Evolution Question... please enlighten me!

[_dartagnan]

I'm not disagreeing with evolution, since there is a mountain of evidence in its favor.

I'm guessing that wasn't supposed to be a serious question.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think this discussion is more appropriate for the materialism thread. See you over there.

[_Some Schmo]

Mice in Indonesia or bears in Alaska? LMAO... wow. You know, we do all come from a common ancestor...

Oh, forget it.

I was about to reply to your ignorance based comments, but I don't see the payoff. It's not worth it. I'm sure you're the only one actually convinced by your own silliness (and if others are, I pity them), so I'll just let you think I don't have any retort. You're going to think that anyway, no matter what, so why bother with the effort?

You're just not that bright, man. Oh well.

*shrug*

I will admit, however, you again supplied a good laugh in a few places. At least you got that going for ya.

[_Roger Morrison]

Dart posted: (I'm in this)

"I went into science because of these religious reasons, there's no doubt about that. I asked myself what were the things that apear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs." Up-front, and honest.

Physicist Steven Weinberg, another outspoken atheist has stated the same overt bias, How about reason and purpose???


"the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious beliefs and I am all for that... I think it may be the most important contribution we can make.. Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization...this is one of the things that in fact has driven me in my life"

My question is how do people who admittedly go into science with a sociological agenda in mind, expect their conclusions to be taken as objective and science-based? They are using science for their own malicious purposes. Is ths supposed to be a respectable use of science?

I think most serious people choose a career with a purpose in mind. Don't you? Especially scientists who dedicate themselves to remedying and improving conditions in their fields of study and expertice.

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?

Do you, Dart, have "malicious purposes" (your words) confronting scientists, and/or atheists in the debate being lost by religios?? You seem to be void of the objectivity you expect from others??? Or am I wrong in that???
Roger...
*
*

[_JAK]

Roger,

Some thoughts on why “serious people choose a career” in science.

Perspective 1

Perspective 2

Perspective 3

Perspective 4

Perspective 5

Perspective 6

The above perspectives are but a few comments which address your points of observation.

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger,

Some thoughts on why “serious people choose a career” in science.

Perspective 1

Perspective 2

Perspective 3

Perspective 4

Perspective 5

Perspective 6

The above perspectives are but a few comments which address your points of observation.

Thanks JAK, yeah, that's getting Science into perspective. Good readings...

I have difficulty relating to the fear of science, and its threat to the goodness of humanity... What is wrong with informing people of the [i]wrongs of religion[/i] in general? And, Judeo-Christianity in particular?

WHAT INSTITUTION IS WITHOUT WRONGS??? Becoming aware of, admiting to them and correcting them simply advances one/us into higher realms of knowledge & righteousness as we address life's challenges...
Roger
*
*

[_JAK]

Roger,

Of course I agree with your inquiry here. 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. Perhaps only the liberals still in religion can begin to address “wrongs of religion” (as you state). And such individuals are also a “threat” to religion. They ask penetrating questions which expose the lack of consistency and the absence of evidence for intellectual support of the absolute positions which religions attempt to make.

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. 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.

Another aspect of this is that science relies on emerging information. Like the pieces of a puzzle, science seeks to understand how things fit. It does not merely assert they fit as we say. Hence, conclusions of science have been tentative. The more evidence supporting the conclusions makes the conclusions more reliable and they fit. That in no way suggests to science that new evidence will not emerge. The open door (open mind) to new countervailing information (evidence) gives scientists flexibility which religion does not have. The book is closed, as it were, on evidence in religion.

All this makes science a threat to religion. Nevertheless, with repressive laws or suppressed access to new information, religion is also a threat to science. For example, consider the repression of inquiry on science into stem-cell research or renewable energy.

In addition, science generally ignores religions. It goes where the evidence leads. That’s a threat to religion. Science examines that which religion can only address by interpretation of its static scripts. Religions have no stated scripts on germs or cells or microscopic living organisms. Religions make claims about God. The religious scripts about the heavens and the earth were not constructed by people who knew about even our own small solar system, let alone the size and scope of what science can now tell us in regard to a universe of billions and billions of stars. It is inevitable that conclusions declared before information will be wrong. Science regards religious conclusions as irrelevant. Religion does not take kindly to be regarded as irrelevant. That is particularly the case when religion puts all it eggs in one basket.

On a positive side of this is the plethora of religious contradictions. The lack of consensus in religion compared with consensus in science has resulted in the fracturing of religion. One attack on science is to hold up the argument that: Scientists don’t agree. But the argument is shallow. Science agrees. Your computer works because of applied science upon which there is consensus. Medical science is making advances continuously in the diagnosis and treatment of illness. There is consensus. Our highways and bridges and system of interconnecting our specifics of transportation are all a result of consensus science (applied science).

While today roads are hardly the focus of religious opposition, they once were by those who saw God’s land for growing crops destroyed by the invention and continuous innovation of motorized transportation. The Amish (a religious group) still today opposes the automobile. However, they drive their horses and buggies on the very roads they opposed. They are willing to ride in cars and vans paying a driver (since it would be morally wrong for them to own or to drive). Some Amish use gasoline generators to power milking machines, yet refuse to use tractors and farm their land by horse-drawn implements.

Their religious beliefs are threatened by the result of science and innovation. In Pennsylvania and some other states, Amish girls work in shops selling Amish-made furniture. But, they make use of electricity as they take phone calls, swipe credit cards, etc. Then, they go home by horse and buggy. Home has no electricity. In the case of the Amish, many young people see a brighter future than their religion affords. And like other groups formed since the great schism of the Protestant Reformation (beginning in 1517 A.D.), some Amish convert to Mennonite which allow the use of electricity (appliances) and cars. So the generational change will see gradual change in notions of religious absolutes.

Even so, science remains a continuous threat to religion and that threat is not restricted to the Amish. G.W. Bush opposed embryonic stem-cell research on grounds of religion. The religious-right (along with a conservative Supreme Court) influenced, if it did not control the mind-set of G.W. Bush, a religious conservative.

B. Obama has now relaxed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research. He voted for “The Stem-cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.” That was vetoed by G.W. Bush. At the time of the Bush presidency, that act would have allowed for scientific research on discarded human embryos by fertility clinics. As a result of that veto, medical science was restricted by the power of the religious right. It was a threat by religion against the investigation which could have been done by medical science. One thing that happened was that research was simply done in other countries which were more scientifically progressive. Some American scientists moved to where they could continue their work (scientific research) toward treatment and even possible prevention of such diseases as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Those medical scientists were attempting to “address life’s challenges” as your comment above affirms should be done.

There is a great divide in the USA at least between those who favor information and education taking us where it can and those who favor restriction on such pursuits of information. Schools, for example, which have prohibited the teaching of evolution in science classes are among those who are determined to stifle free access to information – the most complete information which is available as a result of science. To argue that science makes errors as a mandate to muzzle inquiry is the focus of some religious groups. They want to repress what may be discovered.

What may be discovered is perceived as an inherent threat and risk to religious dogma. While it would “advance one/us to higher realms of knowledge…” as you observe, it is nevertheless a threat to religious dogma. Some individuals favor reducing funding for education because they know that a high focus of education today is on math and science. Science does not promulgate or disseminate the doctrines of religion. It ignores such doctrines.

There are two great threats science presents. One is ignoring religious dogma. The other is providing information which is in stark contradiction to religious dogma.

It’s nice talking with you, Roger.

JAK

[_ludwigm]

We know humans act consciously during sex.

Yes, there are such humans, but only a few of them.

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, it's nice talking with You too. You are a an obvious centre of knowledge and information to "...those with ears to hear & eyes to see..." All said and done without meaness and/or sarcasm to those with whom you disagree. Nice if they c/would reciprocate in kind...

I copied your above post & emailed it to myself. If that worked, I'll forward it to a few friends--on both sides of the question--for their thoughts.

It's may seem rather dichotomous, but hearkening back to Joseph Smith, when I "...work it (science&religion) out in my own mind..." (Joseph Smith) I am compelled to think/believe/understand that science grew from some early religious-type minds that were seeking answers to life's wonders and worries, before the field of Science saw a shovel...

This should be clear to unfettered minds. Unfortunately indoctrination, acculturation and dogmatism administered in authoritarian environments by power wielders, be they political or theological, did/does its evil deed and stifled(s) the "...truth that makes free..." (JC)

While I am personally impatient, I am confident (know:-) that "truth" will expand and eventually humanity will live in peace and respect of each other--in mortality. (There is no Heaven, as imagined.) It took 500 years for a Black Man to Trump Caucasion Supremacy in America. A mere nanosecond in history... Another few nanosecs and intelligence will prevail. After all intelligence is said to be, "...the glory of "God"..."

How can really-genuine-theists believe that "God" will fail, while atheistic nonbelievers have confidence in the human species that "God" created??? Beats me...
Good to be with you JAK...
Roger
*
*

[_Some Schmo]

Roger,

Of course I agree with your inquiry here. 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. Perhaps only the liberals still in religion can begin to address “wrongs of religion” (as you state). And such individuals are also a “threat” to religion. They ask penetrating questions which expose the lack of consistency and the absence of evidence for intellectual support of the absolute positions which religions attempt to make...

What an excellent post, Jak. I thoroughly enjoyed that.