Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was a balsy attempt to put forward an alternative theory of human origin based on personal observation, while surrounded by religious bigots who'd gladly crucify anyone who suggested anything of the kind.
When the Wright Brothers produced the first heavier than air flight at Kitty Hawk, the task was similarly denounced in advance by the leaders of science-religion. The Wright brothers' claims were pronounced fraud by scientists in their smug knowings, until the feat could no longer be denied.
Darwin's still theory, but the descendants of the same scientific community/religion who denounced heavier-than-air-flight, have embraced it as a new doctrine of faith.
How do the followers of the religion of science differ from the followers of any other religious doctrine, except in the scientific denouncements on intellectual grounds, as opposed to moral/ethical ones in doctrinal religions?
2007-07-26 02:59:52 · 6 answers · asked by Jack P 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"religion of science"
Wow, you are so very wrong. Science is not about faith or beliefs. It's about observation and evidence.
Religion begins with a conclusion and searches for supporting evidence. Science follows the evidence to its logical conclusion. They are opposite.
2007-07-26 03:03:32 · answer #1 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The book is entitled "The Origin of Species" (not "Origin of the Species").
Science is not a religion, but an inquiry based on the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing, replication to confirm results, and development of a theory on which to base predictions, and starting all over again. And its glory is that it is at its core self-correcting. That's why we have airplanes: not because people denied it, but because it was proven to be true. It's the same for the big bang, quantum mechanics, germ theory, and computer science.
Science contains some philosophy, but it is not a religion. If science were a religion, then there should be some deity it worships, and quite frankly, there ain't one.
- {ââ} - {ââ} - {ââ} -
2007-07-26 03:07:35 · answer #2 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Science is not a religion. When they call something a "theory" in science, it doesn't mean one guy had an idea based on something he saw.
Religion is mythology; science is not. You don't have to "believe" in science. The earth revolves around the sun whether I believe it does or not. Living beings on this planet evolved, whether you believe they did or not.
BTW, PBS is running an excellent series called "A Brief History of Disbelief." I recommend this to everyone, theists or not. It's intelligent, it's respectful, and you might be surprised at how hard early scientists tried to reconcile what they knew to be the truth with their religious beliefs. It is a calm, unbiased presentation of atheism, how it developed, etc.
2007-07-26 03:08:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As someone else pointed out science "It's about observation and evidence".
The formation of a new species by any mechanism has never been observed. The leap from an unobserved, unrepeatable past to dogmatic belief in evolution is one that most seem willing to make.
As far as evolution is concerned science could be defined as religion. It might be more appropriate to call evolution a religion.
2007-07-26 04:05:43 · answer #4 · answered by layawakex10 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gravity is still a theory as well. So is the theory that germs cause disease. Creationists don't understand the meaning of the word "theory".
2007-07-26 03:03:35 · answer #5 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well this is certainly a fresh argument, but not without its obvious flaws.
2007-07-26 03:03:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋