The Can of Worms called Creation and/or Evolution

[evmori 11]

Enough with the goat entrails! What else ya got?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Oh, there's no end to non-scientific methods that claim to reveal information: praying, astrology, ESP, various religious scriptures, ouija boards, etc, etc. But I see no reason to think any of them are credible, just like reading goat entrails.

[Gunny2862 11]

I'd have to check with our current Goat Science expert but I think I remember her saying that you can learn a lot about the health of a herd by doing some goat entrails reading.

 

Doesn't really help me understand why I'm here, how I came to be here and whether or not my life has a purpose other than my own personal fulfillment,(the basic but no only questions involved in creating ones worldview), but it is scientific.

 

I could be wrong but even though forensic science can tell us after the fact how something happened, it cannot always tell us why something happened.

Often it takes testimonial evidence to find out why - and testimonial evidence is not really within the realm of Scientific endeavor.

 

So if religion works for some folks in answering the questions they're asking why does the Scientific crowd have such a backlash against them unless it is to win them over to their worldview/religion? And then deny that they are adherents to a religion?

[evmori 11]

Oh, there's no end to non-scientific methods that claim to reveal information: praying, astrology, ESP, various religious scriptures, ouija boards, etc, etc. But I see no reason to think any of them are credible, just like reading goat entrails.

 

Ever try praying? I don't buy into astrology or ESP or Ouija boards either. But what do they have to do with religion? And what religious scriptures are you referring to?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gunny2862, yes, examining goat entrails could tell you some things about the goat; probably not any useful information about the future, though.

 

So if religion works for some folks in answering the questions they're asking why does the Scientific crowd have such a backlash against them unless it is to win them over to their worldview/religion?

 

Hey, some people use Magic 8-Balls for answers. It's easy getting answers. Radio Shack has answers. If all you want are answers, any answer will do.

 

I prefer to use the scientific method to:

1) find the best answer (or answers) that explains current observations;

2) make predictions, which hopefully are accurate (if not, that's a strike against it as "best answer")

3) refine the current crop of best answers to get answers that are more accurate and/or more complete

 

Ed, I don't buy into praying just like you don't buy into ESP. My examples, as I wrote and as you apparently didn't read, are examples of non-scientific methods that claim to reveal information. And I'd put all religious scriptures in that category.

[evmori 11]

Yup. Limited scope & very narrow minded.(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out." -- Judge Harry Stone, Night Court

[scoutingagain 20]

"So if religion works for some folks in answering the questions they're asking why does the Scientific crowd have such a backlash against them unless it is to win them over to their worldview/religion? And then deny that they are adherents to a religion?"

 

I don't believe it's the scientists going into Churches asking to be allowed to present their point of view as an alternative valid faith or religion.

 

SA

 

 

 

[Eagledad 2777]

This is one of those discussions that no one wins. I work in a scientific environment and I have to kind of laugh at the assumptions of how we get from point A to point B thru science. Or what we assume is science. Sometimes point B is only the opinion of the guy at the top of the tower. It isnt until many years later after the tower crumbles that the truth is really found. I see it everyday. I think we will see that in global warming.

 

Anyway, as much as I know what goodness God brings into our personal lives, much less our culture, I can relate to LeRoys view when thinking about homosexuality. Many folks claim gays are born gay. Or even that God designed them that way. Yet there is no evidence that the biological body was designed to for homosexual relations at all. In fact it is just the opposite, the body is not designed for active long term gay relationships. Eventually something has to give. So, when I hear or read someone suggesting that folks are born gay, I have to assume that their belief is only held on, well faith.

 

Barry

 

[Gonzo1 10]

AAaaahhhh, ya gotta love a good Ed - Merlyn show.

 

Once in a while, I disagree with Packsaddle. I do believe that Jonah was in the belly of the whale and the other "stories" in the Bible. Especially the one about the flood. I believe the ark has been located on Mount Ararat. Hmm,

 

I believe the Earth was mad in 6 days. I also believe there were probably a bazillion years between each day.

 

I just have a time believing man crawled up out of the muck and started walking or that we evolved from apes. I just don't buy it.

 

I also agree with Eagledad, no one is going to win this one.

 

[Gunny2862 11]

I also concur, no one wins, this will be settled by the last post (the one who is there last writes the history).

 

However, scoutingagain said "I don't believe it's the scientists going into Churches asking to be allowed to present their point of view as an alternative valid faith or religion."

 

True, but science is in the schools(where it does in fact have a place) but it does not the right to sell itself as fact while displacing other worldviews as myth.

 

When it is used in it's proper context is does provide ways to, as Merlyn stated:

"1) find the best answer (or answers) that explains current observations;

2) make predictions, which hopefully are accurate (if not, that's a strike against it as "best answer")

3) refine the current crop of best answers to get answers that are more accurate and/or more complete."

 

However this tool doesn't usually provide the kind of answers a worldview usually calls for... and in the worldview market can often be said to be the wrong tool just as faith is the wrong tool for Scientific inquiry.

[Gold Winger 9]

"True, but science is in the schools(where it does in fact have a place)"

 

Why? Only because the priests of Science have infiltrated the legislatures and the school boards.

 

Science only works because you have to use tools developed by their clergy when "doing Science."

 

 

[evmori 11]

"I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out." -- Judge Harry Stone, Night Court

 

Now there is a stellar individual to quote!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hey Gold Winger, science is the only "religion" that works even if you don't believe in it. I doubt that you're posting messages in this forum using the power of prayer.

[Gunny2862 11]

I don't know about that Merlyn,

 

Many religious adherents would claim that their religion is working for everyone - but that those who aren't adherents of their religion (or at least of "a" religion)were simply ending up on the wrong end of the spectrum of outcomes by not participating. Thus many religions do "work" for everyone, they just might not provide the desired outcome by non-adherents for non-adherents.

 

I like an open mind too, my faith doesn't require that I not evaluate evidence - where it exists.

 

An old Christian comedy ensemble I recall as Isaac Air Freight had a bit I still enjoy, just wish I could get the recording or remember more of it:

paraphrased...

"(Military Cadence) Left, Right, Left, Right,

(Jody Cadence) I know what I believe and believe what I know,

'Cause the Sergeant here done told me so,

thinking for yourself only jumbles your mind,

but, I'd rather be a branch from the true vine,

(dramatically) Oh yeeaah."

The whole thing was a bit about simply buying into religion without thinking about what you were being sold - and whether you had to simply groupthink religion or not. Point being that you don't.

 

But try getting past a peer review board if your ideas aren't within scientific orthodoxy even if your methodology is flawless. Talk about groupthink... peer review would be great if ideas were truly examined but they are in reality put to the orthodox examination of the field wherein the theory lies. The inertia may eventually be overcome by the superior idea but, wow.

 

So one puts faith where they will, in a worldview categorized as a Religion or Science or other Humanistic thought. For those who place their faith in religion they may be wrong - but they don't think so and neither do those who place their faith in science. The outcome will be proven after we are gone - either way. I know that I know the answer but many others can claim the same, when I can be convinced away - I am open to the argument - but just don't (most likely like you)belive that will happen.