6/26: Homeschooling and animal skinning (thanks Slithy_Tove)

[jaguar]

Well i think sycamore and Tony have pointed out what i meant by faith in science, which is that very few understnad have the science they 'beleive' so in a sense, its still a faith. (sure generated alot of response too) . In relaition to creationisim vs evolution i have a very good quote

Creationism doesn't sound so crazy if you bend it and twist it until it matches the best that science can currently muster.

'nuff said?

Which seem to me so true, all these theiries about the length of days and other crap seem to me like desperate people clutching at straws after the boat has sunk. The same i think applies to 'metaphorical' interpretations of the bible, if you can't make it work, come up with a different interpretation! I mean come on, if this is meant ot be the book christians live thier lives by, imainge if we could take metaphorical interpretations of the law....
clutching at straws, and most churches seem to have kinda of shoved the totally indefensible old testament out of sight, pity its not out of mind. (and yes i realise that paragraph will be shot to hell, and i will correct it accordingly)

Blind faith in anything i don't beleive is good

Or are you going to use the "God works in mysterious ways" statement which basically says "I'm too stupid to realise that blind faith without reason is nothing by itself and that if the evidence does not match the theory it is a bad theory?

This applies to all faiths.

Originally posted by Tony Shepps So, those people who pit science against religion are, IMO, missing the point. One can be scientific and logical and still be religious. Faith could "fill in the gaps" of what is not proven or evident or logical.

I think sycamore covered this but the fact is religion doesn't agree with science(Galileo?), they overlap far too much, you can try and go half-half but it dosen't really work. For hundreds of years the Church persecuted science, then science eventully won so tried to adapt, and it does not really work (see above). Alot of scientists are in fact religious and there was a statement signed by a large number of major scientists a few years back i seem to remember stating that they didn't know all the answers and religion could be one. I personally beleive in Karma but i think in the end thats more to keep myself on the straightish and narrower than anything else =)

Originally posted by Tony Shepps If there was evidence that a fossil record was 1000 years old instead of 100,000 years old, science would accept, record, and teach that evidence, theories would change, etc.

Yes, science is fluid, religion (mainstream/major anyway) is pretty unbendable in reality. As for the whole 'lets create a new religion' fad at the moment, i'm highly scepticial, but hey, if people are happy, and they feel forfilled(and in some cases, thier walets are alot lighter) then i don't think there is a problem.

Pardon any spelling/typos i don't have a spellchecker installed at the moment (formatted a day ago) and my manual checking often misses things.