"To answer religion as if religion must
comply with the requirements of science
is to jump ahead and solve the wrong problem."

Very well, however what Sam is doing is just that: jumping ahead from a basis of faith and then requiring scientific evidence from others. I haven't gotten pissed at him like Scott has, but I can certainly see where his frustration comes from.

You do have a point though. I'd be interested in talking about the merits of the scientific method versus faith or intuition.

"whether or not a religion embraces old earth and evolution does not indicate how good the religion is."

I guess it depends on how you define good. If you mean it brings people together, promotes love and community, then yeah, who needs evolution? But personally, if I had a religion, I'd like it to be as objectively accurate as possible.

• you 'require' them to be right about dinosaurs and distant stars - occupant - May 23, 2002 - 05:47 UTC
  • I love to talk neuroscience - yanniru - May 23, 2002 - 14:14 UTC
    • "value of a theory is how much phenomena it explains" - occupant - May 23, 2002 - 15:09 UTC
      • I went to medical school - yanniru - May 23, 2002 - 15:45 UTC
  • Neuroscience and reciprocal communications - stormcrow - May 23, 2002 - 19:07 UTC
    • you opinions are meaningless on these topics without those - occupant - May 23, 2002 - 21:42 UTC
      • All right, let's make a deal - stormcrow - May 24, 2002 - 14:21 UTC
        • See above - occupant - May 24, 2002 - 15:40 UTC