Comments on: Tuesday, November 13th. Judgement Day

By: joe

joe — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:10:36 +0000

Warren…please give me one example of evolution of one species into another that has been proven .Joe

By: Claire M

Claire M — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:22:33 +0000

The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is just building on the failed Creation Science movement’s fake “teach the controversy”–when there is none. Religious doctrine is not scientific, and ID is not scientific theory. At best, it’s a weak untested hypothesis for which there is no evidence.Fundamentalist Christians are attempting to do to the U.S. what fundamentalist Muslims did to Iran. People are brainwashed by religious teaching and cannot seem to see through it (or perhaps they stridently cling to it out of fear).Christianity as it is practiced by fundamentalists is really Paulism, and represents one of the more destructive metaphor cults.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:59:13 +0000

Peter, to respond to your points, Gary is not the one who defined science as something that cannot come from religion. That is what science IS, an alternative to received wisdom, whether from religion, mythology, tradition, politics, or from anywhere else. It involves going into the world humbly, without the arrogance of the made-up mind that is secure in the “rightness” of its worldview, and actually finding out for yourself how things work. And THAT is why science HAS to be conducted in a way that does not draw upon religious teachings.You as a believer in God, CAN study science from a Christian perspective, or from ANY other perspective you wish. You can study it from the perspective that the whole rest of the universe is a figment of your imagination, if you wish. What you CANNOT do, according to the U.S. Constitution, is insist that your perspective be accepted as valid science. Which would mean that you could also not insist that your perspective on science be taught in the schools as science. Because it is NOT science, it is ONE perspective on science.The way that I would have a teacher who believes that the universe was created teach about origins is that, if the teacher were teaching science, to teach the scientific explanations of qualified biologists as to the origins of life, and the scientific explanations of qualified astrophysicists as to the origins of the universe. And if the teacher was teaching religion, I would have them teach the Creation teachings of their religion.Let me ask you this. Religious people insist that evolution, is just another belief. They call it “Darwinism” (a misnomer.) They feel their religion should be given equal time, and taught alongside “Darwinism.” Would you be willing to reciprocate? Teach evolution along with your religions Creation teachings, in your church’s Sunday school?You say, “It is errant nonsense to claim that religion and science cannot co-exist in any place.” I agree with you. Science and religion DO, demonstrably, co-exist. I saw nothing in Gary’s post to deny this. It is not that both exist, but that SOME religious people want their religion (NOT anyone else’s) to interfere in the realm of science, and to be accepted as valid science, when it is not. That is the issue.You seem to feel that your point that there are millions of us, so we are not some fringe group of radical fanatics, somehow strengthens your argument. It does not. If there were BILLIONS who believed that the Universe rests on the back of a giant turtle, that would not make it so. If 3/4 of the human race believed that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, would that change YOUR beliefs? The number of people who beleive something has no bearing on its truth.No one is denying the rights of people of ANY religion to believe what they wish. But most people do not want the beliefs of anyone’s religion forced down their throats…not even if it’s adherents believe that they have the ONE TRUE FAITH. To keep religion and science in their separate spheres is not to deny the importance, or influence, or meaningfulness of religion to its believers, nor to those who may be influenced by its teachings. I feel it is a sign of a WEAKNESS of faith to be threatened by the discoveries of science. At one time believers in the Christian faith burned people alive at the stake for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around.THEY WERE WRONG! And the scientific view was right.It took them 400 years to admit their error. And yet, religion is still here.So, keep your faith. But don’t insist that me and mine give your beliefs equal time.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:13:25 +0000

Clever ploy, Gary. Define science as something that cannot by definition be "founded on religion", leading to the logically obvious statement that science must therefore be "secular". Thousands of believers through history who also practised science, or believers who continue to do so, would disagree with you. Why must science be conducted in a hermetically-sealed "bubble" in which religion has no place?

Explain to me why I, as a believer in God, cannot study science from a Christian perspective. Would you have me deny my sincerely-held belief in an almighty being without whom my life makes no sense? How would you have a teacher, who believes that the universe was created, teach about origins?

It is errant nonsense to claim that religion and science cannot co-exist in any place. It might not exist in your thinking, or your workplace, your school, your group of friends and colleagues. But for many who have a theistic worldview (and I remind you that there are millions of us, so we are not some fringe group of radical fanatics), God has to be a part of every question about life, including where life itself came from.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:45:48 +0000

The problem for many, like Joe, is that “secularist” and “humanist” have such a negative connotation. Science that is founded upon religion is not true science. In that sense, true science is always “secular,” that is, it is founded upon scientific principles, not religious ones. Science is also always assumed to be “humanist,” that is, it is concerned with human activity and the betterment of human beings as a species. In some regards, pure science might not even be considered “humanist” if its aims are simply to study the universe as it is, without regard to human development. So, yes, Joe – science does tend to be both secular and humanist, and rightly so.As for the other contention, that evolution has been proven false, I’m with Warren. I’ve heard at least most of the arguments against it, and they are unconvincing. Most of them have little to do with good science. Some are flat-out garbage.

By: WARREN

WARREN — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:51:05 +0000

JOE–CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF WHICH THEORIES HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE?

By: joe

joe — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:36:50 +0000

why is never reported that most of the theories on which evolution is based have been proven false?Is it because it would go against the secular humanist thinking that is so prevalent in our major universities?just wondering,Joe

By: Bettybb

Bettybb — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:02:57 +0000

Excellent! The radical religious Christians do not appear to be able to tell the difference between belief and scientific fact. If we are to progress as a nation and keep pace with the rest of the world, this ignorance must be corrected.Hopefully all creationists/intellegent design believers will watch this show. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will. Their minds are closed and they do not want to listen to anything that would contradict their preconceived ideas.

By: J.Turner

J.Turner — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:08:53 +0000

We’ve been through all this before in the Tennessee ‘monkey trials’, a teacher prosecuted by Wm. Jennings Bryant and defended by the famous Clarence Darrow. They even made a movie, ‘Inherit the Wind’ starring Spencer Tracy and Frederich March; a masterpiece that should be shown on every TV channel repeatedly to all closed minded fundamentalists until they get it.