The earth is only 6000 years old.

[edwest2]

And here, it appears that only the lack of a belief regarding the age of the earth is of any consequence. There are young people who lack basic skills upon entering their first year of college. Only a low percentage of the population knows how to read.

By no means is science the only educational deficiency of consequence; it’s just the only topic of this thread. As far as the lack of basic skills in college freshman, believe me I know this! I work in academia and not a day goes by when I don’t meet college freshmen who can’t read or write at the level of a 6th grader.

Religion is not usually against science, but I see people quoting this or that Pope regarding science. Why is that? Isn’t the scientific data able to stand on its own without the endorsement of religious leaders? Apparently not

Scientific data certainly can stand on its own. But when religious leaders deny that data and forbid their congregations to accept the data, people back down because their fear of hell is stronger than their need for scientific truth. Even Galileo backed down when threatened by the Inquisition.

And people today, especially in the United States, are properly concerned for their children since anti-theist scientists appear on TV and use science to eliminate God.
This is self-defense on the part of the scientists. Religious leaders should remember a saying popular with the children: Don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.

Self-defense on the part of scientists? Please explain the following which I heard from Richard Dawkins on TV: “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” What is he defending? He is using the same ‘mountains of evidence’ to draw the conclusion that god/gods can be discarded. He is abusing his position and title to promote anti-theism. Everyone should be properly concerned by this assault on religion using science.

I can offer a PZ Myers youtube interview that is even more explicit in this regard.

What is scientific truth today? It honestly appears to me that if science can be manipulated and money can be made, then it will. The whole global warming hysteria is receding thanks to some leaks.

Religious leaders should be concerned about paganism and hedonism in the media and the manipulation of science, especially when it used, especially recently, to promote the idea that no god/gods brought us here. Should they ignore God Is Not Great and other books promoting disbelief? The God Delusion? Sam Harris has written a few incendiary articles as well.

As long as this continues, it is evidence of a clear trend.

Peace,
Ed

 

[aspirant]

Richard Dawkins… He is abusing his position and title to promote anti-theism. Everyone should be properly concerned by this assault on religion using science.

He’s not using science, but (as you rightly said yourself) abusing it. We should be no more inclined to hold Dawkins’ philosophical errors against all scientists than we should be to hold the scientific errors of special creationists against all religious people.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Self-defense on the part of scientists? Please explain the following which I heard from Richard Dawkins on TV: “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” What is he defending? He is using the same ‘mountains of evidence’ to draw the conclusion that god/gods can be discarded. He is abusing his position and title to promote anti-theism. Everyone should be properly concerned by this assault on religion using science.

I can offer a PZ Myers youtube interview that is even more explicit in this regard.

What is scientific truth today? It honestly appears to me that if science can be manipulated and money can be made, then it will. The whole global warming hysteria is receding thanks to some leaks.

Religious leaders should be concerned about paganism and hedonism in the media and the manipulation of science, especially when it used, especially recently, to promote the idea that no god/gods brought us here. Should they ignore God Is Not Great and other books promoting disbelief? The God Delusion? Sam Harris has written a few incendiary articles as well.

As long as this continues, it is evidence of a clear trend.

Peace,
Ed

Dawkins is a scientist whose science was attacked by religious leaders. That is why he took to writing against religion. If you read the first chapter (for free on his website) of his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he explains why he writes against religion. In short, he would prefer to just do science; however, he is constantly called upon to defend science against religion. I think the analogy he uses in that chapter makes his point quite nicely. He said: Imagine if you are teaching a class on ancient Rome and someone started to complain that ancient Rome never existed. Then, instead of doing your job of teaching about ancient Rome, you’d have to spend your time proving to your class that ancient Rome did indeed exist. All that time would be hijacked from teaching what you were actually there to teach!

The God Delusion is Dawkins fighting back against religious leaders who deny evolutionary biology. Again, Dawkins didn’t start this fight. He’s just an evolutionary biologist defending himself from those who complain that there’s no such thing as evolutionary biology. The things he says about religion in *The God Delusion *are no meaner than the things religious leaders say about his science. Fair is fair.

I can’t comment on Sam Harris; I’ve haven’t read him.

 

[edwest2]

He’s not using science, but (as you rightly said yourself) abusing it. We should be no more inclined to hold Dawkins’ philosophical errors against all scientists than we should be to hold the scientific errors of special creationists against all religious people.

I work in the media. The current trend? Religion bashing. Please explain the billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Peace,
Ed

 

[aspirant]

Please explain the billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

It’s nonsense written by someone who understands neither science nor religion. The existence of such nonsense is certainly not a legitimate excuse to prevent people from learning what science an religion actually teach-- just the opposite. The existence of a billboard like this proves people desperately need their bad ideas about science and religion corrected.

 

[edwest2]

Dawkins is a scientist whose science was attacked by religious leaders. That is why he took to writing against religion. If you read the first chapter (for free on his website) of his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he explains why he writes against religion. In short, he would prefer to just do science; however, he is constantly called upon to defend science against religion. I think the analogy he uses in that chapter makes his point quite nicely. He said: Imagine if you are teaching a class on ancient Rome and someone started to complain that ancient Rome never existed. Then, instead of doing your job of teaching about ancient Rome, you’d have to spend your time proving to your class that ancient Rome did indeed exist. All that time would be hijacked from teaching what you were actually there to teach!

The God Delusion is Dawkins fighting back against religious leaders who deny evolutionary biology. Again, Dawkins didn’t start this fight. He’s just an evolutionary biologist defending himself from those who complain that there’s no such thing as evolutionary biology. The things he says about religion in *The God Delusion *are no meaner than the things religious leaders say about his science. Fair is fair.

I can’t comment on Sam Harris; I’ve haven’t read him.

So what if religious leaders deny evolutionary biology? What? Priests and nuns actually block the entrances to science labs, or Southern Baptists?

I’ve been reading the current assault articles against religion. The hand wringing that so many in America don’t believe in evolution as if this ‘problem’ surfaced last week or a few years ago. Great-great-great grandparents didn’t believe and passed it on to their children. Yet, the emotional tone of the articles clearly say that this country will face Armageddon if this disbelief in evolutionary biology continues. No more Blackberry apps, no progress anywhere. It will be worse than terrible.

It would be laughable but that’s what’s being presented as fact. Disbelieving in science will doom us all. Give me a break.

So religious leaders are right to tell their congregations to look askance at some of the conclusions being made by scientists today. They know there is a philosophical bias involved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It’s nonsense written by someone who understands neither science nor religion. The existence of such nonsense is certainly not a legitimate excuse to prevent people from learning what science an religion actually teach-- just the opposite. The existence of a billboard like this proves people desperately need their bad ideas about science and religion corrected.

It’s getting heavy rotation in many different forms, globally, right now. All Christians should notice and understand what all this means. It is a promotion for a value neutral and religion neutral environment.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SugarMagnolia]

So what if religious leaders deny evolutionary biology? What? Priests and nuns actually block the entrances to science labs, or Southern Baptists?

I’ve been reading the current assault articles against religion. The hand wringing that so many in America don’t believe in evolution as if this ‘problem’ surfaced last week or a few years ago. Great-great-great grandparents didn’t believe and passed it on to their children. Yet, the emotional tone of the articles clearly say that this country will face Armageddon if this disbelief in evolutionary biology continues. No more Blackberry apps, no progress anywhere. It will be worse than terrible.

It would be laughable but that’s what’s being presented as fact. Disbelieving in science will doom us all. Give me a break.

So religious leaders are right to tell their congregations to look askance at some of the conclusions being made by scientists today. They know there is a philosophical bias involved.

Peace,
Ed

So what if religious leaders deny evolutionary biology? What? Priests and nuns actually block the entrances to science labs, or Southern Baptists?

Priests and nuns are not the problem. The Catholic Church does not deny evolution. It’s the Fundamentalist Protestants who deny evolution. And no, they aren’t blocking the entrances to science labs; they’re blocking the education of children.

 

[edwest2]

What does the Catholic Church affirm about this theory?

No. The education of children is not being blocked. Even Catholics are allowed to believe or disbelieve, but here, and in the media, that is not an option. Why? I submit the reason is purely ideological. It would be of great value for Christians to believe we are just animals, nothing special and made by nothing. That is the opposite of Catholic teaching regarding this subject.

And the Biology textbook does affirm that. Such conclusions are beyond the capabilities of science as currently practiced, to affirm.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Dawkins is a scientist whose science was attacked by religious leaders. That is why he took to writing against religion. If you read the first chapter (for free on his website) of his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he explains why he writes against religion. In short, he would prefer to just do science; however, he is constantly called upon to defend science against religion. I think the analogy he uses in that chapter makes his point quite nicely. He said: Imagine if you are teaching a class on ancient Rome and someone started to complain that ancient Rome never existed. Then, instead of doing your job of teaching about ancient Rome, you’d have to spend your time proving to your class that ancient Rome did indeed exist. All that time would be hijacked from teaching what you were actually there to teach!

The God Delusion is Dawkins fighting back against religious leaders who deny evolutionary biology. Again, Dawkins didn’t start this fight. He’s just an evolutionary biologist defending himself from those who complain that there’s no such thing as evolutionary biology. The things he says about religion in *The God Delusion *are no meaner than the things religious leaders say about his science. Fair is fair.

I can’t comment on Sam Harris; I’ve haven’t read him.

One should not fight error with error. “The God Delusion” reveals just how little that is accurate which Dawkins knows about religion and history in general. He is completely out of his element when he criticizes religion. I will recommend to you The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister McGrath and Joanna McGrath. I read the book just last week and I am in agreement with almost everything the authors have to say.

 

[aspirant]

I will recommend to you The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister McGrath and Joanna McGrath.

The title reminded me of this hilarious video.

 

[eucharisteo]

The standard degree for ordination in mainline Protestant churches (Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, et.) is the Master of Divinity, which takes 3-4 years on top of a 4 year bachelor degree. Many Protestant pastors have continuing education beyond that, including D.Min. and PhD degrees.

This is true even in small ecclesial communities like the church of Christ. My brother-in-law is a preacher, well 2 of them, and the one has 2 or 3 graduate degrees. That doesn’t make them scientists. But being a sceintist and having studied both creation and evolution, its NOT a salvation issue . I hold the creation because I accept God as the creator. If you’re any kind of Christian then you too should hold of this same believe. But the age of the earth. Hmm that’s a different question. A day is a year and a thousand years is a day. Why not a couple of billion years is a day? Works for me. My resolution on this issue to avoid the dumb arguments for bretheren is to accept that God can make a Virgin pregnant, why can’t he make the universe just the way we see it today? It’s His universe to do whatever he wants. Newton’s world can still hold true.

 

[itinerant1]

I work in the media. The current trend? Religion bashing. Please explain the billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Peace,
Ed

Anyone with a few bucks to throw around can create a billboard ad. So I don’t think we need to debate billboards…or bumper stickers. I have seen many fairly stupid Christian fundamentalist bumper stickers in my day.

And there are billboards that say “Christ is the Answer”. I should put up a billboard next to one of these that asks, “What is the Question?”

After all if one is a bachelor and wants to know how to improve his sex life, then Christ is not the answer.

 

[itinerant1]

The title reminded me of this hilarious video.

Dr. Tommyrot made my day!

 

[StAnastasia]

But being a sceintist and having studied both creation and evolution,.

They are not even in the same category. Creation is a theological claim, while evolution is a scientific explanation.

 

[itinerant1]

They are not even in the same category. Creation is a theological claim, while evolution is a scientific explanation.

Most correct. A very important distinction.

 

[Dokimas]

The problem with “teach all sides” in science class is the advocates of this approach want equal time for views that are not science. (Doki: If you think there is no science that points to a ‘young earth’ you’re wrong.) “Teach all sides” would not constitute a teaching of competing scientific theories. For instance, “creation science” is not science (Doki: you’ve obvously not read good creation science writings.), and so it has no place in the science curriculum as a competing scientific viewpoint.

Furthermore, presenting “creation science” would just confuse the students as to the nature and methods of the natural sciences. (Doki: most present day science were started by those who believed in the Creator; I believe it was Kepler who said that his scientific discovers where him ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him’.)

For those who believe there are ideological problems with neo-Darwinism, all I will say here is I maintain that promoting the flawed ideas of fundamentalist creationism or Intelligent Design theory is not the solution. (Doki: you are welcome to have your most likely wrong opinion.)

 

[Dokimas]

As you can see even Catholics have a very wide and differing point of view on this subject. What can be discerned of this is that the church has not made a clear teching on this as they are not in the business of declaring scientific proclamation. All that truly matters is that God Created us in his image, how he did it is only a guessing game.

Peace!

As I’ve tried to point out, the CC isn’t as unified as some of you make it out to be.

 

[Dokimas]

Not true – evolution is predictive. It predicted the discovery of Tiktaalik, and it predicts the evolution of the flu and of bacteria. It is quite testable.

Are you saying that new DNA (or in the case of the flu - RNA) have so changed that there is something that wasn’t there that came into existance?​

BTW, the ‘evolution’ of bacterial is TOTALLY different than one cell to human. It’s also very different than saying ‘science’ has proven the Big Bang.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

I submit that all this supposed concern over science is not about science at all but about promoting a worldview – an anti-theistic worldview.

Tell that to someone like Kenneth Miller. I’m sure he’d get a chuckle out of it.