Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is science a religion?
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5193 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 264 of 295 (314021)
05-20-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by MrEd
05-20-2006 9:49 PM


MrEd writes:
I wouldn't say that "science" is a religion, but that many scientists like those at Dover are religious in their scientific ideologies.
How so?
MrEd writes:
What I mean by this is that scientists that are evolutionists are religiously interpreting facts albeit incorrectly. And those in Dover did so and are guilty of religious dictatorship, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the American Bill of Rights. To honor theirs and not others.
In what way is the thinking of evolutionary biologists "religious?" It might help if you gave your definition of religion.
MrEd writes:
Nevertheless, science is "the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by research based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism.
Excellent, this is an unusually accurate description.
MrEd writes:
So if science discovers that there exists a supernatural Creator... this does not change what real science is.
That would be great! Let us know if that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 9:49 PM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:35 PM Belfry has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5193 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 266 of 295 (314025)
05-20-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by MrEd
05-20-2006 9:59 PM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
MrEd writes:
If you look at how the scientific method actually begins...you would realize that evolution isn't even that. It isn't observed, which is how the scientific method begins.
Actually, evolution is observed. We have many instances of observed speciation in modern times, and the primary mechanisms of evolution (mutation and natural selection) are observable in essentially all populations. The theory itself was formed based on observations of patterns in natural populations.
MrEd writes:
On the contrary, science has aquired the "knowledge" that evolution never occurred and that creation did.
Since when? Support your assertion.
MrEd writes:
Looks as if the Dover guys have gotten amnesia about the "laws" that nature demonstrates.
How so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 9:59 PM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:46 PM Belfry has not replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5193 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 270 of 295 (314033)
05-20-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by MrEd
05-20-2006 10:35 PM


MrEd writes:
Well, they begin with not wanting creation/intelligent design evidences to be allowed in the "science" classrooms. They "only" want to dictate evolutionism, which is a "belief", to be the doctrine of the science classrooms.
They want to restrict science classes to teaching science. Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories.
MrEd writes:
Religion is a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine.
Hmm, so how does this apply to evolutionary theory?
MrEd writes:
These evolutionists take the "belief" that the universe was not created, but that "always" existed. Despite the scientific "facts" that show that if the universe was eternal we would've ran out of hydrogen a long time ago.
Actually, evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of the universe. That falls into the realm of cosmology. You're incorrect about the hydrogen, but that's off-topic, and as you'll see if you stick around, this forum is unusually strict about staying on-topic. If you like, you can start a topic about it. Coragyps started one in the "Links and Information forum" here on that very subject.
MrEd writes:
All scientists know this, but the evolutionists choose to ignore this and "believe" in there diehard myth. It's religious.
Again, evolutionary theory is not concerned with the origin of the universe. Plus, you have not shown that evolutionary biologists are concerned with the "supernatural, sacred, or divine."
MrEd writes:
This fact among others...
cause and effect, design, etc...
Then, they ignore the fact that the earth's helium content show that the earth is less than 2mil yrs old.
The earth's magnetic field's decay rate show that the earth can not be older than thousands, not millions of years.
All false, but again off topic. Unless the admins want to allow it. Can I get a ruling?
MrEd writes:
They ignore the fact that Carbon 14 dating can only "theoretically" date humans, animals, and plants and no longer than 40-50 thousand years based on its half life.
No, they do not ignore that, and they use other radiological methods for older and/or inorganic specimens. This article might help you get up to speed.
MrEd writes:
Not to mention they ignore the historic records of a world wide flood that took place some 4-5 thousand years ago that completely rearranged the earth, its geology, and its climate which makes it impossible to radiometrically date anything older than 4-5 thousand years ago.
No, they do not ignore the "historical records," but rather recognize them as myths and legends. They have been falsified by geological evidence.
MrEd writes:
Then, how can DNA, which would completely decay away in "thousands" of years still be found in dinosaur bones???
It hasn't been.
MrEd writes:
Point is, they are the religious ones- not science.
It is the scientists you are calling religious. It is the fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge scientific findings that contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis.
By the way, you can click on the little box that says, "peek" in the corner of my post, to see how I'm coding the quote boxes. It helps a great deal with readability in these discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 10:35 PM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 11:04 PM Belfry has replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5193 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 285 of 295 (314085)
05-21-2006 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by MrEd
05-20-2006 11:04 PM


MrEd writes:
Huh??? I guess you just want to disqualify anything you don't want to believe??? I guess this discussion is over. You seem to also want to "ignore" facts and "believe" what you want. Alright then, we can't have an intelligent discussion.
No need to talk to an already closed mind. Good bye.
My understanding of the world is evidence-based. You have presented none for your assertions, which go against the understandings of scientists in many fields. Nor should you present it here, because the topic here is, "Is science a religion."
The assertions you're making are not new to those of us who have been involved with the EvC debate for a while. I invite you to restart one of the existing threads on them, or start some of your own, so we can respond to them and you can defend them. (ETA: ) The reason for the topic restriction is that Evo vs. Creo discussions have a tendency to quickly snowball out of control (and lose the original topic) following a post like yours that brings in many individual new topics.
Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.
Edited by Belfry, : Typos, marked addition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by MrEd, posted 05-20-2006 11:04 PM MrEd has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024