Evolution Question... please enlighten me!

[_JAK]

Roger and Some Schmo,

Thank you for your kind words!

[_The Nehor]

Roger and Some Schmo,

Thank you for your kind words!

I also compliment the writer. So which website did you get it from?

[_dartagnan]

Historically, “the fear of science” is borne as “threat” to contentions made prior to the intellect of the scientific mind – the mind of genuine inquiry.

There is no religious fear of science. This is an invention out of necessity by idiots and bigots from the atheistic camp. This is proved by the fact that modern science owes so much of what is has accomplishged, to organized religion. The major leaps in scientific advancement in the pst five hundred years have come mostly from religious Christians who pursued knowledge of the rational world because Christianity teaches that the universe is governed by laws that can be known.

JAK is an idiot who likes to rant a lot, but never backs up anything he says with evidence.

Further complicating the matter for religions is the continuous need to revise interpretations making those interpretations comply with known, accepted evidence (science). That’s a “threat” to the preeminent posture of religion which is stuck with wording not subject to rapid revision. That said, we have had many biblical translations which have tried to make the words more reflective of changed interpretation.

More idiocy. Nobody, even liberal theologians and Bible scholars, believe for a second that the science of hermeneutics is a response to scientific advancement. Religious scholars are constantly trying to ascertain what it was that the original authors meant to convey in the Bible. None of this has anything to do with a mysterious battle against science. This is just idiotic.

Yet, we have religious groups which remain rooted to that first translation that enjoyed the benefits of the printing press (the 1611 A.D. King James Version). Some later translations offered the devout some wiggle room with regard to meaning.

Again, this isn't about wiggle room. Notice that JAK cannot provide a single example where a modern Bible translation of any given scripture, conforms better to something science has discovered. And to be sure, thousands of variant translations have been made, and we're to believe in every instance a scientific claim was intended to be met?
I can't say it enough. This guy is an idiot.

Now Roger, you seemed to have completely missed the point...

I think most serious people choose a career with a purpose in mind. Don't you?

Yes, When I entered the field of computers it was to understand everything I could about them. I didn't go in with the intention to use computer science to disprove God.

Especially scientists who dedicate themselves to remedying and improving conditions in their fields of study and expertice.

Fine, but people who enter into science with the stated goal to discredit religion, proves from the outset that they are not going to be properly operating as scientists should. Scientists should rely on eidence and follow it where it leads. These guys are beginning with a conclusion and interpreting evidences accordingly.

It appears you do not respect the honesty and integrity of scientists stating their case with candor. When missionaries, of every stripe, go-into-the-world, is it not with the purpose of changing thought and behavior of those they can convince of "their" truth?

You're missing the point.Yo should enter any field of study with the intention to learn. These guys went in with the presumption os knowledge already had, and they sought to use science for their own bigoted purposes.

Do you, Dart, have "malicious purposes" (your words) confronting scientists, and/or atheists in the debate being lost by religios??

There is no losing debate.

You seem to be void of the objectivity you expect from others??? Or am I wrong in that???

Entering a debate with a stated goal is something entirely different from entering a field of study with the goal of reinforcing one's own presuppositions of bigotry.These guys didn't study science and learn that religon was false. Instead they began with this bigotry and chose to enter science only to make their initial position seem more legit or authoritative. This is like John Gee entering Egyptology just so Mormons can say, hey there is an Egyptologist who believes in the Book of Abraham. He and Brian Hauglid clearly entered the field to become apologists, not because they had a serious thirst for knowledge on all things egyptological. The same is true for David Bokovoy, who was trying out his apologetic shoes before he even graduated.

[_Roger Morrison]

Dart, below is from your post. My first thought was to ignore it. The reason being I have found it, generally speaking, unproductive to discuss with persons who refer to others as "idiots" etc. Your attacks on JAK (and others) says more about you than him/them...

Nor do I like the term "debate" which suggests to me a competion, and a win/loser consequence of exchanging ideas. However, out of respect of the fact you did address me below, I'll attempt some measure of clarification in this...


Now Roger, you seemed to have completely missed the point... I don't think so. I do not have any trouble accepting the fact that some scientists express an overt objection to religion. You are the one with that problem... So be it...

Quote:
I think most serious people choose a career with a purpose in mind. Don't you?

Yes, When I entered the field of computers it was to understand everything I could about them. I didn't go in with the intention to use computer science to disprove God. That's you, not them...

Quote:
Especially scientists who dedicate themselves to remedying and improving conditions in their fields of study and expertice.

Fine, but people who enter into science with the stated goal to discredit religion, proves from the outset that they are not going to be properly operating as scientists should. In your opinion... Scientists should rely on eidence and follow it where it leads. Those who choose their path to discredit religion consider themselves doing that. That [color=#BF0000]some religious types seem threatened by that is to be expected. OTOH, others consider the light that science sheds on religion and move forward with it. [/color] These guys ?are beginning with a conclusion and interpreting evidences accordingly.

(I think I might have messed up the color thing? Please forgive :-)

Quote:
It appears you do not respect the honesty and integrity of scientists stating their case with candor. When missionaries, of every stripe, go-into-the-world, is it not with the purpose of changing thought and behavior of those they can convince of "their" truth?

You're missing the point.Try to stick with the subject. Which is, as I understand it, the effect that science has had on the religionist's understanding of "God"... Yo should enter any field of study with the intention to learn. These guys?? went in with the presumption os knowledge already had, and they sought to use science for their own bigoted?? purposes.


Quote:
Do you, Dart, have "malicious purposes" (your words) confronting scientists, and/or atheists in the debate being lost by religios??

There is no losing debate. You might be correct. However, many believers are questioning biblical-literacy and no longer see Genesis as other than legend. To the extent that more Churches are backing off of Adam's-rib, The Universal flood, the Big-fish, the Tower of Babel, a Guiding star, the Fall & Redemption, etc and appreciating them as mythology. (Unfortunately LDSism is not one of them.) Personally, I think that is a good thing for churches to move with science. You are welcome to your beliefs as well..

Quote:
You seem to be void of the objectivity you expect from others??? Or am I wrong in that???

Entering a debate with a stated goal is something entirely different from entering a field of study with the goal of reinforcing one's own presuppositions of bigotry.These guys didn't study science and learn that religon was false. Instead they began with this bigotry and chose to enter science only to make their initial position seem more legit or authoritative. This is like John Gee entering Egyptology just so Mormons can say, hey there is an Egyptologist who believes in the Book of Abraham. He and Brian Hauglid clearly entered the field to become apologists, not because they had a serious thirst for knowledge on all things egyptological. The same is true for David Bokovoy, who was trying out his apologetic shoes before he even graduated. As you wish it to be, Bro...

Dart, we are obviously on opposite sides of the "God" question. Or possibly our understanding of that term is more in question? You know, "...a rose by any name..."
Roger
*
*

[_JAK]

Dart,

First, in this post, I responded with support for Roger Morrison’s observation that:
“I think most serious people choose a career with a purpose in mind. Don't you?”

The six “Perspective” references which I made were in support of what Roger had observed and asked. Most of those references addressed reason for choice of a career in science. It was documentation about which Roger and I seemed in agreement.

Second, in response to your comments:

JAK stated:
“Historically, “the fear of science” is borne as “threat” to contentions made prior to the intellect of the scientific mind – the mind of genuine inquiry.”

You quoted that.

In addition, there was much more to the analysis in that post.

Dart stated:
“There is no religious fear of science.”

Evidence does not support the assertion. Science ignores religious commentary, interpretation, and assertion. Religion does fear being ignored. Religion does fear being contradicted. With skeptical scrutiny, science explores and investigates what it finds. Its tentative conclusions are open to be re-visited if evidence warrants further examination.

Religion, on the other hand, does not regard its conclusions as tentative, but rather, it tends to regard them as absolute. When information and evidence demonstrate religious dogma to be unreliable or false, religion tends to place different spins on the same ancient scripts in an attempt to make them compatible with scientifically established information. Or, religion denies the information/evidence which science has discovered.

To say, “Christianity teaches that the universe is governed by laws,” as you do, is incorrect. Christian groups number at least 1,000. There is no biblical reference to “the universe” in the King James Version of the Bible. There is no biblical reference to “the universe is governed by laws” in that same version. Those separate Christian groups not only have differing dogmas, they do not generally make reference to “the universe” or to “governed by laws” as applied to “the universe.”

These various groups focus on such doctrines as God’s intervention (miracle or revenge), eternal life, how to get to heaven, hell, and the wrath of God terminating not only individual lives but countless lives (genocide). Religious dogmas tend to be a victim of science. It is not because science has intent to attack religious dogmas. Rather, it is because science ignores religious dogmas and pursues information and evidence as it discovers those. Religious dogmas must accommodate science. It is never the other way around.

It is science, then, which has focused on “the universe” and on understanding the “laws” of that universe. Galileo was not supported by Christianity, he was opposed by it. Darwin was not supported by Christianity, he was opposed by it. Proponents of intelligent design, a euphemism for God, oppose science. Religion has opposed medical science such as embryonic stem-cell research. That research is science. It’s quite incorrect to consider that “major leaps in scientific advancement…” have occurred as a result of Christianity. To the contrary, they have occurred in spite of the many road-blocks which particularly conservative Christianity has implemented to impede science. Such Christians seek to place into law and into education road-blocks to scientific inquiry.

The next partial quote from the original was from JAK:

“Further complicating the matter for religions is the continuous need to revise interpretations making those interpretations comply with known, accepted evidence (science). That’s a “threat” to the preeminent posture of religion which is stuck with wording not subject to rapid revision. That said, we have had many biblical translations which have tried to make the words more reflective of changed interpretation.”

Dart’s response:

“More idiocy. Nobody, even liberal theologians and Bible scholars, believe for a second that the science of hermeneutics is a response to scientific advancement. Religious scholars are constantly trying to ascertain what it was that the original authors meant to convey in the Bible. None of this has anything to do with a mysterious battle against science. This is just idiotic.”

JAK:
Since the Bible is a closed book, various competing pundits use that collection of books (the Bible) to push their agendas, enlarge their contributors, and at the same time appear to connect with the rational mind. Since these many Christian groups don’t agree, they rely on claims. They insist that their claims are superior to the claims of others (who also rely on the Bible or other sacred scripts). None of that is connected with science as I referenced it in Perspectives or in this discussion.

There is no refutation or evidence presented to oppose the above quote regarding the need for religions “…to revise interpretations making those interpretations comply with known, accepted evidence (science).” There is no refutation presented to “…many biblical translations…” The multiplicity of Christian groups which compete for position and power is evidence that these religious groups lack the consensus enjoyed by science and scientists.

Bible Gateway offers more than a dozen Bible versions in English. Religious pundits engage in competition as they issue contradictory dogmas regarding what the Bible says. Religious groups tend to be confrontational to other religious groups. As I observed, many of these religious groups oppose the inquiry which is made by science.

Religion is supportive of information (science) only in so far as that information does not challenge or refute religious claims. Generally, the more conservative and fundamentalist the religion, the more it is threatened by science and exploration and expansion of information which directly or tangentially contradicts a religious dogma.

JAK

[_Some Schmo]

Dart stated:
“There is no religious fear of science.”

So you have to wonder why, Jak, he keeps defending religious ideas in the face of science. I mean, why did he start this thread if not to complain about science's treatment of religious ideas? If there's no fear, why does he feel the need to debate about it?

*chuckles*

It because dart thinks he's one of the Blues Brothers; he's on a mission from god. That explains why we keep getting this obnoxious song and dance from him.