Subject:
|
Evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Mar 2000 03:25:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
749 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > Evolution itself simply isn't under question in the scientific community.
>
> I have read numerous articles over the years that state that a large number of
> scienists concede that there must be an Architect.
Printed where? Were they sociological studies of the religious beliefs of
professional scientists, or were they annecdotes of certain scientists who had
some Christian coworkers? What is a large number? Is it in the hundreds or
the thousands?
> but they admit that there is too much order to be accidental. Unfortunately, I
> don't have references.
Well, that's rather inconvenient. The scientists and authors (not always the
same) that I like to read have no problem believing that spontaneous order over
a few billion years could account for everything we see today.
> >
> > The age of the universe is extrapolated to be vaguely around 25-30 billion
> > years old, not 300-400 billion. Our sun is somewhere around 5 billion years
> > old (again, the conventional wisdom).
>
> There is much evidence that states that the earth must be much younger.
I suppose that here again, you "don't have references?"
> History, geology and biology are very supportive of creationism. I can
> eloborate if necessary.
Oh good. Please do.
> Do you honestly think that the development of the
> evolutionary theory had nothing to do with Darwin and his bunch despising
> religion - they were far from objective scientists who stumbled across a
truth.
Well...yes! Until just now, I've never heard anything suggesting that Darwin
"and his bunch" despised religion.
> I'm not advocating that either. Yet as I said, atheism...is
> as much a religion...
As what? Atheism isn't really a religion in any meaningful way. To me, a
religion provides a code of how to live, and a supernatural framwork inside
which the natural world fits. Atheism does neither. Let's check some
dictionaries to see what they say...
Webster's says that atheism is "the disbelief or denial of the existence of a
God, or supreme intelligent Being," so I know that I'm in line with the
normally accepted meaning. And American Heritage says that a religion is
1.
a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual
leader.
4.A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
So only in the last (and weakest) sense could atheism be considered for some to
be a religion.
> > don't impose your religion on me. [examples of how this might
> > be done, snipped] Don't establish a state religion.
>
> No one has ever done these things,
Umm....
What do you mean here? Surely you don't mean that people haven't imposed
religion on non-believers..? And you don't mean that state religions haven't
existed...right? As a child in a progresive public school in southern
california, I was expected to pledge my allegiance to a "nation under God" -
whatever that means. I consider this a very mild form of religious imposition.
> [Religion is] relegated to superstition.
And?
> Not everything can be proven or demonstrated scientifically.
Nothing can be proven scientifically. Proving things is NOT a part of the
paradigm of science. Disproving things is. Since it's possible.
> Science is morally vacuous.
That's good. I wish it were more so. It is inane that reproductive
biologists are holding back obvious avenues of research because
the short-sighted public is told to be afraid of some new advances. It is
because science doesn't work with morality at all that it can go about its
business more effectively.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) I agree and have said nothing to the contrary. (...) Very true, but not all "pilgrims" were puritans. (...) It was far more than that, and the greek bible had little to do with Greek Orthodoxy at this point in time. The ante-nicene and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
