Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugur
But tying this evolution to random natural events rather than to addition of genetic information by a conscious intelligence is a philosophical, ideological assumption and need not define science. It is not an "empirically established fact" either. I know this is not what most scientists want to say, but I have the right to disagree, pointing at the mentality and bias that is antagonistic to religion, that dominated the universities and the scientific community of the modern period. This mentality prevents these people from keeping scientifically objective about anything and everything, especially regarding an ideologically very hot and serious point of debate.
|
See I don't think that what you described is what defines science. It may sometimes define a scientific community (which is made up of people, fully open to bias and prejudice). But I don't even see this in this case... even if some scientists display a casual arrogance towards the suggestion that God has anything to do with it. That has nothing to do with the science - which simply describes what can be observed and tested, leaving broader interpretations open.
Quite frankly I couldn't care less if Christians don't believe in dinosaurs, or if the Cree believe we were created from the Earth Mother and the Thunderbird. Really I only have a problem with it when people decide that those observations and ideas that come from them contravene their religious sensibilities and demand their own version (not based on science) be taught to kids in school. Or when people call others 'stupid' for believing their own thing.
I don't want any church member or otherwise teaching my kids their own version of 'science', nor do I want a scientist teaching them that God doesn't exist based on something that doesn't resemble science either.