What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?

Again, for difficult questions, both science and religion require considerable thought and/or work to understand or improve upon. The problem is that so many people ask that both science and/or religion provide simple answers to complex questions. Thus, man's effect on global warming becomes a true/false question. Likewise, creationism v. evolution also becomes all or nothing.

One point that has stuck with me (and I forget who brought it up) was that eventually, no matter how scientific you are, the study of the universe yields very little. At some point, every scientist becomes a philosopher.

We (think we) know an incredible amount of information on how the universe was formed and the transcending affects thereafter on the world as we know it today. This is all based on what we know moments after creation. What we do not know, and will never know, is how we were created. That first cause that started everything.

The Pope John Paul II allegedly met with Stephan Hawkins and brought up a similar point.

Physicist touches upon God and science - Science- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13340672/)

I think it's important to take every scientific advancement for what it is, a potentially flawed discovery. How many things known as scientific fact are going to be overturned within the next twenty years? We humans are a fallible species...

Granted, I'm not saying we should be complete skeptics on every discovery made, or even that we should not base some of our ideals on these things. I'm simply saying we should be sympathetic to causes, especially religious ones, that may reflect conflicting ideals.

Solid discussion.

Probably reading too much into it, but interesting that you titled the thread anti-religious bigotry as opposed to religious bigotry.

I know this is kind of random, but I was at breakfast yesterday next to Carol King in Washington, D.C.

During the breakfast, another customer (obviously a pro-lifer) engaged her in a conversation about abortion. He was probably being a bit over-zealous due to the fact that Ms. King was minding her own self trying to enjoy her breakfast.

Instead of blowing the guy off, she mad a point to engage and exchange ideas with the guy. She sat and talked to the man and his family for a good thirty minutes and even accepted some of his literature. She proceeded to make the point that it's necessary to engage in civil discourse in order to breakdown the barriers of social conflict.

I was incredibly impressed with how nice of a lady she was, and equally impressed by her tolerance and attitude towards a counterpoint.

I know this is kind of random, but I was at breakfast yesterday next to Carol King in Washington, D.C.

During the breakfast, another customer (obviously a pro-lifer) engaged her in a conversation about abortion. He was probably being a bit over-zealous due to the fact that Ms. King was minding her own self trying to enjoy her breakfast.

Instead of blowing the guy off, she mad a point to engage and exchange ideas with the guy. She sat and talked to the man and his family for a good thirty minutes and even accepted some of his literature. She proceeded to make the point that it's necessary to engage in civil discourse in order to breakdown the barriers of social conflict.

I was incredibly impressed with how nice of a lady she was, and equally impressed by her tolerance and attitude towards a counterpoint.
I'd be more impressed the pro-lifer didn't yell at her and call her a baby killer.

What is a theory? A scientific theory? (http://www.answers.com/theory#Science_Dictionary):

In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

...more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.What this means is that evolution is a theory that IS based on observed facts and makes testable predictions. Short of god showing up on earth declaring "I'm back bitches, let me show you what I can do" the theory of evolution is here to stay indefinitely.

What this means is that evolution is a theory that IS based on observed facts and makes testable predictions. Short of god showing up on earth declaring "I'm back bitches, let me show you what I can do" the theory of evolution is here to stay indefinitely.

And the first molecule of matter evolved from nothing how? There has been evolutionary evidence of something evolving out of nothing when?

Yes, scientific theory is based on fact and evidence for explanation of certain events and is not "theory" as it is used in colloquial terms. As to the ultimate fact of whether or not there was a "creation", however, the evolutionary theory is based on the existence of something from which other things evolve. As such, there is an assumption within the theory that cannot be proven and to which the theory is inapplicable.

This is what I mean about the whole evolution v. creation being simplified into an all or nothing question. I have no problem believing man evolved from an ape like ancestor and that life in general evolved from microorganisms. Does that mean I don't believe in a creator? No, it does not. I do not, however, find the two concepts mutually exclusive.

As I said earlier, both religion and science seek the truth. I must be right b/c the pope agreed with me and he is infallible:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines.

...

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.

...

An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs."


Pope John Paul II, October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science. Pope John Paul II* 22 October 1996** To Pontifical Academy of Sciences (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM)

... both religion and science seek the truth...[/url]

There in lies the answer. The "truth" is different for both sides of the argument.

What are the two sides of the argument which you say are opposed? As I said, I see no conflict between the general theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and the belief in an ultimate creator.