[besson3c]

It seems that right now we are in the midst of a war here at home that is essentially science vs. religion. Bush's 2000 campaign was built largely around acting the part of a Christian good old boy (and I do mean "acting" quite literally). In practice, it seems that the Bush's real and main interest was in moving money out of the public sector into the private sector. Anyway, I digress, but I do believe that somehow the mixture of politics and science has helped contribute to this problem.

The real point I want to make is that this so-called war is misguided. It is wrong to use science as a means to assign meaning to our existence, or to carry on a political agenda to invoke change based on interpretation of scientific fact. Science is not about that, but about the *method* which is used to derive scientific fact. You cannot use religion to debate scientific fact, because a good scientist will simply point to the work that was done, rather than try to persuade somebody into believing a certain way. Science is not about politics and viewpoint like religion can be, it is simply about exploring and researching the unknown using the scientific method. Scientists are not all politicians at heart.

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer to a scientist, as there are many things we do not know. If somebody wants to assign meaning to things we do not understand by claiming that a God was responsible for some sort of wonder, that is fine, and their choice. To say that science itself is in direct opposition to these beliefs creates a false dichotomy, unless the religious are simply offended about being challenged and being asked to come up with scientific proof (which they never will be able to, nor should they be asked to).

I think the "solution" to this problem is in encouraging people to separate political agendas away from science, and leaving these up to the religious (although I'd prefer they keep their beliefs to themselves too). In doing so, I think we can realize that science is not in opposition to religion, and that there is a definite place in society for cutting edge scientific research, even if every last one of us were religious.

Do you agree?

[Warren Pease]

I do agree. Good post.

Though I can't see how science, even when done for pure knowledge, will not cause friction with the religious. When astronomers find evidence for the world being 10-12 billion years old, then religious people will object because it is a fundamental challenge to the basis of their beliefs.

It's not that there aren't some/many who CAN reconcile the differences, but for many, any kind of good debate/fight involves first, the two contestants moving as far away from each other to their respective corners before fighting.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

When astronomers find evidence for the world being 10-12 billion years old, then religious people will object because it is a fundamental challenge to the basis of their beliefs.

Hmm? Only if they believe that their religion holds fundamental something that is contradicted by science. There's nothing inherent in any religion I know that is contradicted by the finding that the world is x billion years old.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Hmm? Only if they believe that their religion holds fundamental something that is contradicted by science. There's nothing inherent in any religion I know that is contradicted by the finding that the world is x billion years old.

If you take the literal word of the bible, as some fundamentalists do, then wouldn't that be a contridiction? This is a specific and small example, but still valid.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you agree?

With what part of your post?

All of it? NO WAY!

Parts of it? Yes.

Nice blog post by the way.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

If you take the literal word of the bible, as some fundamentalists do, then wouldn't that be a contridiction? This is a specific and small example, but still valid.

The Bible doesn't literally or otherwise say that the world is any particular age.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The Bible doesn't literally or otherwise say that the world is any particular age.

Okay, you got me. I'm probably not the best defender of that view (not holding it myself) and it appears you may not either, but there is the claim that, based on the research of John Lightfoot and Bishop Ussher, that the earth formed 4004 BCE.

That is interesting though that some people (and people who know the bible forwards and backwards) adhere to that idea, if it's not specifically stated there.

A young Earth—it’s not the issue!

Originally Posted by Ken Ham

I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Nice blog post by the way.

How is this a blog post?







I mean... people actually read what he wrote.

ZING!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It seems that right now we are in the midst of a war here at home that is essentially science vs. religion. Bush's 2000 campaign was built largely around acting the part of a Christian good old boy (and I do mean "acting" quite literally). In practice, it seems that the Bush's real and main interest was in moving money out of the public sector into the private sector. Anyway, I digress, but I do believe that somehow the mixture of politics and science has helped contribute to this problem.

The real point I want to make is that this so-called war is misguided. It is wrong to use science as a means to assign meaning to our existence, or to carry on a political agenda to invoke change based on interpretation of scientific fact. Science is not about that, but about the *method* which is used to derive scientific fact. You cannot use religion to debate scientific fact, because a good scientist will simply point to the work that was done, rather than try to persuade somebody into believing a certain way. Science is not about politics and viewpoint like religion can be, it is simply about exploring and researching the unknown using the scientific method. Scientists are not all politicians at heart.

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer to a scientist, as there are many things we do not know. If somebody wants to assign meaning to things we do not understand by claiming that a God was responsible for some sort of wonder, that is fine, and their choice. To say that science itself is in direct opposition to these beliefs creates a false dichotomy, unless the religious are simply offended about being challenged and being asked to come up with scientific proof (which they never will be able to, nor should they be asked to).

I think the "solution" to this problem is in encouraging people to separate political agendas away from science, and leaving these up to the religious (although I'd prefer they keep their beliefs to themselves too). In doing so, I think we can realize that science is not in opposition to religion, and that there is a definite place in society for cutting edge scientific research, even if every last one of us were religious.

Do you agree?

No. In certain cases.
First Science can be thought about by thinking about the Analytic Axis. Scientific debate can be thought
about taking place on this mutidimensional axis or playing field. Mathematics, logic and sense data.Harvard University Press: Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought : Kepler to Einstein by Gerald Holton

For the most part, this remains true in scientific debate. But if you read say, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, the "bible" of the evolutionists, he invokes the the Creator in his conclusion and one is compelled to address the theologic implications of his theory. So, scientific debate should be kept on the analytic playing field to the exclusion of theolgy but there is a case to be made in at least one case it can not.