Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
TO AVOID CONFUSION, THIS TOPIC IS AIMED AT CHRISTIANS, WHO BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM, YET REFER TO THEMSELVES AS "CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS"
Often when I hear the evolution vs creationist debates, I am dismayed when I hear people refer to themselves, as "Christian Scientists." Look, I have no intention of offending, or being rude, but I feel being blunt is the appropriate way of handling this. If you are a "Christian Scientist" You are not a real scientist.
Now let us examine the definition of a scientist
"a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject (Biologists, physicists, chemists, geologists and astronomers are all scientists.)"
"The bible told me so!" Is NOT a form of science. Scientists follow the scientific method, and are always able to be proved wrong on any matter providing there is evidence. Do you know why "real" scientists believe in evolution? It's because there is evidence to support such a theory.
Let's face it. Christians don't believe in evolution, because they believe in the bible. And they believe in the bible for many different reasons, none of them being sound logic, or supporting evidence. It is for that reason, that there can never be such thing as a "Christian scientist"
To blindly believe, in Creationism, rocks that make water, opening oceans, women that can give birth without ever having sex, and all of the other magical, fairy tale nonsense your parents spoon fed you when you were six - eliminates the right to call yourself a scientist.
Last edited by Parogar; 15th January 2008 at 09:02 AM.
Your ignornance related to scientists is only trumped by your ignorance related to Christians.
You would be a great creationist.
Yes, my IGNORNANCE is extreme.
Also Ken Miller was a scientist, who was Catholic, I believe. And even if he was a Christian, there is a difference between a scientist who is Christian, and a Christian Scientist.
Often when I hear the evolution vs creationist debates, I am dismayed when I hear people refer to themselves, as "Christian Scientists." Look, I have no intention of offending, or being rude, but I feel being blunt is the appropriate way of handling this. If you are a "Christian Scientist" You are not a real scientist.
Now let us examine the definition of a scientist
"a person who uses observation, experimentation and theory to learn about a subject (Biologists, physicists, chemists, geologists and astronomers are all scientists.)"
"The bible told me so!" Is NOT a form of science. Scientists follow the scientific method, and are always able to be proved wrong on any matter providing there is evidence. Do you know why "real" scientists believe in evolution? It's because there is evidence to support such a theory.
Let's face it. Christians don't believe in evolution, because they believe in the bible. And they believe in the bible for many different reasons, none of them being sound logic, or supporting evidence. It is for that reason, that there can never be such thing as a "Christian scientist"
To blindly believe, in Creationism, rocks that make water, opening oceans, women that can give birth without ever having sex, and all of the other magical, fairy tale nonsense your parents spoon fed you when you were six - eliminates the right to call yourself a scientist.
I know many good Christian scientists, but and this is point “THEY KEEP THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND SCIENCE SEPARATE”.
I have no problem with people being religious; equally I have no problem with religion being taught, it is after all a big part of human history.
The problems only arise when people mix religion and science, such as AIG etc, or in school science classes. There is plenty of time allocated to religious education in the relevant religious lessons, but it must be kept out of the science class room.
I know many good Christian scientists, but and this is point “THEY KEEP THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND SCIENCE SEPARATE”.
I have no problem with people being religious; equally I have no problem with religion being taught, it is after all a big part of human history.
The problems only arise when people mix religion and science, such as AIG etc, or in school science classes. There is plenty of time allocated to religious education in the relevant religious lessons, but it must be kept out of the science class room.
In my opening statement, I should have been more clear that I am referring to "Christian Scientists" and not Christians who are Scientists. Such as Christians who use the bible to prove that science agrees with it. Also I agree with you, it has no business being taught in schools.
In my opening statement, I should have been more clear that I am referring to "Christian Scientists" and not Christians who are Scientists. Such as Christians who use the bible to prove that science agrees with it. Also I agree with you, it has no business being taught in schools.
The term you are looking for is Creationist who put forth the pseudoscience of Creation Science or Intelligent Design (not Christian Science)
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. aclufightsforchristians com
NEWSFLASH: Today, 6,000,000 teachers in the US didn't do anything illegal
Is Catholic.
He is.
No. There is not. You seem to be confusing Christian with creationist.
Perhaps you post was worded poorly. You seem to be suggesting that Christians don't accept evolution. That simply is not the case.
Some Christians don't accept it while some, if not most, do. There are many Christian scientists who accept evolution.
It is not just evolution, it is anything biblical that they try and prove without any reasonable scientific evidence. Which leads me to my point that they should not be called scientists. Being a Christian, and being a scientist, do not mix well. Believing in a savior such as Jesus Christ, without doing any experimental or investigative work, is A-Scientific. At any rate, I will slightly change the opening statement.
Linear Mode
