Current approach to science is wrong and undermines the authority of the word of God

[evanescentworld]

....Where my statement comes in is 'bash' the Christians and their irrelevance and support Islamic tolerance. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I don't think it can possibly make sense to anyone else either.

 

First of all, it is off-topic, secondly, it is totally irrational, inaccurate and utterly nonsensical....

 

Where have you witnessed Christians being bashed, coupled with Islamic tolerance?

 

I have never found that anywhere.

I'm truly at a loss to see the point of your (self-admitted) 'off-the-wall' post....

[todreaminblue]

Problem is, it's only true for those who believe it is.

You still have to agree that it's purely theory/conjecture to everyone else.

So that doesn't work either.

 

so is evolution though...its called Darwin's theory of evolution ...nothing is ever definitive proof of being the actual truth..i think that is exactly where faith comes in....faith in whatever religion speaks to our hearts...we each have our own truths and logic behind how we get to that truth..truths that ought to be respected as we respect the people who have that truth they believe in.......deb

[pureinheart]

I don't think it can possibly make sense to anyone else either.

 

First of all, it is off-topic, secondly, it is totally irrational, inaccurate and utterly nonsensical....

 

Where have you witnessed Christians being bashed, coupled with Islamic tolerance?

 

I have never found that anywhere.

I'm truly at a loss to see the point of your (self-admitted) 'off-the-wall' post....

 

You asked me to explain. I did. No need to be rude, but I do expect it especially from you:)

[pureinheart]

It's funny to me that those critics of science would happily use the fruits of it i.e. a computer, the internet, medicine...

 

For all of you non-science believers, hand in all communication devices, all medications, your TVs, stereos, cars and whatnot. You do not need them for you do not believe.

 

Science isn't a religion. Who would be "our god?" What would be our tenets? If you don't believe in science, why are you using the fruits of it? Surely, you people should be sitting, getting warmed by candlelight, mixing herbal remedies plucked from your gardens as medicine and not playing with the internet, and enjoying the benefits of scientific advances?

 

So, I think it's time for you non-science believers to go back to the dark ages.

 

Actually, this is the other way around.

[todreaminblue]

To be fair, a lot of what Christians believe is not scientifically accurate, and this is because their beliefs are based on observational knowledge form ancient times. It made sense for the world to be created in 7 days, back then, because the face of the earth is constantly changing (think wind and weather which leads to erosion and things being buried) and these ancient people, seeing only the most recent layer of the earth came to a very good logical conclusion. It's also not surprising, for the same reasons, that a person who spends all their time indoors, like most religious people do, clings to this same belief system, because the man-made room in which they spend their lives is not very old. But we, collectively, know better. Actually we know a lot now about how the world actually formed. We even know that the universe (and the world we live in) was CREATED, but not by a human-like god, rather by a confluence of forces that science is currently trying to understand.

 

Teaching that the world was created in 7 days is contrary to common sense and not a good idea. Teaching ignorance will turn us away from wanting to explore and understand the creation of the universe. It will cause knowledge that we already have to be forgotten, bringing about a dark age. Ironically, creationism can lead us away from God.

 

 

We even know that the universe (and the world we live in) was CREATED, but not by a human-like god, rather by a confluence of forces that science is currently trying to understand.

 

 

is this your personal assumption a whit of actualized theory here.... or something you have gleaned from a book....written and then observed by you to be truth and then confounded by later findings so not yet proven..........so....not fully understood so not yet completed tried and tested to be true..is this gospel to you...deb

[Eddy Street]

is this your personal assumption a whit of actualized theory here.... or something you have gleaned from a book....written and then observed by you to be truth and then confounded by later findings so not yet proven..........so....not fully understood so not yet completed tried and tested to be true..is this gospel to you...deb

 

It's just my observation that religion can be taken as series of metaphors, sometimes unintentional, for real world phenomenon. For example, religion tells us that the world was created and I agree. It was created, but it was created by the confluence of natural forces: gravity, dark-energy, electromagnetism, the strong and weak forces, chemical interaction and the "force" of evolution, etc... all this working together over eons (13.7 billion years is the current estimate) created us, and no doubt billions upon billions of other advanced beings scattered throughout the universe. Far from making us less special than we would be if we were created by god over the course of a week, I think the reality of things makes us more special.

 

What is gospel to me is that science is looking for answers and trying to understand the universe. I would assume that a religious person would be excited about this, because we are using what God gave us (our ability to explore and reason) to understand and perhaps FIND God. But since religion is still in the stone age, this isn't the case.

[Itspointless]

The way we are persuaded is, first and foremost, by the witness of the holy spirit in our hearts. That gives us a self-authenticating knowledge about the truth of our beliefs, something that other means of knowledge gathering are not able to do.

This is a great example of circular reasoning. Your premiss is something we already have to believe to come to your conclusion.

 

The scientific method does not say it gives us truth, it gives the most probable answers to what we can test until it is refuted, so that we can come closer to an answer that might be closer to the truth. Sure science relies for that on some epistemological and ontological premises. And of-course there there are many things we can't test (yet or ever).

 

The fact that some atheists or so militant is the fact that many non-believers are still very much restricted in their freedom in some form by law in actually most countries around the word by believers of faiths. See: Freedom of Thought Report | Documenting discrimination against the non-religious around the world

 

School is a place where children should be taught what we do know about the world, how people differ in world-views, how we can preserve or our world for everyone and share its resources in a just way. It is our task to teach them to think for themselves, so that they can find their own way in life with compassion for others. I personally do not care if people are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc, as long as long as they are not going to dictate from their scriptures what I can do and what I have to believe.

[Eddy Street]

My sister was one of these until age 45. She has a PhD in reproductive biology at an Ivy Leage school. Suddenly she has become a believer and follower of Jesus Christ and she has officially rejected unguided macroevolution.

 

Just curious, what caused her to become a believer? Was there some sort of major event in her life that caused this to happen?

[BlueIris]

…

… only a ministerial use of science and reason is valid. .

 

… the real role of reason and science in the world, which is to serve the gospel.

 

I see this as the core of your belief, but only people who believe your form of Christianity believe that the role of reason and science is to serve the Christian gospel. Many believe that science and reason have another purpose.

 

Because the 1st amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government establishing a religion, a public school (governmental function) cannot favor a religion in the classroom. Public school teachers can’t prefer one religion’s perspective or beliefs- such as that “only a ministerial use of reason is valid” or “the role of reason is to serve the gospel.” These are clearly beliefs based on one interpretation of one religion. (My Methodist minister grandfather didn’t believe this and he was Christian.)

 

The 1st Amendment also precludes a public school teacher in the US from teaching that the universe was created by Lord Brahma, managed by Lord Vishnu the Preserver and destroyed by Lord Shiva, as an alternative “scientific” theory for the creation of the world in a science class. It’s religion, not science.

 

Science is a field of study in public schools, like history, math or language. Science and scientific method are not religion or religious, but are a body of knowledge or information and an analytical method. That electrons have a negative charge, that one chemical reacts a certain way to another chemical, or that mice have hearts that pump blood has nothing to do with religion. But those are all part of the body of knowledge encompassed by science. Science distinguishes between fact and theory and scientific method underscores what can be proven by duplicated observation and what can’t.

 

If you think that something taught to your children is wrong, teach them what you believe is right. I taught my kids many things in history that differed from what they were taught in school because I thought it was wrong. Nothing precludes us from teaching our children what we believe, but our Constitution precludes our government from promoting religious beliefs- and your belief that reason is intended to serve the gospel is a religious belief.

Edited January 8, 2015 by BlueIris

[Weezy1973]

so is evolution though...its called Darwin's theory of evolution ...nothing is ever definitive proof of being the actual truth..i think that is exactly where faith comes in....faith in whatever religion speaks to our hearts...we each have our own truths and logic behind how we get to that truth..truths that ought to be respected as we respect the people who have that truth they believe in.......deb

 

There never ever is definitive proof about the actual truth.

 

That being said, seeking knowledge about the universe is something we humans like to do. And the scientific method has far surpassed any other way to gain knowledge about our universe. It's not perfect, but it delivers.

 

Using all the observations we've made about life on our planet, both past and present, evolution is the best theory. And that is what should be taught in science classes.

 

Creationism is not science. At all. People believe in creationism because that's what it says in the Bible. That is the opposite of science. So creationism should not be taught in science classes.

[M30USA]

There never ever is definitive proof about the actual truth.

 

That being said, seeking knowledge about the universe is something we humans like to do. And the scientific method has far surpassed any other way to gain knowledge about our universe. It's not perfect, but it delivers.

 

Using all the observations we've made about life on our planet, both past and present, evolution is the best theory. And that is what should be taught in science classes.

 

Creationism is not science. At all. People believe in creationism because that's what it says in the Bible. That is the opposite of science. So creationism should not be taught in science classes.

 

I agree with you that proof, in an absolute sense, can never be determined for anything. But I disagree that evolution is the best explanation. Are you aware that evolution is losing its following? There is currently a shift into the concept of "panspermia". This theory, while also not correct, is actually closer to the truth, in my opinion, than regular evolution.

[Weezy1973]

There is currently a shift into the concept of "panspermia". This theory, while also not correct, is actually closer to the truth, in my opinion, than regular evolution.

 

Yup, I've heard of it but it attempts to explain a different phenomenon than evolution.

 

Evolution explains the diversity of life on our planet. Panspermia is a possible explanation for how the first life form came to be on our planet on the first place. Panspermia is just a hypotheses at the moment whereas evolution is a full blown theory, but they can coexist quite nicely. One doesn't replace the other.

[Radu]

Witness of the holy spirit in my heart.

Your wishful thinking is not my tangible.

 

 

I guess that's a valid point. The current generation is relatively uneducated on these matters.

 

Not having a jack*ss attitude about it might also help.

Though it's not the first time i've seen someone into theology/philosophy think of themselves as 'evolved' humans compared with the other inferior bottom dwellers and knuckle-draggers.

 

You are definitely going to change some opinions with this thread ...

[Eddy Street]

I agree with you that proof, in an absolute sense, can never be determined for anything. But I disagree that evolution is the best explanation. Are you aware that evolution is losing its following? There is currently a shift into the concept of "panspermia". This theory, while also not correct, is actually closer to the truth, in my opinion, than regular evolution.

 

Panspermia is not distinct form evolution. It simply says that life could have evolved elsewhere (Mars perhaps, or maybe a distant star-system) and could have been brought to earth on a meteor. Once the life arrived on earth, evolution took command. Actually, evolution never ceased or paused to begin with, the microbes simply lived on the rock floating through space, evolved and adapted and survived long enough to be deposited on earth. I agree that the theory is wrong.

 

Evolution is the best explanation. Ask yourself, what has evolution predicted? Now tell me what has creation, as religious people see it, predicted?

[Eddy Street]

I should probably add that evolution is creation. Except that evolution is the real story and creation is the interpretation our limited ancestors came up with.

[pie2]

Evolution is the best explanation. Ask yourself, what has evolution predicted?

 

This!!!

 

Now tell me what has creation, as religious people see it, predicted?

 

Nothing!!!

 

Well, there you go.

 

Creation - Zero

Evolution - Hairless Big-Eyed Alien beings

 

 

 

p.s. As implied in the name, Creation isn't about prediction, it's about the history of creation.

[Eddy Street]

This!!!

 

 

 

Nothing!!!

 

Well, there you go.

 

Creation - Zero

Evolution - Hairless Big-Eyed Alien beings

 

 

 

p.s. As implied in the name, Creation isn't about prediction, it's about the history of creation.

 

They're kind of handsome aren't they?

 

And yes it's not about prediction, creation is precisely this - the lazy way to address fundamental questions.

 

I like what Neil DeGrasse Tyson has to say about religion, as we're discussing it - it's admittance of ignorance. He mentions how Isaac Newton, though a deeply religious man, not once mentioned god in describing any of his brilliant work. Once he ran into a problem he could not explain, however, he mentioned god.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Eddy Street

[Rejected Rosebud]

Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive, thank goodness. Did I already say this? I do wonder how those of you who disagree with this rationalize using the fruits of science in your daily lives though - or do you think that God personally made your computer?

[Eddy Street]

And he goes on to mention scores of other brilliant scientists who were also religious, who not once conjured up god, so long as they had full command of the problems they were attempting to solve. Once they ran into something they could not tackle with their minds, they conjured up god.

[Eddy Street]

Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive, thank goodness. Did I already say this? I do wonder how those of you who disagree with this rationalize using the fruits of science in your daily lives though - or do you think that God personally made your computer?

 

Why can't people see this? We have the observational capacity to do so, just like our cavemen ancestors had eyes and with their eyes they came up with creation. I guess the blame must fall on mutations.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Eddy Street

[pie2]

They're kind of handsome aren't they?

 

Handsome...they're HOT, Eddy! At least to the evolved among us.

 

So, Eddy, what's your theory about how life on earth started? (If you say "we don't really know", that could be interpreted as a "lazy" fallback answer. But I don't really think you're lazy).

 

I like what Neil DeGrasse Tyson has to say about religion, as we're discussing it - it's admittance of ignorance.

 

I've found some things he says pretty condescending (namely, his reason that everyone should read the bible ).

[Eddy Street]

Handsome...they're HOT, Eddy! At least to the evolved among us.

 

So, Eddy, what's your theory about how life on earth started? (If you say "we don't really know", that could be interpreted as a "lazy" fallback answer. But I don't really think you're lazy).

 

 

 

I've found some things he says pretty condescending (namely, his reason that everyone should read the bible ).

 

I see you're good at both reading and comprehension.

 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has his flaws, but he's a pretty solid dude, compared with some religious people out there anyway.

 

Oh, I almost forgot, life on earth started in puddles. It took the right chemistry and a few chance events. The perfect combination of building blocks forged deep within stars, bound together on our rock by the forces of gravity. One day a teenager was passing through and spit into one of these ponds and out sprung life. In case you missed it, that was one of the chance events, the main chance event, the missing link, the singularity.

[pie2]

Oh, I almost forgot, life on earth started in puddles. It took the right chemistry and a few chance events. The perfect combination of building blocks forged deep within stars, bound together on our rock by the forces of gravity. One day a teenager was passing through and spit into one of these ponds and out sprung life. In case you missed it, that was one of the chance events, the main chance event, the missing link, the singularity.

 

Awesome! I love when people commit to an answer. No need for wishy-washy theories around here.

 

And it would be a teenager who started this whole mess on Earth. I think that's commonly known as "adole-genesis".

 

I see you're good at both reading and comprehension.

 

I hope you're not being facetious...I'm just starting to like you!

[Eddy Street]

Awesome! I love when people commit to an answer. No need for wishy-washy theories around here.

 

And it would be a teenager who started this whole mess on Earth. I think that's commonly known as "adole-genesis".

 

 

 

I hope you're not being facetious...I'm just starting to like you!

 

Facetious? Don't you use your silly big words on me!

 

But on a serious note, the earth has been around. It has been around for a very, very, very long time. I think the inability to accept evolution has to do with our inability to imagine very long periods of time. 4.5 billion years sounds like a typical day at the office. In reality, however, it's a hell of a lot of time for all sorts of weird **** to happen.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Eddy Street

[pie2]

Facetious? Don't you use your silly big words on me!

 

lol...ok, aka "not nice"

 

But on a serious note, the earth has been around. It has been around for a very, very, very long time. I think the inability to accept evolution has to do with our inability to imagine very long periods of time. 4.5 billion years sounds like a typical day at the office. In reality, however, it's a hell of a lot of time for all sorts of weird **** to happen.

 

Oh, 4.5 billion (give or take a few) for life to become what we know today. I much prefer the teenager theory. The truth is, "science" (actually, scientists) has had some major fails; you start to take things with a grain of salt.

 

What I wish were taught in schools is that 1. We don't know it all. 2. We can keep learning and growing all the time (as long as God gives us the ability). And, 3. What REALLY matters, at the end of the day, isn't how we got here, it's what we're going to do with the brief amount of time we're given on earth (like be kind, help others, etc).