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

Post Reply New Topic

eh, it's just the way you slip it in there... guess as a conversation stopper?

oh well. i know it's hard to understand.

He is going to start with refuted evidence, meaning that no matter how many drafts he writes, he is going to get a low mark. It matters how lenient the professor is.

given the touchy subject matter that it is... i doubt there would be that much repercussion... people really arent as archaic as they were. and profs STILL can get in trouble for offending students... you'd be amazed.

Um, no, from the news reports I've heard, that's definitely not a right that I can assume I'll be given. But I admire your faith!



Yes, I understand that in college, the state decides what's true and what isn't true, and that I'd have to take my knuckle-raps like a good little schoolboy if I believed something they didn't.

Last edited by Ragtime on 09 May 2008, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

and also... if you're so anti-evolution yet are having to take the course for whatever reason... then you should go talk to the prof the very first day. i KNOW something could be worked out if there are any projects that would incur such revulsion for you.

well... ive been to 3 different colleges and have taught evolution myself. there aren't Rtards out there teaching everywhere... maybe you should do a little more research as to where you attend.

even in BIOLOGY MAJORS... i haven't come across a curriculum yet that REQUIRES and evolution class. and i don't think there's such a thing as an evolution major... it's just kind of a tool... not a field... people who research evolution are actually in OTHER fields.

Really? I had some very upfront professors, who would belittle you in front of the class (Opening emails in front of the class, making fun of "ret*ds" who couldn't cope with heavy loads, calling your ideas crap), and you were forced to defend them, or get a low mark. They reason that if you can't cope with having your ideas constantly assaulted, then you aren't worth their time teaching. However, if you can defend your idea, you can get some pretty high marks, though this is much easier in humanities than in science classes. I had an openly atheist philosophy professor, who completely belittle religion in his class; he was one of my favorite professors. You want to argue with him? Bring it jesus boy.


Early on, I said morality was a social construct with no biological basis. I got a C. My views have changed some what. If you want to say evolution isn't valid, you better bring it, or you'll get a low mark.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 09 May 2008, 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

im assuming they had tenure.... which btw... is being changed to where profs cant sit high and mighty anymore beyond reproach.... but you should STILL report it and not stand for it. that's just inhumane. but if you don't do anything about it... then deal with it.

I just try not to deal with it, but just let it slide over me. If I take on the attitude they have, I get grumpy, "Grr, how can you be so wrong!". Most of the time, It breaks up the monotony, because the people they usually argue with just want to force ideas down other peoples throats with no logical basis. If you have a good argument, they'll accept it, and usually encourage you to continue with more research.

Yeah, most of them had tenure I believe. One of them said that flat out to a student, "I have tenure, I'm going to be here until the walls come crumbling down". You dare not make a mistake in his class, for he would ask you "How could you do that? Did I teach you that?!". Don't email him questions, because he'll open them up and wonder how you could be so stupid. Pretty nice guy outside of class though. He gave me two A's, and I plan to take him again for Data Structures in the fall.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 09 May 2008, 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i guess what's trippin me up is...

what do you (non-believers) not buy about evolution?

what are these "non-facts"... other than, "this is how it happened"

i mean... do we not believe in dinosaurs??

do we need to go back that far?

do you believe in DNA? mutations? heritage?

the amount of time in which it happened?

what is it?

just the shame that we ARE related to monkeys?

i don't understand.

It's largely a straw man. They equate abiogenesis with evolution, and because abiogenesis was God's responsibility, KNOW that evolution CAN'T be true. Facts don't matter.

God is a metaphysical construct, where as "evolution" is a scientific one. And in the hierarchy of knowledge Metaphysics trumps science. Because science is a product of a philosophical view that is incompatible with religon to the extent that someone is religious. You'd have to first convince them that God "Created" the universe from scratch, and then implemented the process of evolution in order to achieve his goals, and that his hand still plays a part. That is the only way I have ever seen a religious person accept evolution.


The answer to the original question (see topic) the reason religious people promote science as a religion is to establish a legitimacy for their religion. They seek the respect and honour that properly belongs to Science. What they don't understand is that science HAS that respect because it utilises the Scientific Method. THAT is what gets the respect and honour. Religious people call science a religion in the hopes that people who respect science will also suspend their brains (much like they have) and thus respect religion.

--------------
Definitions:
Suspend their brains: Take an idea/hypothesis on faith rather than through rational understanding. (religious people may feel free to drop this definition in order to misrepresent my argument, or commit other logical fallacies.)

The key word is RETRACTED. Popper said he was mistaken for thinking natural selection isn't falsifiable.

Because, as I said before, EVOLUTION IS A FACT, the same way gravity is a fact. Natural Selection is the THEORY used to EXPLAIN the fact of evolution just like General Relativity explains the fact of gravity. Actually understand the philosophy of science before you embarrass yourself some more.

i realize it's a somewhat rhetorical question...

was just hoping someone would rise to the challenge of forming some intelligent thought.

*snort*
No, they'll say, 'These are the species that we have, in fact, observed evolving in real life. These are the transition fossils. This is how it works. Now write that down.'

NOT quite the same thing.

Evolution wasn't required for a biology major at my university, but it should be. Or, at least, the way it is taught should be more evidence-based, and take up a larger part of the general biology curriculum.

The effort to equate science with religion is, imnsho, an effort to separate science from data. Science, as it stands, is not a democratic practice; it is extremely competitive, and ideas are continuously duking it out in the 'ring' of Occam's Razor. It's not 'one idea, one vote.' Religions, on the other hand, are held to be in this separate magisterium that isn't challengable by facts, but also do not need facts to support them. In a government without an established religion, no one religion can take precedence over another: one religion, one vote. If science is treated as a religion rather than what it is, it becomes socially unchallengable (and therefore ceases to be science), but also becomes just one voice amongst many, all of which are equally valid.

In other words, it's a back-door attempt to declare that creationism is just as valid as evolution, that astrology is just as valid as astronomy, etc.