What Darwin did was show How Evolution works. You are correct that Scientists were aware that Evolution existed, they just didn't know How it worked. That's where Darwin comes in.
the only problem I have with evolution is that everybody touts it as if it were Darwin's idea. It has been around at least since Aristotle. The only difference Darwin made was to say it was "natural selection" that caused the changes which I disagree with.
I don't know -- it's up to those who belong to said religion. I choose to teach from the Bible, examine what I see as evidence, etc.
For me, I cannot exclude the Bible no more than you can exclude telescopes to study the stars -- the suggestion is wrong-headed, as the Bible is the basis of my beliefs.
using archaeological data to support the existence of a very real city that was mentioned int he bible, which certainly alludes to many very real places and events, is not the same as science used to support religion.
You can look at the Bible as some type of historical text, one that should be interpreted very skeptically, obviously, but that is not the same as applying the scientific method to its spiritual proclamations. That holds absolutely no water.
Did Sodom and Gamorrah exist? Perhaps, it seems there is compelling evidence for ancient cities in those particular areas. Did God destroy these two cities for punishing their butt-sex loving ways via fireballs from the sky? That is not a scientific discussion.
how did these cities actually perish? This can be approached scientifically. There is absolutely no way to address divine intervention using the SM, so any attempt to discuss this in a scientific setting should be ignored. Save it for philosophy and religion.
Science broaches subjects in a bubble....a bubble of strict materialism...no divine anything. That's an inherent flaw of science. I can give a scientific explanation for anything I want, doesn't mean it happened that way...just an alternate explanation and one that's exclusionary of something that could very well be truth.
If science excludes the divine by default, then you can't hope to answer the Soddom and Gomorrah outside of strict materialism...which very well may not be accurate.
Just saying, science has its place, but it's not the holy grail of knowledge.
I'm not sure that science intentionally excludes anything. It makes observations, I know that much at least. But in order for something to be observed, it has to exist or be observable first. If the supernatural was real and interacted with the natural world in some way that was at all detectable, then the supernatural would become a part of the natural. At that point I'm sure it would show up in science text books.
Well, offer a competing theory to natural selection that shows how Darwin got it wrong. And he didn't "just say it"--it was nearly 4 decades of gathering and compiling staggering amounts of evidence to support his theory.
More than a century of biologists have failed to disprove him, but I'm sure random AT guy is going to do it. Good luck, sir.
Supernatural creation is a religious topic and should be discussed in Church, or Bible class.
I think what Fundamentalists really want is children to have the option to equally consider both sides of the argument (which I DO agree with), but that [supernatural creation] shouldn't be presented in school, only at home, only in Church.
God's existence hasn't been disproven, so why shouldn't children be allowed to honestly examine both arguments and make an informed decision?
This kind of logic really doesn't belong in this section. You can't possibly use this logic in your everyday life. Nobody goes around assuming everything is proven until disproved. If that was the case then Leprechauns and Unicorns should be part of the curriculum as well. This is terrible logic and will make our students stupid.
Leave it in Church like you say but understand that it has no basis on reality and is PURELY faith based. If you want to have faith in Fairies and Trolls then so be it. If you want to believe that Aliens are among us that's your choice. Nobody will take you seriously though. You have to prove things. We do not start at the assumption that they are real and need to be disproved lol.
Evolution should be taught in schools but natural selection should not, it has not been proven and it is entirely faith based as well. Leave it up to the kids to make up their own minds.
Find me an adult who's a "Fairian" or "Trollian" or even a "Leprechaunian" and we can discuss whether or not those can be included.
But many of your hallowed scientists believe in God and are even Christian, so please, address the point with valid comparisons and not 6th-grade "you're stupid for believing in ghosts" rants.
Please? Thank you.
Which is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with his point.
Firstly, he doesn't have a point. Secondly, people want God included because they believe He can be credited for at least jump starting creation, and I was simply qualifying my point by saying even scientists believe in God, so the belief isn't absurd.
No one...and I mean NO ONE believes that Leprechauns, Trolls, or what have you, are real, so how can anyone say they should be included if God is? Well, I am all for including the above *if* we can find anyone who believes in them.
That's all I am saying.
Lets say that someone was studying the universe and its laws because they want to figure out how the universe started. Lets insert the god hypothesis in there and assume he is responsible. By doing this, or by"including god" as you said above, what is learned about the universe that couldn't have been learned otherwise?
What value does adding god have for the discovery and learning process? You can say, "I think god did all this", but what does that do for you as far as science, research, learning, discovery etc? What value is added that wasn't already there without god being included?
Good questions, but "adding god" simply means you're recognizing a cause -- the value it adds is that now you see that there is a purpose to life and to the Universe...it in no way devalues learning about it.
The value is purpose, which is ultimately what mankind searches for.
For example, you'd value a gift more knowing your wife gave it to you than you would if you found it in a gutter. Orgins matter.
Find me an adult who's a "Fairian" or "Trollian" or even a "Leprechaunian" and we can discuss whether or not those can be included.
But many of your hallowed scientists believe in God and are even Christian, so please, address the point with valid comparisons and not 6th-grade "you're stupid for believing in ghosts" rants.
Please? Thank you.
In Nepal the locals believe in the Yeti.
In Mexico they believe in the Chubacabra.
In Sweden I have met people who believe they can talk to trees and rocks. Our culture here is fundamentally pagan and trolls have played a part.
God and creationism are faith based and have no basis on reality. You can't credit them for jump starting the universe since you have absolutely zero proof.
Firstly, he doesn't have a point. Secondly, people want God included because they believe He can be credited for at least jump starting creation, and I was simply qualifying my point by saying even scientists believe in God, so the belief isn't absurd.
No one...and I mean NO ONE believes that Leprechauns, Trolls, or what have you, are real, so how can anyone say they should be included if God is? Well, I am all for including the above *if* we can find anyone who believes in them.
That's all I am saying.
What precludes a scientist from believing in the absurd?
Evolution should be taught in schools but natural selection should not, it has not been proven and it is entirely faith based as well. Leave it up to the kids to make up their own minds.
Purpose is not an objective characteristic. Introducing a creator does nothing to define the purpose of life to an individual. Persons define the purpose of things for themselves. For example a baseball bat may be created for the purpose of hitting home runs, but another person may keep it behind his front door for the purpose of home defense.Good questions, but "adding god" simply means you're recognizing a cause -- the value it adds is that now you see that there is a purpose to life and to the Universe...it in no way devalues learning about it.
The value is purpose, which is ultimately what mankind searches for.
A dollar in the gutter is worth exactly as much as the dollar my friend gave me. If I choose to assign sentimental value to the latter it does nothing to change is objective worth.For example, you'd value a gift more knowing your wife gave it to you than you would if you found it in a gutter. Orgins matter.
People often run to science to validate their beliefs...I was just doing the same thing..."turning the tables", so to speak...not that I need scientists to believe in God to reinforce my own beliefs, because I do not.
But you're right, nothing precludes scientists from believe untrue and/or absurd things.
People often run to science to validate their beliefs...I was just doing the same thing..."turning the tables", so to speak...not that I need scientists to believe in God to reinforce my own beliefs, because I do not.
But you're right, nothing precludes scientists from believe untrue and/or absurd things.
However scientists then don't turn around and use this believe of untrue or absurd things as proof of the things they work on and test on a daily basis.
For something to be scientifically proven it must be repeatable and reperformable for anyone wishing to recreate the initial experiment or discovery.
I can't reperform a miracle on command. Nor can I have god speak from the heavens on command to test any of your hypothesises about the existence of a divine creator.
Science, not scientists. Science is performed by scientists, the beliefs of an individual scientist is irrelevant. You weren't doing the same thing, you were doing the exact opposite.