Your church and your views on evolution (2)

[SPB1987]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Your church and your views on evolution"

 

[AV1611VET]

By not teaching your kids science, you have all but guaranteed they will work in just about any industry that's not based on math/science,

Tell that to Bobby Fischer or Babe Ruth.

 

[jpcedotal]

Tell that to Bobby Fischer or Babe Ruth.

or a Draftsman and Engineer.

 

[AV1611VET]

or a Draftsman and Engineer.

I love bringing this up, even if it's not quite apropos:

Fedex - even for MBA graduates - YouTube

I even have it in my profile!

 

[Davian]

I see it as an advantage against secularism and atheism. I don't believe in brainwashing children with false religion.

Interestingly, I am teaching my children about all the various religions we encounter, to give them an advantage over those that follow them.

In science, we teach children that scientific theories can be changed or falsified. When you teach you children about religion, to you ever tell them that your religion might be the wrong one?

Real science, my children will learn. I will also teach them to recognize evolution for what it is...an anti-God world view.

Show me a section, an example, from the theory of evolution that is "anti-God".

 

[Tiberius]

It's not anti-God.

it's just anti-"My interpretation of the Bible".

 

[AV1611VET]

In science, we teach children that scientific theories can be changed or falsified.

'Can be' or 'should be'?

 

[Norman321]

'Can be' or 'should be'?

Depends on your observation point.

 

[Norman321]

Show me a section, an example, from the theory of evolution that is "anti-God".

Darwin did not launch a direct attack on God. He was to smart for that. His approach was indirect or implied.

 

[jpcedotal]

Darwin did not launch a direct attack on God. He was to smart for that. His approach was indirect or implied.

As was Carl Sagan...who was pretty worthless to science

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As was Carl Sagan...who was pretty worthless to science

Except for, y'know, all of his contributions to astrophysics, uncovering the natures of the planets and the Solar System, discovering the radiogenic formation of amino acids from simple molecules, etc. And not to mention his services to popularising science, effectively creating the next generation of scientists.

Yep, worthless...

 

[mzungu]

'Can be' or 'should be'?

Can be because science is an ongoing process, and should be because science aims to better itself. Both are based on one variable and it is "Erudition".

AV, before you could read the Bible you had to learn to read first. Before you could understand the Bible you had to learn the meaning/s of words written a long time ago. So learning is part of progress and science is based on progress.

The day science stops inquiry then science will cease to exist and progress will stop.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can be because science is an ongoing process, and should be because science aims to better itself. Both are based on one variable and it is "Erudition".

Then I'll take Davian's post with a grain of salt.

 

[mzungu]

Then I'll take Davian's post with a grain of salt.

I fail to see the corelation but don't forget that adding salt to food enhances its taste. Bon Apetit
"Seek and ye shall find. Question and ye shall be answered"!

 

[elahmine]

Episcopalian, and no I would not be part of a church that dogmatized a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Davian]

Then I'll take Davian's post with a grain of salt.

I don't care if you take it with a plate of macaroni and cheese.

Have you figured out what "falsifiable" means yet?

link

 

[Davian]

As was Carl Sagan...who was pretty worthless to science

What do you know of science?

Show me a section, an example, from the theory of evolution that is "anti-God".

 

[Davian]

Darwin did not launch a direct attack on God. He was to smart for that. His approach was indirect or implied.

Or apathetic. Some might find that even more annoying. If "God" is of scientific significance, then that should be demonstrable. Complaining that it is not does very little.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

As was Carl Sagan...who was pretty worthless to science

You sound like someone who had their understanding of reality challenged, and decided to ignore the evidence.

Do you believe in astrology?

 

[jpcedotal]

....matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. (CS Lewis)

This is more acceptable and believable than God did it?
Why? The same science that atheists say can not prove the existence of God, can not prove any of this.

To me, that is why not only evolution, but materialism itself is at best a worldview but better described as a religion and should never be even remotely called a science.