Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Seems to me that there is one major difference between the creationist and the atheistic scientists:

- they both have faith in their respective beliefs.

- the DIFFERENCE is that the scientist have faith in the scientific method to eventually explain it all. The creationist have faith that eventually God will appear to validate what is already "explained".

Maybe they should have a conference call and compare notes. Who knows, they may figure something out all can agree with.
 
Darth Omar said:
But you’re conflating biological information with matter. That’s like saying the words in a book are an emergent property of paper and ink.

I’m not sure you understand the problem.
Click to expand...

First, I understand a lot more than you. Information is not material but always present to it.
 
That we can discern order does not imply a code or a writer. Their mistake is that simple. They are simpletons. Why convince morons. Just shit on them.
 
Micawber said:
That we can discern order does not imply a code or a writer. Their mistake is that simple. They are simpletons. Why convince morons. Just shit on them.
Click to expand...

That your head didn’t grow where your ass is requires specified information contained within your genetic code.

It has nothing to do with discerning patterns.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Seems to me that there is one major difference between the creationist and the atheistic scientists:

- they both have faith in their respective beliefs.

- the DIFFERENCE is that the scientist have faith in the scientific method to eventually explain it all. The creationist have faith that eventually God will appear to validate what is already "explained".

Maybe they should have a conference call and compare notes. Who knows, they may figure something out all can agree with.
Click to expand...

My two cents is that theology and science are asking fundamentally different questions.

The creationist attempt to read literal historical significance and scientific principles into the Torah is a pathetic attempt by fringe Christians to fight a last stand against the forces of modernity.

World religions, at their best, are asking questions about how to cultivate virtue, how to live a meaningful life, and how to reconcile human existence with the nature of evil and suffering in the world.

Those are the right questions to be asking -- but that intellectual tradition never going to provide insight into a grand unified theory of physics or the mysteries of abiogenesis.
 
Cypress said:
My two cents is that theology and science are asking fundamentally different questions.

The creationist attempt to read literal historical significance and scientific principles into the Torah is a pathetic attempt by fringe Christians to fight a last stand against the forces of modernity.

World religions, at their best, are asking questions about how to cultivate virtue, how to live a meaningful life, and how to reconcile human existence with the nature of evil and suffering in the world.

Those are the right questions to be asking -- but that intellectual tradition never going to provide insight into a grand unified theory of physics or the mysteries of abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this except for your use of creationist.

Creationist is a broad category. In fact, it’s opposite is materialist atheist/agnostic. If you lumped young earth creationists in with the latter group [who can be equally ‘fundamentalist’ in their attitudes] they’d still be in the minority compared to the population that believes the creation was created by a higher being.

That’s all a ‘creationist’ is. So keep in mind when you use creationist as a perjorative you’re talking about most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top