|
BlindUnknown -> RE: The Republican Debate. (5/5/2007 11:30:23 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
Frequently too many people go for this battle between science and religion. My college biology teacher said something very important that I still remember, "the goal of science is not to disprove religion, the goal is to discover the truth."
Remember that even Charles Darwin was a christian all the way to his death. He still believed there was a god. The Big Bang theory was actually first proposed by a catholic priest in Belgium in the mid 1920s.
For all we know, god guided the Big Bang. God guided evolution of life. If you assume evolution is true, you still cannot prove that god in whatever form does not exist. Science may be able to prove parts of the bible as wrong....but science cannot, as of yet, prove or disprove that god exists.
Me? I have no horse in this race. I'm agnostic. I do not practice a religion nor do I worship a god. But I do believe in the POSSIBILITY that a god does exist. I also believe in the possibility that god does not exist. Neither science nor religion has given me enough information or proof for me to make a decision either way.
Not to pull this too far off-topic....but i can't resist =P
Most of the early scientists were religious. Darwin, Haley, even up to Einstein. The purpose of science to these men was to use science as a means of finding truth, and, arguably, as a means of showing the existence of God indirectly by proving how mathematically perfect this world is.
Then the 1930s and 1940s happened when quantum mechanics arrived, and Einstein made his famous statement upon first hearing it; "God doesn't throw dice."
The problem with modern science is that it's a religion and doesn't even acknowledge it. It also has issues accepting the fact that it has its roots in magic (Pythagorus? mage, it was said he could walk on water and turn invisible. Newton? alchemist).
The problem with "creationists" or "intelligent designers" or whatever they're calling themselves this week is that they are poorly organized, and do a horrible job of persuasion. They also haven't figured out that being an intelligent designer doesn't mean you can't believe in evolution (and i quote the great South Park; "Can't evolution be the answer to -how-, and not the answer to -why-?).
I hate both sides equally in this issue ^_^ Okay, sorry to pull off topic
|
|
|
|
