Reply With Quote
That's partially what I meant...
"Contrived"..."forced"...
"The past few hundred years." Or, in other words, the entire history of modern science???Try reading this book:
Inventing the Flat Earth
Jeffrey Burton Russell
Greenwood Publishing
I had to read it for a history of science class at A&M. A lot of the supposed "rift" between science and religion has been created in the past few hundred years by a very small number of people.
EDIT: To any lazy engineering students out there, I highly recommend this class.
That's partially what I meant...
"Contrived"..."forced"...
It's a two way battle. Neither side, for the most part, seems willing to accept the duality of science and Christianity. They're both too busy attacking each other or going on the defensive.
A majority of Christians are not creationists. I don't know if you think the two terms are interchangable or not. Those that think that the concept of intelligent design (what the thread is about) counteracts the principles of science are nuts.
Examination and comparison are the basis of scrutiny. The theory of evolution has been proven in multiple instances, and is relatively sound. Creationism is nuts from a scientific standpoint. It would not stand scrutiny very long in comparison, even in a Jr. High science class. But to stand up and say that there isn't some basis of intelligent design is an opinion of yours, because you have no basis to prove it, just as I have no definative proof to say it is. Are you saying that both ideas shouldn't be scrutinized?
I can forsee the lecture on Intelligent Design:
"The Universe might have an intelligent designer. Class dismissed."
Besides, I think it pretty obvious that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for the few fundamentalist Christians in this country that are trying to get creationism to be taught right beside evolution.
From my experience, most Christians believe that the story of Creation is figurative. I would guess that on the whole, athiests take the Bible more literally than Christians.
However, even a literal interpretation of the Creation leaves room for evolution and a trillion-years-old universe.
Modern science isn't without its own biases. Darwin's own cousin Galton was a crackpot who biased his experiments to found eugenics, which "proved" that people with certain facial features were criminals and other ethnicities were stupid. His findings were taken as scientific fact for hundreds of years.
But basically the book is about how the myth of the "flat earth" was created several hundred years AFTER Columbus discovered the new world. It was created as anti-Catholic propaganda, trying to show the church as authoritarian and autocratic. Pretty much all educated people of the time knew the world was round (and every sailor, ever been to sea? You can see the curvature of the earth) when in fact, a majority of educated people of the time were clergy. Eratosthenes calculated the cir ference of the earth like 2200 years ago. Who preserved a great deal of ancient knowledge in Europe? The Catholic church.
Hasn't "complete scientific secularism" been a trojan horse for atheists trying to advance their ideology in schools?
You've been around Fundy Dave too much.
EDIT: I would enjoy that class, especially the dismissed part.
I'm not sure what you mean by "complete scientific secularism?" Does that mean teaching science based on evidence, and leaving religion at church?
I never understood why he was called "Fundy" Dave.
It means that some atheists would have you believe that you can't be a Christian and a scientist at the same time.
He was called Fundy Dave because he was a Christian fundamentalist. Didn't you see him jacking off to Tom Short when he came to campus?
1) Intelligent design and creation science are not the same thing.
2) I realize not all Christians are creationists. But then again, not all Christians are trying to get evolutionary biology kicked out of the public schools, either.
It sounded like you wanted scott to pretend that what they are doing isn't actually happening.
3) I understand that intelligent design does not contradict any scientific understanding of the physical world. However, it is not science. That doesn't mean it's false, or misleading, or bad in any way. Pretty much any person who lends credence to mainstream science and believes in God accepts "intelligent design" in a general sense.
But in order to be scientific, one would have to be able to present hypotheses about it and conduct experiments to support or disprove those hypotheses. That's not what ID is about. It's about looking over the whole landscape of scientific knowledge and making inferences. It's a commentary. It's a philosophy. It's a perfectly nice field of study.
But it's not science. When people try to present it as science, they are pushing pseudoscience, which is false and misleading. Science is not the only legitimate way to study the world. Please try to understand the difference.
I've never met such an atheist, and I've been to quite a few of the atheist student group meetings in the past year. That's not to say that there aren't atheists of that mentality, but they are few and far between... much like Christians who stick to a literal view of Genesis.
Tom Short was fun. I never saw Fundy Dave at a Short-a-thon.
If you think about it, this notion that the Church taught the "flat earth" in the Middle Ages conflicts with other generally disseminated history. Copernicus with his heliocentric theory opposed the Church, who taught the geocentric theory passed down from antiquity.
The geocentric theory assumes a spherical earth around which all the other heavenly bodies revolve. Duh. No flat earth there.
So, yes, this flat earth propaganda probably is taught to make the Church look bad. Then again, they did teach the geocentric theory, it was false, and they did punish people for opposing it.
From my understanding of history, the rift between Christianity and science didn't really emerge until the 1880's, it was originally an American phenomenon, and things like the Civil War and Reconstruction played a big role.
Then you've never met Richard Dawkins. Fair enough. But he's quite prominent, and leads a significant group of people.
I knew a guy like that on my old rugby team, he was a biology prof. at UTA. I think that "Bring 'em Back Not Alive But Preserved in a Jar" John M. ended up working with him while working on his graduate level herpetology work, BTW.That's not to say that there aren't atheists of that mentality, but they are few and far between...
I've read his book The Blind Watchmaker. Quite an interesting read.
One big reason Christianity and evolution do not mix is the fact that Christianty views Humanity as the pinacle. We're supposed to be the top of the mountain. However, evolution is still ongoing. We are already markedly different from the first variations of human on this planet, and as long as we don't destroy ourselves we are going to evolve in ways no one has ever thought of.
What happens when we're no longer human?
Maybe the world will end before that. Sort of like the Tower of Babel.What happens when we're no longer human?
There are plenty of philosophical/theological debates to be had on Christianity vs. Evolution, but I think the main point is that *scientifically*, they are not mutually exclusive.
We'll all be damn dirty apes, that's what!What happens when we're no longer human?
I believe at that point we will have run out of things to eat, and will turn to the few humans left to satiate our hunger for Soylent Green.
We'll be declared illegal combatants.What happens when we're no longer human?
Indeed.
I thought it viewed God as the pinnacle.
Well, among the animals, we are. While it's clear we are a kind of primate, it's also clear we are fundamentally different from all other animals.We're supposed to be the top of the mountain.
Seriously, if Jesus takes so long to come back that humans will have evolved into distinctly different species, we'd have to assume God gave him wrong directions coming back down from heaven, or that he's bringing along a woman who has to pee every 15 minutes.However, evolution is still ongoing. We are already markedly different from the first variations of human on this planet, and as long as we don't destroy ourselves we are going to evolve in ways no one has ever thought of.
What happens when we're no longer human?
Besides, the biblical definition of human relates more to the ways man is made in God's image, with intellect, conscience, capacity for good, etc, than it does with our opposable thumbs.
Why should the government have such a heavy hand in education? It never fails that we have some extremist group attempting to indoctrinate our children by leveraging our tax dollars. F em all.
Right right. Thats the biblical defenition NOW. Because, as we both know, evolution is not only present in life, but in the creations of life as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions