I tend to agree that a scientist's writings on theology would not be considered scientific literature... but then that would make "The God Delusion" a theological polemic rather than a treatise on science, no?
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
agonus
Sorry JB, didn't read your full post, looks like I sort of echoed your thoughts
-
peacefulpete
That particular book would probably be better described as sociology/philosophy. He argues about the undesirability of deist beliefs and offers thoughts on why so many humans are given to belief. To that end he does touch on hard scientific matters but the thrust of that book is an attempt to explain religion using the tools of a philosoper.
-
agonus
Well, there's nothing wrong with that of course, but if people shouldn't get their science from folks who are not "true" scientists but folks with a theological agenda (which I tend to agree with), then in all fairness it seems the converse would apply.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
For the OP's topic, I'll share my little perspective.
Non-evidence reason for embracing evolution no. X: The method in which science discovers reality is well-documented, consistent, and thrives under scrutiny.... making it vastly superior to the means in which religion discovers "truth".
Of course, there's more than enough "evidence" that should lead to an acceptance of biological evolution. But even if I had to choose sides based solely on the general procedure that sincere individuals followed in a quest for truth, I would choose the scientific method all day long.
What consistent, self-scrutinizing, bias-suppressing protocol is used by religionists to arrive at their conclusions?
-
Curtains
here is another
Non-evidence reason for embracing evolution: It shines a light on nature, filling us with awe and inspiration, giving us ideas way beyond our station in life
-
ziddina
Ah, HA HAH HAH HAH HA HAAAAA!!!
Hooberus, you're a hoot!!!
"Embrace" evolution???? What emotionalistic language!!!
IN point of fact, I didn't "embrace" evolution - I researched the origins of the bible and found IT lacking - SADLY lacking...
Even a brief perusal of the archaeological discoveries of the last 50 years will show an open mind just how YOUNG the bible is... And that much of it is plagiarized from MUCH OLDER, so-called "heathen" or "pagan" religions...
For me, the bible ITSELF convinced me that it was merely the words of a tribal group of [approximately Bronze-Age] Middle Eastern men...
All one has to do, is compare the biblical mythologies with the mythologies of other cultures... And research the ages of those cultures...
The bible is only around 3,500 years old.... GODDESS worship dates back tens - even HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS....
That alone, shows that the bible is merely the words of men.
Religion ITSELF evolved, which is a HILARIOUS irony, given the title of your thread...
Hilarious!!!
Zid
-
jaguarbass
If "creation science" was actually true, and therefore offered any scientific insight or chance for commercial application, why is there so little investment in this research area? Why is it that biology departments in universities all over the world devote huge amounts of time and money advancing the state of knowledge about how biological systems develop and work, whereas all creationists have is tiny apologetic "research" efforts and shiny-suited preachers on Sunday morning TV? If one thinks this is caused by some giant conspiracy, why is that no rogue country, university, or company has broken away from the pack to revolutionize the field of biology? Why, even in Middle Eastern countries with conservative religious governments and a conservative, creationist Islamic population, the public universities *still* teach and research biological evolution, not creationism?
Where are the creationist breakthroughs? Why do they spend all of their time writing popular-level books, talking in churches, and indoctrinating children instead of getting the lab coat or rock hammer out and doing real science? Why are no creationists incredulous of this situation?
I think many creationist agree with actual true science that is demonstratable about how biological systems develop and work.
As I said earlier, its a matter of semantics we are not all talking about the same thing and using the proper words.
Many creations are doctors, physicians who work on the human body, you would think they would know how
biological systems develop and work after 8 years of studying the human body.
I think things evolve they change they adapt many creationist use the word adaptation and micro evolution.
Thats science. To say al life comes from a common ancestor as Richard Dawkins does is an unprovable theory. And thats one place
many creationist have a problem with evolution, its the unprovable theory of evolution they have a problem with, not the
provable theory of evolution, and thats the semantics I am talking about.
Creationsist know that bacteria and biology mutate, change, evolve thats micro evolution.
I think the great advances mankind need have to do with the provable science of how biological systems develop and
work. And that provable science does not have to do with the unprovable science of whether the earth is 6,000 years
old or billions of years old. I dont think proving the age of the earth which always ends up being disputed is
as comercially viable as figuring out how biological systems develop and work.
According to the bible the world lies in the power of the wicked one. And that is the contest that is being carried out
now. Satin did not believe he was made by God and many people in the world do not believe they were made by God.
So God and the Devil are working their challenge out and we are all participating and observing.
-
Curtains
well said jaguarbuss.
I need a popcorn emoticon - this thread is hotting up
-
Gerard
No, its about non-evidence reasons why people embrace evolution, and reject biblical creation. -Hooberus
It is hilarious that you want to discuss science but openly chose to dismiss evidence in favor of emotion/faith. This is not even an argument...you are not even close to understanding the concept of science, never mind debating its usefulness. I wonder if you realize that you have been indoctrinated by the Teach the Controversy©®™ Christian movement. They want to promote a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis" due to it being the subject of purported wide controversy and debate within the scientific community, where there is none.