The new fundamentalists

[G4Z]

Woodchuck,

I agree, there is room for christianity (or pastafarianism for that matter) in science, it could be interpreted that everything we have found in science is all some amazing series of events started by a creator or some sort. Personaly I dont belive that at all but I dont see how there is a conflict until you interpret texts like the bible litteraly. In the end these books were written by men, you dont really know if these men had an underlying agenda, you just take it on faith that everything they wrote is true.

IMHO religion is nothing more than a way for people who didnt understand the things we do now to explain some of the most basic questions like, how are we here and how did this all start. Now we have a scientiffic method and have discovered the answers to some of these questions or have better theories than those put forward 2000 years ago (not that I would call them scientiffic theories, hypothesis is a better term) that actualy can be used to make predictions. While there may be scientists around even today that believe in god I doubt any of them do so in a litteral interpretation of the bible kind of way because there is no way to take as fact what is written in there and reconcile it with what we know to be true today.

[fuddam]

Yes, and this is the problem. She is preaching a mixed-message for aids prevention. She should be teaching the proven effective program.

*batters head against wall in frustration*

she. was. not. teaching. aids. prevention.

the journalist brought up STD prevention - she did not.

[TeePee]

*batters head against wall in frustration*

she. was. not. teaching. aids. prevention.

the journalist brought up STD prevention - she did not.

Yes she was. Of course she was. Mention the word abstinence in Africa and it's about AIDS prevention.

[G4Z]

fuddam,

She clearly said several times that "abstinance is the only 100% way to protect yoruself from STDs" she is clearly advocating abstinance to prevent STDs (although I think its more to promote her own christian agenda, i.e no sex before marrige).

"Sex is great... in the context of marrige" she said to those kids, not sex is great but keep it safe. She also said if it was proved that her methods were detrimental she would carry on promoting these ideas.

In my opinion, you cannot give a useful talk about sex unless you cover all the bases, in this case the reporter showed how the silver ring thing program has been studied in the US and it found that 88% of kids fail the pledge and that of those more went on to have sex without using condoms than in kids who didnt take the pledge. This kind of sex education is doing more harm than good. Further I don't think somebody with zero experience of sex should be talking about it to kids either.

[RoGuE|SaBeR]

I would venture to suggest there is evidense to suggest that the Bible (and hence Christianity) are compatible with Science.

Early Scientists believed that the earth was suspended by something or someone.

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

Early science couldn't work out what physical matter was made up from.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

I would interpret this as elements invisable to the naked eye.

Early medical practises bled patients to try and remove impurities. (Rarely worked, occasionally with leeches)

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of a creature is in the blood

Early Scientists thought all the stars were the same.

1 Corinthians 15:41
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

[TeePee]

Leviticus 7:11
For the life of a creature is in the blood

Someone should tell the pro-lifers...

There are some compatabilities between modern christianity and science. I am reminded of the Bishop interviewed by Richard Dawkins on the 'Root of all Evil' program, who commented that christianity was about faith rather than the exact written word. There is no reason Christianity cannot continue as a faith system, and it certainly offers support and guidence for some people, but it should make no claim that any part of religious dogma is factual.

The issue is that science has no NEED for religion. There are many things which science cannot fully explain at the moment, but this doesn't mean there is no natural explanation for them. What religion does is present a pre-formed supernatural explanation for the things we can't currently explain, rather than properly investigating them.

Fundamentalist Christianity has no compatability with modern society, let alone science.

[Woodchuck2000]

Fundamentalist Christianity has no compatability with modern society, let alone science.

Amen brother...

Rogue|Saber - What are you trying to prove with those quotations? You're taking verses with a vague relevance to old scientific beliefs out of context with no particular aim that I can discern...

[RoGuE|SaBeR]

I was trying to make the point that the Bible has been proven to be scientifically valid on many occasions and merely tossing it aside as flippantly as many people appear to be doing is this thread isn't giving it the credit it deserves.

Do you merely think it's coincidense that those indisputable Scientific facts were knowledge to Biblical authors before anything of their time had scientific means of proving them? It's a distinct possibility but you have to admit there must be the option for something outside of Science to have given them the knowledge.

On the original topic - If everyone here believes that Evolution is a Theory why is it so wrong that other potential theories get discussed in Science classes? Surely if you believe evolution to be only one of the possibilities for the origins of man why would you have a problem with teaching children that other people may believe something else?

There is no reason Christianity cannot continue as a faith system, and it certainly offers support and guidence for some people

Fundamentalist Christianity has no compatability with modern society, let alone science.

I'm not trying to be rude here but are you not contradicting yourself with both those statements within the one post?

On a side note, this has the potential to be a useful debate but the tone hasn't been great so far.

fuddam - I agree with what you are saying but your delivery hasn't helped your case mate. Randomly posting "LOL" and "ROFL" at the end of your points just completely detracts from your arguement and you can't expect people to take you seriously. Like I said I agree with you but seriously, some of your posts have made me cringe.

[yamangman]

I don't understand how religion/the religious can hope to reconcile thier beliefs with scientific fact/theory. They'd gain more respect (from me at any rate) if they maintained their flouncy claims for all aspects of their thoughts, theories and ideas. It's nothing short of a poisonous injection to give religion some semblance of relevency in this age, particularly Christianity in the western world.

[TeePee]

Christianity can continue as a faith system, FUNDAMENTALIST christianity cannot.

Evolution is a theory, and there is no reason why other scientific theories cannot be discussed in science class, however, ID is not a scientific theory.

[G4Z]

Rouge, read my second (or third maybe) post regarding the meaning of scientiffic theory. Evolution is a theory with overwhelming evidence to support it and is accepted as a fact in science. It is not just a theory.

[Woodchuck2000]

I don't understand how religion/the religious can hope to reconcile thier beliefs with scientific fact/theory. They'd gain more respect (from me at any rate) if they maintained their flouncy claims for all aspects of their thoughts, theories and ideas. It's nothing short of a poisonous injection to give religion some semblance of relevency in this age, particularly Christianity in the western world.

I challenge you to give me one example of where Christianity conflicts with current scientific theory.

What flouncy claims are you referring to exactly, and how exactly are you proposing they should be maintained? That sentence makes no sense. And a poisonous injection into what?

[Woodchuck2000]

I was trying to make the point that the Bible has been proven to be scientifically valid on many occasions and merely tossing it aside as flippantly as many people appear to be doing is this thread isn't giving it the credit it deserves.

Do you merely think it's coincidense that those indisputable Scientific facts were knowledge to Biblical authors before anything of their time had scientific means of proving them? It's a distinct possibility but you have to admit there must be the option for something outside of Science to have given them the knowledge.

First rule of science: There's no such thing as an indisputable fact.

To pick out individual sentences from the Bible with some vague relevance as proof that it is scientifically accurate is a pointless exercise. How much of the Bible are you claiming to be factual? What exactly is your hypothesis? Also, you're entirely misrepresenting science there. The Ancient Greeks (way before Corinthians was written) believed that the stars were all different, and indeed distinguished between them. They also believed that things were made of atoms too small for the naked eye to distinguish.

Your quote from Hebrews bears no relevance whatsoever to your 'scientific' claim, and modern science does not believe that "...the life of a creature is in the blood." Billions of ameobas, bacteria and other living creatures have no blood.

May I suggest that you propose an hypothesis and then use quotations to support it rather than pulling a number of quotes out of context and saying "See! The Bible is scientific!"

[Woodchuck2000]

Rouge, read my second (or third maybe) post regarding the meaning of scientiffic theory. Evolution is a theory with overwhelming evidence to support it and is accepted as a fact in science. It is not just a theory.

It's a theory with overwhelming support, but it is still a theory. Moreover, it's impossible to prove evolution in a scientific sense. Most scientific theorems that are verified empirically simply cannot be proven in a rigorous sense of the word and I suggest that the theory of evolution will always remain as such. Think Einstein's theories of relativity - these have been experimentally verified but remain theories as objective proof is impossible.

That said, I prefer to refer to Intelligent Design as a conjecture rather than a theorem. It keeps it on a lower plane of 'trueness'...

[RoGuE|SaBeR]

Woodchuck2000 - I agree some of those points were a bit tenuous and that "indisputable" was the incorrect word to use in this case but I was merely trying to show that the Bible has elements that cannot be described as anything else other than Scientific. And yes I would agree with you - there is rarely such a thing as an indisputable fact.

On a personal level I believe the Bible to be entirely factual although much of it is representitive and it does contain illustrations rather than literal explanations. Some of it requires interrpretation but I personally believe that it will be found to be true - that's the faith that religion is based on and so far I haven't ever found the Bible lacking.

Tee Pee - Apologies for misreading your post, although I still disagree.

yamangman - How can you possibly say Christianity is irrelevent in the modern age? Creation and Science issues aside surely it's core teaching of love, peace, respect and looking after the needy are EXACTLY what this modern world needs? You just have to look at the front pages of any news paper to see what a state the modern world is in! And I'm not talking about everyone shunning technology and living on communes but basic respect and care that people seem to vastly lack these days.
People will do ANYTHING to climb the ladder and its sad. Ask some of the richest men alive and they will tell you they are miserable after what they have gained. I know it flies in the face of what the world goes by but Christianity has a lot to offer the world in my opinion.

[TeePee]

Creation and Science issues aside surely it's core teaching of love, peace, respect and looking after the needy are EXACTLY what this modern world needs?

Those elements wouldn't go amiss, and while none of these principles originate from christianity, teaching of those elements to it's followers are what Christianity should limit itself to in the modern world.

But christianity is a diverse religion. The bible itself condones such things as genocide, mass murder, slavery and capital punishment. While the bible does say christ and his disciples were big supporters of slavery, many christians claim that this kind of thing only happened in the old testament. But they don't seem to be denouncing it. Indeed, moral behavior is a secondary part of christianity.

The indoctrination of children into religions is the biggest problem I have with religion in general, and faith schools are a part of this. The 'teaching family values' excuse is used to explain the brainwashing used by fundamentalist christians in america, techniques such as 'Hell Houses' which, very simply, are child abuse. People should have a freedom to make their own choice, as adults, and childhood indoctrination removes this choice.

As to the bible supporting science, it says to 'reject worldly education' (1 Corinthians 1:19,26-27).