Fine… If you insist on playing this game than current biological science is atheistic and it is just to dishonest to say it…
There are ‘scientists’ such as Richard Dawkins, William Provine, David Barash, Stephen Pinker, Jacob Weisberg, Sam Harris, and many other people who use evolution to tear apart Judeo-Christian beliefs and replace them with atheistic beliefs from science. Where is the cry from the scientific community about this mixing of religion and politics? Who sets the criteria that allows this to happen without recourse? Beyond this, any Freeper who participates in scientific discussions and religious discussions has seen first hand that the atheistic Freepers in the science forums attack Christianity in the religious forums. But I digress, let’s get back to our ‘non-religious’ and ‘non-political’ scientists’.
National Center for Science Education gives teachers lessons on how to ‘reconcile’ science and religion. Think about that… The NCSE is against religious views in science if they include any intelligent design but yet they advocate the mixing of the two according to the rules they have established.
But what does Dick Dawkins say?:
The same is true of many of the major doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The Virgin Birth, the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Resurrection of Jesus, the survival of our own souls after death: these are all claims of a clearly scientific nature. Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn't. This is not a question of "values" or "morals"; it is a question of sober fact. We may not have the evidence to answer it, but it is a scientific question, nevertheless. You may be sure that, if any evidence supporting the claim were discovered, the Vatican would not be reticent in promoting it.Either Mary's body decayed when she died, or it was physically removed from this planet to Heaven. The official Roman Catholic doctrine of Assumption, promulgated as recently as 1950, implies that Heaven has a physical location and exists in the domain of physical reality - how else could the physical body of a woman go there? I am not, here, saying that the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin is necessarily false (although of course I think it is). I am simply rebutting the claim that it is outside the domain of science. On the contrary, the Assumption of the Virgin is transparently a scientific theory. So is the theory that our souls survive bodily death, and so are all stories of angelic visitations, Marian manifestations, and miracles of all types.
by Richard Dawkins
I wonder if ‘Richard’ would “enlighten” us with a political view?
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. "Mindless" may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
by Richard Dawkins