Evolution
The intelligent design/creationism battle continues, with outspoken scientists tackling their opponents head-on. Influentials in the Catholic Church, meanwhile, have been discussing whether evolution was governed by randomness or God’s intention.
But the people—the American ones, at least—are still fond of their God-created species. Then again, maybe people’s stance on evolution depends on the way you ask the questions.
Science Finds God
Lest ye think that science and religion can never co-exist, some evolution-supporting scientists are totally into God. Others have even gone so far as to use one (science) to figure out the other (religion).
But regardless of where you come down on the question, the Vatican wants you to know that if we ever find alien life, “the extraterrestrial is [our] brother“—offering a new dimension to The Brother From Another Planet.
In the Courts
Intelligent design in schools may have died its legal, if not popular, death in Kitzmiller v. The Dover Area School District. But creationists have decided to rebrand: Now they’re advocating teaching about the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. Hopefully this new rephrasing will also get bounced out of a federal court within the next few years.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Is it just me, or does placing the word “reality” in the same line as “religion” strike anyone else as funny?
October 7th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Some think that man’s next major step in evolution is to get rid of the physical limitations of his body (become a spirit). That might go hand in hand with religion, which in christianity’s case is about leaving the material and focusing on the spiritual… maybe theres something there worth tapping into
anyway theres a good book called “genesis and the big bang” that links religion and science in a very interesting way… forgot the authors name though.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is Blind.(A. Einstein)
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
God-Religion Discussable Scientifically
A. Re “God and Evolution Can Co-Exist, Scientist Insists”
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/304.page#1124
- Is there/what is, in the quoted article, a definition of the article’s “god” ?
- Specifically, is the article’s “god” defined as a human artifact, or not ?
Repeating, with sincere respect:
If “god” is not defined/understood to be a human artifact, its concept is a human virtual reality artifact experienced only through sensory stimuli, and “god-science” is not scientifically discussable. Furthermore, in this case preoccupation with this subject within a scientific frameworks contributes to corrosion and corruption of science and scientism by manifesting or implying acceptance of virtual reality as reality.
Everything is discussable scientifically. No limit. But for scientific discussion the framework must be clearly defined. The totality of subjects that come under the classification “virtual” are not an exception. You can include in the discussion Pavlov and the modes and manners of exploiting virtuality in many areas and towards many ends…
B. “Evolutionary Biology Of Culture And Religion”
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/20/122.page#492
C. It’s The AAAS That Promotes Religion In Science And In Law
The AAAS and its affiliates and equivalent organizations, i.e. all the Science Establishment Guilds, loudly and pseudoscientifically promote and “profoundly respect” the “spiritual religious domain” as A REAL domain, a domain separate from the REAL, science, domain. They do this both because, unbelievably, they actually believe it and as a politically powerful tool in promoting their power and state-public support.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1
Life’s Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578
October 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
http://www.arkhamgames.com/viagra.html [url="http://www.arkhamgames.com/viagra.html"]purchase viagra[/url] viagra 800746