Why do people mix evolutionism & creationism?

[justme58]

Originally Posted by Kerowyn

I think I tried to clarify it in another post but to hopefully explain better. I will express something my mother told a while back.

within in most churches they have sunday school classes. They tend to divide these up by grades such as the public schools do. If child in between certain grades they attend certain classes together. Seniors High school kids tend to be the smallest class in most churches. Largest sunday school class in most churches tend to be the elementary school age kids.

if you take a a church that really never changes in membership and look at their classes as stated before the senior class always tand to be the smallest... why? because it is at that age that most kids start to explore more options in life and religion is not that important. Most start to return in someway about the age of 27ish and up... esp if they start having kids of thier own.

The church isn't turning the kids away or pushing them out nor is science making them question thier faith. It is just human nature to explore and look for new alternatives that work for oneself on a more personal level.

Unfortunately science can't understand faith since there is no science to it and faith can't look to science yet for answers so people of faith just believe.

I don't think churches willfully push folk away or consciously. It happens as folk start asking hard questions that science seems to have more plausible explanations to yet if a broad brush principle is applied, the shiesters of the faith do no good PR either. What amazes me how many get thrown under the bus when they step out of line, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, Carton Pearson et al. Even at Obama's inauguration, Rick Warren was lambasted by the christians and the LGBT community alike.

Todd Bentley was hailed as the next move of god till he fessed up to fornicating and suddenly all that endorsed him, threw him under the bus.

These are the things I talk of where the church shoots itself in the foot. Atheists are NOT the threat, they, the christians are their own worst enemies. Don't believe me, just peek in at the christian forum here and others, all they do is argue doctrine.

It is like what Bill Mahr said, "these folk will believe anything on they read on the internet as truth that is not followed by a "LoL" " - I think the LoL is not a disqualifier in many cases.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Kerowyn

Unfortunately science can't understand faith since there is no science to it and faith can't look to science yet for answers so people of faith just believe.

Couldn't we perhaps better say "Those who utilize and are used to the empiricism of science have a harder time measuring faith"?

I'm sure a lot of them have their own unmeasurable spirituality. I know I for sure do, having sat within 6 feet of a free-ranging hungry polar bear, nothing between us but my quiet chit-chat, that I felt and saw some animal spirituality there.

Someone else on these forums, who claims to be a philosopher of higher overall understanding than us mere scientists, has in effect told me that I just haven't gotten to his/her level quite yet, and don't have the toolset he/she has access to in order to understand the vast complexity of faith. That, in effect, I'm some sort of plodding scio-drone.

I know it's not for trying. University-level courses taken by literally millions of bright young heads, in Psych 100, etc., all talk about the various experiments with rats, chickens, Mr. Pavlov's dogs, snails, flies, etc. all jammed into mazes, multiple-choice boxes, counting machines, buttons to peck at, colors to choosse, etc., and all intended to establish some sort of metric for the manipulation or understanding of our observed world.

Guys get to watch girlie flicks while their pulses and sweat-levels are all dutifully electronically measured. Girls are shown cute pics of George Clooney, and they swoon, and by this we determine what again?

That we're all hard-wired to go forth and multiply, I'm pretty sure is all. By whatever means, and because of whatever stimuli that we've evolved to be receptive to.

It's just that there perhaps are no truly acceptible means of measuring "feelings" (a song comes to mind... you know the one?). So, we who have become used to finding suitable trackable measurables, and who have also thus found out a lot of stuff about our world, tend to walk away from the "soft, unprovable" sciences.

But again, to just throw up one's arms and say "So. No good answers... that proves there's a God!" ????

And therefore, to intermix Creationism, based on non-metric "faith", with very measurable scientific facts? Unlikely. Like oil & water.

That doesn't preclude a belief system that incorporates known concepts like Evolution with unknowns like the origins of the Universe. It CAN all be there without a default mythic figure. Plus, we're still allowed the inner feelings we have when we sit watching a beautiful sunset

(caused by the unstoppable rotation of the Earth, produced as [avg] 532nM wavelength visible light, filtered & lensed through the variable atmospheric levels we're looking through, multiplied by the effects of photochemical smog of such-and-such a hydrocarbon constituency, and on and on until you wanna barfff... but nonetheless, that's what's going on! Measurable, and yet still with a profound effect on our sense of beauty.)

Sorry. If "No Good Answers = God" is what you still insist on, I think it says more about your interest in logical curious thought than about the possible existance of a god.

Let's try this one on: "Not All The Answers at Present ≈ An Exciting Future in Science!" Nahhh... too cumbersome.

Have a good evening folks!

[Kerowyn]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Couldn't we perhaps better say "Those who utilize and are used to the empiricism of science have a harder time measuring faith"?

I'm sure a lot of them have their own unmeasurable spirituality. I know I for sure do, having sat within 6 feet of a free-ranging hungry polar bear, nothing between us but my quiet chit-chat, that I felt and saw some animal spirituality there.

Someone else on these forums, who claims to be a philosopher of higher overall understanding than us mere scientists, has in effect told me that I just haven't gotten to his/her level quite yet, and don't have the toolset he/she has access to in order to understand the vast complexity of faith. That, in effect, I'm some sort of plodding scio-drone.

I know it's not for trying. University-level courses taken by literally millions of bright young heads, in Psych 100, etc., all talk about the various experiments with rats, chickens, Mr. Pavlov's dogs, snails, flies, etc. all jammed into mazes, multiple-choice boxes, counting machines, buttons to peck at, colors to choosse, etc., and all intended to establish some sort of metric for the manipulation or understanding of our observed world.

Guys get to watch girlie flicks while their pulses and sweat-levels are all dutifully electronically measured. Girls are shown cute pics of George Clooney, and they swoon, and by this we determine what again?

That we're all hard-wired to go forth and multiply, I'm pretty sure is all. By whatever means, and because of whatever stimuli that we've evolved to be receptive to.

It's just that there perhaps are no truly acceptible means of measuring "feelings" (a song comes to mind... you know the one?). So, we who have become used to finding suitable trackable measurables, and who have also thus found out a lot of stuff about our world, tend to walk away from the "soft, unprovable" sciences.

But again, to just throw up one's arms and say "So. No good answers... that proves there's a God!" ????

And therefore, to intermix Creationism, based on non-metric "faith", with very measurable scientific facts? Unlikely. Like oil & water.

That doesn't preclude a belief system that incorporates known concepts like Evolution with unknowns like the origins of the Universe. It CAN all be there without a default mythic figure. Plus, we're still allowed the inner feelings we have when we sit watching a beautiful sunset

(caused by the unstoppable rotation of the Earth, produced as [avg] 532nM wavelength visible light, filtered & lensed through the variable atmospheric levels we're looking through, multiplied by the effects of photochemical smog of such-and-such a hydrocarbon constituency, and on and on until you wanna barfff... but nonetheless, that's what's going on! Measurable, and yet still with a profound effect on our sense of beauty.)

Sorry. If "No Good Answers = God" is what you still insist on, I think it says more about your interest in logical curious thought than about the possible existance of a god.

Let's try this one on: "Not All The Answers at Present ≈ An Exciting Future in Science!" Nahhh... too cumbersome.

Have a good evening folks!

:co nfused:

what they hey was all that about? You lost me on most of all that.

I think I know who you are talking about within your para:
"Someone else on these forums, who claims to be a philosopher of higher overall understanding than us mere scientists, has in effect told me that I just haven't gotten to his/her level quite yet, and don't have the toolset he/she has access to in order to understand the vast complexity of faith. That, in effect, I'm some sort of plodding scio-drone."
and I know that feeling. crappy. But I just figure he is the polar opposite of some of the brainiacs I have known who had great knowledge with little commonsense.
I would love to finish my thoughts here but I must go take me mommy to the movies.
I will state this, that science and religion can mix but it will take time and 'special' people who understand both to make it happen. right now there isn't enough of those people around to make it so.