I found this article on “Blogs for Bush” and it basically outlines everything wrong with the neocon/evangelical view of science.
Why did science stray from the path of truth? I think it is because we ceased educating the men of science with a knowledge of religion – a knowledge, that is, of genuine truth, genuine reason, and the relationship of man to creation, and his Creator. When science became a narrowly forcused search for something immediately practical, it was bound to eventually be hijacked by people who wanted to use the cover of science for very impractical efforts. Keep in mind that communism, once upon a time, was considered irrefutable because it was supposedly hard-nosed science about the human condition and destiny – the crackpot theories of an out of touch German intellectual were peddled as if they were on par with the theory of gravity.
So science can’t be truth if it contradicts religious priciples in any way? There is no evidence in favor of creationism and similar ideas that are contradicted by science, so why should existing evidence be ignored? Just because you don’t like it?
The truth will out – and that means that the quest for the truth will continue, and that will mean that efforts in science will continue to yield results…but the Age of Science is over, killed off by lies. I don’t regret its passing – hopefully we will soon start to really educate people, so that even as they pursue science, they keep it in perspective, and in relation to the real human condition.
There aren’t any absolutes in science. Theories will change and improve as more data is gathered.
Does this mean there is no “truth” in science? No. But there is no absolute truth.
Religion has a unique position of being able to say whatever, not provide evidence, and still be widely believed as absolute truth. Maybe science can’t give you all the answers all the time, but it can give you the best explanation given the evidence available.
It’s a question of faith. Some place their faith in the Creator, others like you choose to place their faith in the creation. You can’t prove BigBang or evolution, so you have to agree that it is faith, right? And faith needs no proof.
“faith needs no proof”
True, but if something has some proof or evidence in it’s favor, it helps out quite a lot.
“You can’t prove BigBang or evolution, so you have to agree that it is faith, right?”
No. Evolution and big bang are the best, most likely explanations we have available, given what we know.
Do we know everything? No. But believing in something that has evidence is not equal to believing in something that has no evidence (and, in this case, has evidence to the contrary).
I don’t need science to help me see through blatant lies. Christianity isn’t even original in context, much less in ideals. Consider, Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt were full of religions about “saviors” who were born, died, and came back to life. This was originally symbolic of crop cycles. As for the “Grand Design” argument, that all this couldn’t have come from nothing, consider this. Religion has generated more support for wars and slaughters and crimes against humanity than any other political idea. If there IS a designer, I wouldn’t call it INTELLIGENT.
Faith is important in all walks of life.
E.G. It is important to have faith in the fact that cars will stop at red lights, otherwise every time you crossed an intersection on the roads you would be risking an accident and personal injury.
There are different degrees of faith. I do not blindly believe that everyone will stop at every red light. When my light goes green I do not blindly drive across the intersection, I check to make sure the traffic on red has stopped, then cross the intersection. This is because I want proof that the traffic has stopped to support the faith I have in others stopping for a red light.
This is a scientific and analytical approach to crossing an intersection to support a faith I have in people stopping at red lights.
Faith is important, blind faith can be dangerous.
I am sure that if scientists could prove that the soul exists they would not sweep it under the carpet. It would splashed across scientific journals the world over.
I am not so sure that those of a strong religious persuasion would be prepared to do the same if they happened to prove that the Big-Bang did actually happen.
The guy that wrote that is an idiot…
The word ‘science’ comes from the grrek, meaning knowledge. Which gives the phrase “the Age of Science is over, killed off by lies” a whole new meaning: “the age of knowledge is over, killed off by lies” of the creationists, surely.
A self-fulfilling prophesy?