Scientific Religion??

Question

Why do scientists agree that the origin of life is CREATION??-Jastrow:"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of creation"

Answer 1

they have no proof it was not magic, either. The problem with ID and magic as explanations is that they provide no implications for what we might find in any particular niche in the biosphere.

Answer 2

Scientific religion is a contradiction in terms: religion requires a belief in supernatural phenomena, while science prohibits it. Jastrow's comment is valid, but irrelevant; there is no proof that life WAS the result of supernatural creation, and Jastrow's notion has the disadvantage of having no predictive power. Science is all about predictions, so any theory which does not facilitate such is of no use to science. It can be proved that the predictive power of any theory obtains strictly from its refutability, so an irrefutable theory (such as any theory involving supernatural activity) can predict nothing.

Answer 3

The whhole fake "evolution" issue revolves around a concerted effort by people who are essentially members of cults--and who try to interpret religious texts literally.

Jastrow's comment is correct--but in full it should say that while there is no proof life was not the result of creation, theres also no proof that it was--and there can't be any such scientific proof--either way.

There is no such thing as "scientific religion"--one way or the other. Science deals with--and only with--empirical (observableand testable) phenomenae. Religion, on the other hand--ANY religion--deals with other kinds of questions--why are we here? what is "good" or "moral"-etc.

The existance of God--and His presumbtive role as Creator--falls into the category of religion and philosophy. And there is no contradiction between science and religion--except for the minority of these cultists who insist on trying to combine the two--and, of curse, the occasional athiest who tries to do the same thing from the opposite direction.

For a scientist (such as myself and themajority of scientists) its really very simple. We study the world around us--and, as scientists, that's as far as it goes. for those of us (again, the majority) the notion of God as Creator is not a problem. Different people exppress this different ways, but here is mine: Granted that God created the universe--andlife--and I believe He did. As a scientist, I study how the universe--or at least the parts of it I study--in an effort to understand how they are put together, how they developed, and how they work. I don't--as a scientist--have anything to say one way or the other about Who created the universe-or any other spiritual matter--not because I don't think those things are important, but because they are questions science is not--and by definition cannot be--equipped to answer.

Answer 4

I think the better question would have been "Why does one scientist agree that the origin of life is creation?"

Answer 5

Real scientists do not "agree that the origin of life is CREATION" as you claim. Even if the quote you give is real (and I seriously doubt it), all it says is that no one can prove that God did not create the universe. It does not say that God DID create the universe.

Have a nice day.
.

Answer 6

This quote is true, but has nothing to do with your claim. The Theory of Evolution has no bearing on whether or not there is some divine source to the universe. It is the inability of the holy texts of the Abrahamic traditions to produce a coherent image of a god, and the inconsistencies and contradictions within those texts, that disproves their claims. They do not need science to disprove them,when simple logic will do. But there could still be some divine soure of the universe that is different from the Abrahmic claims.

Answer 7

I have no clue who Jastrow is, but scientists have plenty of evidence that life IS the result of Darwinian evolution.

Why do 99.85% of scientists in relevant fields accept evolution?

Answer 8

sounds like a double negative which means that the quote is super dumb.

any further references than a name? if we had some context we might be able to help. as it is, I can't really understand it....

seems to mean that they have proof that it was the result of creation. I'd really like to see that research!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 9

They don't. The majority of scientists are Atheist. Nice try.

Answer 10

Well, ok. I always wonder if the big bang is true, or evolution even for example. What started that first little cell splitting and where did it come from? Even scientist say nothing can come from nothing. But I dunno Im a poly sci major.