Now is not the time for a religion vs. science fight amongst ourselves.

[Ladyhawk]

I haven't been involved in these debates because right now there's something a little bit more important going on: our country is being stolen.

Can't this debate wait until things are "sane" again?

In the past I've sometimes participated in such debates, but I am keying in on posts about possible vote fraud and the new law that will make mandatory the psychological testing of children in schools.

Don't you think those things are more important right now? Just asking.

Hugs to the Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, Wiccans, whomever. Hugs to the agnostics and atheists.

:grouphug:

[Vincardog]

1. Hey LAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDYYYYYYY who is talking about

religion vs science?

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Well it is part of the problem. I call it: "Faith-Based Everything."

[DrWeird]

3. This is a fight that needs to be fought.

It's not a fight between science and religion, it's a fight between science and ignorance. It's about what's going to be taught in our schools, and I'm sure as hell not going to give up the schools because some ignoramus thinks the Bible is a scientific journal.

[hfojvt]

6. why does it spill to religion then?

If evolution is going to be defended it does not have to be by an attack on religion. Lots of liberal Christians believe in Jesus and Darwin, or say they do.
I think that nonsense being taught in biology is probably not as big a deal as nonsense being taught in history, civics and economics. In fact, students could be taught critical thinking, rather than regurgitation of "truths". Even if the truth in this case is evolution.

[DrWeird]

7. I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand.

Science covers nature, observable facts. Religion shouldn't try to say what shape the Earth is or how old it is. Religion covers God, the nature of the soul, the after-life. Science shouldn't try to prove or disprove God. Science and Religion don't overlap.

Student should be taught critical thinking and they should be taught the truth. And Evolution is the truth. The world IS four and a half billion years old and humans DID evolve from the same ancestors as apes. Creationism has no more place in the science classroom than Holocaust denial has a place in the History classroom.

[hfojvt]

13. Don't truth me and I will not truth you

If you can do so in less than 500 words, I would like to see you prove any of those statements. I submit that the vast majority of people who believe them, believe them without being able to prove them - that is they accepted them on faith. My teacher tells me so.
I disapprove of anything being taught dogmatically like that. It smacks of religious indoctrination.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The vast majority of us haven't done the scientific research

necessary to determine the age of the earth, or examined current and fossil skeletons of primates in enough detail to determine the likely common ancestors and their ages. But it has been done, several times, by people who are part of the scientific community, where their methods are scutinised and judged by their peers.

To believe in the scientific results, you need trust that several hundred scientists, past and present, (whose work in some areas has also been checked by thousands of others) are not all engaged in a vast conspiracy to invent a new idea of geology and creation. That scientific community regularly gets good results (eg predictions, solutions to problems) in more mundane applications such as medicine, chemistry, and engineering.

To believe in the bible version of creation, you need trust that one unknown man was told what to write by the creator of the universe. That story does not produce useful results, and even has some problems explaining phenomena that you yourself may have experienced - like an eclipse.

[patcox2]

23. The majority of people can't even understand many scientific principles.

And ironically, their beliefs on these topics are, strictly speaking, as much superstitions as they are "truths." Stevie Wonder said "when you believe in things that you don't understand, . . .superstition." The line is not so bright as you think. It is possible to have a superstitious belief in something that is factual.

Free market theory, of the Chicago school variety, propounded by the mindless followers of Friedman, is largely an elaborate superstitious beleif system.

[K-W]

17. Do I need to prove the world is round?

The scientific community has documented thier evidence, if you would like to question how sciencists came to thier conclusions, thier work is all readily available in a presentable form just wating to be scrutinized.

I can present evolution as a fact with full confidence that there is overwhelming evidence to support it. I have seen a good deal of it, but what I have seen is a splash in a pool of evidence on this topic.

If you want to falsify thier theories, get to researching, you cant falsify something simply by asking people to produce unneccsary evidence.

[DrWeird]

22. Evolution is a fact.

If you don't believe it, feel free to take a science course at your local community college to bring you up to speed.

[library_max]

4. Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom

As much as I will miss democracy in this country for the next several decades, there are liberating aspects to being an opposition party locked out in the cold. We don't have to be serious, we don't have to be responsible, we don't have to give a damn what &#%$^@# swing voters like and don't like, and we don't have to be unified. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

The only role left us is to bitch and carp about the Institutional Party (aka the Republican Party). And we can do that from a dizzying array of angles. Some of us can be serious and fact-based. Some of us can be silly and make fun of the self-righteous crowd in power. Some of us can argue science and progress. Others can quote the Bible regarding what incredibly piss-poor Christians the Bush crowd are, by the standards of the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount.

So as long as we have a beef with the ruling party and can get others to listen to us, we needn't worry about convincing each other of a blessed thing. We have no influence over policy anyway.

[Hans Delbrook]

9. Freedom's just another word..

..for nothing left to lose.

[Forkboy]

5. Nope,it's ALWAYS the time

Though I do appreciate the kindness in your post :)

[PsychoDad]

8. I don't see where there has to be a debate.

As far as I'm concerned Science validates my faith, not threatens it.

Evolution is a theory based upon observation, Intelligent design is a conclusion based upon conjecture based upon the question of why..

Any theory which is supported by the facts should be taught, and no, I don't see the Genesis account supported by observible evidence. As for "Intelligent design", that should be left to the opinion of the observer, and not taught as dogma in our schools.

This argument is from those who feel that their faith is somehow threatened by scientific discovery, namely the fundimentalist christians. My faith does not require me to whitewash the facts of My God's handiwork, or my faith be diminished, on the contrary, My awe at the Greatness of God is further reinforced by the beauty and complexity of the evidence.

anyway my 2 cents...

[bhikkhu]

10. Debate is good.

While my position is pretty well fixed, I have read the many discussions here with both interest and frustration. The frustration part is that understanding is needed on both sides, and debate is the best way to reach understanding. Debate is the exchange of ideas, even when it is done in flames. If some debate is heated, it shouldn't be assumed that enmity and division is being forged.

I have often read withering criticism of my views and after anger, doubt, depression, etc. found a more and educated and reasonable ground which had previously eluded me.

Have some faith in the people here. Debate is good.

(edited for spelling - sorry)

[brainwashed]

11. It is an important debate.

The domininionists (700 club types) have had a plan to take over the republican party and thus control of our government. They must have dominion over all nations before Jesus will return. See:
http://www.theocracywatch.org.

I think their assault on science is to dumb us down so that we are more easily brainwashed so that we believe anything they tell us.

[Susang]

12. This happens to be a discussion board

That is the reason I am here, to discuss issues. As many issues as I choose. I am capable of handling many ideas and concepts at a time, as I am sure you and everyone else here is capable of as well.

If it is not an issue that interests you, do not click on the thread. It really is that easy. You don't have the right to decide what debate is more important for me or other DUers right now. I consider this issue the crux of the matter and I will talk about it to any who are interested.

[ixat]

14. I don't even know what there's to debate, really...

Fact: science != religion. Fact: creationism = religion. Fact: religion is not to be taught in science class. Conclusion: creationism should not be taught in science class. They're welcome to teach it under philosophy or history.

[Bridget Burke]

16. But it makes a good divisive thread topic! (NOT YOURS!)

Divide & Conquer.

Next, they'll be pitting the Red States versus the Blue & preaching secession. (Oops, they're already doing that!)

[patcox2]

18. The religion vs. science fight is misleading and stupid.

There is no conflict between religion and science. They deal in different realms. The beleif that there is a conflict is limited to debased, simplistic, literalistic beleivers who just don't "get it." When atheists and agnostics dredge up these ridiculous fundie arguments just to rehash a "conflict" that doesn't exist except in the minds of the stupid, they are (ironically) descending to the depths of literalist fundamentalism.

I will try to make it clearer: The beleif that there is a conflict between science and religion is a literalist fundamentalist beleif. Non-beleivers should not adopt or reinforce this notion that there is a conflict. It is odd that they do so, because by accepting that there is a conflict, they are accepting the premises of the most primitive and simplistic form of religiosity. They obviously find it gratifying to win the argument they have with themselves when they do this, but ultimately, the argument is based on a false premise.

Calm down, the cathgolic church couldn't stop sciennce back when it was the most powerful institution in the world. Bob Jones university is not gonna do it, and the redneck idiot branch of the republican party is not going to be able to roll back the clock.

In the end, its kinda funny, dontcha think, that science itself is an invention of the christian western european civilization, and that no other civilization elsewhere came up with it? Francis Bacon was a monk, in fact, wasn't he? And not a buddhist monk.

What you are witnessing (with the fundies and their pathetic attempts to force the teaching of creationism) is some friction between certain factions of christianity and the triumphant march of science as it continues its absolute cultural ascendency in our society. The war is over, don't get all scared at those doofuses out their still fighting, they are like the japanese soldiers from WWII who took to the jungles and continued fighting until the 1960s, they just don't realize the war is over and they lost.

[sangh0]

20. And that's why we need to stage the fights

to clear up the misunderstandings and destroy the ignorance some have.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Just on a point of history

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was a lawyer and politician.

Roger Bacon (1214-1292) was a monk.

Both contributed to science. It is Francis Bacon that is widely credited as one of the founders of 'scientific method'.

[Felix Mala]

19. We Need to Demand

an amendment to the U.S. Consitution that Evolution is the ONLY acceptable explanation we now have for the existence of life on this planet.

Bumper Sticker:

I support the Evolution Amendment!