Posted on 04/23/2009 7:27:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.
–Stephen Jay Gould
[Y]ou’ve heard me complain about scientific organizations that sell evolution by insisting that it’s perfectly consistent with religion. Evolution, they say, threatens many peoples’ religious views — not just the literalism of Genesis, but also the morality that supposedly emanates from scripture. Professional societies like the National Academy of Sciences — the most elite organization of American scientists — have concluded that to make evolution palatable to Americans, you must show that it is not only consistent with religion, but also no threat to it. (And so much the better if, as theologians like John Haught assert, evolution actually deepens our faith.) Given that many members of such organizations are atheists, their stance of accommodationism appears to be a pragmatic one.
Here I argue that the accommodationist position of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially that of the National Center for Science Education, is a self-defeating tactic, compromising the very science they aspire to defend. By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist. Finally, by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory.
Let’s begin with a typical accommodationist statement—this one from the National Academy of Sciences...
(Excerpt) Read more at whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ...
Science/religion ping. Thought as a scientist you may have so good input.
I am probably gonna get flamed for this. I see it this way.
1. God created the Universe, earth, man
2. God created science.
3. God’s time is not our time.
4. It is not necessary for me to know EXACTLY how He created the Universe.
5. God can create in any way He sees fit.
6. To say that God COULD NOT create through Evolution is limiting the power of God.
7. I am not saying He created it through evolution, I am saying it is not my place to tell Him how He does things.
8. I do believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in matters of faith and doctrine.
Does anyone ever just come right out and say "Only people who share my religious beliefs can be real scientists"?
Here's a good start.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Gal 1:8 & 9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Scripture gives us guidelines and commands about that very issue. So the answer is..... God gives us the right to make that determination and tells us how to do it.
Not in so many words, but that's essentially what the evos say.
We've heard the *He's not a "real" scientist* mantra plenty of times from the evos about some guy with credentials coming out of his ears, who doesn't tow the peer reviewed evo party line.
Does anybody ever admit they’re doing what they’re accusing everyone else of?
Thank you for finally properly dropping your article into the Religion forum!
Please do so will ALL of your creationist posts and the FR will be a better place.
Regarding my statement “science & religion can not go hand in hand when it comes to man & his existence”
Science is very much a love of mine. It is the field of study I am in also. But as you know, credibility in science comes from proof through hypothesis, theories, experiments, controls, studies, mathematical data, etc.
It is when MAN starts putting his dogma on GOD that I have a problem. God does not fit into the rules of proof needed for science. Scientists can have their theories about God, but that is as far as you can go with it.
For example: a man is deathly ill & medical science can not save him; but then through prayer, he gets well...
God can not be set against any control, He can not be measured, He can not be compared, etc. God gave man a mind & will to think & reason with. He gave man a heart & soul to live & love with.
For anyone, scientist or other, to think that they have figured God out, is quite arrogant on any level.
So, I keep my faith in God & thank him everyday for my life. I thank him for the love & compassion in my heart for others. I also thank him for bestowing upon me my love & hunger for science.
So, I will never question my faith, but I will always question science...
Beautifully stated!
Ping!
Prolly not, on either side.
When you start following what Scripture says about spreading rumors and falsehoods I will listen to you. Until that point I will put you into the same category as all the others who pick which portions of Scripture they are going to follow based on what helps them the most.
Moral Relativism is what they call that - I believe.
the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.
Sounds like a deadlock.
To claim that God would use broken tools like evoloserism is limiting the intelligence of God....
Can you do that without destryoing secular science?
Secular science does not depend on evolution or Darwinism. Evolution is incompatible with modern mathematics and probability theory as well as being incompatible with any sort of decent religion and mathematicians generally reject it for that reason. Aside from that evolution has been put to any number of scientific tests and has failed them all; the most spectacular case was probably the multi-decade-long fruit fly experiments conducted in the early 1900s. The results of those tests were so glaring and so unambiguous that a number of the scientists involved publicly denounced evolution afterwards, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt who, afterwards, claimed that colleagues were subjecting him to something akin to the “two-minute hate” sessions which Orwell described in “1984”.
I was not challenging the validity of your position. My comment was only with regard to the abruptness, and brevity of your posts, which struck me as being of a similar genre to the advice given on those little strips of paper.
No, it does depend on methodological naturalism, and that is what you're going to have to destroy. If you're going to destroy it, you need to be prepared to replace it with something.
This time you have nailed it perfectly. - That is exactly what the Global Warming, and evolution promotors are doing, which makes it clear that their beliefs are completely emotional, and religious.
Actually, you could replace it with just about anything and profit from the exercise. In other words, you would be exceedingly hard pressed to do worse than a brain-dead ideological doctrine which is utterly refuted by all evidence and which has been responsible in large part for two world wars and tens of millions of dead bodies lying around.
You could replace it with voodoo or rastafari for that matter.
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.