RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
Chuck, I agree with the majority of your post. I do not believe that ID should be taught in schools for the same reasons you do not. That is the crux of this entire discussion and we are in agreement. In my post I was trying to point out the irony that while posting how you hated being labeled, you were guilty of the very same crime. You said:
My belief is that if one is to teach a certain religious idea, unsupportable scientifically BY IT'S VERY NATURE
You also said:
I do feel that the religious right tries to cast their opponents in a less-than-spiritual light, and I feel that is unfair. I also feel that ID proponents can't be indignant at being called unscientific when they really are unscientific.
Why are supporters of ID automatically "unscientific"? It seems to me that you are applying your own narrow definition of "science" to them just as they are using a narrow view of "religious" as their basis to label you. Jim Stitley posted:
I mentioned very early on in this thread that I am a trained and practicing scientist (biochemist and also amateur astronomer), BUTT I am a very spiritual person and have my own belief in God. It is not either/or UNLESS someone says it is (and then it still isn't).
I am also a trained and practicing scientist, yet according to many posts here I am "unscientific". That is just as offensive to me as if someone called me non- religious. As an intelligent, educated person with a scientific bent, I believe that I have weighed evidence and come to a conclusion. I do not believe that religion is inherently unscientific. That is a large can of worms, I realize, and probably not worth discussing. If we are to have an intelligent, open debate about any topic we must drop the labels. We can't just wave our hand and say "Bah!" like Dogbert and cast an entire section of the populace (the majority, according to recent elections) into a bucket labeled "unwashed masses" and discount their opinions. That is the "intellectual elitism" I was referring to. Aaron
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:36 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion
Aaron, respectfully, if one does not follow scientific principals, one cannot be a scientist, and to invoke deity as part of a technical solution is to clearly set science aside.
Yes, of course evolution is a theory, but it seems to be very well supported by hard evidence- creationism and ID is not. Just because some ID proponents have science degrees and backgrounds does not mean they have used valid science in their arguments. I have yet to see any hard evidence in direct support of creationism or ID, only testimonials, circular reasoning, and otherwise unsuported "psuedo science" that never stands up to critical analysis. There are too many leaps of faith required to embrace it. Faith is, after all, by definition, belief without works. Science will never be able to test religion, by religion's own self-defintion.
On the other hand, I personally have seen massive evidence of evolutionary principals. The fossil record need not be absolutely complete in order to bolster the theory. It may never be complete. For that matter, our knowledge of physics and chemistry isn't nearly absolute, yet the theories seem to hold up just fine. Your car still runs, your telescope works, your computer works, your prescriptions help your health. Yet we still don't know the absolute true nature of light and matter itself.
I suppose a higher intelligence directly makes my computer work and burns the gasoline in my cars engine, yes? No need for all that molality and Avogadro's number stuff after all.
I am not sure what you mean by "intellectual elitism". I personally am hardly a great intellect, there are much more intelligent people on this list and all around me. When I say "how dare they", I express my concern at being called a non-spiritual person, when my belief in God is very firm, and my daily life embraces Christian principals. I do not believe in Old Testament scripture as the literal Word of God, and I think there is the great rift between the creationist/ID proponent and the evolutionary Christian. Some people are just not willing to question what their elders have told them, and are all too quick to question what their own eyes and minds behold. Perhaps fear of ostracism lies at the heart of this, who knows for sure. There are probably thousands of reasons why some people will cling to one view in the face of massive counter evidence. And I'm sure creationsist/ID proponents feel that I'm just as blind as they think I'm saying they are. Maybe stubborn is a better word.
I think it far worse to question one's belief in God than to question one's grasp of techincal procedure.
You see, I do believe in God, very much so, but that belief is between me and Him. My belief is that if one is to teach a certain religious idea, unsupportable scientifically BY IT'S VERY NATURE in public schools as science, then all religious ideas must be taught in public schools as science, not just fundamentalist Christian views. A Pandora's Box will be opened, a door that leads ultimately to civil conflict, religious rift, civil war and anarchy. It's happening in other parts of the world right now. It's happened sporadically in this country in recent times (Clinic bombings & murders, for example, always carried out by someone "doing God's work".)
We have a remarkable country and constitution here. We have the right to believe as we wish as long as it hurts no one else. The only way it continues to work though, is to stay vigilant and not let any particular religious ideas creep into government. This is not a stifling of freedom, it is what makes the guarantees of freedom keep working for everyone- not just the ones who happen to believe what you do. It either works for all, or it works for none.
Now, by changing a few labels in my post you made a clever statement. But upon closer examination, are we just raging in each other's faces, or really trying to keep the issue in perspective?
I do feel that the religious right tries to cast their opponents in a less-than-spiritual light, and I feel that is unfair. I also feel that ID proponents can't be indignant at being called unscientific when they really are unscientific. You can't take a non-scientific idea and make it science just by wishing hard and calling scientists "elitists".
Aaron, ID is not science. It's relgion. Let's teach it in religion classes, for those who want to attend, not science class. Otherwise one day you may be finding your kids being exposed to government sponsored Zoroastrianism, Satanism, (gasp) Islamic fundamentalism or....God knows what.
Aaron, didn't know that you were a scientist. If so, then why do you call evolution ONLY (my emphasis, not yours) a theory? How does that invalidate the theory and/or evidence in favor of it? Using the same criteria, how is creationism/ID an equally valid theory? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert@Williams.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:38 PM Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | Chuck, I agree with the majority of your post. I do | not believe that ID should be taught in schools for | the same reasons you do not. That is the crux of | this entire discussion and we are in agreement. In | my post I was trying to point out the irony that | while posting how you hated being labeled, you | were guilty of the very same crime. | | You said: | > My belief is that if | > one is to teach a certain religious idea, | > unsupportable scientifically BY IT'S VERY NATURE | | You also said: | > I do feel that the religious right tries to cast their | > opponents in a less-than-spiritual light, and I feel | > that is unfair. I also feel that ID proponents can't | > be indignant at being called unscientific when they | > really are unscientific. | | Why are supporters of ID automatically "unscientific"? | It seems to me that you are applying your own narrow | definition of "science" to them just as they are | using a narrow view of "religious" as their basis to | label you. | | Jim Stitley posted: | > I mentioned very early on in this thread that I am a | > trained and practicing scientist (biochemist and also | > amateur astronomer), BUTT I am a very spiritual person | > and have my own belief in God. It is not either/or | > UNLESS someone says it is (and then it still isn't). | | I am also a trained and practicing scientist, yet | according to many posts here I am "unscientific". That | is just as offensive to me as if someone called me non- | religious. As an intelligent, educated person with a | scientific bent, I believe that I have weighed evidence | and come to a conclusion. I do not believe that religion | is inherently unscientific. That is a large can of worms, | I realize, and probably not worth discussing. | | If we are to have an intelligent, open debate about | any topic we must drop the labels. We can't just | wave our hand and say "Bah!" like Dogbert and cast | an entire section of the populace (the majority, | according to recent elections) into a bucket | labeled "unwashed masses" and discount their | opinions. That is the "intellectual elitism" I | was referring to. | | Aaron | | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Chuck Hards | > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:36 PM | > To: Utah Astronomy | > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion | > | > | > Aaron, respectfully, if one does not follow scientific | > principals, one cannot be a scientist, and to invoke | > deity as part of a technical solution is to clearly | > set science aside. | > | > Yes, of course evolution is a theory, but it seems to | > be very well supported by hard evidence- creationism | > and ID is not. Just because some ID proponents have | > science degrees and backgrounds does not mean they | > have used valid science in their arguments. I have | > yet to see any hard evidence in direct support of | > creationism or ID, only testimonials, circular | > reasoning, and otherwise unsuported "psuedo science" | > that never stands up to critical analysis. There are | > too many leaps of faith required to embrace it. Faith | > is, after all, by definition, belief without works. | > Science will never be able to test religion, by | > religion's own self-defintion. | > | > On the other hand, I personally have seen massive | > evidence of evolutionary principals. The fossil | > record need not be absolutely complete in order to | > bolster the theory. It may never be complete. For | > that matter, our knowledge of physics and chemistry | > isn't nearly absolute, yet the theories seem to hold | > up just fine. Your car still runs, your telescope | > works, your computer works, your prescriptions help | > your health. Yet we still don't know the absolute | > true nature of light and matter itself. | > | > I suppose a higher intelligence directly makes my | > computer work and burns the gasoline in my cars | > engine, yes? No need for all that molality and | > Avogadro's number stuff after all. | > | > I am not sure what you mean by "intellectual elitism". | > I personally am hardly a great intellect, there are | > much more intelligent people on this list and all | > around me. When I say "how dare they", I express my | > concern at being called a non-spiritual person, when | > my belief in God is very firm, and my daily life | > embraces Christian principals. I do not believe in | > Old Testament scripture as the literal Word of God, | > and I think there is the great rift between the | > creationist/ID proponent and the evolutionary | > Christian. Some people are just not willing to | > question what their elders have told them, and are all | > too quick to question what their own eyes and minds | > behold. Perhaps fear of ostracism lies at the heart | > of this, who knows for sure. There are probably | > thousands of reasons why some people will cling to one | > view in the face of massive counter evidence. And I'm | > sure creationsist/ID proponents feel that I'm just as | > blind as they think I'm saying they are. Maybe | > stubborn is a better word. | > | > I think it far worse to question one's belief in God | > than to question one's grasp of techincal procedure. | > | > You see, I do believe in God, very much so, but that | > belief is between me and Him. My belief is that if | > one is to teach a certain religious idea, | > unsupportable scientifically BY IT'S VERY NATURE in | > public schools as science, then all religious ideas | > must be taught in public schools as science, not just | > fundamentalist Christian views. A Pandora's Box will | > be opened, a door that leads ultimately to civil | > conflict, religious rift, civil war and anarchy. It's | > happening in other parts of the world right now. It's | > happened sporadically in this country in recent times | > (Clinic bombings & murders, for example, always | > carried out by someone "doing God's work".) | > | > We have a remarkable country and constitution here. | > We have the right to believe as we wish as long as it | > hurts no one else. The only way it continues to work | > though, is to stay vigilant and not let any particular | > religious ideas creep into government. This is not a | > stifling of freedom, it is what makes the guarantees | > of freedom keep working for everyone- not just the | > ones who happen to believe what you do. It either | > works for all, or it works for none. | > | > Now, by changing a few labels in my post you made a | > clever statement. But upon closer examination, are we | > just raging in each other's faces, or really trying to | > keep the issue in perspective? | > | > I do feel that the religious right tries to cast their | > opponents in a less-than-spiritual light, and I feel | > that is unfair. I also feel that ID proponents can't | > be indignant at being called unscientific when they | > really are unscientific. You can't take a | > non-scientific idea and make it science just by | > wishing hard and calling scientists "elitists". | > | > Aaron, ID is not science. It's relgion. Let's teach | > it in religion classes, for those who want to attend, | > not science class. Otherwise one day you may be | > finding your kids being exposed to government | > sponsored Zoroastrianism, Satanism, (gasp) Islamic | > fundamentalism or....God knows what. | > | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Aaron, we are now seeing why the debate is so unsatisfying from both sides. --- "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert@Williams.com>
Why are supporters of ID automatically "unscientific"? It seems to me that you are applying your own narrow
definition of "science" to them just as they are using a narrow view of "religious" as their basis to label you.
Any theory, idea, postulate, philosophy, etc., than invokes deity is unscientific. It is religion. I didn't invent that definition and it is not hypocrisy to point it out.
I do not believe that religion is inherently unscientific. That is a large can of worms, I realize, and probably not worth discussing.
No, that is exactly the center of the whole debate. Religion IS inherently unscientific. Religion is above science, apart from it. Science can never approach religion and remain science. Science is concerned with the physical aspects of the natural world, religion is the human interpretation of the spiritual world. The two exist on incompatible planes, unrelated, apart. Science is a tool to understand mechanics, religion is a tool to understand the soul. You can't baptize someone with a cyclotron, you can't measure specific heat with a BoM or cyclotron. Each must stay on it's own side of the line. There can be no mixing. Creationists and ID proponents want the two to mix, and that is just not possible from the scientists point of view. There will never be accord unless one faction is utterly beaten and defeated into obscurity, and I don't want to live in such a world, speaking for myself. I like 'em both, but each in their own space. Does this make sense, Aaron? There are fundamental differences that the ID people just won't accept. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (3)
-
Chuck Hards -
Kim Hyatt -
Lambert, Aaron