|
U-Know! Forum » God V Science (again) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Sep 12, 2008, 21:47
Sep 12, 2008, 21:46
|
||
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education The problem here of course is that for the creationists, there is no argument. God did the lot. Even heard a woman on Vine today contest that fossils are so blimmin 'old' coz of the damage did to them during the biblical floods. Hmmm. Original, give her that. I'm sure there are some scientists out there who don't think Darwin is totally right, but that doesn't mean just coz they don't believe in Darwin they must believe in God. In a sense, Darwin has been one of the greatest gifts ever bestowed to the Xtians. It's all so terribly knee-jerk. x
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Sep 12, 2008, 22:29
|
||
It would only make sense to teach creationism in science lessons if they teach evolution in religious education lessons.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Sep 13, 2008, 04:06
|
||
|
Then along came the two birds with one stone theory 'intelligent design'. Which seems to have gone off the radar a bit. Very true though, why not a similar call for religion to incorporate science? Silence. TBH, though, in some respects Dawkins et al have done more harm than good. Sort of giving many the excuse to feel even more persecuted/marginalized and allow for silly ideas like this to trickle through. I don't ever remember our school science lessons coming across as sermons, but the balance has shifted in a peculiar way. If you're of a scientific mind, you don't need to assert your disbelief in God. It's just not an issue and it should stay that way, no? But post you know what, it's become trendier than ever to decry the evils that religion do and write tomes about it. We know, we know. I like ole Dawkins but as time passes I realise I don't really need him to remind me of how crap certain elements of this world is. Is he looking for 'converts'? Anyway, what am I doing up at this time? Oh aye, almost forgot...:-) x
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 13, 2008, 04:06
|
||
|
Darwin was a creationist himself. He just came to the (very astute) observation that organisms undergo mutations. It's the fundamentalist fools who've decided that that perfectly reasonable and measurable truth somehow blasphemes 'the book'... All idiocy as it manifests in the religious sphere is based in the obstinate hatred of change. And the change inherent in the scientific method is interpreted, by that criteria, as heresy.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 13, 2008, 04:15
|
||
|
It's just as arrogant to declare the absence of a God as it is to declare the primacy of one. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity or deities, and therefore scientists should not absolutely declare the impossibility of such a being. This isn't about matching punches with the religious fundamentalists, it's about staying true to science, which demands, in it's most pure state, an open mind at all times that only responds to measurable, verifiable results.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Sep 13, 2008, 04:25
|
||
|
'They' have posited to Dawkins in interviews that science can only declare upon what it knows to be fact etc, so when asked 'how can you be so sure' when it comes to god he usually gives a smiling mildly sheepish 'it seems too unlikely' etc, which I agree with, and I agree with his points about all the crap that goes on in its name (even if it does become a case of 'don't shoot the messenger'). Hell I don't know if I'd even want there to be a god. I mean Dawkins goes on about the likelyhood of chocolate teapots in space (or something), but scientists used to not care because their conviction was too great, and they were too busy with reality. God to them was just 'hokum'. Care about the horrors people do to each other, yes, but why conflate it all? Hope I make some sense:-) x
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Sep 13, 2008, 05:32
Sep 13, 2008, 05:26
|
||
|
Yeah you make sense. I can't stand Dawkins, a lot of his ranting sounds worringly fascistic. Basically, what he is saying boils down to, all religious people are dangerous morons who should not be allowed any social responsibilities. Thats a rather concerning elitist judgemental pov yeah ? God was not always hokum to most scientists, wasnt to Newton, Galileo etc,etc. Dawkins is mostly a knee-jerk reactionary who has no grasp of what religion is at all, and also no sense of history either it seems. He constantly confuses events in history, incorrectly identifying events that were a result of either political expediancy and personal agendas as being the results of religious doctrine. There was a lot of shit done in the name of Marxism too, and thats quite strongly anti-religious. His arguments will always be flawed, wrong and completely fucked up, because he is trying to apply scientific method to socio-political reality. Thats not something science can do. He's giving science a really bad name. Religion and science are not in opposition, (moreover, the reason we have a lot of early scientific and philosophical works is because various churches saved & stored them) its people that are in opposition, as always. I have a scientific and mathematical background, and I also have a faith, of sorts. I don't believe in Creationism or ID in any of the ways its preached. Frankly as far as the creation of the universe is concerned (or evolution) it doesn't touch my faith at all, they are both non-issues to me. However, I do believe in evolution, physics as I also belive in math. I don't push my faith, I mean, my kids dont even know I have one. Secularism, god yes, always. Secularism is also not that recent a development either really. Creationists do not represent all christians, also creationists ranting against 'evil science' are not representative of all creationists. More importantly, biblically speaking, christians have no basis to argue against science at all anyway. Science does not have the tools to analyse religion (evolutionary psychology, maybe, but thats not a science tbh). Philosophy is the only discipline equipped for the science/religion debate, arguably it's also the parent of both religion and science too. Dawkins should try getting more involved with the Islamic faith, as it encourages scientifc research (on paper) as it's good 'to learn the mind of god' Sorry, I'm probably not making sense. But this whole anti faith BS from Dawkins et al annoys and concerns me.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Sep 13, 2008, 05:28
Sep 13, 2008, 05:27
|
||
Spot on, and most scientists and religious bods agree. You said it all a lot more succinctly than I did.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Sep 15, 2008, 14:11
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Darwin was a creationist himself. He just came to the (very astute) observation that organisms undergo mutations. I don't think he ever was a creationist insofar as his science or even private life goes (i.e. it never was a springboard for any of his theorizing). He was born into a religious background (not his choice of course) but although he denounced that he sort of remained 'agnostic'. This site gives some lovely qoutes. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/darwin.htm **It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science** x
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Sep 15, 2008, 16:52
|
||
I've always believed there was a god anyways, even when my Catholic faith shattered.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
