Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman
“But it also seems that the blog is using the term “evolution” with the creationist definition of “everything in science that we disagree with!”(Coyoteman)

I suppose you are correct, but I can understand both views. The creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by “scientists,” very often, and at some point, it looks like all scientists are haters of God. Much the same, some creationists act like whatever comes from some quarters are lies. Sometimes, like in the above blog, “scientists” make such outrageous claims it deserves scorn. I suppose, cooler heads should prevail, but not usually. -Glenn

17 posted on 09/03/2007 8:18:51 PM PDT by GlennD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: GlennD
I suppose you are correct, but I can understand both views. The creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by “scientists,” very often, and at some point, it looks like all scientists are haters of God. Much the same, some creationists act like whatever comes from some quarters are lies. Sometimes, like in the above blog, “scientists” make such outrageous claims it deserves scorn. I suppose, cooler heads should prevail, but not usually. -Glenn

I too can understand both views.

Where a legitimate conflict arises is where some scientists extrapolate beyond what science can speak to. But very few scientists go about bashing religion.

But that is not what I have seen on this website this past year or two. Many, if not most, fundamentalist/creationists here deride science because it does not agree with, nor confirm, their particular religious beliefs. They rightly deride science for overstepping its bounds, but then they consistently commit the same logical error -- but in far greater numbers and with the absolute conviction of true zealots. And they can't see the comparison.

This brings up those cases where "creationists are treated like a$$holes, and called stupid by 'scientists...'”

Those cases are pretty much limited to where creationists make claims that extend into the scientific realm. The young age of the earth and a global flood about 4350 years ago are two prime examples. The twisted science that we see in these threads to try to force science to accommodate these two creationist ideas leads to the harsh responses from scientists.

Scientists are often very anal about the accuracy of their chosen fields. Many have studied for 30, 40, or 50 years, and peer-review is generally cut-throat. Junk science, or errors of any kind are absolutely hated--a single major error will end a scientist's career.

Most scientists do not take kindly to creationists whose only science education is a visit to AnswersInGenesis and a stay at a Holiday Inn Express telling them how to practice their chosen fields.

I have often suggested that scientists stick to their fields and creationists stick to theirs, but that doesn't seem viable on these threads.

19 posted on 09/03/2007 8:41:21 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson