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.

 

Science is science, faith is faith - never the twain shall meet?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Friends of God, deceivers of children?




I doubt the young guy will get his Nobel prize but he could help with this possible scenario...




Why are some so set upon attacking a good theory? Why can 10,000 clergy accept the evidence, many denominations having no issue at all, but a certain selection feel the need to indoctrinate and pretty much deceive children?



Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

www.butler.edu...


Is there no chance of accepting S.J. Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria (never the twain shall meet)? Will conflict between religion and science exist until one destroys the other?

Is accepting parts of Holy books as allegory so destructive to faith?




[edit on 4-3-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
that video sickens me. they don't teach evolution to kids that young for a reason, they don't have the mental capacity to understand it.

just another example of religious indoctrination

too bad i've already given you a way above this month, because you've earned another

[edit on 3/4/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Hmmm...

But the two DO impinge in each other.
If science is to be believed.... The massive time and space parameters that make up the Universe. The seemingly accidental way chemistry and physics has brought us to this tiny speck of a moment on a tiny speck of a planet where Humanity has arisen. They random means that Humanity has evolved amongst all the other lifeforms....

It's just an insanely complex, random, means of producing Gods Chosen Creatures. A religion where People are essentially the primary purpose of Everything, doesn't fit well with the Scientific view of things. It makes far more sense for the World to be 6000 years old and the stars to be silver paint on black velvet.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Pity neither of them are fact.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Why are some so set upon attacking a good theory? Why can 10,000 clergy accept the evidence, many denominations having no issue at all, but a certain selection feel the need to indoctrinate and pretty much deceive children?


It's NOT a good theory. It's incredibly BAD science. Impossible to have happened in fact by what we KNOW about Science.

Science cannot prove anything easily, but can Disprove very well.

There is no way that Evolution can have happened.

See Jonathan Gray's new book: "The discovery that's toppling evolution" for an investigation of tthis issue.


Is there no chance of accepting S.J. Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria (never the twain shall meet)? Will conflict between religion and science exist until one destroys the other?


Again, the conflict is NOT with Science, but with bad Science and outright lies.


Is accepting parts of Holy books as allegory so destructive to faith?
[edit on 4-3-2007 by melatonin]


YES. Jesus said:
"I am the way, the TRUTH and the Life. NO ONE comes to the father but by ME" (John 14:6"

The important issue is truth. Evolution and long-ages is a lie based on very bad and easily disproven Science.

Science is not Knowledge. It is a method of investigation, which, of performed correctly, gives a high degree of confidence in the result.

Believing in just the chance evolution of ONE sepcied from another is like believing that you could win first prize in every lotto draw for a decade off just one ticket without missing once.

But it COULD happen, right....

Not in the real world.

PauL D



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I can see we're heading down the misuse of probability route again...

Evolution is not chance, an analogy with chance is just plain wrong. It is also not in any conflict with scientific knowledge. And speciation is observed to have occured, and we also see it occuring in real time (incipient speciation).


Science 21 January 2005:
Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416
DOI: 10.1126/science.1105201
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species

Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3

Ring species, which consist of two reproductively isolated forms connected by a chain of intergrading populations, have often been described as examples of speciation despite gene flow between populations, but this has never been demonstrated. We used amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers to study gene flow in greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides). These genetic markers show distinct differences between two reproductively isolated forms but gradual change through the ring connecting these forms. These findings provide the strongest evidence yet for "speciation by force of distance" in the face of ongoing gene flow.


Lets kill the chance idea right away:

If I have 2 dice and require 2 sixes, the probability of obtaining this in one throw is 6^2. On average, it will take 6^2 (i.e. 36) throws to reach this target.

I have 100 dice. The target is 100 sixes. What is the probability of obtaining this target on one throw? On average, how long will it take an evolutionary process to reach this target?



[edit on 22-4-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   
As an Australian i am shocked apauled and sickened to see that the leader of these igonorant morons called "answers in genesis" is an Australian!
I swear if I ever see Ken Ham i will seriously give him a piece of my mind, mayber even kick his butt from Australia back to the rest of his loon group in the United States!
He is evil, he and his group are getting at children before they have the ability to look at religion and evolution and make their own decision based on what they have learned of both and arguments for and against both, it's just plain wrong and evil (it's the exact same thing hitler was doing to the German youth throught his regieme).

I now Lothe Ken Ham he's just made my enemies list!



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdaviesoz
Believing in just the chance evolution of ONE sepcied from another is like believing that you could win first prize in every lotto draw for a decade off just one ticket without missing once.

But it COULD happen, right....

Not in the real world.

PauL D
But your willing to give your all to an invisible sky fairie that spoke everything into existance????

Could it happen??

Not in the real world!



G



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
He doesnt believe Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago... Wait, let's put it this way, god decided to have fun toying with our minds by putting bones in the ground at random! Pop! Just like that. That way, the bible still keeps its credit!

I'm sorry, but how far can ignorance go? This is deep.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Well, I'm disgusted. Whether you accept Evolution or Creationism, brainwashing children is wrong.

Abuse of children is something I feel strongly about, and this seems to fall into that category for me. Children should be given both sides of the story, and be allowed to make up their minds, when they are old enough. If stuff like this continues, the futuer of this world will depend on who can get to the children first, and ignorance and intolerance will be rife.

The girl at the end of the video mentioned only telling one side of the story, but I would bet she wouldn't mind the lectures shown. Hypocrites piss me off.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Loved your "The World 2050" pic... you guys get to cure cancer and we dumb americans get nada, eh? And what about South America, Austraila and Africa, did we dumb americans blow 'em up or something?




No sort of obfuscation or propoganda going on there. Indoctrination/brainwashing, maybe? No sir. Just the facts and their most logical and rational extrapolations. FYI, americans lead the world in scientific literacy.



Many of the doubting thomas' - wrt evolution - including those 10, 000 clergy you mention (and the majority of Christians regardless of denomination), don't take issue with common ancestry. The take issue with the 'blind watchmaker' type interpretations of the modern synthesis. The RCC has clarified its position many times now, iirc.



What percentage of americans would agree with the video you posted? How many YECs are there in Christianity? Personally, I would have left before I finished my popcorn. Much ado about nothing if you ask me. Mountains out of molehills and all that jazz. You're honestly concerned about this, melatonin? Or just poking fun... 'cause you appreciate the easy targets?




Is there no chance of accepting S.J. Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria (never the twain shall meet)? Will conflict between religion and science exist until one destroys the other?


The conflict is mostly manufactured. More hot air blowing from the extremes than anything ells, imho. We'll (as well as science and religion) be just fine; same as it ever was. Sleep well my friend... sip some tea, eat a crumpet. Or whatever it is you blokes do to relax.



Is accepting parts of Holy books as allegory so destructive to faith?


Hasn't happened yet (literalists are a minority, as I'm sure you're aware.) Most believers (past and present too) see the allegory/are not literalists. I'd sooner put faith in the philosophy of a Dawkins then the theology of a Hamm. Both ('types'), are garbage; read Scripture the same way. (imho)

Regards.

(edit)Spelling and clarification.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Rren]



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Sleep well my friend... sip some tea, eat a crumpet. Or whatever it is you blokes do to relax.


I will relax now, Liverpool FC have just made Athens, a little bit sloshed at the mo, so I'll answer manana.

Ohhhhh campione
The one and only
we're Liverpooool

Pepe Reina - what a dude


But I don't think the 10,000 clergy are what you'd call doubting Thomas', they actually accept evolution as is. Probably of the Ken Miller theistic evolutionist ilk.



[edit on 1-5-2007 by melatonin]



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
That picture is pathetic, i doubt if the human race will last that long, we will probably have blown ourselves up by then.

Your life is a dream, be prepared for your inevitable awakening.



[edit on 1-5-2007 by thehumbleone]



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

I will relax now, Liverpool FC have just made Athens,



Soccer is for kids, how do you watch that stuff...



a little bit sloshed at the mo, so I'll answer manana.



Ah, now I see.


Have fun... remeber if it aint clear, it aint beer. I know you guys like that dark stuff over there.






But I don't think the 10,000 clergy are what you'd call doubting Thomas', they actually accept evolution as is. Probably of the Ken Miller theistic evolutionist ilk.


I guess that would depend on how one defines evolution (above and beyond common ancestry, that is.) But, yeah, a TE position like Miller's is good enough for argument's sake. Although he (and his ilk) have had some issues lately with the Vatican's position. They sent a letter when some statements from the Vatican looked more like an ID (science) position than a TE (philosophical) position. I'll dig you up a link on it, if you're interested. Once you sober up of course. You lush.


I always thought you were more of a Dawkins type than a Gould (NOMA) type though, melatonin. Learn somethin' new every day.


Regards.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

FYI, americans lead the world in scientific literacy.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Rren]


Would you please back that up with some evidence.
But i do agree with you that people like Ken Ham and his nut job group are thankfully a minority in America...i mean the leader of those nights is an Australian (to our nation's great shame)



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   
by the way i meant nuts nor nights so don't bother pointing that out



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ozvulcan

Originally posted by Rren

FYI, americans lead the world in scientific literacy.


Would you please back that up with some evidence.



Sure, it's an interesting read too:



www.fas.org...


Although a detailed discussion of the conceptualization and measurement of civic scientific literacy is provided in the refereed literature (Miller, 1998), it may be helpful to summarize this measure briefly. In broad terms, to be classified as civic scientifically literate, a citizen needs to display:

-an understanding of basic scientific concepts and constructs, such as the molecule, DNA, and the structure of the solar system,

-an understanding of the nature and process of scientific inquiry, and

-a pattern of regular information consumption (Miller, 1998).

In practical terms, the level of concept vocabulary and process understanding required reflects the level of skill required to read most of the articles in the Tuesday science section of the New York Times, watch and understand most episodes of Nova, or read and understand many of the popular science books sold in bookstores today.

Using this measure, approximately 10 percent of American adults qualified as civic scientifically literate in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but this proportion increased to 17 percent in 1999 (see Figure 1). Since each percentage point in a national survey of adults aged 18 and over in the United States represents approximately 2 million individuals, this result means that about 34 million Americans were civic scientifically literate by the end of the 20th century. This rate of civic scientific literacy is higher than that found in Canada, the European Union, or Japan, using similar measures (Miller, Pardo, & Niwa, 1997; Miller and Pardo, 2000). At the same time, it is a level that may be too low for the requirements of a strong democratic society in a new century of accelerating scientific and technological development.



(emphasis mine) I don't want to send Mel back to the bottle... but, the number has been on the rise since '95.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Soccer is for kids, how do you watch that stuff...


Only now are a few of you yanks understanding why, with the likes of Gillet and Hicks funding/buying Liverpool FC for £500 million. One of them, after the game on tuesday, said something along the lines of 'it's like any other sport, but on steroids', heh.




I always thought you were more of a Dawkins type than a Gould (NOMA) type though, melatonin. Learn somethin' new every day.


Regards.


I do take a more Dawkins-like position but I'm also a realist. From my point of view I think religion and faith is irrational, but being a 'liberal' and all that, people should believe what they like, just keep it out of science classes, and leave those kids alone. I would like to see less religion, it would negate one of the more divisive human phenomena.

I think people like Ham are dangerous to science and education, ID I also consider in the same category, a religio-political movement. Luckily, in europe we have few of these issues. Especially in the UK, people want ID in schools, they can have it, in RE classes, heh.

As for scientific literacy, it is not so clear cut, as I do remember a very recent study that showed it's quite similar overall, but that the US topped certain scientific issues, but not others, don't have the time to look for it though, so not much use, heh (I remember DaveScott being pulled apart on it).

But when you have school biology teachers under pressure to not teach an important component of science, it doesn't really help scientific literacy. The recent study by Eugenie Scott shows you barely beat Turkey, with the same study showing 28% of respondents in the US believe humans lived alongside dinosaurs.

This denial and political interference in no way is restricted to evolution. It seems to be common to certain groups who also deny other areas of science - AGW, AIDS-HIV, etc etc.

Politics and science, meh.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by melatonin]



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
'it's like any other sport, but on steroids', heh.


I think he was comparing soccer to shriveled testicles and rampant body hair and pimples. I'll give ya rugby... but there's only one football.





I do take a more Dawkins-like position but I'm also a realist. From my point of view I think religion and faith is irrational, but being a 'liberal' and all that, people should believe what they like, just keep it out of science classes, and leave those kids alone. I would like to see less religion, it would negate one of the more divisive human phenomena.


If not for religion, humans wouldn't be so divisive (greedy, egocentric, dogmatic)? Interesting hypothesis.

But as a liberal myself, I'd have to say believe what you like. However irrational it may be.




I think people like Ham are dangerous to science and education,


I'm no fan of his either, trust me. But take all the christians (they can meet at my place, I'll get the old lady to make sandwiches and lemonade), draw a line down the middle of my backyard. Ask everybody who agrees with Ham to get on one side, everybody else on the other. What you think that will look like? Still worried? Ham carries very little power and influence... these guys are about as dangerous as a wet paper bag.




(I remember DaveScott being pulled apart on it).


That's where I originally read the study I linked above, UD/DaveScot. Got a link to the DS thrashing... be interested in finding other sources, polls, etc on this.



The recent study by Eugenie Scott shows you barely beat Turkey, with the same study showing 28% of respondents in the US believe humans lived alongside dinosaurs.


I'd definately be interested in reading a source on that. 28% of US citizens being YEs seems unlikely. Eugene Scott is about as objective on this issue as Dawkins (ie, a wet paper bag
) Still interested, regardless.



This denial and political interference in no way is restricted to evolution. It seems to be common to certain groups who also deny other areas of science - AGW,


Been noticing that too (from the UD type IDers anyway.) Get that horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach everytime the two ideas are linked... that fact that its certain IDers doing the linking hurts all the more. :sigh:



AIDS-HIV, etc etc.


Get your brooms out... I'm calling shenanigans! Fringe groups, perhaps, but putting these arguments in bed with ID is weak, imo. Who are these guys? What sort of numbers do they represent? Who's ear do they got?

Mountains out of (barely) molehills.




Politics and science, meh.


Double meh! See dontcha just love when we can end agreeing on something!

PS,

Did you know Karl Rove was an atheist? Interesting, I thought. Puts the whole theocracy CT in a new light.

PPS,

I'd have to withdraw/concede my 'clergy = doubting Thomas'' comments. Poorly worded and reasoned, especially considering I have such a hard time understanding the TE position (wrt demarcation line for science/philosophy) it was unjustified. You weren't making any sort of atheism argument here, so apologies sir. I was going for the 'theists in Rren's backyard' idea... Ima take me one of dem der writing workshops one of these days.



Regards.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
'Religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame’
- Albert Einstein

He seemed to think that the two CAN meet .. and should.

Science needs to admit that the metaphysical can exist and
religion should not be afraid of the truth that comes from science.

If the two could work in harmony .. WOW .. it would be great!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join