Man, The lineal and literal offspring of deity

[LDS Guy 1986]

Creationism/ID is religion parading as science.

No more than The Theory of Evolution is science parading around as religion!

[LDS Guy 1986]

;)

I think my only disagreement with this statement is that religion necessarily trumps science in personal philosophies at times, or the other way around, because that is one's personal prerogative using agency to believe as one wishes. But once the two are mixed in that personal philosophy, it is still religion or philosophy. Mixing isn't a bad thing in personal philosophy. But calling a personal philosophy scientific that has elements in it that are religious is NOT science. My comments in the other posts were in the context of practicing science as a scientist, or teaching science in science class, or other scientific forums or contexts where religion cannot be injected.

Just like taking science and using it to promote certain philosophies, through the use of unsupported assumptions is not science either.

[consiglieri]

delete

[LDS Guy 1986]

More power to you then. Just don't confuse science and religion. Keep them in their separate compartments.

So science stepping into religion is ok, but not vice versa?

I love how some people like to think freedom only works for them and no one else!

[Jason]

So science stepping into religion is ok, but not vice versa?

I love how some people like to think freedom only works for them and no one else!

LDS Guy 1986, if science and religion are "kept in their seperate compartments", as Skeptic Theorist advises, then neither one is stepping into the other.

[SkepticTheist]

Yep. That constitutes pseudo-science.

Just like taking science and using it to promote certain philosophies, through the use of unsupported assumptions is not science either.

[SkepticTheist]

I guess you didn't read where I said it was equally as bad for an Atheist to teach atheism as science............

Read what I said more carefully.

So science stepping into religion is ok, but not vice versa?

I love how some people like to think freedom only works for them and no one else!

[SkepticTheist]

I'll just pretend like I didn't hear you tell me that my idea of science is "naive." I promise you, you haven't got the first idea about what is naive.

Wow, and they call me a fundamental! LOL

Science is the most politically motivates study there is, nothing is left out. Atheists us it to attack theists and theists us it to attack atheists.

Your naive definition of science is useless, there is no science without people analyzing the data, and when people analyze the data they see it through the lenses of there beliefs and understandings.

You can show two people the exact same data and they can and will come up with two different opinions through there independent analyses.

This crock pot idea that the data is science is silly, the data is data, you have no science until the data is analyzed and published to be refuted or corroborated by other scientists.

It is this blind faith in this false concept of science that leads to this idea that science is infallible, that it is always right and everything that doesn't agree with science is wrong.

Data is not science, analysis is science, analysis is done by man, and man is fallible.

You have not idea whatsoever what science is, all you know is that you hate religion and don't want anyone hearing about it because you hate it.

Like I said before this is fine, if you live in China, but in America we have this thing called freedom and everyone's opinions and analyses of the data get heard in America.

[LDS Guy 1986]

or other scientific forums or contexts where religion cannot be injected.

See this is the double standard I am talking about, evolution is an injection of religion into science. It claims that all life came from one life form, that there is no God, this is injecting Atheism (a religion) into science, but you are OK with that because it is the religion you want in science.

Now if theists (not a religion but a type of thinking) feel that life is created and have data that supports it and present a theory of Intelligent Design, all of a sudden religion is injected!

Incredible! You say that ID is religion being injected into science (no one is saying the God of Abraham made life on this planet, they are saying the data supports the concept that life on this planet was designed by an intelligent design, it doesn't even refute macro-evolution, all it says it that the common ancestor was created by and intelligent design not random luck) when it isn't, and say The Theory of Evolution which is atheism (which is legally defined as a religion) injected into science through unsupported assumptions is fine!

Give me a break, just come out and say the truth, you only want the religion you like being injected into science, all others need to be forced out.

[SkepticTheist]

If the ID-ers want to imitate the scientific method in some fashion in their "research", they can go right ahead. But they must invent a whole new branch of inquiry that is not science. They must come up with a new name for it, and stop pretending it is scientific. I don't care what you call it. I don't care what they do. Just don't call it science.

I agree that the idealogy behind Intelligent Design seems to be religious, but I don't believe that the methods and substance of Intelligent Design theory, such as it is, are religious.

Refusing to look at sound scientific ideas because their origin was a religious individual is unsound science. I am reminded of an excellent Orson Scott Card essay on the subject - Creation and Evolution in the Schools.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

At its core Creationism/ID has the assumption that something is "Irreducibly Complex". That some supernatural force(God) is required to make it work. This has been demonstrated to be false in every object that the Creationist/ID advocates(Behe) have marshaled to its defense.

The field of evolution is a hard study to understand for the average lay person. That is why I link to easy to understand videos such as.

For those with a interest in the subject there is:

Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/

Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

NAS in:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

Plus literally thousands of other articles/scientific papers/presentations by recognized experts and organizations.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I guess you didn't read where I said it was equally as bad for an Atheist to teach atheism as science............

Read what I said more carefully.

You say the Theory of Evolution is fine, this theory is injected full of Atheism, and the assumptions made by atheists about evolution have no data to support the assumptions! Yet that is fine, as long as theists are not allowed to participate in the discussion and present there DATA in opposition to the Atheisms unsupported assumptions!

You are complete naive, and you are so closed minded and yet you can't even see that!

[SkepticTheist]

You are the one that is incredible. Again, I invite you to go back and read VERY CAREFULLY what I said.

See this is the double standard I am talking about, evolution is an injection of religion into science. It claims that all life came from one life form, that there is no God, this is injecting Atheism (a religion) into science, but you are OK with that because it is the religion you want in science.

Now if theists (not a religion but a type of thinking) feel that life is created and have data that supports it and present a theory of Intelligent Design, all of a sudden religion is injected!

Incredible! You say that ID is religion being injected into science (no one is saying the God of Abraham made life on this planet, they are saying the data supports the concept that life on this planet was designed by an intelligent design, it doesn't even refute macro-evolution, all it says it that the common ancestor was created by and intelligent design not random luck) when it isn't, and say The Theory of Evolution which is atheism (which is legally defined as a religion) injected into science through unsupported assumptions is fine!

Give me a break, just come out and say the truth, you only want the religion you like being injected into science, all others need to be forced out.

[Jason]

All and sundry, I suggest you read the OSC essay I linked to. You might be surprised.

[LDS Guy 1986]

If the ID-ers want to imitate the scientific method in some fashion in their "research", they can go right ahead. But they must invent a whole new branch of inquiry that is not science.

It's the same thing that the Atheists use in the Theory of Evolution, they make unsupported claims based on there religious beliefs, and you want it taught as absolute truth, and ban theists from even discussing the flaws in there unsupported assumptions.

[LDS Guy 1986]

You are the one that is incredible. Again, I invite you to go back and read VERY CAREFULLY what I said.

I read what you said, the problem is you hate religion and only want atheists beliefs taught, you don't want an open forum of all beliefs but a closed forum where only one set of beliefs is taught.

You can say that you are all about no one using science to spread there religious beliefs but if you support the standard and most accepted version of Evolution your actions go against your words.

Talk is cheap, you can't say you are against religion in science, then support the public teaching of a religiously injected theory of evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

That is simply not true. Evolution says nothing about God. Evolution is accepted by those that believe in one or more Gods, and those that don't. What science can not do is use the supernatural to explain the nature. Once you do, it is no longer science but religion.

[SkepticTheist]

My word. Do you know who you are talking to? I'm a temple worker.

I don't believe in evolution between major species one bit. You just don't understand one bit what I have said and now you are devolving this into something personal. You don't know me very well at all. I promise you.

You don't have the slightest concept of keeping things in their proper bounds or within their proper scope. You don't understand the importance or reasoning behind those scopes.

I read what you said, the problem is you hate religion and only want atheists beliefs taught, you don't want an open forum of all beliefs but a closed forum where only one set of beliefs is taught.

You can say that you are all about no one using science to spread there religious beliefs but if you support the standard and most accepted version of Evolution your actions go against your words.

Talk is cheap, you can't say you are against religion in science, then support the public teaching of a religiously injected theory of evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

SkepticTheist:

While major health concerns keep me from attending the Temple as much as I would like now. I averaged 2 sessions per month for many years. Me thinks LDS Guy doth protest too much.

[SkepticTheist]

Me thinks that LDS Guy needs to get a basic education on the proper role of science.

I congratulate you. Please continue to attend the temple as much as you can. The Lord will bless you for whatever you can do and for the intent of your heart in that.

SkepticTheist:

While major health concerns keep me from attending the Temple as much as I would like now. I averaged 2 sessions per month for many years. Me thinks LDS Guy doth protest too much.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

That is simply not true. Evolution says nothing about God. Evolution is accepted by those that believe in one or more Gods, and those that don't. What science can not do is use the supernatural to explain the nature. Once you do, it is no longer science but religion.

Which is why the Theory of Evolution taught across the world is NOT scientific, it makes assumptions that denies the existence of God without and support to substantiate those claims!

This is fact, it is know and I my self was taught this in high school not to many years ago, that life happened on this planet by total accident or random luck,and that evolution proves that. This is a religious teaching not a scientific one, the basic idea of evolution the observed variances within species is true.

It can even be argued that there is a common ancestor (I disagree but it is a valid argument) if this is what is taught I am 110% ok, but it is taught with evolution as proof that life was not created on this planet, and by your own definition that is religion and not science.

I am not anti-evolution, I know that things adapt to the environment, I just believe this can only happen within a species not be the cause for a new species to come into existence. My problem is educators using evolution to support atheism, it is immoral and it is brainwashing.

[SkepticTheist]

LDS Guy 1986,

Just because something in science is an extrapolation on evidence made in good faith doesn't make it religious.

Many things that are theoretical have explanations attached to them that are extrapolations.

You are so conspiratorial in your thinking on this thing.

Whatever flaws there are in a science curriculum where atheism has bled in is not the fault of science.

We don't have a science police that polices everyone that puts out a science curriculum to make sure they are not teaching atheism.

But if we should have that type of thing, then they should also police science to keep religion out of it.

You seem to be conflating some flawed curriculum that you yourself was exposed to with the pure ideal of what science should be.

I suggest that you stop judging what science hopes to be in its ideal from your own bad experiences with bad science.

I suggest that you learn what that ideal is.

For example, you shouldn't judge the Church by bad members of the church, or people that teach false doctrine. You should be learning about the ideal the church hopes to uphold.

Ed

Which is why the Theory of Evolution taught across the world is NOT scientific, it makes assumptions that denies the existence of God without and support to substantiate those claims!

This is fact, it is know and I my self was taught this in high school not to many years ago, that life happened on this planet by total accident or random luck,and that evolution proves that. This is a religious teaching not a scientific one, the basic idea of evolution the observed variances within species is true.

It can even be argued that there is a common ancestor (I disagree but it is a valid argument) if this is what is taught I am 110% ok, but it is taught with evolution as proof that life was not created on this planet, and by your own definition that is religion and not science.

I am not anti-evolution, I know that things adapt to the environment, I just believe this can only happen within a species not be the cause for a new species to come into existence. My problem is educators using evolution to support atheism, it is immoral and it is brainwashing.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986,

Just because something in science is an extrapolation on evidence made in good faith doesn't make it religious.

Many things that are theoretical have explanations attached to them that are extrapolations.

You are so conspiratorial in your thinking on this thing.

Whatever flaws there are in a science curriculum where atheism has bled in is not the fault of science.

We don't have a science police that polices everyone that puts out a science curriculum to make sure they are not teaching atheism.

But if we should have that type of thing, then they should also police science to keep religion out of it.

You seem to be conflating some flawed curriculum that you yourself was exposed to with the pure ideal of what science should be.

I suggest that you stop judging what science hopes to be in its ideal from your own bad experiences with bad science.

I suggest that you learn what that ideal is.

For example, you shouldn't judge the Church by bad members of the church, or people that teach false doctrine. You should be learning about the ideal the church hopes to uphold.

Ed

As I have thought all along, you care nothing about the right thing, only getting your way!

As I have said this isn't about evolution's science its about a religion (atheism) taking that science and using it to spread there religion! If you can't see that it is because your not looking or because you have a double standard regarding the issue.

[SkepticTheist]

Well my friend, this kind of back and forth stuff can only go on for so long before it gets tiresome. Have a great day and lets not take any of this too personal.

Ed

As I have thought all along, you care nothing about the right thing, only getting your way!

As I have said this isn't about evolution's science its about a religion (atheism) taking that science and using it to spread there religion! If you can't see that it is because your not looking or because you have a double standard regarding the issue.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

You can not put God(The Supernatural) into a test tube and call it science. Science is neither theistic or atheistic. Science is silent on the issue of God. I don't know how many different ways there are to say it. But theist as well as the atheist can not use their beliefs about God, or the lack of, to support science.

It is equivalent to claiming Bingo at a Poker game.

Lets say that I combine simple Hydrogen with simple Oxygen a thousand times and water come out. IF a Miniature Flying Pink Elephant pops out on the thousand and first time. Chances are real good that it was that I did something wrong, and not God that did it. Further IF I were to go to a chemistry symposium and claim that God did it.