Posted on 04/12/2005 11:29:22 AM PDT by presidio9
Do all scientists choose areas "about-which-we-must-not-think"?
Creationists recognize the value of science (electricity lights my house! Cool!) but they also value the teachings of the Bible.
Non-believing scientists recognize the value of science (of course) but refuse to consider the concept that something may exist beyond the physical world.
IMO, non-believing scientists are closed-minded people hobbled by areas "about-which-they-must-not-think".
There are a great many people who question scientifc ideas. The Flat Earth society has many very serious members.
They are laughable though, which is why creationism does so much damage to conservatisim. It gives the left a valid reason to laugh at us, and deride us as not worthy of consideration.
It was little wonder that the day after Bush won the 2004 election, there were comparisons of Red States as being the places where people thought the world was created in 6 days.
Evolution is not incompatible with a solid Christian faith. It's some peoples blind, dogmatic faith, though, that make them incompatible with Evolution.
"Non-believing scientists" don't refuse to consider anything. They will accept any and all evidence for creationism that appears.
Unfortunately for those here who feel some nostalgia for the Dark Ages, there is no evidence for a literal interpretation of the Bible (quoting the Bible itself doesn't count as evidence in the scientific community.)
If you want creationism to be accepted as science, all you have to do is show a scrap of evidence to support it. Or you can do what I do-- trust in Jesus for spiritual guidance, and trust scientists for empirical interpretations. There's nothing mutually exclusive about doing both.
From Scientific America
Okay, We Give Up
We feel so ashamed
By The Editors
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamedsuperpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
This lists the good and bad arguments of both sides. ENJOY.
There are many areas of science that are so well established that it is not productive to investigate. Contrary to many early Christian teachings, the earth really is round, and it really does revolve around the Sun, and scientists would be wasting their time to investigate those facts again merely because some ancient Christians interpreted the Bible incorrectly.
Creationists recognize the value of science (electricity lights my house! Cool!) but they also value the teachings of the Bible.
Genesis only has a few hundred words about the creation. And the two stories in Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4 have specific sequence conflicts that should give any honest person difficulty in interpreting them litterally.
Any honest person should also agree that it is virtually impossible for two people to interpret the Bible the same. Witness the many different denominations, and the changes in Bible interpretation over the years. So it should be easy to imagine that any one persons specific interpretation of Genesis might just be wrong.
The bottom line is that God created the Earth and everything in it, and God inspired the Bible. By definition, they cannot be in conflict. When science examines the Earth and finds evidence of Evolution, then I must interpret the Bible to be in agreement.
The Bible and Gods Creation cannot be in conflict. Therefore God created Evolution.
No, it doesn't.
Nor do they need reason to deride Christians or conservatives other than those Christians and conservatives stand in their path to power.
The Truth is that they FEAR Christians. As they Fear Bush. They fear Delay. What you discern as mockery masks that fear.
I don't particularly care what opinion people have of my beliefs. If I did, I wouldn't be a Christian. I wouldn't be a Conservative. If you want me to recognize evolution as Truth, Prove it. I've yet to read anything that make an absolute undisputed case for it. At a point it takes a leap of Faith in the science of the day about an event no one witnessed. The science of the day has a habit of becoming dated as we make discoveries where we thought there were none left to be made. What was accepted opinion 100 years ago, is not accepted wisdom today. 100 years from now it'll be the same.
I will take a leap of faith and acknowledge God's existance, but I will not do the same for Scientific Theory constructed by man to explain the origins of the earth.
Yes. God created Evolution.
The problem many "creationists" have is that they believe that Evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive. Their interpretation of the Bible what is wrong.
This is not a fight between "science" and "religion". It is an interpretation fight among believers, no different than any of the other disagreements between religious denominations that interpret many important parts of the Bible differently.
And you fell for it. Bwah, ah, ah!
check in later
The ability to "dispute" something does not mean that it is incorrect. Many dispute that Oswald shot Kennedy. Some doubt we landed on the moon. Both have "evidence" on their side and will argue their case till the cows come home.
The Discovery Institute, that I believe is funded by the left in order to damage the conservative cause, has "disputed" evolution and claimed that this is proof of Intellegent Design. It is no such thing.
Anti-Evolutionism is a cancer on the conservative cause. It will reproduce and spread among conservatives and kill their political power. Note that Social Security reform is all but dead. As is the nuclear option in the Senate. We are beginning to loose, and here we fight on this stupid issue.
No they don't. This is an old canard, and it does nothing for the substance of your argument.
Interesting how he capitalized both "evolution" and "the Bible", isn't it?
Genesis only contains a few hundred words on the subject of the Creation. How can it possibly tell you all the details? Genesis doesn't mention nuclear energy. But do you doubt it exists?
Where did you get the idea that God created evolution?
From the abundant evidence of it in God's creation itself. The two cannot be in conflict with each other. Therefore your interpretation of those few hundred words in Genesis must be what is incorrect.
"The Discovery Institute, that I believe is funded by the left in order to damage the conservative cause..."
That's funny. Now I'm getting visions of Conspiracy Theorists funded by Creationists to damage the Evolutionist cause.
Yes, they do.
This discussion has about as much meaning as an argument between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic on how to treat Mary, mother of Jesus. We will not agree.
What this discussion does prove is that creationism does not belong in a classroom of any kind, because it is faith, not science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.