|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Anything Goes! > Faith on SFReader | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
RHFay
Sage
      
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 4/3/2008 3:48 PM (GMT -4) |   |
A personal story about creationism - I had to search long and hard for a home school biology text that taught straight Darwinian evolution and not intelligent design or creationism. That was one of the hardest texts to find yet, but I felt teaching my daughter about evolution as an established scientific fact was important. My reason and scientific background tell me that evolution is a truth.
I don't personally agree with the literalists or strict creationists, but I definitely understand that there are reasoning, intelligent people that believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and creationism. Like I've already said, "faith" is often belief without scientific proof.
However, science is by no means flawless. The scientific method may be designed to prove by repeatable experimentation, but science can only see as far as scientists are willing to look.
Science doesn't recognise mountain lions living currently in New York State. However, I saw one dead at the side of a NYS highway several years ago. It was definitely a mountain lion - I made sure to take note of certain distinctive features (and I'm no dummy). Perhaps it was just an "escaped exotic pet", but there are also persistent reports of the survival of the eastern mountain lion, including some fairly local eye-witnesses. I know what I saw when I saw it.
Science in general also doesn't recognise the existence of Sasquatch, although a few scientists (including Jane Goodall and Jeffrey Meldrum) are beginning to take the possibility seriously. My wife actually saw one. Either my wife is prone to hallucinations or story-telling (unlikely - I'm the main story-teller in the family  ), or she actually saw a bipedal primate unrecognised by science. The fact that my wife saw one, together with some compelling indirect evidence, intriguing anecdotes, and the physical evidence gathered over the years by various investigators (especially the footprints), has led me to believe that Sasquatches are indeed real.
This might all sound a little cracked, but I'm presenting these things to show that scientists and current scientific beliefs can be mistaken, too. That's why I don't put my "faith" completely in science any more than I put it completely in a straight religious view of the universe.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 4/3/2008 3:54 PM (GMT -4) | |
RHFay said...
However, science is by no means flawless. The scientific method may be designed to prove by repeatable experimentation, but science can only see as far as scientists are willing to look. Now you've done it,  .
Anyway I give a general apology. I started out saying I wanted this to be a "share" thread and not a debate one, lol. As I was typing I realized I broke my own rule. I wen't back and looked and I'm thinking I was in the defender role after the initial request was ignored but either way I'm being hypocritical so I'm out on this one.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 4/3/2008 4:03 PM (GMT -4) | |
nathan said...
RHFay said...
However, science is by no means flawless. The scientific method may be designed to prove by repeatable experimentation, but science can only see as far as scientists are willing to look. Now you've done it, .
Anyway I give a general apology. I started out saying I wanted this to be a "share" thread and not a debate one, lol. As I was typing I realized I broke my own rule. I wen't back and looked and I'm thinking I was in the defender role after the initial request was ignored but either way I'm being hypocritical so I'm out on this one.
Maybe I can't help but to debate, even though I'm not always a good debator. However, I think a lot of what I'm saying is based on personal experience and viewpoints, so I see it as sharing, too. And yes, I've got a lot to say. The curse of a writer, I guess.
I'm a firm believer in the scientific method as the best way to logically explain workings of the physical world - I actually worked in science for a whole lot of years. However, I don't see it as the only potentially valid or true belief, especially after I've seen the way it can be burdened with all the same flaws that any other human endeavour may possess.
That's why I question all things involving human beings - humans are far from perfect creatures. To err is human.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1231
| Posted 4/3/2008 4:34 PM (GMT -4) | | And, since the U.S. is a democracy, spreading public misinformation about science or undermining science education is a bad idea, I think. A scientifically literate electorate would, theoretically, be better able to elect leaders who have at least cracked a science book now and then.
I don't want to downplay the importance of religion or morality in shaping a viable leader -- those elements are important, too. Religion can go a long way toward making someone a well-rounded, capable leader. But, like science, religion isn't the only thing.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lyn
Adopt
Date Joined Sep 2007
Total Posts : 1278
| Posted 4/3/2008 4:55 PM (GMT -4) | | | | |
|
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/4/2008 11:39 AM (GMT -4) | |
nathan said...Ok, you don't seem to reference ID and creationalism alot? I was just teasing in the sense that I don't want to win an argument. I was left with that impression by your posts but maybe I'm projecting. Cool? Oh don't get me wrong. I think many people are creationalist sympathetic or creationalists, but not in the 6-k old earth way or the Gensis is literal way. If you believe in a god and your faith says god created life then your a creationalist. But that doesn't mean you're for ID in school or a rejection of evolution. I would say that of the 40% you site the vast majority embrace this idea of god's hand in life but also accept evolution--than hold to 6k earth and blowing life into dust as literal descriptions. You see the difference I mean?
Certainly I have several times criticised creationism (and its more subtle and insidious offshoot, ID) as it is, in my view, one of the more unacceptable aspects of a certain type of religious belief (and not restricted to Christianity). I have also often emphasised that I have no argument with religions which concern themselves with spiritual matters. I am not anti-religious, just against certain aspects of some religious doctrines.
I have now located the results of the poll I mentioned. It was reported in the New Scientist, 19 August 2006, and was one of a series carried out by Michigan State University over the past 20 years, in the USA and in other countries. The question always posed is simple: "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?"
The answers given in the USA in 2005 were:
true 40%; false 39%; not sure 21%.
In 1985, the answers were: true 45%; false 48%; not sure 7%.
Of the other countries (mostly European) polled in 2005, only one was more sceptical of evolution than the USA, and that was the Muslim country of Turkey (true 26%; false 51%; not sure 23% - these and the following figures are approximate, read off a graph). The next most sceptical was Greece (true 52%; false 37%; not sure 11%) with the least sceptical being Iceland (true 85%; false 7%; not sure 8%). The UK scored: true 75%; false 18%; not sure 7%. Japan was the only country included from elsewhere in the world, and scored: true 77%; false 8%; not sure 15%.
On that basis I think I am justified in regarding creationism as a significant force in the USA in particular. That should be a matter of concern to every thinking person, since scientific literacy is of increasing importance to the world as we struggle with a wide range of important issues which require some basic understanding of science: climate change, the green agenda, genetics, cloning and medical interventions, the list goes on growing. In these circumstances it is very worrying to have the most powerful and influential nation on Earth with such a high level of scientific illiteracy.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1231
| Posted 4/4/2008 2:29 PM (GMT -4) | | | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 4/4/2008 2:40 PM (GMT -4) | |  "Yeah spike, yeah. You got 'em there. Spike's so great, he's my best pal."
Of course if you haven't seen the commerical and cartoons with Spike the bulldog strolls along with a hyperactive sycophantic Chihauhau following around behind him the joke might be lost on you.
However Tony, I said up thread (so you don't think I'm ignoring you) that such debates seemed to kill the spirit of what this thread is about. There's another thread openned up that seems more appropriate.
People here shared a lot of things it seems disrespectful IMO to start reducing it to drive by joke postings and then mineutia squabbling--in that context. As I said I got caught up in that and I don't want it to spoil the feel of what this thread was. Though it's probablly too late.
We can talk about this in other threads.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/4/2008 3:52 PM (GMT -4) | |
RHFay said...
Science in general also doesn't recognise the existence of Sasquatch, although a few scientists (including Jane Goodall and Jeffrey Meldrum) are beginning to take the possibility seriously. My wife actually saw one. Either my wife is prone to hallucinations or story-telling (unlikely - I'm the main story-teller in the family ), or she actually saw a bipedal primate unrecognised by science. The fact that my wife saw one, together with some compelling indirect evidence, intriguing anecdotes, and the physical evidence gathered over the years by various investigators (especially the footprints), has led me to believe that Sasquatches are indeed real.
This might all sound a little cracked, but I'm presenting these things to show that scientists and current scientific beliefs can be mistaken, too. That's why I don't put my "faith" completely in science any more than I put it completely in a straight religious view of the universe.
I think it's important to distinguish between the opinions of individual scientists (who are only human like the rest of us, and can be mistaken) and the effectiveness of the scientific method, which is based on objective evidence.
No true scientist would say "Sasquatch doesn't exist". They would say "there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that Sasquatch exists". The whole point of the scientific method is that its results are subject to change if better evidence emerges; just one way in which science is substantially different from religious belief.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 94 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Saturday, September 06, 2008 5:06 PM (GMT -4)
There are a total of 80,564 posts in 6,393 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 19 new threads and 114 reply posts. View Active Threads
| | Who's Online | This forum has 1226 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, michelleb.
7 Guest(s), 0 Registered Member(s) are currently online. Details
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP2
dotNetBB © 2000-2008
(c) SFReader |
|
|
|