Science vs. religion...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I assume to be fair they also put these warnings on bibles? I'm gald to see some of the religious right get shot down in federal court despite recent political events...

You know what is different about religion vs. science? Science is constantly moving... Infact the only constant is change. The moron(s) who wrote this apparently know little about science since "scientific fact" and "theory" mean exactly the same thing. Religion on the other had is dead set and very limited to it's ablity to adapt. Should creationism win over evolution science would simply change. The reverse and most religions would fail and be unable to adapt. Science is constantly questioning "fact" and if new evidence appears to prove or disprove an idea the "fact" evolves into a more refined form.

Why are some who are religious so close minded to science?

Originally posted by tacitblue
Science is constantly moving... Infact the only constant is change.

Why are some who are religious so close minded to science?

You answered your own question. Religion is drowned in tradition and mindlessly repetitive rituals. Change is the enemy. Evolution is the enemy. It is the act of living your life for the past and not the future.

Evolution is just a theory. So it creationism, and I don't really see how they differ that much.

Moses saw creation, but in order for a finite human brain to be able to see it, it would obviously have to be fast forwarded quite a bit.

Sort of coincides with evolution in a figurative non-modern man way.

In any case, there are many Christians who are not biblical literalists (in fact a healthy percentage).

Don't think that the religious world is not digging in the desert, studying, and debating religious facts. The debate continues much as it does in the scientific world.

There have been quite a few scientific discoveries in the biblical department. Check it out.

It is not out of ignorance. we do not belive in Evolution. becasue that would be asking us not to belive something in the Bible, and thus putting the whole bible into question. it is a matter of pride and faith that creationists are the way they are. Evolution supporters are about the same in thier traditions and 'rituals' (Cardon dating), as christians are about the Gospels

But aslo Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: ‘Most of what I learned of the field (evolutionary biology) in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’

Some people understand the limitations of dating methods better than others who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

To me there is no Science vs Religion. But two seperate forms of belief (Scientific method and faith) trying to find meaning in our short lives that goes beyond ourselves. Both can be right, one could, or they both could be wrong. Evolutionist clutch thier "facts" and deny any naysayers, while Creationists clutch thier Bible and do the same.

Im catholic and I believe in evolution. I just see evolution as the way God created everything

.
Science is thinking from scratch.
Science requires high standards of thinking; logic, explanations that fit known/gathered facts.

Religion is a pre-packaged set of beliefs.
Religion requires faith [acceptance of truth without examination].
There doesn't have to be any correlation of facts with beliefs.

Religion says the devout person's life has a built in purpose, direction and meaning. [BTW many scientists do believe in God or a religion] It appears, most notably in the zealots of religion, that they are emotionally excited and empowered by their beliefs. I think this is due in part to a streamlining of focus on a simplified world model and tasks.

As much as people motivated to do science treat the results as being unemotional facts, their reasons for persuing it are emotionally based; curiosity, hunger to know, feelings of discovering mysterious truths.

An absolute scientific perspective of religion would say that for someone to believe, proof or at least convincing evidence would have to be presented. If you could do this there would be no adversarial aspect between science and religion.

The thing people who believe in science have to be wary of is product promotion pretending to be pure [or any kind of] science.
.

Want to prove evolution in one easy step?
Heres the solution, observe python skeletons, they still have vestigial back legs, the same way humans still have a tail bone, if the snake hadnt once had legs and evolved out of them then why would the bones be there?

Religious fools who try to present evolution as a theory equal to creationism are idiots. check out www.answersingenesis.org to see why

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Want to prove evolution in one easy step?
Heres the solution, observe python skeletons, they still have vestigial back legs, the same way humans still have a tail bone, if the snake hadnt once had legs and evolved out of them then why would the bones be there?

Religious fools who try to present evolution as a theory equal to creationism are idiots. check out www.answersingenesis.org to see why

Micro-evolution has been proven bud, not Macro. But in any case, do you know for sure that creationist is wrong?

Are you aware of the multitude of degrees of creationism out there? Probably not, but why expect anything less of religious distainers around ATS.

Call Christians fools and carry on.

Just to play devils advocate the bible does state that god took away the legs of snakes as a result of its corruption of adam and eve so technically the vestigial legs of the python actually support a creationist view.

Really? didnt know the bible covered snakes but why would there still be small leg bones left? and why do humans still have remnants of a tail? And the loss of a tale strikes me as 'macro' evolution!

Multitudes of creationism? I can accept the idea that a God created the universe in a big bang and that evolution is his chosen method of creating life. I cannot accep that some alien or god or whatever made man in the more or less complete state he is now, which by placing the stickers on the text books the state government is encouraging.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Evolution is just a theory. So it creationism, and I don't really see how they differ that much.

So are religions. They are theories like everything else.

Originally posted by Croat56
Im catholic and I believe in evolution. I just see evolution as the way God created everything

This is the one recent thing that christians, catholics and other religiuos people try and full off. I am completely baffled at how such a concept, logically, works in their head.

You cant have it both ways here people!!!. Excuse me if i am wrong, but doesn the bible say that GOD created adam and eve. How could he create and make them evolve from something else??? What preceeded Adam and Eve then??...They must have evolved from something to come to their human form. The fact that ur saying they evolved would argue your religion's base.

Maybe you jsut misread the bible....

You might as well have said "religion vs religion" because organized science is nothing more than a religion. It's doctine, it's dogmatic and if you go against the scientific norms, it's heresy.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You might as well have said "religion vs religion" because organized science is nothing more than a religion. It's doctine, it's dogmatic and if you go against the scientific norms, it's heresy.

You clearly dont understand the definiton of "religion". Or science for that matter.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You might as well have said "religion vs religion" because organized science is nothing more than a religion. It's doctine, it's dogmatic and if you go against the scientific norms, it's heresy.

Although science may seem like this, and in way has developed its own rituals and such, its very clearly not a religion in reality.

Before I even get started, this is the debate of all debates and not a whole lot of our opinions will change here no matter what any of us post. But that wont stop me.

Science is something that can be touched or experienced. When you boil water, you are experiencing science. Every time you use glue to mend a broken item you are using science. Every time you get into your car, you are enjoying the fruits of many sciences. I can go on forever.

But religion is a feeling or an idea. Its something that was passed onto you by your parents or somebody of influence. You cannot PHYSICALLY experience religion no matter how hard you try. Its not given to you in a shrink wrapped box. I know some people think they can see Jesus and witness physical acts of god, but people also see dead people and gremlins from time to time too.

Now, I am not suggesting people of religion are crazy or nuts, far from it. I grew up in a very Catholic household and understand the belief completely. I just don’t actually believe it myself.

Now, I will admit that not all science is fact, or even real science for that matter. But each and every day more and more science is real. There are sciences out there that cannot be denied no matter what your beliefs are. So even though a scientific theory hasn’t been proven yet, each and every day it gets closer to being proven or thrown out as false. Science gets more accurate over time. Religion doesn’t.

Religion is a belief that’s passed on, not an event or object that can be studied and explained. I mean heck, there was a time on this very planet when people thought the Sun was a god. They felt with every bit of all their passion and intellect that the Sun was a divine being. They believed as much as any living person today believes in their God, that they were right about the Sun God. If a modern day believer had a conversation with a Sun worshipper of the past, the debate would be as heated as any modern religious debate.

The point I am trying to make here is this: Everybody today knows the Sun isn’t a God, even people of religion. But many years ago, before SCIENCE explained the sun and how it works, the Sun was as valid of a religion to the people as any is today. Its science that explained the great mysteries of the Sun. Once the mysteries were gone, it wasn’t so god like anymore. Religion is the spawn of unanswerable questions and fears. It helps people deal with the big mysteries of life. The scary stuff. And this is just fine btw.

But Science every now and then explains away some of these mysteries and what does religion do? They either adopt the science into their belief, or deny the science.

One day, maybe all of mans unanswerable questions will be solved. What happens to religion then? What happens when the believers have nothing to wonder about anymore? I have a feeling that science will be the winner. But, you never can tell

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You might as well have said "religion vs religion" because organized science is nothing more than a religion. It's doctine, it's dogmatic and if you go against the scientific norms, it's heresy.

You clearly dont understand the definiton of "religion". Or science for that matter.

Nope, I do understand the definitions of science and religion and I also understand how culturally they are the same. A religion is not necessarily theism. A religion can also be a routine or set of principles, ethics or laws that one follows religiously.

And that is what organized science is like. If it cannot be measured, controlled or observed, it is not scientific, and therefore it does not exist. You cannot measure, control and observe a thought. It does not exist? Just another senseless religion.

Nope, I do understand the definitions of science and religion and I also understand how culturally they are the same. A religion is not necessarily theism. A religion can also be a routine or set of principles, ethics or laws that one follows religiously.

And that is what organized science is like. If it cannot be measured, controlled or observed, it is not scientific, and therefore it does not exist. You cannot measure, control and observe a thought. It does not exist? Just another senseless religion.

I like how in your definition of religion you used the word "religiuosly".

I am still kinda hesitent to beleive science is a religion. I mean, i get how they can "culturally" be the same, but i could say the same thing about pizza making. It follows a set of principles. The fact that they are similar culturally doent mean that science is a religion, as you stated.

I am still kinda hesitent to beleive science is a religion. I mean, i get how they can "culturally" be the same, but i could say the same thing about pizza making. It follows a set of principles. The fact that they are similar culturally doent mean that science is a religion, as you stated.

Not, unless pizza making is your way of life. A religion is a set of principles, rules and laws that that one follows in life. Science is a religion as in nothing is proven till it can be observed, measured and controlled. Unfortunately, it's a reality of life, that some things cannot be proven.

In science something is only proven till the scientific community agree with it. It does not matter how fool good your proof, but if the scientific community does not agree, it's not good enough. Further, your beliefs, especially in the paranormal, can cost you your reputation. It's very much like the church and it's fundamentalism.

In addition scientific thinking can really pigeon hole your view of life. Life is about emotions, imagination, not about science.

It's organized science that is a religion. Science itself , is nothing more than a tool to understand our universe.

Originally posted by tacitblue
You know what is different about religion vs. science? Science is constantly moving... Infact the only constant is change.

Why are some who are religious so close minded to science?

I was just commenting on this in another thread.

The good thing about science is it's always ready to be disproven, and will readily accept, and even be replaced with, new discoveries. By nature, science is constantly looking for eliminations and/or new discoveries to replace the old. Religion, however, is not at all open to changes or updates. If I have to choose between the two, I choose evolution. Religion is the end of the road. Congratulations! You have figured it all out! There is absolutely no need to look further! Mystery solved!!! You can stop thinking now, forever!!!

AAAAHHH!!!!! I have stated this several times, in several posts, on several topics, SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT GUESS, SHOT IN THE DARK, OR ACID TRIP GONE BAD! The THEORY of GRAVITY is gravity, do you agree gravity exists? Yes? Well, that is a theory for we still don't know all about gravity. Black holes? Gravity, supposedly, but gravity only affects things with mass, and black holes suck in light, but a light photon does not have mass, so how does gravity affect it? Theory of freaking anything in science, fo as stated, always changing. Also, evolution started with the greeks, not Darwin like every christian believes. This is why we have sea horses and such for they believed that land animals evolved from the sea animals. Hell, they even have a legend about how horses were made, by Posiden/Neptune.

I swear, all the people who hear "Theory" they automatically think of people with darts and a board with different names and whichever name the dart lands on gets made into science or something.

Also, if MICRO evolution has been proven, it means evolution is correct. It doesn't say ANYWHERE in the bible that creation and micro evolution are correct, but not macro evolution. But good comeback with the snake thing, I actually think that is a good explanation though, hell of alot better then YOU GO TO HELL! But still, tail bone, or whales/dolphins still have finger bones, and fossil records show dolphin evolving from land mammal to sea mammal. I so wish I had that video, it was a guy at the Smithonian(spelling is wrong, I know) Museum who was showing the different skulls, and you could see the blowhole form from nose to on top of the head and farther back.