[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

Is this some homework you wrote?

You might want to rethink your conclusion:

In conclusion, the conflict between Evolution and Creationism is due to the fact that, through Aristotle's horror vacui and Barbour's God of the GAp's theory, and Dawkin's meme theory, the conflcit between them will, once resolved, resolve the conflict between science and religion once and for all, by disproving relgion.

None of your senseless statements or citations disprove religion. You should have picked an easier subject, like the legality of sweatshops or sailor's rights.

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Re: Science and Religion

Right, im back. I said i'd post this, so i will.


Examine, and comment on, the relationship between Religion and Science, refering to Evolution and Creationism


The relationship between Science and Religion is one of Conflict, caused, in part, by the blurring of the borders which define the two factions. First then, a definition; Science is mutable- it changes easilly to interpret new evidence. A Scientific theory is accpeted, not beleived. Religion is absolute- it doesn't change in order to interpret new evidence. A religious theory is beleived, indeed, it takes a 'leap of faith' in order to beleive it.

Swinburne once postulated his 'principle of credulity and testimony', in which he posited that we should accept what people tell us as the truth is we have no evidence to the contrary. In actuality, this theory doesnt work- whatever you accept or beleive, humans have only got thus far by being cynical; questioning things constantly. If you beleive that a particular berry won't kill you, it won't prevent it from doing so, and so in actuality swinburne should have prehaps postulated a principle of 'Incredulity and Tesitmony'- that we only accept what someone tells us as the truth if there is evidence which supports it. By this principle, Science should have more acceptors than Religion has beleivers- while Science can offer up evidence for it's claims, Religion is based around pure beleif, therefore meaning that many people are much more likely to be 'incredulous' of religious theories, and find Scintific ones credible.

The religious think-tank theos recently commissioned a study, which found that, whilst 25% of Britons fully accepted the theory of evoluton, a staggering 50% of Brits were either opposed to or 'confused' by the theory. Why, if our afformentioned principle suggests that Scientific ones are the most credible ones, do such a seemingly anomolous number of people refute the claims of one of it's major theories in favour of relgious answers? The answer lies in the blurring of the borders between Science and Relgion, and this too is where the conflict lies.

Creation Science is a major movement across the western world. Whilst technically a religion- it is absolute, not changing it's views because of evidence- this has not stopped it from attracting many powerfull people to its psuedo-scientific theories, amogst them the former head of NASA, dubbed 'father of the space age', and Adnan Oktar, Turkish Oil Billionaire and writer (and publisher and funder) of the lavish Atlas of Creation, a vastly expensive peice of creationist proppaganda which was delivered free to all schools in the UK. Contrasting to this, Evolutionaries activley protest against the formation of an Evoltuion Religion- as Andrew Marr, staunch evolutionist and bbc political correspondent, said 'we mustn't let [darwin's theory] Crust into Creed, Harden to Dogma'. It is Creationism's encroahment onto scientific ground, the styling of it;s religion into a psuedo-science, complete with museums and 'scientific' refernce books, and it is Evolution's decision to not form a religion, which has made half of Brits 'confused' over the issue of how we came into existence, and which fuels the conflict which defines the two theories.

Scientific debate is a major part of the scientific process, and is welcomed by the scietific communtiy in order to prove new ideas and to disprove old ones. Creation Science is not dissmissed by the scietific community because it challenges their views, it is dismissed because it is 'bad' science.

If, as previosuly mentioned, a major human attribute is cynicism, then we can assume that scientists are the most cynical of us all- constatnly looking for holes in their own theories in order to make it water-tight. It is fair to say, therefore, that all 'good' scientists woud only be attracted to theories which take this cynical aproach too; theories which are built up gradually as new evidence is found, rather than those which make giant, unsupported, leaps of faith. Taking this into account, it is safe to say that any scientists attracted to the religious theories of Creation Science are 'bad' scientists, and the psuedo-scientific evidence which they present as proof for their beleifs can result in some very 'bad science, and it is this which riles the Scientific community into the aggesive stance which it takes against religion. For Example, the creation science magasine, 'Good News magasine', recently published an article which claimed that, if we truely had evolved, we would divide, like amoebas. Despite presenting this as scientific fact, this article made no mention of the fact that amoebas are single celled organisms, whilst we are made up of bllions of cells, and so division would not be a valid process for us to undergo. It also made no reference to the obvious fact that, if we did divide like amoebas, which, if we did, the magasine says would prove that we had evolved, there would be no variation to cause evolution in the first place! In the same article, the writer presented the extended time which humans have to care for their young for as evidece that we had not evolved, since caring for them for so long weakened us. Again, no mention was made to the correlation of the survival rate of young animals and the time they spend in their parents care, nor did it make mention of the fact that, since we share the concept of caring for our young for many years with chimpanzees and many other simians, this parent/progeny bond proves our relation to these creatures, thereby proving evolution. The Genesis Expo museum in portsmouth, is the the only Creation Science museum in the U.K, and its exhibits include a gravestone marked 'The Theory of Evolution, R.I.P', and a sign which reads 'The existence of a primordeal soup would be a nightmare for the canned soup industy!'.

The views presented above, however, are all extremist points of view, and it is also true that, whilst militant evolutionaries and militant creationists do exist, there are many shades of grey between the two- religous scientists and liberal christians use the bible quote from luke's gospel 'To God, Nothing is Impossibe' to validate their beleif that God used the process of evolution to form the earths creatures, whilst even the most evangelical christians accept that micro-evolution- the creation of breeds within a species, is a valid proccess.

Whilst there are shades of grey within the beleivers and acceptors of both Creation and Evolution, so too are there shades of grey between the theories themselves. Whilst the religious outcry and scientific turmoil which darwins theory of evolution caused has been well documented, 50 years before darwin published 'On the Origin of Species', Lamarck published an alternate theory of evolution which he called 'aquired charateristics'. The traditional example of this is the girraffe's neck- a girraffe streches it's neck reaching for the higher branches, and passes this on to it's young. Although this theory was dismissed by the scientific community untill as recently as Sir David Attenborough's program early this year, to mark the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species, recent experements have shown that the benfits of improving of certian traits, such as memory, are passed on to the next generaltion, and Lamarck's theory was publised into little, or no outcry, and rightly so. Lamarck's 'aqquired characteristics' has a very christian view to it, something almost irenean- the 2nd Century philosopher Ireneaus prosulated a theodicy to solve the problem of evil and suffering for Christians, by suggesting that this world was a 'vale of soulmaking'. Lamarck's theory mirrors this perfectly- the higher branches as a manifestation of the evil which exists in the world, and the streching of the neck as a manifestation of the 'soul making' that this evil inspires. Ireneaus also found evidence for his theodicy in Genesis- 'Let me make man in my own image, AFTER my own likeness', suggesting that the word 'after' implies that God did not make the world perfect, that we have to become perfect, to grow into God's image, which Lamarckian Evolution depitcts flaultlessly.

More recently than Ireneaus, or even Lamarck, was David Owen Wilison, who published a book called 'Darwin's cathedral', in which he showed how the theory of Group Evolution- the evoltuon of behavious within groups, such as altruism, which enable the survival of a group of a certain organism- could have propagated the existence of organised religion, and many (more liberal) christians use this as ratification for their beleif that God used evoltuion to create us as his favoured race, and to begin His Church.

Why then, if there is so much middle ground between the two factions of Evoltuion and Creationism, and by extention Science and Religion, does such conflict patently exist? The ancient greek philosopher, aristotle, once postulated the theory of 'Horror Vacui', which proposed that humans 'fear' 'gaps' in our knowledge, and that we try to fill these 'vacui'. Aristotle suggested that we fill these gaps with Gods- with parables and deities. The God of the Gaps theory, as detailed by Ian A. Barbour, also suggests this- that as humans have gained more knowledge about how the world works, we have lost the need for deities such as 'Thor, the thunder god' from the Norse religion, because we now know that thunder is just the sonic boom of superheated air formed around a lightning strike. These two theories do not, however, entirely show why such conflict does exist between Relgion and Science- there was not such conflict when Science showed that water cannot turn to wine, that the only creature able to walk on water is the bicycle lizard, so why is there such conflict now? The answer lies in creation's placement within the bible- Genesis 1:1 'In the BEGGINING, God created the heaven and the earth'. The begigning. The conflict between relgion and science is due, majorly, to the fact that religion has no-where else to retreat into, no more parables to refute, no more deities to give up. Creationism is Relgiion's Britian, it's last hope against the Nazi machine of Science's Evolution.

And so, creationism fights back. It fights back by becoming a psudo-science, and by criticising the ethics of evoltuion- the Nazi analogy is quite apt, because creationists point to the fact that darwin's theory was the major inpiration for Hitler's Nazi Eugenics program, in order to discredit the theory, but in reality this is just a criticism of the ethics of the theory, and similar arguments, such as the 'It's adam and eve, not adam and steve' movement in central USA could be applied to the christian view of creation too.

Richard Dawkins, militant athest and staunch evolutionist, proposed the existence of the 'Meme' in his groundbreaking book 'The selfish gene'. he wrote that 'just as genes propagate themselves by leaping from body to body... so to do memes propagate themselves by leaping from brain to brain'. Dawkins saw memes as social genes, the mental coders for, for example; songs, books, or theories, and that these memes only survive by being, for example; catchy, entertaining, or correct. The paradox is that, in the conflict between Evolution and Creationism, when one side becomes the victor, that meme will have survived, proving, no-matter who the real victor is, that evolution is the correct theory.

In conclusion, the conflict between Evolution and Creationism is due to the fact that, through Aristotle's horror vacui and Barbour's God of the GAp's theory, and Dawkin's meme theory, the conflcit between them will, once resolved, resolve the conflict between science and religion once and for all, by disproving relgion.


tell me what you think.

TL;DR

I can copy/paste too!


"Fixin' Mowers" is simple

Here's what I've documented so far:

Doesn't Start:
If the mower was running just fine last Fall, and will not start in the Spring, the first thing to suspect is that the gas has gone bad.
If it just keeps running worse and worse until it stops (or doesn't start), it could easily be the air filter.
This is what a "Fouled Plug" looks like.
Tecumseh carbs are famous for gumming up and the mower may start but it will not keep running. Here's a "quick" cleanup.
Here's "starts, but doesn't run" problem from a very new Tecumseh with the mostly plastic carb. The seal between the main jet and the carb bowl swells up and cuts off the gas. I replaced it with a small O-ring.
You hit something and the motor will not restart. Maybe it's a broken flywheel key.
B&S carbs with the carb on the gastank are VERY reliable, usually all they need is a new gasket between the carb and the tank. While it's apart check the screens on the pickup - I've seen more than a few that have been plugged up.
No spark on an OLD (many before 1982) engine? It's probably the points, but it may be easiest to replace the coil with a newer pointless model
Bring home a previously working riding mower and it doesn't even try to start?
WATER in the gas will stop a mower dead. It goes to the bottom of the tank, and the bottom of the carb - where the engine pickes up gas. Drain the carb and dry the tank if you find water in the carb. This is water and gas in a jug, but if you see drops in the bottom of the carb bowl or tank, or see it bead up on top of the driveway or a rag, you have water. Don't park the mower outside!
Flipped my mower over upside down, and now it doesn't start!

Look, I proved you wrong by posting basic lawn mower maintenance instructions!

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

i wasnt saying that they disprove religion, was just saying that, once a peice of evidence does come forward that proves evolution unequivocally, the arguments such as aristoltes horror vacui and the god oof the gaps theory show that religion would not be able to fill any more gaps.
thus being disproved.

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

TL;DR

I can copy/paste too!


"Fixin' Mowers" is simple

Here's what I've documented so far:

Doesn't Start:
If the mower was running just fine last Fall, and will not start in the Spring, the first thing to suspect is that the gas has gone bad.
If it just keeps running worse and worse until it stops (or doesn't start), it could easily be the air filter.
This is what a "Fouled Plug" looks like.
Tecumseh carbs are famous for gumming up and the mower may start but it will not keep running. Here's a "quick" cleanup.
Here's "starts, but doesn't run" problem from a very new Tecumseh with the mostly plastic carb. The seal between the main jet and the carb bowl swells up and cuts off the gas. I replaced it with a small O-ring.
You hit something and the motor will not restart. Maybe it's a broken flywheel key.
B&S carbs with the carb on the gastank are VERY reliable, usually all they need is a new gasket between the carb and the tank. While it's apart check the screens on the pickup - I've seen more than a few that have been plugged up.
No spark on an OLD (many before 1982) engine? It's probably the points, but it may be easiest to replace the coil with a newer pointless model
Bring home a previously working riding mower and it doesn't even try to start?
WATER in the gas will stop a mower dead. It goes to the bottom of the tank, and the bottom of the carb - where the engine pickes up gas. Drain the carb and dry the tank if you find water in the carb. This is water and gas in a jug, but if you see drops in the bottom of the carb bowl or tank, or see it bead up on top of the driveway or a rag, you have water. Don't park the mower outside!
Flipped my mower over upside down, and now it doesn't start!

Look, I proved you wrong by posting basic lawn mower maintenance instructions!

pardon? i didnt copy/paste this, this is my philosophy coursework, which i researched myself. i even vistied the museum mentioned in there.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Science and Religion

Capt.!!! You have divulged the secret mower prophecy!!!!


I think you are going to P'O a lot of college students who were going to plagiarize that as you have. They will have to stop their incessant sword battles and actually have a creative thought. You should try it, its' fun!

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

Capt.!!! You have divulged the secret mower prophecy!!!!


I think you are going to P'O a lot of college students who were going to plagiarize that as you have. They will have to stop their incessant sword battles and actually have a creative thought. You should try it, its' fun!

i have plagarised none of this, this constitues half of my years r.e course worth of research. i knew that you would all start critcising the essay rather than its content. no-ones picked me up on the spelling yet, anyone? yes i can spell the word 'amongst'

carry on. this is amusing.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Science and Religion

pardon? i didnt copy/paste this, this is my philosophy coursework, which i researched myself. i even vistied the museum mentioned in there.

So you are saying you just thought of this, researched and typed it today? Not a copy and paste job?
Oh wait, you said it was written earlier and you claim to be the author..... Lying will only get you a seat on the dumb waiter to hell, son.

[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

thus being disproved.

You think you can just post that and claim the award? That's not proof, it's just week minded conjecture.

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Re: Science and Religion

pardon? i didnt copy/paste this, this is my philosophy coursework, which i researched myself. i even vistied the museum mentioned in there.

I'm sorry, I didn't read it. But now that I've skimmed it, I see that it is your work, as it is riddled with spelling and grammar errors.

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

and the spelling comment is here!

weak minded conjecture? Aristotle, Ian A. Barbour, Dawkins, weak minded? All of their theories show that, should evolution be proved once and for all, religion cannot retreat further into the unknown. Im just pointing that out, i dont want an award.

[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

Well, you don't get one, because you haven't disproved religion.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Science and Religion

i have plagarised none of this, this constitues half of my years r.e course worth of research. i knew that you would all start critcising the essay rather than its content. no-ones picked me up on the spelling yet, anyone? yes i can spell the word 'amongst'

carry on. this is amusing.

Young man, we are not here to point out your shortcomings. Content is more important that appearance. Just because you wrapped that writing up with a pretty bow did nothing to mitigate the stench emanating from it.

If in fact you spent six months writing 13 paragraphs, do you really want to know what I think of the content? God made the Heavens and the earth in just seven days.

But I will say nearly your entire 13 paragraphs are hogwash. You know (as does everyone) that Darwin was nothing more than a charlatan and showman, a veritable P.T. Barnum.

[Pandeth]

Re: Science and Religion

i didnt set out to disprove religion, nobar. All i was doing was analysing why the issue of evolution seemed to rile christians so much, and i came to the conclusion that IF somone proved religion, then that would disprove religion as we know it.

well, 13 paragraphs is still a lot to remember in an exam, and i have to write it with no notes. Hogswash is interesting, purely hogswash, or just the bits that arent about the bible?

[James Hutchins]

Re: Science and Religion

.............. Hogswash is interesting, purely hogswash, or just the bits that arent about the bible?

Only the parts that are absurd conjecture do I consider hogwash.

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Re: Science and Religion

Examine, and comment on, the relationship between Religion and Science, refering to Evolution and Creationism


The relationship between Science and Religion is one of Conflict, caused, in part, by the blurring of the borders which define the two factions. First then, a definition; Science is mutable- it changes easilly to interpret new evidence. A Scientific theory is accpeted, not beleived. Religion is absolute- it doesn't change in order to interpret new evidence. A religious theory is beleived, indeed, it takes a 'leap of faith' in order to beleive it.

Swinburne once postulated his 'principle of credulity and testimony', in which he posited that we should accept what people tell us as the truth is we have no evidence to the contrary. In actuality, this theory doesnt work- whatever you accept or beleive, humans have only got thus far by being cynical; questioning things constantly. If you beleive that a particular berry won't kill you, it won't prevent it from doing so, and so in actuality swinburne should have prehaps postulated a principle of 'Incredulity and Tesitmony'- that we only accept what someone tells us as the truth if there is evidence which supports it. By this principle, Science should have more acceptors than Religion has beleivers- while Science can offer up evidence for it's claims, Religion is based around pure beleif, therefore meaning that many people are much more likely to be 'incredulous' of religious theories, and find Scintific ones credible.

And this is just the first two paragraphs. I don't have time to do the rest, you just gave me a headache!