semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Hard-line fundamentalists (whether LDS or Evangelical or Muslim etc) insist that in order to follow the word of God, we must reject certain branches of science as false, possibly satanic. From our many discussions hear at MADB, I have identified the following that fundamentalists insist we reject:EvolutionEvolutionary biologyEvolutionary developmental biologyPaleobiologyPaleontologyGeneticsGenomicsProteomicsPopulation geneticsZoologyGeologyQuantum physicsChemistryMathematicsPhysicsAbiogenesis Astronomy in generalCosmologyPlanetary sciencePlanetary geologyAstrophysicsGlaciologyPaleontologyBiologyNeurologyCognitive science.Did I leave anything out?
Rob Osborn Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Perhaps you should rephrase it. There is a basic misunderstanding by some in the scientific community that hard line LDS reject the entirety of the sciences. This is false- absolutely false!It is true that there are some theories within the sciences that we reject or question but we do not just reject them all as the list you have given suggests. this is yet another attempt to make those of us who reject a few things to look like idiots while puffing yourself up in the pride of the learned in the world.If you are going to go anywhere useful with this thread you should rephrase it as what parts of scientific thought we question not what complete branches of science we reject. It would also be false to use the word "satanic" here. There is no part of me that believes that those who disbelieve flood geology as being led by Satan or being satanic in their teachings. You make it so dramatic. Its no wonder all we ever to is endlessly debate these subjects. How can we not when such false accusations abound?
FutureTwitBlog Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Hard-line fundamentalists (whether LDS or Evangelical or Muslim etc) insist that in order to follow the word of God, we must reject certain branches of science as false, possibly satanic. From our many discussions hear at MADB, I have identified the following that fundamentalists insist we reject:EvolutionEvolutionary biologyEvolutionary developmental biologyPaleobiologyPaleontologyGeneticsGenomicsProteomicsPopulation geneticsZoologyGeologyQuantum physicsChemistryMathematicsPhysicsAbiogenesis Astronomy in generalCosmologyPlanetary sciencePlanetary geologyAstrophysicsGlaciologyPaleontologyBiologyDid I leave anything out?This post is awesome!!!!
Tarski Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Hard-line fundamentalists (whether LDS or Evangelical or Muslim etc) insist that in order to follow the word of God, we must reject certain branches of science as false, possibly satanic. From our many discussions hear at MADB, I have identified the following that fundamentalists insist we reject:EvolutionEvolutionary biologyEvolutionary developmental biologyPaleobiologyPaleontologyGeneticsGenomicsProteomicsPopulation geneticsZoologyGeologyQuantum physicsChemistryMathematicsPhysicsAbiogenesis Astronomy in generalCosmologyPlanetary sciencePlanetary geologyAstrophysicsGlaciologyPaleontologyBiologyDid I leave anything out?I've seen some resistance to some obvious consequences of neurology and cognitive science.
semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 I've seen some resistance to some obvious consequences of neurology and cognitive science.Added to the list!
semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Perhaps you should rephrase it. There is a basic misunderstanding by some in the scientific community that hard line LDS reject the entirety of the sciences. This is false- absolutely false!It is true that there are some theories within the sciences that we reject or question but we do not just reject them all as the list you have given suggests. this is yet another attempt to make those of us who reject a few things to look like idiots while puffing yourself up in the pride of the learned in the world.If you are going to go anywhere useful with this thread you should rephrase it as what parts of scientific thought we question not what complete branches of science we reject. It would also be false to use the word "satanic" here. There is no part of me that believes that those who disbelieve flood geology as being led by Satan or being satanic in their teachings. You make it so dramatic. Its no wonder all we ever to is endlessly debate these subjects. How can we not when such false accusations abound?I don't follow. I've seen clear rejections from our resident fundamentalists that would render any of these fields of science completely moot.
FutureTwitBlog Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Although, to be fair, this is probably the "short list" because fundamentalist on the message boards tend to be much more open minded than people in the general church. If I were talking about the majority of people I go to church with, I would expand this list: History (the unofficial version anyway) Scriptural analysis from a historical/scientific/critical perspective (other than to try and figure out how many ribs Adam was missing)Economics (other than to justify themselves being millionaires despite the UO)Sociology PsychologyHumanities (too many "nudie" paintings)And the list goes on . . . Btw, I know that some of these aren't sciences, but they are also academic disciplines often ignored in a fundamentalist understanding of the gospel.Also, the list above is more than slightly facetious, and I was laughing when I wrote it. If you call me out on the points, I may or may not defend them.
ElfLord Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Semlogo,You'd better quit being a Drama Queen. The mods are shutting down dramatic threads now.
Ceeboo Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Hard-line fundamentalists (whether LDS or Evangelical or Muslim etc) insist that in order to follow the word of God, we must reject certain branches of science as false, possibly satanic. From our many discussions hear at MADB, I have identified the following that fundamentalists insist we reject:Did I leave anything out?Hi semlogo,To imply that these folks "must reject certain (All) branches of science as false, possibly satanic" in order to follow the word of God, is not only misleading, it is a clear attempt to paint your "belief system" as "fact" and utterly dismiss any other believer who simply and only does not place as much weight in scientific theories as you clearly do.The common and consistent suggestion that others "reject these things as false" is a drastic exageration (IMHO) used in an attempt to make your opinion/position appear to be cemented in solid "scientific facts". Anyhooo, I would suggest that there have been (and are currently) mountains of scientific people who have no problem in "follwing the word of God". Perhaps they just place science in the science column and place the word of God with God.Peace,Ceeboo
semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Semlogo,You'd better quit being a Drama Queen. The mods are shutting down dramatic threads now.I'm not a drama queen. If I were, I'd be starting threads about how ill used I am and how sorry I feel for myself.
ERayR Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Semlogo I would add: angels dancing on the head of a pinIs devils food cake really devils foodAre Sweetart candies also satanic
semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Hi semlogo,To imply that these folks "must reject certain (All) branches of science as false, possibly satanic" in order to follow the word of God, is not only misleading, it is a clear attempt to paint your "belief system" as "fact" and utterly dismiss any other believer who simply and only does not place as much weight in scientific theories as you clearly do.The common and consistent suggestion that others "reject these things as false" is a drastic exageration (IMHO) used in an attempt to make your opinion/position appear to be cemented in solid "scientific facts". Anyhooo, I would suggest that there have been (and are currently) mountains of scientific people who have no problem in "follwing the word of God". Perhaps they just place science in the science column and place the word of God with God.Peace,CeebooI accept science and I believe in God. I'm talking, however, about our hardline anti-science posters here at MADB. The ones who think radiocarbon dating is a conspiracy and evolution is bunk, and that pangea separated during the flood.
ElfLord Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Semlogo I would add: angels dancing on the head of a pinIs devils food cake really devils foodAre Sweetart candies also satanicWell it does have it's opposite... Angels Food Cake.
thesometimesaint Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 The Anti-science crowd seems to believe that the fact that some species of animals kill and devour their mates is an endorsement of human cannibalism.
ERayR Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Well it does have it's opposite... Angels Food Cake.Are we really sure it's Angels food?
David Bokovoy Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 I was going to add a scientific analysis of biblical scholarship, but FutureTwitBlog beat me to it. I have always had a strong interest in evolutionary developmental biology. It's written for a popular audience, but I would highly recommend the book Why is Sex FunI even cited it in my dissertation which explores the biblical conception of Yahweh as a sexual deity in J.
Ceeboo Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 I'm talking, however, about our hardline anti-science posters here at MADB. The ones who think radiocarbon dating is a conspiracy and evolution is bunk, and that pangea separated during the flood.Hey again semlogo,I certainly would not suggest radiocarbon dating is a conspiracy, I would suggest that it is not nearly as accurate, reliable, and factual as some would seem to submit.As far as evolution being a bunk (if when you say evolution you speak of humans evolving from simple one cell life forms 39,004,367,334 years ago) then you can certainly count Ceeboo at the top of the "that's utter bunk and only a theory" list!Peace,Ceeboo
Jason Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Semlogo,You'd better quit being a Drama Queen. The mods are shutting down dramatic threads now.Quoted for truth.
Tarski Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Hey again semlogo,I certainly would not suggest radiocarbon dating is a conspiracy, I would suggest that it is not nearly as accurate, reliable, and factual as some would seem to submit.As far as evolution being a bunk (if when you say evolution you speak of humans evolving from simple one cell life forms 39,004,367,334 years ago) then you can certainly count Ceeboo at the top of the "that's utter bunk and only a theory" list!Peace,Ceeboo39,004,367,334 years ago would have been about 26 billion years before the big bang. But who counting? Not you apparently.
semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Hey again semlogo,I certainly would not suggest radiocarbon dating is a conspiracy, I would suggest that it is not nearly as accurate, reliable, and factual as some would seem to submit.As far as evolution being a bunk (if when you say evolution you speak of humans evolving from simple one cell life forms 39,004,367,334 years ago) then you can certainly count Ceeboo at the top of the "that's utter bunk and only a theory" list!Peace,CeebooRight, so you only have to toss out:EvolutionEvolutionary biologyEvolutionary developmental biologyPaleobiologyPaleontologyGeneticsGenomicsProteomicsPopulation geneticsZoologyAbiogenesisPaleontologyBiologyAnd probably:Quantum physicsChemistryPhysicsThat's a slightly smaller list, I'll grant you that.
semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Quoted for truth.For someone who supposedly has me on ignore, you sure talk about me a lot. You shouldn't even have read the OP, if you really have me on ignore.
thesometimesaint Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 Ceeboo:As with ANY science or other human endeavor ages of now dead plants and animals are all measured within known tolerances. Try building a automobile without tolerances. It can't be done. The tolerances in building a functioning car are greater than that of C-14 dating. Over 39 Billions of years ago? That would give even me pause.
ERayR Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 39,004,367,334 years ago would have been about 26 billion years before the big bang. But who counting? Not you apparently.Well what was going on 39,004,367,334 years ago?
semlogo Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Well what was going on 39,004,367,334 years ago?Milton Berle was just starting his career.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.