[Mr. Silverback]

Those who love science, don't allow yourselves to be blind...Dawkins and his ilk have just stood up and said "This is a hijacking." What you do from here determines if science will be a discipline or a weapon in the 21st Century.

There are links to further information at the source document.

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

Not a pro-life thread per se, but since almost all of you are people of faith, you need to be aware of this.

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[rbg81]

Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”

Bingo. If anything, much of what science has shown us is that we are nowhere near understanding the cosmic forces that shape our universe--all we have done is scratch the surface. In many ways, it has made the case for G-d stronger. Science and religion are not incompatible.

[NicknamedBob]

"... exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world."

Amen. I consider myself a scientist, but not exclusively a scientist.

[SunkenCiv]

pingworthy?

[Coyoteman]

But this really exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world. The greatest scientists in history have been Christians who believe science was possible only in a world that was orderly and created by God. We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon.

The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?

Colson writes, "We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon."

But many folks disagree. Rather than, "We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon," they would prefer to overrule any natural phenomenon that disagrees with their interpretation of scripture.

We see that in the creation vs. evolution arguments all the time.

• Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but that's obviously wrong--its about 6,000 years old.

• Science says there was no global flood, but that's obviously wrong--it occurred some 4,300 years ago even if science can't find it.

• Science says modern humans evolved from earlier species, and that modern humans and apes had a common ancestor, but that's obviously wrong--Adam and Eve were the first.

"We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon" is a drastic oversimplification, if not an outright lie. Folks who hold to a strict interpretation of scripture want nothing more than to do just that.

Just think of all the sciences that might be "ruled out" under a theocratic rule:

• Geology and archaeology--can't find evidence of the flood. GONE!

• Astronomy--that big bang stuff. GONE!

• Genetics--all those genetic similarities to chimps. GONE!

• Radiometric dating--can't get the ages right. GONE!

• Biology--all that evilution stuff. GONE!

• Paleontology--all those inconvenient fossils. GONE!

Sorry, I choose not to live under such a system.

[Boxen]

It's just "Non-overlapping magisteria." A minor nit-pick, but a nit-pick nonetheless.

I am atheist. That being said, I've never had a problem with another's religious beliefs. You believe in an all-powerful, ever living god? Fine. Flying Spaghetti Monster? Dandy. A pantheon or race of gods? Go for it.

It wouldn't surprise me if a large number of atheists were like me: apathetic to religious belief instead of opposed to it.

[jwalsh07]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

A pity this particular boy genius neglected his World History. If he hadn't he would know that his thesis has already been tested. It didn't work out so well for the hoi polloi in the anti-religion nirvanas of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al.

[LiteKeeper]

consider later

[GSlob]

Well, the science and the questions of it are best left to scientists. The biblers' [quraners', torahers', rigvedaers' etc.] input in it is about as welcome as a scientists' opinion about which side out the liturgical vestments ought to be worn.

[Tax-chick]

Good points from Mr. Colson.

[aruanan]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

Sounds as though he's been reading tracts from the late 18th century. When you think of Thomas Henry Huxley's relationship to religion, think Margaret Sanger's relationship to social work.

[Sopater]

already posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1761326/posts

[RobRoy]

>>What’s behind all of this animosity? <<

I can tell you what is behind it: They intuitively know they are the next Dan Rather. They are petrified!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”

Can't be said enough.

[little jeremiah]

A companion article to the one I just pinged out. God haters hate all manifestations of religious belief; they're equal opportunity haters. Those who believe in God (at least many of them) are now backed into a corner whimpering "I'm q nice guy - I won't let my beliefs bother anyone else, I'll keep quiet! Please don't hit me any harder, okay?"

This is not the way to deafeat the hell that professional atheists want to create. Basic moral absolutes, common to every religion in the world, are what keep humans "human".

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Radix]

Steven Jay Gould was also a Red Sox fan.

I got no time for loser mentalities.

[bvw]

So the "Brights" got together! Did they nominate Dawkins to be the Bright Unquestionable Canonical Authority (The BUCA)? Did they establish a Brights Ritual Calendar?

[JCEccles]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

Hard core atheists like Weinberg abound in academia. And they take the charge to subvert and destroy religious belief (of the Judeo-Christian variety anyway; Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam tend to get a pass) very seriously.

Federal funding to their institutions ought to be cut off. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing the destruction of religious faith. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

[joebuck]

This "scientism" philosophy predates Christ and goes back to Aristotle who borrowed it himself from even more acient mesopotamian cultures. Jesus and religion are still going strong and will continue to do so long after frauds like Dawkins are dead and forgotten.