Churches rejecting science altogether

[kbachler]

In your post #232 on page 16 of this thread, the fourth paragraph of your text on that page, the ending sentence reads, “Does that make Darwin an idiot? No.”
That same quote also appears in your quoted text of my post #296 on page 20, same place in your text, “Does that make Darwin an idiot? No.”.

I’ve never termed Darwin an idiot. Why would you ask that, which implies I did?

Your high esteem of Darwin does not undo the harm his works have done to both science and Christendom… But, the man was not an idiot.
A dupe of Uniformtariansist evolution proponents?
Yes.
An idiot?
No.

Back to the OP. Why do churches reject science?
Because the proponents of science tend to beat people over the head with their superiority.
Because science makes a better servant than a master.
Because science has no native authority, but tries to bring an authority which belongs only in Academia into the larger world. A world where science is one establishment among many others. A lot of those other establishments can survive the collapse of science, technology and economics that makes up the present technocracy.

Oh, Ok. Back to the OP.
Because the technocracy usurping our rights and liberties is possible only with science.

And, back to the OP.
All you can teach an adult is what that adult chooses to learn; if an adult’s heart is set on learning astronomy and you try to get that adult’s attention to biology, all you’re going to do is alienate that adult, at the very least.

Does any of this make sense to you?
These are all basic facts of life in the world at large.

God does love you,
Don
P.S.
Could we please quit arguing evolution and resume questioning what part of the establishment of science’s poor Public Relations it is that alienates, or irritates or offends people of faith?
thank you, dds

Sorry, I could have sworn I asked and answered the question myself. Not sure where you get that that implies that you implied it.

 

[kbachler]

kbackler,

The topic is not the characteristics of animals. I parry your rhetorical diverting device, and bring my post back to my point, not yours. The topic of my post is the characteristics of humans. Dont’ try to change the subject again.

The topic has been the characteristics of animals ever since I realized that several people seemed to be mistaking the statement that humans are animals. The statement isn’t “humans are animalistic” for example. I clarified earlier in this thread the definition of animals and the meaning of taxonomy. If you think the topic is different, then I’m sorry, you’re the one misunderstanding it. The discussion here is science, so its a science definition, not a literary one, not a spiritual one. That’s the point.

All of your example type arguments compare apples to oranges. I quietly put them aside.
Come to think of it, comparing humans and animals also compares apples to oranges.

Actually they don’t. This is an indication then that you aren’t grasping the argument/examples.

In short, citizen, your arguments don’t touch the topic, and your anonymous statement about the characteristics of animals is not the topic. The topic is the characteristics of humans.

What anonymous statement??

Your rhetorical devices do not change the facts of my comparison. Apes did not design the hides they played with. Probably, some human gave the apes the hides. Which corrupts the experiment. Apes, if the do make knives, do not use knives to skin other animals, so the whole ape with hides report is a transparent flim flam.

The apes ripped hide from dead animals in the video I saw.

It’s people like the ones who gave the apes the hides, that make science look bad to the faithful.

I really wish you would quit assuming the worst in people and lying about people.

kbachler, I have no intention of attacking you nor science.

And yet you just did both? I hope you don’t get intentional about it.

You’re not an authority over me and I’m not an authority over you.

Not sure of the relevance of that statement. I do know more about science though, that’s clear and relevant.

Thank you, for ceasing your personal attacks on my abiltiies…Because of your change in tactics, I am not, repeat not, putting you on my ignore list. I am grateful you have let up on me.

God loves you,
Don

Don, look at your personal attacks in that last post. C’mon.

 

[donsnow]

In your post #232 on page 16 of this thread, the fourth paragraph of your text on that page, the ending sentence reads, “Does that make Darwin an idiot? No.”
That same quote also appears in your quoted text of my post #296 on page 20, same place in your text, “Does that make Darwin an idiot? No.”.

I’ve never termed Darwin an idiot. Why would you ask that, which implies I did?

Your high esteem of Darwin does not undo the harm his works have done to both science and Christendom… But, the man was not an idiot.
A dupe of Uniformtariansist evolution proponents?
Yes.
An idiot?
No.

Back to the OP. Why do churches reject science?
Because the proponents of science tend to beat people over the head with their superiority.
Because science makes a better servant than a master.
Because science has no native authority, but tries to bring an authority which belongs only in Academia into the larger world. A world where science is one establishment among many others. A lot of those other establishments can survive the collapse of science, technology and economics that makes up the present technocracy.

Oh, Ok. Back to the OP.
Because the technocracy usurping our rights and liberties is possible only with science.

And, back to the OP.
All you can teach an adult is what that adult chooses to learn; if an adult’s heart is set on learning astronomy and you try to get that adult’s attention to biology, all you’re going to do is alienate that adult, at the very least.

Does any of this make sense to you?
These are all basic facts of life in the world at large.

God does love you,
Don
P.S.
Could we please quit arguing evolution and resume questioning what part of the establishment of science’s poor Public Relations it is that alienates, or irritates or offends people of faith?
thank you, dds

Sorry, I could have sworn I asked and answer the question myself. Not sure where you get that that implies that you implied it.

Well, kbachler,

So you did. That was my fault, taking that line personally. My sincere apology.

Nevertheless,

I think you haven’t deterred my argument that since people design, manufacture, sell, put on and wear clothes, that humans differ significantly enough from animals that I can say, “Humans are not animals.”

God loves you,
Don

 

[edwest2]

The CHRISTIAN belief system also prefers natural events giving rise to life. Why do you believe that God violates His own laws? I don’t see why you think that has any negative impact on divine revelation.

It most certainly does. Divine revelation is another form of reason, of truth. There is no one size fits all human origins concept. Usually, I see God being pushed to the margins in discussions like this. Science has provided some insight but it is not the complete picture.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Man is a fish? Someone gave me that book about inner fish but I misplaced it.

Well, in a sense man is a fish. Humans are members of the clade of jawed fishes and their descendants, the gnathostomes, as indeed are all tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) as well as lobe finned and ray finned fishes, and sharks and other cartiliginous fishes.

Cladistically humans are (in a series of clades becoming narrower) animals, animals with bilateral symmetry, deuterostomes, chordates, vertebrates, jawed vertebrates, lobe-finned fishes (sarcopterygii), amniotes, synapsids, mammals, primates, catarhinni, great apes, and finally Homo genus

Here’s waving my fin at you

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

I’ve always been partial to Whitehead’s “The Function of Reason” the entire text is available here archive.org/stream/functionofreason031865mbp/functionofreason031865mbp_djvu.txt

Thank you.

Actually, I googled Alfred North Whitehead which led to process philosophy which led nowhere. Your actual quotes from “The Function of Reason” are far more informative.
“The function of Reason is to promote the art of life.” … “In fact the art of life is first to be alive, secondly to be alive in a satisfactory way, and thirdly to acquire an increase in satisfaction.” I did not totally understand the bit about the direction of the attack on the environment." Nonetheless, I now understand why “higher animals” have reason.

I understand the function of reason as being a tool to discern truth.

 

[kbachler]

Thank you.

Actually, I googled Alfred North Whitehead which led to process philosophy which led nowhere. Your actual quotes from “The Function of Reason” are far more informative.
“The function of Reason is to promote the art of life.” … “In fact the art of life is first to be alive, secondly to be alive in a satisfactory way, and thirdly to acquire an increase in satisfaction.” I did not totally understand the bit about the direction of the attack on the environment." Nonetheless, I now understand why “higher animals” have reason.

I understand the function of reason as being a tool to discern truth.

Whitehead would, I believe, agree with your last statement, because to him, truth is"what works." That is, if we say “I postulate that when I let go of this lead ball, that it will float in the air”. I let go, it falls. It’s not truth. If instead I postulate it falls, and it falls, it is truth. It’s that simple. Truth is what works.

Whitehead would say that reason uses truth to promote the art of life.

The definition of his satisfaction is not limited to “tactile” pursuits and can include the spiritual. As you can see from his biography, his family was religious (church of England) and while he was for a time agnostic, he later renewed his belief in God and leaned toward Catholicism, although he did not join any specific church. (Other biographies I’ve seen said that may have been a matter of maintaining family harmony.)

 

[grannymh]

Well, in a sense man is a fish. Humans are members of the clade of jawed fishes and their descendants, the gnathostomes, as indeed are all tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) as well as lobe finned and ray finned fishes, and sharks and other cartiliginous fishes.

Cladistically humans are (in a series of clades becoming narrower) animals, animals with bilateral symmetry, deuterostomes, chordates, vertebrates, jawed vertebrates, lobe-finned fishes (sarcopterygii), amniotes, synapsids, mammals, primates, catarhinni, great apes, and finally Homo genus

Here’s waving my fin at you

Alec
evolutionpages.com

My apology. But as I read that long list, I couldn’t help but sing it to the tune of “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General” adding “I’ve information vegetable, animal, and mineral,” and “I know the scientific names of beings animalculous.”

From fin to fingers

 

[hecd2]

My apology. But as I read that long list, I couldn’t help but sing it to the tune of “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General” adding “I’ve information vegetable, animal, and mineral,” and “I know the scientific names of beings animalculous.”

From fin to fingers

Very good!

Alec
For my military knowledge, though I’m plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;

 

[donsnow]

Are we done with evolution, now?

Can we return to the OP with investigating what it is that science types do to irritate, alienate and other wise separate themselves from the faithful?

 

[kbachler]

Are we done with evolution, now?

Can we return to the OP with investigating what it is that science types do to irritate, alienate and other wise separate themselves from the faithful?

Science types do no more Don, than non-science types that blame them for everything.

 

[kbachler]

It most certainly does. Divine revelation is another form of reason, of truth. There is no one size fits all human origins concept. Usually, I see God being pushed to the margins in discussions like this. Science has provided some insight but it is not the complete picture.

Peace,
Ed

Science doesn’t claim to be the complete picture. That’s the point. If the media, or those who don’t understand science ascribe attributes to it, then the thing to do is to be educated enough to correct that.

The truth should always be one size fits all.

Divine revelation may be a form of truth, it isn’t a form a reason.

 

[grannymh]

Science types do no more Don, than non-science types that blame them for everything.

Pick me up from the floor, kbachler. I am agreeing with you. I was going to say about the same thing and then some.

 

[edwest2]

Science doesn’t claim to be the complete picture. That’s the point. If the media, or those who don’t understand science ascribe attributes to it, then the thing to do is to be educated enough to correct that.

The truth should always be one size fits all.

Divine revelation may be a form of truth, it isn’t a form a reason.

Pope Benedict:

“Science has opened up large dimensions of reason… and thus brought us new insights,” he said. “But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.

“Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[PerfectTiming]

Well, PerfectTiming,

Please tell me what animal has human vocal chords?

Thank you.

God loves you,
Don

I didn’t say we are the same. Even taking humans out of the equation, not everything in the animal kingdom is the same. Many species have incredible mechanisms that are unique to those species. Doesn’t mean they aren’t animals just because they’re not all completely identical. That’s the joy of our world, that there is such variation. I’m sorry but that argument just doesn’t work.

 

[grannymh]

Here is an interesting thought contained in another post – . Science tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.

I bet that the majority of readers
translated that sentence into some form of --Science attacks religion.
I also bet that most readers flew by the word dimensions without a question.
As for the word tends, which is the whole point of the sentence, that was translated into any verb describing an active, on-going battle between good and evil.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Here is an interesting thought contained in another post – . Science tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.

I bet that the majority of readers
translated that sentence into some form of --Science attacks religion.
I also bet that most readers flew by the word dimensions without a question.
As for the word tends, which is the whole point of the sentence, that was translated into any verb describing an active, on-going battle between good and evil.

That’s the point I was originally trying to make though, that science and faith aren’t this opposition and science doesn’t attack religion - people may use it for that purpose but if used correctly faith and science should work alongside one another. It’s like just because I **can ** use a baseball bat to beat someone with doesn’t make baseball bats evil - the evil is the one who wields it incorrectly.

Telling people that science is evil is ignorant - you wouldn’t go around telling someone that mathematics or grammar is evil, it’s just ridiculous. So why do the same with science? They are disciplines dedicated to the study of various phenomenon in our world and each has their merits and flaws.

 

[grannymh]

That’s the point I was originally trying to make though, that science and faith aren’t this opposition and science doesn’t attack religion -

The reason I did not spot the basic science/faith issue until a couple of days ago is that when I landed on CAF, the issue was presented from a different viewpoint. Plus, being out of the intellectual loop for decades, I still have a lot of catching up to do.

if used correctly faith and science should work alongside one another.

That is similar to what St. Thomas Aquinas reasoned. The difficulty is that the phrase “truth cannot contradict truth” has been turned into a cliché often misused on CAF.

It’s like just because I **can **use a baseball bat to beat someone with doesn’t make baseball bats evil - the evil is the one who wields it incorrectly.

This is correct. However, in this information age, it is often the interpreter of science who does the damage.

Telling people that science is evil is ignorant - you wouldn’t go around telling someone that mathematics or grammar is evil, it’s just ridiculous. So why do the same with science? They are disciplines dedicated to the study of various phenomenon in our world and each has their merits and flaws.

Why tell people that science is evil? One possible reason is a personal agenda.

Blessings,
granny

:snowing:

 

[donsnow]

Science types do no more Don, than non-science types that blame them for everything.

Hi, kbachler,

Since we’re discussing the OP again, let me refresh our memories with this reminder:

I’ve been a member of the Christian community on another site for ages now and some of their opinions on science have been increasingly worrying me. They seem to believe science to be this vicious evil and that all science is lies from the Devil, etc. This seems to come from a variety of churches, since there’s no predominant denomination among the community. Without any bias, and with no offence intended to those who do this, I have noticed many of them are home-schooled (how relevant this is is obviously debatable).

Maybe this is just because I’m a scientist by nature but surely teaching children this level of complete enmity and disregard for science is unhealthy and detrimental to them. I’ve heard people talk about how scientists are stupid and it’s all ridiculous. I’m all for teaching children a healthy skepticism and there are aspects of mainstream scientific opinion I am very skeptical about myself but there are also incredibly important teachings that science gives us.

To me it seems wrong for parents or pastors or whoever to be teaching children this but I’m curious to see what other people think.

So, actually, we’re looking at why do some churches teach the bad side of science and why do science types not accept a well meaning critique of the science agenda. Because science does have its good and bad sides.
Just like Protestant churches have their good and bad sides.

Do I have that right?

Now, to refresh myself with kbachler side stepping the imperfections of the science establishment:

Science types do no more Don, than non-science types that blame them for everything.

I am admitting, that some churches are wrong to defame the science establishment of its evil and not at the same time mention that science has its good side.

I have yet to see a science type take responsibility for the shortcomings of the science establishment, and admit that their are ethical and social abuses by the science agenda.
Why is that?

I’m trying to see all the angles of this discussion. How am I doing?
(Please, no more evolution posts. I don’t want us to get shut down.)

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

I didn’t say we are the same. Even taking humans out of the equation, not everything in the animal kingdom is the same. Many species have incredible mechanisms that are unique to those species. Doesn’t mean they aren’t animals just because they’re not all completely identical. That’s the joy of our world, that there is such variation. I’m sorry but that argument just doesn’t work.

Okedoke, PerfectTiming,

I have yet to see any argument presenting humans as animals that works for me, either.

God loves you,
Don