Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

horizon: war on science tonight

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the problem comes when people start blindly denouncing ID in the same way that a lot of religious fundamentalists denounce evolution theory. I think its really important to keep an open mind about this stuff and not go spouting off about dinosaur bones or whatever you think proves or disproves either of the above. I personally believe that the theory of evolution is perfectly acceptable, although i also think that a certain amount of 'devine intervention' is also involved, whoever that has to do with.
    Those are my ideas, they arent stupid and nor are anyone elses.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    iguana wrote:
    This may sound crazy, infact i think i think i may be a little crazy, but ney mind.

    Science is just another process of thought, as in its just a theory, as is ID. Its merely one explanation of how we got to be here, just as every other civilisation on the planet has its own explanations of creation. Who's to say that our explanation is the correct one? Every religion believes that their theory of creation is the correct one, just as science believes that it has the 'correct' ideas of creation. Science believes that it is a divine truth, as do most religions, but it seems to me that the masses do not see science as another strain of thought, rather they see it as gospel, that science is superior to all other ideas and notions of existence.

    Don't get me wrong, im not a bible basher or a religious nut, i believe in science. I believe that out of all the religions and strains of thought science holds the most valid and reliable perspective on existence. It can provide us with knowledge of medicine, physics, and biology.

    Howevr i still see it as merely another strain of thought, not a superior form of knowledge ahead of religion etc, its on a par with it, it just really gets on my nerves when people claim that science is different to religion and that its better without acknowledging that all it is is another perspective as oppossed to an absolute truth, which is what people seem to see it as these days.

    This is a point, to a degree. But at least evolution has a basis in actuality and can be demonstrated and explained. There is little to no evidence for ID, under the scientific method.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cain wrote:
    This is a point, to a degree. But at least evolution has a basis in actuality and can be demonstrated and explained. There is little to no evidence for ID, under the scientific method.

    Exactly, under the scientific method. Its difficult to examine one idea using the rules of another. It like there is probably little evidence for scientific causes and evolution if you study creation from a religious point of view.
    Having said this, I dont think that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what on earth do dino bones have to do with anything?
    they are the remains of long gone creatures ...are you suggesting they are someohow linked to human evolution?

    At what point did i say anything about dinosaurs been linked to humans?
    At no time did i say that!
    I was saying that the fact dinosaurs existed prior to human beings is part of the planets evolutionary process. The bible says God created heavens and earth and day and night and created life, putting humans here as adam and eve, dinosaurs are not mentioned, thus the bible is ignorant of science and is underminded.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, a scientific theory can be used to do things, a religious one is only used to stop behaviours. You can set up experiments with evolutionary theory so it's useful. ID is only useful as far as it gets people to stop asking questions and put cash in the collection plate.

    Luckily, evolutionary theory means that evolutionary theory will win out.
    Having said this, I dont think that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

    Shame that religion and science both disagree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    At what point did i say anything about dinosaurs been linked to humans?
    At no time did i say that!
    I was saying that the fact dinosaurs existed prior to human beings is part of the planets evolutionary process. The bible says God created heavens and earth and day and night and created life, putting humans here as adam and eve, dinosaurs are not mentioned, thus the bible is ignorant of science and is underminded.
    why on earth would the bible list all the animals created wether still living or extinct ...before the creation of humans?
    were elephants and mammoths mentioned ...horses ...crabs ...earwigs?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All other life is mentioned in biblical rhetoric as coming AFTER humanity, thats why we are "special" and "chosen" and all that other crap!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    All other life is mentioned in biblical rhetoric as coming AFTER humanity, thats why we are "special" and "chosen" and all that other crap!
    shows you how much you don't know about the genesis account then.
    animals came first ya twonk.
    trouble for you now is that all your ideas are based on a mistake aren't they ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smush wrote:
    Exactly, under the scientific method. Its difficult to examine one idea using the rules of another. It like there is probably little evidence for scientific causes and evolution if you study creation from a religious point of view.
    Having said this, I dont think that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

    one is a belief that relies on the absense of evidence and sheer faith, the other is just a method of doing things which constantly updates itself
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    shows you how much you don't know about the genesis account then.
    animals came first ya twonk.
    trouble for you now is that all your ideas are based on a mistake aren't they ...
    Actually, in one part of the bible it's mentioned that animals came first and in another part that they came after. One of these parts is in genesis, I don't remember where the other is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Zalbor wrote:
    Actually, in one part of the bible it's mentioned that animals came first and in another part that they came after. One of these parts is in genesis, I don't remember where the other is.
    you don't remember cos it aint there to remember mate!
    how on earth could humans come first ...before the planet had been prepared as it were for them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smush wrote:
    Exactly, under the scientific method. Its difficult to examine one idea using the rules of another. It like there is probably little evidence for scientific causes and evolution if you study creation from a religious point of view.
    Surely that's the point though. Some advocates of intelligent design are trying to get it taught in the science class as an alternate scientific theory. Of course since it is not based on evidence that can be tested then it is not a scientific theory, it is merely a belief. Whether or not that belief is as valid as scientific theories is something which can be discussed in the religion or philosophy classroom. They are deliberately attempting to infiltrate the science class, purely because they know that in the current western society, scientific theories have far greater influence than religious ones. And they are targetting public primary schools rather than universities, because parents (i.e. people with little knowledge on the subject) have a large influence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely that's the point though. Some advocates of intelligent design are trying to get it taught in the science class as an alternate scientific theory. Of course since it is not based on evidence that can be tested then it is not a scientific theory, it is merely a belief. Whether or not that belief is as valid as scientific theories is something which can be discussed in the religion or philosophy classroom. They are deliberately attempting to infiltrate the science class, purely because they know that in the current western society, scientific theories have far greater influence than religious ones. And they are targetting public primary schools rather than universities, because parents (i.e. people with little knowledge on the subject) have a large influence.


    nicely put there :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    shows you how much you don't know about the genesis account then.
    animals came first ya twonk.
    trouble for you now is that all your ideas are based on a mistake aren't they ...

    Yeah you are right, i read the book of Genisis and it does say whales and see life came first and that it was the waters where all life came from.

    1:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
    creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
    in the open firmament of heaven.

    1:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
    moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
    kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
    it was good.

    1:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
    fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
    earth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We always argue in circles when discussing this issue. And I think that rather to convince each other which theory is more plausible (a separate debate perhaps?) we have to examine whether ID simply belongs in a science classroom.

    And the answer to that clearly is a resounding 'no'.

    ID belongs in religion lessons. Darwin's theory of evolution belongs in science lessons. Square roots belong in maths lessons. And Shakespeare's sonnets belong in English Literature.

    And the only problem we have here is that certain quarters are trying to infiltrate areas where they do not belong. And until the desist in such attempts we must keep repelling them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    We always argue in circles when discussing this issue. And I think that rather to convince each other which theory is more plausible (a separate debate perhaps?) we have to examine whether ID simply belongs in a science classroom.

    And the answer to that clearly is a resounding 'no'.

    ID belongs in religion lessons. Darwin's theory of evolution belongs in science lessons. Square roots belong in maths lessons. And Shakespeare's sonnets belong in English Literature.

    And the only problem we have here is that certain quarters are trying to infiltrate areas where they do not belong. And until the desist in such attempts we must keep repelling them.
    tis true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well said
Sign In or Register to comment.