Re: OT - Santorums Foreward to Book on Intelligent Design

In article
<6oeQf.536835$qk4.217070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, A. Brain
<abrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


There is a huge difference between trusting scientists (who
are subject to rigorous scrutiny and peer review) and
trusting religious leaders who offer twisted interpretations
of ancient sacred texts. [...] Science does not admit the
notion of the "priesthood of all believers". But it's not like
the Catholic church, with some central authority that is
supposedly infallible.

So are you saying that religion would be more reliable if religious
beliefs were not handed down by a supposedly infallible central
authority but rather were researched by a community of scholars subject
to scrutiny and peer review? Because there is a major world religion
that operates that way, you know.

And even if one believes that the ignorant masses who
trust scientists on matters of medical treatment, geology,
weather, etc. are basing their opinions (and decisions
about medical treatment, etc.) on faith, does it not
matter that faith in one instance is reasonable and in the
other is not reasonable?

Well, it the question is who is right and who is wrong, then sure, of
course it matters if one set of beliefs is more factually accurate than
the other. But if the question is who is acting more rationally in
choosing a belief system, what matters is how they make that choice.

It's a shock to me to see intelligent people in this forum referring
to "defenders of evolution" as if these poor misguided souls
were adhering to the phlogiston theory or something like that.

First of all, I don't see how the phrase "defenders of evolution"
denigrates belief in evolution. If I talk about "defenders of free
speech" or "defenders of America", am I denigrating free speech or
America. Whether you like it or not, belief in evolution is sometimes
questioned in this country, and in the face of that, many people defend
evolution. They are, therefore, "defenders of evolution", regardless
of whether they defend it poorly or well.

Second, the theory that some of these poor misguided souls are adhering
to IS something like the phlogiston theory. The popular perception of
evolution is a caricature of current scientific thought.

( I take it by Mark's and REG's
remarks that they believe the jury is still out on evolution,
which is truly remarkable!

I think I speak for both of us on this. If that is the conclusion you
drew from this discussion, you have missed our point entirely.

I think you misunderstand the symbol. And what exactly is
"liberal" about this? And by the way, what in the teachings
of Jesus is incompatible with accepting evolution? There
are lots of people who believe in God and also believe in science,

Sure there are, but the people who put a traditional Jesus symbol on
their car with "Jesus" replaced by "Darwin" are ptting the two against
one another.

Your right to call me on my use of the word "liberal". Being a
Darwin-vs-Jesus person is separate from being a liberal. And while
it's no doubt true that most of them are liberals, it's probably not
true that most liberals agree with them -- one counter-example being
me.\

mdl
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cat Problem
    ... Evolution completely flies in the face ... >you to accept their religion or be killed. ... >freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to protect ourselves, and ... It's no liberals or conservatives who are the problem in this country, ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Re: Double Standard
    ... work of a fiction writer whose creativity exceeds George Lucas, ... were using dry irony) I think that makes it a far superior read than ... And yet here you are reading stuff concocted by evolution ... confined to religion, my friend. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... some religion, ... aspect of evolution. ... "changed from the last common ancestor of the species being ... itself, one of those moral principles, any more than a sculptor's ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: MORE Evidence the Earth was created
    ... discover facts that are not explained. ... combustion - both of these were once possibilities for absolute truth, ... Evolution is considered to be true and it is presented as such in the ... theory helps science but it harms religion. ...
    (talk.origins)