Again, seeing as you cannot make a case for creation that is not wishful thinking...
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Again, seeing as you cannot make a case for creation that is not wishful thinking...
Science tells us the practical applications .
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 never said it was any bodies job. In fact I do not know what job you are talking about. It is the biologists responsibility to define their science, what it is and what it is not. It is the religions responsibility to define their religion what it is and what it is not.
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.If neither Science or Religion defines their responsibilities then they will not be successful.
Your view is extremely narrow and deeply flawed. Maybe a particular flavor of extreme fundamentalism is like this.My view on religion God wants you to trust God 100% and forgo everything else.
Based upon your extremely limited understanding of what religion is, that's what it appear to be to you.Religion is man's attempt of adjusting Gods reality with the reality they are trying to live in.
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%.Now, I like this reality 100% and have no desire for Gods but I am a rarity.
A...anything that is not scientific ....
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.
.
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).
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.
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.
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?So you are saying Biologists should allow anyone to miss quote and miss use their product to promote there cause
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.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.
See my correctionWhat 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?
.
I just want to go on record as agreeing with you.
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.Evolution is science and should be contained in the scientific studies
Creationism is Theology and should be contained in theological studies.
I have commented on most of this but you are correct in that I should change environment to study. Religious schools should teach evolution as a scientific study and Scientific schools can teach creationism as a philosophy if they chose.
... anyone using evolution that does not have an associates degree in Biology.....
... Evolutionary Theory IS Creationism ...
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.
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.
After reading the last few pages of exchanges here I feel I've stumbled into the twilight zone.
the variations of life, it does not concern the spirit, god nor religion. ....