View Poll Results: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 53.52%
  • No

    33 46.48%
Page 28 of 42 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 420

Thread: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

  1. #271
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,513

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious??


    The debate is definitely NOT between scientists...

  2. #272
    User mgblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    03-30-11 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    32

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    The politically religious are philosophically pure rationalists, which means that they can't accept contradictions within their belief system. To accept God must mean accepting anything consistent with their line of thought and denouncing anything that is inconsistent. Thus, science and empiricism to them is a foreign object. You can't argue empiricism against a pure rationalist, which is why science and religion can't argue on the same battleground.

    There are plenty of balanced religious people who can accept an apparent contradiction, though, because they know that it's impossible for humanity to grasp the nature of the unknown.
    "No particular results then, so far, but only an attitude of orientation, is what the pragmatic method means. The attitude of looking away from first things, principles, 'categories,' supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts." - William James

  3. #273
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by mgblack View Post
    The politically religious are philosophically pure rationalists, which means that they can't accept contradictions within their belief system. To accept God must mean accepting anything consistent with their line of thought and denouncing anything that is inconsistent. Thus, science and empiricism to them is a foreign object. You can't argue empiricism against a pure rationalist, which is why science and religion can't argue on the same battleground.

    There are plenty of balanced religious people who can accept an apparent contradiction, though, because they know that it's impossible for humanity to grasp the nature of the unknown.

    There are inummerable ways to reconcile religions with reality and the facts but that doesn't mean any are true. ALL biblical contradictions, inconsistencies and errors can be "explained" by speculation, "interpretation" and opinion. Offering alternative "explanations" does not remove the contradiction, inconsistency or error, but presents a "positive spin" that MAY apply or may not.

    I'm very impressed with the logical abilities of theologians, who construct the most intricate, elaborate, methodical apologetics imaginable. The gripe isn't that they're stupid or incapable of rationality, it's that they build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  4. #274
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I don't understand why God has to be brought into science all the time... No prophet came here to teach us science, so why is anybody worried about God's role in science? Many questions in science are limited to theory, and will always be... Science can give us theories on how the earth may have been created... and even if we could recreate the big bang theory in a lab, it will still remain just a theory because such a demonstration would only show it's possible. It doesn't show that that is what happened.

    I love science... it was always one of my favourite subjects as a child and still is. Nowhere did I get the message that I can't believe in both science or god. I also happen to enjoy evolutionary science.

    But it does seem that historically people haven't let the two subjects remain separate. Religious texts are not supposed to be science texts. The religious community has been offended by science before... They put Galileo on trial and almost killed him for saying the Earth moved around the sun... wtf. But Galileo said he wasn't wrong. He said he believed in God, and he didn't let his knowledge weaken his faith. He said during his trial that if the bible conflicts with science, then maybe you're interpreting the bible wrong and that's what he believed was right, that was his faith. God still existed and science wasn't bad or evil.

    Sometimes people in the science field are not atheist... but they still feel the religious community is an obstacle.
    It all depends on how you define "god".

    If your god is an anthropomorphic being with human emotion and human motiviation, then science and god are not compatible.

    If your god is a self-aware intelligent creative force, again, science and god are not compatible (nothing in science supports any belief in an intellgent deity).

    If your god is merely a creative impulse that shovels out random universes, then science doesn't provide any basis for theorizing about the nature of that impulse.

    So, sure, true science and god are compatible, so long as one recognizes that there's no evidentiary basis for speculations about god.

  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Yes it is small and incomplete, but it is also a dead end in that it shows very little in the way of any verifiable links from say a common ancestor to a frog and an ape. We have guesses, but no proof at all.

    Now include the more recent discovery's in DNA and you have got much better evidence.
    Tiktaalik, conclusive evidence of a common ancestor between frog and man.

    Also Mayor Snorkum recommends the book "Your Inner Fish".

  6. #276
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

    This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

    This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.
    The major benefit of subscribing to day-age creationism is that I can fully support both evolution and intelligent design without conflict. In my mind there is no debate, there's a 3rd option which allows both.

  7. #277
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,606

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The major benefit of subscribing to day-age creationism is that I can fully support both evolution and intelligent design without conflict. In my mind there is no debate, there's a 3rd option which allows both.
    There should be no conflict. Evolution tells how life on Earth was created. God allows us to speculate as to why.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #278
    User mgblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    03-30-11 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    32

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    There are inummerable ways to reconcile religions with reality and the facts but that doesn't mean any are true. ALL biblical contradictions, inconsistencies and errors can be "explained" by speculation, "interpretation" and opinion. Offering alternative "explanations" does not remove the contradiction, inconsistency or error, but presents a "positive spin" that MAY apply or may not.

    I'm very impressed with the logical abilities of theologians, who construct the most intricate, elaborate, methodical apologetics imaginable. The gripe isn't that they're stupid or incapable of rationality, it's that they build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.
    I agree, sort of. A theologian may be able to provide a valiant attempt to marry empiricism with religion, but the observable reality that the senses provide run contrary to systematized religious belief, should aforementioned religious belief be based on something other than grounded fact. Once the theologian must resort to speculation to reconcile inconsistencies and grey area, then he/she ceases being scientific. The only way to marry this rationalism and the empirical world is for both to "give" when necessary, and the dogmatic aspect of the major world religions would never allow that.
    Last edited by mgblack; 03-20-11 at 01:28 AM.
    "No particular results then, so far, but only an attitude of orientation, is what the pragmatic method means. The attitude of looking away from first things, principles, 'categories,' supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts." - William James

  9. #279
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by mgblack View Post
    A theologian may be able to provide a valiant attempt to marry empiricism with religion
    Most theologians don't care to consistently make claims based on evidence and other verifiable sources. Its a hodgepodge of evidence, philosophy, speculation, and fervent belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by mgblack View Post
    but the observable reality that the senses provide run contrary to systematized religious belief
    The religious would disagree. They develop complex explanations based on unverifiable claims and assertions (speculation). For example, lets say you are debating a pixy-believer. They might assert that gravitation exists, causes objects to fall at 9.8m/s/s, etc... and we would all agree. But they would also claim that its caused by undetectable pixies holding everything down. Such a claim is unfalsifiable and thus useless because there are a limitless number of unfalsifiable claims that can be made.

    Many religious think that presenting unfalsifiable claims is a sign of the strength of their argument when it is actually a telltale sign of weakness. This is why you often hear the statement "you can't prove god doesn't exist". Rather, the religious should be saying "this is why you should believe god exists" and pointing us to objective reason and evidence why. For example, who finds this argument valid "you can;t prove pixies don't exist".

    And then there are the fideists. Those who think that "faith" in their beliefs is justification. But that is a whole other can of worms. Great thinkers from long ago (both religious and non) have destroyed the basis for fideism. Suffice it to say, fideists claims have indistinguishable truth value from ANY other faith-based claim.

    To sum it all up: The difference between science and religion is that science finds answers and religion asserts them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mgblack View Post
    should aforementioned religious belief be based on something other than grounded fact.
    Well there are lots of things that aren't (directly) based on grounded fact. Like which flavor of ice cream you prefer or the meaning you find in particular books.

    Quote Originally Posted by mgblack View Post
    Once the theologian must resort to speculation to reconcile inconsistencies and grey area, then he/she ceases being scientific.
    The religious would retort by saying they have no intention of being "scientific". That religion and science are two separate issues. The religious would be correct. Their beliefs are not scientific, but they
    1) fail to support their position with something else that would justify their claims.
    or
    2) fail to acknowledge the limitations of philosophy and speculation.
    This is where they fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by mgblack View Post
    The only way to marry this rationalism and the empirical world is for both to "give" when necessary, and the dogmatic aspect of the major world religions would never allow that.
    Rationalism and the way we think stems from our interaction and experience with the physical world. But the religious cannot support their extraordinary claims by the physical world alone. To bypass this seemingly insurmountable problem, the religious often speculate about alternate realities or "true reality" (E.G., heaven, hell, timeless gods, souls, spirits, demons, transubstantiation, resurrection, etc). They build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  10. #280
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,804

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Most theologians don't care to consistently make claims based on evidence and other verifiable sources. Its a hodgepodge of evidence, philosophy, speculation, and fervent belief.
    Those are apologists, not necessarily theologians. Apologists insist what they believe is true. Many, if not most theologians focus solely on faith, they couldn't care less about whether or not the beliefs are actually true. Most seminaries teach that what's in the Bible isn't actually true. Check out Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted for a good description of what seminaries teach.

    The religious would disagree. They develop complex explanations based on unverifiable claims and assertions (speculation). For example, lets say you are debating a pixy-believer. They might assert that gravitation exists, causes objects to fall at 9.8m/s/s, etc... and we would all agree. But they would also claim that its caused by undetectable pixies holding everything down. Such a claim is unfalsifiable and thus useless because there are a limitless number of unfalsifiable claims that can be made.
    That's because the religious aren't interested in whether or not their beliefs are true, only whether or not their beliefs make them feel good. They form a self-identity around these beliefs, to the point where they cannot bring themselves to imagine that they're not real. Therefore, no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists, they will always demand that what they believe is real. That's why the religious are delusional.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 28 of 42 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •