Science and Religion

[ETHICSTUDENT]

I am a Philosophy and Ethics student in the UK. For my AS exam i have to write an essay discussing the divide between Religion and Science, with particular reference to Evolution and Creationism.

As an Athiest, i firmly belive that Evolution is the most credible theory for the birth of life, but i do not indend to discuss the reasons for this in this thread; others exist for that purpose.

Evolutionists may accept Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, they may then come to accept that another part of the theory, say Group Evolution, is also true, because of new evidence. Creationists cannot believe that God created the world in seven days, but then start to believe later that He made Eve out of Adam’s rib because of new found ‘faith’. Because Evolution is a theory that is still being proved, accepting it is easier than taking a ‘leap of faith’ and believing Creationism outright. Statistically then, most individuals within society would opt for the theory of Evolution, and therefore society generally becomes pro-evolutionist, and, by default, anti-creationist.

Whilst I am a firm 'acceptor' of Evolution, I have a much stronger 'belief' in the freedom of speech and belief, and so, I do not wish to bias my report too much towards Evolution. To that end, I would like to hear your views on why the divide exists between religion and science, and any thoughts you might have on the subjects raised above. Do you believe, or accept, another form of Evolution could fit in with Creationism, such as Lamarckian Evolution?

Before posting this, I read many of the other threads on this site, and I can see that this website, and [Landoverian Baptism?] in general attracts individuals both very strong in their faith, but also, to an outsider, extreme and fundamental in their beliefs. I am not here in order to incite argument or debate, and, whilst I recognise the fact that my 'acceptances' may conflict with your beliefs, I hope that you can maintain an objective view in regard to this thread.

[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

This is not a 'we do your homework for you site'. That said, you write like an intelligent fellow. Are you really from England?

How about posting a draft of your paper so the pastors here can comment on it?

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

I'm still a long way to go before i have an intelligible piece of writing, but i will post it on here once i do.

I am aware that it is not a 'do your homework for you' site, i just wanted to be able to give an objective view of Evolution and Creationism in my report, and, being brought up within 50 miles of London into a non-religious familly means that my knowledge of creationism is only what i have gained from my own research; whilst i am passionate about Evolution, and so have passionate views about it, i am not so on the subject of Creation, and therefore i would love to have some empassioned opinions on that subject, in order to create an unbaised piece of work (for once!).

[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

Did you read any threads here that enlightened you at all? Can you post them here? That would save the other members some time having to look them all up for you.

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

Most of the threads had deviated from their origional point, and had decended into minor religious disputes.

Mostly, however, everyone on this website seems to accept the reasons why everyone believes in Creationism, and therefore the other threads on this website are far too specific for an outsider like me.

Although i could, and to an extent, have, infer the basis of your beliefs from individual arguments about, for instance, the banana, or the eye, i would much prefer to have a collection of your basic reasons for belief, to remove the chance that i have judged them wrongly.

That is to say, i would still like to have examples like the banana and the eye posted here, but individual debates on very specific topics are hard for me to untangle fully.

[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

For one, God created the Earth. Do you believe that?

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

As an athiest, i dont belive that per say.

However, as an objective outsider, i would have to ask, on what basis do you belive that?

Please understand that, as above, i look for proof in everything before committing myself to it; the idea of 'blind' faith; believing in somthing without any evidence is alien to me.

(Im trying not to offend anyone, ive seen what people have done to less open minded athiests on this forum before)

[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

on what basis do you belive that?

It's written in the Bible. Plus, who else would be able to do it?

[Talitha]

Re: Science and Religion

First of all, open minded atheists don't exist.
Secondly, we believe that The Bible is The Truth as dictated by God HIMself.
What more is there to know?

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

Are you familliar with the concept of Cartesian Co-ordiantes?

If you were to draw the line X-Y, you would mark 3 points on the graph, and, when you draw the line, the line passes through each point. This ensures that you have not made a mistake, possibly marking one of the points wrong.

The same is true for the law of averages; a mean result will remove anomolous data.

Understand me then, when i say that, as an Athiest, one piece of proof is not enough; to trust one piece of proof, such as the bible, is tantamount to belief.

'Who else could do it', opens up a whole new philosophical debate; separate yourself from your individual views for a minuite, if you please, and imagine:

should someone have created the earth, why is it God? Why not Jim, or Pinnochio?

If there is one being who did create the earth, then the possibility is their for more.

I digress, going down that route will only lead to arguments already exhasted, im sure, in these forums.

But, the quesiton still stands, who else could?

the process of elimination is a very usefull method when it comes to writing or proving theories, and so being able to deduce the fact that no-one other than God could have created the earth would therefore prove his existance. How then did you eliminate any other possiblities?

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

RE: INFRACTION

Sorry, a failing not only of myself, per se, but, i am sure, the english state school system too.

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

First of all, open minded atheists don't exist.
Secondly, we believe that The Bible is The Truth as dictated by God HIMself.
What more is there to know?

goodness, i dont think i will be able to keep up with so many conversations at once.

I totally agree with you, the definition of an atheist is someone who has decided that there is no God, and therefore has 'closed' their mind to Him.

Perhaps i did not make myself clear enough; although i am perhaps closed minded in my personal views, as a philosophical writer, i would hope to be open minded, a separate entity from my personal views. A sort of virtual agnostic, possibly?

Secondly, as i stated previously, i understand that almost everyone on this site is very strong in their beliefs, and i have a great respect for that, however, as previously stated, for a 'virtual agnostic', merely [forgive me, merely sounds patronising, but i cannot think of another word] saying that God wrote the bible does not prove His existence. I am not here to make you question your faith, merely [there it is again] explain it to me.

[Talitha]

Re: Science and Religion

Of course God exists. If God doesn't exist then how could he have written The Bible?
The Bible is real. I have one here, therefore God is real

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

Of course God exists. If God doesn't exist then how could he have written The Bible?
The Bible is real. I have one here, therefore God is real

Your logic, of course, makes perfect sense to a believer, and, to some extent, a 'virtual agnostic'

please forgive me for prying further, it is only for academic reasons, but, consider for a moment that God did not write the bible, that some other hand wrote the bible.

What other proof would you have for God?
As i previously mentioned, what 2 other points on the graph do you have, to make sure that your 1st point is not wrong?

thank you, however, for taking an interest in my thread, i know that many other people would read that i am an athiest and would either spurn it or abuse it.

[Talitha]

Re: Science and Religion

I don't need further proof.
I have Faith.