Religious fanatics should not meddle in science?

Question

I just read answers from religious fanatics to the effect that evolution is a hoax because it contradicts the Bible. Science is an intellectual disciple by which fact is established on the basis of observation, experiment, and logic, building upon the foundation of that which has already been established as fact. Science accepts nothing on faith, so to invoke the Bible as scientific proof makes a mockery of both religion and science. Those who cannot abide by the scientific method for discovering fact have no credibility declaring evolution a hoax, and so appear to be buffoons.

Oh, right, you want a question to answer. OK, how is it that such buffoons are actually awarded diplomas? Does that not compromise the value of all diplomas awarded by institutions which award diplomas to buffoons?

Those of you arguing about evolution are missing my point, which is that the Bible, much of which is based on faith, does not constitute scientific proof.

Answer 1

The fundamentalists don't comprehend a thing that you posted... You know that don't you?

Answer 2

Because they misunderstand faith and think that science threatens faith. There is nothing in science that disproves god. There is, however, some discoveries that contradict beliefs that are held about god. Science can't disprove god but it can disprove someone who claims the Earth is the center of the solar system or the heavens are above the clouds. Religion used to teach both of those things. It taught that witchcraft was a clear and present danger, it taught that man was formed of clay, that plagues were caused by heresy and cats, and so on. All of these things have been disproven by science. So some religious people consider science a threat to faith. They don't understand that faith is not the same as truth. Faith is saying I choose to believe a thing that has not been proven. Ignorance is saying that proven facts are false. There is a difference. It is also ignorant to claim that something is a fact when it has not been proven. There is ignorance on both sides of the issue.

Answer 3

You said much of the Bible is based on faith, where are your supporting basis for that? Much of the Bible is narrative history, which can be verified by appealing to historical facts and findings.

Sure, there are also much that one has to go by faith. Yet is this endemic only to Christianity? Isn't much of life also based on faith? You put your faith in scientists who tout the belief in evolution but who NEVER observed evolution happening. Tell me, have scientists ever observed one form of life turning into another as predicted by evolution?

Answer 4

When our belief in God precedes any other religious belief, the evidence which produces such a belief must be universal and available to every rational being, whether committed or uncommitted to a particular religion.

The Holy Qur'an offers the universe as evidence on the existence of its Creator. The material world, its celestial bodies, the earth, and the other planets, are viewed by Islam to be the main evidence of the Creator of matter and energy. The material world is observable by the atheist as well as by the believer, by the illiterate as well as by the philosopher. One may reflect on the formation of the heavenly bodies and the existence of the matter and energy without being committed to any particular religion or recognizing any religious book.

It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old.

When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously. When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea. We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence.

To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the need of a creator.

Yes, there is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.

Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.

The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

Answer 5

...I guess I am part of your "religious buffoon" category, but so what, I count it a privilege to suffer shame for the name of Christ. I am a fool for Christ's sake - but friend, who/what do you lean on? Self? Liquor? Science? Drugs?Another person?
...Evolution is not a testable, repeatable event, nor can it be - which puts it in the realm of faith - and no one was there to witness creation, the origins of the universe, or evolution (if you wish to call it that).
...You put your faith in the conclusions of others, in testing methods, your bone constructions, and your conclusions.
...I stake my life on what God's word says, and BTW, what about you?
...Regardless of what you do with evolution, there is a question that is infinitely more important - the real question you must deal with is this: "What will I do with Jesus who is called Christ?"
...Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical figure, witnessed by the Bible, secular historians of His day, and millions of changed lives. He claimed to be God and the only way to God. He is either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or He is the Lord. He leaves you no wiggle room on this one - who is He to you? If He is the only way to God, then we had better humble ourselves and trust in Him, while there is time.
...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.
Acts 16:31
...Whosoever will, may come.

Answer 6

To the person that mentioned kent hovind ("dr dino") -

The guy's not a real scientist - and he's actually in prison now. He and his wife Jo were convicted on all of 58 federal charges including tax evasion on November 2, 2006.

Answer 7

Science can not prove religion right or wrong.
Science itself developing and it self some times proves own theories right or wrong.

Religion can prove science right or wrong. If Religion approves some thing given in science that means that theory can be judged right in the light of religious detailes.


Kindly visit following:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/books...

http://www.harunyahya.com/

Answer 8

See www.drdino.com. This guy has scientific proof against evolution and even reads books by leading evolutionists where they recognize that there are holes in the theory. Emphasis on THEORY. So even if you don't believe in "religious fanatics," true scientists recognize that evolution is problematic on many levels. It's really as much of a religion as Christianity, Buddhism, etc. are.

Answer 9

My dear,

Evolution is a theory. Why do you insist on something that is not accepted as a truth yet ?

People makes mistakes you know, like when people thinks that the earth is flat.

So don't be too hard to yourself.

Answer 10

Actually, science involves faith, too. Why would anyone perform an experiment unless he/she had faith in finding out whether the hypothesis is true? I don't see religion and science at odds like you do; they are both methods for discovering truth.

Answer 11

Perhaps when science can actually prove evolution to be a "fact", then religious buffoons will have to back off.

Until then, the THEORY of evolution, with all of it's conflicting "facts", will still be under scrutiny, from religious buffoons and learned scientists alike.