Evolution in schools; legal trap (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 14, 2012, 22:59 (4523 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony,
> A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend of mine and made the rather obvious statement that, at least in the areas where they overlap, science and religion must agree, other wise one or the other are wrong.
> -I completely disagree. NOMA. -Science and religion are "Non-Overlapping MagisteriA." -The direct problem at hand, is that if you do a direct comparison of world traditions involving the birth of the universe--and of ourselves--you are left with a myriad of stunning possibilities, and no *real* way to wade through them. -Stephen J Gould coined the NOMA term, and it is in fact under THAT premise that David (knowingly or unknowingly) makes his case that science and religion CAN coexist peacefully. -David has ultimately rejected ALL mythological interpretation of how man began, and simply looks at all the evidence and asks "Why?" -Religion's Magisteria is that intrinsically human, self-guiding discussion--it's about morals. But as I've asked in the past--(Why not--Maltheism?, or the post dedicated to THIS song.) What method is there to determine WHICH religion is correct? -None. I'm just as likely to join Draconian Setianism as I am Christianity. (Or even the "Order of Set.") -> While I do not profess to any one religion, I have never made any bones about my theism, nor about my extreme interest in the life sciences. I do not see them as opposites or even opponents. In my world view, theism analyzes the nature of a UI from the religious/philosophical standpoint, its personality for lack of a better word, while science studies its actions and the results of its actions. In my world view, one can, in some ways, be used to analyze and critique the other, but not in the destructive manner that exists between atheist and religious fundamentalist. 
> -That's fine, but within this distinction, you've already agreed that science and religion don't even study the same things!-In the areas where they intersect, religion has always been wrong unless it reverts back to allegory or metaphor--as you did valiantly in our discussion of the world flood years ago. This observation is the ROOT of NOMA... religion and science are asymptotic... they come close to touching, but never can--and never will. (You will like the movie Prometheus btw...)--> I have no issue with evolution as adaptation within a given family of creatures. I also have no issue with the creationist belief of 'God created them according to their kind'. One describes variation, which is a well known and well observed fact. The other describes the physiological differences that can not be explained by random chance, mutation, or epigenics. In other words, there was no reason for a UI to create a Jersey, a buffalo, and a ox. Creating a single breedable bovine species with the ability to adapt would have been sufficient. The question for me is, why does it have to be one way or the other?-You're being apologetic to your roots. The only way you can interpret the creationist position as "correct" is if you discard--entirely--the notion of evolution. -The best you can do is something like David's position--humble admittance that all world religions probably got the creation idea wrong EXCEPT for the God part. You can't have both YEC and evolution in the same belief system.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"