is not science.
Yes, science is built upon hypotheses, questions with assumptions as to the nature of some aspect of reality. These questions are tested in a controlled, repeatable manner, and the results of these tests contribute to the development of theory (theory being the evidence supported interpretation of how something works). The theories are further tested, and either better supported, modified or abandoned (and replaced with a more robust theory) by the results of the tests. AS our ability to observe, control and evaluate evidence improves, so do our theories (scientific theory evolves, and is an additive concept, it only gets better as we study more), until they are all but proven concepts.
Creation (faith-based ideologies concerning the nature of our origins and the nature of the universe) does NOT conform to scientific method. Creation relies upon acceptance of a concept, based on faith, without testing. Changes in creation theory are derived based upon discussion and interpretation, not of new tests and controlled data, but upon some observation and faithful leaps of conclusions... these can be presented in a very convincing manner, but they are not scientific (see above). Most creation theories are not parsimonious and simply create or perpetuate greater questions than they answer (yeah, creating questions with answers happens in scientific study as well, but those questions lead to more study and better understanding, while creation questions tend to lead to "god" or "a plan", rather than actual answers).
This isn't a personal attack, Bluedoll, don't construe it as such, but, for someone who claims to love science, you should really work on understanding what science is, what its goals are, and how it contributes to our understanding of the universe. You seem to be a bit skewed.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
”What in the blue Hell are you talking about?
"You're joking right (I really hope you are because I would like to think that nobody would actually say that)?
"Your opinion isn't worth crap"
"I already covered that nonsense" |
Afaceinthematrix are you angry?
I think it is ok to have strong opinions but when I study, using scientific method I do not use bully rudeness to make a point.
It is your writing style which is not even close to a scientific method.
It is ok to debate but not ok to insult. Stop it! My opinion does matter. If you continue to post in this way I’ll report you as abusive. |
Yes I am angry. For starters, I am angry that you quote mined me. You quoted me as saying, "Your opinion isn't worth crap." You then said, "My opinion does matter." Ok.... I never said that your opinion doesn't matter. If you quoted the entire quote, you would have seen that I said, "No. Everything in science is based off of the evidence. Your opinion isn't worth crap unless it's backed up by evidence." That is completely true. Nobody in the scientific community cares what you think unless you have the evidence to back it up. You're completely entitled to your opinion in a debate, but if you tried to bring up your opinion in the scientific community, you had better have evidence if you want people to take you seriously.
Furthermore, I am also mad because of this entire subject. Science has done nothing but make everyone's lives better. Whether it's the Haber-Bosch method that feeds half the world, or it's making the human lifespan by 3 times longer, it's benefiting us all. You then have a group of people who want to get science taken out of schools to be replaced by their bronze aged deluded beliefs. How selfish of them! If they want their children to swallow that garbage, then send them to a private school and quit trying to get the thing that makes all of our (and theirs) lives better!
I am not being rude; I am being real. Creationism, by definition, is NOT science. It's just that definition. I never once attacked you. Sure I attacked your idea. I tore the Hell out of your idea in an attempt to show that it was silly. You think I am being rude? Report me then. I don't think anyone will care. I am not insulting you, I am just using aggressive tactics because I believe that it's extremely important to make sure that Creationism is NEVER viewed as a science. Here, I'll save you the trouble of reporting me. Bikerman, who is a moderator, just happens to be contributing to this topic. I'll report myself. Bikerman: I think you should maybe edit/remove my posts because I am apparently offending someone.
"It is your writing style which is not even close to a scientific method."
What? Well I guess you're correct in saying that my writing style is not even close to the scientific method... But then again, no writing style is close to the scientific method simply because a writing style cannot use the scientific method.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
”What's the use of having a language if people can just change words to fit their agendas? |
I am not changing words to suit my agenda, I am using words to explain. My agenda is to post to give and accept information for the purpose of study. |
No. You are trying to change the definition of science to include something that is, by definition, NOT science (and is factually inept). | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Bikerman, who is a moderator, just happens to be contributing to this topic. I'll report myself. Bikerman: I think you should maybe edit/remove my posts because I am apparently offending someone. |
I have carefully read the post in question, as well as other posts in this thread.
The 'offending' sentence included the words 'your opinion isn't worth crap'. I interpret this as a general statement applying to the scientific method - probably more accurately written as 'one's opinion isn't worth crap' - rather than a personal attack. I am quite sure that this was the intent and Afaceinthematrix confirms this in the previous posting. There is, therefore, no call for moderation and I intend to take no action.
On a general point - personal attacks should always be avoided. Giving offence is much more subjective - I can not and will not moderate on postings which give offence UNLESS they are personal attacks, blatant falsehoods, or deliberate 'flames'. I see no evidence of such postings in this thread.
Now, I am aware that I can, justly, be accused of 'having a position' in this debate, since I have set out my own opinions in several postings. For that reason I have referred this thread to the 'staff' forum and asked other moderators to cast an eye over this to ensure that my decision is not based on personal bias, and that no such accusation can be sustained (in the 'trade' we call that peer-review 
)I'm not a scientist but am always interested in science, especially where it attempts to explain Universal questions like the one of this thread. From the outside in the topic of this thread must be trying for scientists, being the equivalent of a red flag to a bull. On top of it, this is supposed to be a discussion forum, and not a chat room, and a discussion forum under the heading of science, so one would expect points of view to be backed with solid scientific evidence, and if not, to take flack for it. I have not seen any personal attacks in the discussion, just attacks on a point of view that was not backed by evidence and then became personal, when it was clearly not intended to be personal.
I think this topic has lost its focus. The topic is not what should young people in a classroom somewhere receive for education and then get heated up over it.! So in keeping with this topic, I will post other thoughts on other topics.
Fact
This topic is about a question. Really, the question of this topic is in essence coming down to asking the question - “Does God have anything to do with science.”
That is the topic, period.
The topic of creation is not a small science lab experiment.
For someone, even a scientist to say for example “No it is irrelevant, God does not exist and the universe was created by my random theories” is insipid. That kind of thinking is really pointless.
You can have long interpretations and discussions ot great length but the trouble is people get messed up in non logical arguments both in a biased scientific community and an over zealous religious community on this topic.
Seriously, we all know the scriptures is not a science book like a research paper is - of course it is not. However, to exclude it out of creation in the name of science by saying it is all garbage is really a stupid act.
**********************************
“In the beginning God created the heavens the earth.”
This is merely a starting point, nothing more, nothing less. Show me one scientist that can create something from nothing. You can not do it and you can not prove it. This is really simple logic.
The fact is and the truth is, to create something you need something. Science alone can not do it.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| I think this topic has lost its focus. The topic is not what should young people in a classroom somewhere receive for education and then get heated up over it.! So in keeping with this topic, I will post other thoughts on other topics. |
No, the reason this topic lost focus is because you attempted to redefine the original question. The original question is quite clear, and the answer is very simple - no!
| Quote: |
“In the beginning God created the heavens the earth.”
This is merely a starting point, nothing more, nothing less. Show me one scientist that can create something from nothing. You can not do it and you can not prove it. This is really simple logic.
|
You just don't get it do you? That statement is not scientific - it cannot be tested. Show me the evidence that the statement is true. You can't, because there isn't any. Show me a way to test the hypothesis that 'God created the heavens and the earth'. You can't because there is no such possible test. It is an article of faith and, as such, nothing to do with science.
| Quote: |
| The fact is and the truth is, to create something you need something. Science alone can not do it. |
I would be careful before you start telling us what science can and cannot do. Until you are familiar with concepts like zero point energy, matter-anti-matter annihilation, virtual particles and the like then you really aren't qualified to express a sensible opinion. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bluedoll wrote: | | The fact is and the truth is, to create something you need something. Science alone can not do it. |
I would be careful before you start telling us what science can and cannot do. Until you are familiar with concepts like zero point energy, matter-anti-matter annihilation, virtual particles and the like then you really aren't qualified to express a sensible opinion. |
I actually think that Bluedoll is correct. Science cannot create anything... how would it? Processes that science explains can create things, but science cannot create it.
Of course I am just engaging in semantics. I am sure Bluedoll meant to say that nature cannot create something by itself - which I think is wrong.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| You can have long interpretations and discussions ot great length but the trouble is people get messed up in non logical arguments both in a biased scientific community and an over zealous religious community on this topic. |
The vast majority of the science community is not biased. The scientific community simply likes to follow the evidence... How does that make you biased? Is a judge biased for wanting to throw the man caught on video camera over the guy who was proven innocent?
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Seriously, we all know the scriptures is not a science book like a research paper is - of course it is not. However, to exclude it out of creation in the name of science by saying it is all garbage is really a stupid act. |
Why? Why would we keep looking towards it and endorse it if it has been shown to be incorrect on numerous (actually almost all) accounts? Should we keep looking towards the Greek/Roman Creation myths, Native Americans Creation myths, Bakuba Creation myths, Maasai Creation myths, etc? Why would we endorse those in science if they're not science? What makes the Christian Creation myth so special to where it deserves a place in science even though it isn't science (you cannot use the scientific method with it). | Bluedoll wrote: |
This topic is about a question. Really, the question of this topic is in essence coming down to asking the question - “Does God have anything to do with science.”
That is the topic, period.
|
No, see, that isn't the original question; the original question is this:
| natilovesmike wrote: |
| Do you think creationism should be regarded as science? |
This question is simple to approach: Does creationism follow scientific method, i.e. is there a measure (quanta) for the tale, is it repeatable, does the evidence support the claims.
The answer is, as bikerman said, a simple "no". The evidence for creation is stacked towards a natural process rather than supernatural. Does that imply that we know exactly how the universe came to be? No, but we do have some fairly well supported ideas, and the evidence is stacked much more heavily in their favour than for a supernatural phenomenon. (That doesn't even touch upon the additional difficulty of adding in a supernatural being and figuring out its origins and its role in the creation). Simply, creation myths are poorly supported and are non-parsimonious, opening more questions than they solve.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
The topic of creation is not a small science lab experiment.
For someone, even a scientist to say for example “No it is irrelevant, God does not exist and the universe was created by my random theories” is insipid. That kind of thinking is really pointless. |
No, it's not a small lab experiment, it's one of the largest questions requiring the synthesis of many levels of understanding. I don't think ANYONE here has tried to downplay the importance, or scope, of the creation question. All that has been said is that the evidence that we, as a species, have been able accrue on the subject so far points to a non-divine origin. That is not an outright denial of the concept of divinity, but it does say that it is highly unlikely.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Seriously, we all know the scriptures is not a science book like a research paper is - of course it is not. However, to exclude it out of creation in the name of science by saying it is all garbage is really a stupid act.
**********************************
“In the beginning God created the heavens the earth.”
This is merely a starting point, nothing more, nothing less. Show me one scientist that can create something from nothing. You can not do it and you can not prove it. This is really simple logic. |
Again, the evidence does not support hanging on to the concept. That's not to say that future evidence might not point back to Creation myths as the origin of the universe, but that is, at best, speculation. Speculation is merely a starting point in science, and is not where science ends. When evidence better supports a creation myth than the developing scientific principles, THEN the concepts will be integrated into the scientific body. As it is, Creation myths have had a long history in science. The fact that they are no longer included in scientific understanding is not coincidence, nor is it conspiracy; the simple truth is that they are not supported by evidence.
Perhaps you've noticed one word come up over and over again in most people's responses: evidence. It is the be all and end all in science; without supporting evidence (and more supporting evidence than rival theories at that) a theory should not be accepted. "I feel it in my heart/soul", unfortunately, is not evidence, it is faith. Faith and evidence are different concepts. | Ankhanu wrote: |
| Perhaps you've noticed one word come up over and over again in most people's responses: evidence. It is the be all and end all in science; without supporting evidence (and more supporting evidence than rival theories at that) a theory should not be accepted. "I feel it in my heart/soul", unfortunately, is not evidence, it is faith. Faith and evidence are different concepts. |
True. This topic almost makes for a universal discussion in futility, science always needing scientific evidence and religion arguing from a position of faith and quoting verses from a Bible that has not been written for the purpose of science.
Therefore agreed. One can only say that scientific evidence that has been gathered so far leans itself towards there "being probably" no creation. At the same time there is no irrefutable proof that creation is a myth. | deanhills wrote: |
| True. This topic almost makes for a universal discussion in futility, science always needing scientific evidence and religion arguing from a position of faith and quoting verses from a Bible that has not been written for the purpose of science. |
A discussion in futility? Hardly. The answer is simple, and completely without argument. Science has a method that is required to be followed. If you do not follow that method, you're not doing science. Evidence, for example, is key.
So if you want creationism to be scientific, bring on the evidence. That's all it would take. Provide a coherent model, back it up with experimental evidence, and voilà... you would have creation science.
This is not about two opposing world views that cannot be reconciled. This is about science having rules for how to be science, and creationism being unwilling or unable to follow those rules. And the rules are simple, clear and unchanging (or at least, they haven't been changed since the last scientific revolution set off by Popper). Creationism just doesn't measure up.
It's not that scientists don't want to include creationism or that it is somehow fundamentally impossible to include. They just can't include it until it can satisfy the requirements. It's welcome to join the party if it just follows the admission rules.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Therefore agreed. One can only say that scientific evidence that has been gathered so far leans itself towards there "being probably" no creation. At the same time there is no irrefutable proof that creation is a myth. |
No, one can say that no one has even put forward a coherent suggestion for what might even count as evidence for or against creation. Science can't say there was "probably no creation" because science doesn't even have a notion for what "creation" is. You can't have evidence for or against something until you know what that "something" is, and what would count as evidence for or against. Science can't say there is "probably no creation" anymore than it can say there are "probably no ghosts". It has nothing to say on the matter whatsoever.
All science can say at this point is that there is no need to hypothesize any kind of supernatural intervention so far. That is neither evidence for nor against supernatural intervention. It's like coming home and finding a picture you had hanging has fallen to the floor. That is neither evidence for nor against a burglary, or a wild house party in your absence, or poltergeists, or... whatever. Any of those things are possible... but a simple fallen picture doesn't require you to assume them. (And the lack of a fallen picture is not evidence for or against any of those things either.)
We've been waiting decades for creationists to provide some kind of coherent model, but none have. Rather than doing science, they have been out appealing to the general public, whining about being excluded because of religious bias.
The world is not black and white. Just because we can explain pretty much everything so far by naturalistic mechanisms doesn't rule out anything supernatural. Just because science is working just fine without assuming creation doesn't mean it says it "probably didn't happen". It actually says nothing about it at all. | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | True. This topic almost makes for a universal discussion in futility, science always needing scientific evidence and religion arguing from a position of faith and quoting verses from a Bible that has not been written for the purpose of science. |
This is not about two opposing world views that cannot be reconciled. This is about science having rules for how to be science, and creationism being unwilling or unable to follow those rules. And the rules are simple, clear and unchanging (or at least, they haven't been changed since the last scientific revolution set off by Popper). Creationism just doesn't measure up.
It's not that scientists don't want to include creationism or that it is somehow fundamentally impossible to include. They just can't include it until it can satisfy the requirements. It's welcome to join the party if it just follows the admission rules. |
Neither can people who are religious include scientific statements that do not follow their rules of faith. I don't think the two world views are opposing at all. I just think they are completely different from one another. Like comparing that which is invisible with that which is visible. Love faith and hope for example are unscientific and if they are used by people of religion would be termed as "lack of evidence" by scientists, they do not measure up as they are invisible to the eye. Yet for christians these measure up in the heart and are very real.Well i will say it is not a science....
Well, there has been some limited science involvement in the 'creationism hypothesis'.
'Creation Science' claimed to be a scientific 'explanation' of how the Genesis account is factual. It fails, of course, on so many levels that many of the supporters felt the need to 're-brand' their product and hence we got 'Intelligent Design' which is much more careful about making testable claims.
Take the most obvious of the creationist claims - how old is the earth? Well biblical creationists say somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years. OK - we can test that by looking at radiometric dating.
When we do we find that this claim is nonsense. Scientific method therefore dictates that the claim be thrown out. Creationists cannot do that - it is central to their case. They therefore have to either ignore the data or try to discredit it. Various crazy attempts to 'rubbish' radiometric dating crop up on creationists sites from time to time - all based on pseudo or bad science. The creationists, therefore, largely ignore this data and try to find other 'hypotheses' which will provide an age more in line with their beliefs. There are many such hypotheses - each one of which has been comprehensively demolished.
The main examples can be read on the talkorigins site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html | deanhills wrote: |
| Neither can people who are religious include scientific statements that do not follow their rules of faith. I don't think the two world views are opposing at all. I just think they are completely different from one another. Like comparing that which is invisible with that which is visible. |
Well... ^_^; Yes, they are completely different from one another... but comparing what is visible with what is invisible isn't really completely different, hm? It would be more like comparing apples and 19th century English literature... and it's even less similar than that. It's not just that they're both studying different things (the "visible" and the "invisible"), it's that they're completely different modes of thought, with completely different goals, completely different structures and ultimately completely different natures. One is a carefully structured method of studying the universe designed to minimize the chance of error as much as possible by making everything reducibly testable... the other is "anything goes", so long as it is not testable (and even then, sometimes it does accept what is testable, so really, anything goes, any way you want).
Case in point, people can accept scientific statements that do not follow the rules of their particular faith, and do so quite often. They do this in a number of different ways, ranging from simply denying that there's a contradiction to reinventing their faith to fit the new science in to simply saying that it was their faith's idea to begin with. The religious can and do do whatever the hell they feel like... there are no rules except those they set upon themselves, and if they don't like the rules, they can ignore, change or simply break them. (Sometimes, amazingly, all at once! Never underestimate the scope of religious deception and hypocrisy.)
Even though it's religious in nature, there is no intrinsic reason that creationism itself can't be studied scientifically. And, as Bikerman pointed out, whenever creationists made a claim that was even remotely scientific and could be tested, it was. They just... always failed. ^_^; (Well, i exaggerate... some religious claims - if not necessarily creationist ones - have sparked scientific discovery. But creationism specifically has a crappy track record for being right.) Hell, science even studies religion itself. ^_^; This is not a problem of two different things that just can't meet in the middle... the problem is clearly one-sided. Science is rigidly constrained to follow specific rules whereas religion can and does do whatever it wants. If a religious claim cannot be scientifically tested or fails scientific testing... science can do nothing. But religion can. They usually don't, but claiming that they can't is dishonest, because they can. They can change their dogma to accommodate new scientific knowledge in many ways. Just ask Galileo, for example.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Love faith and hope for example are unscientific and if they are used by people of religion would be termed as "lack of evidence" by scientists, they do not measure up as they are invisible to the eye. Yet for christians these measure up in the heart and are very real. |
Actually, that's not true, and is usually spread packaged as religious propaganda to either make science look "cold" and heartless, or to try and claim a niche for religion in human knowledge by handling something that science can't.
First of all, science does too involve love, faith and hope... they are not the least bit unscientific. They are not explicitly part of the scientific method, yes, but they are very much part of science on many levels. To begin with, they are all studied by science... obviously. But more that, they are an integral part of the makeup of the scientific mind. What bonehead seriously believes that scientists have no love, faith or hope? i mean... seriously. ^_^;
Ask around here... anyone not love science? Anyone here not feel a warm glow inside when they hear about awesome new scientific discoveries like new extrasolar planets, or new breakthroughs in the search for a cure for major diseases? There's your love right there... a deep, heartfelt love of knowledge, and discovery and that magical little EUREKA moment you get when you finally get why something is the way it is.
And faith? Anyone here not believe that someday science will answer deep questions about the underlying nature of the universe and how it came to be? There's no reason to believe that science will ever manage that, because that's way beyond anything that's currently on the program for what we can likely accomplish. i imagine there's a fair amount of people here who believe that one day we will find a way to travel faster than light, or travel through time, or travel right out of the universe altogether into other universes... perhaps even of our own creation.
And who here doesn't hope that science will solve some big problem soon... at the very least in their lifetime, if not sooner. Maybe you have a relative dying of cancer and you hope that a cure is coming soon. Maybe you dream of seeing another world, or actually speaking with a non-human intelligence, or living forever... whatever it is, it's hope, and it's very much a part of science.
So no, love, faith and hope are most certainly not unscientific... they may not be part of the method, but they are part of the body of phenomena it studies, and they are part of the core of what makes science science.
In fact, i would go so far as to say that science not only has all of these things... it has them in far more quantity and far better quality than religion does, if religion has them at all. Take love for example. Whenceforth love in religion? i see it not. i see a lot of people saying love... but when i look closer, i see two curiously different definitions of love. One is fear... and that's not just my opinion. The other is simply stupidity (although, apologists do not call it "stupidity", they call it "unconditional love"... but just look and see, and you will always see that what they mean by "unconditional love" is neither love nor unconditional... they just want you to "not sweat the small stuff", or in plain English, turn your brain off and just be a good little sheep, and ignore all the obvious problems in the theology). And then there's faith... the only difference from religious faith is that faith in science is not faith in nonsense sky fairy gods or vaguely defined cosmic moral book-keeping services, it's faith in humanity's ability to achieve wonders through the best tool its ever developed: the scientific method. (Actually, religion tends to be very anti-human, often portraying humans as insignificant or inherently flawed. Science makes no such value judgements, saying nothing more than that while humanity is just another part of a very big universe, that's still awesome because every little tiny corner of the universe is infinitely fascinating.) And what the hell is hope in religion, really, if not just crossing your fingers and simply praying that whatever dogma you've chosen to believe is right? Is that hope, or is that just gambler's desperation?I don't think creationism has ever been regarded as science, so as others have said, there is nothing to debate, and I don't think there has even been a debate. The closest thing to creationism to have been considered as science is intelligent design, but I think that's just disguised creationism.
| Indi wrote: |
| the other is "anything goes", so long as it is not testable (and even then, sometimes it does accept what is testable, so really, anything goes, any way you want). |
Does that "judgment" come from a scientific or religious judgmental point of view? "Anything goes" is quite a broad sweeping statement, a severe judgmental statement and possibly insulting to those who are as serious about their religion as scientists are about science.
| Indi wrote: |
| Case in point, people can accept scientific statements that do not follow the rules of their particular faith, and do so quite often. They do this in a number of different ways, ranging from simply denying that there's a contradiction to reinventing their faith to fit the new science in to simply saying that it was their faith's idea to begin with. The religious can and do do whatever the hell they feel like... there are no rules except those they set upon themselves, and if they don't like the rules, they can ignore, change or simply break them. (Sometimes, amazingly, all at once! Never underestimate the scope of religious deception and hypocrisy.) |
Again, this is a point of view of someone who comes from pure science. There is also judgment involved here which comes totally from a point of science.
| Indi wrote: |
| Science is rigidly constrained to follow specific rules |
Totally agreed
| Indi wrote: |
| whereas religion can and does do whatever it wants. |
Possibly this statement can be proven from a scientific point of view. It is also looked on scientifically. From a religious point of view that is not true at all.
| Indi wrote: |
| Actually, that's not true, and is usually spread packaged as religious propaganda to either make science look "cold" and heartless, or to try and claim a niche for religion in human knowledge by handling something that science can't. |
Think "usually" is stretching it a little. Religion is hardly focussed on science for justification of its existence. As I said, if and when it attempts to do that, it can be pretty much futile.
| Indi wrote: |
First of all, science does too involve love, faith and hope... they are not the least bit unscientific. They are not explicitly part of the scientific method, yes, but they are very much part of science on many levels. To begin with, they are all studied by science... obviously. But more that, they are an integral part of the makeup of the scientific mind. What bonehead seriously believes that scientists have no love, faith or hope? i mean... seriously. ^_^;
Ask around here... anyone not love science? Anyone here not feel a warm glow inside when they hear about awesome new scientific discoveries like new extrasolar planets, or new breakthroughs in the search for a cure for major diseases? There's your love right there... a deep, heartfelt love of knowledge, and discovery and that magical little EUREKA moment you get when you finally get why something is the way it is.
And faith? Anyone here not believe that someday science will answer deep questions about the underlying nature of the universe and how it came to be? There's no reason to believe that science will ever manage that, because that's way beyond anything that's currently on the program for what we can likely accomplish. i imagine there's a fair amount of people here who believe that one day we will find a way to travel faster than light, or travel through time, or travel right out of the universe altogether into other universes... perhaps even of our own creation.
And who here doesn't hope that science will solve some big problem soon... at the very least in their lifetime, if not sooner. Maybe you have a relative dying of cancer and you hope that a cure is coming soon. Maybe you dream of seeing another world, or actually speaking with a non-human intelligence, or living forever... whatever it is, it's hope, and it's very much a part of science.
So no, love, faith and hope are most certainly not unscientific... they may not be part of the method, but they are part of the body of phenomena it studies, and they are part of the core of what makes science science. |
That is great news. Good to know that science has love, faith and hope in abundance.
| Indi wrote: |
| In fact, i would go so far as to say that science not only has all of these things... it has them in far more quantity and far better quality than religion does, if religion has them at all. Take love for example. Whenceforth love in religion? i see it not. i see a lot of people saying love... but when i look closer, i see two curiously different definitions of love. One is fear... and that's not just my opinion. |
Fearfulness is in human nature and can be found amongst both pure scientists and people who happen to be religious. Fearfulness is a universal phenomenon.
| Indi wrote: |
| The other is simply stupidity (although, apologists do not call it "stupidity", they call it "unconditional love"... but just look and see, and you will always see that what they mean by "unconditional love" is neither love nor unconditional... they just want you to "not sweat the small stuff", or in plain English, turn your brain off and just be a good little sheep, and ignore all the obvious problems in the theology). |
I’ve noticed that too, and it has irritated me just as much, but I think it would be pretty judgmental and narrow-minded to limit this to those people who happen to be religious. Again, I see this as a universal human failing.
| Indi wrote: |
| And then there's faith... the only difference from religious faith is that faith in science is not faith in nonsense sky fairy gods or vaguely defined cosmic moral book-keeping services, it's faith in humanity's ability to achieve wonders through the best tool its ever developed: the scientific method. (Actually, religion tends to be very anti-human, often portraying humans as insignificant or inherently flawed. Science makes no such value judgements, saying nothing more than that while humanity is just another part of a very big universe, that's still awesome because every little tiny corner of the universe is infinitely fascinating.) And what the hell is hope in religion, really, if not just crossing your fingers and simply praying that whatever dogma you've chosen to believe is right? Is that hope, or is that just gambler's desperation? |
I believe you have just made a value judgment.
Last edited by deanhills on Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:51 am; edited 1 time in total | deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | the other is "anything goes", so long as it is not testable (and even then, sometimes it does accept what is testable, so really, anything goes, any way you want). |
Does that "judgment" come from a scientific or religious judgmental point of view? "Anything goes" is quite a broad sweeping statement, a severe judgmental statement and possibly insulting to those who are as serious about their religion as scientists are about science. |
It is not a "judgement", it is a fact. You don't need science to know it either (and, in fact, it has nothing to do with science). And if that is "insulting" to anyone who takes their religion seriously, then those people are morons.
As i said, it is a simple fact that anything goes in religion. There is absolutely no limit on what may be included in religious beliefs. You can have religions that believe that cleanliness is next to godliness, religions that believe that bathing is sinful, and everything in between (and they actually do exist!). You can have religions that believe that the world was created in six days, that it has always existed eternally, that it comes and goes in cosmic cycles, that we dreamed it into being, or that it was sneezed out God's nose (and yes! all of those really do exist!).
There. Is. No. Limit. Anything goes. There is nothing, no belief, that cannot be included in a set of religious beliefs. No one, ever, can come to you and say that "in my religion, i believe ___" and you'd be justified in saying "that can't be a religious belief"... no matter what you fill in the blank with.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Case in point, people can accept scientific statements that do not follow the rules of their particular faith, and do so quite often. They do this in a number of different ways, ranging from simply denying that there's a contradiction to reinventing their faith to fit the new science in to simply saying that it was their faith's idea to begin with. The religious can and do do whatever the hell they feel like... there are no rules except those they set upon themselves, and if they don't like the rules, they can ignore, change or simply break them. (Sometimes, amazingly, all at once! Never underestimate the scope of religious deception and hypocrisy.) |
Again, this is a point of view of someone who comes from pure science. There is also judgment involved here which comes totally from a point of science. |
No, once again, it is not a judgement and it has nothing to do with science. It is simply a feature of religion. In religion, you are free to believe anything and call it part of your religion, so long as you can justify it to yourself. Let's take a practical example: once upon a time, all Christians believed that Heaven was above the "firmament", a sort of dome in the sky, above the clouds. It's right in the Bible, plain as day. Then, over time, the evidence began to come in that this was a stupid model. So what did Christianity do? Why, it adapted. Now you won't find a Christian who takes the firmament model seriously, and most don't even believe it ever was. In fact, some will try to argue - in all sincerity - that the model was always what we understand today (despite the obvious evidence that it was not).
New branches of old religions form all the time as people try to insert new ideas into their religions. Some take off as separate religions, some fall by the wayside, some are reabsorbed back into the main religion as more and more people in the main religion buy into the new ideas. This is all old and tired fact, and denying it is absurd.
You know, if you are going to blame any truth you find uncomfortable on "science", you are not really going to understand science, or anything for that matter. The problems with religion are not simply due to "science" making ignorant judgements.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | whereas religion can and does do whatever it wants. |
Possibly this statement can be proven from a scientific point of view. It is also looked on scientifically. From a religious point of view that is not true at all. |
If that is true, the religious point of view is just plain wrong. But it is not true. Because this has nothing to do with science at all, or a scientific point of view. And what religious point of view is that stupid i have no idea. Assuming religious people aren't living cluelessly in a fog of ignorance, all they have to do is open their eyes and look around.
Perhaps your religion doesn't include every possible idea, but i am not interested in your religion, because your religion is not religion in general. i say again: anything goes in religion. if i meant "anything goes in your religion", i would have said "anything goes in your religion", but i didn't say that. i said "in religion". And i challenge you if you still disagree with that to find just one belief that cannot be part of any religious beliefs.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Actually, that's not true, and is usually spread packaged as religious propaganda to either make science look "cold" and heartless, or to try and claim a niche for religion in human knowledge by handling something that science can't. |
Think "usually" is stretching it a little. Religion is hardly focussed on science for justification of its existence. As I said, if and when it attempts to do that, it can be pretty much futile. |
Are you kidding me? ^_^; In the last hundred years, virtually all religions have been science groupies. Pretty much every major issue that religions have faced in the last hundred years has been related to science: either involving reinventing religions to take new scientific knowledge into account, or putting up a fight to discredit some new scientific finding. Religion certainly doesn't need science to exist (although some new ones are heavily based on science), but it wants scientific justification for its beliefs.
And it's not a two way street. Science neither needs nor wants religious involvement. Anytime religion shoulders into scientific territory, science gets disrupted and has to fight back.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Fearfulness is in human nature and can be found amongst both pure scientists and people who happen to be religious. Fearfulness is a universal phenomenon. |
i never said nor implied that scientists don't feel fear. However, scientists don't label it as "love" and tout it as a good thing. Religion does.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I’ve noticed that too, and it has irritated me just as much, but I think it would be pretty judgmental and narrow-minded to limit this to those people who happen to be religious. Again, I see this as a universal human failing. |
Again, i never said nor implied that scientists don't suffer from "stupid love". But scientists don't call it a virtue. Religion does.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | And then there's faith... the only difference from religious faith is that faith in science is not faith in nonsense sky fairy gods or vaguely defined cosmic moral book-keeping services, it's faith in humanity's ability to achieve wonders through the best tool its ever developed: the scientific method. (Actually, religion tends to be very anti-human, often portraying humans as insignificant or inherently flawed. Science makes no such value judgements, saying nothing more than that while humanity is just another part of a very big universe, that's still awesome because every little tiny corner of the universe is infinitely fascinating.) And what the hell is hope in religion, really, if not just crossing your fingers and simply praying that whatever dogma you've chosen to believe is right? Is that hope, or is that just gambler's desperation? |
I believe you have just made a value judgment. |
In this case, yes i did. But so did you when you said "...for christians these (love, faith and hope) measure up in the heart and are very real..." (whereas you claim that science dismisses them). i just answered your value judgement with my own. | Indi wrote: |
| You know, if you are going to blame any truth you find uncomfortable on "science", you are not really going to understand science, or anything for that matter. The problems with religion are not simply due to "science" making ignorant judgements. |
I can't recall that I ever blamed science nor that I have expressed that I have been uncomfortable with a truth. I've been trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to say that science and religion come from two different planets. And that there is not a bridge between the two. Science can only look at religion with a scientific eye. Religion can only look at the world of science with a religious eye.
| Indi wrote: |
| i never said nor implied that scientists don't feel fear. However, scientists don't label it as "love" and tout it as a good thing. Religion does. |
Where do people of religion label fear as "love"? Can you provide evidence of that?
| Indi wrote: |
| Again, i never said nor implied that scientists don't suffer from "stupid love". But scientists don't call it a virtue. Religion does. |
I can't imagine religion would call "stupid love" a virtue.Holy crap.
I started reading this thread and I gotta say... I haven't laughed like that in at least a week(an evolution week, not a creation week). So here we go.
From Wiki - Scientific methods are techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation. This may involve the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
That's pretty much the accepted definition of science and the scientific method.
How exactly does creationism fit into that? You can't observe creationism, nor can you gather evidence about it. Can't measure it, can't prove it... Hell, most creationists can't even agree on the details of the theory. So why would anyone regard it as science in any form?
Here is the answer: They feel like the scientific community is picking on them because their theory doesn't get taught in classrooms. In order to get it taught in public schools, they have to get it in as a science, and not it's own class, because public schools don't(or shouldn't) preach religion. If it's under the flag of a science class, then they can sneak religion into public education, and convince whole generations of kids to believe in irrational impossibilities, just like them.
There are basically 6 steps of the scientific method(it varies slightly, depending on who you ask) that every 5th grader learned when making a science project. Here is what happens when you put Creationism to those steps:
Subject:Creationism
Collect Data:Impossible
Hypothesis:Invisible man in the sky created everything in the Universe in a week
Perform Experiment:<see "Collect Data>
Analyze Results:<see "Perform Experiment>
Conclusion:Creationism is a hypothesis, and nothing more.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I can't recall that I ever blamed science nor that I have expressed that I have been uncomfortable with a truth. |
Several times - in this thread and in others - when someone has pointed out an unflattering fact about religion in general or some specific part of religion in particular, your response has been that this unflattering view is the result of looking at religion with a "scientific perspective"... and that if one looks at religion with the perspective of a religious person, these unflattering facts go away. The idea you seem to be working from is that there are two "viewpoints" on things, one held by "scientists" and one held by religious people. For example, when i said, "religion can and does do whatever it wants," you suggested that that was just an opinion held by people with a "scientific point of view", rather than a fact based on the nature of religion.
The problem is that this is divisive - artificially creating two different "camps", one based on science and one based on religion - and claiming that they're just totally different from each other and thus can't see the world the same way. That's just plain not true. In the example above, the fact that religions can and do believe anything any all without any boundaries is a fact that is objectively true... it doesn't depend on whether you are a scientist or not.
And that goes true for everything. There is no "scientific view vs. religious view" thing going on here or anywhere. For example, consider creationism. It doesn't matter whether you are religious or not, creationism is not and cannot be science. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. There are clear rules for what is and what is not science, rules built right into the fabric of science itself. Whether you are a scientist or a religious person, those rules are clearly visible to anyone who cares to look. Whether you are a scientist or a religious person, if you want to add something to body of science, you have to follow those rules. The only people who say creationism is science are people who are either ignorant of those rules, or don't care about them - and their "view" of the world, religious or otherwise, is irrelevant to that fact.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I've been trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to say that science and religion come from two different planets. And that there is not a bridge between the two. Science can only look at religion with a scientific eye. Religion can only look at the world of science with a religious eye. |
And i've been trying to explain that that's not true. You are drawing an artificial line between "science" and religion that doesn't really exist, and just puts everyone into one of two groups with no good reason. You are creating two different "sides", and inevitably whenever you divide people into groups - real or artificial - those groups become antagonistic to each other.
But there is no good reason for any of this. There is no "scientific view vs. religious view". All of the apparent differences between these two groups come from misunderstandings. In the case of creationism, the "misunderstanding" is usually outright dishonesty - creationist leaders are well known (even proven in court) liars, spreading false facts about both science and creationism.
It goes for everything else, too. Gods, souls, the afterlife... there is no "scientific view vs. religious view" on any of these things... because there is simply no scientific view on any of them. Science works on the assumption that materialism is true, but is not married to it (if we ever show scientifically that materialism isn't true, then science would no longer assume that it is). It doesn't say religious dualism is wrong - it doesn't say anything about it at all except "maybe, maybe not, we just don't need to assume that yet".
There are no separate "scientific" and religious viewpoints - and there are very religious scientists and very scientifically minded religious people that prove that. What there is is people pretending a difference exists, usually as part of an agenda. For example, people who claim that science won't accept creationism as science because it is "atheistic", and thus hostile to religious ideas. Or, people who claim that science somehow "proves" religion is wrong.
The truth is that science has squat all to do with religion in any way, positive or negative. It is not "for" religion, "against" religion... it has absolutely zero relationship whatsoever. It is simply a tool, not a "viewpoint" or a belief system. If you choose to use science as your basis for believing what the world and/or universe is like, fine, but that is not required. If you are religious, then you are religious, and it doesn't matter what religion says. If scientific findings contradict your religious beliefs, then you can either just ignore the science (because if you really believe your religious beliefs, why would the science be a problem?) or change your religious beliefs. Either way, that's a personal problem, not a issue between science and religion per se.
What is happening today is that science has such an incredibly impressive record that is getting better and better - while religion's record is getting worse and worse - that religious people are having a harder time simply ignoring science, and feel more and more pressured to change their religious beliefs. That is not a scientific issue, and science itself cares not one whit about the personal religious quandaries of anyone. And frankly, nothing has changed for religion either - the same choice exists as always: ignore the science, or change the religion. But that's the way it always is with religion, science or no science. When something bad happens in the world to someone that your religion says doesn't deserve it, there's the choice again: ignore the conflict, or change your beliefs. That is just part of having a religion.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | i never said nor implied that scientists don't feel fear. However, scientists don't label it as "love" and tout it as a good thing. Religion does. |
Where do people of religion label fear as "love"? Can you provide evidence of that? |
Like centuries of Christian writings going back to Aquinas? Contemporary commentary? The fact that you - yourself - agreed to it, too, in this very thread?
How about simple common sense. What is religion - the Abrahamic religions in particular - if not the ultimate case of Stockholm Syndrome? You love God because... why? Because he's big and powerful and because he'll throw you into Hell if you don't. Just ask anyone why they love their god, and see what they say.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Again, i never said nor implied that scientists don't suffer from "stupid love". But scientists don't call it a virtue. Religion does. |
I can't imagine religion would call "stupid love" a virtue. |
But they do. "Faith is believing even common sense tells you not to." Word it anyway you like, religion makes a virtue out of believing things it tells you that you can't possibly understand... and not just believing them, loving them.
