Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.
Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.
Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.
Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.
Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.
Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.
The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.
[We do deal with “how these organizms lived and died,their diet, environment, social structure, culture,” but it is humans and human cultures we are dealing with, not fossils.]
By watchign video cassettes of them in action no doubt— als by reading newspapaers that are dated about 66 million years old which show pictures of dinos and macro-evolving oprganisms- after all [And, that science is verifiable, which divine revelation is not.] Yup- no assumptions whatsoever- just verify evolution by watching millions year old Videos.
Believe what you want, but don’t call it science.
What is the point of arguing belief? People will believe what they want. If their belief is strong enough, no logic or proof will shake it. In many instances the strength of their belief is viewed as a virtue. This is a good thing or a bad thing, depending on which side of the discussion you’re on.
oh wait, and don’t forget the 60 million year old eyewitnesses that can verify all the hypothesis of evolution. You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea, lizards leaping into the air and hten later developing wings because of the ‘need’ to feed in an environment other than the ground etc etc. Yup- Plenty of investigating reporters were on the scene back then witnessing actual events as they unfolded.
You see folks- Evo scientists are allowed to look at old bones, make up some elaborate story, and call it science- However, ID’ers aren’t allowed to point out factual design in nature- point to the many instances of it, point out that it is irreducibly complex, without being accused of infering *gasp* that there might just perhaps be a disigner behind the design. Harumph... Why that thar is religion! Psuedo-science-Apologetics!
and what kind of logic ignores biological impossibilities, and tries to brush aside specific complexities, and ignores mathematical impossibilities? There is plenty of logic to strengthen faith IF one isn’t adverse to throwing off the dogma embroidered blinders.
One of the beauties of faith is that it asks to make the jump beyond logic.
And here's the crux of the issue. Many scientists are not encouraging questioning of their belief in Macroevolution.
They are being hypocrites because they need Macroevolution to support their religion (see worldview), and will defend it tooth and nail dogmatically and with zeal.
At least Creationists accept that religion/worldview is a component of why they support Creationism. Macroevolutionists should be so forthcoming.
p.s.
If you apply the same criteria to faith as you do to science, then the faith dies. And that is not a good thing.
Prediction before reading beyond comment 1: at least a few Macroevolutionists are going to make snide comments about the religion/relgion typo and Creationists' intelligence.
A big thing is, that science can almost completely function without even delving into origins. There's little reason on a scientific level for why Macroevolutionists are willing to fight so irrationally hard on this issue to the point where it becomes blindly obvious that Macroevolution has become for them an article of faith.
P.S. Personal opinion is that bringing global warming/climate change into this isn't good for 'the cause.'
“Evolution is anti-God. Nothing real about it.
There seem to be fewer and fewer of us at FR who see that. It is indeed a diabolical way to make people see Scripture as irrelevant and incorrect and quaint.”
Amen to people wising up to the fact that Scripture is irrelevant and incorrect and quaint !
Here it is again (not intending to mudsling you, just this very common comment).
Science and Macroevolution are not interchangable. At most, Macroevolutionists would believe that Macroevolution is a tiny subset of science, particularly in the biology and astronomy fields.
later read
“The long odds are that the universe, like God, is eternal, and the creation stories you read both in the bible and in other antique literature refer to the creation of our own local environment, and not the universe.”
Nice try, but incorrect. The creation myth in Genesis does not pertain only to “our own local environment.” In Genesis 1, the Earth was created with the rest of the universe on Day One, even before light was created and the distinction between night and day. The “sky” was created on Day Two, and the sun and the moon on the fourth day. The whole thing is pretty whacky.
No it wasn't,...in fact, it goes out of it's way tell you exactly the opposite.
Here's the relevant passages
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
The key phrase here is: without form, and void. It's long been known by philosophers that a thing has two basic and essential qualities:
1...its shape, or structure.
2...and its substance
Genesis 1 tells us the the earth was without both of these in the beginning of creation. The fact that it simply mentions does not mean the exact opposite. That would be ludicrous.
In fact, given that Genesis 1 does comment on such clear, philosophical logic, it makes the notion that it was invented by ignorant bronze age goat herders all the more absurd.
Sorry for the few syntax errors in my last post....it’s late, and I’m tired.
stormer, your comment (to which 138 is a response) can just as easily be leveled at Macroevolutionists. Actually, at face value, it seemed that you were referring to Macroevolutionists, but see that you are one of them.
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.