I have a theory,

[hydro jen]

I have a theory why most Americans do not give creationists a harder time than they do,
I think it's because creationism gives the other Christians in the US a feeling of superiority.

 

[driewerf]

I have a theory why most Americans do not give creationists a harder time than they do,
I think it's because creationism gives the other Christians in the US a feeling of superiority.

First, I think it's not a theory, it is just a hypothesis.
We scientist have already to fight tooth and nails that evolution is not "just a theory".
If you start use that word in a degrading way, then, thing get worse.

Second, i think that the religious fundamentalist mouvement has dragged the complete American christianity is some holier-than-thou-race.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a theory why most Americans do not give creationists a harder time than they do,
I think it's because creationism gives the other Christians in the US a feeling of superiority.

Iron sharpeneth iron --

Proverbs 27:17 ¶ Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

 

[Spacewyrm]

I have a theory why most Americans do not give creationists a harder time than they do,
I think it's because creationism gives the other Christians in the US a feeling of superiority.

Why do you think that?

Why would non-creationist Christians get a feeling of superiority from creationism?

 

[sfs]

Why do you think that?

Why would non-creationist Christians get a feeling of superiority from creationism?

I suspect the feeling is more often one of embarrassment than of superiority.

It's also not clear to me what kind of hard time they're supposed to be giving creationists. Christians, including clergy and theologians, are often among those trying to keep creationism out of and evolution in classrooms.

 

[Spacewyrm]

I suspect the feeling is more often one of embarrassment than of superiority.

It certainly looks that way to me.

It's also not clear to me what kind of hard time they're supposed to be giving creationists. Christians, including clergy and theologians, are often among those trying to keep creationism out of and evolution in classrooms.

True. I think that beyond the fight to keep creationism out of classrooms, the only thing a non-creationist Christian can do to give creationists a "hard time" without being a complete jerk is to post in forums like this one and debate (or do it in person). And there's plenty of American Christians here and elsewhere doing that.

So, I'm really not sure what hydro jen's going on about.

 

[hydro jen]

Yes you could all be right, I got it wrong, forget I even posted it, please talk about something else,
perhaps Christian embarrassment rather than superiority.

 

[AV1611VET]

... please talk about something else,
perhaps Christian embarrassment ...

Let's not -- we have enough evolution threads.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I have a theory this thread doesn't belong in Physical & Life Sciences and should be moved.

 

[nathanlandon1]

Faith and science should not be separated...IMO. Whoever started that lie was a sneaky genius.

 

[Assyrian]

I have a theory this thread doesn't belong in Physical & Life Sciences and should be moved.

Because Creationism isn't a science?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Faith and science should not be separated...IMO.

They can't be.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'" -- Max Planck, physicist, 1932

Whoever started that lie was a sneaky genius.

Hmmm...could it be...Satan?

Because Creationism isn't a science?

No. The fact that creationism is science is the only valid argument in favor of keeping it here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith and science should not be separated...IMO.

I agree.

Whoever started that lie was a sneaky genius.

Satan has been driving a wedge between the two since the Garden of Eden, where Eve ascertained that the Forbidden Fruit was not so forbidden when she used science, instead of the word of God, to alleviate her cognitive dissonance.

 

[Gracchus]

I agree.

Satan has been driving a wedge between the two since the Garden of Eden, where Eve ascertained that the Forbidden Fruit was not so forbidden when she used science, instead of the word of God, to alleviate her cognitive dissonance.

ROTFLSHINSM!

 

[Cabal]

I agree.

Satan has been driving a wedge between the two since the Garden of Eden, where Eve ascertained that the Forbidden Fruit was not so forbidden when she used science, instead of the word of God, to alleviate her cognitive dissonance.

Aw, it's so cute when creationists use terminology they heard from the other side when they have no clue what they mean.

Anyway, please provide (literal) evidence for your assertion, or retract it.

 

[Cabal]

Faith and science should not be separated...IMO. Whoever started that lie was a sneaky genius.

Well, science is a naturalistic methodology, i.e. it does not address the supernatural, so there's a limit to how it can be involved.

If you want to do your own thing and form your own new methodology, go right ahead, but it won't be science. You might consider that a bad thing, but science hasn't done too badly, given what you're typing on etc.

 

[nathanlandon1]

Well, science is a naturalistic methodology, i.e. it does not address the supernatural, so there's a limit to how it can be involved.

If you want to do your own thing and form your own new methodology, go right ahead, but it won't be science. You might consider that a bad thing, but science hasn't done too badly, given what you're typing on etc.

I think you misunderstand me.


Science is, "in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)." This is colloquially known as "knowledge." God has OMNI-Science, meaning He knows everything. The supernatural is a time-dependent condition in which one cannot explain something using the observable world (as perceived) around. So, super-nature is highly relative. And, science got its start from philosophy, which got its muse from religion/spirituality and metaphysical topics. So, science should not be as prideful as it acts.


There is no possible way FINITE things can explain or perceive infinity, so OMNISCIENCE as a physical creature (with finite limits) is impossible.


However, we were given FAITH, which is the substance of things which we cannot see/prove. It doesn't mean you blindly say "Oh I have faith that 'x,y,z," it is about humility. You are ACKNOWLEDGING with faith that you are a finite creature that does not know ALL THINGS, therefore [at least for the time being] I accept what God has done/is doing. Having these two things working TOGETHER allows for a diamond-strength bond to God because questions like "why is x, y, z happening" will be answered through a base of faith coupled with knowledge (science).

Faith is the supernatural analogue to science... "science for the spiritual body.:

It is when you separate these things, like everything else, that you get the polarized division and hate on both sides.

 

[Cabal]

I think you misunderstand me.


Science is, "in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)."

So that pretty much shoots religion in the foot right there.

This is colloquially known as "knowledge." God has OMNI-Science, meaning He knows everything.

You can argue the semantics all you like - the point is, science has always been rooted in the natural, not the supernatural. How exactly does one universally quantify the presence of a deity, or the actions of a deity? You can't, it's only ever done via subjective means.

The supernatural is a time-dependent condition in which one cannot explain something using the observable world (as perceived) around.

Except you've just asserted that it is time-dependent, and time is a physical quantity.

So, super-nature is highly relative.

Right, it's subjective. Which means you can't objectively quantify it, so it falls outside the realm of science.

And, science got its start from philosophy, which got its muse from religion/spirituality and metaphysical topics.

And alchemy, and astrology. So we should treat those as right too?

So, science should not be as prideful as it acts.

Is it really science being prideful, or is someone sore that their personal interpretations of the Bible have been made untenable?

There is no possible way FINITE things can explain or perceive infinity

Why?

so OMNISCIENCE as a physical creature (with finite limits) is impossible.

Why?

And anyway, perception of infinity is not the same as total knowledge.

However, we were given FAITH, which is the substance of things which we cannot see/prove. It doesn't mean you blindly say "Oh I have faith that 'x,y,z," it is about humility.

Which in your case seems to involve making assertions and little else. Hardly chimes with the above.

You are ACKNOWLEDGING with faith that you are a finite creature that does not know ALL THINGS, therefore [at least for the time being] I accept what God has done/is doing.

God of the gaps? No thanks.

Having these two things working TOGETHER allows for a diamond-strength bond to God because questions like "why is x, y, z happening" will be answered through a base of faith coupled with knowledge (science).

Yes, we know "Goddidit" is a catchall answer, creationists seem to think it's a good idea, we see it quite a lot. It explains very little, though, and hinders inquiry because of this.

Faith is the supernatural analogue to science...

Lol, how? Faith is about presuming an answer due to ignorance, as you've defined it - science is about deducing an answer based on knowledge.

 

[nathanlandon1]

So that pretty much shoots religion in the foot right there.



You can argue the semantics all you like - the point is, science has always been rooted in the natural, not the supernatural. How exactly does one universally quantify the presence of a deity, or the actions of a deity? You can't, it's only ever done via subjective means.



Except you've just asserted that it is time-dependent, and time is a physical quantity.



Right, it's subjective. Which means you can't objectively quantify it, so it falls outside the realm of science.



And alchemy, and astrology. So we should treat those as right too?



Is it really science being prideful, or is someone sore that their personal interpretations of the Bible have been made untenable?



Why?



Why?

And anyway, perception of infinity is not the same as total knowledge.



Which in your case seems to involve making assertions and little else. Hardly chimes with the above.



God of the gaps? No thanks.



Yes, we know "Goddidit" is a catchall answer, creationists seem to think it's a good idea, we see it quite a lot. It explains very little, though, and hinders inquiry because of this.



Lol, how? Faith is about presuming an answer due to ignorance, as you've defined it - science is about deducing an answer based on knowledge.

I am not going to respond to each of those "quote-downs," but I think you are marginalizing most all of my points. I want to clarity some things (especially for guest/passers)

Super-nature is time-dependent in that it is only super-natural until nature can explain it. Do you think anything is "supernatural" to someone who knows everything and can explain everything? This is why "super-nature" is relative, I say, because it is only "super" when there is no way humans can explain it by the observable world - not because it cannot be explained naturally. Therefore, the "supernatural" world is just as natural, concrete and subject to the same objectivity (and subjectivity) as the "natural" world. Just because we may not be able to rationalize "super-nature" today doesn't mean in ten years it wont become commonplace.



I wasn't suggesting science was right because it got its base from philosophy/spirituality- religion today has its foundation in these things and religion as in institution has become warped and corroded in its teachings. My point was that science boasts objectivity, methodology, pursuit of knowledge and pedagogy in today's society as if it was the founder of these things, while other avenues of thought do not hold the same sophistication and reputation in the view of many scientists.


I am not sore. We are both adults, so you can simply ask me "are you sore..." On the contrary, I am very happy because as a mathematician and man of faith a lot of things - makes sense, especially the word of God. You may think I have some malevolent motive with my message but I am simply saying faith and science should be together - speaking from first hand experience. Everything works much more harmoniously, and the world looks so beautiful - from seeing Fibonacci numbers in flowers, fingers and hair to the relationship between the composition of our bodies to our planet's composition.


Why cant FINITE explain or [fully] perceive the INFINITE? the set of FINITE [insert object here] exists in the space of INFINITY [objects], but is a SUBSPACE of INFINITY, and therefore does not CONTAIN INFINITY.

In the case of a FINITE KNOWLEDGE (Science), it is a subspace of INFINITE KNOWLEDGE (Omniscience). Therefore, FINITE KNOWLEDGE (Science) is contained within the space of INFINITE KNOWLEDGE (Omniscience), but does not contain the space INFINITE KNOWLEDGE (Omniscience) by definition.

You cannot explain infinity if you do not have enough to get there (finite).


The rest of your comments are subtle jabs and insults at faith and my character. Like I said before, we are both adults: if you want to ask me a different way feel free.

 

[Cabal]

Super-nature is time-dependent in that it is only super-natural until nature can explain it. Do you think anything is "supernatural" to someone who knows everything and can explain everything? This is why "super-nature" is relative, I say, because it is only "super" when there is no way humans can explain it by the observable world - not because it cannot be explained naturally. Therefore, the "supernatural" world is just as natural, concrete and subject to the same objectivity (and subjectivity) as the "natural" world. Just because we may not be able to rationalize "super-nature" today doesn't mean in ten years it wont become commonplace.

But that is an assumption with very little to support it, so why should anyone accept the supernatural on a proviso? Again this is little more than God of the gaps, and the trend has been away from this over time, if anything. One tends to not attribute the natural to a deity - isn't the whole point of a deity to ultimately transcend the mundane?

I wasn't suggesting science was right because it got its base from philosophy/spirituality- religion today has its foundation in these things and religion as in institution has become warped and corroded in its teachings. My point was that science boasts objectivity, methodology, pursuit of knowledge and pedagogy in today's society as if it was the founder of these things, while other avenues of thought do not hold the same sophistication and reputation in the view of many scientists.

Fair enough. I disagree with your assertion though - I can't say that I see anyone in science claiming that science invented these things, though it is pretty apparent they are now one of the few who actually hold to these things.

I am not sore. We are both adults, so you can simply ask me "are you sore..."

If a change of pronoun means that much to you....

On the contrary, I am very happy because as a mathematician and man of faith everything makes sense, especially the word of God. You may think I have some malevolent motive with my message but I am simply saying faith and science should be together - speaking from first hand experience.

Not malevolent in the slightest. Just unsupported. No reason why anyone should take your assertions to heart if they are not supported.

Everything works much more harmoniously, and the world looks so beautiful - from seeing Fibonacci numbers in flowers, fingers and hair to the relationship between the composition of our bodies to our planet's composition.

Yes, I'm sure if you look at all the pretty things it helps support your idea of God. What about all the ghastly bits, or do you ignore those? And anyway, why does order necessarily imply a God?

Why cant FINITE explain or [fully] perceive the INFINITE? the set of FINITE [insert object here] exists in the space of INFINITY [objects], but is a SUBSPACE of INFINITY, and therefore does not CONTAIN INFINITY.

Doesn't this explanation require knowledge of infinity, o finite one?

We can clearly conceptualise infinity and explain it on that basis just fine. Perception or knowledge of it, no, we are finite in that sense.

In the case of a FINITE KNOWLEDGE (Science), it is a subspace of INFINITE KNOWLEDGE (Omniscience).

Assuming there exists infinite knowledge.

Therefore, FINITE KNOWLEDGE (Science) is contained within the space of INFINITE KNOWLEDGE (Omniscience), but does not contain the space INFINITE KNOWLEDGE (Omniscience) by definition.

You cannot explain infinity if you do not have enough to get there (finite).

Semantic wordgames aside, this is presuming infinity exists in a practical sense.

The rest of your comments are subtle jabs and insults at faith and my character.

And half of your comments were jabs at another discipline.

Like I said before, we are both adults: if you want to ask me a different way feel free.

Likewise.