Article: Religion and Science

I don't know either. The little I've seen of it it doesn't seem to be trying to create a theory to help deal with data but rather it seems to trying to find a way to have the data support a philosophical or religious perspective. That is properly philosophy of science which is an important field but is not science per se. I have no problem if people want to believe in intelligent design in what ever fashion they want. I myself might believe that random mutation and evolution are an intelligent design. However, the things I've read about the notion of irreducible complexity seem well refuted.Bottom line is I see no necessity at this point to teach it in biology classes. We need to be teaching about cells, molecular biology, ecology, the way organisms are related.lfen

Welcome bobbins,I appreciate you delurking. A very well stated first post. I look forward to reading more.lfen

Concerning "faith based" {edit: correction} education: In America the first schools were started by Christians and used the Bible and church catechisms for teaching grammar as well as moral principles. The first universities were founded by Christians for the purpose of educating the clergy -- Harvard, Yale, Princeton and others -- and besides theology of course, chapel attendance was an integral part of the experience. I only wish we still had Christians of the caliber of those men as I think we need to start a whole new alternative university system.Actually there is reason to believe that the idea of universal education was begun by Christians in Europe, and certainly the first European universities were Christian just as America's were. Education is a specifically CHRISTIAN objective that's been co-opted by the secularists in the last century or so.Concerning Utopia, I use the term in its casual sense, to refer to any intentional social system based on an ideology of the perfect way people should be, that prescribes a change in human nature. Marxism IS one such system. Communism in all its horrors is what always comes of the attempt to impose an ideology on human beings, who simply will not bend to such attempts to mold them against their own nature -- and therefore must be intimidated, persecuted and killed to make the system work. It's procrustean with a vengeance. You have to leave people to be people, and manage them as little as possible.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 01:50 AM

bobbins,I would like to know more about UK and other European govenments and societies such as Sweden, Norway, Netherlands. I am disappointed that the US still does not have adequate national health care for example. I'm not sure if European countries face as great a span of cultures as the US does. They may be somewhat to a lot more homogeneous and that may make social policy a bit easier. I am just too ignorant about Europe.My specific disagreement with Brian was his characterization of the teaching of YEC fundamentalism as child abuse. I just don't accept that. I think it's unfortunate but I don't think it is abuse in any proper sense of the word particularly when we have to deal with real physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect. Nor do I believe that government should step in to force the education of children. I think that can be corrected when they are mature and capable and free to make their own choices.Though changing religion can be traumatic I don't think religious training qualifies as brain washing. It can be a strong conditioning but I've known several people who left the Catholic church and it is regarded as having one of the strongest methods of indoctrination of any religious group. It was difficult for them, but there are lots of things difficult for people. Life is like that.lfen

I don't understand. There was no insult intended in my post which you replied to.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I hope you don't mind, but I would have to disagree a little here. "trying to find a way to have the data support a philosophical or religious perspective" doesn't sound to me like a "philosophy of science" (which would properly be a theory regarding the nature of science, much as epistemology is the theory of knowledge -- and in fact, the philosophy of science would be an extension of the theory of knowledge) but an attempt to twist or force empirical data to rationalize their philosophical or religious perspective -- which seems quite illegitimate to me. Nevertheless, in their views, there are some criticisms of current or prevailing views regarding science which however invalid, do properly belong to the realm of the philosophy of science.Anyway, for what it is worth, I have some links for anyone who is interested in them. The first one is probably best as far as an overview goes, and I know I am missing a few which explain some aspects in more depth."Master Planned: Why Intelligent design isn't." by H. Allen Orr
The New Yorker
from The New Yorker The New Yorker"Intelligent Design (Divine Design)"
Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry
from Answers In Science Page Not Found | Department of ChemistryThe "New" Creationism
http://slate.msn.com/id/104349/
from Slate Magazine http://slate.msn.comIrreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design
Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design
from Talk Origins TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversyAntievolution: Features
Antievolution: Features
from Antievolution.org: The Critic's Resource AntiEvolution.org | The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolutionAnyway, listening to you both wondering aloud like that (at least in my mind) just kind of reminds me of how I will often be wondering, too. Typically, something along the lines of, "How could this world have possibly gone so wrong?" Just thinking "aloud," I guess. And I don't mean to be that cynical.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-24-2005 02:34 AM

I took a break and the last two pages of posts rolled by before I had a chance to reply.I will continue to back you up on your point about parenting and education.I also think that you and jar are not arguing different points. I made the same mistake when I thought he was advocating a legal solution to "the problem" as it were. I have found that sometimes jar can be less than explicit in his posts.What he is arguing is that the literalist position needs to be fought on the same front that it is using to force its agenda. You may not agree with this but the point is that I don't believe that jar ever proposed making literalism illegal or even that literalists should not have a voice in the decision making process. jar was just proclaiming that the literalists need to be fought because their agenda is as anti-American as the situation that Brian was proposing.So in essence you two were both talking about the exact same thing in spirit. You want to keep the freedom for a literalist like yourself to have a say. Jar wants to make sure that the opposite does not occur, that an extreme literalist agenda does not contravene freedom.Go back and read it again. You might even get a good chuckle. At least in this regard you are both being good Americans just at opposite ends of the pendulium. At least that is what it seems like from my perspective.You can be quite reasonable sometimes Faith; which is very confusing....This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-24-2005 12:13 AM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This seemed a bit much. Anyway, in truth, I had a guy at work who was a bit of a proponent of ID. He was also an excellent software engineer with a background in C++, so at least in some ways he was fairly intelligent. (I don't know if I will ever code in C++ -- but I do like C#.) At the same time, his interest in science seemed rather lacking. For example, he seemed to have bought into the idea that the second law of thermodynamics somehow disproves evolution. Didn't seem to realize that if this were true, then the very same law would disprove the growth of living organisms -- until I pointed it out.People can be brilliant in some areas without necessarily being all that smart in others.

Cahill, Thomas.How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe.New York: Doubleday, 1995.A popular historian describes how the Irish monks preserved much of Western literature and knowledge during the Dark Ages, a time when Europe was in turmoil.History is oftentimes a great deal more complicated than people would like to admit. At the same time, much of the glory of Ancient Greece was preserved by a fairly well-advanced and open society under a Moslem world which had developed such things as algebra and the telescope. Then this world was attacked by a backward western world in what became known as the Crusades.

Even life and growth of living organisms is winding down, according to us creationists, or at least according to *my* extrapolations from /understanding of, Biblical creationism. There is still a strong principle of life left that can launch a new generation, but with each generation we lose a bit more of the principle of life to the principle of death -- except that we now have modern medicine that helps us maximize the life principle still available which, while being a great blessing, also creates an illusion by obscuring the overall degeneration. I cannot argue this scientifically so if you want to chat about it on the Coffee House forum and promise not to browbeat me I could at least try to explain what I mean from a Biblical point of view. Or the Theological Creationism and ID forum perhaps, which allows the development of the Biblical reasoning involved.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 03:25 AM

Certainly! I know a very bright engineer who is a YEC.My point was merely to address the worst case scenario of living in total willfull ignorance that was presented before. There are varying degrees ignorance and the minimum amount required to be a YEC does not preclude you from holding a position in society that requires an education.That being said, a product and an eager member of a part of society that indoctrinate against science due to some percieved religious conflict will necessary preclude some people from attaining jobs that require a certain education. I know people like this as well. I eagerly support their life choice and freedom to continue to raise their families in their traditions. I also take heart in the slight increase in job security they provide those of us who choose to take the plunge to learn about those evil sciences.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Others have answered this quite well, but I'd just chime in that it's a choice between indoctrination by parents or indoctrination by the state. The parents love them. There is no tyranny involved in the normal parenting function of passing on their wisdom to their children. You may disagree with their wisdom but that's not your place.The biggest problem in this discussion is the absolutely inflexible position on the part of some on the "science" side of this argument that casts the religious side in irredeemably evil terms. Even the most generous on your side nevertheless can't bring themselves to consider that any part of our point of view is possibly RIGHT, but I guess we have to take what we can get.

It is interesting to recognize when our ideas coincide. I can't really think of another time they have other than this one but it may suggest that the polarity of our arguments are blinding us all a little.You also have to understand that many of us have often had to deal with a certain amount of legitimate wackjobs. Although we are still interested in the issues, there is a sense of disenchantment when someone comes in here thinking they are going to overturn the foundations of science with a few brazen quotes a la Kent Hovind.If your goal is to create understanding then there is already a bar for which you must aim much higher than to earn any credibility past the quote mining, plagiarizing, outright lying counterparts on your side of the fence. I'll leave my own opinion out of this but there seems to be a certain amount of contention as to whether or not you have achieved this. Even though you occasionally produce some of the standard YEC fair, it is my opinion that you are not a run of the mill YEC.The point of all this was to address your statement that "we" never consider that you might be right. My point is that it is a little disingenuous to assume this given that most of us involved in this debate have already gone through much of what your consider "right" before; maybe even in the turmoil of religious crisis as was my case.It is not just that your ideas are being rejected out of hand. It is that they have been considered before, often with extreme care and reverence due to impact on religion, and been repeatedly rejected in this venue and others. Before I ever started posting here I studied and prayed ferociously about the issue. When these issues were new to me I hung onto every word of the debate. Now though, when someone brings up something like the "no new genetic information" argument I have to admit that I roll my eyes a little bit and think, "not again!"It is possible that recognition of this may help alleviate some of your misgivings. I certainly have made a conscious effort to be more patient with my arguments. To what degree I have been successful is up to the readers to decide.This is a difficult medium to discuss a diametric topic. Not only is the communication difficult at times but the history and previous experiences of the participants is always an X factor that can either enlighten or derail a discussion.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Thanks for the thoughtful message. I've saved it to answer tomorrow. Good night for now.

Thank you Faith for providing yet another example of willful ignorance. I realize you believe that is true, but you're wrong!Since the topic of this thread is religion and science you are an invaluable resource. Once again you've show that a literal christian viewpoint is incompatible with science, reality or the world we live in.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion