Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush Remarks Roil Debate Over Teaching Evolution
Topic Started: Aug 3 2005, 08:23 AM (968 Views)
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 09:00 PM
Actually, that is not an anti-Christian comment. I said religion. So it must be an anti-religious comment. It applies to all religions. You can interpret it that way if you like. Realize though, I am a spiritual person. :)

I know you are which is why your comment so amazed me!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I take religion with a grain of salt just as I take science. I understand that the people who wrote that material had no understanding of how nature and the universe around them operated.

Similarly, I understand that not all scientific knowledge is absolute, and a sceintist will be the first one to tell you that. But it's the best and most accurate way we have of interpreting our surroundings.

However, I would NEVER equate the two, they operate on completely different levels. Both are the search for truth, one internal the other external, but external is the only way to corroborate evidence and therefore arrive at a logical conclusion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


I knew this thread would be a fun read.


I disagree that science is a religion. It has no ideological agenda. A Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, a liberal, and a communist can all be scientists. Evolution attempts to determine how life develops and adapts. At no time does it say, "There is no God." It only concerns itself with process, not philosophical implications. To draw the conclusion from Science that there "is no God" is merely a personal philosophical interpretation or a form of minimalism lacking imagination.


As for Intelligent Design, go ahead and teach it along with micro and macro evolution in our high schools. Then we will let the students decide on what aspects they deem worthy about all these ideas. Whatever the case, popular theories of evolution still do not explain how a dead unthinking Universe can give rise through "random" processes to something greater than itself. That being the existence of intelligent humans who someday might be running the place. :lol:


It's difficult to just say we will omit certain views about our origins and how we got here from the public school cirriculum. Any view that is framed within a scientific context should be viable; in my opinion Intelligent Design meets that criteria.
It's when the basis for such ideas is obviously just theology and solely based upon traditional mythology and cannot be tested or examined within any real scientific context is where we probably have to draw the line.

Let us consider ideas, not be afraid of them.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
Aug 3 2005, 10:37 PM
I take religion with a grain of salt just as I take science. I understand that the people who wrote that material had no understanding of how nature and the universe around them operated.

Similarly, I understand that not all scientific knowledge is absolute, and a sceintist will be the first one to tell you that. But it's the best and most accurate way we have of interpreting our surroundings.

However, I would NEVER equate the two, they operate on completely different levels. Both are the search for truth, one internal the other external, but external is the only way to corroborate evidence and therefore arrive at a logical conclusion.

Well, I was essentially with you right up until the last sentence. One can arrive at a logical conclusion without one speck of observable corroborating data or evidence. Mathematicians do it every day and twice on Sunday.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Franko
Aug 4 2005, 12:13 AM
I knew this thread would be a fun read.


I disagree that science is a religion. It has no ideological agenda. A Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, a liberal, and a communist can all be scientists. Evolution attempts to determine how life develops and adapts. At no time does it say, "There is no God." It only concerns itself with process, not philosophical implications. To draw the conclusion from Science that there "is no God" is merely a personal philosophical interpretation or a form of minimalism lacking imagination.


As for Intelligent Design, go ahead and teach it along with micro and macro evolution in our high schools. Then we will let the students decide on what aspects they deem worthy about all these ideas. Whatever the case, popular theories of evolution still do not explain how a dead unthinking Universe can give rise through "random" processes to something greater than itself. That being the existence of intelligent humans who someday might be running the place. :lol:


It's difficult to just say we will omit certain views about our origins and how we got here from the public school cirriculum. Any view that is framed within a scientific context should be viable; in my opinion Intelligent Design meets that criteria.
It's when the basis for such ideas is obviously just theology and solely based upon traditional mythology and cannot be tested or examined within any real scientific context is where we probably have to draw the line.

Let us consider ideas, not be afraid of them.

One definition of religion is that it is a commitment or, to be even more precise, a devotion. In this sense, science can be a religion. But I do basically agree with you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
As any engineer will tell you, psyfi, what's on paper is often not the same as reality.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dr. Noah
Aug 4 2005, 08:41 AM
As any engineer will tell you, psyfi, what's on paper is often not the same as reality.

What is reality?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
If you have to ask that question, then there is no point in debating science with you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dr. Noah
Aug 4 2005, 08:43 AM
If you have to ask that question, then there is no point in debating science with you.

Both science and religion are, to a large part, about the nature of reality. I find it odd that you dismiss the question. Is it because you do not know what reality is and do not wish to admit it? Why dismiss what I consider to be one of the most important questions?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
That is a philisophical/metaphysical question. It has nothing to do with science. You must operate on the premise that observable phenomenon is real in order to use the scientific method.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dr. Noah
Aug 4 2005, 09:00 AM
That is a philisophical/metaphysical question. It has nothing to do with science. You must operate on the premise that observable phenomenon is real in order to use the scientific method.

Noah

Although this is part of this topic, perhaps the question should be added to the spiritual section if there is interest. Even science tells us that our perceptions are not real. If we look at a table we see a solid piece of matter that is not moving (except during earthquakes :welsby: ).

Science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. It is moving at very high speeds through space and the movement within the table is at much higher speeds.

There are problems with the descriptive model that science presents of reality. Light a wave (of what?) or particles? Gravity is particles, a warpage of space, or a force (what the heck is a force?)?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Your perception determines your reality. -Qui-Gon Jinn, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Meanace
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
BTW, the History channel has a 2 hour show "From Ape to Man" beginning on Sunday night.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Groovy. By the way, I never meant to offend you in this thread. I do apologize if I did. We may have different views on these subjects, but in no way does that mean I don't respect you or your point of view or enjoy debating you. Just so we understand each other. (I like you) :handshake:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dr. Noah
Aug 4 2005, 09:52 AM
Groovy. By the way, I never meant to offend you in this thread. I do apologize if I did. We may have different views on these subjects, but in no way does that mean I don't respect you or your point of view or enjoy debating you. Just so we understand each other. (I like you) :handshake:

Noah

I do not know if this was directed towards me but I was not personally offended. For me, the nature of reality is central to me. My life since my teens has been a search for meaning and truth. Tried the science route but it just led to dead ends. As is said, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus