what do you feel about the science vs. religion on evolution debate??

Question

i need it for school and i just want other peoples thought on the topic...thnx much luv!!

Answer 1

well u certainly came to the ryt place ..

Answer 2

First off, science has no quarrel with religion. Science does not even address the idea of a deity or the supernatural because neither can be measured, falsified, or even have any detectable evidence. It is the believers who come running with the torches and pitchforks.

Science is about evidence. Testable, measurable evidence. Experiments that can be repeated. Conclusions based on facts. Explanations that explain all the available data, not selected bits of it. Scientific theories are always subject to change pending new data.

Religion does exactly the opposite: Assumes a conclusion and then scrambles to find any justification they can for that conclusion...ignoring any other evidence to the contrary. Religious dogma is inflexible, unable to change to changing circumstances.

The only thing that religionists have a problem with regarding evolution is that it flies in the face of a literal, Genesis-as-absolutely-true-history claims. The ToE describes all life forms changing over generations tyhrough mutation and natural selection. Religion insists that everything that is alive now is unchanged from the day they were magically created 6000 or so years ago.

BTW: Evolutiuon says NOTHING about the following subjects:
Life from non-life.
The Big Bang.
The formation of the planets.
The age of the Earth.
The age of the universe.
Worldwide floods.
Morality.
Ethics.

Yet for some insane reason, religious critics of the ToE insist that the theory somehow includes all of the above. It does not. The ToE is about biology ONLY. Nothing else.

The Creationists have a problem not merely with the ToE, but with entire fields of science and scientific inquiry. Astronomy, geology, biology, planetology, cosmology, chemestry, and others.

Answer 3

It really isn't "science vs. religion", but it is "religion vs. religion". Evolution is a secular religion. It takes great faith to believe that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor, when real, demonstrable science shows us that it is physically impossible.
We can see that there are hundreds of varieties and breeds of dog. That is scientific and observable. But variation within a kind is not evolution! Evolution is change between major kinds or groups, which has never been observed. When you say that because there are many different varieties of dogs, that proves that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor, you have just moved out of science into religion, or faith. You have to BELIEVE that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor. It's not a fact, and it's not science.
The deal is, both evolution and creation use the same scientific facts to support their theories. The only difference is in their INTERPRETATION of those facts.
For example, an evolutionist and a creationist are both looking at the Grand Canyon. The evolutionist says, "Wow! Look what the Colorado River did over millions of years!" The creationist looks and says, "Wow, look what the Flood did in about half an hour!"
The evolutionist looks at fossils and says, "This dinosaur was buried in the rock because millions of years of dirt covered him up slowly." The creationist says, "This dinosaur was buried in Flood sediment, which dried and petrified."
If you want a great read, and good help for your assignment, you should read "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It contains thousands of scientific facts that disprove evolution theory and support the idea that the Earth is young and there was a worldwide Flood after all.

Answer 4

Within the field of science there are those who do not believe that God exists, but just because there are some that do not acknowledge his existence does not necessarily mean that He did not create the universe that we live within. The conclusion about evolution could be a combination of the science and religion. No, I do not believe that we came from Apes. But, I do believe that mankind evolved into what he is today from the same type of species. Both sides could be correct. But one side more than the other. Science tends to want to leave God out of the picture altogether. There are striking truths within the three religious books; The Bible, Torah and Koran that cannot be denied, before mankind became more informed about the world around him. Knowledge did come from those books and man as he became more educated used this knowledge as a foundation for other conclusions. Science could have evolved from religion, that's what I believe. But stepped further and further away from religion.

Answer 5

There are two sides to the debate. One side wants science taught in science class, and religion kept out. Evolution is a scientific theory, and the only theory regarding how the variety of species cam about. So evolution is taught. Since there is no other theories, that is it. The other side is mostly ignorant to science and especially evolution, and/or just wants to push religious beliefs in school.

Answer 6

Religion and science go together like oil and water. I don't ask a shink how to fix my car, and shrinks don't try to tell everyone how cars should be fixed.

Yet religious nuts feel the need to try to do the same with evolution. They can't fathom what evolution is, yet they disagree without understanding the science behind it. They just say that carbon dating is just fake. No proof, they just say it doesn't work.

Maybe if they read a book that has been written in the pat 100 years instead of falling back on a fiction book written 1600 years ago. The bible is worth about as much as the book of scientology.

Answer 7

I think that religion needs to stay out of science. They have nothing to do with each other. The religious people arguing against evolution are not scientists, and they know nothing about what they're talking about. You can't intelligently debate an issue that you know nothing about.
Their criticism of science and evolution would be like a person who knows nothing about art saying that a water-color painting is an oil painting because their preacher told them it was, or that Monet painted the Mona Lisa because they *wish* it to be true.

Answer 8

I don't see why science and religion cannot coincide. So the world was formed over a long period of time, and indeed the universe continues to expand. Why does that mean God didn't create it? Just because the bible says in one week the earth was created, well what is one day before the sun was created? Who is to say how long one day was? Maybe it is a metaphor.

And for all of you who believe in the big bang theory... so the world was created from a speck of dust that blew up, huh? Well, who created the speck of dust?

Oh, and just because something cannot (yet) be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it is not a legitimate theory. At one point in time gravity was unprovable, but it still was scientific.

Answer 9

There is no debate. Religion has nothing to do with science. It is a personal fantasy not shared by more enlightened humans.

Answer 10

It's not much of a debate. The Creationists have conceded so much because it is repeatedly observed. They nip at the gaps in the data and the limits of old methodology, but offer no evidence.

Answer 11

Science is differentiated from philosophy by experiment. Philosophy seeks 'logical' proof. Scientists create hypotheses, then devise experiments to test them. Scientists know that their results are approximations, that their 'laws' are not immutable... not absolute. They do NOT (as creationists would have us believe) view their theories as absolute 'truth', in the same sense as creationists regard the Genesis story of creation as 'truth'.

What differentiates religion from both philosophy and science is that neither proof nor experimental confirmation is required. Religion can be summed up very succinctly: Where an obvious answer cannot be found in nature, make up an explanation based on the supernatural and accept it as a matter of 'faith'... faith in a 'truth' written in scripture as (claimed to have been) 'revealed' to someone by a transcendental, supernatural being.

Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. It is a 'red herring'... a 'Trojan Horse'. It is a carefully orchestrated subterfuge intended to create the PERCEPTION that there is a scientific controversy where no such controversy exists. It is religion/creationism in disguise, tarted up to look like 'science'. Here is the difference:

* At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, science says: "We don't know... OK, boys... let's roll up our sleeves, dig in and find out."

* At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, Intelligent Design (imagine South Park - Officer Barbrady) says: "That's too complicated. God did it. Move along. Nothing to see here. Everybody go home now."

It would be easy to attribute Intelligent Design to intellectual laziness... but sadly, that is not the case. It is a conspiracy... a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign, designed to create the illusion of there being a 'scientific controversy' where none actually exists. The object is to sabotage science... to reintroduce religion to the public schools via subversion and subterfuge. The saddest thing about it is that a large percentage of Americans ARE intellectually lazy, and generally ignorant of the concept and processes of critical thought. They (enthusiastically) fall for this nonsense.

The objectives of the creationists who are promoting ID are spelled out in the Discovery Institute's so-called 'Wedge Strategy' (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html), which is a political strategy. The main plan is to "teach the controversy"... that being the claim that many scientists reject evolution... except that it is a lie... there IS NO controversy within the scientific community. The ultimate aim is the subversion of science itself, changing the definition of science to include supernatural explanations, rather than it being restricted to natural explanations.

The Wedge Strategy's overall objective is this (quoted directly from the Wedge Strategy): "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of (scientific) materialism and its cultural legacies."

You should check out the judge's opinion in the Dover School Board trial... that explains the issue quite nicely. (http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site515/2005/1220/20051220_085143_kitzdecision.pdf)

If people want to introduce 'Intelligent Design' into the curriculum of our public schools, that is OK... in a elective 'Comparative Religion' class. But NOT in a science class; that would be a travesty.

"If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction." ~ Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?
.