What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

I open this thread as an impartial observer. I realize that this might quickly delve into a debate on Creationism vs. Evolution, which couldn't be further from the purpose of this thread. I'll explain why:

I personally believe that no commonly heated debate is more misguided/utterly pointless than Creationism vs. Evolution. It's not the arguments that I find appalling, because I've heard great arguments in favor of each side. It's the dualism. It's the belief that if you are not a Creationist, you must believe in Evolution, and vice versa. That's, for lack of a better term, retarded, and most certainly culturally divisive.

In my opinion, the winner of a heated Creationist/Darwinist debate is the first one to point out "who cares" and respect the beliefs of those who disagree with them.

Which brings me to the main point of the thread: public discrimination against those who disagree with the scientific premise of evolution. Namely, since the current scientific worldview majority believes that Darwinian Evolution best explains how life today came into existence, does that give the majority social group the [B]right[/B] to discriminate against other social groups who reject evolutionary theory?

On one hand, you can certainly see why people who have dedicated their whole life to a cause would be critical of those who disagree. When all of their peers and co-researchers serve to re-enforce their beliefs, you could forgive someone for having an attitude of superiority regarding the cause.

Even so, when the attitude of superiority starts to infiltrate American culture, at what point does it become direct discrimination? Is it when you start to get quotes like this from Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) (New York Times editorial, Feb 12 2007):

[quote]She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”[INDENT] That is not religious discrimination, she added, [B]it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”[/B][/INDENT][/quote]What separates discrimination "on the basis of science" from anti-religious bigotry? Is majority academic opinion enough to rule something a pseudoscience? More fundamentally, is modern science heading down a road to become the very thing it was created to destroy -- ignorance?

These are the questions on my mind tonight. I'm interested to get your guys' thoughts on this. Please, no pro/anti religious propaganda, unless part of a larger point, thanks.

re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

I can give you one example of religous bigotry at work in our culture. This very day, tens of thousands of people marched in Washington D.C. against the travesty that is abortion, yet it was not covered by any news outlets in this town. They wiilfully ignore this movement. Yet, if 500 homosexuals loiter near the capital in the wake of a democratic vote in California, the viewer cannot escape a sympathetic portrayal of their so called plight.

Science will not save us. They have no answers. They don't know why aspirin works. They don't understand the common cold. If you get cancer, they will bombard you with radiation. If you are comatose, they will put you to sleep permanently. If you are blind, they will give you a dog to lead you around. Yet we as a society have put them on a pedestal. We have made of them false idols. Until we realize that mankind's crisis is a crisis of the soul we will not advance one inch. As long as we negect the spiritual aspect of our nature we will continue to inflict pain on one another.

[B]Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn[/B] :

" It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility."

If you agree with the sentiments expressed here, consider joining The [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/groups/-walter-sobchak-society.html"]Walter Sobchak Society[/URL].

re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

Interesting topic. Bigotry is defined as "irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion," keyword being irrational. Science is defined as "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Agreeing to disagree is not the problem. If someone wants to believe we're all spores on a giant nipple that is perfectly fine. If that same someone wants to teach their beliefs as the basis of our origin in a science class they must adhere to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"]scientific method[/URL] to be classified as science.

Admittedly I discriminate against religious train of thought. Often I find religious arguments devoid of any rational though. It's in the Bible is simply not good enough. My point is believe whatever you want but if you enter a realm where you are expected to defend your position do so and don't expect to be treated like a delicate flower, and be prepared for an intellectual choking.

There are [URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece"]men of both religion and science[/URL] out there and they seem to have rational basis for their beliefs. I can get on board with their arguments but I can't for the life of me get on board with moronic "hypothesis" like "[URL="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1848419.ece"]man an disastrous roamed the earth at the same time.[/URL]"

re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

It seems ironic to me that organizations of science want to claim that theres no debate about how the world came to be. There may be significant evidence to suggest that Darwinian Evolution explains this, but I'm seeing it as sort of an arbitrary cutoff since evolution doesn't exactly hold up to the Scientific Method either.

It is not observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Which in no way means that it's wrong. Just that while maintaining the scientific method is important, it's helpless to help us explain why the world was created. Thus it's suspended regarding reasoning to why things are the way they are.

But there in lies the question: if science itself is in sufficient to turn the [I]Theory[/I] of Evolution into the [I]Law[/I] of Evolution, doesn't it [U]seem[/U] a bit self-righteous for academics to declare the debate to be over? What about the non-Creationists who reject Big Bang on the premise of question of insufficient evidence, such as the Red Shift movement? What keeps them from getting a platform to explain why they hold majorty opinion to be wrong?

Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.

re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;522433][B]Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore?[/B] I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.[/quote]

Once a theory can no longer be debated and must be accepted as true even though it cannot be proven as fact, it becomes a matter of faith. Similarly,religions, at the core, contain an ultimate leap of faith as God's existence or non-existence cannot be proven or disproven.

Science and religion are more similar than different. Both seek answers to difficult questions, and both require discipline and study in order to work towards these answers. To me and in a very general way, the ultimate difference is that science's is a fact based inquiry. Religious inquiry is spiritual in nature and presupposes a leap of faith. IMHO, when science [I]requires[/I] us to take a leap of faith, it can no longer be considered science but rather it takes on some of the worst aspects of religious practice.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;522433]It seems ironic to me that organizations of science want to claim that theres no debate about how the world came to be. There may be significant evidence to suggest that Darwinian Evolution explains this, but I'm seeing it as sort of an arbitrary cutoff since evolution doesn't exactly hold up to the Scientific Method either.

It is not observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Which in no way means that it's wrong. Just that while maintaining the scientific method is important, it's helpless to help us explain why the world was created. Thus it's suspended regarding reasoning to why things are the way they are.

But there in lies the question: if science itself is in sufficient to turn the [I]Theory[/I] of Evolution into the [I]Law[/I] of Evolution, doesn't it [U]seem[/U] a bit self-righteous for academics to declare the debate to be over? What about the non-Creationists who reject Big Bang on the premise of question of insufficient evidence, such as the Red Shift movement? What keeps them from getting a platform to explain why they hold majorty opinion to be wrong?

Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.[/quote]
Not sure why it suprises you that organization of science don't want this debated as they do this all the time. Just look at Global Warming. While most agree that the earth has warmed over the years if you don't agree with science that its man made then your nuts. Even though other scientest disagree the majority think they know it all and they won't even debate the subject. I personaly don't care how man came about.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;522453]Once a theory can no longer be debated and must be accepted as true even though it cannot be proven as fact, it becomes a matter of faith. Similarly,religions, at the core, contain an ultimate leap of faith as God's existence or non-existence cannot be proven or disproven.

Science and religion are more similar than different. Both seek answers to difficult questions, and both require discipline and study in order to work towards these answers. [B]To me and in a very general way, the ultimate difference is that science's is a fact based inquiry[/B]. Religious inquiry is spiritual in nature and presupposes a leap of faith. IMHO, when science [I]requires[/I] us to take a leap of faith, it can no longer be considered science but rather it takes on some of the worst aspects of religious practice.[/quote]I believe true science is but it seems to me that much of science has been perverted by dogmatic faithfulness. Tripp makes good points about evolution and similar ones can be made about global warming or a bevy of other accepted scientific "truths". They are both fine [B]theories [/B]with decent rational thought and a little indicative proof but neither is "proven" as a matter of fact with stringent procedural scientific methods. I think the dismissal of religous belief goes hand in hand with this shift away from honest skepticism in science. Skepticism isn't just about not believing it is about understanding that you simply don't know. To make a definitive statement, presented as fact, based on any level of faith is intellectually dishonest to me.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

Big can of worms here. I tend to only bitch about the government. I think that Evolution is still a theory but anyone who doesn't subsribe to that theory is considered an ignorant hick. That to me is anti-religious bigotry.

I'm a non-believer just for the simple reason that you can't prove most of the things that religions state. The same goes with science. They take all of the information and make an educated guess? That's what theory is. I do believe that people who say there was no Jesus or is no God are not only bigoted but arrogant. How do you they know? Were they there?

This country was founded on Christianity, classic liberal thought, and by a lot of people who didn't give a damn and just wanted to make some money. To totally scrap those concepts is stupid because you have to replace them with something. It seems to me that it has been replaced with secular, anti-Christian, socialistic, modern day liberalism to a degree. I tend to take the how do you know approach to both sides. I subscribe to neither.

The best way to see anti-religious bigotry is to see who is funding those that are making the most noise against Christianity (You can say all religions, but no one gives Hindus, Muslems, and Hebrews as much flak as the Christians get [U]today[/U] IMO). It's usually someone who doesn't like it IE: other religions, rabid-atheist, or people who think they're God. They all have special interest groups they fund to be their mouth pieces. Usually you can trace all of these groups back to one man or a small group of very rich people who have a beef with religion and or capitalism.
(Many people use the argument that there is seperation between church and state. This is flawed arguement because most of the colonist were Protestant or at least sided with Protestants if you drew a line in the sand. They just didn't want a Church of England in America where the King was also the head of the church.)

I'm not one of those people. So don't chew me out on this one. I've no dog in this hunt. Bray to who ever you like. If someone answers you, put in a good word for me or get a shrink. Either way, it's your deal.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=firstdown;522456]Not sure why it suprises you that organization of science don't want this debated as they do this all the time. Just look at Global Warming. While most agree that the earth has warmed over the years if you don't agree with science that its man made then your nuts. Even though other scientest disagree the majority think they know it all and they won't even debate the subject. I personaly don't care how man came about.[/quote]I would argue that Global Warming is something that is testable and falsifiable though the Scientific Method.

Unlike Evolutionary theory, the evidence that has been found in recent times adds futher support for Global Warming/Climate Change. Darwinian Theory remains only as strong as it was on the day he published it (scientifically, that is).

Both have strong cases, and I'm not trying to disprove either. Just trying to show where the similaries end; basically show the limits of the scientifc method.

I also think that scientific advancement organizations are lacking in credibility now. Not science itself. Don't confuse the two.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;522506][B]I would argue that Global Warming is something that is testable and falsifiable though the Scientific Method.[/B]

Unlike Evolutionary theory, the evidence that has been found in recent times adds futher support for Global Warming/Climate Change. Darwinian Theory remains only as strong as it was on the day he published it (scientifically, that is).

Both have strong cases, and I'm not trying to disprove either. Just trying to show where the similaries end; basically show the limits of the scientifc method.

I also think that scientific advancement organizations are lacking in credibility now. Not science itself. Don't confuse the two.[/quote]
Perhaps, but testable here only will give us a snap shot, based on pretty sketchy information by the way, of basically one moment in time of our planet. That may be testable but what it tells us is pretty much nothing.

Re: 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.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

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.

[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13340672/"]Physicist touches upon God and science - Science- msnbc.com[/URL]

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.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

Solid discussion.

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

Re: What constitutes anti-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.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=RobH4413;522554]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.[/quote]
I'd be more impressed the pro-lifer didn't yell at her and call her a baby killer.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[URL="http://www.answers.com/theory#Science_Dictionary"]What is a theory? A scientific theory?[/URL]:

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]

...[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact"]more[/URL]

[quote]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.[/quote]What this means is that evolution is a theory that [B][I]IS[/I][/B] 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.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;522848]What this means is that evolution is a theory that [B][I]IS[/I][/B] 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.[/quote]

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 [I]something[/I] 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.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

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. [url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM]Pope John Paul II* 22 October 1996** To Pontifical Academy of Sciences[/url]

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;522865]... both religion and science seek the truth...[/url][/quote]

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

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

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.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;522857]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 [I]something[/I] 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.[/quote]

No scientist can answer where hydrogen (matter) come from, we can however reasonably say where the rest of the elements came from (theory). I fully accept that science can not explain everything but simply saying "it must be god" is worse than the involuntary ignorance of science. The universe offer many mysteries and it's the job of science to ascertain the truth. I can not say in good conscience religion seeks the truth, the truth is already know and it's god (doctrine).

Science has many holes and flaws but it has built in mechanism to make progress and corrections to itself. Religion has holes and many flaws too but if the holy books are testaments from god how much progress can we make? In the three major religions for example "humanity spawned from Adam and Eve" and "Adam was created from mud" are religious truths. Disputing these truths is heresy and innovation in scripture is not easily accepted. There is no formal method of accepting change to doctrine. Fortunately we live in a time where you have the option of forking and creating your own religion. Unfortunately, new religions are simply base on the ones they spawned from.

Science simply says we don't have the answers, we will look for them. If a better theory than evolution comes along Darwin will simply be a giant whose shoulder were stood on. Every scientist in the field of evolutionary biology is gunning for him. That's the way it should be and that's the beauty if science.

To summarize, science is trying to put together a puzzle and the picture is unknown. Religion knows the picture and therefore doesn't bother with the puzzle.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;522865]And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the [B]theories of evolution[/B]. 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 [B]diversity of philosophies involved[/B]. There are [B]materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories[/B]. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology. [/quote]


It seems to me the Pope is fallible. Just because [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience"]you put a theory after a claim[/URL] doesn't mean it's a theory, certainly not the scientific kind.

Anywho, Nova did a terrific program on the subject a while back and reductionism "theory" was brought up court.

[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911&ei=bsB8Sd3jEaqyqAPc2JCsCQ&q=Intelligent+Design+on+Trial[/ame]

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;522920]To summarize, science is trying to put together a puzzle and the picture is unknown. Religion knows the picture and therefore doesn't bother with the puzzle.[/quote]

I would disagree with your characterization of religion not seeking truth. The ultimate truth that God is the ultimate creator is accepted by religion. The how's and why's of his creation, however, will always be sought after. Your view of religion as an either/or proposition simplifies thousands of years of theology.

Most ancient religions are still around b/c they are open to change and to seeing each scientific discovery as a further glimpse into the mind of the creator. Reconciling scientific theories to long held religious beliefs without sacrificing the factual truth is what keeps spirituality vibrant and alive. In many respects, science is the starting point for spiritual thought: How can the existence of a single creator be reconciled to the infinity of space? Who/what was "Adam" (which most religions now use as an allegory for the transition from animal to what we now consider human)? What does it mean to be "human" in light of the discovery that more and more creatures are found to be self aware?

Yes, religion (as John Paul summarizes above) has accepted certain fundamental truths (in Christianity, these can be found in the Nicene Creed). True sprituality attempts to reconcile these truths to the scientifically discovered truths with an intent to view the truly unknown through the resulting prism.

Rather than say that religion knows what the puzzle looks like, I would suggest religion accepts that it doesn't know what the puzzle looks like but, rather, knows that something created the puzzle. Further, spirituality hopes that, through studying the known puzzle parts, we may learn something of the creator's purpose and, using these insights, guess as to what the unknown pieces may look like. As with science, when factual truth subsequently disproves those guesses, the insights must be rethought.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;522931]It seems to me the Pope is fallible. Just because you put a theory after a claim doesn't mean it's a theory, certainly not the scientific kind.[/quote]

Please understand that the "infallible" comment was for irony.

Ultimately, at this point, no scientific theory of wihich I am aware describes the creation of matter.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;522920]To summarize, science is trying to put together a puzzle and the picture is unknown. Religion knows the picture and therefore doesn't bother with the puzzle.[/quote]

:goodjob:

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=757SkinsGirl;522886]There in lies the answer. The "truth" is different for both sides of the argument.[/quote]


When I'm not in a huge hurry, I'll fini.

:)

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;522920]Science simply says we don't have the answers, we will look for them. If a better theory than evolution comes along Darwin will simply be a giant whose shoulder were stood on. Every scientist in the field of evolutionary biology is gunning for him. That's the way it should be and that's the beauty if science.[/quote]I 100% agree that this is how science should be.

But what these organizations in question are proposing is not at all what you describe. It seems more like: "we don't really want to debate the merits of this anymore, so we'll act like we can explain more than we actually can, and then treat the opposing viewpoints as common ignorance."

Which, in my opinion and perhaps other, is an inherent problem. Because these organizations are representing the entire field of scientific discovery, they are embarrassing not only themselves, but the very things they have dedicated their lives to.

And obviously, just because an academic has membership in an organization doesn't mean that they are necessarily committing these faults. Good science can occur in and amongst poor scientific practice, I believe. But I think what we're seeing in the last five or so years is far more of the latter than the former, and that these organizations need: 1) new leadership 2) new philosophies and 3) a more open, clear doctrine, before I personally can take them seriously in the future.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;522931]It seems to me the Pope is fallible. Just because [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience"]you put a theory after a claim[/URL] doesn't mean it's a theory, certainly not the scientific kind. [/quote]

Omigod! Religious leaders agree with saden1. Can Armaggedon be far away?

"Church teaching holds that Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds. But the Vatican's position became somewhat confused in recent years, in part because of a 2005 New York Times op-ed piece written by a close Benedict collaborator, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In the piece, Schoenborn seemed to reject traditional church teaching and back intelligent design, the view that life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone, and that a higher power has had a hand in changes among species over time.

[B]Vatican officials later made clear [I]they did not believe intelligent design was science [/I]and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only created confusion.[/B]"

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29484902/]Vatican official: Atheist theories 'absurd' - The Vatican- msnbc.com[/url]

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;522551]Solid discussion.

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

I see. Sort of like "a little small" or "gay homosexual".

Anyway this was a big issue near my town. If any of you guys recall the Marrieta, Georgia incident at Lassiter high school. Ironically I got to play them in high school for 3 years in a row. Classy bunch to as they vandalized our stadium before the game though I guess I'm getting a little off topic.

[YT]a8VFlXElN5E[/YT]

Long story short, the school board refused to teach creationism but required all science textbooks regarding evolution to have a sticker stating that evolution is only a theory, even though the context of what constitutes a widely accepted scientific theory is overlooked.

I guess everyone has heard this rationalization but I agree with the fact that Creationism has not passed the criteria needed to qualify it as a scientific theory. Instead it's really a backdoor way of getting religion in the classroom. Discrimination was probably the wrong word for the guy in the quote to use, but you can't try to pass something off as science when you have only very circumstational evidence to begin with. It reminds me of a quote I heard from somewhere where someone said "Gravity is also a theory, but when jump from the top of a building, well sudenly gravity becomes very real."

If anything I think there should be a religous studies/philosophy class allowed in school that exposes students to all faiths and methods of critical thinking but of course for some thats out of the question. Then again I learned about budhism and Islam in a history class (public school) so I guess it's started.

The funny thing is living in the Bible belt I haven't met a whole lot of Christians that believe in creationism. In fact most Christians I know believe that God brought it along.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

I've always held the view that if I were to ever become a Christian I would become a Catholic.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;533545]I've always held the view that if I were to ever become a Christian I would become a Catholic.[/quote]


You could do worse.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;522433]It seems ironic to me that organizations of science want to claim that theres no debate about how the world came to be. There may be significant evidence to suggest that Darwinian Evolution explains this, but I'm seeing it as sort of an arbitrary cutoff since evolution doesn't exactly hold up to the Scientific Method either.

It is not observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Which in no way means that it's wrong. Just that while maintaining the scientific method is important, it's helpless to help us explain why the world was created. Thus it's suspended regarding reasoning to why things are the way they are.

But there in lies the question: if science itself is in sufficient to turn the [I]Theory[/I] of Evolution into the [I]Law[/I] of Evolution, doesn't it [U]seem[/U] a bit self-righteous for academics to declare the debate to be over? What about the non-Creationists who reject Big Bang on the premise of question of insufficient evidence, such as the Red Shift movement? What keeps them from getting a platform to explain why they hold majorty opinion to be wrong?

Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.[/quote]

if you have proof, the whole point of the scientific method is that you can question results if you can show they may (or are) wrong in part or in whole.

seriously, could i not discriminate against a job to teach mathematics because the interviewee believes that 1 + 1 = 3?

the proof of one is MUCH MUCH greater than the proof for the other, so science uses the best model available until something better comes along.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;522955]Please understand that the "infallible" comment was for irony.

Ultimately, at this point, no scientific theory of wihich I am aware describes the creation of matter.[/quote]

but that doesn't mean all science is flawed, or that because god said so is a better answer though.

I think one of the bigger issues is that people generally want answers for everything, and we don't always really understand how absolutely everything works... and science's failsafe of "i'm not sure" isn't always as comforting, so some people try to dismiss it completely, which (imo) is a HUGE mistake.

btw, this isn't direct at you JR, you just had a convenient quote.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=70Chip;533566]You could do worse.[/quote]

I could, though I am not convinced our ranking system are the same. I evaluate on a point system based on the level of craziness, membership benefits, and social contribution. What about you?

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;533621]I could, though I am not convinced our ranking system are the same. I evaluate on a point system based on the level of craziness, membership benefits, and social contribution. What about you?[/quote]

I loved going to the Catholic Church (which I still do on Christmas with my family). Theres always so much material for jokes, not concerning the faith but the ceremonies.

My brothers and I used to always joke about the ushers especially as during crowded masses you don't want to spend an hour with no room to move. However from the ushers point of view theres always a seat open and it makes you nervous to see them looking around then suddenly get to your row and hold up four fingers or soemthing to that effect in which case a family

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;533621]I could, though I am not convinced our ranking system are the same. I evaluate on a point system based on the level of craziness, membership benefits, and social contribution. What about you?[/quote]

My ranking system is totaly different:

At 2 I went home with a 10.
At 10 I woke up with a 2.
I never been home with an ugly chick but sure woke up with a few.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=saden1;533621]I could, though I am not convinced our ranking system are the same. I evaluate on a point system based on the level of craziness, membership benefits, and social contribution. What about you?[/quote]

If it doesn't involve handling snakes, it's a non-starter with me.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=70Chip;533871]If it doesn't involve handling snakes, it's a non-starter with me.[/quote]


:lol:...bravo sir.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

I don't get wrapped around the axle on alot of things like evolution or creation. Either way, or maybe there's a 3rd way, it doen't matter to me as I know God had a hand in it. God makes things interesting enough to try an figure out how "he" did it. What about other life forms? The universe contains so many possibilities of life on other planets it's almost insane not to think that odds are in favor of ailien civiliazations. Once again, I keep it simple. God did it.

Re: What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?
 

[quote=nyredskinsfan;533925]I don't get wrapped around the axle on alot of things like evolution or creation. Either way, or maybe there's a 3rd way, it doen't matter to me as I know God had a hand in it. God makes things interesting enough to try an figure out how "he" did it. What about other life forms? The universe contains so many possibilities of life on other planets it's almost insane not to think that odds are in favor of ailien civiliazations. Once again, I keep it simple. God did it.[/quote]

seems like a pretty reasonable stance to me.