Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The flip-side is, you haven't any right to force your atheism in public schools either. ....

That's a pretty silly argument since no one is saying anything about Atheism. Please try to keep up with the discussion. This thread is about evolution, not Atheism or Atheists. Evolution is about biology and science. Atheism is a single position on a single issue. Trying to equate evolution with Atheism is a fools game.

You know, any adult standing in a science classroom and NOT teaching evolution is not a "science teacher."

He/she may be a lot of things, but a teacher of science is not one of them.

Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:21PM, costrel wrote:

 These myths -- including the literary one by Tolkien -- do explain why we die (yet they obviously cannot be harmonized into one systematic and integral whole), though they provide adequate answers only for a small section of the population that accepts one of these myths as true according to the literal or the spiritual sense (the latter which the Catholic Church subdivides into allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses), and are relatively useless for providing adequate answers for the human population at large. 

Exactly!  That why my as yet unmatched challenge that I often issue to the folks who believe this pablum about science=how, religion=why is to do this:

Give me one single plainly intelligible "Why?" question that religion has answered that people find universally plausible and acceptable, the way they tend to find "How?" questions answered by science acceptable.

Can't be done, I say. And there is a reason for that.

From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable. Many religions accept scientific thinking up to a point, but then require certain things to be accepted on faith even if they are inconsistent with or even entirely lack empirical evidence. Religion is typically also not amenable to having its claims subjected to scientific testing, where possible, and disallowing scientific testing of testable things is not in harmony with science. Fewer religions make no such demands of taking things on faith, but AFAIK they do believe that mysticism is another valid way to obtain information or find truth. Science doesn't. If a religion relies on mysticism (or you can call it personal insight or the insight of others) to explain things, it's not consistent, or in harmony, with science. I can't think of a religion that doesn't either accept mysticism or require belief based on faith, or both. A religion may seem to be in "harmony" with science because it accepts the scientific way of knowing, but if it also accepts other ways of knowing, I would say it is not in harmony with science, because that's not how science is done. Also, if the religion makes any claims about the existence of an afterlife or reincarnation, it is not in harmony with science. 

Now, a person can change his mindset and use the scientific mindset at times, or he can use mystical or religious ways of knowing at other times. But that's not harmony. That's singing different tunes at different times. For me, it just leads to cognitive dissonance, but perhaps others are not so affected.

Feb 6, 2011 -- 3:53PM, Christianlib wrote:

From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable.

Nope.  The fact that SOME people on either side of the question can't reconcile them does not make it impossible.  I know plenty of folks who do so just fine.

Let us know when a single one of them can sensibly articulate a single example.