|
|
Yes, and those Christians have slaughtered tens of millions of "unbelievers" over the centuries. Hitler had nothing on the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to body count.
Actually, no. Mainly because there weren't tens of millions of people in the world where the christians had influence. However, Between Hitler and Stalin, the godless leaders of the 20th century sure proved that lack of religion is no panacea, either.
Its not for back talking.
"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death"
Is the actual quote ( new international version ( 1984 ) ).
And it was a restriction. In otherwords, okay, you can put someone to death for cursing their mother or father, but not for just back talking. And by cursing they don't mean f*ck you. They mean calling down God to go after them.
"Most Christian sects have no problems with Darwin or evolution" - read up on the recent Republican candidates thoughts and quotes and then you'll rethink that statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Teaching_of_evolution_and_intelligent_design
Mitt Romney "“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe, and I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”
See, even non-Christians believe in evolution
There's always a virtual machine. Still not a great solution but keeps you from having to reboot just to watch a movie.
His fatal mistake is to assume that creationists care about evidence.
Of course, those evolutionary scientists supporting the some 30 odd current theories of evolution might dispute or question various types of evidence, too. The study of evolution is not some nice and tidy field.
There is a group of people who do not care about the evidence - the Bible says so, so there it is. That's not going to change just because you amass more evidence.
On the other hand, there are a group of people who believe in God who also believe evolution was the method God used to create all of the different kinds of life we see. That is not something you can prove or disprove, therefore it's not in the realm of science. In other words, you want people to keep their religions hands off science, great. Keep your scientific hands off God. They don't have to be mortal enemies.
You probably don't really want religion to keep its hands of science. The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental private funder of the sciences. That is religion funding a lot of research. I am not a Catholic, but not everyone who admits to having a belief in God is anti-science. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Most "religious scientists" that I've heard about believe that either 1) God set it in motion and then let it go or 2) God set it in motion and then subtly influenced everything thereafter. Very few of them take the Bible at its most literal - God created everything 6 thousand years ago, etc.
No scientist, religious or otherwise takes the bible literally. You have to remember that even that Catholic Church (Latin and Eastern), the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion all except evolution. It is only a small minority group of "Christians" who take the story of creation literally instead of how it was meant to be: As an explanation to a primitive people on how they go there. Not as a scientific discourse.
As I mentioned in another post, the Bible also talks about the four corners of the world, but fundamentalist Christians who believe the world is only 6,000 years old, accept that it is round instead of square. So, if one part can be an allegory, why can't another?
Meh, God just plaed all that there to test our faith... The denial will continue.
Or God is simply testing our sense of reason that we were imbued with when we were created in His image. For instance, when in the Bible God talks about the four corners of the earth, surely He knew that he had made it round. Or is that another just testing our faith?
The debate over evolution should've been history a century ago.
When a segment of the population refuses to accept scientific evidence, how is more of such evidence going to convince them?
Why should it have been over a century ago. We now know that conceptually Darwin was right, but much of what he said, at least what is called Darwinism is no longer accepted by mainstream evolutionary scientists. It has been the discovery of DNA that has really led to leaps in evolutionary science. That tool was not available to Darwin, just like modern quantum theory wasn't available to Bohr.
If the massive load of evidence collected since Darwin wasn't enough (with ERVs being the clincher, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI), it will never be enough because people just shut it out.
Religion is there because it makes you feel good (if you have the ability to fall for it). However baseless, that is a tremendously powerful force in a shitty world. So, as long as people don't want to have their illusion challenged, they'll oppose it with all the denial they can muster.
Bert
As some guy said once: You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts
Actually, modern DNA analysis is showing a lot of what Darwin had categorized is incorrect. But the massive amount of modern evidence for evolution is overwhelming. You should also remember that not all religions are opposed to evolution. The Catholic Church, for one, accepts it. It's important to remember that just as there are a number of evolutionary theories, there are a number of theologies, too. It wouldn't be correct to lump each group into one.
Imagine what we can imagine! -- Arthur Rubinstein