Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 10  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The jury is still out on evolution.
10 years ago  ::  Nov 07, 2007 - 7:41PM #21
teilhard
Posts: 53,304
"What's your Star Sign? Do you come here often ... ?"
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 07, 2007 - 10:11PM #22
brightmoon
Posts: 392
:eek:[QUOTE=Vistronic;50196]George Walker Bush the forty-third and current President of the United States of America:
"The jury is still out" on evolution.

I agree
Vis.[/QUOTE]

i dont :(, bush is pitiably ignorant about science
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2007 - 1:24AM #23
RandyK37922
Posts: 2
Vis,

The fact that " many flat out say that evolution is wrong" says nothing about its validity. Many used to think that the world is flat, but this does not make it so. This argument is about where the evidence lies, not about the president's views. I am a Christian, but I must view the Bible as mans best attempt to understand the world of 2000 years ago. We have progressed in our knowledge at least a little since then, and I think that it is OK to account for this.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2007 - 12:28PM #24
wohali
Posts: 10,227
Hi Randy!

Welcome to Science & Religion Boards.............:cool:
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2007 - 6:31PM #25
Vistronic
Posts: 1,838
Hello Everyone,
The common theme among many replies here is that science has nothing to say about those things... vis-a-vis.. Religion, Faith , and by inference Creationism.

I disagree.

The philosophy of "science" so called, or the philosophy of a general evolutionary type movement within "science", the "scientific method" only crowd,  strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO.
Illustrated by this statement I will make but not agree with,
Every area of knowledge must be proven by the "scientific method".

Why do you all claim it stops at religion and faith? Carry this philosophy to its conclusion.

The crux.
God must be proven by the scientific method.
and in its wake,
matters of faith and religion also.

In some ways I don't have a problem with that.
I personally think that true science does point to God and someday will prove that.
In the meantime I have no problem with saying things change and adapt over time.
I have no problem with a old or a young earth.

What I have a problem with is not giving God the glory for his creation.
That is the real issue beyond these speculations about mechanics of creation.

Vis.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2007 - 7:37PM #26
udcstb
Posts: 2,791
Vis, careful for what you wish for.   I don't think you want science "proving God".  You may have a worse situation than you think you have now.   You may have committed to accepting outcomes that change your worldview.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2007 - 11:58PM #27
nicoletate
Posts: 3,398
[QUOTE=udcstb;55252]Vis, careful for what you wish for.   I don't think you want science "proving God".  You may have a worse situation than you think you have now.   You may have committed to accepting outcomes that change your worldview.[/QUOTE]

I disagree,  science can give it everything it's got, and the outcome would still leave room for faith. Anyway, there's no way science can prove God without God, until then the outcome would still just be science, with no relations with God.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 09, 2007 - 6:52AM #28
ozero
Posts: 1,411
vis: "...the "scientific method" only crowd, strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO."

Don't you think that the real problem is not science pushing people toward athiesm or agnosticism, but "creationism religion".  People are not stupid and they can see the dishonesty and deceit and politicization within the fundamentalist movement.   None of the real Christian denominations are complaining about science turning their people off, they suggest other problems.  No other sect is so full of such obvious liars.  I'm not talking about people who make statements that they truly believe in, but are in error, but people who know that what they are claiming are lies.  They've been called on them before, acknowledged them publicly and then turn around and use the same lies the next time they speak at a church or gathering.  I don't think anything is as deadly to faith as deceit.   Within science there have been lies, piltdown man etc, that are often brought up by creationists, but the people who exposed those lies were scientists.  Of all the top creationists who have been exposed as liars, none of them were brought to the carpet by other creationists.  It makes it appear that the whole movement is dishonest, is the problem.  Start a movement to bring honesty to your religion and maybe you wouldn't see so many of them going to athiesm or agnosticism.

*note: the latest problems at Oral Roberts are an exception.  The problems were raised by members of that school (who were then fired.  No one says that the path of truth is easy.)

PS: I've never heard of any "scientific method only" crowd.   Almost all people who accept the scientific method have other, extra-scientific ideas, some deist, some absurd, some simply unproveable.  That "scientific method only" idea should be carefully reexamined.  Read the book "What we believe, but cannot prove."  What you mean with leaning toward athiesm is leaning away from inerrancy.  Not the same thing in the real world.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 09, 2007 - 10:58PM #29
brightmoon
Posts: 392
vis: "...the "scientific method" only crowd, strongly leans a person to atheism or agnosticism at minimum IMHO."

methodological naturalism just means that SCIENCE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THINGS IT CAN'T TEST AGAINST THE REAL WORLD ....that currently consists solely of  natural phenomena
oops sorry bout caps

natural phenomena that looks like supernatural phenomena can be debunked as supernatural and explained

true supernatural phenomena cant be tested

scientists CAN"T answer the God question  and since natural phenomena appears the same whether or not you believe in a God,  we as scientists arent really interested in a SCIENTIFIC exploration of God

what youre describing is called philosophical naturalism and is a philosophy not a scientific method


IMHO what "leans a person towards atheism" are the fabrications and outright nonsense creationists have to accept in order to believe in a God ......  im quite sure you can google Glenn Morton who's written about why he became an agnostic if not an atheist 


if i had to choose between believing the ignorant stuff creationists have to and becoming an atheist ..frankly id be an atheist....but my family* never believed that YEC or OEC stuff so im not a atheist


*honestly, i dont know how...  im racially mixed and all of my moms folks are southerners ....none of them accept YEC and they still live there and have lived there since slavery days
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2007 - 10:11AM #30
teilhard
Posts: 53,304
There ARE indeed FAR more than only TWO options,
i.e.,
EITHER
(1)  a naive Literal-Historical-Factual understanding of Bronze Age Mythological Stories,
OR
(2) "Atheism" ...
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 10  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook