2. Failing that, Name me a Christian or other Creationist of any consequence who has proposed that we ban the lines of scientific inquiry you've named, or anything related to them. (Note that stuff like banning cloning doesn't count, because that has as little to do with opposing science as deciding not to test hypothermia treatments with Jewish subjects does.)
3. If you can even provide an example that qualifies for item 1 and/or 2, provide evidence that any significant number of Christians, Creationists or voters of any stripe supported them or took them seriously.
Here is a very good example of religion superseding science. The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you?
What do you think these folks would do if they suddenly achieved political power?
Which sciences suddenly would be "discouraged" or to use a phrase from the article we are discussing, "ruled out?"
I think my point stands.
Okay I have to admit that sounds a little goofy. Creation Week? Is that like Spring Break Week? Or Bike Week down at Daytona or Myrtle Beach?
I believe and know in my heart the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I believe that it is true. That being said, I also have the distinct feeling that perhaps we are not able to understand the wording, or terminology, when it comes to specific things like the creation of the world. Maybe it comes down to the translation (original vs. assumed, etc.), I just don't know. Some people perhaps understand issues in certain ways (creation), others in other ways (evolution). And I don't fault them for it. That's how they understand it. Growing up I believed the earth was 6,000 or so years old and that was it. Course I also believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
I believe that God used, as He has the ability and does use all things, evolution to bring this world about. Do I understand it or claim to understand it? No. But I know what science tells me and I believe we have developed science to possibly understand just an inkling of what has been given us.
Now of course this stance makes me a pariah to creationists because I don't believe 6 days poof and God was done. Seems like it sort of cheapens the whole thing. However it also makes me a pariah to some evolutionists because I do believe that God brought it about in some way.
And please nobody come at me with 10,000 links from either side. I probably won't read 'em. Not that I wouldn't find them interesting or appreciate them it's just I believe what I believe because it's what I believe. Which makes no sense I suppose except that for me where science ends, faith has to step in.
Good grief, are you still hung over from New Year's Eve? Of course it doesn't stand. You were discussing a theocracy and the banning of science, I asked you for evidence of anyone calling for either, and you have provided a belief statement from a group that has called for neither thing. It's as if you were asked to provide a photo of red grass and you sent in a green one and said "Here's your grass photo."
What do you think these folks would do if they suddenly achieved political power?
What if Dennis Kucinich was elected President in a 50 state landslide? What if Yogi Bear became the Speaker of the House? Do you check under your bed each night for the CRS presidential nominee?
Oh, and by the way, where does the word "theocracy" or any other reference to politics occur in the example you've provided? And if I use the same standards you used here, couldn't I ask what First Amendment rights will be gone five minutes after Dawkins or the head of American atheists is elected president?
Which sciences suddenly would be "discouraged" or to use a phrase from the article we are discussing, "ruled out?"
Try again: Where has any Christian or Creationist called for a ban on studying these things?
You have a right to your paranoia, but unless you have some actual evidence, paranoia is what you're suffering from.
BTW, how come you didn't answer this question:
[A]re you supporting the idea that a main goal of scientists should be to eliminate religion?
Well...are you?
Your "point" was and remains baseless, and continues to show the political ignorance of the DC gang.
The chances of a theocracy in the US are virtually non-existent...unless we continue to submit to liberals and Muslims.
If you truly are a conservative FReeper, take your fight to them, and join us in a greater cause.
Not really - your cut'n'paste didn't indicate that they were plotting a theocracy or instituting a ban on scientific inquiry.