Myreader.co.uk  
uk news, chat and community
   home   |   control panel login   |   archive   |  
 
misc
announce
answers
consultants
d-i-y
environment
environment.conservation
gov.agency.csa
gov.local
gov.social-security
gov.social-work
misc
philosophy.atheism
philosophy.humanism
philosophy.misc
radio.amateur
railway
sci.astronomy
sci.med.nursing
sci.med.pharmacy
sci.misc
sci.weather
singles
telecom
telecom.broadband
telecom.mobile
telecom.voip
test
transport
transport.air
transport.buses
transport.ferry
transport.london
transport.ride-sharing
  
 
date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:31 -0400,    group: uk.philosophy.atheism        back       
Re: Science and Religion (was Re: church to apologise over Darwin)   
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:45:26 +0100, Pete Barrett
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:38:28 +0100, Ian Smith wrote:
>
>> I agree completely, but there is a massive hole that we can fall 
>> into if we go around saying that where people who don't understand 
>> these things can overhear.
>> 
>> Creationists are very fond of saying "Evolution is only a theory" in 
>> an attempt to portray it as 'something that Darwin and his mates 
>> thought up after a heavy night on the ale'.
>> 
>But I at least would not feel happy about hiding the truth because it
>would be misused by those who either misunderstand or, worse, deliberately
>misrepresent it.
>
>> We need to be clear that the evidence establishes evolution beyond 
>> any doubt (it has very closely approximated to the truth and is now 
>> indistinguishable from it) - however you wish to describe that (cue 
>> discussions on terms like 'proof', 'fact' etc).
>> 
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>> 
>> So, if you use your argument with a creationist, you'll lose, and 
>> you'll find your words being quoted as part of their argument.
>
>If a creationist advances the six-day creation as a scientific theory,
>then it stands or falls by the same standards of proof as evolution - and
>the preponderance of evidence is most definitely on the side of evolution.

Creation doesn't even get that far. It's no different than eg the
ancient Greek myths and legends, like the land emerging from the sea
on the back of a giant turtle.

The problem is not so much that creationists think it is scientific,
but that some people believe fairy stories. 

They're not just idiots for that but even more so when they insist to
everybody else that the fairy stories are true. Especially when they
slander and libel people who don't believe the fairy stories.

>On the other hand, if a theist advances the six-day creation as a myth,
>then science is not involved - an atheist might disagree, but it has to be
>for quite different reasons.

I think you'll find the atheist wouldn't care.

Religionists don't seem to understand just how irrelevant their
beliefs are outside their religion. And the atheist sees it no
differently than the Greek, Norse or any other myths.
date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:03:31 -0400   author:   unknown

Google
 
Web myreader.co.uk


    COPYRIGHT 2007, YARDI TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, ALL RIGHT RESERVE  |   contact us