Freedom Defender

Reporting on politics, society, principles, Christian interest and news that intrigues me.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Science vs. Religion

The term "science vs. religion" is a fallacy. It makes a good title of a post, but this only confuses the issue of the origin of the universe and the nature of man (and woman). Some people feel that religious people are AGAINST science, and are trying to stop science and progress. I have no desire to eliminate science and I do not believe that religion and science conflict at all. I believe that science is the study of God's creation and reveals the intangible laws God set in place.

I must clarify the discussion with more accurate definitions. Some proponents of Darwinism feel that science *IS* their religion. Or that science is the religion of rational people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science, according to Merriam-Webster Online, is not a belief... it is

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

Science is not a belief system. It is a logical methodical system to knowledge aquisition or a field of expertise in which one can gain knowledge. Science is valuable for everyone to learn.

I think it's great to teach Children how to study the world, to analyze it, to try to figure out how it works. Knowledge about the Earth and universe God created is a great thing. I'm not sure where some people get the idea that I, or any creationist, would be against science or learning. It sounds very narrow minded to say if someone is a creationist... that means they don't believe in science. I use math, logic and the scientific method every day in my job. I think science is great! It was one off my favorite subjects in school (except for the Darwinist propaganda part).

What I have a problem with is a belief system that is forced on children in the name of science. It is not science to say that man evolved from genetic goo (primordial soup) and then evolved into a primitive proto-primate and then into homo-sapiens. That is a belief. That is a faith.

Some might say that I may not buy the Darwinists theories, because I don't understand them. I understand it quite well thanks. Just because I am not a whole hearted believer in the Darwinist faith, does not mean I don't understand it. I could go into all the flaws in that theory and the cases that can't be explained but I'll just try to be positive. I'm also familiar because, Darwinism has been pushed on me in New York public schools since I was a child. Just because I didn't fall for it and I can see it's flaws, doesn't mean I don't understand it. In College it was hoisted on me again, but this time, at least in College, my University had the intellectual honesty to place it where it belonged... in the College of Liberal Arts, not in the College of Science.

What I object to is the Darwinist FAITH being pushed on our children. The science of Intelligent Design is not taught in school. You may not be as familiar with that field of science, because the Darwinists are trying to maintain a monopoly on our public schools. On the Intelligent Design Network website this is what they believe: "We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality". I don't see the harm in teaching our children science and not religion in SCIENCE class. Why must Darwinists force their religion in science class? If Darwinists must force religiously infused beliefs in the classroom, can't the science of Intelligent Design be taught too? Why must Darwinists be against this kind of objectivity? Let's put an end to this narrow mindedness in science and keep philosophy and religion in their proper contexts. Let's seek scientific advancement without prejudice.

I think we should strive for more and not settle for such a narrow-minded and religiously-partisan view in SCIENCE class; in a class that's SUPPOSED to teach children how to analyze the world objectively.

Just to clarify this is in NO WAY an argument about science versus religion, although it does make a catchy title for this post :) This is about the Darwinist faith on the origin of man versus Christianity. This is about Darwin's theories being forced upon children captive in classrooms. It's about Darwinism, which is a recycled version of the theory of Spontaneous Generation first mentioned in the 4th Century BC by Aristotle and later scientifically disproved by Louis Pasteur and Francisco Redi in the 17th Century (This was the theory that garbage actually turned into maggots and then flies and then rats). This is about Darwin's Theories, based on theories that garbage turns into rats, versus Intelligent Design. This discussion is about science vs. science or religion vs. religion. This is not about science vs. religion.

This Darwinist religion is being forced in our classrooms causing an Establishment of Religion in public Schools and in our Science classes. If faith was not being taught in public school I wouldn't be bringing this problem up. The problem is that faith in Darwinism is being forced on children in schools. Darwinists wouldn't like it if someone was forcing creationism on their kids. Please don't continue to allow forcing Darwinism on others kids... especially without balance.

Speaking of balance, there are many museums steeped in Darwinists philosophy and funded by those who promote Darwinist propaganda. Outside Cincinnati, in Northern Kentucky a Creation Museum has been erected. You can take a virtual walkthrough of it here. I haven't been there, so I don't really know what they say. But it's good to know that all of science hasn't closed their mind to one small dogmatic view (Darwinist random spontaneous generation theories).

Interestingly enough, there have been some scientific advancements BECAUSE of the Bible. This objective scientific truth is not taught in our classrooms, so you may not be familiar with it. In fact, scientists have been able to get a better knowledge of the physical world and it's phenomenon through reading the Bible:

"Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression 'paths of the sea' in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, 'If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them.' Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities."

"In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the 1.5 million cubic foot ark he was to build. In 1609 at Hoorn in Holland, a ship was built after that same pattern (30:5:3), revolutionizing ship-building. By 1900 every large ship on the high seas was inclined toward the proportions of the ark (verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping" in the World Almanac)."

Other examples listed in the page "Science And the Bible" show evidence of scientific truth in the Bible, but the two that I show here illustrate clearly that the Bible generated scientific advancements.

In summary the Bible itself has been a tool used to help scientifically advance society and the world in Oceanography and Nautical Technology. It has been a means of scientific advancement, not a deterrent, as some feel.

Also, the science being forced on children in schools is not objective. It is infused with one dogmatic view based on the ancient view of Spontaneous Generation (4th Century BC), where garbage turns into rats, updated with scientific jargon by Darwinists. This establishment of religion in the classroom is a violation of all our rights. Intelligent Design should be added to curriculums to give our students the best scientific knowledge about our origins, whether it be using theorem's derived by Darwin or Intelligent Design science. Let's not be prejudiced with our science and let's remain neutral.

Lastly and most importantly, God is not against science. Science does not threaten God. He is the creator of knowledge itself and the creator of the Universe. The false dichotomy of "science vs. religion", is just that... a false presumption. Science is the study of God's creation and reveals the intangible laws of nature God set in place.


At 11:23 PM, Blogger Micah said...

I find myself totally in agreement with the principle that the idea of "Science vs. Religion" is a false precept. The tricky part is where and how to figure out which is which. Unfortunately, that part (the important part) is invariably heavily politicized, and no one (including me) has a completely objective outlook on it.

What is "science," that is, natural science in the way people use the term? Well, it seems to me to be methodological naturalism, that is, the study of nature in how it, in itself, works. Anything that people would want to call "science" (prior to the 19th century, "science" just meant an organized body of knowledge, like the first two Webster definitions you cite there; nowadays, people just use it to mean natural science, which itself used to be known as "natural philosophy") seems to be found under that paradigm. Given that definition, it seems pretty clear to me that Darwinism is science, and "Intelligent Design" is not.

It's probably true that the picture many schoolkids are given of the history of life on Earth is relatively simplistic, and is one in which "Darwinism" figures much more largely than it does in actual current evolutionary theory. But giving a more representative picture in simple terms is extraordinarily tricky given that evolution is complex and still only very sketchily understood (someone else said it very well, that "Evolution has had its Newton in Darwin, but not yet its Einstein."). Specifically, Darwinist natural selection explains basic speciation quite well, but opinions differ on what the much longer-term process looked like. What virtually no biologists call into question, however, is that evolution--"descent with modification"--is the only the scientific (methodologically naturalist) paradigm for the job. What are decidedly not candidates for giving people a wider understanding of the state of scientific knowledge on the subject are things like "Intelligent Design," and the "Answers in Genesis" group with their "Creation Museum." In terms of overall current science, these groups are fringe groups at best, and attract attention precisely by marginalizing themselves while insisting that some conspiratorial "atheist establishment" marginalizes them. I hope that, in the rest of this comment, I can explain why I believe this to be the case.

Here's the main problem with "Intelligent Design" as "science": by its stated aim to look for and find design, or in other words a "deus ex machina", to explain life, it pretty much just disqualifies itself to be "science" as I've described. Because, you see, you already have to believe in God to find this a worthy pursuit, and so people who pursue this may well find it interesting but just end up "ghettoizing" themselves instead of engaging in the corporate, global activity of science. They sell books that way, but that's about all they accomplish. The first link you made to "Intelligent Design", to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article "Design Arguments for the Existence of God," is a very informative one: did you read it? (the author is a Christian philosopher) The section "Contemporary Versions of the Design Argument" is an excellent summary of the gist of current "intelligent design"-type arguments, and their (fundamental) flaws. I highly recommend reading through it. Here's the one-sentence take-home lesson from it: "But since it is the very existence of such a being that is at issue in the debates about God’s existence, design arguments appear unable to stand by themselves as arguments for God’s existence." That, and never mind what such things are supposed to be doing in science class.

To anticipate a response of, "Well, you have to be an atheist to find Darwinism a worthy pursuit," here's the million-dollar point: No, you don't. Of course, atheists are constrained to be not only methodological naturalists but philosophical naturalists, but it seems to me pretty clear that you can pursue the "research program" of methodological naturalism without being a philosophical naturalist, as many Christians who are scientists do. You are absolutely right when you say that "Some proponents of Darwinism feel that science is their religion," and that leads to a pretty bizarre worldview when essentially one's religion is science, but that's a reflection on such people's philosophical naturalism, not on Darwinism itself. True science, as I'm sure you'll agree, says nothing one way or another on God's involvement with nature. So while "Intelligent Design," or any other such theory that seeks to supplement methodological naturalism with metaphysical interpretations, may be in some sense valid in principle, it just isn't science. God may have been (and, I think, certainly was!) involved in all kinds of ways in the history of life on Earth, but there's nothing at all contradictory to that in a research program--methodological naturalism--that by the constraints of its own nature can only see "chance" or whatever. That's also an extremely important point, I think, and all the more so because it's very largely unrecognized.

In addition to that, "intelligent design," if it is a scientific "theory" at all, is in an extremely fledgling state as such, and has not been put into practice by any scientists except perhaps two or three whose names you might recognize and who have authored a number of popular-level books. Given that fact, I really just don't know what people have in mind when they advocate "the teaching of intelligent design in science class." I can't help but suggest that you look into the specifics of what "Intelligent Design" entails before you advocate, willy-nilly, its teaching in science classes (this is going to mean more than reading just the by-line on a website put there for P.R. purposes ;-) ).

Given that Darwinism is about changes in populations over time due to genetic variability plus environmental/ecological constraints, and itself has nothing to do with the origins of life in the first place, I find myself perplexed as to why you virtually equate it with "spontaneous generation." Can you explain that further?

At 11:17 AM, Blogger FreedomDefender said...


Thank you for your comments. They appear to have substance and depth. You have certainly written the most comprehensive and impressive comment on this blog, thus far. I applaud you.

There are some points of disagreement that I believe we have, but I am glad that we can have this discussion and that we both agree that “the idea of ‘Science vs. Religion’ is a false precept”.

An unwritten point you seemed to be strongly implying in your comment was:

“Natural Philosophy” = good (Science)

NOT “Natural Philosophy” = bad (Not Science)

My position, as stated in my post is that philosophy belongs in liberal arts, not in science class. My problem is that Darwinists are forcing philosophy and religion into the classroom under the false name of science. I don’t condone infusing philosophy and religion into a class that is supposed to be a science class. Philosophy should be taught in philosophy class, not in science class.

Also the monopolization of Darwin over natural science is quite disproportionate and therefore needs to be brought into check. What is being taught in class is more Darwinist propaganda, than representative of science as a whole, as you said: “It's probably true that the picture many schoolkids are given of the history of life on Earth is relatively simplistic, and is one in which ‘Darwinism’ figures much more largely than it does in actual current evolutionary theory”. This is another reason that I feel it important to write this post. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.

Furthermore, the claims that natural philosophy itself is a “science” are interesting considering that different rules apply to this “science” than to others. “Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” [Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American)]. Generating historical narratives is certainly not acceptable for other “sciences”, but this method is given a pass when it is Darwinism that is under scrutiny.

Although I understand that “Intelligent Design” has not gained full momentum in the scientific community, I don’t believe that means that it should be invalidated. I disagree with the following postulation:

Fringe = Incorrect

Mainstream Acceptance = Correct

Galileo was considered a fringe scientist, but he was correct. The world is round. Einstein ushered in a new era of science, but when he was promoting his ideas, he was a fringe scientist. Just because a field of science is viewed as being on the fringe, or not mainstream science, does not mean that it is incorrect or even less scientific (I’m sure the Theory of Relativity seems much less “scientific” to some, than Newtonian Science – Especially if you’re running on a train, moving at the speed of light :-) ).

Some of the conversation here may be clarified by what I mean by “Darwinists”. Here I am referring to “Darwinists” as the people who claim that “science” is their “religion”. I believe you called people with this worldview “philosophical naturalists” (some may call them “metaphysical naturalists”). So, when you read my post and the rest of my comments, please insert the more accurate term, “philosophical naturalists” (“metaphysical naturalists”), whenever you see the term “Darwinists”.

I don’t have a problem teaching “methodical naturalism” (the term “Empirical Naturalism” is probably more precise here) in science class, it’s when it’s melded with “philosophical naturalism” (or “metaphysical naturalism”) that it’s dangerous and a violation of the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. When one philosophy, “philosophical naturalism” (the religion of “Darwinism”), in opposition to other philosophical beliefs (or faiths), is forced on children in the name of science, is wrong.

It seems that teaching Intelligent Design in school is troublesome to you. Teaching Intelligent Design is not teaching that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created the Universe in 7 Days. In fact, as you pointed out, “design arguments appear unable to stand by themselves as arguments for God’s existence”. As you can therefore determine, I am not advocating that classes teach to prove God. What I am seeing is that science classes teach the religion of “philosophical naturalism” (“Darwinism”) and purposefully exclude other valid philosophical views. An alternative view, “Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims ‘that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.’”

“this is going to mean more than reading just the by-line on a website put there for P.R. purposes ;-)” Funny :-) But I will go further to explain Intelligent Design, besides simply the by-lines and the write ups on the websites I linked.

Intelligent Design does not say that God created the universe (although some of those famous book authors you mention certainly profit off of promoting that). As you said, “True science, as I'm sure you'll agree, says nothing one way or another on God's involvement with nature”. Intelligent Design does not say that God created the universe one way or the other. “it simply claims ‘that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.’”, as mentioned above.

About Intelligent Design, you commented, “its stated aim to look for and find design, or in other words a ‘deus ex machina’, to explain life, it pretty much just disqualifies itself to be ‘science’ as I've described”. The scientific method of validating or invalidating a theorem is to have a hypothesis and to look for evidence that supports your hypothesis or evidence contrary to the hypothesis. Darwinism looks for signs of natural selection and genetic variation. People studying the theory proposed, look for evidence of that theory. That is the nature of science. To further illustrate what I mean through Intelligent Design, let’s look at Biological Engineers mutating hematopoietic cells. Certain Biological Engineers can probably tell the mutation types of famous Biological Engineers. For example Biological Engineers can probably identify the work of E. Terry Papoutsakis by the way hematopoietic cells are modified. Through Intelligent Design principles, one could study and identify Papoutsakis’ hematopoietic cell modification and differentiate those cells from other Biological Engineers work. The Intelligence, in the Intelligent Design, does not automatically imply that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the intelligence being referred to. In this case, the designer would be E. Terry Papoutsakis and not God directly.

I have not purported that one has to be an atheist to find the study of evolution a worthy pursuit, nor will I. You certainly don’t have a point of contention with me about that. I certainly don’t believe that Christians studying living populations (plant, animal, etc.) adaptation to their environment to be a vain pursuit. On the contrary however, you proposed that “Because, you see, you already have to believe in God to find [Intelligent Design] a worthy pursuit”. I disagree. Raëlianists can be quite dogged proponents of Intelligent Design as well, although they do not believe in God. Raëlianism believes that Aliens created and designed the DNA-based life we know today. (I am not supporting the Raëlian religion, but I am illustrating that Intelligent Design is not solely a science of theism – nor I am I claiming that adding Raëlianists to the big tent of potential Intelligent Design advocates adds any legitimacy). In summary, I don’t believe that people who are Christians can’t study evolution (never believed or espoused that) and I know there are some who believe in Intelligent Design, but do not believe in God.

One can genuinely study the similarity in genome structure between species and determine that it is due to a similar designer and not because one begot the other, or that the two have a similar ancestor, which begot them both. Begetting is not the only possible method for genetic similarity. The two camps of Darwinism and Intelligent Design look at similar genetic structure between most living things and see two different things.

Intelligent Design: Similar Species = Similar Designer of the Species

Darwinists: Similar Species = Constructs a historical narrative tale, in which it is envisioned that there was an original being, that gave birth to every/most living creatures and all species descend from that original primordial-soup-type being.

What Intelligent Design science does is study the complexity of life, improbability of unguided evolution and studies how well fine-tuned the Earth and biological entities are. I don’t think a science studying the narrow window that variability and natural selection must meet in order to sustain life is ...not science. The scientific study of the fragility of life is fascinating whether you are an atheist or a theist.

Above I informed you that when I said “Darwinists” in my post, I was talking about “Metaphysical Naturalists” (I did this because most “metaphysical naturalists” don’t realize they are “metaphysical naturalists” – they call themselves “Darwinists” or believers in “Darwinism”). This leads me to more accurately address your question about how I can compare Spontaneous Generation with “metaphysical naturalism” (“philosophical naturalism”, which I called current day “Darwinism” in my post). Easy... Spontaneous Generation is “metaphysical naturalism” (“philosophical naturalism”). According to “Shlomi Tal’s Metaphysical Naturalism Pages” ( “Metaphysical Naturalism — the worldview that nature is all there is, and that the physical-chemical behaviours of matter are sufficient to account for all phenomena”. Those who believe that science *IS* their religion, and refer to themselves as “Darwinists”, believe in the natural world creating life without intelligent forces. This is what proponents of Spontaneous Generation believed. “Metaphysical Naturalists” believe that some magical combination of natural products spawns life, where none previously existed. This view is not science and it’s not scientific. This view is supported in our schools. It’s an ironic sort of “deus ex machina” without the “deus”. It’s just some magical solve-all anti-theistic entity/principle/chemical, which is not observable, nor scientific, yet this philosophy is infused throughout science classes. The former “Metaphysical Naturalists” clung on to Spontaneous Generation to promote their views and when Darwin came along, they branded themselves as “Darwinists” and made the false claim that “science” supports them (when it is really a mythological historical narrative based on the “metaphysical naturalist” religion that they hold to).

I am unsure why exactly you feel that the historical narrative of methodical naturalism or philosophical naturalism should have a monopoly in science class. Please explain further. Thanks for your insightful inquiries to my post. I appreciate being able to discuss this.

At 4:40 PM, Blogger Micah said...

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I suppose I have successfully gotten some points across, but on others you seem to have misread me.

My contrast of Darwinism (as I use the term; that is, the scientific theory of speciation by population changes) with Intelligent Design should be understood (as I guess I assumed was clear from context, but it seems it was not) in the framework of "what is to count as science," that is, in terms of the second paragraph in my previous comment. So, in terms of what should be taught in science class, it's good for science to be taught in science class and metaphysical complications to not be introduced. That's the only value judgement I'm trying to pass here.

Perhaps my parenthetical statement in the second paragraph introduced some confusion of terminology; I just thought it was an interesting historical sidenote, but let's please not confuse the 19th-century term "natural philosophy" with the contemporary term "naturalist philosophy". The former is what we know as "science," the latter is eliminative metaphysics.

If "Darwinists"--as you use the term--are trying to use the science classroom to spread their naturalist philosophy, then they are wrong to do so. However, I think it is an error basically equivalent to the one just stated to try to introduce "Intelligent Design" into the science classroom. The battling of these two metaphysical viewpoints back and forth is like two political partisans arguing back and forth: "Bush is a freaking idiot!" "No he's not, he's a genius!" "What, are you crazy??"... and so on and so forth. Each position exists only in overreaction to the other and has no independent grounds of its own. The issues in themselves get nothing but muddied and obscured. When that battleground is the classroom, where learning is supposed to happen, for all the wreckage and detritus everyone is just going to get swept in it and not learn much of anything objective. So, I think it's vastly important not to react to philosophical naturalism by trying to introduce philosophical supernaturalism where it doesn't belong either, but simply and modestly saying, "Look, let's just teach science in science class." And Intelligent Design, just in invoking a designer of any kind, divine or not, goes beyond the realm of methodological naturalism.

Now, there seems to be a widespread supposition that Darwinist evolutionary theory (here I'm talking about just science, now) and "Intelligent Design" should be presented as opposing points of view. You know, "equal time," and all that. The reason why goes back to my original definition of science, which I will here reiterate: methodological naturalism, that is, the study of nature in how it, in itself, works. Darwinism is just the claim that given a) genetic variability, b) limited resources, and c) generational time, populations will differentiate and speciation will occur. That's a perfectly legitimate scientific hypothesis--that is, one that's about how nature, in itself, works. What falls under the rubric of "ID" does not seem to me to be such. Rather, it's a supplement to it that says (although it's somewhat difficult to pin down the ID crowd on what exactly their claims consist of) "Yes, there are these natural processes and such, but then, at certain points or other, not to be specified when or how, some intelligence, not to be specified who, tinkered with it, and that's the only possible explanation for biological complexity." That's an extremely strong claim--that is, difficult to defend--because it's eliminative. That seems to me to be completely different from scientific theories, as such. You can recognize the "fingerprint" of some bioengineer because you know just what to look for; I just don't see the analogy between that and Intelligent Design, where one can't know what one is looking for, yet still one finds it.

The counter that "Oh, no one's claiming this designer is God--see, even the Raelians like ID" is, as I see it, totally immaterial to the objection that ID is essentially a "science" of a certain presupposition: it looks for, and lo and behold finds, a designer of some kind. So substitute "designer of some kind or other" for "God," and the argument holds. This may be a difficult point to see right away. Christian philosopher Michael Murray has written a whole paper on the subject:
It's recommended if you want to read more about this problem I'm trying to point out. Although it's a philosophy paper, it's not terribly technical or dense as they go; just requires careful reading.

Oh yeah, about "constructing a historical narrative": you bring up an interesting point, but I don't think the presence of a "historical narrative" disqualifies something as a science; such historical components need only be an intrinsic part of the study of whatever arena is relevant. Population changes, speciation, and evolution over time as a theory that integrates a wide range of data is not at all out of place. As a parallel, there is certainly a "historical narrative" in theoretical Physics when physicists do the mathematically demanding work of trying to figure out what exactly happened in the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang.

I think that about does it for addressed all the major points so far. We agree that science education should keep to the science. The point of contention is "what is to count as science." I hope I've helped make clear why I think methodological naturalism should have a monopoly in science education: it's because methodological naturalism is science.

At 4:41 PM, Blogger Micah said...

D'oh! It cut off that URL! Well, Google "Michael Murray design trouble" (not in quotes, however), and you'll find the pdf file there as the first hit. Do read it--I think you'll find it most interesting.

At 4:45 PM, Blogger Micah said...

Sorry, me again, I've already got an 'errata' report! In the fifth paragraph of my comment, the third sentence should begin "The reason why I think that's a mistake goes back to..." rather than "The reason why goes back to..."

At 9:28 AM, Blogger Steven said...

Superb post and blog. I just wanted to add something that I thought as a child ever since the Darwin Theory was taught to me:

If man evolved from ape and if it does pan out to be scientifically proven does the Bible refute that possibility? I thought no. The Bible never states that God created modern man. Adam and Eve very well could've been two hairy ape-like creatures.
This really baffles the Darwinists when I say this. They simply don't want to see things from all possible dimensions.

At 4:41 AM, Anonymous Joey said...

I would like to add a a slightly different approach to this subject. Coming from a family with a truly sencere , devoted, faithul Christian (not a [as my childhood paster would say] a "keaster". people who attend service on cristmas and easter), and a father of science, who infact kept a wall sized poaster of Albert Einstein in his living room. Because of this situation I have seen the extremes of bother ideas and arguments of both, science and religion. I personally have always Kept an open mind as to the idea that anyones ideas/befliefs, reguardless of your own values and morals, can be infact, a correct idea. In science when an idea is mearly and Hypothosis, and someone is assuming a thesis, we still consider this "science". This idea has not yet been tested, or proven, by any means. This though is the essence of science. The thought, assumption, and conclusions of new ideas. So to say that religion is not a science is to say that religion on any nevel can be "true". I belive its not so march of an argument of science vs. religion, however mearly an argument of morals, and values.


Post a Comment

<< Home