Ahh! I understand anything that is not scientific is just wishful thinking. Simplified reality. I believe I said this before we have different views on reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The battle of evolution vs creationism
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
Ahh! I understand anything that is not scientific is just wishful thinking. Simplified reality. I believe I said this before we have different views on reality.
idea
Question Everything
If everyone wants to get the semantics of everything right, applied science is engineering, not science
.Scientists just observe, if someone is going to take that info and actually do something useful with it to benefit humanity - that would be an engineer
You clearly said it was the biologists job to teach it doesn't impact belief in God. Your exact words were, "Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God". That is what I called you on. It is not the job of biologists to do this. It's the job of religious leaders.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. It is not religion's job to tell science they have it wrong regarding the natural world, and it's not science's job to tell religion they have it wrong regarding spirituality.
Your view is extremely narrow and deeply flawed. Maybe a particular flavor of extreme fundamentalism is like this.
Based upon your extremely limited understanding of what religion is, that's what it appear to be to you.
Never forget, it's your interpretation of reality, and "God's reality" goes beyond both religion and science's understanding. So don't be so self-assured you have it 100%.
idea
Question Everything
Honestly, why do scientists look down on lib arts majors? Liberal arts contain as useful (if not more so) fields than science does. (Engineers btw recognize the need and validity of liberal arts fields, as we can't make things to serve society unless we first understand the needs and wants of society).
The difference between scientists and engineers:
The “Scientific” method:
- - Formulate a question,
- - make a hypothesis or theory,
- - predict what would happen if the theory or hypothesis is true,
- - test the hypothesis through experimentation, observations, empirical measurements
- - analyze experimental results,
- - make conclusions based on results).
The “Engineering” method
“The use of engineering heuristics to cause the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources.” - Koen
- - Define a problem – identify a situation that needs to be changed.
- - access available resources, needs/wants of society
- - propose and critique possible solutions using a combination of analytic analysis, and heuristic speculations about societal needs, and personal ethics.
- - build a product
- - test, evaluate, refine, and rebuild product considering the evolving needs of society.
Engineers actually help people - we solve problems, and we don't don't have any problems with religious organizations, because engineers deal with real-life applications, and when real-life applications are considered, religious organizations solve many of society's problems.
Last edited:
So you are saying Biologists should allow anyone to miss quote and miss use their product to promote there cause
Should biologists speak up if Salem/Winston starts to use evolution to promote the use of cigarettes. Using cigarettes will reduce the weak and make humans a stronger species.
There is no difference between doing this and using it improperly against God.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
If that is what helps you sleep at night, by all means, go with it.
But the fact of the matter is that creation is based upon absolutely nothing but wishful thinking.
There is nothing but wishful thinking in support of it.
What on earth are you going on about? You make no sense. I'm not saying if some religious person makes false statements about science that a scientist shouldn't correct them! Of course they should. I was responding to your words which says something very different that this. You said, again, clearly, "Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God". You are saying a biologist should inject his understanding of evolution into how a theology should interpret God. That is what I am objecting to. Maybe you meant something other that what your words are saying here?
But what does a biologist know about God, to say they are improperly using God? What qualifies a biologist to know jack-diddly about religion? They are certainly entitled to their opinions as a lay person, as insightful or ignorant as that may come, but that is certainly not an opinion as a specialist in religion because they know biology. That's like saying a minister who has a PhD in theology can use it as an authority in astrophysics.
Last edited:
See my correction
"I'm not saying if some religious person (or non religious person) makes false statements about science that a scientist shouldn't correct them! Of course they should."
In fact anyone using evolution that does not have an associates degree in Biology.
If you agree to this we are on the same page. See below.
Evolution is science and should be contained in the scientific studies
Creationism is Theology and should be contained in theological studies.
idea
Question Everything
I just want to go on record as agreeing with you.
The difference between theory and application is the difference between scientists and engineers.... If someone needs a reality check of what is true or not, it's not a scientist they should be talking to, it's an engineer. (and yes, I'm an engineer
).
Well, better, but still not right.
Creationism is not theology either. Theology is the study of the nature of God. Creationism is not about understanding God. Creationism is technically a pseudoscience. It posits pseudo-scientific answers to address the natural sciences, such as geology, biology, cosmology, etc. These have nothing to do with theology. Theology would be things like the trinity doctrine, the hypostatic union, the nature of God's being, the mind of God, etc. As I said at the outset, Creationism is more related to science than either philosophy or theology. It's trying to be scientific, but in a prerational, premodern context. In school, if it is to be taught at all, it would be in a social studies class as far as various cultural artifacts, like phrenology and whatnot.
Last edited:
Me Myself
Back to my username
Well, mine did.
idea
Question Everything
Here's the trouble with relying on authority figures...
Luk Van Parijs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luk Van Parijs was an associate professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) .... Van Parijs admitted to fabricating and falsifying research data
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=3&
"The Journal of Cell Biology - found 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts (sense 2002) had one or more illustrations that were manipulated (Photoshopped) in ways that violate the journal's guidelines"
another one:
Biologist spared jail for grant fraud : Nature News
Biologist spared jail for grant fraud
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/440720a.html
Further accusations rock Japanese RNA laboratory... Suspicion of fraud hangs over pioneering RNA work.
etc. etc. etc. ... the bio field has a bad reputation for falsifying and fabricating data... just sayin... just because you have a degree, or it is in a peer reviewed journal does not mean it is "fact". Everyone has a right to their own opinions on everything - having a degree does not mean you are the end-all-be-all.
Scientists would have everyone believe that they are these noble intellectuals whose only concern is the pursuit of knowledge and truth - well, this is not true. Scientists are humans like the rest of us, they want $, they want a good reputation (which means they don't like saying "I'm wrong"), they want power.... there is a whole lot more going on than mere "trying to preach the truth" over there.
read through this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories
[FONT="]Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories fabricated research data to the extent that upon FDA analysis of 867 studies, 618 (71%) were deemed invalid, including many of which were used to gain regulatory approval for widely used household and industrial products
[/FONT][FONT="]71% of the studies were fabricated? 25% of one bio journal's photos were fake? not a good track record...[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
"One of the most biggest arguments being issued forth by every secularist and theist is the argument of whether mankind was created or evolved. I shall spare you the melodramatic rambling and say that if you believe in evolution you are astonishingly ignorant and know nothing of science.
Creationists and Evolutionists are both utterly wrong. You cannot pick a side and disregard the whole event. Either we were created or we were not created at all, Evolutionism is nonsensical in this regard because it denies the simple fact that mankind was created.
The actuality of this hole debate is that mankind has a creator and we as human beings were created......... through the almighty process of evolution!
Yep, according to the laws of semantics the Evolution Theory is indeed "Creationism" as it explains how mankind was "created". The whole issue is not a matter of whether mankind was created or evolved since only creation is applicable. The true matter is whether mankind was crated in the specific manner in which Christians wish us to be created in conformity with the Bible. Christians blanket teaching young children Christian theology by using the word "Creationism" to somehow apply some neutral veil around the matter. The simple fact is that Christians wish that Christianity was forced upon children in schools at a young and impressionable age. It is only a result of fundamentalist Christians.
Many Christians though take objection to this and desire that only science be taught in a science class and religion be taught in a religious institution. I can only express my greatest appreciations to those Christians who wish to abide by American values and keep religion where it should be.
So in short it is just a matter of semantics. The Evolutionary Theory IS Creationism and the only true "Creationism" that stands the test of evidence. Mankind was "created" though the process of natural selection(few mutant children could be thrown into the mix as well)
Comprende folks? "
Where else did ya think I was going with this
I declare victory in this argument thanks to the powers of Semantic Man
Creationists and Evolutionists are both utterly wrong. You cannot pick a side and disregard the whole event. Either we were created or we were not created at all, Evolutionism is nonsensical in this regard because it denies the simple fact that mankind was created.
The actuality of this hole debate is that mankind has a creator and we as human beings were created......... through the almighty process of evolution!
Yep, according to the laws of semantics the Evolution Theory is indeed "Creationism" as it explains how mankind was "created". The whole issue is not a matter of whether mankind was created or evolved since only creation is applicable. The true matter is whether mankind was crated in the specific manner in which Christians wish us to be created in conformity with the Bible. Christians blanket teaching young children Christian theology by using the word "Creationism" to somehow apply some neutral veil around the matter. The simple fact is that Christians wish that Christianity was forced upon children in schools at a young and impressionable age. It is only a result of fundamentalist Christians.
Many Christians though take objection to this and desire that only science be taught in a science class and religion be taught in a religious institution. I can only express my greatest appreciations to those Christians who wish to abide by American values and keep religion where it should be.
So in short it is just a matter of semantics. The Evolutionary Theory IS Creationism and the only true "Creationism" that stands the test of evidence. Mankind was "created" though the process of natural selection(few mutant children could be thrown into the mix as well)
Comprende folks? "
۞
Where else did ya think I was going with this
I declare victory in this argument thanks to the powers of Semantic Man
idea
Question Everything
Evolution is not creationism.... Abiogenesis/biopoiesis is creationism.
Evolution is a materialistic epistemology which fails to take into account the difference between living and non-living entities - who reject the concept of free will, and degrade life by treating it as a non-sentient entity whose properties are solely defined by outward causation.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Not really, a big crux of evolution is the internal causation (genetics) and now epigenetics.
The outward crux is the environment which is considered out of the control of the normal species. So how does genetics and the environment influence what survives and what does not.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
You know nothing of evolution sadly, call back when you are making sense.
But for the record, evolution is only applicable to the variations of life, it does not concern the spirit, god nor religion. It is just about biology and it also does distinguish non living from living.
You just confused abiogenesis with evolution. Since taxonomy must be used to aid in the Evolutionary theory so it distinguishes an animal from a rock obviously.
outhouse
Atheistically
After reading the last few pages of exchanges here I feel I've stumbled into the twilight zone.
Poor brother Skwin
There is always tomorrow brother :angel2:
Some times low hanging fruit goes bad.
idea
Question Everything
The variation in life - the diversity in life - concerns beliefs and religion.... suppose you believe eating meat is evil, does this not change your physical body - generation after generation - if your diet is altered? Suppose you believe in monogamy - mating beliefs of coarse change the nature of future generations. suppose you believe in having love and serving your neighbor - beliefs control our interactions with our environment, which in turn create the variations in life.
Rocks do not hold beliefs, and so their variations are predictable - their properties come from atomic interaction potentials, they are eroded by wind and water etc. etc.
There's more to the variations in life than atomic interaction potentials and environmental conditions though... Our differences are primarily a function of our beliefs, rather than our material makeup.