mOST aMERICANS BELIEVE IN cREATIONISM.

[SDML]

maybe your/our problem in understanding lies in the fact that we are merely men trying to read the mind of god?  man being man, rejects an authority greater than his own out of hubris, ignorance and convenience?  how damning is it to place our decisions and behaviors within a moral context?  maybe man is constantly striking out against nature because in nature we have before us the hand of god?  build a bridge, cover it with asphalt, pollute and poison until the hand of god is unrecognizable and then and only then can we convince ourselves and others that we are in fact god, free to act without moral restraint.

This is cool and all, but it doesn't at all address the issue of religion, or why people are scientifically illiterate, or why in absence of a solid answer we, as humans, are afraid to say "gee, I don't know' and instead grab the simplest explanation (like creationism and intelligent design) we can find.

The above, however, is an excellent starting point for a discussion of spiritual crisis in the modern world. I think you should make it a separate thread.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

maybe your/our problem in understanding lies in the fact that we are merely men trying to read the mind of god?  man being man, rejects an authority greater than his own out of hubris, ignorance and convenience?  how damning is it to place our decisions and behaviors within a moral context?  maybe man is constantly striking out against nature because in nature we have before us the hand of god?  build a bridge, cover it with asphalt, pollute and poison until the hand of god is unrecognizable and then and only then can we convince ourselves and others that we are in fact god, free to act without moral restraint.

Awesome! I am starting to follow this argument so please do!
This is cool and all, but it doesn't at all address the issue of religion, or why people are scientifically illiterate, or why in absence of a solid answer we, as humans, are afraid to say "gee, I don't know' and instead grab the simplest explanation (like creationism and intelligent design) we can find.

The above, however, is an excellent starting point for a discussion of spiritual crisis in the modern world. I think you should make it a separate thread.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

to suggest that the masses believe in creationism due to illiteracy,laziness or fear, while you on the other hand are enlightened due to your advanced understanding of science misses the point although it is to some degree the very hubris i was describing.  is it possible that a man can accept the science that you worship in his mind but reject it is his heart.  while this would seem to be an obvious dissonance it is i believe not.  rather it is an acknowledge meant of man's "innate spiritual nature".  mind you i am just asking questions, but it seems to me that the concept of god is globally embraced and has been from man's infancy on this planet.  maybe, just maybe that we are part of something that is beyond our understanding and beyond science?  so enlighten me if you will.  why do species evolve and specifically why did man evolve?   

[AC]

Man Evolved so that it might someday bow-down before the clear wisdom of Cheney and Rove, and the World could be as One.

[Vermouth]

"Intelligent design" is fine, as long as you teach it in religion, history, or anthropology class, not science. Personally, I think religion and science each have their role and it's best not to mix the two.

UUUUUGGGHHH!!! Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools at all, and most certainly not in anthropology or history class. ID is pseudo-scientific bullshit of the highest order - creationism in the faux clothes of science, dressed up to do make-believe, and nothing more.

History ... early Christians and how the Bible was a source that people used to explain the world around them. Anthropology ... North American Evangelical Christians circa 2008. Yeah, you're right. There is no way to make it relevant. It is really propaganda, nothing more.

to suggest that the masses believe in creationism due to illiteracy,laziness or fear, while you on the other hand are enlightened due to your advanced understanding of science misses the point although it is to some degree the very hubris i was describing.  is it possible that a man can accept the science that you worship in his mind but reject it is his heart.  while this would seem to be an obvious dissonance it is i believe not.  rather it is an acknowledge meant of man's "innate spiritual nature".  mind you i am just asking questions, but it seems to me that the concept of god is globally embraced and has been from man's infancy on this planet.  maybe, just maybe that we are part of something that is beyond our understanding and beyond science?  so enlighten me if you will.  why do species evolve and specifically why did man evolve?   

I don't think we're arguing about the concept of God, just the idea that we should give up observing the world around us because the Bible has already explained everything. We don't use science to explain why, just how. Humans are curious. God made them so. There is plenty that we will never understand.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

[conley]

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

i agree and would go so far as to say not only are they not mutually exclusive but that God is readily visible in science and nature

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

i agree and would go so far as to say not only are they not mutually exclusive but that God is readily visible in science and nature

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

i agree and would go so far as to say not only are they not mutually exclusive but that God is readily visible in science and nature

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

i agree and would go so far as to say not only are they not mutually exclusive but that God is readily visible in science and nature

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

i agree and would go so far as to say not only are they not mutually exclusive but that God is readily visible in science and nature

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

i agree and would go so far as to say not only are they not mutually exclusive but that God is readily visible in science and nature

i agree with that completely and thought that it bore repeating.

[SDML]

to suggest that the masses believe in creationism due to illiteracy,laziness or fear, while you on the other hand are enlightened due to your advanced understanding of science

BZZZT! Ad hominem.

Further, if someone is not informed as to the basics of science, then they are scientifically illiterate. That has nothing to do with laziness or fear, and is not a condemnation of the individual, but of the educational system (and even, if one is willing to stretch, a society that pays lip service to education, but doesn't demonstrate that it values education over CSI).

It only becomes an indictment of the individual once the adult individual is made aware of their lack of understanding and refuses to learn.

is it possible that a man can accept the science that you worship in his mind but reject it is his heart.  while this would seem to be an obvious dissonance it is i believe not.

First, your wording is sloppy (and again, ad hominem): No one is "worshipping science".

Second, I don't think it seems contradictory at all. You are painting religion too braodly. But you forget we aren't discussing religion in and of itself, but a specific fundamentalist stripe of religion that views the bible as the inerrant, perfect word of Yahweh/Jehovah that is literal in every detail. Biblical literalism is where creationism (and by extension, Intelligent Design) comes from.

why do species evolve and specifically why did man evolve?

This is not the purview of science. There is a mechanism by which evolution happens, but the "why" of it doesn't come into the picture for science. Science can tell you how. Philosophy discusses why.

i believe it likely that many people who believe in god also believe in science and are even practitioners.  i wonder how they do it?

Why is this a problem? The only problem I see is if someone is a fundamentalist religionist who must also deal with the reality of science. How does a fundamentalist reconcile a belief in biblical literalism with an understanding of natural selection, the fossil record, non-Ptolemic astronomy (more specifically, the Copernican model), Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and the like?

I wouldn't know.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

did you just knock the educational system?  maybe it is you that has no problem with religion so long as it is "painted" narrowly.  worship so long as you do not believe?  one might say that your religion is science and you defend it vigorously even when it is not attacked..and so science does not concern itself with why something might happen only that it happens?  what is the mechanism that triggers evolution?  maybe in that aspect science is incomplete and in fact intel design addresses why?  this seems not to have been a problem at all in that science seems to be advancing despite religion and likely with the contribution of many who believe.   

[SDML]

Yes, I knocked the educational system. Are you preparing to defend it?

I don't care how you define religion, so long as if it differs from Webster's you let us all in on it so the discussion can be intelligent and productive rather than circular & non-sensical. Just remember that within the scope of this discussion (see the topic title) we are discussing religious literalism. If you want to discuss something outside of those parameters, I'd be happy to (but would suggest you start another thread to avoid confusion)

Again, creationism is a product of biblical literalism. Intelligent design is creationism dressed up in scientific jargon (sans the self-correcting methodology). You cannot hold that creationism (or ID) is true and also hold that science is true. They are mutually exclusive.

One might say science is MY religion ? I didn't realize this discussion had anything to do with MY religion. I thought it was a discussion regarding the belief of creationism in America. Ah, yes - it is. Please put aside the ad hominem attacks, grumpy.

maybe in that aspect science is incomplete and in fact intel design addresses why?

That is not correct. You need to understand what Intelligent Design is if you want to defend it. You are just arguing to argue at the moment. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


I'm far more interested in what you mean by "spiritual". Now THAT seems like a very lively, entertaining, and enlightening conversation. Much more so than trying to defend pseudo-scientific poppycock.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

ah but you spoke of the "scientifically illiterate" yet rather than explain evolution, intelligent design or anything else with you own words/thoughts/understanding instead you refer me to "google it".  creationism, intelligent design and science are only in conflict due to your rigid application.  your understanding is limited in that you are just a man and by intelligent design.  i would say science is your religion given your absolutist defense is so reminiscent of those biblical literalists.  i am not attacking you and yes this is going in a circle.  but so is life.

[SDML]

Actually, I didn't say anything at all about googling anything. I did, however, provide a link to "intelligent design" because you seem to have a rather serious misunderstanding of what the term means and didn't accept on my words alone that it is nothing but "creationism dressed up in scientific jargon (sans the self-correcting methodology)".

creationism, intelligent design and science are only in conflict due to your rigid application.

You are mistaken. Creationism is a creed based on biblical literalism (within the Christian tradition) and science is a process by which we delve into the world. They are two very different things. My personal "rigid application" has nothing to do with anything.

What is your line? Ah, yes: Words have meaning. I did not assign meaning to any of the aforementioned terms/words - they already have meaning. I use them within the "Webster" context.

It is also for this reason that your line "science is your religion" has no real meaning. Science is not a belief system, it is a self-correcting process. In fact, science is, despite any shortcomings, the best tool we've ever built for exploring our world.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. " (Carl Sagan)[/i]

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

stop stressing yourself webster.  i am not even debating the enlightenment of your beloved science, rather i am asking questions holding myself open to the possibility that the answers provided through science are incomplete.  of course your application is rigid because you eliminate competing theories out of hand and out of self interest.  all i am saying is that possibly man is limited to science as his means of understanding the world because he is man created through intelligent design.  to look at the world and mr sagan's universe only through the eye of science is to view the world with one eye closed.  science is a religion and it is the alter at which we kneel to act as gods and behave without conscience.

[SDML]

I think you miss the point. Science states up-front that it is incomplete (thus the need for philosophical inquiry [which includes religious philosophy]), so there is no need to "hold yourself open" to such a possibility. Further, you are mistaken with regard to rigidness: no one is dismissing any competing theories "out of hand". Perhaps the debate between these theories is new to you, but not to everyone. Intelligent design & creationism have spoken their piece, but they cannot compete in the free market of ideas as rational concepts of how nature works. They only linger as artifacts of magical "feel-good" thinking, and will ultimately go the way of a geo-centric universe, a flat earth, and the do-do bird.

Further, no one is looking at the world with one-eye closed except those who cling to archaic, magical thinking. Yes, science is hard & messy & unglamorous while religious myth is pretty & clean & shiny, but being pretty didn't make Copernicus wrong, or Galileo wrong, or Columbus wrong. It took those men and men like them to open BOTH eyes to see how the world really is rather than what some myth with an agenda wants us to believe.

Science is not a religion, it is a logical, self-correcting process. Saying it is a religion loudly or often doesn't make it so.

With regard to behaving without conscience, I would remind you that those who worship profit & power may act without conscience, but it is science who reminded us first of the dangers of public dumping (Ben Franklin way back in the 1740s), the "human footprint" during western expansion (H.D. Thoreau in the 1800s), DDT & other chemical pollution (like Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" circa 1962), Global Warming (Dr. Sagan, D. James Lovelock, & others in the 1970s), and the like. It's also worth noting that men of science struggle against complacent, disbelieving populations as well as greedy individuals & groups in business & government.

Don't confuse science & technology (which are among the physical products of science used by everyone).Science is the brutal & unforgiving means that humans use to open both eyes and see what is real.