Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus
The Evolution v Creation Forum claims to be neutral, but I haven't looked at it enough to figure out if that's true. They do seem to have some smart people involved in the discussions, and some interesting points. |
From looking at the forum they do have a lot of smart people involved, and because of that they are not very neutral. It looks like they have been around for a while, so how could they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toranokaze
It is hard to question evolution and be religious without being dismissed.
|
And yet if you have a valid line of questioning scientists are required to consider it. You get dismissed because so many people have tried, and failed so badly that most consider it a waste of time to hear the same tired arguments over and over.
Besides, religion questioning science is dismissed with logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Science questioning religion is dismissed with hearsay from an unreliable source, and faulty reasoning. Is it really fair to complain about science?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toranokaze
Creationism ( as I understand it) isn't science, isn't religion and creationism is barely a philosophy additionally it hurts all three.
|
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but there are downsides to letting your fellow man believe falsehoods. From a macro view think of all the time and resources that are wasted on religion. No longer would people have to deal with the Sunday restrictions, wasting time and resources on religious observances or posturing. More importantly though, believing religion makes you make different choices. Skipping the whole holy war diatribe, a religious person often comes off as an extremely odd customer to a logical person.
For instance, if a scientist sees a pretty woman's face they might consider complimenting her, maybe even asking her out if they are not in a relationship. A religious person may well stone her to death in the street for not covering it. Oh sure, not every religious person does that, and certainly not the flavor we have over here. The problem is that each little sect has their own crazy quirks that you have to find out for yourself. Southern Baptists have roughly 80% (around here) believing that drinking alcohol is somehow sinful. Why would they think such a thing given that Jesus supposedly gave wine to his followers? Well, the story is this: Deacons were responsible for representing the faith to potential converts, and there was a widely held but false belief that drinking was a sin. Deacons were therefore sworn to not drink so that they could appear a better example to those new converts. The main body of followers didn't follow this line of thought, and eventually concluded that since Deacons were not allowed to drink it must be because it is sinful! I suppose you could make something of a theory of religious evolution from that example.
The point being, if a religious person makes decisions based on faulty premises then all else being equal they will make incorrect decisions more often than a logical, science-based person.