Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Misunderstanding On Your Part

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on June 4, 2002 14:28:14 UTC

***I think it is the other way around. For example, look at the atheist countries which accept evolution blindly. China, and the Former U.S.S.R.
were not places I would like to live. But the opposite is also true. Completely fundamentist countries (not Christian, which I think would be mcuh better) are also places I would not like to live. There is a balance.***

Science is not a matter of politics in a particular country. It is about models that have the best explanative and predictive power. Contrary to what you think, young earth creationism possesses neither of these. It is taking a flood story out of an religious text and trying to explain 4 billion years of geological evolution. Not to mention, it makes a mockery out of astrophysics, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, biophysics, and just about every other scientific discipline.

***I disagree mostly with this. Many advances in science were done by Christians. Scientific advancement would not halt because people believe in creation. Why would it? I do not want to stop scientific research!***

But you do. Scientific research uses method to understand new technology and that same method works for understanding the past and possible future of the universe. What young earth creationism is trying to accomplish is suggest that when it comes to religious writings, we must believe them (i.e., Pat Robertson's interpretation of them), and let the methods of science be cast in doubt. This is wrong for a couple of reasons. For one, there isn't a clear line between science done in the pursuit of technology and science done in the pursuit of understanding evolutionary processes. As Richard is well aware of, geological research depends on an evolutionary framework, as does biological research, physics, and a number of other technology-generating fields of science. Destroy the framework of evolution, and you leave science inept.

Young earth creationists don't care what happens as a result of wrecking science. They care about their particular interpretation being popular with Christians and non-Christians. That time is past, of course, but they want to usurp science using politics to achieve it. This just won't do.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins