Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and watch Ken Miller's seminar on evolution versus "intelligent design." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg As for the "scientists" who try to debunk evolution, don't you find it amazingly coincidental that they are always of a theist persuasion (even if they proclaim not to be, you can always follow the breadcrumbs to a theist agenda), rather than truly independent scientists with no agenda other than the honest pursuit of knowledge? Does that not tell you anything?
You realize Ken Miller is a Christian? There are a number of Ph.D. level biologists who are theists and/or Christians and as the Templeton site points out, there is even a significant history there. So are you okay with Christians believing in evolution?
I am aware that Dr. Miller is a Roman Catholic. I am also aware that he does not let his personal religious beliefs corrupt his pursuit of scientific knowledge. To answer your question, it is none of my business what people choose to believe. I respect honesty and integrity. Dr. Miller has demonstrated these virtues. It is when people resort to deception or misinformation to further an agenda that may one day reach into my personal life in one form or another that I am irked. P.S. Anything to do with science with the name "Templeton" attached to it should be regarded for what it is. The Templeton Foundation has an agenda. It freely admits it. Therefore, its output should be viewed as you might view tobacco studies performed by scientists funded by Big Tobacco. As a group, those studies tended to provide somewhat different results than truly independent studies.
Yeah, but you're probably the exception. Most non-believers don't realize where all this is headed: genetics has proven evolution and Christians will have to ever-increasingly believe in it. There really won't be any other choice over the next couple of decades. What happens when science and religion can live together harmoniously?
I don't see why theists will "have" to believe in evolution. If they are not interested in science, then they should not take science courses. Children in school who do so are exposed to generally agreed upon scientific knowledge. They are not the worse for wear as a result. Students can believe whatever it is they choose to believe. But they will have the benefit of perspective. They were taught science in a science class. Religion only becomes an issue when theists wish to impose their personal beliefs on others and pass it off as something else. It is then that they run into resistance. And it should be so. They increasingly endeavor to get in by the back door under a different name. And when they insidiously misrepresent information or the remarks of others to suit their own purposes, they become about as spiritual as Karl Rove. (Remember my earlier comment about honesty and integrity?)
Before heaping praise on the glory of science, let us consider some of its track record just regarding space: o some time after 1975, astronomers started accepting that what we see in the universe was only a small fraction of what was there, thus was coined: dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy) o around 1998, astronomers realized that there was a lot more that was still unknown to us, thus was coined: dark energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter o the current best explanation of the cosmos is: existing in 11 dimensions and as perhaps an unlimited number of simultaneous universes (multiverse). Of course, we are also incapable of seeing either or even reaslly grasping what this means. So only in the last several decades did we realize that only about 4% of the universe was known to us. And yet there are still alternative theories that even this is an incorrect interpretation. And people keep waving science as somehow confirming that there is no God, when they were incapable of seeing 96% of the detectable universe? I am a theistic evolutionist with a solid background in science and engineering. I have no problem with scripture and evolution. I do have a problem with both: o skeptics/atheists who think our babyish grasp of how things really work can explain away deity o biblical creationists who think they fully or well understand the first few chapters of Genesis
Well, okay, no one likes people who are willfully ignorant or deceptive. But youâre preachinâ to the choir on that one, so let me go on to something a little more interesting: You wrote âreligion only becomes an issue when theists impose their beliefs on othersâ¦â Well, of course, I agree with you in the sense that none of us need to or should ram something down someone elseâs throat. But, again, youâre preachinâ to the choir. But the problem, as I see it, is that science has such limited applicability in life and that makes religion an issue. One of the writers pointed out, for example, that science is morally neutral. It tells you about the DNA and the processes involved with it. But it doesnât tell you what you should do with the DNA. Should you clone? Should you give people different health care rates based on their DNA? What about stem cells? Should you manufacture children? Science canât answer those questions much as I love it. Science really can't help you with the majority of the most important issues in your life. Isn't that where religion steps in by whatever name you call it?
I agree with what you're saying overall, but I would comment that even though there are significant gaps in our knowledge of the universe, we can come to some solid conclusions such as regarding the Big Bang, expansion of the universe, basic star formation, etc. Also, as elegant as String Theory is, it will be very difficult to prove. In fact, it may never be falsifiable...
I see you have started out already on the level of discussion where waving your virtual willy around is the imperative Then I have at least 3 more qualifications than you and mine is 6" longer. Also as God does not believe in a God, then atheists would be closer to being correct than you are.
Science provides knowledge. It doesn't tell you how to live. Do you believe that you must get your moral compass from a book such as the bible? I'm guessing that you certainly would not have gotten useful guidance from any of the following: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html Richard Dawkins makes an interesting point. People pick and choose what portions in the bible to take literally. They essentially pick and choose their moral criteria as it suits them. Therefore, it follows they are capable of defining their own moral code, assuming they are not sociopaths. Consequently, he argues, the bible is just a middleman and, demonstrably, not a necessary one. Morality is a function of empathy and is more the product of philosophy than supernatural mysticism.