Posted Jan 5, '13 at 2:03pm
Science isn't a controversy or a discussion. There aren't "sides".
You see, the whole "teach the controversy" thing is a fallacy that Creationists perpetuate because it gives their doctrine a false equal standing with actual science. When you say that there's "sides", they seem both worthy of consideration and valid, when that's a lie, because creationism isn't scientific or evidence-based.
The honest truth of it is that evolution is the scientific establishment and "intelligent design" is a repackaging of religion with pseudo-scientific language.
Posted Jan 5, '13 at 3:54pm
HahiHa wrote:Fenrisle wrote:
That's another generalization. Are you a theologian/historian and have studied every major religion in the world, as well as all apropos religious works and knowledge? Even if religions don't encourage scientific thought, they usually don't discourage it.
That depends on one's definition. Often they are not part of the holy text(s), and if they are quite often denominations, sects, or even individuals choose to accept them as canonical of their own views.
Kasic wrote:Fenrisle wrote:
He said that religion made evolution a hot topic, which in itself isn't quite true, but it also clumps all religions into one with that wording. Again, I know he didn't mean it like that.
How is it an issue? Are you saying that faith is something that doesn't belong in science? Science is by no means atheism or associated with it.
If one believes in a Supreme Being, do you not think they'll put Them above science, regardless of how "scientific" as people they are?
True, but Biblical events are mainly dependent on interpretation. But if you don't believe in them, others probably do; in fact, why wouldn't most Christians believe in what their holy book states?
MageGrayWolf wrote:Fenrisle wrote:
Sadly, that is true.
I understand that, and as stated earlier, know you did not mean it in that way; however, I have seen much generalization and discrimination meant in such a manner elsewhere, so I ranted unnecessarily. My sincere apologies.
Science is prediction, observation, and result. Nothing is certain.
The question of value is to itself. It might be entirely useless or extremely important and controversial. The invasive properties of HeLa cells, for instance, was disagreed on simply because people didn't like the idea of it; that didn't turn out well.
Yes, it does; that doesn't make it directly and fundamentally relevant to the extent of gravity.
I am not Christian, so I am not going by by the Bible. Unless you are referencing in general, which isn't necessarily true.
Please clarify; why do you say as much?
I didn't say it was. Deism was an example.
Dissonance? How do these compartmentalized and fundamental beliefs of people conflict?
Again, how so? Religion is not an application of material fact, and science is not an inward ideology of faith.
But few are directly in-text; if they are, they are debated on whether or not they are canonical. Regardless, many of a given religion agree or disagree with that mythology, be it sect, familial, individual, or due to other reasons.
How can you prove this? Also, they were still human; many Christians today do not agree with some or a lot of the previous canonical text.
Posted Jan 5, '13 at 4:43pm
No, it's not. Religion by nature tells people what to believe. That does not encourage open-mindedness or critical thinking.
It's an issue when any given set of data is going to be interpreted as a forgone conclusion. Fossils? God made them/they aren't millions of years old despite that all data points at it. Thus our methods must be wrong...that's creationist thinking. They purposefully disregard things just to suit their belief. Now, I'm not saying if you're religious you're going to do this, or that you have to be religious to do that, but religion is -the- major factor against evolution which is why I specifically mentioned it.
Faith does and does not belong in science. At our most base principles, yes, there is faith that what occurred in a specific instance can be repeated under the same circumstances. Beyond that, faith is unnecessary.
I'm aware that science is not atheism, although it's pretty close in that it doesn't "believe" in a god since one has not been proven to exist.
You're right and wrong with that most discoveries are mistakes from experimenting. The discoveries come while testing a hypothesis (which isn't the same as faith at all) and finding they are either right or wrong or that something completely unexpected happens.
And that's exactly the problem. They put something which is not proven and which we have no evidence for above logical reasoning and experimental process.
They do and they don't. I can tell you from experience that most Christians haven't even read the Bible fully. So for a large part, they don't even know what their holy book says aside from what gets taught at church (which are usually the same verses/books and only parts of them). Then it comes down to individual interpretation and following of said parts.
No one Christian believes the same thing in my experience.
I would argue that it is. Religion is defined as having multiple aspects to it. People identify as religious and follow said traditions/teachings. Thus when you speak of religion, you also speak of what people have proclaimed to follow. While it's true that religions are different, in many ways they are similar.
We make the assumption that things are certain if you know the process behind them. To do otherwise is basically throwing your hands up in the air and expecting bananas to shape shift on whim.
Yes, it is prediction, observation and result, but we can repeat said results.
The point of the gravity comparison is that it's another theory. We actually know less about gravity than we do about how evolution works anyways.
The Bible directly claims that God made everything as is. Taking a theistic evolution stance as a Christian is basically saying that the creation story is a metaphor and the inserting an unnecessary component to evolution (God) as the cause or screw with what evolution claims in parts to fit everything just poofing into existence.
Well, in the case of evolution from a creationist standpoint.
Evolution states that organisms came from a common ancestor.
Obviously, if you're going to accept evolution and believe in creationism, you have to compromise one of the two or delude yourself into thinking they don't conflict.
As stated earlier, religion by nature conflicts with the scientific process (Religion makes a claim, it is accepted) (Science makes a claim, you have to prove it).
The ones who don't follow the literal interpretation of the creation story aren't creationists then and aren't arguing against the validity of evolution from a groundless standpoint.
Various statements and proclamations make it pretty obvious that people were expected to believe the Bible as the whole truth and that the events inside actually took place and were not metaphors.
There are many more types of Christians today, yes. 1000 years ago not so much. Sure, people probably had their own interpretation of the Bible (if they could read it) but most just accepted what they were told as fact because no one was contesting it.
Posted Jan 5, '13 at 4:49pm
I'll just highlight the problem with religion and science in this one example.
Scientist A proposes that a certain type of fish is related to another type of fish. He then examines genetic material between the two and isolates a series of retroviruses which are present in one fish are present in the other. From this he concludes that at some point the other species of fish separated from the ancestor and then began to acquire different retroviruses. This is one part of his proof.
Scientist B argues that the fish is not related to the other because they are "distinctly different" and that retroviruses do not prove evolution occurred. He gives no alternate explanation as to why both types of fish would share the same retroviruses or have similar features. He states that macro-evolution has not been proven but does not offer any other reason to oppose Scientist A's hypothesis.
Do you see the problem with Scientist B's methodology and thinking?
Posted Jan 5, '13 at 6:05pm
This quote really encapsulates a recurring theme of this thread. On one side, there are people who say stuff like "Well I don't think evolution is real" like it's some subjective issue you get to have an opinion on. Evolution is a fact. Not believing in it is like not believing in electromagnetism. It's really not up for debate AT ALL.
While it's technically true that it is a scientific theory and acknowledges the possibility of it being incorrect, that's a sort of poisonous idea. People act like that's a meaningful possibility of it being incorrect. There isn't. It's a fact. If that damages your worldview, that's on you, not educators.
On the other hand of the debate, though, we have people with no meaningful understanding whatsoever of religion attempting to belittle it conceptually. You know, people who are like "I don't know man, you say religion has value, but the AmazingAtheist told me it was always horrible and I value critical thinking so I'm going with that."
Look, if you think religion is a horrible, unproductive, archaic and meaningless way of thinking, it means you don't understand it. If your critical thinking leads you to think that religion, as a holistic concept, is bad, it's because you have done a poor job of thinking critically. The rejection of religion seen on AG is not an intellectual movement, it's a bunch of young minds clouded by ignorance and delusion.
The level on which these critiques of religion are operating on are really quite quaint. I don't know how else to put it. If you have no understanding of religion, you have no platform from which to meaningfully criticize it.
To all you diehard creationists, you're wrong. Your views don't hold up under the hard light of facts. Evolution is real.
To you diehard atheists, I have no facts or empirical truths that should be brought against you. So long as you continue to worship a twisted and base view of rationality, you are your own worst enemy.
Posted Jan 5, '13 at 6:15pm
I can't quite tell if you're meaning to imply that my statement was saying that religion is a, "horrible, unproductive, archaic and meaningless way of thinking" but I'll cover my bases just in case...
I never said that religion has no use or merit. I also didn't say that one can't critically think or be open-minded if they are religious. I simply said that by nature of religion, you are told what to believe and are meant to accept that as truth which does no encourage those qualities.
I also doubt that many of those who you're referencing as "diehard atheists" think this way too. We're not having a discussion about the merits of religion, we're talking about evolution and how religion is basically the only reason people don't accept it.
Posted Jan 6, '13 at 12:38am
I'm sorry, to clarify on my post:
In my class in religion a few years ago, a student asked how both the creation stories and scientific theories could be true. (Once again, a long time ago) The teacher responded "Many of the Bible stories, which were once believed to be 100% true, that contradict modern science are mainly symbolic for religious virtues and laws. One should not believe the Bible is 100% accurate in history, science, etc., but should be referred to so one can know what would be a more faithful decision (etc. steal or earn it yourself), as well as general laws for leading a good and happier life."
Posted Jan 6, '13 at 1:54am
And yet this statement betrays your ignorance of religion.
Religion, at it's most fundamental level, is about the philosophical hows of life. How do we live a good life? A just life? And, most importantly, Why?. Essentially, religion is subjective, and as such is open to interpretation.
Science, on the other hand, is about the facts of life. Why does heat rise? What is the chemical composition of salt? These questions and their answers are objective (in theory, although the further experimentation might reveal a different answer, but that's not the point). They are also not about that big philosophical Why? because the subsequent philosophical Because is neither objective nor provable.
My point here is that religion and science are, for the most part, not comparable.
By equating religious ideology and mythology to a scientific Theory, you make the false assumption that religious texts are to be accepted as cold, hard fact. But that's not how it works.
Generally, the men and women who question the teachings of their religion and devote themselves to the interpretation of the texts are held In the highest esteem (On a side note, the study and interpretation generally lead to increased critical thinking abilities. Closed-mindedness, on the other hand, in neither unique to religion or any other personal ideals, and cannot be attributed to it). There are many, many interpretations of the same texts simply because religion is not fact, but simply a lesson to be taken subjectively, if you so choose.
For these reasons, Creationism, on the whole, is rather silly. Creationism attempts to apply the rules of an objective method of thought to a subjective method of thought, which leads to an incoherent and unbelievable ideology. However, Creationism =\\= religion, and is no reason to stop the teaching of evolution. On the flip side, I believe the study of the philosophy of religion (all religions), is important and shouldn't be excluded from our education.
The problem, of course, is dogmatism. But dogmatism, like closed-mindedness, is not unique to religion, and can be found regardless of personal beliefs or practices.
Posted Jan 6, '13 at 2:18am
That's part of it, but not the whole. Take a look at the definition of religion.
"the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
The holding of specific beliefs is integral for something to be defined as a religion. Without that, it would just be a moral code with no reason to follow it. As religion makes claims and asserts that they are the full and only truth (usually) that makes what I said earlier, "I simply said that by nature of religion, you are told what to believe and are meant to accept that as truth which does no encourage those qualities." a true statement.
You make it sound like there is a why to begin with.
But religious belief still conflicts with scientific findings in many, many instances.
I agree that closed-mindedness is not attributable to religion, but it is often an attribute of it.
In the same way that Finger =/= Hand. It's a part of the whole.
Not unique to it, but common within it.
Posted Jan 6, '13 at 3:20am
The problem here is that you're entire argument is based on a fallacy. Somehow, you make the jump from religion as the "holding of specific beliefs" to meaning "dogmatically accepting the text of "
I fail to see the connection. As I previously said, subjective interpretation of religious text is often encouraged and respected. Just because one accepts God doesn't necessarily mean they have to take the text literally. Again, your incorrectly applying scientific methodology to religion, by making the assumption that belief in God(s) equals belief in a religious text as fact. Belief in God(s) can just as easily mean belief religious text as God(s) teachings on morality, or allegories for the moral situations we are often faced with (or any number of other things).
Only if you assume that religious text is supposed to be a factual account of history. Like I said, belief doesn't necessarily mean that one accepts religious text as a completely factual account.
To use Creationism as an example, sure, one could claim that because the Torah says God created the Universe in 6 days, it must be true. But that's only if you take the text at face value. If you view the teachings of the Torah as teachings, then God's creation of the Universe is simply the setup to the stories and teachings that follow, just as the story of Adam and Eve isn't necessarily the origin of mankind, but a lesson on honesty, willpower and the value of knowledge.
Thus Creationism isn't always equivalent to religion. One can easily be religious without being a creationist.
As it is also an attribute of politics, academia, mass-movements and atheism.
That depends. Is there an objective, universal Why? that applies to all of us? I highly doubt it. But again, religion is subjective. As soon as an individual can ask Why?, it can exist for the individual (if they so choose), and they can search for an answer through whatever means they choose, religious or otherwise.
Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it's not important.
Copyright 2005-2013 Armor Games. All Rights Reserved.
We strive to deliver the best online games experience on the internet, with thousands of free online games for kids, access to free mmorpg games, free online games for girls, online rpg games, fun online flash games, and more. We offer free flash games in many different genres: online shooting games, online puzzle games, online war games, free online car games, free online hidden object games and dozens more. This is the best place on the web to play online games for free... play on Armor Games! No matter what game style you prefer, we've got it here.
As one of the biggest free gaming websites, we offer thousands of new game reviews and ratings, making it easy for gamers to find new games every day. We offer only the best games from developers Jmtb02, Krin, ConArtist, Joey Betz, Tony Lavell, Louissi, Gameinabottle and of course Armor Games develops some of the best games around.Ready to play online games?
We are dedicated to providing our players the best online gaming experience on the internet! Visit every day to discover new games, achieve high scores, and participate in one of the most active gaming communities.
Have your game played by millions of gamers! Armor Games welcomes game submissions from talented game developers. Not every game makes the cut, but if it does, we'll promote it on Armor Games and give you all the credit and link back to your site. Submit your game here and good luck!