Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It's Science AND Religion, not Science OR Relig (Score 1) 672

by joshd (#39647551) Attached to: Tennessee "Teaching the Controversy" Bill Becomes Law

Evolution is purposefully set up to disprove that there needs to be a creator.

This is my point exactly. This is not something evolution can do.
Now, I believe evolution can disprove literal 6-day, 6000y/o earth creationism, for sure. But there's more than one way to understand the Genesis creation narrative. Even before evolution was known, many theologians questioned the literal interpretation of Genesis (e.g., Augustine). When Darwin published Origin of Species, many Christians actually got on board with it. Today, the Catholic Church's unofficial position on evolution is one of acceptance. (They have actually put a lot of thought into it, and what it means for their theology, unlike most conservative evangelicals).

Understanding Genesis in a different light (i.e., that it tells us about who God is and his relationship to us, rather than a literal narrative of historical events) frees people to accept what science has to say about the world around us. Science should be left to what it does best - how the world around us operates, and how it came to be. Leave religion to answer the questions of purpose. That's not something science can answer, and if you think it can, you're not doing science.

Comment: It's Science AND Religion, not Science OR Religion (Score 1) 672

by joshd (#39646317) Attached to: Tennessee "Teaching the Controversy" Bill Becomes Law

Why can't they create a law that upholds *both* religious liberty and reasoned, scientific enquiry?
As much as some conservative Christians don't want to hear it, evolution has a LOT of scientific evidence that backs it, and only the stupid, ignorant or uninformed people deny this.
However - if evolution is true - does this disprove God? No it doesn't. I don't think science can prove OR disprove God. I would guess that a lot of the evolutionary science taught in classrooms comes with this assertion that it does, even if it is only implied. Allowing scientific claims to be made about the existence (or not) of God, as well as the lack of purpose to the human existence - I feel this goes beyond what science is capable of, and in doing so, I think people who make these claims are just as bad as those who want creationism taught as a science.
Beliefs of a religous nature are on a totally different plane to science - I don't see them interacting the way that many in this Creation/Evolution debate do.
I really think science/religion can be a both/and question, not an either/or.
(And yes - I am a Christian, and I do believe in evolution - creationism is not science, and should not be taught that way).

Comment: I don't get it... (Score 1) 494

by joshd (#39283041) Attached to: The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners

I don't get why they choose to implement this technology at the larger airports, and tell us this will make us "safer".
If you had any contraband that only these new scanners could detect, why wouldn't you just get a connecting flight from one of the hundreds of smaller airports around the country that do not use these scanners? Doesn't it really have to be all-or-none to actually be "safer"???

Comment: Here's a thought. (Score 1) 570

by joshd (#38412208) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Most Efficient, Worthwhile Charity?

Try this suggestion: Why not invest a bit of your time along with some of your money?
In every city in the western world, there's homeless people. Go find one. But don't just give him (or her) money.
Start talking to him. Tell him you want to take him out for a meal, you'll pay. Find out more about his story, where he's from, and how he ended up on the street.
I'm not saying become friends with the guy, but by merely investing a small amount of time, you'll get some insight as to what some of these people on the street really do face, you'll come away from it with a better sense of fulfilment knowing that your money has been spent well, with a greater understanding and increased concern for an issue like this that is right on our doorstep, and a realization that homeless people are really not that much different from you and I.
Just a thought.

Comment: Religion & Science - mutually exclusive (Score 1) 775

by joshd (#37155464) Attached to: Teacher Cannot Be Sued For Denying Creationism

Okay. So I believe in the existance of God. Yes - I'm a Christian.
I also believe in evolution by means of natural selection. The universe began around 13 billion years ago, and humans have evolved from much lower life forms into what we have today. I don't believe you need to use the existence of God to explain the origins of the universe. I also am not a fan of ID theories.
That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I don't believe science can prove or disprove the existence of God. Not all phenomena in our world are scientifically provable/verifiable/quantifiable.

Is this not what science wants? To be free from any religious influences? Is it fair to ask the same thing of science from religion?
I know this is really simplifying things in a lot of ways, but can't these two be mutually exclusive?

Comment: Re:As the parent of a 1 year old. I say good luck (Score 1) 888

by joshd (#30574272) Attached to: TSA Wants You To Keep Your Seat, and Your Hands In Sight

Agreed. What's the bet that some time in the near future we'll have such measures of stupidity put in place in Australia just like they do in the US?

I think security at domestic Australian airports is fantastic - you don't get treated like a criminal. We can still keep our shoes on. We are still allowed to take bottles of water or any other liquid with us. People who are not travelling are still allowed access through security to the departure gates. So much less of a hassle!

I do a fair bit of flying to the US, and it's measures like this that just piss me off.

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...