seeker, why is it that those who do not accept creationism are deemed by you as" anti-christian"? I personally don't care what someone believes, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me or criticize others for dissenting opinions.Hence I don't really care where we came from....rather I am VERY CONCERNED where we are going. (i.e. inevitable annihilation of human race) if we keep dwelling on our differences instead of our similarities. That is my crusade.

Originally posted by oveon
seeker, why is it that those who do not accept creationism are deemed by you as" anti-christian"? I personally don't care what someone believes, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me or criticize others for dissenting opinions.

Yes.. I took it the same way which is a shame because it's a really good story. I am not 'anti-christian'.. I just like FACTS. I find it odd that this continually gets deemed as an attack on someone's beliefs. It's like someone getting personally offended because I believe 2+2=4. Of course I fully accept the right for other people to believe it =41... [besides which evolution can't have been an attack on christianity.. it came waaay before it ]

Hence I don't really care where we came from....rather I am VERY CONCERNED where we are going. (i.e. inevitable annihilation of human race) if we keep dwelling on our differences instead of our similarities. That is my crusade.

Unfortuantly it seems the line is already drawn in the sand now. I know humans are self distructive and conflict is 'natural'.. the scary thing is the weapons are much deadlier now.. and world conflict seems to come in cycles.

RANT, your intelligent take on the article, other than to act like you thought you knew me, is what, exactly?




seekerof

[edit on 14-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
RANT, your intelligent take on the article, other than to act like you thought you knew me, is what, exactly?

It's great. Yay, science! What position am I supposed to be taking here. Certainly, not a defense of Harvard's program as not anti-Christian, as that whole framing is poppycock. If priests are getting nervous over losing relevance in the modern world, it ain't scientist's fault.

It's just good old capitalism and competition baby.

Today, scientists said, Harvard is considered something of an underdog in the field of the origins of life, compared with powerhouses such as the University of Arizona, the California Institute of Technology, and the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.. But the university has tremendous resources, including leading scientists who work in related areas.

There's no reason whatsoever if you read some of the premises being laid out in the article (focus on other planets, theorizing how different life may evolve elsewhere) to even bring the Book of Genesis into it.

Sorry if I'm not landing on the right hook you're looking for, but what can I say? I discount your theocentric premise of "anti-christian" nervous scientists revolving around your personal beliefs to the extent I don't even know how to make an intelligent response beyond the first one I gave. False dichotomy.

I was discussing today the “intelligent design” with my biology major daughter after reading a Time magazine article on the subject, and she said that if people just take a class in genetics it will be enough to open their minds of creationist and intelligent design believers.

Part of the problem with “intelligent design” is that it’s giving room to “Supernatural forces” and in science anything that doesn’t have substance or physical form for testing is not considered for scientific study you can not test “God supernatural abilities" or the “forces that did it all".

I always said education is the only way to understand the dynamics of biological sciences. I am glad that this task by the Harvard University is going to be launched.

This quote can pretty much summarized what the problem with science and religion is all about.

The theory of evolution has been both fascinating and religiously charged since its very beginnings, because it speaks directly to the place of people in the natural order. In another era, the idea that humans are the close cousins of apes -- a scientific fact now supported by overwhelming evidence -- was seen as both offensive and preposterous.

Yes evolution has many gaps when it comes to human “missing link” but about anything else can be backed up by evidence.

I will love to see an iniciative of "creationist" and "intelligent design" experts to prove their "Theories"also.

I bet it will be very interesting what their results will yield.

Originally posted by Seekerof
are those that put their faith in macroevolution getting nervous or is this simply another attempt at politics disguised as a scientific 'free-for-all', adding to their already illustrious anti-christian agenda?

Odd that it'd be see it that way. I'd think that, if anything, one should look at it as an indication of how basic the research into abiogenesis is. This is the first time a major university is doing this sort of thing for that particular field. The origins of life from non-life is a huge and difficult issue. Modern organic chemistry has only exist for around a hundred years, thats only two or three generations of scientists working on it (one professor, a grad student, and an undergrad TA, so to speak eh?) Considering the progress that's been made without major pushes like this, I'd think that the 'evolutionjists' are the last people that should be 'worried', in all honesty.

faith in macroevolution

There is no faith required for 'macro' evolution, it's observed. Macroevoltion is defined as evolution at and above the species level. Speciation is macroevolution, and speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Its science, not faith.

illustrious anti-christian agenda

I'd hardly say that science is anti-christian. I'd thnk that the thousands of scientists who are pious christians would disagree with it being anti-christian. Heck, Darwin was a christian, Newton, etc etc, they didn't see a conflict. (tho darwin is somewhat controversial in this respect, but his weakening of faith is probably attributed to the death of his young daughter than biology).

The Natural Theologists of the pre-darwinian era were basically scientists and they didn't think that they were starting something anti-christian, so far as I know. Why say science is anti-christian? Why anti-christian specifically too, as oppposed to anti-religion-in-general?

Rren
If nobody was asking the tough questions or exposing the flaws in evolutionary theory, do you think these guys would pursue such an endeavor?

I don't want to be too harsh, but don't kid yourself. This has nothing to do with 'creationists' asking the 'hard questions'. If creationists and IDers were asking the 'hard questions', then they'd be the ones doing this research. They're not, because they're not doing hard research (generally, especially wrt 'creationists', tho some IDists or ID-like people could be said to do some hard research).