• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Evolution, Creation, and You

Pick the statement that describes you best

  • I subscribe to the theories of the big bang and evolution.

    Votes: 52 61.9%

  • I subscribe to a creation theory, or something close, as well as evolution.

    Votes: 19 22.6%

  • I believe in creation, but not evolution.

    Votes: 5 6.0%

  • Some other version of this, please specify.

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • Total voters
    84
tjcmd said:
Since there are, and there always will be, questions that cannot be answered by science, I don't see any reason to discard the faith of my ancestors. It actually works very well as a practical guide to living in today's world, so why reinvent the wheel?
Click to expand...

Do you apply this to the medical practices of your ancestors as well? What's the difference really?
 
TWDeac said:
Hundreds of other religions/philosophies serve as a practical guide to living in today's world as well. I'm confident that, if we don't become extinct or blow each other up, we will make significant strides in shrinking scientific gaps over the next 500 years. This really isn't that much of a stretch If we look back on the last 100 years of scientific advancement. The science community won't hit a barrier and say, "Well, we are stumped. Must be god." Eventually, we might even reach the point where we can create our own universes. The sky is really the limit if we can proceed unimpeded.
Click to expand...


Don't the Mormons say this is happening to the chosen already? Or is it that God gives them a planet or universe.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
Interesting. I asked because I've been looking for a church having grown up Catholic and found one but on their website they had an "Ask Father John" section and a woman asked about her son living with his girlfriend and how she told him he had to confess his sins before going to mass.

Father John agreed that her son needed to immediately stop living with his girlfriend and go to confession before he could participate in Mass.

Really rubbed me the wrong way and obviously will not be attending that Church.
Click to expand...

I'd search out Dominicans or Jesuits and go from there. I wouldn't necessarily be put off by forward-facing comments made by a priest on a church website. Without having seen the original question and answer, what did you expect the priest to say?
 
tjcmd said:
I don't discard the faith that seems to be working well. I do discard scientific theories that don't work.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe your conclusions here are biased and what you want to believe. Explaining the origin of existence is a little more of an adventurous task than explaining the functioning of the human body, but we had many fits and starts in that regard as well. I am glad we didn't throw our hands up and say "lets go back to the leeches!!!"
 
tjcmd said:
I don't discard the faith that seems to be working well. I do discard scientific theories that don't work.
Click to expand...

If only we could test religion to determine whether or not it actually works.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Well, maybe your conclusions here are biased and what you want to believe. Explaining the origin of existence is a little more of an adventurous task than explaining the functioning of the human body, but we had many fits and starts in that regard as well. I am glad we didn't throw our hands up and say "lets go back to the leeches!!!"
Click to expand...

I don't want to give up scientific inquiry. If leeches work well for something in medicine (and they do, I hear) then lets go back to them for that particular thing. But for what science can't answer I just don't see a problem with having some kind of faith or religion. Of course, I am biased by an upbringing in a particular religion and would probably practice it even if it were proven to be false because it continues to work well for me. Bloodletting has not worked well for me.
 
You seem to be wanting answers from science for questions science doesn't even seek to address in the first place. Of course there is room for faith/religion in the LIFE of a person (even a scientist) but that isn't the same thing as saying there is room for faith/religion in science itself. God isn't the answer to any scientific question, past/present/future, because no real scientific question will ever be framed in such a way to involve God as the answer. God is the answer to questions of "Why?" and science asks questions of "How?". Questions of how never themselves directly lead to answers of why, but they can be used by people to frame questions of "Why?" and come to conclusions. Not accepting the answer to Question A because you really wanted an answer to Question B isn't a logical approach.

There is a reason scientific atheists (in the sense of believing science disproves a God) are a small minority even among scientists...science has never and will never address the question of whether there is a deity controlling the universe. Plenty of atheists and scientists alike USE science to support their atheism to demonstrate there are other explanations rooted in observable phenomena. That isn't the same as saying science itself disproves the existence of God. It is pretty hard to disprove something that you never even tried to prove/disprove in the first place. Parties on both sides are guilty of failing to keep answers to questions of "How?" separate from being the answers to questions of "Why?" but to try to place meaningful blame on science and/or scientific atheists, as that article did, for religious people disregarding science is bullshit. They aren't disregarding science because a few vocal people have said it disproves the existence of God; they are disregarding science because the answers don't sufficiently address a set of questions they were never meant to be answers to in the first place. It is utterly absurd to do that and ultimately those people are just depriving themselves of a better understanding of the beauty of creation by reducing inconceivably complex and proven scientific processes to the equivalent of magic. Utilizing science to explain the "Why?" of creation (pro- or anti-deity) is fine but disregarding science and scientific facts because they don't "work" in your answer of "Why?" is not.
 
This is from that raging liberal, Augustine -

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth…may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
 
8-year-old Scores a Major Victory Over Creationists in South Carolina

An eight-year-old paleontology enthusiast has triumphed over anti-evolution politicians. Her proposal to designate the Columbian mammoth as the official state fossil of South Carolina has been signed into law by Governor Nikki Haley.
Click to expand...

House Bill 4482 was easily passed by the House, and it was endorsed by the Senate Committee on Judiciary. But, when the bill came to a floor vote in late March, it faced resistance from some state senators. The most vocal opponent was Kevin L. Bryant (R-District 3), who said he'd be willing to compromise if the Senate tacked on an amendment designating the King James Bible's version of Genesis 1:24-25—which describes the sixth day of creation—as the official state passage from an ancient historical text. When that didn't work out, he reworded the amendment so that the phrase, "as created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field," would be added after each mention of the word "mammoth."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top