61–70 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well OK it seems there are a handful, e.g http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/30/... ... but I just wanted to highlight that the situation in the UK is generally very different to the USA.
It's unlawful to teach religion in public schools in the US.
Politics. Religion. Valence issue. Why is this on the front page of HN? It shouldn't be; I flagged it.
I very much doubt there were any UK schools teaching it anyway, hence this news is not really news this side of the pond. (Context for those in the US)
I went to a catholic school and we were still taught evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. Even had compulsory religious education lessons (sane number per week as maths, english, science) and accompanying GCSE in Catholic Christianity and we were still taught evolution. Many teachers even said that the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally! It's quite rare I think and I'm surprised there are schools still teachi…
Scientists tend to exclude God, and creationists tend to exclude science. It would benefit all of us for each side to recognize that they can live in harmony. Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. If religious interpretation of scripture flies in the face of provable, observable science, then perhaps our interpretation of that scripture is wrong. I'm tired of this ri…
"mutually respectful, honest and rational debaters cannot disagree on any factual matter once they know each other’s opinions. They cannot "agree to disagree", they can only agree to agree." [1]
[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/agreeing_to_agr.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read it? Which one did you find ludicrous?
"Elements and minerals found in our body is exactly what are stated in the Bible that we came from the dust (crust) of the earth." The two pie charts for the Earth's crust look pretty different to me - although the fact that the same colour is used for different elements in the two charts is obviously trying to hide this (the only consistently coloured one is oxygen).
Scientists tend to exclude God, and creationists tend to exclude science. It would benefit all of us for each side to recognize that they can live in harmony. Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. If religious interpretation of scripture flies in the face of provable, observable science, then perhaps our interpretation of that scripture is wrong. I'm tired of this ri…
I very much doubt there were any UK schools teaching it anyway, hence this news is not really news this side of the pond. (Context for those in the US)
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/17/creationist...
Scientists tend to exclude God, and creationists tend to exclude science. It would benefit all of us for each side to recognize that they can live in harmony. Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. If religious interpretation of scripture flies in the face of provable, observable science, then perhaps our interpretation of that scripture is wrong. I'm tired of this ri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a bioinformatician with a background in genetics. The argument against evolution in the article, mainly the piltdown man hoax and new sequencing data on neanderthal is extremely weak. I don't think a single example of scientific fraud is enough to discredit the entire community. I actually think the fact that the fraud was found out as a hoax shows that evidence is constantly being scrutinized and re-examined; w…
"The rest of the article dealt with interpreting biblical statements to fit the current undeniable understanding of the universe.", (How do i correctly put a quote here in the replies?) In Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong.
Believe whatever mythology you want, I will fully defend your right to do so. But do not try to force your agenda on those that don't follow or share your doctrine though made up fiction masquerading as science. Evolution through natural selection exists, it's demonstrable, and the only piece we do not have a precision view of is speciation. But not unlike the Higgs, when we have all the other pieces, we can extrapolate, and we have some pretty solid theories on how this happens, and evidence that through husbandry, we as humans have caused it to happen through human selection.
Scientists tend to exclude God, and creationists tend to exclude science. It would benefit all of us for each side to recognize that they can live in harmony. Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. If religious interpretation of scripture flies in the face of provable, observable science, then perhaps our interpretation of that scripture is wrong. I'm tired of this ri…
People really like to downplay this, but a scientific investigation of any phenomenon must begin, in step zero, by assuming that god is not responsible for the phenomenon. There is no evidence that could support a conclusion of "it was god", because the scientific method assigns that hypothesis a Bayesian weight of zero.
Religious scientists seem to understand this when it comes to their own field; you don't see a lot of young-earth geologists, but you can find geologists rejecting evolution.