03/22/2008 02:04:40 PM EST

De-Evolution

posted by LORD FOUL

The attack on science

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
  I recently saw a news story about evangelicals taking children to a natural history museum and using the time there to blatantly lie to childeren.

As a Christian I am enraged at the idea. For centuries Christians have fought against science, even resorting to torture and kill those who had the audacity to question god's divinity (actually their own personal vision of God's divinity).

  It wasn't heresy to claim the earth was round, any more than it was heresy to state that the Earth revolved around the sun. Evolution is no different.

  I ask Evangelical Christians this question all the time and always get the same befuddled look

What is a day to God?

We all know for example that a dog ages 7 years for every 1 year a human ages. That time is measured differently on other planets (whose days and years are different than ours.

So I ask again, what is a day to God, especially considering that God is forever?

I then pose the question differently,  ever watch Monday Night Football? How they are able to condense more than 450 hours of football into 2 minutes (highlights).
Everyone answers Yes. Then I ask what if a day to God is Millions or even Billions of years on earth? Obviously he would only be able to show the "highlights" to his human observer. Now compare evolution to the creation story, exchanging "days" for "Billions of years". Amazing isn't it, everything fits including the big bang theory.

Evolution doesn't conflict with creation, it proves it. If more christians were secure in their faith they would realize this. Unfortuanately christains are ruled by men and men have to justify their leadership, often times at the expense of their congregations.

I am sure my atheist friends will have a field day with this but hey blast away. It's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Happy Easter
< A voice from the past. | Is Hillary Positioning for 2012? >
 Display:
De-Evolution | 40 comments (40 topical, 0 hidden)
Why bother (none / 0)
trying to confuse science with religion


by Chinese Democracy on 03/22/2008 02:43:20 PM EST

Missed the point (none / 0)
There is no confusion because their is no conflict. The only conflict is for those who simply want to create one for their own ends

by LORD FOUL on 03/22/2008 02:51:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I got the point (none / 0)
To me there is a conflict

Science has to meet certain critera

Logical Criteria

A scientific theory must be:

  1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary ("Occam's Razor")
  2. logically consistent
  3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid)
  4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

The above logical criteria are among the most cited when it comes to discussions about the nature of scientific theories and how science differs from nonscience or pseudoscience. When a theory includes unnecessary ideas or is inconsistent, it becomes difficult to see how it actually explains anything. When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. Finally, when there aren't any clear boundaries, we'll never know if particular observations count for or against it.

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must:

  1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
  2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
  3. involve reproducible results
  4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

Religion is a belief. Trying to use science to prove or disprove a religious belief is an exercise in futility in my opinion. There are different religions with different beliefs and science is not going to prove or disprove any of them.

Its easier to use science to disprove a religious belief.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/22/2008 03:24:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oops (none / 0)
I forgot the "  "  so Ill ad them now

The explanations of Scientific theory are from About. com  

why the hell cant you edit your own posts on this thing


by Chinese Democracy on 03/22/2008 04:23:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not trying to be argumentative here DC (none / 0)
BUT.....you say "Religion is a belief."

I hate to break it to you but so is a theory.

While a Scientific Theory is a little more complicated than the common "idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture" it is none the less still a belief.

I am a science guy. I believe in science and I find it humorous when people trash religion while worshiping at the alter of "Science".

Anyone who has paid attention to science over the last several years knows that Scientific Theories change all the time, and like religion in quantum and your more advanced sciences there is as much dispute among scholars about certain "theories " as there is among the various Christian churches on what it take to get into heaven.

Among physicist there are almost as many "theories" as there are churches. Okay that's one of those exaggerations, but you get my point.

Remember Science is not foolproof and opinion changes everyday as more and more speculation about the universe is studied. All of these people have FAITH in what they believe, and like some people of Faith understand they don't know everything and never will, but it's the search that makes it interesting.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/22/2008 06:20:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I find it humorous (none / 0)

People try to use Sceince to prove something that by its nature cant be


by Chinese Democracy on 03/23/2008 02:17:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Belief (none / 0)

A scientific theory might be called a "belief" only insofar as we also "believe" that 1+1=2 in any number system base 3 or above.  But belittling the theorem that supports that statement by calling it a "belief" would also logically weaken your claim that you exist.

Such are the consequences of ignoring logic.

Scientific theories have proofs.  There is logic behind them.  Religious beliefs do not have proofs.  They are based on faith, and to maintain them logic is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Far too many people do not know what science is and are unable to appreciate its rigorous procedures for separating fact from fiction.  We do not even teach how to think in our schools, much less how to distinguish science from conjecture.  This results in conversations like this one where we attempt to find similarit ies between science and religion, one of the dumber things that we do.  And as this discussion shows, we don't even do very well at comparing science and religion.

There are no similarities between science and religion other than that they are both sets of ideas that are carried in peoples' minds.  One requires rigorous thinking and skepticism, the other requires faith and a willingness to suspend disbelief.

Regrettably, many people believe that religion is necessary as a limiter of science.  That foolish idea, founded not only on an irrational fear of learning but also on a more rational fear of what we might do with our learning, has saddled us with such handicaps as the current pseudo-debate about evolution.

Fortunately, however, religion is unnecessary if we need to know what is morally/ethically right and wrong.  Most people do not need a fear of eternal damnation to keep from killing someone else.  It is probably true that religion does keep some people in line, but Darwin is probably taking care of them.

This discussion shows that a better educational system is imperative.

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 04:26:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Two Stories of Creation in Genesis... (none / 0)

...conflict with each other.  Yet many religionists believe that both are literally true.

They have many other handicaps, too.

by EveningStarNM on 03/22/2008 02:50:19 PM EST

Are we not men? (none / 0)

by MRFred on 03/22/2008 03:17:57 PM EST

sleeping soundly. (none / 0)
Whatever you have do to convince yourself that you are not going to hell for believing the les of the Devil.  At least you can sleep at night.

by nfc on 03/22/2008 03:48:15 PM EST

The rancor on the atheist sides sometimes amazes (none / 0)
me.  Why is it necessary?

As long as you would never propose to try to make a rational argument (or an argument for law) from religious belief, why should anyone's religious belief ever be considered a problem?

by jarett on 03/22/2008 10:09:27 PM EST

You (none / 0)
must not be a student of history

Religion is a problem right now its called Al Queda


by Chinese Democracy on 03/23/2008 01:18:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When does religion NOT try to do those things? (none / 0)

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 01:21:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
most organized religions, maybe (none / 0)
With the exception of the Buddhists.  But being a Christian does not require that you say ridiculous things at every turn and expect everyone to take you seriously.

by jarett on 03/23/2008 02:25:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
theory just an idea...? (none / 0)
This is true, but theories lead to hypotheses, which then lead to objective studies, which then leads to empirical data....this means that the theory LEADS to evidence.  The theory is NOT evidence itself, and the theory may change due to the outcome of the empirical data...on this note, the data did NOT change the theory of evolution, thus the theory was PROVEN by the data.  The use of the word "theory" by biologists is tantamount to the use of the word "law" by physicists.  Just because the "lay"definition of theory means idea, that does not mean that "scientific" theories are just ideas.  I am not trying to bash anyone in particular, but the "theory of evolution" often gets passed off as a theory that is still just an idea.  If you look at history, the first person to think of evolution wasn't Darwin.  Lamarckian evolution was wrong.  He had a different idea of how things evolved which was wrong...thus we no longer view "Lamarckian" theory as the proper definition of evolution.  Natural selection does not equal artificial selection, and that does not mean that we evolve for a purpose.  The big picture does not have a purpose, and humans in our infinite search for purpose want to impose our own self-importance onto the universe.  I hate to say it, but we are nothing in the giant cosmos, and if god were real, apparrently she stopped giving a shit about us a long time ago...

by chrisandyasemin on 03/22/2008 11:49:59 PM EST

Chrisanyasimin (none / 0)
Just another way of saying that a theory is just a belief system. Doesn't matter how you arrive at your conclusions it's a theory. A belief based ultimately on the unknowable, and as information is accumulated and disproved what was once taken as "law", is replaced by another speculative "theory" to explain it.

In the study of the universe a known, known suddenly becomes a known unknown because a simple observation of a phenomenon not expected around a black hole or other event doesn't meet the expected results.

The theory of evolution has undergone numerous corrections in the years since it was first purposed. Arguments still abound. All based on a belief system, each scientist confident that their "theory" is correct.

The "laws" of nature change routinely as "science" explores the cosmos and discovers what once was "believed" to be a trueism doesn't apply in a particular instance and "science" can't agree. 

Most science contradicts itself the more you study the cosmos.

Simple question, can matter/energy be destroyed?

See Hawkins paradox.

There is more in the universe we don't understand than things we do yet many will eliminate the possibility of a higher intelligence, because it's not yet an observable event.

I will state again, I'm a science kind of guy, but at least I understand that even science doesn't really understand the universe, it only develops more "theories" to explain what is currently observable.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/23/2008 12:21:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Theories DO NOT lead to hypothoses (none / 0)

In the scientific world, it's the other way around.  The scientific method, without which there can be no science, is pretty clear about this.  Sure, in the layman's world, "theory" means the same as "hypothesis", but lay people don't have to be as precise as scientists.

The scientific method is a very specific logical procedure used for learning what is true and what is not.  Some science is based on empirical evidence.  Other science is based on logical proofs.  There are many other types of evidence that can be used to support a theory, but theories are developed by testing hypotheses.

If a hypothesis is shown to be false in all circumstances then a truth has been discovered that may be used to develop a related theory or prove a fact.  If the hypotheses proves to be true in one or some circumstances but is unproven and not disproven in all other circumstances, then it's a theory.  If it can be proven true in all circumstances, then it's considered to be a fact.  Other test results are usually judged to be inconclusive.

In any case, whether a hypothesis are proven true or false, the tests can be said to have been successful if any result is obtained.

In addition, "theories" and "laws" are different.  A "law" is true in all circumstances in a given universe.  A theory does not yet have that distinction.

Rigorous empirical studies and experiments show that evolution occurs.  Scientists argue about some of its exact mechanisms, but not about its existence.

Only religionists, who are not scientists and who are not qualified to judge scientific matters and who in fact eschew all logic, argue against the existence of evolution.

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 02:07:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
simply not true (none / 0)
there is not a debate about evolution...the theory may have changed over time, but there is NO debate going on among scientists TODAY about evolution...the fact that things change over time does change what is considered real in the "now".  If a rock is smashed into bits, the original particles remain intact, but the rock exists no more.  So to say that a theory is not "real" because it can change is simply not a valid statement.  Yes, truth can have subjective spin on it to make it a "half truth" or somewhat false, but there ARE objective realities that are not changeable based on subjective opinions.  These realities change over time, but the subjective reality only changes within that person...

Of course energy cannot be destroyed, or created...only transferred from potential to kinetic and vice versa...i'm not an idiot, and your fundamental understanding of a "scientific theory" is still wrong, no matter what you want to "believe".

I personally do not believe that our understanding of the universe can go beyond what we can experience.  I believe our laws of physics are true on earth, but "still theoretical" on planets that we have not yet visited.  Do you see the way i used theoretical there?  That is not the same "theory" that evolution uses. 

Science is not supposed to stay static...the point of science is to change the opinion in light of new evidence, so OF COOUUUURSE theories will change based on new evidence, exactly as they are supposed to...however, evolutionary theory has NOT changed for a long time...there have been many more findings that necessitate the changing of animal classes, but that did not change the theory...so PLEASE stop saying that scientists are unsure about evolution...they AREN'T

by chrisandyasemin on 03/23/2008 01:50:39 AM EST

Want proof??? (none / 0)
Just for Hubble, the Human Genome project is PROOF of evolutionary theory...that one of many reasons why the theory is "proven"...
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/tec hresources/Human_Genome/hom e.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Evolution_as_theory_and_f act

"A theory in science is an explanation of the observation"

This means that the "theory" is exactly what has been observed, and nothing to do with "opinion", which completely seperates this from "belief" which is based on the "unknown" as you said before...thus scientific "theory" is as close to absolute truth as we're going to get...

by chrisandyasemin on 03/23/2008 01:56:23 AM EST

Just for little ole me? (none / 0)
"A theory in science is an explanation of the observation"

You betcha! You got it right and that's why there is universal agreement on space/time and alternate universes.

Wait there is no agreement among scientist, but there have been several theories floated out promoting alternate universes to explain phenomenon in our own universe, and Theories showing it doesn't exist. Here is an interesting article about just that.

I have said a couple of times now that I'm a science kind of guy. I believe in evolution, and the Big Bang, and 2+2=4. I also believe that science can't answer everything, and as more and more knowledge is gained the more questions scientist have.

Theories are excepted until some of part of the puzzle makes scientist reexamine what was once excepted as "Law"

Now let's talk about "evolution" Here is another interesting article by a Rebeca Keller who holds a PHD in Chemistry.

 On Sunday, Aug. 28, the Albuquerque Journal paraphrased me as saying, "Scientists err by being unwilling to consider the possibility that some sort of transcendent being is responsible."
    The Journal acknowledges that this misrepresented my actual words. In fact, it is opposite to what I really think. I don't believe that looking for a transcendent being, or God, or little green men is in the purview of good science.
    However, being willing to consider a design inference, if the data point in that direction, is good science regardless of the philosophical or religious implications.
    No scientist should ever be so committed to an ideology, whether that ideology is religious or philosophical in nature, that it blinds him to possible interpretations of scientific data. That happened in Galileo's time and it is happening today whenever people close their eyes and plug their ears to design inferences in biology.
    Living things are incredibly complex. Even on the microscopic scale each cell is literally packed with interacting networks of molecular machines. It looks designed. If it looks designed, how can it be unscientific to wonder if that design is real?
    It is understandable that people are concerned about the metaphysical implications; if there is design then there must be a designer.
    But the basic trouble, and the underlying reason this controversy never ends, is that evolution is a creation story; it has huge metaphysical implications no matter how it is taught. How is it less religious or less controversial to teach evolution as it is now, pretending that we somehow know that there is no design?
    The only way to be religiously neutral on a subject such as evolution is to acknowledge what we know and what we don't know. Virtually all of our students come into class knowing that evolution is controversial. Pretending it's not, passing off students' questions with patronizing non-answers, or pretending "science" really knows that there is no design in biology is certainly not good educational practice.

That's some shit there, a scientist actually saying we don't know everything but as scientist we need to follow the data were it leads us, and even then we might well be wrong.

I realize "Deep Thought" took 7.5 million years to give us the simple answer to the ultimate question, but now we are engaged in the process of figuring out what is the ultimate question.

We know the answer is 42, but a fat lot of good that does us.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/23/2008 05:22:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is no difference (none / 0)

Essentially, creationists believe God created life on Earth out of thin air by snapping his fingers.  The problem I have with this "explanation" is that it actually explains nothing.  It's as pointless as explaining gravity by saying it's something God created to make us stick to the Earth.  It's a dodge that adds nothing to our understanding of our world and the universe.  It's a way of avoiding explanation.

My question is, does it add anything to our understanding of the universe to say, without any supporting evidence, that God "created" evolution for the purpose of creating life?  About the best I can say about this concept is that the part about evolution at least agrees with real evidence we find on the Earth.  Ultimately though, it's the same thing as the finger-snapping creation belief, only the finger-snapping happens a step earlier.

Do you see what I mean? 

by bfaul on 03/23/2008 01:58:56 AM EST

What is this, the Fucking Scopes Trial????? (none / 0)
Ok, I cannot stay silent anymore...

Y'all are just kidding yourselves to think that the Religious or Scientific communities are gonna resolve this issue within several lifetimes...

You are working with Apples and Oranges here... Why are you people even bothering debating this?

You guys are sitting here arguing like its friggin 1925 again, and look where it gets you! NOWHERE!!!

After over 100 years of Debate (since Darwin) they still havent figured it out on either side...

And you people arguing the merits of science over religion and vice versa ... Hmmf...

And most y'all think your gonna get a black president?... yeah, we've come a long way in America... and you guys prove it with your trifiling debate...

Get your heads out of your asses, people - you're making yourselves look silly...

thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/23/2008 03:07:50 AM EST

THERE IS NO DEBATE AMONG SCIENTISTS (none / 0)
How many times must I say that scientists are not debating...it's only "lay"people who have not bothered to listen in their biology class...this is what happens when people with NO scientific background try to debunk science...focus on what you know, and leave the thinking to smart people...apparently science isn't cut out for everyone. 

and bobo, no scientist has been arguing against religion...it's the other way around.  religion has no place in the scientific world, but christians try and force their religion into the classroom, so this STUPID dialogue continues to plague america...you're NOT helping the situation either with your nuggets of wisdom...oh wait, you have nothing constructive to offer to conversation, ever

by chrisandyasemin on 03/23/2008 05:37:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice try (none / 0)
at hijacking an interesting discussion  BoboTX


by Chinese Democracy on 03/23/2008 01:19:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting Discussion? (none / 0)
This discussion is exactly why Liberals dont get elected to the Presidency...

Fighting over the most asinine theories and beliefs...

CD, What I was trying to say is that if Liberals cant even get past their own noses when it comes to the Evolution/Creationism debate, How do you think Joe Sixpack non liberal is gonna get past his own prejudices and vote for a black guy or a woman as President... This thread/argument is a perfect demonstration of that.

So no hijack attempt here, just wanted to point out that perhaps this discussion could truly enlighten us as to the pulse and reality of the average voter... and why Joe Sixpack hates dealing with Liberals who think they know everything and wont vote for them come November DESPITE the Bushes and the poor economy...

Thats all im sayin...

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/23/2008 01:26:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Temper (none / 0)
Please calm down my friend it is Easter and I thought a little change of subject would do all of us some good (at least for 1 day)

and it is relavent to the election.

I didn't intend to make anyone upset.

by LORD FOUL on 03/23/2008 03:03:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Im not upset... (none / 0)
I appreciate good discussion. I find this discussion very relevant to the election, but not in a 'my way is right and your way isnt" sort of affair...

As I stated earlier - picking fights over Darwinism/Creationism really shows how petty and short sighted many Liberals are, and thats why they lose - They dont know how to frame issues to make them effective...

Plus, this kind of back and forth really makes them look arrogant to the point of disgust to most Normal people...

Point taken, though and Happy Easter to you as well...

:)

by bobo1 on 03/23/2008 03:24:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice (none / 0)
All this intelligence and you all missed it.

This is why we lose elections.

America is an overwhelmingly Christian nation. In fact most Liberals are christian in faith.

Faith matters to voters and this is why pubs use "family values" to such effect.

Denigrating the christian faith is not the way to win elections.

Our enemies use things like evolution to set the values table to their advantage.

I offered a means to take "evolution" off that table.

Make fun of me if you want but I do believe in god and I will continue to pray for a Dem victory come November

Once again Happy Easter

by LORD FOUL on 03/23/2008 08:36:17 AM EST

Thanks for Trying (none / 0)

But such efforts always will be doomed to failure, and the reason is simple:

Evolution and Creation are two completely different subjects with different purposes.  One is based on logic and skepticism and the other is based on faith and the suspension of disbelief.  One wants to promote the growth of knowledge, the other wants to promote conformity.  They really have nothing to do with each other except that they both propose to describe past events that led to the existence of human beings.

Adding to the problem is the fact that religionists, despite their stance against evolution, can't agree on what "Creation" means.  There are two stories of "Creation" in Genesis, and they conflict with each other.  But for religionists to use the Bible as the basis for their proposals, they must embrace both of them.  Because of that, religionists will never be able to use precise language or logic.  Nor can they ever admit it if they want to maintain their organizations.

The conflict will not be solved until humans evolve more in their mental abilities.  I give us a hundred years or so.  As a species, we're assimilating knowledge faster all the time, and even though the United States has given up on maintaining the best educational system in the world and is willing to settle for much less, other countries do want their children to be the smartest in the world.  Unless we emphasize superior education as we used to, the rest of the world will pass us -- as some countries have already -- and America will become irrelevant.  Much of the world will come to look at us as we currently look at more primitive cultures in southeast Asia, Africa, and South America.  They will say, "oh, how quaint!  Maybe we should try to preserve some of that primitive culture before it completely disappears,"

The correct answer to that question is the same as ours with respect to primitive cultures today: to preserve it in history books, but to let it die.

That would be a good thing for humanity.  But it's up to us to decide how irrelevant we want to become.

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 12:03:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cretionism (none / 1)
is religious dogma masquerading as science in order to be included in school curriculum


by Chinese Democracy on 03/23/2008 01:21:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
2 things (none / 0)
1) I believe that Evolution should be taught in public school (I don't believe in forcing my beliefs upon anyone)

2) So stop trying to force your beliefs upon me, stop giving me the tongue

Thank you and have a pleasant day

by LORD FOUL on 03/23/2008 01:42:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are correct, CD (none / 0)

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 05:10:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
respectfully disagree (none / 0)
True, that religion are 2 different animals.

That doesn't stop the pubs from using it to protect their agena (like the denial of global warming) Did you notice how threatened the Pubs were when Huckabee was making waves. It wasn't his religious dogma they feared it was his Liberal positions on things like taxes and the poor. Their is a big difference between somebody who actually has moral values and someone who pays lip service to them.

People of faith care about the poor but like everyone else they can be easily deceived

I believe that science proves the wisdom of God's creation. My theory (I believe) could remove evolution as an issue and strike a blow for truth (another Godly trait).

by LORD FOUL on 03/23/2008 02:01:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
unfortunately... (none / 0)
A lot of christians are not willing to link creation to evolution like you are.  As much as i disagree with your theory, it is much better than the purely creationism argument.  I would dare to say that if a god sits by and lets things happen on their own, as in evolution, then god isn't really all that mystical anyway

by chrisandyasemin on 03/23/2008 02:36:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mystical (none / 0)
This point of view has not been presented to most Christians. In fact, the few I have run this theory by were very receptive. Off-handedly dismissing religion costs us votes unnecessarily.

I do not believe that God has his hand in everything that happens. Otherwise there would be no suffering, no pain, no sadness and no death. One of the great mysteries of faith is the importance of choice and our ability to chose beween right and wrong, good and bad.

Would we have grown as a people if God handed us everything?

I acknowledge that you could very well be right. But I choose to believe differently. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean that I have to disagree with science. It also doesn't mean that I assume that non-believers are evil

There is nothing wrong with a healthy respect for others, whether you "believe" or not

by LORD FOUL on 03/23/2008 03:17:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Before I'm written off as an Atheist... (none / 0)
I must admit that I do not think that Atheism is necessarily correct either.  I see Einstein's universal thory of relativity as being the closest thing to "god" as we can possibly imagine.  It seems that there is this undying urge to give "god" a human-like intelligenc e, and this seems to convolute a lot of interpretations of what god is.  If "god" is a unifying force that keeps the universe together on it's smallest scale, then wouldn't that be all-powerful to an extent?  I just have a hard time linking any sort of human emotion to god...it is very egocentric of us to think that "god" is anything like a human...obviously there is that scripture about being made in "his" image, but there is also the time on Mt. Sinai that god appears in a cloud, because "the appearance is too brilliant for human understanding"...i understand the desire to link the creationism story and god to evolution, but at the same time, it still gives the false sense that "god" is the one driving evolution, and not nature.  Now, if you want to start describing "god" as all natural events...then you're not really christian anymore...and to say that god does not have a hand in suffering or death is to give god credit for all things good, and absolve it from all things we perceive as bad...this is a common practice among religions to shape "god" based on our understanding of good and bad.  this means that death is not good or bad, it simply is.  In our lives, it takes on positive and negative qualities, but in the big picture, you cannot have life without death, so death cannot possibly be bad.  I am not dismissing religion, in fact, I spent the earliest years of my life studying it RELIGIOUSLY...(unfortunatel y).  I have taken ideas from Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, and integrated them into my values, however some things from each religion must be critically examined.  After these examinations, and comparisons with scientific research, it is hard not to sound dismissive of religion, but it is because of so much evidence to say that parts of these religions are wrong...(i.e. stoning someone to death for blasphemy)

by chrisandyasemin on 03/23/2008 05:14:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A pantheist! A pantheist! (none / 0)

Another scientific pantheist!  RUN!!!

(The only reason that I don't dismiss religion is because it still has so many adherents.  But our species learns, and although their primitive beliefs have held back our progress for centuries, their ideology will not last forever.  As I said, people want to use logic.  I expect that one day there won't even be any scientific pantheists like me, and that also will be a good thing.  But wouldn't it be interesting to see what comes next?)

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 05:28:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what is a pantheist??? (none / 0)
I guess I am a naturalistic pantheist huh?  I wasn't even familiar with the term until today, but apparently they hold a very common viewpoint with me...amazingly enough though, I still think Taoism has the best fundamental inclusion of scientific properties into their belief structure.  A lot of the things that Taoists believe, like the Macrocosm vs. the microcosm, are untestable, yet we have experiences that will mimic these situations( i.e. hope to manifestation) 

by chrisandyasemin on 03/23/2008 08:23:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thus spake the English police (none / 0)
My religion is language, and my god just told me that this thread's title should be "Devolution," not "De-Evolution."

by OneHitKill on 03/23/2008 10:12:23 PM EST

(Cheese it! The cops!) (none / 0)

by EveningStarNM on 03/24/2008 12:57:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
De-Evolution | 40 comments (40 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: