Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. Science / History / Prophecy
  3. Science
  4. Evolution or Intelligent design ?

Evolution or Intelligent design ?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Science
150 Posts 28 Posters 7.7k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hawk99
    wrote on last edited by
    #84

    Peace StopS.

    I have seen/read worse from people who are confused and their language/translations/understanding are even more confused than they are!

    Like I said before,what is clear to some is foggy to others and what is truth to some is falsehood to others.

    Do you really want to know the truth or is your mind made up and you have other aim/s?

    All I can add is the following

    22 17 Those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Converts ( to any religion), the Christians, the Zoroastrians ( and any name you wish to give to man s religion) and the idol worshippers ( and the Muslims, Hindus, the thousands of religious sects, the disbelievers, the Atheists, etc&#133 GOD is the one who will judge among them on the day of Resurrection. GOD witnesses all things.

    What more can I say?

    Peace.

    Agreed

    109.006
    Lakum deenukum waliya deeni
    YUSUFALI To you be your Way, and to me mine.
    PICKTHAL Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
    SHAKIR You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
    KHALIFA "To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."

    Muslims have to give up when it is determined that a person is kaffir.

    KHALIFA If their rejection gets to be too much for you, you should know that even if you dug a tunnel through the earth, or climbed a ladder into the sky, and produced a miracle for them (they still would not believe). Had GOD willed, He could have guided them, unanimously. Therefore, do not behave like the ignorant ones.

    Peace

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Offline
      S Offline
      StopS
      wrote on last edited by
      #85

      I have seen/read worse from people who are confused and their language/translations/understanding are even more confused than they are!
      What more can I say?

      You are still making one mistake in my opinion you are mistaking me for someone who tries to insinuate something bad or tries to prove something about Islam.

      I don't. It is not for me to judge a person's belief. Whether they believe astrology or palmistry is significant is their business. The same goes for any of the larger 200 different belief systems we have today. Because I live in and am exposed to an Islamic environment I am more interested in it and want to understand it.

      Again out of all the 100s of different sections of Islam I find the Koranist one the most convincing and straight. Well, mostly, because 19 is not exactly straight and pseudo mathematical. But I get cranky if anyone tries to drag any religion into the area and under the spotlight of science. That does not work. I get livid if anyone tries to make any pseudo-scientific claims and involves the Koran in this. I find it patently dishonest and false. That's why I sometimes come off as shrill and strident and that's when my sarcasm comes through as well as my derision.

      As I have said in my intro, I ask and probe.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • G Offline
        G Offline
        good_logic
        wrote on last edited by
        #86

        Peace StopS.

        Quote You are still making one mistake in my opinion you are mistaking me for someone who tries to insinuate something bad or tries to prove something about Islam.

        Remember me saying to you, I have hope that you may become a believer?

        I meant it. I do not give up on anyone , including myself. The Lord works individually with all of us. He is the only one who knows our innermost thoughts.

        God bless.

        Peace.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • A Offline
          A Offline
          Ahmad_Bilal
          wrote on last edited by
          #87

          Peace, good logic.

          You said,

          Everything you quoted about Qoran in your last post was " Mistranslated". There is no conflict between Qoran and true Science.

          Would you be willing to retranslate the stated verses to reflect what they actually say, as you allege that they agree with modern science?

          For the record, when I study the passages of the Qur'aan and compare them to modern science, I'm not merely basing my estimations on specific translations. Rather, I initially read the passage in Arabic, so that I can form my own basic interpretation of the scripture. Afterwards, I check out various translations to see what others have determined the passages to say.

          In addition, you failed to answer my questions. I'll repost them for you, in case you missed them

          When the Qur'aan conflicts with the given positions of modern science, which position should we uphold? Should we accept the Qur'aanic viewpoint, which (seemingly) conflicts with reality? Or should we acknowledge that the Qur'aan may be wrong about some things and adopt the scientific (realistic) viewpoint?

          Thanks in advance.

          Peace,

          Ahmad

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Offline
            S Offline
            StopS
            wrote on last edited by
            #88

            Peace StopS.

            Quote You are still making one mistake in my opinion you are mistaking me for someone who tries to insinuate something bad or tries to prove something about Islam.

            Remember me saying to you, I have hope that you may become a believer?

            I meant it. I do not give up on anyone , including myself. The Lord works individually with all of us. He is the only one who knows our innermost thoughts.

            God bless.

            Peace.

            Hahaha, ok.

            Unfortunately, the only way to find out is to die.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • O Offline
              O Offline
              one-9-one
              wrote on last edited by
              #89

              for me to judge a person's belief.

              interesting. can you explain.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S Offline
                S Offline
                Student_of_Allah
                wrote on last edited by
                #90

                Shalom Aleikhem,

                First of all, let me apologize for this late response.

                Now,

                No it doesn't, but my problem was how could God model life in a way that justifies racism?

                Evolution does not "justify" racism or even "universal brotherhood". It is up to you and me to decide what we do. Let me give you something else to think about. Do you agree that there are tall and short people ? Do you agree that some people are more attractive than others ? If you do agree that it is the case, would you now go on and and say that " but my problem was how could God create people in a way that justifies looking down upon the less desirable ones" ? I hope not. In the same way, even if we can demonstrate that I am weaker than you, we should not therefore say that you have the right to mistreat me. Like I said before, it is evidently true that shit and people are both made out of the same sub atomic particles. However, we know better than to treat people like shit.

                "favored races" is interchangeable with "white" in this context

                Once again, I have to remind you that "races" can very well mean variations. You said you have read "Origin of Species". Let me demonstrate that from Chapter 1

                ".................. Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil),....................."

                At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin 1887156).

                Ok, here is the full passage

                "The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies?between the Tarsius and the other Lemurid? ?between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. "

                Although the passage is more about taxonomy, I can not help but point out that while defending his theory, he ignored things like genetics, nature VS nurture. His idea was that a culture can end up forcing extinction on another culture. Darwin had to explain what he observed, do yourself the favor of looking at the world he looked at. You will understand why some of his conclusions were not correct. By the way, Darwin was not proposing the extermination or ill-treatment of any race. He was, as I said before, describing what he observed. Just like I can write about a "Tiger vs Deer" situation without passing on any moral judgement on the matter. Now, I do not know if Darwin was a racist or not. However, even if Darwin comes back from his grave and states that " I am a racist and the theory of evolution made me racist", that has no bearing on the truth of the subject matter of "Evolution".

                Peace
                --------------- Student of Allah

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Offline
                  S Offline
                  Student_of_Allah
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #91

                  Shalom Aleikhem,

                  A reminder for everyone

                  Let us have off-topic conversations and debates elsewhere. This thread is for discussing the theory of evolution and intelligent design.

                  Peace
                  ------------- Student of Allah

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • J Offline
                    J Offline
                    JewishDude
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #92

                    Evolution or Intelligent design???

                    Does it have to be either or?

                    Can't the two go hand in hand?

                    Just my crazy questions...
                    JewishDude
                    peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Offline
                      S Offline
                      StopS
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #93

                      Evolution or Intelligent design???

                      Does it have to be either or?

                      Can't the two go hand in hand?

                      Just my crazy questions...
                      JewishDude
                      peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace

                      Sure. Why not have the flat Earth and the spherical Earth at the same time too?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J Offline
                        J Offline
                        JewishDude
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #94

                        Hi Stops,

                        The earth is locally flat and globally a sphere. It doesn't have to be either or. It is a matter of perspective. On the ground earth appears flat. From space the earth is a sphere. It also is based on your needs at the time. to build a house acounting for the curvature of the eath results in horrible calculations only to reach the same end result. but flying a plane across the earth it does make sense to do the calculations. i wonder if this debate is another science versus religion debate. From other threads they seem to go no where.

                        Just some more crazy thoughts...
                        JewishDude

                        peace Salam, shalom peace peace

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • S Offline
                          S Offline
                          StopS
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #95

                          Hi Stops,

                          The earth is locally flat and globally a sphere. It doesn't have to be either or. It is a matter of perspective. On the ground earth appears flat. From space the earth is a sphere. It also is based on your needs at the time. to build a house acounting for the curvature of the eath results in horrible calculations only to reach the same end result. but flying a plane across the earth it does make sense to do the calculations. i wonder if this debate is another science versus religion debate. From other threads they seem to go no where.

                          Just some more crazy thoughts...
                          JewishDude

                          peace Salam, shalom peace peace

                          That is exactly my point. Just because some things are so stupendous and seem designed, they are not.
                          It is a question of what is true. Is anything in ID true? No. Are there any verifiable claims? No. Are there and falsifiable claims? No. Has ANYTHING ever muttered by these nutters from the Liberty or whatever Institute turned out to be true?

                          That's why I strictly split science and religion, as they have nothing in common, I agree with you.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Offline
                            S Offline
                            supportpeacenotwar
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #96

                            Hi Stops,

                            The earth is locally flat and globally a sphere. It doesn't have to be either or. It is a matter of perspective. On the ground earth appears flat. From space the earth is a sphere. It also is based on your needs at the time. to build a house acounting for the curvature of the eath results in horrible calculations only to reach the same end result. but flying a plane across the earth it does make sense to do the calculations. i wonder if this debate is another science versus religion debate. From other threads they seem to go no where.

                            Just some more crazy thoughts...
                            JewishDude

                            peace Salam, shalom peace peace

                            Peace,

                            Yes, very true. When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions...

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • Z Offline
                              Z Offline
                              Zulf
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #97

                              So I too will contribute with a post...

                              This whole conflict between evolution and creation seems to stem from the Christian dogma that Earth is only a few thousand years old and the woman was created from the rib of a man etc, and there are Christians of today that believe this. I watched a debate on BBC, I think it was, where one side represented science, and the other side represented creation. On both sides where people who believed in God, both Christians and Muslims, but atheists were of course only on the science side, needless to say. So, even among Christians and Muslims there were proponents of evolution... with the addition that they also believe in God. Things are not so black and white like many think or want it to be.

                              Especially atheists want it to be a black-and-white division.... while in reality it is not. Actually, there are two different spectra. On one axis we have 'atheist'-vs-'believer on God', and on the other we have 'open mind'-vs-'closed mind'. A person with a closed mind won't use reason, and would stick to his/her position for no other reason than because this is the standpoint strongly identified with, and hence unconditionally supported, no matter what. So, some people will claim to be open-minded, but will still disregard scientific evidence that e.g. Earth is very old, and not just a few thousand years.

                              If you believe in God, and if you claim to be open-minded to reality, then you cannot reject scientific evidence unless there are other scientific arguments for doing so.

                              Regarding the conflict between evolution and intelligent design... the conflict, or contradition, is imagined and artificial. Evolution must be accepted to the degree there is reliable evidence supporting it. Intelligent design can only be evaluated if we first define it clearly. If it falls into the category of un-provable through scientific tools, like the existance of God, then we should not pit it against something else in a competition just to see which one is correct. Childish.

                              Those who believe in a Creator that is not created, a Creator unlike creation/universe, a Creator not bound by time or creation/universe, then those believers in God would accept that WHATEVER is found by scientific methods, is simply more information about our universe and how things are. If evolution is there, then it is real and part of the universe. If you then believe in God, you would also believe in evolution... unless you are not interested in reality and wishes to just stick to what tradition and folklore tells you.

                              The endless debate God-vs-'no God' is utterly useless, futile and silly. And it disguises itself as many other types of debates, and the proponents on either side disguise themselves as many different things. It is one thing to debate Earth-is-damn-old vs Earth-is-not-old-at-all... and we can be objective about this.... using reason and observation and inference.... but debating God vs 'no God' is purely an exercise of Ego.... since it cannot be scientifically solved and agreed upon. Both sides should realize this and stop trying to convince the other side. Futile!!!

                              If we believe in God, we may believe e.g. than God has put evolution in action as part of the way things work and develop. We may believe that God is not subject to time, which means that all God's action and interventions upon this world may be built-in and preprogrammed.... because God is something that is not bound by time, time being part of creation. If you suddenly wake up to realize something and decide, out of free will, to pray for something, God can answer this NOW, even by having had it preprogrammed from the beginning of time. Remember, God is "outside" time. Past, now, future is only something that we experience.... and experience we are forced into when living in this world. As always, all debates and conflicts that are related to religion and God, arise from our limiting and faulty IMAGES of God. That's what we debate.... our IMAGES.

                              So, to say that intelligent design and evolution are contradictory, simply means we have an image of God that cannot accomodate evolution. If evolution is found to be real, we have to accept it. But whatever we discover, will never contradict the existance of God. Of course, some images of God may be very unreasonable and silly, and hence they may contradict the reality we discover through scientific means.... but then the problem is our image of God, not the concept of God as such. I wonder why atheists always let only the silly religious practices and images of God represent the whole concept of belief in God. It's like judging all christians by what some witch-burners have done in the past.

                              Peace all

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • S Offline
                                S Offline
                                StopS
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #98

                                Peace,

                                Yes, very true. When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions...

                                Sorry for my asking you this, but have you ever worked in a scientific field or branch?

                                Science is most critical of science. A scientist will get higher grants much quicker if s/he's able to prove another scientist and their theory wrong. Scientific findings are always and automatically falsifiable. Never static.

                                Religion is the opposite. It is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It is not reproducible and not testable. It is based on faith and not facts. The fields are diametrically opposed. How would you suggest "bringing them together" - and why?

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  StopS
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #99

                                  So I too will contribute with a post...

                                  This whole conflict between evolution and creation seems to stem from the Christian dogma that Earth is only a few thousand years old and the woman was created from the rib of a man etc, and there are Christians of today that believe this. I watched a debate on BBC, I think it was, where one side represented science, and the other side represented creation. On both sides where people who believed in God, both Christians and Muslims, but atheists were of course only on the science side, needless to say. So, even among Christians and Muslims there were proponents of evolution... with the addition that they also believe in God. Things are not so black and white like many think or want it to be.

                                  Thank you, very nice and thoughtful summary.

                                  Especially atheists want it to be a black-and-white division.... while in reality it is not. Actually, there are two different spectra. On one axis we have 'atheist'-vs-'believer on God', and on the other we have 'open mind'-vs-'closed mind'. A person with a closed mind won't use reason, and would stick to his/her position for no other reason than because this is the standpoint strongly identified with, and hence unconditionally supported, no matter what. So, some people will claim to be open-minded, but will still disregard scientific evidence that e.g. Earth is very old, and not just a few thousand years.

                                  There is a slight misconception here atheists have nothing to do with science or scientists. Atheism is only a lack of a belief regarding all gods. Atheists do not WANT a division, just an acknowledgement of facts. They also don't form a group or faction with a commonality.

                                  If you believe in God, and if you claim to be open-minded to reality, then you cannot reject scientific evidence unless there are other scientific arguments for doing so.

                                  Regarding the conflict between evolution and intelligent design... the conflict, or contradition, is imagined and artificial. Evolution must be accepted to the degree there is reliable evidence supporting it. Intelligent design can only be evaluated if we first define it clearly. If it falls into the category of un-provable through scientific tools, like the existance of God, then we should not pit it against something else in a competition just to see which one is correct. Childish.

                                  I don't quite understand why you see a conflict here. ID proponents make claims they can't prove. End of story. No conflict.

                                  Those who believe in a Creator that is not created, a Creator unlike creation/universe, a Creator not bound by time or creation/universe, then those believers in God would accept that WHATEVER is found by scientific methods, is simply more information about our universe and how things are. If evolution is there, then it is real and part of the universe. If you then believe in God, you would also believe in evolution... unless you are not interested in reality and wishes to just stick to what tradition and folklore tells you.

                                  The endless debate God-vs-'no God' is utterly useless, futile and silly. And it disguises itself as many other types of debates, and the proponents on either side disguise themselves as many different things. It is one thing to debate Earth-is-damn-old vs Earth-is-not-old-at-all... and we can be objective about this.... using reason and observation and inference.... but debating God vs 'no God' is purely an exercise of Ego.... since it cannot be scientifically solved and agreed upon. Both sides should realize this and stop trying to convince the other side. Futile!!!

                                  If we believe in God, we may believe e.g. than God has put evolution in action as part of the way things work and develop. We may believe that God is not subject to time, which means that all God's action and interventions upon this world may be built-in and preprogrammed.... because God is something that is not bound by time, time being part of creation. If you suddenly wake up to realize something and decide, out of free will, to pray for something, God can answer this NOW, even by having had it preprogrammed from the beginning of time. Remember, God is "outside" time. Past, now, future is only something that we experience.... and experience we are forced into when living in this world. As always, all debates and conflicts that are related to religion and God, arise from our limiting and faulty IMAGES of God. That's what we debate.... our IMAGES.

                                  So, to say that intelligent design and evolution are contradictory, simply means we have an image of God that cannot accomodate evolution. If evolution is found to be real, we have to accept it. But whatever we discover, will never contradict the existance of God. Of course, some images of God may be very unreasonable and silly, and hence they may contradict the reality we discover through scientific means.... but then the problem is our image of God, not the concept of God as such. I wonder why atheists always let only the silly religious practices and images of God represent the whole concept of belief in God. It's like judging all christians by what some witch-burners have done in the past.

                                  Peace all

                                  Thank you, well formulated. The idea of ID does not entail a god as such. They just make some wild assertions based on the Bible and add doubt and wild claims using populist vocabulary, so the simple minded part of the American population just follows, without any understanding.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    supportpeacenotwar
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #100

                                    Sorry for my asking you this, but have you ever worked in a scientific field or branch?

                                    Science is most critical of science. A scientist will get higher grants much quicker if s/he's able to prove another scientist and their theory wrong. Scientific findings are always and automatically falsifiable. Never static.

                                    Religion is the opposite. It is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It is not reproducible and not testable. It is based on faith and not facts. The fields are diametrically opposed. How would you suggest "bringing them together" - and why?

                                    Salaam,

                                    I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
                                    I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

                                    In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • M Offline
                                      M Offline
                                      Man_of_Faith
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #101

                                      Salaam zulf, really good post there! Highly philosophical.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • Z Offline
                                        Z Offline
                                        Zulf
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #102

                                        There is a slight misconception here atheists have nothing to do with science or scientists. Atheism is only a lack of a belief regarding all gods. Atheists do not WANT a division, just an acknowledgement of facts. They also don't form a group or faction with a commonality.

                                        Right. One should not equate 'atheist' with 'scientist' as they are two totally different things. A person can be both, or one, or neither of these. At the same time as we cannot generalize about atheists, it is likely that SOME do want a division, and SOME are not interested in aknowledgement of facts... but this goes for any "group", (even though it is often silly to talk about 'group&#039.

                                        I don't quite understand why you see a conflict here. ID proponents make claims they can't prove. End of story. No conflict.

                                        Right. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

                                        Thank you, well formulated. The idea of ID does not entail a god as such. They just make some wild assertions based on the Bible and add doubt and wild claims using populist vocabulary, so the simple minded part of the American population just follows, without any understanding.

                                        To be honest, I don't know squat about the proponents of ID, even though I have assumed they believe that the universe has been designed by a god. There are so many names, labels and denominations these days...

                                        Kind regards

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          StopS
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #103

                                          Salaam,

                                          I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
                                          I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

                                          In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

                                          Sorry, but I somehow fail to see the similarity is what you said earlier to what you are saying now.

                                          "When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions..."

                                          But whatever, let me clarify something

                                          1. science does not work with claims, but evidence, facts and probabilities.
                                          2. science is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, to analyse and describe the NATURAL world.
                                          3. science does not address religion or gods or ghosts or anything supernatural, so no, it does not reject anything.
                                          4. science does not go around in circles because as anything better is shown, scientists follow the evidence
                                          5. if you have a better suggestion of how to describe nature, every scientist will adopt this

                                          I understand that you would like to see harmony and mutual understanding, which is great. It just does not work everywhere. Let's face it, you have intuition, estimation, hunches, etc as alternatives to scientific accuracy. If you prefer an aeroplane built on estimates you are welcome to use it, I prefer precision and accuracy.

                                          I think you fail to see the problem. If you are a fish you will have problems surviving on the moon. You can't discuss this or debate this away. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts. They don't mix. You can't charge a battery using prayer and you can't provide spiritual hope with a battery charger. You can't "bring together" religion and science. Why would you want to? A religious pilot will not start thinking about his religion when he has an engine failure but his check-lists and procedures. He or she will leave her religion outside the cockpit. The pilot has check-lists, the Imam has scripture. You can't swap them around or mix them.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users