What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

What this means is that evolution is a theory that IS based on observed facts and makes testable predictions. Short of god showing up on earth declaring "I'm back bitches, let me show you what I can do" the theory of evolution is here to stay indefinitely.

And the first molecule of matter evolved from nothing how? There has been evolutionary evidence of something evolving out of nothing when?

Yes, scientific theory is based on fact and evidence for explanation of certain events and is not "theory" as it is used in colloquial terms. As to the ultimate fact of whether or not there was a "creation", however, the evolutionary theory is based on the existence of something from which other things evolve. As such, there is an assumption within the theory that cannot be proven and to which the theory is inapplicable.

This is what I mean about the whole evolution v. creation being simplified into an all or nothing question. I have no problem believing man evolved from an ape like ancestor and that life in general evolved from microorganisms. Does that mean I don't believe in a creator? No, it does not. I do not, however, find the two concepts mutually exclusive.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And the first molecule of matter evolved from nothing how? There has been evolutionary evidence of something evolving out of nothing when?

Yes, scientific theory is based on fact and evidence for explanation of certain events and is not "theory" as it is used in colloquial terms. As to the ultimate fact of whether or not there was a "creation", however, the evolutionary theory is based on the existence of something from which other things evolve. As such, there is an assumption within the theory that cannot be proven and to which the theory is inapplicable.

This is what I mean about the whole evolution v. creation being simplified into an all or nothing question. I have no problem believing man evolved from an ape like ancestor and that life in general evolved from microorganisms. Does that mean I don't believe in a creator? No, it does not. I do not, however, find the two concepts mutually exclusive.

No scientist can answer where hydrogen (matter) come from, we can however reasonably say where the rest of the elements came from (theory). I fully accept that science can not explain everything but simply saying "it must be god" is worse than the involuntary ignorance of science. The universe offer many mysteries and it's the job of science to ascertain the truth. I can not say in good conscience religion seeks the truth, the truth is already know and it's god (doctrine).

Science has many holes and flaws but it has built in mechanism to make progress and corrections to itself. Religion has holes and many flaws too but if the holy books are testaments from god how much progress can we make? In the three major religions for example "humanity spawned from Adam and Eve" and "Adam was created from mud" are religious truths. Disputing these truths is heresy and innovation in scripture is not easily accepted. There is no formal method of accepting change to doctrine. Fortunately we live in a time where you have the option of forking and creating your own religion. Unfortunately, new religions are simply base on the ones they spawned from.

Science simply says we don't have the answers, we will look for them. If a better theory than evolution comes along Darwin will simply be a giant whose shoulder were stood on. Every scientist in the field of evolutionary biology is gunning for him. That's the way it should be and that's the beauty if science.

To summarize, science is trying to put together a puzzle and the picture is unknown. Religion knows the picture and therefore doesn't bother with the puzzle.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

To summarize, science is trying to put together a puzzle and the picture is unknown. Religion knows the picture and therefore doesn't bother with the puzzle.

I would disagree with your characterization of religion not seeking truth. The ultimate truth that God is the ultimate creator is accepted by religion. The how's and why's of his creation, however, will always be sought after. Your view of religion as an either/or proposition simplifies thousands of years of theology.

Most ancient religions are still around b/c they are open to change and to seeing each scientific discovery as a further glimpse into the mind of the creator. Reconciling scientific theories to long held religious beliefs without sacrificing the factual truth is what keeps spirituality vibrant and alive. In many respects, science is the starting point for spiritual thought: How can the existence of a single creator be reconciled to the infinity of space? Who/what was "Adam" (which most religions now use as an allegory for the transition from animal to what we now consider human)? What does it mean to be "human" in light of the discovery that more and more creatures are found to be self aware?

Yes, religion (as John Paul summarizes above) has accepted certain fundamental truths (in Christianity, these can be found in the Nicene Creed). True sprituality attempts to reconcile these truths to the scientifically discovered truths with an intent to view the truly unknown through the resulting prism.

Rather than say that religion knows what the puzzle looks like, I would suggest religion accepts that it doesn't know what the puzzle looks like but, rather, knows that something created the puzzle. Further, spirituality hopes that, through studying the known puzzle parts, we may learn something of the creator's purpose and, using these insights, guess as to what the unknown pieces may look like. As with science, when factual truth subsequently disproves those guesses, the insights must be rethought.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

To summarize, science is trying to put together a puzzle and the picture is unknown. Religion knows the picture and therefore doesn't bother with the puzzle.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

Science simply says we don't have the answers, we will look for them. If a better theory than evolution comes along Darwin will simply be a giant whose shoulder were stood on. Every scientist in the field of evolutionary biology is gunning for him. That's the way it should be and that's the beauty if science.

I 100% agree that this is how science should be.

But what these organizations in question are proposing is not at all what you describe. It seems more like: "we don't really want to debate the merits of this anymore, so we'll act like we can explain more than we actually can, and then treat the opposing viewpoints as common ignorance."

Which, in my opinion and perhaps other, is an inherent problem. Because these organizations are representing the entire field of scientific discovery, they are embarrassing not only themselves, but the very things they have dedicated their lives to.

And obviously, just because an academic has membership in an organization doesn't mean that they are necessarily committing these faults. Good science can occur in and amongst poor scientific practice, I believe. But I think what we're seeing in the last five or so years is far more of the latter than the former, and that these organizations need: 1) new leadership 2) new philosophies and 3) a more open, clear doctrine, before I personally can take them seriously in the future.