Why all the fuss about Darwin and evolution? Part V

[jimbrown257]

There are Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Old Earth Evolutionists; why aren't there any Young Earth Evolutionists?

I might pioneer this exciting new scientific frontieer.

I have no definative proof that the Earth is older than thirty years old.

[ndrthrdr1]

@jimbrown257 I can assure you that the Universe is at least 53 years old.

[hyperseauton]

I don't concur with Mrs. Scott's philosophy of science.

[lowcomedy]

Believing in something that might true, that's faith.

Believing in something that's demonstrably false and ignoring all contradictory evidence, that's insanity..

[poorkinghaggard]

Genesis does not even contradict evolution, because it says animals were made first; and then God says humans were made in "their" image, which would be consistent with common decent.

The people that say they believe in a literal interpretation do not even go that far, because it says we're in animals' image and we come from the ground, which is technically true because carbon is a natural substance.

[hilbert54]

@poorkinghaggard

Genesis not only contradicts evolution, it contradicts itself.

[filorps]

We come from the ocean.

[askegg]

Dr. Scott, while I highly respect your views and extraordinary work fighting creationists, I must somewhat disagree with limitations placed on science. While it is true science is limited, it is only limited to reality. You are correct in pointing out that there may be things beyond our reality which have no effect and therefore cannot be tested, but I can imagine a great many things which will simply not exist. Small, but important difference.

[Shavarnarak]

Well, she has good points, but...

I think that unless there is evidence for something existing, there is no reason to assume that it exists. Which is a scientific principle too, right?

So therefor interpreting science as supporting theism is missing the point. And whilst it doesn't necessarily mean that science promotes strong atheism (being sure there is no god(s) I'd say it is inherently atheistic in the weak atheism sense. (No reason to assume a god exists, thus no belief in a god.)

[SgtSanchez]

To be fair, they believe they have some amount of evidence (Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.).

In the end, science doesn't really give a hoot. Kind of a "do what you want but here's the facts" sort of attitude.

[supafly345]

The belief there is no god is anti-theism I think. I am pretty sure atheism is the flat universal meaning of the non belief in god, despite many of them claiming there is no god.

[askegg]

No. The belief there is no god is atheism. The belief that theism should be fought or eradicated is anti-theism.

I do not believe in a god to the extent I do not believe in leprechauns.

[supafly345]

Okay, that makes sense, and you can be a combination of the two. After looking it up it turns out there is no difference in terms for the people who believe there is no god and those who don't believe in god, so whatever.

[askegg]

Technically the difference is between strong and weak atheism.

[Gautamiyer2]

Atheism isn't a belief system. It isn't a rejection of God; it simply doesn't just accept God with credulity. It is skepticism that science provides a framework for. That is the real belief system at hand.

Skepticism sets a rather favourable framework for atheism so people believe science creates atheists. That is an inaccurate depiction.

While there is no scientific reason to believe in a god, there can be a plethora of other reasons to do so. However, that does not make it fact.

[arizonaviking]

"Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors.

Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths" John F Kennedy

[pakko57]

II and IV are the same

[io2bonk2]

A nice, dispassionate piece of education.