Can Science and Christianity be compatible? LPoT vs SoR. Also open to others.

[Jichard]

Interesting perspective, thanks. I am curious where you have heard the topic come up when you have heard others express an awareness. Are these on science-oriented fora? (If so, there's an obvious selection bias of people who are predisposed to an interest in the topic.) Or is this based upon offline interaction?

Youtube (ex: comments section on creationism videos), religion/atheism forums on PalTalk, etc.

Basically, in my experience, if someone mentions how there are no transitional fossils, someone almost immediately corrects them, whether it's on Youtube or a religious forum. The exceptions I can think of to this are places like in some churches, on the street when people don't want to deal with street preachers, etc.

[KingsGambit]

Youtube (ex: comments section on creationism videos), religion/atheism forums on PalTalk, etc.

Basically, in my experience, if someone mentions how there are no transitional fossils, someone almost immediately corrects them, whether it's on Youtube or a religious forum. The exceptions I can think of to this are places like in some churches, on the street when people don't want to deal with street preachers, etc.

Like I said, these locations are where you find people who are already interested enough in these topics to be frequenting these sorts of videos or seeking out these discussion. I am more thinking of the person who may have read the odd article here or there but as a whole is not actively seeking out this sort of information on a regular basis.

I am not discounting your observations. It may well be that these concepts are more well known to the general populace than I am aware of... I just don't think these examples are the best for demonstrating this for society as a whole.

[Tassman]

I suspect anybody who has ever actually worked with abused children would roll their eyes at such rhetoric.

There are many forms of child abuse, not necessarily just physical or sexual. And the inculcation of myth and tradition in lieu of of well understood scientific knowledge is a deprivation and potentially harmful. Un-evidenced religious beliefs about the nature of life or the cosmos is a mindless basis for ethics, or understanding the origin of the universe or the evolution of life and can well remain with the indoctrinated victims for life.

[whag]

I suspect anybody who has ever actually worked with abused children would roll their eyes at such rhetoric.

I suspect anyone who's ever worked with an adult YEC would roll their eyes at your dismissal.

Whether it's Scientology or YEC, telling lies to children that will affect their intellectual development is abuse, though a milder form of it. Your strawmanning of our positions by implying we want these abuses prosecuted is transparent. Not all abuse should be prosecuted, but that doesn't make teaching lies an unharmful act--especially when it attaches eternal consequences to such beliefs.

I mean, really, KG. You don't know this?

[fm93]

That makes no sense. If student follows his studies, he'll certainly be able to address a lot of YEC claims, in addition to citing evidence of deep time.

When I was taking biology in high school, I was briefly swayed by a point I read in one of Strobel's "Case For..." books, in which someone expressed skepticism over traditional theories of abiogenesis. My biology textbook covered ideas such as panspermia and the deep-hot biosphere hypothesis, but the person in Strobel's book argued that no organisms could've survived the extreme heat in space or underwater. It seemed plausible to me. I came away thinking that those ideas were flawed. It was only later that I found out that actually, there are plenty of microorganisms capable of surviving in those extreme environments.

[whag]

When I was taking biology in high school, I was briefly swayed by a point I read in one of Strobel's "Case For..." books, in which someone expressed skepticism over traditional theories of abiogenesis. My biology textbook covered ideas such as panspermia and the deep-hot biosphere hypothesis, but the person in Strobel's book argued that no organisms could've survived the extreme heat in space or underwater. It seemed plausible to me. I came away thinking that those ideas were flawed. It was only later that I found out that actually, there are plenty of microorganisms capable of surviving in those extreme environments.

Sure, and to be fair, evidence of extremophiles has only mounted within the last 30 years. I'd give Strobel a pass for being slow to catch up to these facts IF, and only if, he'd retract that part. Fat chance of that ever happening.

Moreover, let me reiterate that not all teenagers are inculcated with the bias to simply accept what a bad apologetics author says. Many high school students aren't raised evangelically and wouldn't be so quick to take what a creationist Christian says as vetted truth.

[KingsGambit]

Your strawmanning of our positions by implying we want these abuses prosecuted is transparent.

Where have I said I think you want it prosecuted? Exact quote, please.

ETA: Just to make things clear, I have never suspected you would support such prosecutions.

[Catholicity]

I suspect anyone who's ever worked with an adult YEC would roll their eyes at your dismissal.

Whether it's Scientology or YEC, telling lies to children that will affect their intellectual development is abuse, though a milder form of it. Your strawmanning of our positions by implying we want these abuses prosecuted is transparent. Not all abuse should be prosecuted, but that doesn't make teaching lies an unharmful act--especially when it attaches eternal consequences to such beliefs.

I mean, really, KG. You don't know this?

Whag, Teaching religion is not harmful in and of itself. Ath the very least this is disingenous

[Catholicity]

There are many forms of child abuse, not necessarily just physical or sexual. And the inculcation of myth and tradition in lieu of of well understood scientific knowledge is a deprivation and potentially harmful. Un-evidenced religious beliefs about the nature of life or the cosmos is a mindless basis for ethics, or understanding the origin of the universe or the evolution of life and can well remain with the indoctrinated victims for life.

Jamie,
I have been quite patient. However I speak for most victims when I say that real abuse does not stem from appropriate teaching of religion, and anyone with a brain knows this. Apparently you either don't have one, or you are just pointing out made up ideas with ZERO evidence. You are a total disgrace to those who have been abused.

[37818]

How the DNA coding changes which actually affects the "evolution." The mere changes of appearances of forms is what makes what ever bogus evolutionary claims wrong. The physics, chemistry behind the workings of DNA, the information coded therein. Even what we call chance is governed by the very laws of physics. It has be dubbed the fine tuning of the universe.

[whag]

Where have I said I think you want it prosecuted? Exact quote, please.

ETA: Just to make things clear, I have never suspected you would support such prosecutions.

My apologies. I thought you implied that we equated all abuse by saying that those who work with child abuse victims would roll their eyes. I realize you were talking to Tass, not me.

[Sea of red]

How the DNA coding changes which actually affects the "evolution." The mere changes of appearances of forms is what makes what ever bogus evolutionary claims wrong. The physics, chemistry behind the workings of DNA, the information coded therein. Even what we call chance is governed by the very laws of physics. It has be dubbed the fine tuning of the universe.

I'd make some comments about Irreducible Complexity but I would rather leave it a biochemist - if there is one on here - who can handle that. One point you're missing though is that the universe is a large scale system influenced by gravitational bodies that are totally different from the workings of a galaxy or stellar nebula. The math used is totally different, the dynamics of the system is apples to oranges, and has nothing to do with what an astronomer or physicist would call fine-tuning.

[Sea of red]

Whag, Teaching religion is not harmful in and of itself. Ath the very least this is disingenous

It depends on what the content of that religion.

You'll most of us secularists have no real issue with educating children about the different world religions.

[whag]

Whag, Teaching religion is not harmful in and of itself. Ath the very least this is disingenous

That depends on what religion and how you do it. If it's a religion that lies about origins and attaches protological belief to eternal consequences like many YEC and anti-evo sects do, hell yes that's abuse. It literally undermines the ability to process reality. Even worse from the Christian perspective, repeatedly plying children with gross disinformation about cosmic and biological origins needlessly sets them up for apostasy later when they realize the stupendous error of the literal interpretation they've been taught. By then, it's often too late.

If that's not harmful, then no indoctrination is harmful.

[Sea of red]

Jamie,
I have been quite patient. However I speak for most victims when I say that real abuse does not stem from appropriate teaching of religion, and anyone with a brain knows this. Apparently you either don't have one, or you are just pointing out made up ideas with ZERO evidence. You are a total disgrace to those who have been abused.

Um, excuse me, but I've been abused and don't agree at all with this notion. Teaching religion and teaching religion as science are totally different things. The fact that YEC proponents have to get em' when there young speaks volumes about the truth element of these claims. Young minds are weak and not educated enough to know the difference between thoughtful thinking and absurdity, and YEC take full advantage of this fact. Propaganda works like that and that's why this pisses us off. Again, it may not be illegal (and I certainly don't advocate it to be) but it is criminal from a moral perspective - no doubt it.

Just as you can preach to others about what is moral and immoral freely, we here whom have a problem with taking advantage of a young mind to teach it propaganda can as well. Your character attacking and emotional appeals do nothing to strengthen your argument.