Why Aren't Scientists Allowed to Believe In God?
It's a shame that some people try to stop scientists from believing in God.
Is Darwinian Evolution Compatible with Religion?
Scientists who accept evolution are wrong to believe in God.
Sounds like they need to work on message discipline.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I suppose you could, with some justification, accuse me of being a troll, given that my post "So I'm a Christian. Shoot me." generated an entirely predictable set of flames tearing me down for unscientific thinking, and for trying to claim that there is any kind of bias against the religious…
I've been having a bit of an exchange with Rusty in the comments on his blog. Because those comments only allow 1000 words, I'm posting this here. You can see the beginning of the exchange in this post and the comments that follow it. The argument concerns two things. First, Rusty quotes this…
More precisely, if we say that theistic evolution is a form of intelligent design, then we have to stop saying that intelligent design is a form of creationism.
Over at HuffPo, Victor Stenger writes:
But when surveys ask moderate Christians what they really believe, they all say that evolution is…
One of the tried and true tactics of creationists of all stripes has long been to equate evolution with atheism, and thus those who accept evolution become atheists. In a society where surveys show that atheists are, for some bizarre reason, among the most distrusted people, this is good political…
I don't think there is any message confusion. That is exactly the position of fundamentalists: evolution and belief in god are incompatible. The hidden assumption is the only god is the god of the literal Bible.
Your mistake is assuming that the Discovery Institute is interested in making science and religion compatible. Their actual goal is to destroy science and replace it with their particular brand of religion.
Yes they do need to work on message discipline.
However, their backs are in the proverbial corner. That leaves them with few options. the easiest of which is Muddying the Waters by being inconsistent.
But above all the Discovery Institute should above all else: Stop Ignoring the Evidence (it's really a bit absurd at this point in scientific development)
What is funny and sad is the link to the book's website. Here is an excerpt..
------------
# Although not Darwin's intention, Darwinism provides an open rationale for eugenics, genocide and racism
# Darwin's own theory supported natural slaveryâan institution he detested
--------------
Seems to me the author of the book should read the bible myth text just a wee bit more, so he can find the most commonly used arguments for the things he has listed.
Lets take a look ourselves (just a brief look)...
--------------
Genesis chapter 17, verse 12:
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.
--------------
Hmm. genital mutilation... slavery... Nice and concise.
lets examine another...
--------------
Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.
--------------
Again, slavery, genital mutilation, and exclusion of hungry people.
I bet we could rewrite that with a better moral value. Let's try...
--------------
Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: Foreigner's are allowed to eat of it, as they are human. Any slave you have bought, shall be set free immediately and may eat of it two fold as you have transgressed against his humanity, a temporary resident and a hired worker may eat of it as they are human also.
--------------
Now that wasn't hard to rewrite at all.
They also can't seem to get consistent on whether it is bad for scientists to think they know all the answers (in which case they are arrogant) or it is good that scientists admit they don't know all the answers (in which case science is a shitty epistemology).
Why can't scientists believe in God?
--------------------
Well real scientists can. Issac newton did. Louis Pasteur did, and so many others did. That was the good ole days before the far left kooks and nuts hijacked science in the name of atheism.
I would have gone into a medical profession - oncology if it it were not for far left nutjobs running the medical programs at all the good universities. I refuse to go to a pro-socialist anti-conservative anti-American anti-Christian school.
The concept of evilution has overrun the medical feild and hindered progress of finding cures for cancer and other illnesses. Evolution- what a wast of space, resources, and manpower. Evolution - What a lie!