How do you theists view science in all aspects?

[steve_bank]

U worked with a new collee grad engineer from the University Of Washington. He is a Christian and a member of Mt Zion Baptist in a Seattle. A prominent local institution.

He said he was approached on campus by other Christians advising him to give up engineering because there was something bad about it.

Ignorance.

Many engines I worked with were Christian and creationist. Many were very good. They compartmentalized faith and sience. One might rely on carbon analysis in some task, but then reject the retinue when used for carbon dating that conflicted with Young Earth Creationism.

I do think the theists on the forum who involve sconce in arguments regarding atheism do 'get it wrong'. You can not fly in a jet and reject sconce, although you might think god is involved keeping it up.

Theists paint science as having some organized agenda that can be taken as an attack on religion. There is no organized science with an agenda, other than that in the end truth wins out.

If anything science while resulting in coherent cogent theories, in practice is more like anarchy. There are high level scince organizations, but there are no rules, ideology, philosophy. or morality pushed by science.

There is no Vatican and Pope of sconce. That is what theists need to understand. So when theists invoke the word science as some kind of organized system with intent that image is an illusion.

 

[atrib]

I might do that IF science contradicted my biblical worldview. But it doesn't and so I don't.
Quite the opposite. Science not only doesn't conflict with theism, it reinforces theism.

 

[remez]

I am not opening a debate on science vs religion, or something like creationism vs evolution.

Theists on the forum periodically invoke science as a pejorative.

What do you think science is from practice, to workers, to organization, to intent, and beliefs. What do you associate with science?

First...................

I am not opening a debate on science vs religion,

Good because that would be as unreasonable as a theist using science as a pejorative.

Theists on the forum periodically invoke science as a pejorative.

That sounds pretty hollow. How about....... three actual examples? Just for a measure of honesty and assessment of maturity.

What do you think science is from practice, to workers, to organization, to intent, and beliefs. What do you associate with science?

Would you care to phrase that better? Are you simply asking what is science?

IMO it is an incredible philosophical structure of reasoning that we developed and use to obtain knowledge about reality. Why would any reasonable Christian need fear science? Yes there are unreasonable Christians out there. But there are some pretty unreasonable atheists as well. Let's get reasonable and leave the children out of it.

I have seen a trend in this forum as well. Some unreasonable atheists simply infer that since science can cause problems for some weak minded Christians then two things must be true. One their atheism is true and two, science defaults to the advantage of the atheism. And that my friend is as weak minded as the weak minded Christian you are berating. It is not a case of Christianity vs science. It is a case of Christianity vs atheism and which is better supported by the science. So do you desire to stay in your comfort zone beating up little Christians or can you step up to the challenge and make a real case as to why science better supports atheism than Christianity?

Keep in mind you don't get to simply state Christianity is what the weak minded Christian wrongly say it is. For example young earth creationism or a global flood. So should you attempt to step up and make a case for why science in some area better supports atheism then you must also defend your knowledge of Christianity in that area as well. No straw men.

 

[Politesse]

U worked with a new collee grad engineer from the University Of Washington. He is a Christian and a member of Mt Zion Baptist in a Seattle. A prominent local institution.

He said he was approached on campus by other Christians advising him to give up engineering because there was something bad about it.

Ignorance.

Many engines I worked with were Christian and creationist. Many were very good. They compartmentalized faith and sience. One might rely on carbon analysis in some task, but then reject the retinue when used for carbon dating that conflicted with Young Earth Creationism.

I do think the theists on the forum who involve sconce in arguments regarding atheism do 'get it wrong'. You can not fly in a jet and reject sconce, although you might think god is involved keeping it up.

Theists paint science as having some organized agenda that can be taken as an attack on religion. There is no organized science with an agenda, other than that in the end truth wins out.

If anything science while resulting in coherent cogent theories, in practice is more like anarchy. There are high level scince organizations, but there are no rules, ideology, philosophy. or morality pushed by science.

There is no Vatican and Pope of sconce. That is what theists need to understand. So when theists invoke the word science as some kind of organized system with intent that image is an illusion.

Did you really ask everyone's opinion, just so you could ignore what they said and "inform" them of what theists actually believe on your opinion?

 

[steve_bank]

First...................



Good because that would be as unreasonable as a theist using science as a pejorative.

Theists on the forum periodically invoke science as a pejorative.

That sounds pretty hollow. How about....... three actual examples? Just for a measure of honesty and assessment of maturity.

What do you think science is from practice, to workers, to organization, to intent, and beliefs. What do you associate with science?

Would you care to phrase that better? Are you simply asking what is science?

IMO it is an incredible philosophical structure of reasoning that we developed and use to obtain knowledge about reality. Why would any reasonable Christian need fear science? Yes there are unreasonable Christians out there. But there are some pretty unreasonable atheists as well. Let's get reasonable and leave the children out of it.

I have seen a trend in this forum as well. Some unreasonable atheists simply infer that since science can cause problems for some weak minded Christians then two things must be true. One their atheism is true and two, science defaults to the advantage of the atheism. And that my friend is as weak minded as the weak minded Christian you are berating. It is not a case of Christianity vs science. It is a case of Christianity vs atheism and which is better supported by the science. So do you desire to stay in your comfort zone beating up little Christians or can you step up to the challenge and make a real case as to why science better supports atheism than Christianity?

Keep in mind you don't get to simply state Christianity is what the weak minded Christian wrongly say it is. For example young earth creationism or a global flood. So should you attempt to step up and make a case for why science in some area better supports atheism then you must also defend your knowledge of Christianity in that area as well. No straw men.

Aebate dor pghilosophy. Scince as it is practiced is not a philosophy, while prctions may be theist or have some particular philosophy.

Scince is a skill, more sphistcated but no more than say carpenyt or plunbing.

We all practice the 'method' in our daily lives without calling it science. Observe and hypothesize test hypothesis and accept or reformulate. . It requires no special trading to associate clouds, temperature, humidity to predict show or rain.

Animals learn by observation and are observed experimenting. Sea gulls drop shellfish on rocks. Birds put nuts in a road to have them run over and cracked.


Sconce formalizes the process. Theist sometimes claim science is a faith thereby equating religion to science with the same validity. Repeatted exterminates that will always lead to the same result over time becomes accepted theory.

In the 90s there was a claim cold fusion was achieved, a potential energy source that would solve all energy problems. Within 48 horse it had been globally rejected, it could not be repeated. That is how sconce works.

 

[steve_bank]

First...................



Good because that would be as unreasonable as a theist using science as a pejorative.

Theists on the forum periodically invoke science as a pejorative.

That sounds pretty hollow. How about....... three actual examples? Just for a measure of honesty and assessment of maturity.

What do you think science is from practice, to workers, to organization, to intent, and beliefs. What do you associate with science?

Would you care to phrase that better? Are you simply asking what is science?

IMO it is an incredible philosophical structure of reasoning that we developed and use to obtain knowledge about reality. Why would any reasonable Christian need fear science? Yes there are unreasonable Christians out there. But there are some pretty unreasonable atheists as well. Let's get reasonable and leave the children out of it.

I have seen a trend in this forum as well. Some unreasonable atheists simply infer that since science can cause problems for some weak minded Christians then two things must be true. One their atheism is true and two, science defaults to the advantage of the atheism. And that my friend is as weak minded as the weak minded Christian you are berating. It is not a case of Christianity vs science. It is a case of Christianity vs atheism and which is better supported by the science. So do you desire to stay in your comfort zone beating up little Christians or can you step up to the challenge and make a real case as to why science better supports atheism than Christianity?

Keep in mind you don't get to simply state Christianity is what the weak minded Christian wrongly say it is. For example young earth creationism or a global flood. So should you attempt to step up and make a case for why science in some area better supports atheism then you must also defend your knowledge of Christianity in that area as well. No straw men.

Aebate dor pghilosophy. Scince as it is practiced is not a philosophy, while prctions may be theist or have some particular philosophy.

Scince is a skill, more sphistcated but no more than say carpenyt or plunbing.

We all practice the 'method' in our daily lives without calling it science. Observe and hypothesize test hypothesis and accept or reformulate. . It requires no special trading to associate clouds, temperature, humidity to predict show or rain.

Animals learn by observation and are observed experimenting. Sea gulls drop shellfish on rocks. Birds put nuts in a road to have them run over and cracked.


Sconce formalizes the process. Theist sometimes claim science is a faith thereby equating religion to science with the same validity. Repeatted exterminates that will always lead to the same result over time becomes accepted theory.

In the 90s there was a claim cold fusion was achieved, a potential energy source that would solve all energy problems. Within 48 horse it had been globally rejected, it could not be repeated. That is how sconce works.

Early humans figured out cooking meat was good, and how to make spers without math and the articulate language of today.

Watch some of the shows on FOX News. Science at times is painted as a force intent on replacing religion with atheism. There is plenty of anti science in religion.

I read a book Guide For The Perplexed by a Rabbi Moses Maimonides written around the 12th century or so. In it he says when interpretation of scripture conflicts with observed sconce, interpretation must change. The issue of science as a threat goes far back. A cosmology book I read had a short history of cosmology. Historically science has always been made to conform with the needs of religion and police powers.

How can any reasonable person of any belief believe the Erath came into existence suddenly around 5000 years ago? An example, not opening discussion on creationism vs religion.

To the OP specifically how do you view science? All of it valid, most of it, some of it? Is the4re an intent and agenda to science as a whole?

 

[Learner]

Scientists having the title "Doctor philosophiae" i.e. PhD is the bigest blundering mistake given by instutions?

 

[remez]

Aebate dor pghilosophy. Scince as it is practiced is not a philosophy, while prctions may be theist or have some particular philosophy.

Scince is a skill, more sphistcated but no more than say carpenyt or plunbing.

We all practice the 'method' in our daily lives without calling it science. Observe and hypothesize test hypothesis and accept or reformulate. . It requires no special trading to associate clouds, temperature, humidity to predict show or rain.

Animals learn by observation and are observed experimenting. Sea gulls drop shellfish on rocks. Birds put nuts in a road to have them run over and cracked.


Sconce formalizes the process.

Science is a formalized process. Yes, of course it is. That is what I said. You call it a formalized process, I referred to it as a philosophical structure. We are both saying it is a human designed structure of investigation. I just happen to overtly understand that it is philosophically formalized. You seem to be guilty of irrationally fearing philosophy just like those weak Christians who fear science.

Theist sometimes claim science is a faith thereby equating religion to science with the same validity. Repeatted exterminates that will always lead to the same result over time becomes accepted theory.

No. It is you that does not understand the charge. When an atheist reasons that science is the only source of knowledge then he guilty of turning science into another self-refuting philosophy or religion. AKA scientism. It is the scientism that is challenged not the science. You should learn the difference.

In the 90s there was a claim cold fusion was achieved, a potential energy source that would solve all energy problems. Within 48 horse it had been globally rejected, it could not be repeated. That is how sconce works.

I certainly do not deny that science can work that way but certainly not all science works that way. Now you are limiting science to only that which can be repeated. That is a bad philosophical position to hold for you just eliminated origin science, forensic science, cosmogony, and anthropology etc. I’m not all that sure you even know what science is. Ironically, I’m actually defending science against your poor brand of atheism.

Early humans figured out cooking meat was good, and how to make spers without math and the articulate language of today.

I’m not denying they did that, but have you seen that repeated in a lab under the same conditions?

Watch some of the shows on FOX News. Science at times is painted as a force intent on replacing religion with atheism. There is plenty of anti science in religion.

Fox news is presenting science as an evil force intent on replacing Christianity with atheism. Seriously? Until you can provide evidence rationally supporting that claim you have placed yourself on the loony list.

Now as to your charge of religion (specifically Christianity) being anti-science. It is nothing but a false charge until you can provide such evidence as well. In the context provided in my last post. Step up and make your case. Simple ranting does not a case make.

I read a book Guide For The Perplexed by a Rabbi Moses Maimonides written around the 12th century or so. In it he says when interpretation of scripture conflicts with observed sconce, interpretation must change. The issue of science as a threat goes far back.

Then have someone explain it to you. Really look at what you wrote. Science does not seem to be an enemy of Christianity at all. The Rabbi clearly stated that it was the interpretation that needs to change. Science can and does aid in interpretation of the scriptures.

A cosmology book I read had a short history of cosmology. Historically science has always been made to conform with the needs of religion and police powers.

Tell that to Galileo. He was a Christian and scientist that challenged the churches interpretation and the science of that time. Science won out. Did some in the Church oppose him, yes. Did you know that most of the scientific world reject it as well. But did you also realize that heliocentric theory was around for about a century prior to that and that many in the church encouraged the change of interpretation. I see cosmology as one of my strongest supports for theism. Next time try reading a longer one.

How can any reasonable person of any belief believe the Erath came into existence suddenly around 5000 years ago? An example, not opening discussion on creationism vs religion.

I told you no straw men. It is simply childish on your part to suggest all Christians hold to such views. This idea of a young earth is relatively new on the scene. Learn some history.
As to your provided example there………… WHAT? Is creationism now a science?

To the OP specifically how do you view science? All of it valid, most of it, some of it? Is the4re an intent and agenda to science as a whole?

Science is a developed philosophical structure of inquiry that we employ to investigate reality and obtain knowledge.

As to your query of validity I would reasonably conclude some to most. Now before you fly off on a tizzy allow me to extend my remarks. You provided no time parameter to your query. Historically, much of what we use to consider valid science is no longer valid. Do you deny?

 

[steve_bank]

On some of the FOX shows yes.

Evil atheists are out to take Christmas away from Christians and the like.

Anti science. Not evil so much but sconce as having an organized goal of subverting religion through debunking literal interpretations. . You must not have known a lot of Evangelicals and others. Science linked to atheism is a talking point for a number of Christians.

I read his biography. No science did not win out. Galileo remained a deep Catholic to the end which probably saved his life. He was undler house arrest and forbidden from teaching his theory. Others were executed for heresy, Bruno was one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Imprisonment,_trial_and_execution,_1593–1600

You can find the transcript of Galileo's heresy trial on line. In the late 20th century the Vatican saw fit to give Galileo a post mortem pardon.

Newton was Christian but held some views that could gave gotten him into trouble.

And in the 19th century the Scopes trial on evolution. If it was not biblical it did not get taught in schools. Evolution and science in public schools is still a contentious isuue with many Christians who want creationism taught along with evolution in science class.

 

[remez]

Watch some of the shows on FOX News. Science at times is painted as a force intent on replacing religion with atheism. There is plenty of anti science in religion.

Fox news is presenting science as an evil force intent on replacing Christianity with atheism. Seriously? Until you can provide evidence rationally supporting that claim you have placed yourself on the loony list.

On some of the FOX shows yes.

Evil atheists are out to take Christmas away from Christians and the like.

Seriously that is your evidence……
That is your evidence…… that Fox news presents science as an evil force to replace Christianity.
How middle school. And that is below loony.

Anti science. Not evil so much but sconce as having an organized goal of subverting religion through debunking literal interpretations. . You must not have known a lot of Evangelicals and others. Science linked to atheism is a talking point for a number of Christians.

I have conceded that many times. Just because there are some weak minded Christians out there does not prove the Christianity is less supported by science than atheism. I also know of some weak minded atheists that don’t really understand Natural Theology ….. does that mean atheism isn’t true. Grow up and stop arguing with and complaining about the children.

Step up and make your case that science better supports atheism. Your childish ranting about dumb Christians does not make your case. I’m beginning to think you actually believe that is your case. If so then you are no more reasonable than those whom you are bemoaning.

I read his biography. No science did not win out.

Oh Really?

Just how many scientists or theologians of today still advocate a geocentric model?

The rest of your rant of house arrest and not was simply conflating the geopolitical unrest of that time with the science. Our context is the science. And the science won out. You even quoted a Rabbi in your last post that told you that the interpretation should change. Your rant blinds you to even the evidence you provided.

Newton was Christian but held some views that could gave gotten him into trouble.

In trouble with what…..?...... Some misguided interpretation of scripture? Well if the science can clearly show where the interpretation is wrong then the interpretation is wrong. I, and many other, Christians have no problem with that.

There are some baby Christians that fear it's possible that science can prove Christianity wrong. I just tell them “As of yet that is just a scary tale told by atheists that can’t make their case. Actually my dear sweet little child the opposite is true. So learn all that you can so that you can rightly divide the truth.”

And in the 19th century the Scopes trial on evolution. If it was not biblical it did not get taught in schools. Evolution and science in public schools is still a contentious isuue with many Christians who want creationism taught along with evolution in science class.

Picking on the children again! Your portrayal of scopes lacks depth and reasoning, just another rant.

Your up-to-date reporting on evolution today needs some truthful editing. As you have it written above “Evolution and science in public schools is still a contentious isuue with many Christians who want creationism taught along with evolution in science class.”

Makes it sound like Christians don’t want science being taught. Christians have no problem with science being taught.

I have no problem with evolution being taught in science class as long as they are truthful with it. Evolution is the best natural explanation we have. And science by its philosophical construction can only consider natural explanations. Creationism is not a natural explanation and thus does not belong in the science curriculum. ID is a different issue all together? And if you are going to call ID creationism then you will have to make that case.

 

[steve_bank]

Given all of recorded history there is no defense of religion controlling truth to support a theology and agenda.

Haven't heard it in a while, In tall of the last century there have been many attempts by Christians to ban certain books from public library. In Catholic grammar school in the 50s I was told not to read a book unless it had the imprimatur, the papal seek of approval.

Until the 19th century and the end of the RCC political enforcement power with the rise of the Italian state, religion and science mixed. Along with the rise of modern empirical science that dispemsed with superstion.

In the 18th century Franklin's demonstration of lightning as a natural electrical phenomena caused a theological stir. Lighting came from above where heaven was, so if your barn got struck it was a sign from god. Some preached lightning rods were an abomination against god.

There are wasps that lay egged in live spiders. When they hatch they eat their way out of the live host. When it was observed in derail under a microscope, new technology then, in the late 19th century another theological crisis. How could god create such an abomination?

Scientific truth has always conflicted with theology.

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

I had a roommate in rehab who was a Christian who beloved his problem was caused by an evil spirit which he would cast out and get better. He would sit in ih e dark in his wheelchair and strike himself.

 

[Politesse]

Given all of recorded history there is no defense of religion controlling truth to support a theology and agenda.

Haven't heard it in a while, In tall of the last century there have been many attempts by Christians to ban certain books from public library. In Catholic grammar school in the 50s I was told not to read a book unless it had the imprimatur, the papal seek of approval.

Until the 19th century and the end of the RCC political enforcement power with the rise of the Italian state, religion and science mixed. Along with the rise of modern empirical science that dispemsed with superstion.

In the 18th century Franklin's demonstration of lightning as a natural electrical phenomena caused a theological stir. Lighting came from above where heaven was, so if your barn got struck it was a sign from god. Some preached lightning rods were an abomination against god.

There are wasps that lay egged in live spiders. When they hatch they eat their way out of the live host. When it was observed in derail under a microscope, new technology then, in the late 19th century another theological crisis. How could god create such an abomination?

Scientific truth has always conflicted with theology.

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

I had a roommate in rehab who was a Christian who beloved his problem was caused by an evil spirit which he would cast out and get better. He would sit in ih e dark in his wheelchair and strike himself.

Well, darn. We should have let you type out our opinions from the start. So learned. So piercing. Thank you for clarifying what we believe, we were so confused. I hate science now! Please, tell us more!!!

 

[remez]

Given all of recorded history there is no defense of religion controlling truth to support a theology and agenda.

Haven't heard it in a while, In tall of the last century there have been many attempts by Christians to ban certain books from public library. In Catholic grammar school in the 50s I was told not to read a book unless it had the imprimatur, the papal seek of approval.

Until the 19th century and the end of the RCC political enforcement power with the rise of the Italian state, religion and science mixed. Along with the rise of modern empirical science that dispemsed with superstion.

In the 18th century Franklin's demonstration of lightning as a natural electrical phenomena caused a theological stir. Lighting came from above where heaven was, so if your barn got struck it was a sign from god. Some preached lightning rods were an abomination against god.

There are wasps that lay egged in live spiders. When they hatch they eat their way out of the live host. When it was observed in derail under a microscope, new technology then, in the late 19th century another theological crisis. How could god create such an abomination?

Scientific truth has always conflicted with theology.

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

I had a roommate in rehab who was a Christian who beloved his problem was caused by an evil spirit which he would cast out and get better. He would sit in ih e dark in his wheelchair and strike himself.

Have a Merry Christmas
and
Happy New Year

 

[steve_bank]

Given all of recorded history there is no defense of religion controlling truth to support a theology and agenda.

Haven't heard it in a while, In tall of the last century there have been many attempts by Christians to ban certain books from public library. In Catholic grammar school in the 50s I was told not to read a book unless it had the imprimatur, the papal seek of approval.

Until the 19th century and the end of the RCC political enforcement power with the rise of the Italian state, religion and science mixed. Along with the rise of modern empirical science that dispemsed with superstion.

In the 18th century Franklin's demonstration of lightning as a natural electrical phenomena caused a theological stir. Lighting came from above where heaven was, so if your barn got struck it was a sign from god. Some preached lightning rods were an abomination against god.

There are wasps that lay egged in live spiders. When they hatch they eat their way out of the live host. When it was observed in derail under a microscope, new technology then, in the late 19th century another theological crisis. How could god create such an abomination?

Scientific truth has always conflicted with theology.

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

I had a roommate in rehab who was a Christian who beloved his problem was caused by an evil spirit which he would cast out and get better. He would sit in ih e dark in his wheelchair and strike himself.

Have a Merry Christmas
and
Happy New Year

Have a merry time enjoying gluttony and immersion in gross materialism as a celebration of the offspring of a god. Sounds like a Greek or Roman thing.

The original birthday celebration of Jesus was moved to December to compete with a pagan winter celebration. So, have a merry Xmas, yes. A somber spiritual rebalance of the savior of humanity who scuffed horribly for our sins, not so much.

 

[steve_bank]

Given all of recorded history there is no defense of religion controlling truth to support a theology and agenda.

Haven't heard it in a while, In tall of the last century there have been many attempts by Christians to ban certain books from public library. In Catholic grammar school in the 50s I was told not to read a book unless it had the imprimatur, the papal seek of approval.

Until the 19th century and the end of the RCC political enforcement power with the rise of the Italian state, religion and science mixed. Along with the rise of modern empirical science that dispemsed with superstion.

In the 18th century Franklin's demonstration of lightning as a natural electrical phenomena caused a theological stir. Lighting came from above where heaven was, so if your barn got struck it was a sign from god. Some preached lightning rods were an abomination against god.

There are wasps that lay egged in live spiders. When they hatch they eat their way out of the live host. When it was observed in derail under a microscope, new technology then, in the late 19th century another theological crisis. How could god create such an abomination?

Scientific truth has always conflicted with theology.

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

I had a roommate in rehab who was a Christian who beloved his problem was caused by an evil spirit which he would cast out and get better. He would sit in ih e dark in his wheelchair and strike himself.

Well, darn. We should have let you type out our opinions from the start. So learned. So piercing. Thank you for clarifying what we believe, we were so confused. I hate science now! Please, tell us more!!!

Point taken. I will step back if could articulate your view of the history of Christianity and its suppression and twisting of truth to meet the needs of a theology.

You have the podium.

 

[Rhea]

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

.

Indeed. According to a poll only 2 years ago,

people who believe earth was made as-is less than 10K years ago:
Protestants = 50%
Catholics = 37%

... and that is a new low for the poll.

That is a LOT of people to encounter every day. They are not an extreme group, or a tiny corner of christianity. In the US they are the majority on many school boards. they are trying on purpose to affect education against science.

 

[Toni]

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

.

Indeed. According to a poll only 2 years ago,

people who believe earth was made as-is less than 10K years ago:
Protestants = 50%
Catholics = 37%

... and that is a new low for the poll.

That is a LOT of people to encounter every day. They are not an extreme group, or a tiny corner of christianity. In the US they are the majority on many school boards. they are trying on purpose to affect education against science.

I live in a fairly religious town with the dominant faiths being Catholicism and Lutheran. There's a pretty hefty sprinkling of some fundamentalists as well and a hand full of Jews and of Muslims.

So far, I have yet to see anyone on the school board try to suppress science education or to steer it into or towards creationism. Period. I don't anymore but for a bunch of years, I attended every school board meeting. This is a small enough place that school board minutes are published in local news papers and I generally know at least half the board at any given town. Nearby towns with their own school districts are similar. Really religious people send their kids to Catholic or Lutheran schools. Really anti-education people home school their kids, as do some whose kids are just much, much smarter than the school curriculum (they publish the names and photos and schools /no school of National Merit winners so I'm not making shit up here).

Obviously, the fundamentalist anti science school board member is a stereotype that is dead on accurate in some places, but it is not nearly as universal as some like to assume.

 

[steve_bank]

Today many Christians belive in a young Earth despite overweelming evidence to the contrary. The last major remaing dispute is evolution vs creation.

.

Indeed. According to a poll only 2 years ago,

people who believe earth was made as-is less than 10K years ago:
Protestants = 50%
Catholics = 37%

... and that is a new low for the poll.

That is a LOT of people to encounter every day. They are not an extreme group, or a tiny corner of christianity. In the US they are the majority on many school boards. they are trying on purpose to affect education against science.

I live in a fairly religious town with the dominant faiths being Catholicism and Lutheran. There's a pretty hefty sprinkling of some fundamentalists as well and a hand full of Jews and of Muslims.

So far, I have yet to see anyone on the school board try to suppress science education or to steer it into or towards creationism. Period. I don't anymore but for a bunch of years, I attended every school board meeting. This is a small enough place that school board minutes are published in local news papers and I generally know at least half the board at any given town. Nearby towns with their own school districts are similar. Really religious people send their kids to Catholic or Lutheran schools. Really anti-education people home school their kids, as do some whose kids are just much, much smarter than the school curriculum (they publish the names and photos and schools /no school of National Merit winners so I'm not making shit up here).

Obviously, the fundamentalist anti science school board member is a stereotype that is dead on accurate in some places, but it is not nearly as universal as some like to assume.

try searching on Kansas creationism evolution, it was a focal point of the legal battles.

A few yers ago I looked at the websites of the major sects in the USA. There seemed to be a trend toward fittibng evolution into theology as part of god's plan.

In the 90s the pope made a somewhat wek stement that evolution may be part of god's plan.

Here in Washington in the 90s conservative Christians pushed a bill that would require disclaimer stickers in all public school science texts essentially saying there are other explanations are for reality.

I actually exchanged emails with the author and was prepared to debate him personally.

The bill never got of committee.

You can also look at the Discovery Institute site here in Seattle. Home of the Intelligent Design theory of human creation. A very slick looking pseudo science religious site.

 

[Toni]

I live in a fairly religious town with the dominant faiths being Catholicism and Lutheran. There's a pretty hefty sprinkling of some fundamentalists as well and a hand full of Jews and of Muslims.

So far, I have yet to see anyone on the school board try to suppress science education or to steer it into or towards creationism. Period. I don't anymore but for a bunch of years, I attended every school board meeting. This is a small enough place that school board minutes are published in local news papers and I generally know at least half the board at any given town. Nearby towns with their own school districts are similar. Really religious people send their kids to Catholic or Lutheran schools. Really anti-education people home school their kids, as do some whose kids are just much, much smarter than the school curriculum (they publish the names and photos and schools /no school of National Merit winners so I'm not making shit up here).

Obviously, the fundamentalist anti science school board member is a stereotype that is dead on accurate in some places, but it is not nearly as universal as some like to assume.

try searching on Kansas creationism evolution, it was a focal point of the legal battles.

A few yers ago I looked at the websites of the major sects in the USA. There seemed to be a trend toward fittibng evolution into theology as part of god's plan.

In the 90s the pope made a somewhat wek stement that evolution may be part of god's plan.

Here in Washington in the 90s conservative Christians pushed a bill that would require disclaimer stickers in all public school science texts essentially saying there are other explanations are for reality.

I actually exchanged emails with the author and was prepared to debate him personally.

The bill never got of committee.

You can also look at the Discovery Institute site here in Seattle. Home of the Intelligent Design theory of human creation. A very slick looking pseudo science religious site.

I’m aware that there are groups that actively refute evolution and science in general and that those groups hold tremendous sway in some places.

My post was merely to offer that not all religious people or religious groups are science deniers. In fact I know some very devout Christians who work in science and scientific fields.

 

[Rhea]

My post was merely to offer that not all religious people or religious groups are science deniers. In fact I know some very devout Christians who work in science and scientific fields.

That's an interesting manifestation, isn't it. There are a LOT of fundamentalists in engineering, including young-earthers. It's weird. They use science every day and then turn it off when they think they are in a non-science realm and ignore all that they really do know. Not sure if you've ever met one, but it's downright vertiginous.