Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was actually in total agreement with you until you stated "suppression of science and reason." The educational system as well as the vast majority of advances in science all find their origin in Christian catechetical schools. The Reformation rescued the world from the suppression of all free thought.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that many historically documented atrocities have occurred in the name of Christ. It is my contention that such inexcusable bloodshed and the like are due to the obvious fallibility and depravity of men. It is our nature to take something good (even alleged Absolute Truth espoused by Christ) and distort it and make it something it is not.
For me to try and defend the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc. would be an exercise in folly. Christ came to give life and provide the ultimate and everlasting peace. Christians that have committed egregious acts in the name of their Master actually forfeit their right to speak on His behalf IMO.
What I meant by suppression of science and reason were things that the Religious Right does, for example trying to take evolution out of school and teach Creationism in public school or preventing stem cell research, things like that, not necessarily that religion or religious people have always done things stop the spread of science and rational inquiry.
What I meant by suppression of science and reason were things that the Religious Right does, for example trying to take evolution out of school and teach Creationism in public school or preventing stem cell research, things like that, not necessarily that religion or religious people have always done things stop the spread of science and rational inquiry.
What I meant by suppression of science and reason were things that the Religious Right does, for example trying to take evolution out of school and teach Creationism in public school or preventing stem cell research, things like that, not necessarily that religion or religious people have always done things stop the spread of science and rational inquiry.
Ok. However, if you were truly a proponent of free thought, wouldn't you want all options on the table and let discerning individuals make up their own minds? If Creationism is such a weak explanation for the earth's/mankind's origin, why be worried about it???
Ok. However, if you were truly a proponent of free thought, wouldn't you want all options on the table and let discerning individuals make up their own minds? If Creationism is such a weak explanation for the earth's/mankind's origin, why be worried about it???
Creationism isn't a scientific theory though. I don't have a problem with educators teaching it in classes like philosophy or theology, it's when they try have teachers teach it in science class, especially as a valid scientific theory.It's like teaching astrology alongside astronomy to put all options on the table. The thing with ideas like Creationism, astrology etc. is that they're faith based, that's all fine and good if someone wants to believe in them, but if someone tries to pass them off as scientific ideas then they become a form of pseudoscience. There are also many different Creation theories and there are people of many religions and lack there of in public school, so even if they taught Creationism, it's teaching a single religion's creation story.
Ok. However, if you were truly a proponent of free thought, wouldn't you want all options on the table and let discerning individuals make up their own minds? If Creationism is such a weak explanation for the earth's/mankind's origin, why be worried about it???
For the same reason I wouldn't want the concept of a flat earth being taught as a reasonable alternative to a round one, it's nonsense. There's a big difference between free thought and not thinking at all.
Creationism isn't a scientific theory though. I don't have a problem with educators teaching it in classes like philosophy or theology, it's when they try have teachers teach it in science class, especially as a valid scientific theory.It's like teaching astrology alongside astronomy to put all options on the table. The thing with ideas like Creationism, astrology etc. is that they're faith based, that's all fine and good if someone wants to believe in them, but if someone tries to pass them off as scientific ideas then they become a form of pseudoscience. There are also many different Creation theories and there are people of many religions and lack there of in public school, so even if they taught Creationism, it's teaching a single religion's creation story.
I'm unapologetically a Christian theist, but I do not necessarily have to uphold Christianity to believe in Creationism. Of course, I do believe that Christianity provides the most plausible truth in light of history, so that is where I hang my hat epistemologically/metaphysically.
Here's where you go wrong IMO:
>>>>>
"but if someone tries to pass them off as scientific ideas then they become a form of pseudoscience."
<<<<<
In terms of science explaining the origin of the universe/earth/humanity, much of accepted science could certainly be called "pseudoscience" at best.
For the same reason I wouldn't want the concept of a flat earth being taught as a reasonable alternative to a round one, it's nonsense. There's a big difference between free thought and not thinking at all.
Ah my friend, if you adhere to macroevolution then you have more "faith" than I ever will. Blessings.
I'm unapologetically a Christian theist, but I do not necessarily have to uphold Christianity to believe in Creationism. Of course, I do believe that Christianity provides the most plausible truth in light of history, so that is where I hang my hat epistemologically/metaphysically.
Here's where you go wrong IMO:
>>>>>
"but if someone tries to pass them off as scientific ideas then they become a form of pseudoscience."
<<<<<
In terms of science explaining the origin of the universe/earth/humanity, much of accepted science could certainly be called "pseudoscience" at best.
That isn't really true that what is accepted science could certainly be called 'pseudoscience' at best. Pseudoscience is an idea or theory which masquerades as being scientific, but in all actuality it's totally contrary to science. Pseudoscience is a form of antiscience. It's claims are arguments based on authority, they're unfalsiable and untestable and not open to new ideas or evidence that would disprove it's theory. On the other hand, a scientific theory is a body of knowledge which can be proven or disproven, gathered by a large amount of observations. It is open to change and new evidence. If new evidence comes in which support the current theory, then the current theory is kept, if new evidence changes the theory slightly or disproves it completely, then science changes its views. The scientific method, which is how scientists test their hypotheses and discover new theories is very conservative and has many steps compared to the steps in what makes an acceptable pseudoscience theory. Darwinism and the Big Bang are examples of scientific theories. They're testable and falsifiable. There's a way to prove or disprove them and there's actual empirical evidence in their favor. Theories like creationism, on the other hand have no emprirical evidence, they're unfalsifiable and untestable. Their 'truth' is based on someone's word.
Ah my friend, if you adhere to macroevolution then you have more "faith" than I ever will. Blessings.
How so? Macro evolution at least has SOME hard evidence. It may take some imagination to fill the gaps, but they are growing closer as we speak - with evidence.
I suppose I can see where you are coming from though, I mean earth suddenly appearing and making people out of mud does sound a lot more plausible...
I guess I could always see the wise guy in the back of the room asking "If people came from mud, why don't we see any more people coming from mud?"
How so? Macro evolution at least has SOME hard evidence. It may take some imagination to fill the gaps, but they are growing closer as we speak - with evidence.
I suppose I can see where you are coming from though, I mean earth suddenly appearing and making people out of mud does sound a lot more plausible...
I guess I could always see the wise guy in the back of the room asking "If people came from mud, why don't we see any more people coming from mud?"
I would love to see this "hard evidence" you speak of.....oh wait, you just intimated that I have to use my "imagination to fill in the gaps."
Just playin'; not intending to be offensive, Cleatis
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
