Kevin's Watch

I dig it. People could say the same thing about Juan Valdez, but everybody likes him.

I believe the Lady Revel has a point. Do you really want Creationism taught by the same people that do Sex Ed? It's fine when you're in a religious setting, where there are established, documented methods for teaching the subject that have been peer reviewed by subject matter experts. But what happens when it's being tuaght by Art Sanders, BA who instead of taking notes from John Martins, Doctor of Theology takes a three week seminar and follows a syllabus (they don't make the "Teachers' Edition" with the answers in the back for nothing)? I don't see how you could have otherwise without throwing the church/state thing even further out the window.

No, listen, you're misunderstanding me.

I don't mean that science for the scientist is a religion. At least, I would hope not. The scientist has verified what he claims, he knows the whys and ins and outs of the various laws and theories.
The scientist knows that most currently held theories will eventually be disproved, and new, more accurate theories will be adopted.

I mean that to the average person who learns about science either through high school or pop culture, science is a religion.
Just look at how it's perceived
The scientist is generally not starting the fight between science and religion... granted, some do, but they're exceptions.
It's the ley person that takes issue with the disagreement. They have one side asking them to believe one thing, and the other side telling them to believe the other thing, and they feel they have to choose.
People choose Science as their religion because it pays off well. Medicine! Microwaves!
It's got the goods. But people look at a microwave the same way they look at transubstantiation. I don't know how a microwave works. None of my friends do either. How about how speakers make sound? I'm sure some people on here know, but the average person has no idea how science provides the wonderful things that it does.
We all know that it does provide them, however, and that inspires -faith- in science.

Hence, science is the new religion.

That may be true, but religion doesn't challenge its own beliefs, or constantly reinvents itself every few decades.

That goes against the very tenants about what makes a religion a religion.

oops, misunderstood you. (mod edit)

JemCheeta wrote:No, listen, you're misunderstanding me.

I don't mean that science for the scientist is a religion. At least, I would hope not. The scientist has verified what he claims, he knows the whys and ins and outs of the various laws and theories.
The scientist knows that most currently held theories will eventually be disproved, and new, more accurate theories will be adopted.

I mean that to the average person who learns about science either through high school or pop culture, science is a religion.
Just look at how it's perceived
The scientist is generally not starting the fight between science and religion... granted, some do, but they're exceptions.
It's the ley person that takes issue with the disagreement. They have one side asking them to believe one thing, and the other side telling them to believe the other thing, and they feel they have to choose.
People choose Science as their religion because it pays off well. Medicine! Microwaves!
It's got the goods. But people look at a microwave the same way they look at transubstantiation. I don't know how a microwave works. None of my friends do either. How about how speakers make sound? I'm sure some people on here know, but the average person has no idea how science provides the wonderful things that it does.
We all know that it does provide them, however, and that inspires -faith- in science.

Hence, science is the new religion.

As usual, I'm bifurcated. My first reaction was to refute the notion of teaching Creationism, but then I remembered I'm no fan of science either. I agree that to the lay person, science works in much the same way as religion. I suppose I've settled on the following view: If either science (of any kind) or religion (of any kind) is going to be pushed at children, all variations must be equally promoted, thereby allowing informed decisions on the part of the pupils. This will never happen.

..Jem , I understand you now,,at least more clearly. Pardon me , but it is raining outside in the desert at the moment so my visibilty may be a bit hampered. What you speak of is the Faith, with out the practicing of. Or, faith in results without the slightest concern of how.
...Two things that , while at first glance may be too obstuse, but may be related on the subject. I heard on the news a couple of mornings ago..the alarming trend in freshman class statistics over the last few years. Females are qualifying and entering Universities and Colleges at a higher rate than their male competition. In some regions of the country, its almost 2 to 1 ratio. And they are entering in Math and Science programs in almost the same overwhelming ratios. What in the world is going on with the current male highschoolers? Some colleges are actually establishing a Affirmitive Action program to get males to attend their schools! So, is it fair to observe that the male highschooler is very pleased with the current top notched virtual reality video games, therefore of full belief in the science, and so much so has no interest in teh reality it took to develop the technology?,,,a side effect of Realistic Video games nobody saw coming?
...Now the other thing,,and I am serious on this,,and yes, i mite be tryingto stear the thread in an oblique angle here,,but,,here in Arizona, down on Mount Graham, there is being built a giant " binocular " telescope. This is cutting edge technology coming together. Two 7 or 8 meter wide mirrors when placed side by side and connected act as one 14 or 16 meter wide mirrors,,therefore the abilty to see in detail the farther , fainter, and smaller is increased . Point is,,somewhere during the last 5 years of write ups of the telescopes trials and tribulations( yes , suits from Indians and naturalists, etc), i read that a good chunk of the money bankrolling this binocular telescope,,is coming from,,The Vatican.
hhhmm, science and religion, religion and science. I am not of all the details. But , for whatever reasons, it is illustrated that the vatican , a center of Religion, has interests in cutting edge science!! Think of where man mite be today, if Pope Whats His Name the 3rd, hadn't dumped all over Galileo. Then again, ...oh well.............MEL

On the science as religion issue - how many religions would readily admit 'what we're going to tell you isn't actually correct, but is as close as we have come to understanding it'? That's what I've been told about physics through every stage of my education. I have never been left to believe that the theories I have been taught are an absolute truth, only that they approximate the world to a large enough degree that we can trust the results.
And that brings up a flaw in religion. For many theists, religion must be accepted as an absolute truth by those being taught it, rather than accepted as what it is - a hypothesis on the nature of life and the universe, which may or may not prove to be true.

All I have to say is... Thank god I went to a Catholic High school. They didn't have to keep their toes on the edge between truth and popular politics. I was pretty much taught from the start that pure creationism is pretty much rubbish in lieu of all the evidence against it. Sure, it is possible to poke holes into evolution, but poking holes in a very solid theory does not make your own hypothesis true. There is simply too much evidence stacked up against the creationists.

What fascinates me is how firmly the creationists can stand up to the evidence put against them. Every year my Biology teacher would bring in a creationist friend to debate us. It was marvelous to see someone so skillfully manipulate truth to his own devious ends.

I am probably coming off extremely condescending and abrasive, and I am sorry. Many people I love and respect are creationists, but that doesn't lessen my belief that the whole concept of creation science is absolutely silly. I am glad that the Catholic Church seems to feel that way too.

Man, you guys are just getting better and better.

Some great posts, (I've been saying that a lot the last couple of days, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Lady Revel-- Although I agree with you about the possible consequences, perhaps it's not a bad thing to start children questioning, regardless of what side their parent believe, at an early age. Simple acceptance is not good enough. People need to put thought and effort into their opinions.

Lurch-- punctuation, ellipses and comma's don't bug me, as was said, Juan, and Skyweir, do it as well. But paragraph breaks would be nice. Then it'll be easier to seperate one thought from the next.

Science as religion? Absolutely. But I think Murrin's comment on the matter is very valid. Science asks that you accept something only until they understand it better. No absolutes, because we just don't know. Religion assumes the absolute from the start.

The Dreaming-- You went to a Catholic school that taught you that creation wasn't really viable? Awesome. The church is really starting to modernise it seems.

Does my heart good to see this frank and courteous exchange of views. Keep it up everybody.

--Avatar

Dreaming: i must belong to a different Catholic sect than you? creationism is not taught as being rubbish. but more of a joyful mystery that should not occupy all of our days. we can agree that some sort of evolution. but we still believe that God created us. we do not believe that apes and man have the same ancestor. read the books. listen to our profession of faith.

It's just that the Catholic Church has doesn't believe Special creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive. This is a very wise stance I believe.

I always thought that the true miracle was not the idea of god creating my flesh and blood, or the sac of nucleotides that code my physiology. The Miracle was that I exist. My conscience self. (The combination of Ego and personality that I believe are the contents of the soul.) That God was able to create a thinking, rationale being in his own image.

So it's not how it was done, but that it was done at all? I can accept that, but again, don't think that the credit has to go to god.

It's equally, if not more, amazing that random chance, Chaos, if you will, has produced it.

--Avatar

The Pumpkin King wrote: I think it has to do with the aspect that humans like to be self-important. People had an issue with it when they found out that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, much less the universe. So, it's natural they'd have an issue with the fact that we weren't immaculately created by some higher power. It makes us less significant in that light.

Actually, I think both views have their own self-importance. Creationism says a God created you b/c He desires your fellowship. Evolution says you're here by Chance, and man is highest on evolution chain, so there is nothing above us that holds us accountable, you can do whatever you want. Hence, the popular notion you are your own god. Both can feed that self-important aspect of humans.

The Dreaming wrote: I always thought that the true miracle was not the idea of god creating my flesh and blood, or the sac of nucleotides that code my physiology. The Miracle was that I exist. My conscience self. (The combination of Ego and personality that I believe are the contents of the soul.) That God was able to create a thinking, rationale being in his own image.

So God created man in His image, but used evolution? At what step did we separate from our ancestor the one-celled organism and mirror God? Unless that one celled organism also mirrors God.

Murrin wrote: And that brings up a flaw in religion. For many theists, religion must be accepted as an absolute truth by those being taught it, rather than accepted as what it is - a hypothesis on the nature of life and the universe, which may or may not prove to be true.

Where is the flaw? Why is absolute truth a flaw? Are you claiming there is none? That's my favorite statement, "there is absolutely no absolute truth".

Murrin wrote:

It takes a leap of scientific faith to accept either one of those theories, just as it takes a spiritual leap of faith to believe in Creationism.

Actually this isn't true. Because of the abundance of supporting evidence (as was mentioned, the cosmic background radiation, study of the furthest-off parts of the universe, the expansion of the universe; for evolution, there is both the fossil record and studies of mutation, adaptation and speciation in living species), it's more logic than a 'leap of faith'.

BTW, the fossil record is NOT used to support evolution. Check out this link:
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

go down to the Paleontology heading, and check out what Stephen Gould and others have said.

Sorry, I can't get past the first paragraph before the smug bias of those comments drives me away in disgust.


Cyberweez - because there is no real supporting evidence for religion, there is no way you can credibly tout it as the absolute truth. In order to preserve at least some shred of credibility, you have to make the concession that it may not be true, although you believe it to be.

Cybrweez wrote:

The Dreaming wrote: I always thought that the true miracle was not the idea of god creating my flesh and blood, or the sac of nucleotides that code my physiology. The Miracle was that I exist. My conscience self. (The combination of Ego and personality that I believe are the contents of the soul.) That God was able to create a thinking, rationale being in his own image.

So God created man in His image, but used evolution? At what step did we separate from our ancestor the one-celled organism and mirror God? Unless that one celled organism also mirrors God.

When God gave man a soul. The Soul is what makes us human, not having 2 arms, 2 legs, a four chambered heart, and a well developed cerebral cortex.

The Dreaming wrote:When God gave man a soul. The Soul is what makes us human, not having 2 arms, 2 legs, a four chambered heart, and a well developed cerebral cortex.

But when did we receive a soul?

Murrin wrote:Sorry, I can't get past the first paragraph before the smug bias of those comments drives me away in disgust.


Cyberweez - because there is no real supporting evidence for religion, there is no way you can credibly tout it as the absolute truth. In order to preserve at least some shred of credibility, you have to make the concession that it may not be true, although you believe it to be.

Who's talking about touting religion as absolute truth? You said the flaw in religion is that they espouse absolute truth. I asked why is that a flaw? Do you believe there is no absolute truth? And that is smug? Sorry, didn't mean it to be and I don't see why it is.