Here's a radical idea: Side with both your faith and the evidence, and go with God and evolution. Why, after all, are they incompatible?
While I can understand why atheists would have trouble understanding why a religious person might feel uncomfortable with the theory of evolution, I think this question has been answered many many many many times by creos on this board.
The reason some people reject evolution is because it says nothing about god, and that is exactly the problem. I think evolution would have received more praises if it has a footnote that says "Mutation, which is the backbone of the theory, is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other."
Hi, Hector, why should atheists have trouble understanding a religious person being uncomfortable withe the TOE? After all, that`s where many atheists started, deep in the heart of religion.
If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to support creationism in some of my posts. The reason is because I've been trying very very hard to think like myself a few years back (christian fundy). I must admit that the result is very surprising.
Rule #1: There is a god. Rule #2: God is actively influencing the world.
I ask you this. Are the atheists, who started out on the religious side, really putting these 2 rules into consideration when dealing with a fundy?
Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".
The ID argument is slightly more palatable if it was argued from the 'God the Clockmaker' angle, and human evolution was the inevitable result of initial design and the creation of the right conditions.
Here is something to think about. If we take the ID path, how far do we go back before we say "ok, this is where it all began"?
The problem with ID is you can never know when the natural world ends and the realm of the supernatural begins.
Before ToE, creation myths were all that people had. So, according to ID back then, they would have drawn the line that seperates history and prehistory.
After ToE, ID would draw the line somewhere between abiogenesis and the first events of evolution.
What if tomorrow we find out that abiogenesis is a natural process? Do we keep pushing back the line? If so, why even bother?
First of all, click on the first link in my signature for all your style guide needs.
yeah, and after reading a lot of posts it seems like Catholic Schools teach biology better than public ones.
I wouldn't be certain of that, considering that my cousine's bio teacher, who teaches in a catholic school, keep saying that this is a miracle and that is a miracle. It is bothering the heck out of my cousine and it would bother the heck out of me, too.
I think that Science and the scietific method are both part of the Positivist Philosophy, and there fore trying to PROVE! C-Frog and R-Hector both talk about EVIDENCE. evidence leads to proof and there fore DOES PROVE, Science Proves.
You are confusing main aspects of science. One deals with the existence of something while the other deals with an explanation for dealing with that something.
Say that someone claims that he had seen a pink unicorn running around in forest A. Until a pink unicorn is discovered and examined by science, it remains nonexistent. Otherwise, we would have to believe in the existence of the easter bunny and every other mythical creature known to man.
Now, in order to explain how a pink unicorn came to be, a hypothesis is developed. After many observations and examinations of the pink unicorn (say DNA examination and behavior), a theory is developed as to the origin of the pink unicorn (say that it is related to modern day horse). The thing is we could never prove the theory, but we could have lots and lots of evidence to support the theory.
Which brings me to my next point.
look i think that creationism is the least likely scenario, but if i am true to my scientific roots, TOE is more likely, but until proven, still wrong.
You seem to have a problem with uncertainty. The way science works is it always leaves room for change. Say that evolution is declared the unquestionable truth of all things and tomorrow we find new evidence that would redefine some aspects of it, or even would even change it. Wouldn't it be better to say that we are sure of it because of all the evidence but if push comes to shove we find new evidence that contradicts our theory then we will have to change it?
Science is all about uncertainty, dude, just like your Shift button on your keyboard.
Added by edit.
How is making something the absolute truth of all things different than religious dogma? In case you don't know, we are as certain with the theory of evolution as the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease. Would you say that things fall upward because we haven't "proven" the theory of gravity?
This message has been edited by Resurrected Hector, 02-25-2005 12:31 AM
People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.
I mean, would the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Helocentric Solar System be more be more palatable to Creationists if we had footnotes like "Bacteria reproducing inside a body which release toxins to cause illness is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other.", or "The physical laws which deal with planetary orbits and mass are caused by the Almighty Christian god and no other."?
Well, the reason creos don't attack these theories is because at least some aspects of them are part of normal everyday life. Who in his right mind would want to say that germs don't cause disease or that the planets orbit the sun in rectangular orbits?
Besides, these other theories do not threaten their I-am-god's-special-child preconception.