|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 34
New CEG\'er
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 34 |
I believe in God. I believe in Evolution. I don't see any contradiction in my beliefs. Watch the Bill Moyer's interviews with Joseph Campbell on DVD. It might change your perspective if you have an open mind. Both are Christian men. http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60030375&trkid=147042There is room for all beliefs including anarchy & atheism and they are all beautiful.
'95 Mystique 2.5L Man with MSDS y-Pipe, AEM SRS intake and an excellent tune-up from LOW BUDGET RACING
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
All this mumbo jumbo about scientific priesthoods and cultural influence and some kind of implied conspiracy in the scientific communityâ?¦all of it is the fabrication of the religious right and all of it is basically crap.
Scientists do not see evolution in those terms. Scientists see evolution as simply the best internally consistent explanation for the richness of life that we see on this planet.
That's because in the scientist's mind there cannot be anything else besides a scientific explanation.
Quote:
Youâ??re right that the scientific community does have an immense cultural influence on society. It gained and maintains that influence by faithfully applying the scientific method and the incredible benefits that it brings to our society. There is nothing mysterious or hidden about science â??? it is totally open and available to anyone with a willingness to learn.
In any event, the real issue here is not science, or the definition of science or anything along that line. The real issue is the threat to the churchâ??s power and influence posed by a method of describing the world that basically says, â??question everything.â? How dare scientists explore the nature and origin of life! â??? these are topics that only the priesthood has the right to address. This is too important a topic to be explored outside of religion, and besides, we already know the answer! Our holy book lays it all out!
Again, that's BLIND FAITH and that is not what a good Biblical leader will preach. There is nothing wrong with "questioning everything" because when you do, and you do the research to find the answers to your questions, you come to a much better answer than you actually had before.
The problem is that the THEORY of EVOLUTION is simply that, a theory. To think that chaotic goo turned into what we have in our world today is simply crazy!! Explain fingerprints. Why do EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US HAVE A DIFFERENT FINGERPRINT??? Was that because of evolution? What would have been the purpose of that? Or is it because a designer designed us to each be unique individuals?
The perspective that one takes on the origin of life completely changes their whole outlook on life. If we are from monkeys, then we are nothing more than an animal with a cognitive brain. But if we were designed, then we are each an individually unique person with special qualities.
Science cannot answer the question as to the origin of life, because science will never be willing to accept the possibly that there could have been an intelligent designer behind our world!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
The problem is that the THEORY of EVOLUTION is simply that, a theory. To think that chaotic goo turned into what we have in our world today is simply crazy!! Explain fingerprints. Why do EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US HAVE A DIFFERENT FINGERPRINT??? Was that because of evolution? What would have been the purpose of that? Or is it because a designer designed us to each be unique individuals?
Fingerprints are different because they're caused by the flow of fluids in the womb. As the developing skin contracts around the muscles in pregnancy it takes on a shape caused by the moving fluids and it's effects on the developing cells. It's entirely random just like patterns in the sand on the beach caused by the ebb and flow of the waves.
We have fingerprints because of evolution (at least if you're an evolutionist). But they're not unique because of evolution. There's no evolutionary reason for them to be unique. They serve a variety of beneficial purposes, the least of which is their ability to identify (since they're extraordinarily difficult to see, unlike Zebra's stripes which are similar in creation, but serve a different purpose). They're unique, not by design, but by the method in which they are created.
Human beings aren't alone in this feature; certain animals have finger prints that are so close to that of humans that only a trained expert could tell the difference.
I guess the flipside of that question would be, if there was a Creator, why would he give us all unique fingerprints? What would be the purpose of that? They are countless other and better ways to show uniqueness if your desire was to show your creation they were unique.
I'm not taking a side. Just facilitating the discussion.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 584
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 584 |
I'm going to add my $.02 and reply to a few posts. Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Corbett:
You are talking about Allah, not God. He may be your god but he is not THE God. They are not the same.
Then what about Allah and God both being defined be each popular branch of Islam and Christianity as "The God of Abraham"?
They can say they are the same God all day and all night, but that does not mean it is so. All I know is my God loves his people and that is why He sent His Son Jesus. The Bible says if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ you shall be saved. It doesn't matter how good of a person you are or what you have done in your past. That is the difference between the God os the Bible (THE God) and the God of Islam.
There is a guarantee with Christianity that if you believe Jesus died on the Cross for your sins, then you will go to Heaven when you die. In Islam, there is not guarantee other than becoming a martyr. And that is why they are not the same God.
Actually, Jesus said that not everyone calling on his name would enter into his kingdom. Belief alone gets you nowhere. How else do you explain the 2nd chapter of James? "faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself."
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by t-red2000se:
Originally posted by SalKhan:
No. I'm a muslim.
How do you reconcile the fact that your holy book tells you to kill me?
..how do you reconcile the fact that the bible promotes murder and torture of those who don't agree with christian principles.. (moses..red sea..plague..etc)
Moses and all those other old guys had nothing to do directly with Christianity. In case you never noticed, Christianity differs from many of the old ways of the Jews.
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by BP:
..how do you reconcile the fact that the bible promotes murder and torture of those who don't agree with christian principles.. (moses..red sea..plague..etc
The Bible does not tell us today to kill those who do not agree with Christian principles. Do you need a quick lesson in the difference between the Old and New Testament? Because if you think God says we should kill anyone today then you obviously do need one.
And if you think Moses killed in any of those storied you mentioned, then you have another thing coming. God did that, not Moses. We are no where commanded to kill those who do not agree with Christian principles.
Wrong. Moses did indeed once kill an Egyptian, and God was not exactly happy with him for it.
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by BP:
the problem is you and others are ignorant to context and meaning as it relates to the koran, so you turn around and use this ignorance to brand islam as promoting violence or as terroristic religion.
And I would have to say you are the same way about the Bible.
The truth is, Islam is no more a terroristic religion than Christianity is. Take that statement as you will. Ever heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Holocaust? All the fault of so-called "Christianity". Funny thing that Jesus taught peace and love. Extremist terrorists are no more Muslim than Hilter was Christian.
Originally posted by steve-o reborn:
ancientsanskrit: Honestly my knowlegde on further experiments following Miller's is limited at best. I just wanted to point out the faults in this one specifically because it a lot of people use it as the confirmation of spontaneous life.
Another thing I wanted to say, about evolution in school: My problem is that in all sciences, the faults and issues with current theories and models are always brought to light and discussed. With evolution, from middle school through highschool, the curriculum has been strictly in support of the evolution theory and never about what could be wrong with it. never. Sigma made a good point about how teaching alternate theories isn't realistic, but I would be happy if a teacher ever showed a class the numerous shortcomings of the most popular academic origin theory in middle/highschool science.
Every time I've taken a biology class, we studied evolution in enough detail that the class understood both the evidence for it and against it. I think that's how it should be. I also think that Creationism should not be taught in school; I hardily support the separation of church and state, and our public schools are a facet of the local government.
Originally posted by sundaydriver33:
I believe in God.
I believe in Evolution.
I don't see any contradiction in my beliefs.
Watch the Bill Moyer's interviews with Joseph Campbell on DVD. It might change your perspective if you have an open mind. Both are Christian men.
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60030375&trkid=147042
There is room for all beliefs including anarchy & atheism and they are all beautiful.
I do somewhat agree. In the religion vs. science debate, reality is that there is no reason why the two can't coincience peacefully. So maybe God created the world... so maybe he employed evolution as a means to do so. Science can't disprove the Bible, in fact is has been doing the opposite for some time now. Oddly enough, the Old Testament mentions the fact that the earth is a "circle" and "hanging on nothing", long before we knew that it was round, or anything about the mysteries of space. Neither can religion disprove science.
Personally, I don't think either position has any advantage over the other. Microevolution and natural selection are both solid facts, and religion must learn to accept that. There are many holes in the theory of macroevolution, and this is where - if people were open-minded enough - Creationism could fill in the missing pieces. From a mathematical standpoint, it would have taken much, much longer than 4 billion years for our world to evolve to this point, given the fact that there is an infinitesimally small chance of so many factors happening as needed in perfect order with perfect timing - it's nearly impossible. Maybe it is impossible.
After studying the Bible in a good deal of detail, I have become a agnostic theist. I believe in God, but I believe that it is nearly impossible to find the "truth". There are hundreds of denominations of Christianity alone, all of which differ in their faith. How are we to know what's right? That's why I take the standpoint that I do. Thomas Jefferson once said that "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." I love debates and discussions such as these, and my primary purpose is to fuel the fire. I have and will equally oppose both atheists and Christians, largely for the purpose of promoting thought and further discussion.
I feel that in the midst of all this, there are a few words of Albert Einstein which we would all do well to remember: "The important thing is to never stop questioning." Being open-minded is the key.
E0 Silver Frost CSVT #3095/6535
Alpine CDA-9851
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939 |
Originally posted by Rishodi:
I'm going to add my $.02 and reply to a few posts.
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Corbett:
You are talking about Allah, not God. He may be your god but he is not THE God. They are not the same.
Then what about Allah and God both being defined be each popular branch of Islam and Christianity as "The God of Abraham"?
They can say they are the same God all day and all night, but that does not mean it is so. All I know is my God loves his people and that is why He sent His Son Jesus. The Bible says if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ you shall be saved. It doesn't matter how good of a person you are or what you have done in your past. That is the difference between the God os the Bible (THE God) and the God of Islam.
There is a guarantee with Christianity that if you believe Jesus died on the Cross for your sins, then you will go to Heaven when you die. In Islam, there is not guarantee other than becoming a martyr. And that is why they are not the same God.
Actually, Jesus said that not everyone calling on his name would enter into his kingdom. Belief alone gets you nowhere. How else do you explain the 2nd chapter of James? "faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself."
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by t-red2000se:
Originally posted by SalKhan:
No. I'm a muslim.
How do you reconcile the fact that your holy book tells you to kill me?
..how do you reconcile the fact that the bible promotes murder and torture of those who don't agree with christian principles.. (moses..red sea..plague..etc)
Moses and all those other old guys had nothing to do directly with Christianity. In case you never noticed, Christianity differs from many of the old ways of the Jews.
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by BP:
..how do you reconcile the fact that the bible promotes murder and torture of those who don't agree with christian principles.. (moses..red sea..plague..etc
The Bible does not tell us today to kill those who do not agree with Christian principles. Do you need a quick lesson in the difference between the Old and New Testament? Because if you think God says we should kill anyone today then you obviously do need one.
And if you think Moses killed in any of those storied you mentioned, then you have another thing coming. God did that, not Moses. We are no where commanded to kill those who do not agree with Christian principles.
Wrong. Moses did indeed once kill an Egyptian, and God was not exactly happy with him for it.
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by BP:
the problem is you and others are ignorant to context and meaning as it relates to the koran, so you turn around and use this ignorance to brand islam as promoting violence or as terroristic religion.
And I would have to say you are the same way about the Bible.
The truth is, Islam is no more a terroristic religion than Christianity is. Take that statement as you will. Ever heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Holocaust? All the fault of so-called "Christianity". Funny thing that Jesus taught peace and love. Extremist terrorists are no more Muslim than Hilter was Christian.
Originally posted by steve-o reborn:
ancientsanskrit: Honestly my knowlegde on further experiments following Miller's is limited at best. I just wanted to point out the faults in this one specifically because it a lot of people use it as the confirmation of spontaneous life.
Another thing I wanted to say, about evolution in school: My problem is that in all sciences, the faults and issues with current theories and models are always brought to light and discussed. With evolution, from middle school through highschool, the curriculum has been strictly in support of the evolution theory and never about what could be wrong with it. never. Sigma made a good point about how teaching alternate theories isn't realistic, but I would be happy if a teacher ever showed a class the numerous shortcomings of the most popular academic origin theory in middle/highschool science.
Every time I've taken a biology class, we studied evolution in enough detail that the class understood both the evidence for it and against it. I think that's how it should be. I also think that Creationism should not be taught in school; I hardily support the separation of church and state, and our public schools are a facet of the local government.
Originally posted by sundaydriver33:
I believe in God.
I believe in Evolution.
I don't see any contradiction in my beliefs.
Watch the Bill Moyer's interviews with Joseph Campbell on DVD. It might change your perspective if you have an open mind. Both are Christian men.
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60030375&trkid=147042
There is room for all beliefs including anarchy & atheism and they are all beautiful.
I do somewhat agree. In the religion vs. science debate, reality is that there is no reason why the two can't coincience peacefully. So maybe God created the world... so maybe he employed evolution as a means to do so. Science can't disprove the Bible, in fact is has been doing the opposite for some time now. Oddly enough, the Old Testament mentions the fact that the earth is a "circle" and "hanging on nothing", long before we knew that it was round, or anything about the mysteries of space. Neither can religion disprove science.
Personally, I don't think either position has any advantage over the other. Microevolution and natural selection are both solid facts, and religion must learn to accept that. There are many holes in the theory of macroevolution, and this is where - if people were open-minded enough - Creationism could fill in the missing pieces. From a mathematical standpoint, it would have taken much, much longer than 4 billion years for our world to evolve to this point, given the fact that there is an infinitesimally small chance of so many factors happening as needed in perfect order with perfect timing - it's nearly impossible. Maybe it is impossible.
After studying the Bible in a good deal of detail, I have become a agnostic theist. I believe in God, but I believe that it is nearly impossible to find the "truth". There are hundreds of denominations of Christianity alone, all of which differ in their faith. How are we to know what's right? That's why I take the standpoint that I do. Thomas Jefferson once said that "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." I love debates and discussions such as these, and my primary purpose is to fuel the fire. I have and will equally oppose both atheists and Christians, largely for the purpose of promoting thought and further discussion.
I feel that in the midst of all this, there are a few words of Albert Einstein which we would all do well to remember: "The important thing is to never stop questioning." Being open-minded is the key.
Re: your Einstein quote.
What if you find the truth? Should one stop questioning then?
Vicious circles! 
2000 Silver Frost SVT
# 1637/2150
D.O.B. 01/14/2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939 |
Originally posted by sundaydriver33:
There is room for all beliefs including anarchy & atheism and they are all beautiful.
Only in California.
2000 Silver Frost SVT
# 1637/2150
D.O.B. 01/14/2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
That's because in the scientist's mind there cannot be anything else besides a scientific explanation.
There can be many explanations. There is only one (or variations on one) explanation that is scientific - derived from the scientific method. Evolution is a brilliantly simple and consistent theory that has withstood incredible levels scrutiny for the last 150 years.
The conflict occurs when the religious right defines a faith-based belief as being scientific. â??This is what we define as science and thus it must be taught in public schools as a scientific alternative to evolution.â? Of course â??creationismâ? or â??intelligent designâ? or whatever the latest obscuring label being used is not science.
As a â??scientific theoryâ? it miserably fails peer review. The vast majority of working scientists do not accept creationism. Itâ??s not derived from the scientific method. Calling creationism a scientific theory is now and will always be completely unacceptable to working scientists the world over. Remember that scientists do not use the word theory in the same manner as the general community. Explanations only become theories after they have passed the most rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community.
So how do we return creationism to the schools? Mislabeling it science and trying to push it down the throats of the scientific community through brute force is a major non-starter. The religious right is alienating the hell out of scientists and those who understand science in this country â??? even those who (like myself) agree with the goal of bringing God back to public life.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question at the most basic levels.
With all due respect, I must say this viewpoint departs from purely rational observation and approaches paranoia.
Quote:
The colored glasses phenomenon has been at work within the scientific naturalist community for decades now, it's not a question of the last 10-20 years.
If this is the case, why did it not have an effect on what we were taught in school? And if it didn't then, why would it now?
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by Rishodi:
Actually, Jesus said that not everyone calling on his name would enter into his kingdom. Belief alone gets you nowhere. How else do you explain the 2nd chapter of James? "faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself."
Faith without works means to show the Love of Christ here on earth. It does not say that works get you into Heaven. Jesus did say nobody comes to the Father but by Me. The only way into Heaven is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by Rishodi:
Wrong. Moses did indeed once kill an Egyptian, and God was not exactly happy with him for it.
Thanks for proving my point. God did not tell him to kill the Egyptian.
Originally posted by Rishodi:
The truth is, Islam is no more a terroristic religion than Christianity is. Take that statement as you will. Ever heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Holocaust? All the fault of so-called "Christianity". Funny thing that Jesus taught peace and love. Extremist terrorists are no more Muslim than Hilter was Christian.
No, you are wrong. The difference is, the Koran specifically says to kill the Infadel (one who does not believe or will not convert). And that to die for Allah is the only guaranteed way to enter Heaven. The Bible does not say to kill in the name of God and it specifically says that if you believe Jesus died for your sins you will go to Heaven.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
cjbaldw, your post is a perfect example of how the religious right approaches this topic. It is a political issue pure and simple. All this mumbo jumbo about scientific priesthoods and cultural influence and some kind of implied conspiracy in the scientific communityâ?¦all of it is the fabrication of the religious right and all of it is basically crap.
Nice try, but it's not going to work. Who are the most respected scientists in the field currently in respect to evolution? Stephen Jay Gould is one, and in his own analysis while he is an avid supporter of evolution, has written many articles analyzing the fossil record and is basically in agreement that there are serious holes in the theory of evolution as Darwin originally theorized that cannot be explained by what the fossil record is telling us. Gould has his own set of theories to fill in the gaps so to speak, and my guess is that eventually a newer theory will replace Darwin's theory, however in order for this to happen, we need people willing to stand up and state that the original theory of evolution according to empirical evidence simply doesn't add up.
Quote:
Scientists do not see evolution in those terms. Scientists see evolution as simply the best internally consistent explanation for the richness of life that we see on this planet.
Not all scientists agree with you. The few that are brave enough to stand up to the scientific naturalist establishment are generally chastized and oftentimes disgraced and forced out of their chosen profession. Do your homework and you'll see several instances where this occurred. Fabrication? Sure. Thankfully, there have been some recent (within the last decade) conferences within the scientific community that have prompted honest discussion about what I'm talking about here. Micheal Ruse debated Phillip Johnson in 1992 following Johnson's book, "Darwin on Trial", and Phillip Johnson in fact was arguing (as he does in his book) that naturalistic metaphysics upon which Darwinism is based (and there is no argument on this in the scientific community BTW) is NOT compatible with any meaningful theism, whereas Micheal Ruse (author of Darwinism Defended and a well known advocate and study of Darwinism) took the position that certain kinds of theism can be reconciled with the theory of evolution. Funny that you've got the guy who is in opposition to scientific naturalism arguing that theism's got no place, whereas you've got the evolutionist arguing otherwise? In any case, apparently this debate had a major impact on Ruse, because in February of 1993, Ruse made some remarkable concessions in a conference at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The conference was organized by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a privately funded group dedicated to protecting science education from the menace of creationism. This group in practice openly admits that it's primary mission is to produce materials aimed at mounting rhetorical attacks on anyone who questions naturalistic evolution. Conspiracy theory? Sure. Check the facts for yourself. The usual NCSE line is that all critics of naturalism are either overt or covert Biblical literalists, and so it was a real step forward for Ruse and in reality for the group to ask Ruse to speak on a topic labeled: Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson. It is worth noting that your reaction was much like I just described here - which BTW never even attempted to deal with my post based upon the merits - you merely attempted smear tactics by labeling my post as zealotry motivated by some hidden religious motivating factors which don't exist. Deal with the merits, I'm still waiting.
To continue, Ruse changed his usual Johnson-bashing after a few minutes, and engaged in some profound public soul-searching. He reported that he actually found Johnson and the other participants to be very likeable people, and he thought the discussions held had been quite constructive. Mainly they had talked about metaphysics and Johnson's position that naturalistic metaphysics underlies Darwinist belief. Ruse admitted to his AAAS audience, "In the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas (background - Ruse was a critical part of the case in Arkansas regarding evolution versus creationism in schools), I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself." Although Ruse is still very much an evolutionist, he publicly acknowledges "that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of laww - but I think that in all honesty that we should recognize." The audience greeted his remarks with stunned silence, indicating that they sensed the possible political and cultural consequences of making such a statement. Arthur Shapiro, in response to this lecture, wrote an article in the next issue of NCSE Reports entitled, "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?"
Johnson's goal is to one day soon convene a conference of leading scientists and philosophers for further discussion of the ideological assumptions that influential scientists are determined to impose not only within their own disciplines, but through public education upon the culture at large. BTW, in Shapiro's text in his response to Ruse's admittance, he publicly admitted, "Of course there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science."
So, it appears that while you may feel this is all conspiracy, fabrication, and crap, those at the top of the evolutionist field are starting to at least realize the depth of the ideological philosophy (bad philosophy even?) that may exist within the scientific community specific to scientific naturalism, and are starting to take steps to explore whether or not this is the case. I say, here here, the sooner the better.
Quote:
Youâ??re right that the scientific community does have an immense cultural influence on society. It gained and maintains that influence by faithfully applying the scientific method and the incredible benefits that it brings to our society. There is nothing mysterious or hidden about science â??? it is totally open and available to anyone with a willingness to learn.
That's why NCSE type orgs exist right? Don't confuse good science (original theory of evolution) with philosophy (scientific naturalism and neo-Darwinism).
Quote:
In any event, the real issue here is not science, or the definition of science or anything along that line. The real issue is the threat to the churchâ??s power and influence posed by a method of describing the world that basically says, â??question everything.â? How dare scientists explore the nature and origin of life! â??? these are topics that only the priesthood has the right to address. This is too important a topic to be explored outside of religion, and besides, we already know the answer! Our holy book lays it all out!
BS, and a typical smokescreen not to deal with the issues on the merits. Nice try though, I'm not buying it.
Last edited by cjbaldw; 09/06/05 02:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
