It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are religious devotees so concerned with Evolution?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Why are people who profess a profound faith in their religious teachings concerned with anything science has to say?

The World/Universe was created with magic. right?

It operates as some kind of battle between God/good and Satan/evil. yes?

Why do they feel the need to legitimize Creationism or its stepdaughter Intelligent Design as some kind of science?
Isn't that sort of rejecting your own faith as 'not being good enough'?

Isn't the real threat the strength of the scientific method and its use of evidence to back up any presented ideas/theories?

To my way of thinking you either believe in religion or you believe in science. I suppose there are a lot of fence sitters who are hedging their bets, which is understandable. I personally think investing in some speculative eternity is a pretty theoretical proposition and not very productive. As you may well guess I am a believer in the scientific method. Gather information and see where it leads.

I don't understand why religious devotees don't simply dismiss evolution science as non-religious and therefore not worthy of time or energy?

If it isn't God's magic shouldn't it just be avoided?
Why not reject Physics that describes how your SUV, central heating & a-bombs work?
What about Chemistry that describes how fires, fermentation, and biological processes work?
Do you want to pick an choose where you believe in science and where you believe in faith? Isn't that inconsistent and hypocritical?

Evolution is just science. Why get all worked up about it?

If anyone wants to enlighten me with some underlying logic i am missing, feel free.

Is there good/religious science and bad/evil science?
Some things are ok to examine and others are not?
Ok to examine non-living things, but not living things? What about 'used to be alive [dead] things? Many discoveries of medical science were made or confirmed by examining [careful cutting up] of cadavers.

Please clue me in.
.




posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Slank. You are my hero. If I had any votes left you would have gotten one. I have been wondering the same thing for a long while, in fact I was wondering the same thing on a thread about Noah's ark.

Why do religious people feel the need to justify their faith with science?

If faith is the belief in something without having proof, who exactly do they need to prove it to.




posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Suppose you heard about "The Bible" and believers have to accept that
"creation"-story and all other fairy tales as well;so,for them,evolution is
out of the question.I suppose that they do not know that the Bible is in
fact the Egytian "Book of the Dead",written thousands of years before
the Thora or Old and New Testament.
It,s not difficult at all to get some more insight and you don,t have to spend
money:it,s available for reading online,such as "The Rationalist Manual":
www.infidels.org...
An excerpt from the preface of this book:
Most of us have been born and bred under the influence of some form of religious superstition, which was imposed upon us, from a very proper sense of duty, by our parents. But parents, though having complete control over the education of their children, cannot commit them, when they arrive at years of discretion, to any particular line of thought or opinion. If this were possible, in what a state of appalling ignorance should we be now! The world progresses, and why? Because knowledge progresses. Every generation adds something to the knowledge of the preceding one. Our parents acted up to their lights, and may their memories be held in honor and esteem. But, when the enlightenment of the age causes us to exchange the superstitions of our youth, instilled into us from our infancy upwards, for something better, wiser, and more in accordance with the advancement of science and knowledge, it becomes necessary for us to test the teaching we have received, and inform ourselves as to what we must reject and what we may safely retain. It is all very well to say, "Study science and philosophy;" but how many of us are in a position to do this?

Baloria



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
God created the universe, but we don't know how exactly.
Thats where science comes into play.
God created inteligent beings that ask themselves questions about nature, which is created as such by God. There is no contradiction here.

To make someone choose between belief in God and belief in science is slightly misleading, since science cannot be connected with belief, you cannot believe in science. You can choose to believe in God and accept that he created universe governed by laws of nature, use science to explain God's design.
That is essentially Inteligent Design.
Those two things, God and science, are not mutually exclusive if you properly understand them.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I dont know if it ever occured to you folks..due to provincial thinking on both sides of this issue...

Does it occur to any of you that to some science is in fact a religion?? It is thier crutch to view the world. Thier devout belief system. Both sides need to explore this view.

Science is supposed to be neutral on this issue. And purely for science.
However I know that some arenas of science are not ..and are very politically steered..This is not science.
The same could be argued for Religion and Faith.

Some of you people need to think beyond your emotions..Science is not "Holy Ground" for some and not others. Science should not be sectarian. Get a clue..and get on with this debate

Gentlemen ...restart your engines

Orangetom



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank


Is there good/religious science and bad/evil science?

.


Okay, my problems with certain scientific "theories" (yes, I'm already being facetious) has nothing to do with religion versus science.

Whether you are looking at science or religion dogma is bad. And there are some of us (that means at least me) that believe the scientific method has been replaced with scientific dogma toward certain "theories". And if those theories leak like a seive, they just plug their holes - in what appears to be attempts to uphold the dogma - with anything they can find to keep the "theory" alive instead of challenging their own "theories" as they should be. So we plug the Big Bang's leaks with dark matter and evolution with a very sickly Carbon-dating system, etc.

Some people's contentions against a number of the modern-day science notions are not based on religious concerns but on sloppy science taking place.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
While science certainly attains the level of religion for many people, it is actually nothing more than a logical way of examining and cataloging data. It is a way of validating knowledge, or establishing relative certainty of what we know vs. what we believe.

The religious are so concerned with evolution because it does nothing to support their version of creation. The past shows us many examples of scientists labeled as heretics by the religious authorities because their theory contradicted church teachings. Scientists who later turned out to be absolutely correct.

The religious, by claiming infallibility where none actually exists, by claiming absolute knowledge where there is only belief, put themselves in the difficult position of having to oppose anything that questions their version of reality, regardless of what the truth really is.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Why are people who profess a profound faith in their religious teachings concerned with anything science has to say?

Evolution= no Adam and Eve.. therefore no original sin and no need for Christ to save us from it.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by slank
Why are people who profess a profound faith in their religious teachings concerned with anything science has to say?

Evolution= no Adam and Eve.. therefore no original sin and no need for Christ to save us from it.


Wow. Excellent point. And that means there is no need for a religious institution to interceed with God on anyone's behalf.

Protecting the franchise. The best way to market a product is to make sure people think they have to have it.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Protecting the franchise. The best way to market a product is to make sure people think they have to have it.

Some people would still insist on drinking bottled water whilst standing on a mountain river bank. Religion is the same- even if aliens were to land tommorow and tell us Adam and Eve didn't exist and all life is decended from a single microbe some will always stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to believe.. well refuse to stop believing.

[edit on 24-4-2005 by riley]



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   


Why are religious devotees so concerned with Evolution?
Why are people who profess a profound faith in their religious teachings concerned with anything science has to say?


I cant speak for the others, but christianity doesnt like lies...especially when the lies belong to another religion, and are forced down our kids throats in the schools we pay for.

The second question is this:
Why is evolution, (which is a religon) concerned with christianity? If evolution is soo perfect, so true, like black and white, night and day, ....why do they worry about christians wanting to teach creationism?

Evolution is not science. Its evolution.
Evolution theory is taught as fact in many places.

The scientific method is not found in
biological evolution
rock dating methods
carbon dating method
biogenesis theory
big bang theory

did i leave one out?

None are fact. So why teach them like they are? Why worry about what I think of them? Why push it so hard?

"...professing themselves wise, they became fools..."



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
The second question is this:
Why is evolution, (which is a religon) concerned with christianity? If evolution is soo perfect, so true, like black and white, night and day, ....why do they worry about christians wanting to teach creationism?

They wouldn't be worried.. providing it's taught in CHRISTIAN schools.


Evolution is not science. Its evolution.

It's a working scientific theory.. backed up by a wealth of physical scientific evidence that supports it. There are no other scientific [not religious so creationalism is excempt] theories that rival it as there is no evidence to back them up.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Um, even the church has admitted evolution, MICRO evolution. But looked in the bible I don't see anywhere that god created things and micro evolution.(Virus being resistant to last year vaccine, so forth is evolution, or apple trees today can grow in areas they couldn't 300 years ago)

Evolution is science, nowhere in the science community is evolution thought to be wrong. The new thing with the church is to admit "animals" evolved, but not humans. It is better we came from dirt then another living being. But since we have the fossil evidence of dolphins going from land mammals to sea mammals, even some churches have come to admit "animals" evolve. Not realizing humans are animals. Reason it is taught in school instead of bull# is that evolution is correct, evolution has facts/reality/science supporting it. Also, science is not a religon, that is like being able to read called a religon. Stringing words together to make sentances correctly is not religon, neither is science, they are just right.

ANd to the idiots out there, theory doesn't mean getting drunk or stoned and writing whatever, it is Hypothesis, research, experiment, write down results. Theory of Relativity, Theory of Gravity, so forth. Also, accordsing to bible god didn't create gravity, so I guess gravity doesn't exist, or momentum, or kinetic energy, or centrifigul(sp?) force, since it wasn't mentioned in the bible. Or satan did it, whatever.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I see it this way, the "Creation Theory" will never go away they same way that the "Evolution Theory" will never go away either, the only base for the prof of Creation is the bible itself, while the Evolution we have plenty of fossil of species that resemble the human being.

One problem......... is not link to the human as we know it today.

So taking in consideration the facts of both theories they will forever be in our minds unless either God itself prove creation or the missing link is found.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Also, accordsing to bible god didn't create gravity, so I guess gravity doesn't exist, or momentum, or kinetic energy, or centrifigul(sp?) force, since it wasn't mentioned in the bible. Or satan did it, whatever.


I have yet to meet a christian who claims something like that.
I've read about such people though in history books. Thats how christians used to be. A lot of such talk in 16th century. In 21st century? Not so much.

You seem to be talking about today's minority, the very fundamentalist christians. The rest isn't so fundamental anymore. I know a lot of people here who have PhDs, MDs in science and still believe in God. As I said, there is no contradiction between science and the existence of God.
The Bible, Qur'an and other religious books are not books of knowledge, they are books of guidance. They do not answer scientific questions, they guide people in spiritual matters.

Granted, there are still fundamentalists on this planet that pretty much fit the description you posted, but most people got out of dark ages.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Good grief...James ...how far will you go in quantum assumptions to make your points..and get a free pass to play through. Do you like to use default settings to play through?? Hoping no one catches it ??

"But since we have the fossil evidence of dolphins going from land mammals to sea mammals, even some churches have come to admit "animals" evolve."

Good grief..James this is it!!???

You do know that science is the dicipline of cataloging and measuring observable phenomonon...Yes?????

You do also know how science is able to tell and catalogue if one species is the same as another species..Yes???? By the ability to reproduce!!! Yes???

I'm wondering how these scientists were able to tell if these fossils were related to the ones on land since they didnt seem to be able to tell if they reproduced??? There are many species that have very similar DNA ...the point is are they the same species..will they reproduce or not reproduce..and if they are to wide in the species ..the offspring are often sterile...ie...mules...from horses and donkeys. This is known information James.
Just because some "expert " puts it in a book...it is devoutly so????? Hmmm...better rethink that one. Species that can reproduce are the same species...they are only speculating about what you state and passing it off as fact.. James you need alot of practice on this topic.

I also agree with paper clip..and thier post. James for the purpose of your argument you must have everyone stuck in a time warp to justify your rantings.
Get a clue James..I live right next to the NASA Langley research facility here in Virginia. Lots of Science types around here active and retired ..they attend church and public functions all over town. Lots of Moon rocks to be found here too.
James you are very provincial in your thinking...no problem here..you just need to work on it alot.

Thanks to all,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   


It's a working scientific theory.. backed up by a wealth of physical scientific evidence that supports it. There are no other scientific [not religious so creationalism is excempt] theories that rival it as there is no evidence to back them up.



Nope.
Its a FAILED theory.
Thats right. Failed.
That is why it keeps changing. Ohhh, we can put our spin on it just like an election year and call it "self correcting" We can say there is a wealth of evidence but none of it is scientific.
I stand by my first post about the sceintific method.

Evolution is a religion and should be taught to its members children. Not the public.

All of the fossil evidence and strata supports the bible.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I dont have a problem with science. Science and men have made lots of products based on sound principles that can be repeated over and over..improved on with newer discoveries and applications. These products have improved our lives greatly.
I do however have problems with a religion like Evoluton complete with priesthood. This began to dawn on me with the missing link stuff. The most outstanding thing about missing links is that they are missing.
I ran across a book by Dr Jack Cuzzo..a forensic dentist. Dr Cuzzo does alot of dentistry work on identifying corpses by dental records. He began to suspect by knowlege of his trade that something was very wrong with many of the missing link bones and the way they were displayed. He managed to visit some of the museums where the missing link bones were kept and as a professional ..got to view them. He learned that they were deliberately misrepresented to the public as to their jawbone positioning to get a predetermined viewpoint. However the intresting thing was that once the scientific community learned that he is a Christian..they denied him access to any of the bones and other place where the bones are kept..did likewise. It mattered not that he was a Phd in his field..he would not be granted access by other professionals in a similar field. Any science that will not allow access to its finds by other professionals is a no science.
For anyone intrested in this line of thinking I highly recommend the book
"Buried Alive" by Dr jack Cuzzo.

Thanks Orangetom



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Nice post Orangetom! It reminded me of an article I read recently by John P. Marcus regarding being a scientist that does not believe in evolution. I will quote a portion of it followed by a link to the whole article.


Dr. Marcus is research officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. He holds a B.A. in chemistry from Dordt College, an M.S. in biological chemistry and a Ph.D. in biological chemistry from the University of Michigan. Dr. Marcus’s current research deals with novel antifungal proteins, their corresponding genes, and their application in genetic engineering of crop plants for disease resistance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My belief in a literal six-day creation of the universe is based primarily on the teaching of the Bible and my understanding that this is God’s Word and is true. This faith, however, does not close my eyes to scientific evidence; rather, it opens my eyes so that I can make sense out of all the data. Two things that confirm my belief in creation are the clear evidence of design in nature, and the vanishingly small probabilities of life coming about by chance.

Evidence of design
The clear evidence of deliberate design in living organisms strongly confirms our faith in God’s Word. Psalm 104:24 states “O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.” God’s creation clearly reflects the infinite wisdom which He used to design and create it. The orderliness of living things and their mind-boggling complexity are surely unmistakable indications that this creation did not come about by random and disorderly chance processes. There are many ways to illustrate that a simple examination of an object will reveal the presence or absence of design. One can easily appreciate that certain items are extremely unlikely to come about by chance operations acting over time.

When archaeologists come across a smooth, cylindrical clay structure with walls consistently about the same thickness, a flat bottom that allows the structure to stand upright, and an opening in the top, it is a sure sign to them that some type of intelligent civilization was responsible for producing that clay pot. It is such a simple deduction to make—it is obvious that an ordered structure such as a clay pot could not have come about by chance. One can see that even the smallest amount of order exhibited in a simple clay pot is almost completely beyond the reach of random processes. That is why archaeologists know that a clay pot is a clear signature of civilization; orderliness is evidence of design.

Step back now and consider: how is this different from the formation of life from nonliving chemicals? To be sure, there is a difference; the generation of a living organism from simple nonliving chemicals is infinitely less likely to occur. Living organisms are so much more complex than is a clay pot that an adequate comparison cannot even be made. What person would want to believe that a clay pot arose by chance processes? Only a person bound and determined to exclude the possibility that civilization might have been responsible for making that pot. One can appreciate that evolutionists are also bound and determined to exclude God from the picture! It seems that they don’t even ask whether the evidence is consistent with creation. They simply insist that all explanations for the existence of the universe must come from within the universe and not from a God who stands above it. In the case of living organisms, as in the case of clay pots, the presence of orderliness gives the game away. Plainly, this orderliness could not have come about by chance—not even if chance were helped along by natural selection! It must have been arranged by an outside intelligence. Design needs a designer.

DNA1 evidence is often claimed to give support to the evolutionary theory; in reality, DNA illustrates God’s handiwork of design in a powerful way. Let us consider the complexity of this important component of living systems in order to see how absurd it is to believe that life could come about by chance. DNA is the primary information-carrying molecule of living organisms. The beauty and wonder of this molecule can hardly be overstated when one considers its properties. Being the blueprint of living cells, it stores all the information necessary for the cell to feed and protect itself, as well as propagate itself into more living cells, and to cooperate with other living cells that make up a complex organism.

If the DNA of one human cell were unraveled and held in a straight line, it would literally be almost one meter long and yet be so thin that it would be invisible to all but the most powerful microscopes. Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a space that is much smaller than the head of a pin2 and that this tiny string of human DNA contains enough information to fill almost 1,000 books, each containing 1,000 pages of text.3 Human engineers would have a most difficult time trying to fit one such book into that amount of space; one thousand books in that amount of space boggles the mind! For compactness and information-carrying ability, no human invention has even come close to matching the design of this remarkable molecule.

Amazing as the DNA molecule may be, there is much, much more to life than DNA alone; life is possible only if the DNA blueprint can be read and put into action by the complex machinery of living cells. But the complex machinery of the living cell requires DNA if it is going to exist in the first place, since DNA is the source of the code of instructions to put together the machinery. Without the cellular machinery, we would have no DNA since it is responsible for synthesizing DNA; without DNA we would have no cellular machinery. Since DNA and the machinery of the cell are codependent, the complete system must be present from the beginning or it will be meaningless bits and pieces.



www.answersingenesis.org...


[edit on 4/24/0505 by sntx]



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
you know sntx,
I heard a lecture the other day where the speaker made some statements that caught me off guard about DNA.
If I recall the gist of the lecture ..it was to the effect that the discovery of the Czar Nicholas Romanov and his family in Russia..thier grave and remains from the Russian Revolution. DNA studies were conducted of course to see if it was in fact the Czar and his family...and it was. The intresting sidelight of this DNA study seems to have been that with a long line of Czars known...it was possible to do a dating method...or projection backwards...by mathematical probablity ..based on the known line of Czars going way back in time. What they wanted to know...was going back to a common male and female...in this DNA line..how far back and time wise would it take to get back to two people male and female???? The results were not millions of years. The first study came up with close to 12000 years. The next study came up with about 8000 years. Never the less it was a intresting lecture...
Have any of you heard of any such study.??

Thanks Orangetom




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join