I Couldn't Think of Anywhere Else to Post This...

[enigma00]

Recently I have come across this list of "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher". It's being distributed by creationists (mostly in the US), and even though professional biologists have refuted these claims (http://pharyngula.org/ ( Read more... )

Comments

[enigma00]

That's also why science presupposes that creation is wrong - it's not because they're dogmatic or hostile towards religion, it is simply because IT CANNOT allow it. You simply cannot invoke supernatural forces into science as a manner of explaining something, because it can't be tested. IF it can't be tested, then we can't provide evidence for it's existence, and therefore it can't be part of science. Science is empirical, like it or not, and so science can't test things that can't be tested.

Religion and science CAN infact converge, but I do not believe that many religions in existence today can provide the proper beliefs for this convergence. Science disproves the account of Genesis in the bible - that's a pretty big thing. I think that Intelligent Design (basically a new form of Deism) could be more on the mark - that a creational force set things in motion and then it proceeded as science says it does.

Those people who deny such things as common ancestry, speciation, etc are simply ignoring a large body of scientific evidence, and thus do not agree with science. That's fine, I don't care; but if they disagree I would rather they do so quietly, and let science do its job. The only thing many creationists are doing is skewing the public perception of science. One of the problems in this debate is that people do not actually know what science is or does, and many creationists are only furthering this misunderstanding.

So you can see why I might thing some people have better glasses than others. They're still PARTLY right, but not AS right as others. I know it sounds like a stupid distinction, but I firmly believe that those who deny such large bodies of evidence simply are ignorant.

Even slight variances in the strength of gravity or other "given" constants that scientists have so much faith in would not support intelligent life as we know it.

Oh, for sure - there was a guy that I read about who made a book about 10 numbers; if any one of those ten numbers were off by the slighest amount, life would not exist. They were things like gravity, the attractional force between a proton and an electron, etc...and its very hard to see how all of those could come about by chance. But that's talking about the creation of the UNIVERSE, which is immensely hard to explain. In my mind, when we start talking about the creation of life on Earth, that we can more adaquately explain.

Okay, I'm done now too. Thanks for the comment. :)