Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Recently people from both side have been arguing and testing the other sides belief. You can post either your side and why or you can add on to what I’m saying.

I personally pick no side, i find this a bit absurd and think that they shouldn’t have fought in the first place.

Why is there supposed to be sides?

From a Christian point of view, Science could be the answer to how and not an alternative, i.e; Good ’ol god/God creating the big-bang to ultimately create humanity.

While from a Scientist point of view it Christians would just be another kind of belief that they might or might not believe in, depending on the individual Scientist.

Both.

Science and religion do not contradict in my beliefs, neither in the area I live in.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Both.

Science and religion do not contradict in my beliefs, neither in the area I live in.

Good for you, but many Creationists (here’s food for thought-one in three Americans are Creationists) say different. Danktolker (if you know him, I feel sorry for you, I know what it’s like) said in chat that the proof of religion is “Biblical science.” What Biblical science? He also claimed that proof has been found that the world is only 10,000 years old.

That “proof” is actually them selectively misinterpreting evidence while ignoring the huge number of sources that corroborate the age of the universe. It’s ridiculous, really…

Some disturbing statistics about the US in 2004:

• 81% of U.S. teenagers think that God controlled or influenced the origin of humans. (Gallup)
• 65% of Americans think that we should teach both creationism and evolution in schools. (CBS)
• 55% believe that “God created humans in present form.” (CBS)
• 45% believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. (Gallup)
• 37% think that we should teach just creationism in schools, including 60% of evangelical Christians. (CBS)
• 36% believe in telepathy.
• 35% say that evolution is well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
• 35% say that evolution is not well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
• 25% believe in astrology.
• 25% think the sun goes around the Earth.
• 13% think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
• Only 13% of Americans accept the standard scientific account of evolution, without a god’s involvement. (CBS)

So that’s four in five US teenagers believe God controlled or influenced the origin of humans? TEENAGERS? They’re not supposed to believe in anything!

And 13 in 20 Americans believe that Creationism is just as valid as evolution? Frankly, that’s rather disturbing…

11 in 20 Americans don’t believe in evolution. If only that goddamn book hadn’t been written…

9 in 20 Americans believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. <sarcasm>And of course, what the scientist’s have counts as no evidence against this at all… </sarcasm>

Anyhow, I won’t do everything…frankly, they’re all saddening statistics, the God related ones.

But…what?

36% believe in telepathy.

No comment on the American idiocy.

No comment on the American idiocy.

I have plenty. They just aren’t printable…

25% think the sun goes around the Earth.

That almost disturbs me more than the one about telepathy, because special effects can make telepathy and such look pretty convincing. But Geocentrism? Seriously?

I certainly wasn’t aware that they were against each other? I once saw a comic that depicted a priest falling from a building, crying out, “Where is NOMA when you need it?” I thought that applied to this topic.

11 in 20 Americans don’t believe in evolution. If only that goddamn book hadn’t been written…

Is it limited to Americans? See the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”.

25% think the sun goes around the Earth.

Do you have proof for that? I mean, really.

The vast majority of scientists agree with evolution. Related (This ties in education to beliefs on origins. Very sobering, I think.)

Is that an article, or a book, though? If it’s an article, I’ll definitely read it. Books… not so much, I’m too broke right now =\

The discovery of an unmistakable fossil imprint of a human foot inside a dinosaur footprint would form a really good indicator that dinosaurs lived on earth when people were alive. Quite a few footprints of this type have been claimed to have been found. However most have been shown to be pious forgeries created by some very enthusiastic and devout believers. The rest are heavily eroded footprints that resemble human footprints, but were made by a non-human species.

I’m curious, then. Remember the T-Rex that was found with blood vessels and soft tissue? How did that survive for 60, 70, 80 millions years?

Article

Looks like it was inside of the thighbone of the T-Rex. As to how, I have no idea, but I’m looking :P

Edit: Far better article, reading now: http://www.answersincreation.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm

From the second article:

[Conclusion] The find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a young earth. In fact, when you consider the fact that we should find much more soft tissue in all large dinosaur bones, it actually supports an old earth even better!

Is that an article, or a book, though? If it’s an article, I’ll definitely read it. Books… not so much, I’m too broke right now =\

It’s a document. It has hundreds of scientists, astrophysicists, geologists, etc. that sign the document saying they don’t believe that evolution accounts for the diversity of life.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Both.

Science and religion do not contradict in my beliefs, neither in the area I live in.

Originally posted by Pink_Fuzzy_Bunny:

Is that an article, or a book, though? If it’s an article, I’ll definitely read it. Books… not so much, I’m too broke right now =\

It’s a document. It has hundreds of scientists, astrophysicists, geologists, etc. that sign the document saying they don’t believe that evolution accounts for the diversity of life.

How are Astrophysicists qualified to make a scientific opinion on evolution? How about geologists? 99.85% of Biologists and life scientists (source is an article I linked earlier from religioustolerance.org) support evolution. And that’s the field that they’ve devoted their life to studying. Doesn’t that say something?

It’s an unfortunate statement as to the nature of science that fields are so narrow. It’s quite easy for someone to make a fool of themselves by talking about something that falls outside the realm of their expertise (For example, all the LHC drama was started by a Botanist who didn’t understand physics…), and the two fields that you specifically mentioned have nothing to do with evolution.

There are plenty of biologists on there as well. Did you even look at the document?

Looking over it (I just searched for Biolog, to cut through all the searching. There were perhaps 60 matches, and only maybe a dozen that were straight-up Biology), it looks like their in a pretty severe miniority, compared to the number of biologists that DO believe in evolution. That being said, there are always going to be dissenters from any theory (Some people believe the earth is flat. At least a few of them are quite intelligent.)

But hey, I’m far from an unbiased commentator. It would take nothing short of direct disproof of evolution to change my mind about it.

Here’s the link

You mean to tell me that all of these people are mistaken? That all of their beliefs are not founded on evidence?

Originally posted by Pink_Fuzzy_Bunny:

Here’s the link

You mean to tell me that all of these people are mistaken? That all of their beliefs are not founded on evidence?

I think that they are mistaken, yes. I won’t attack the validity of their beliefs, though, because I don’t know what their reasoning is. It’d be interesting to see how many of them disagreed with evolution because of religious teachings, though.

In the same way, I can’t not believe in evolution simply please these people don’t. (triple negative..)

In response to the OP,

The reason Science and Religion seem to clash is when Personal Religious Beliefs are used as reason in a debate. The “Science” side then claims this to be ridiculous, as God cannot be proven. The “Religion” side tends to screach about “Intolerance” and “But you don’t understand!” The problem with the “God hates fags” argument, for example, is twofold.

1). God has not been proven to exist.
2). God has not been poven to “hate fags” because he has not been proven to exist.

How can something which may or may not exist hate something?

Another issue is that the religious side tends to cite the bible as “proof”. Which it is not.

Alright I’m back.

Here’s several differences between science and religion.

Age of the earth: Is it less than 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion?
Environmental concerns: Is global warming humanly caused, or just natural?
Origins of our species: Were we created by a higher power?

Every one of them is wrong.

They only clash with specific religions and even then if you take the fundamental belief of those religions they don’t.

Originally posted by RMcD:

Every one of them is wrong.

They only clash with specific religions and even then if you take the fundamental belief of those religions they don’t.

RMcD, it’s not just about how the beliefs clash, they are actively going against the other side’s beliefs

Originally posted by zeman:

Originally posted by RMcD:

Every one of them is wrong.

They only clash with specific religions and even then if you take the fundamental belief of those religions they don’t.

RMcD, it’s not just about how the beliefs clash, they are actively going against the other side’s beliefs

You said religion and science. There is no huge generalize for either which puts them against each other. Some scientists can believe in Justnowism.

the whole basic of science is “every theory MIGHT be passble untill proven wrong”
and “evidence for a theory does suport it but there are always more proves needed”

meaning science should accept religion …. (forum.spore.com go to the science part and they talk about it aswell….. it as some other arguments and proves)