Neex, you have every right to believe in creationism. And the rest of the world has every right to consider your beliefs ludicrous rubbish, which they certainly are. I'm sorry, but there just isn't any way to have balance on this issue : Creationism is contradicted by a mountain of evidence, and there is no evidence in favour. None.

Quote:Original post by nagromo
I do think that science is getting too hostile to religion, just like some religion has been to hostile to science for a long time. Science zealots are as bad as religious zealots. (By zealot I don't just mean someone who is passionate about religion or science; that's a good thing. I mean someone who takes it to a level of insulting other things because they're different.)

The way I see it, it's a matter of need. Evolutionism doesn't disprove God, but Creationism requires God. Take away Creationism, and people have one less need to believe in a god. Eventually, theists probably fear that people won't have any need to believe in a god; atheistic beliefs will look just as acceptable. This is something theists would rather avoid.

Similarly, with non-theisticly focused scientists, add Creationism in, and you've lost one need for science. If God explains the origin and development of life, then there's no need to try to explain it scientifically. So scientists often wish to keep God from being a commonly accepted explanation, since it makes their jobs less meaningful in a way.

Creationism makes God a necessity. Evolution makes science a necessity. Most theists want to keep God a necessity. Most non-theistic scientists want to keep science a necessity. Of course they're gonna often be opposed to each other. The way I see it, the two sides are in the middle grounds of their conflict currently; neither side is about to deal a death-blow to the other. But at the same time, neither side wants to give way to the other very much, because that would push them closer to that potential death-blow.

I knew there was a reason I kept subscribing.

A cousin of mine spent the night at the house a few months ago. In our bathroom we had Scientific American, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Skeptic, and Popular Science.

He remarked that we had the most outstanding bathroom-reading he'd ever seen.

Well, we read our Bible and you read yours.

Exactly. You either subscribe to one ever-evolving pile of assumptions or another.

One set of which is testable.

Quote:Original post by King of Men
One set of which is testable.

I was waiting for someone to bite. Have you ever tested Christianity? It's a toughy, because to test it, you have to abandon your indifference or objection to it, and actually embrace it, which is not required of most scientific examinations.

Christianity CAN be tested, but not by inviting God into a lab and measuring the length of his beard.

Jeez. Somebody kill this already.

Faith and science are different things, in this case. The article was a sarcastic piece that took some liberties with the adjectives. Both sides are fine by me, so let's all let each other be.

//edit. F**king rating system. I try to rate somebody down for being a jerk (regardless of position, mind you) and his rating goes up.