KeithHarwood

This is excellent. Well done.

But there is one thing I want you to notice. None of us on the science side ask you to believe what we say just because we say it. We always give you somewhere to look to check for yourself. And the places we send you don't ask for unquestioning belief either, but give you further references. You can follow this chain back to the primary sources, where the evidence is first presented. But those don't ask you for unquestioning belief either. They always say how they got the evidence in sufficient detail for anyone to go and get the evidence themselves (if they don't say how they got their evidence it doesn't get published).

Try it with the Glenn Morton article. Pick some scientific point that looks as if it needs evidence to support it and follow the references until you get to the primary source. It won't be easy after the first couple of steps, you will find that as you get away from popularisations and into the survey articles that the scientific literature is Huge. However, many libraries have their catalogues on line, your school library might be able to get inter-library loans and if you turn up at a University library with a list of citations from the journals and a pocket full of coins for the photocopier you can get anything you want. You can't borrow from them, but you can browse and if you get stuck the library staff would be delighted to help you. (If in doubt, pick an impressionable male, pull the "I'm only fifteen" bit and bat your eyelashes. I know it sounds sexist, but I have two daughters and I know how it works; especially on me.)

You might only verify one tiny part of what you were looking for, but it will give you a feel for the scientific literature and will show you just how shallow the works of the Morrises, Gishes and Hovinds are.

[Edited to add:
Whoops, I should have read the Morton article to the end before sounding off. He has already done the work for you. You could pick some other point from his article, but perhaps it might learn more if you pick something from your Morris book.]

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: KeithHarwood ]</p>

Sidian

There seems to be pretty viable points made by both Muse's article and the ppl posting here. A lot of the arguement seems to come down to the definition of religion...

wouldn't "ideas and beliefs pertaining to god" work well as a definition of religion also? Atheism has some fundamental psychological elements apart from deism and these elements surely effect lifestyle. If you need proof look at someone who believes differently then u...do they live/behave different? Every chide at their "moronic behavior" screams your answer.

I also grab hold of the part of Muse's article where he differentiates between evolution used SIMILAR to a religious belief and evolution as good science. I don't feel Muse lessens evolutionary theory by admitting corruptible human behavior. It's human behavior to want power, and religion and science can both facilitate this. Maybe even with similar results?

I would argue that a similar seperation could be (should be?) made with creationist theory. As long as there are "difficult" aspects of abiogenisis there are bound to be people who hold to a creator but "feel the call" of evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but people like Muse don't see why god couldn't have created the genetic system with diversity in mind. It's not the 7-day kickstart, but it fits well mentally with arguements that evolution turn up.

Further more, since Muse doesn't mention abiogenesis in his article i don't see why him being an atheist or a "unmoving mover" deist truly effect his views of evolution as a being similar to(equal to?) religion.

Quetzal

Hi Tricia. Congrats on the essay. If you're looking for a creationist that writes fairly reasonably (even though I totally disagree with him), try Michael Denton's newest book "Nature's Destiny". This will probably get me thrown out of the Vast Evilutionist Conspiracy (tm), and may get me charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor", but you asked.

Restating: No, I don't agree with him. No, I think his fundamental premise is fatally flawed - he doesn't present any real evidence for his Divine Tinkerer (basically he's using an argument from incredulity). But I do like him because of his honesty: in the 1980's he wrote a popular book absolutely chastizing evolution ("Theory in Crisis"). Since then he has honestly evaluated the evidence, and has recanted/refuted nearly everything he wrote before. Just like you're sort of in the process of changing your worldview, so's Denton. Maybe you'll see some parallels.

[edited to add: And maybe after that, you'll be ready to look at some real scientists' efforts. ]

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

faded_Glory

Very good, Tricia. A crucial point to grasp is that there is no automatic link between evolution, old Earth and atheism. The majority of mainstream churches accept both the old age of the Earth and evolution. You are perfectly free to change your mind and keep on calling yourself a Christian (like Glenn Morton did).

fG

scigirl

Hello Tricia,

One thing that might help you as you develop intellectually and spiritually. . . . don't be afraid of uncertainty. This not only applies to this evolution/creation debate, but also anything you may be questioning about your faith. When I evaluated my parent's religion, I was so frustrated because I just wanted to know the answer - who's right? Who's wrong? Are the Catholics right? Are the Protestants right? Are they both right, or is it neither?

Now I'm older and (hopefully) wiser, I've learned that sometimes the right answer is I don't know. Especially as a scientist, I had to come to terms with the fact that science can rarely give us absolute certainty, it can only give us best guesses and conjectures.

Embrace that uncertainty - and be comforted that someday maybe we will know the answers to our most fundamental questions. Or perhaps - it's more important that we ask the questions than that we get an answer.



scigirl

scigirl

Hello Sidian, (and welcome to infidels btw),

Ah, isn't that always the case! Stupid semantics. Don't even get me started on the question, 'are viruses alive' ?

Interesting. Although atheism isn't being debated here - evolution is. And in terms of religious people versus atheists: most of them exhibit the same old human behaviors, except on one hour each sunday.

Sure I think you could make a religion out of evolutionary theory if you wanted to. However, you could also make a religion out of, say, woody allen movies. But no one here would say that woody allen movies by themselves are a religion (or would they. . . . ).

I'd actually have to read that article/book to comment further. Maybe later. . .

scigirl

echidna

Tricia, I always remember one of posts of ManM (another or the Christians here), who in answer to a topic “Why do you post here ?” answered “to find out what God is not”.

I’d suggest that Science has the ability to truthfully answer what God is not, because when we know that, we are better equipped to understand our world. Science is not incompatible with many of the newer branches of Christianity.

Wyrdsmyth

What is a religion, really? For me, it summons up an image of people gathered in a place of worship, having a common creed or belief, certain rituals, and an idea that what they're doing somehow transcends their normal, mundane, flesh-and-blood existence. For me, religion is a lot about that "binding together"... Hey! Come to think of it, the word religion comes from the Latin religio which literally means "binding together"!

Now, the question is, is evolution a religion? Well, if you define religion as nothing more than people who are "bound together" by a common belief... such as that evolution is true, and we just don't know all the particulars of it yet... then, yeah, sure. But that means many Christians and other theists are of the "evolutionary religion" as well as their own.

So, I don't think the way we normally describe religion fits in well with a common belief that evolution is true. And trying to equivocate scientists with priests always looks like a ruse to me.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth:
<strong>if you define religion as nothing more than people who are "bound together" by a common belief... </strong>

....then practically anything could be a religion.

KeithHarwood

The Star Trek meetings that my daughters took me to certainly had much of the feeling of religious services.