Why Do people Promote the idea that Science is a religion?

Post Reply New Topic

This is a good example of the dangerous symbiotic relationship between religious fundamentalists and Postmodern relativists. The fundies are using relativist "every opinion is equally valid" arguments as a way to get religion in the science classroom.

What's your view of the philosophy of science? Are you more traditional or what do you think of Sir Karl Popper?

Because evolution is the basis of biology, you can't understant biology without understanding evolution. Biology without evolution is like particle physics without quantum mechanics. IMO if you finish a biology class and you don't accept evolution you don't really understand biology, since evolution is a emergent property of molecular biology and ecology.

There's actually an article in one of the Nature issues from the past few weeks that discusses how students in most curricula are completely uneducated in molecular biology and evolution (and that teachers are generally not qualified to teach it). It's analysis indicated that this left a gaping whole in the education process which made students coming out of high school more vulnerable to anti-evolutionist arguments.

I didn't actually read it so much as spend all of 30 seconds skimming it (it was only a couple of pages). Might be interesting. Who knows...

Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and "creationist" with "flat-earther that believes in intelligent falling" and it becomes obvious how absurd this statement is.

Science vs Religion

Even though the likelihood is great,
you can not prove that there is life on
other planets

Based on this likelihood would it then be
wise to assume that this life form is named
Carl or that Carl enjoys playing checkers?

Does Carl feel guilty because he cheats
at checkers. Will Carl go to hell?

I'm a biotechnology major and believe me once you understand biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology it becomes blazingly obvious how evolution works and you can't deny it without lying to yourself. Evolution is an emergent property of self-reproducing, auto-catalytic, homeostatic systems, AKA "life."

that's your choice then..... cause it's explicit that you're answering the question in accord to what evolutionists think, because you're in a bio course. it shouldn't have to be stated in the question... it's just a given. and it's not lying cause you're supposed to be working in the framework given to you... which is what you're refusing to do...

if i were opposed to dissection... then i would take my bad grade for the course too. people do have the right to do that and do opt for that course of action.

Again, this assumes the veracity of the position. Working within the framework you will get answers within the framework, but is truth confined to the framework?

You are right that Evolution, in the general sense, is a framework. "Darwinism isn't a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable scientific theories." Later retracted, but still said, by Karl Popper.

Well, I feel very uncomfortable with it. I don't like writing an essay on evolution that never reflects my true beliefs, and is therefore BS in my personal opinion, but that sounds as if I believe it. To me, that's disingenuous.
Someone can get ahold of that essay, read it, and think that I'm endorsing evolution. I'd have to tell them, "No, they just threatened me with a failing grade if I didn't write like I totally believed."


Take it from someone who is genuinely, deeply offended, okay?
They need to phrase curriculum questions so that:
1) the premises are as truthfully-stated as possible
&
2) the students' religious beliefs -- at least those beliefs which no one on the planet has proved wrong -- are not forced
to be compromised by him or her, by making that student effectively lie.

I do see what you're saying, however. You know me, and you know I'm well smart enough to understand
that you're saying that it's all in a broader context of "this is what evolutionists currently think".
I got that.
The problem is that, when the borders of that context are so very wide, people start just robotically believing
things written as fact itself, because that's how the mind rationalizes working in a certain contextual environment
for a very long time -- it starts to de-consider the context.

Wouldn't you personally hate it if a politician or other speaker gave a two-hour speech
laying out exactly what he believes, in intimate detail and delivered with great passion --
and then, at the end, says, "But of course, I don't really believe any of that; I was just quoting someone else"?
Even if he gave a very brief disclaimer at the very beginning, most of the audience would,
midway through, just forget the disclaimer in the process of concentrating on the ideas being laid out,
especially if the speaker delivered a passionate argument with great furver and emotion.

What if Hitler said, "Some people believe that Jews are bad", and then launched into his most famous
Nazi speech ever, and then ended it by saying, "Of course, I'm not one of those people who believes those things".
Wouldn't that have effectively been misleading in the middle of the speech?

Last edited by Ragtime on 09 May 2008, 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

evolution is testable... just not in the ONLY fashion that you can comprehend... which wold be to roll back time and let it all happen again...

please explain in detail your perception of how evolution is (incorrectly) tested.

to me.... this is the very bread and butter that the bible and all religious texts rely on to gain peoples' belief. maybe not disagreeing with you... but it's hypocritical to use it an an argument.


i tend to think you go back and forth a lot... you say you're willing to believe that god started evolution... and i'm perfectly fine with religious people saying that... i'm all for it... i am not tryin to take away anything spiritual from people... i see no reason why they both can't coexist.

but then you turn around and say you don't believe in it at all. it's just wishy washy.

i can sit and argue evolution all day without being wishy washy cause i understand how it works...

that website you posted earlier: evolutionthelie or w/e.... it didn't have a single link that wasn't founded in some misconception or flat out fallacy.

i just don't come across any relevant rebuttals to evolution

bah biology is hard... and therefore useless... just invent me stuff to make my life easier so i can use it against you later

If I'm in biology class at a public college, the teacher is going to say: "Evolution is a fact! Now write about why we know it's true!" That's an impossible thing for me to do with my integrity intact.
Likewise, if I were to be executed like Jesus' disciples were for not denying Him, I could not keep my integrity and live. So, I would make the same choice they did.

college is quite another thing. you CAN talk to the teacher and i sincerely doubt they'd deny you the chance to write why it's NOT true. though i suggest you turn in a draft early... cause if you give them stuff from that website... most anyone would have MANY MANY corrections for you.

I said "Maybe God started evolution; who knows?" That's not expressing a belief that He did, or that evolution occurred. It's merely leaving open the possibility.