Great Comment « Honjii’s Harangues

Great Comment

February 13, 2007 at 2:06 am | In Atheism, Beliefs, Religion, political, technology |

A friend sent me the following comment she found in an article on http://www.truthdig.com

“I have an idea: those of us who oppose the religious right
should take a strong, pro-science stand.
We stand up in favor of learning the truth about our world and our society via the scientific method and point out the idiocy of flat-earth ideas like “truth by decree” and “revelation”.
We remind our friends, family and government that for
centuries religionists believed the Sun orbited the Earth, and that
they would still believe that today if not for science.
We shout out the fact that the technology we use today comes from science, not prayer.
We demand that our government recognize our secular
Constitution, not a primitive book, as the source of our rights and well-being.
and most of all, we stop allowing ouselves to be cowed by all who are upset because we don’t believe in their ridiculous god.”

8 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

What I was taught is that there’s a religious way to look at history and the world where you use the bible to learn lessons for how to live, and a different scientific way to look at history and the world, which you use to understand rocket ships and solar systems and carbon dating. They’re for two different things and they are both important. The bible is for truth about holiness and God’s world, and the science books are for truth about the physical world.

Really glad I am not being raised to be an extremist in either direction.

Comment by frecklescassie — February 13, 2007 #
Ah… ‘Take a stand on the scientific theory…’
I do not believe Evolution, the Big Bang, nor Creationism can be proved by science. The Scientific Theory cannot prove any one of those theories.
Science requires observation. We cannot re-create the circumstances of Evolution, the Big Bang, Creationism, or any others.
The only way Evolution can be proved is… well. I stated that in the attatched comment.

Here’s a comment I posted on another blog.

Tell me, what is science?
Science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

I’m no scientist, but my understand is that in order for something to be explored using ’science,’ we have to be able to re-create it in a lab. We must be able to observe it (what ever ‘it’ is) or use experiments that show results.

If something happens in the past, we cannot deal with “a body of facts or truths systematically arranged” because we did not see them occur.
If something happens in the past, we cannot use “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world” that is “gained through observation and experimentation.”

I do not think how the world was created (Evolution or Creationism) or Evolution is ’scientific.’ Evolution and Creationism cannot be proven at this point in time. Evolution can only be proved if we watch an animal evolve. Creationsism can only be proved if a supernatural being appears.

Evolution cannot be truly proved by looking a fossils unless we can find many ‘missing links’ that have many ‘like creatures’ that are consistant. It would take us watching a living being evolve from one creature to another creature. It would take an example of macro-evolution, not micro-evolution.
We cannot re-create evolution in a lab. Why? Because in a lab there is a scientist taking pre-existing matter and using his brainpower to manipulate the pre-existing and manipulated matter. In essence, we have a creator using pre-made matter to try and prove a hypothosis that states that chaos/random matter randomly formed together to form order and harmony.

My point is that Evolution/The Big Bang/Creation/etc cannot be proved by true science. We can only speculate on what happened in the past since man did not witness it. Both Evolution and Creationism are theories.

Comment by Brian Purkiss — February 13, 2007 #
I’m not going to get very detailed here because I’m tired, and unfortunately I have some work that needs my attention. If you want proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, you’re correct, no one can state with absolute certainty exactly how evolution took place. There is, however a lot of physical evidence that has been studied by many anthropologists who draw very similar conclusions. As far as lack of experimentation, not true. Lets start with the earliest experiments created in the lab of Gregor Mendel (who has been called the father of genetics). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/mendel_gregor.html
http://www.mendelweb.org/

Comment by honjii — February 13, 2007 #
I do not want proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe in Creationism - that requires faith - so does Evolution. There is no way to prove either theory. What I’m saying is: Evolution and Creationism are theories. They cannot be proven. So let’s teach them that way - as theories.

There is also lots of evidence for Creationism as well. Unfortunately I do not have the time at the moment to look up specific examples. However if you really want me to, I will try and find time.
However, not too long ago there was some big name multiple PHD scientist who looked at three aspects of science in excruciating detail. He was an evolutionists at the start of the research. By the time he was done, he was convinced that there is no way evolution could have occured. I apologize, but I can’t remember his name off hand.

Before even clicking on those links, they already have a few components that I find interesting. Those experiments involved a scientist (an inteligent being who manipulates existing complex organisms) and pre-made matter.
After looking at the links… Correct me if I’m wrong, the majority of his experiments involved pea plants… Complex organisms. He then proved micro-evolution - the small change of creatures within that species. He did not get a pea plant to change into a bush (macro-evolution).
Also, the pea plants are complex organisms that can already re-produce. I’d like to see him try and prove evolution using only amino acids or single celled organisms.

Comment by Brian Purkiss — February 17, 2007 #
I’ve heard statements like this before to try and make evolution sound ludicrous. If you actually study the theories and the processes you will see that no one is making claims like this. There are many things that have to take place, and eons for major changes to become evident.

I do take issues with trying to put creationism and evolution on equal footing. And YES, I really would like to see what ‘evidence’ for creation you are referring to. If you can show me evidence that would be equal to the evidence for evolution …well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle/aunt….instead of a great great great nephew/neice. Of course I jest. Many people don’t understand that we did not evolve from apes. We and apes evolved from a common ancestor. If that isn’t true, why do you suppose is it that chimpanzees share approximately 95% to 98% of our dna.

Comment by honjii — February 17, 2007 #
honjii, I put heaps of evidence forward in a different post of yours.
http://honjii.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/god-did-not-create-man/

Why do the original Porches and VW Beetles have quite similar designs?
They were created by the same designer.
Why do ape and humans look similar, have similar dna (blueprints, designs)?
Same reason.
I will repeat that evolution makes no sense, and no form of real evolution has been shown to happen.

Comment by fredericthewise — March 1, 2007 #
fredericthewise
If your ’same designer’ argument is valid, then who are the ‘designers’ of insects, fish, aardvarks, and all those other creatures that are not similar?

Comment by honjii — March 2, 2007 #
How is that hard? the person who designed a car can, if he is intelligent enough, design a washing machine.

Comment by fredericthewise — March 3, 2007 #