Death Threats After Supporting Evolution

[Anomalocaris]

Though I think "faith or science" is a false dichotomy,

It is not. Faith and science may have temporary truce of convenience. But there can never be a lasting peace. What is more, the more science developed, the more difficult it is to hold even a temporary truce. Faith must stop science at some point to survive, science would not serve its purpose if it can be stopped by so trite a concern as faith.

[idunno]

Right, my main point was to profess my respect for The Science Guy's demeanor. the dichotomy comment was secondary and poorly stated. What I meant was "Evolution or Christianity" is a false dichotomy. One might look at Genesis as allegorical, something that was done before Darwin's time. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are examples of this.

[Faith No More]

"Evolution or christianity" is definitely a false dichotomy. In fact my dad, the christian chemist, told me if science and the bible conflict, the bible is wrong.

[idunno]

Yeah, one doesn't necessarily have to hold to inerrancy to be a Christian.

[CliveStaples]

Bollocks.

Faith and science are innately incompatible. Faith is based on authority. Science is evidence based. EG There are still many thousands of Christians who remain so ignorant and bloody minded that they still argue young earth creationism. The Catholic Church forbids stem cell research and in vitrio fertilisation.


Traditionally, Christians have killed or imprisoned anyone who challenged dogma,including scientists. Today they mainly demonise or excommunicate people who have the audacity to challenge dogma,especially scientists, as they have always done.

Science relies on certain assumptions (or axioms). Articles of faith are essentially assumptions.

I don't think that the two systems are necessarily in conflict--it is possible to affirm both the assumptions of science and an article of faith (which is pretty trivial to prove, since you can simply construct an article of faith that is by definition compatible with the assumptions of science).

Given how fractured modern Christianity is, I don't think the notion of "excommunication" carries much weight.

---

"Evolution or christianity" is definitely a false dichotomy. In fact my dad, the christian chemist, told me if science and the bible conflict, the bible is wrong.

That seems a bit flawed, don't you think?

What if the Bible claimed that, say, the laws of quantum physics hold. In the 1700s, the Newtonian view of the universe would have disagreed with this view. So would the Bible have been wrong then?

[System of Solace]

That seems a bit flawed, don't you think?

What if the Bible claimed that, say, the laws of quantum physics hold. In the 1700s, the Newtonian view of the universe would have disagreed with this view. So would the Bible have been wrong then?

No, it's not flawed.
I'm guessing his dad has actually read the bible and what it says about the world versus what modern science says. Without reading it, you may have a good idea of which would be right, considering the bible's static information from thousands of years ago written by men who understood very little of our world or the universe, or modern science. Really, your question is quite pointless. It's like saying, "'I liked ___'s speech.' 'You did? Well, what if he was dead? Then you wouldn't have liked it.'"

Of course the Bible would have been right, although we would have not thought that. But the Bible doesn't say that.

[Faith No More]

That seems a bit flawed, don't you think?

What if the Bible claimed that, say, the laws of quantum physics hold. In the 1700s, the Newtonian view of the universe would have disagreed with this view. So would the Bible have been wrong then?

That has to be the biggest "if" in history. I'm pretty sure that my dad had read the bible and knew that it held no accurate, scientific claims, but I can't say that for certain. My parents are very tight-lipped about their religious beliefs, so I'm guessing he has read the bible simply because of the fact that my dad reads everything that interests him.

[Cyberman]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 'If' the bible happens to be right about certain matters relating to the natural world, that the book is correct about those things would only be realised after the fact, after people have investigated the natural world and discovered how such things work. Revelation by dictat still requires independent verification and should not, must not, be accepted merely on the authority of whoever says it.

"Evolution or christianity" is definitely a false dichotomy. In fact my dad, the christian chemist, told me if science and the bible conflict, the bible is wrong.

Ah, the Answers in Genesis school of, um, 'thought':

Section 4: General

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
  

[8BitAtheist]

This just in: New Born receives death threats after stating that he believes in the womb.

[Ryantology]

Science relies on certain assumptions (or axioms). Articles of faith are essentially assumptions.

And, yet, they could not be more different in how they are extrapolated into descriptions of what is all around us.

It is the duty of the scientist to attack his own assumptions relentlessly, until the point where a theory is either destroyed or accepted by consensus (and never is this acceptance supposed to be permanent or unconditional). It is the duty of the religious to accept an assumption of faith as truth, without qualification, to perhaps challenge some of the details but never the actual assumptions themselves.

As far as I am aware, there are no biologists who insist that The Origin of Species is absolute, unalterable truth and all descendants and variations of Darwin's initial proposition of evolution theory are heresies, their proponents enemies.