A religious scientist

Originally posted by freightdog37
I understand the scientific process just fine, thank you. The problem I have is when Evolution is taught as scietific fact, not theory.

Evolution is a scientific fact: species evolve over time. This has been observed in the wild as well as in the lab. Compare with Gravity. Gravity is a scientific fact: things fall to the ground.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution. Campare again with the Theory of Gravity (first Newtons and then Einsteins refinements) which explain the fact of gravity.

I would hope that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is taught in science classes in the same way as the Theory of Gravity. And I would also hope that Creationism is not taught in science classes since it does not explain the fact of evolution.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
But which religion to choose? There are so many! How do I distinguish the True one from the thousands of false ones when they all have the same level of evidence to support them?

--- Penguin

But which religion to choose?
You erroneously offer two choices: the fallacy that life as we know it evolved or any number of religious views. I submit there exists an option unencumbered by religion and unsullied by human secularist thinking.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But which religion to choose?
You erroneously offer two choices: the fallacy that life as we know it evolved or any number of religious views. I submit there exists an option unencumbered by religion and unsullied by human secularist thinking.[/b]

Which is?

Originally posted by Starrman
Which is?

The perspective offered by Genesis.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The perspective offered by Genesis.

How is that unencumbered by religion?

Originally posted by Starrman
How is that unencumbered by religion?

It requires no work on the part of man: it is God telling man what life is about, not the other way around.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It requires no work on the part of man: it is God telling man what life is about, not the other way around.

Umm... Assuming that what you're getting at is that religion is a man-made institution, you're still up a creek without a paddle. The Genesis story is just that, a story: a work of man, inspird by God or not. No claim to God's presence as being unencumbered by religion can exist within a claim that presupposes the presence of religion as yours does. Even if you say it's the essence of the Genesis story that's important, in an attempt to step away from the religion boundary you're in trouble, since now you're talking metaphorically about the origins of life and not actually doing anythign concrete with the subject.

If you're not intending to follow the religion is man-made thing you're being obtuse and you'll need to explain further.

Originally posted by Starrman
Umm... Assuming that what you're getting at is that religion is a man-made institution, you're still up a creek without a paddle. The Genesis story is just that, a story: a work of man, inspird by God or not. No claim to God's presence as being unencumbered by religion can exist within a claim that presupposes the presence of religion as yours does. Eve ...[text shortened]... the religion is man-made thing you're being obtuse and you'll need to explain further.

No, I hold that religion is man-made, and as such, fails to pass even basic thresholds of factual necessities. All religions created by man contain semblances of truth, but they also contain the varying acts which must be executed in order for man to gain God's (or gods'😉approbation.

Alone and apart from religion is the perspective offered by the Bible. Here, man can do nothing to gain the approbation of the living God. No act, no sacrifice, no work.

The correct view does not equate any action from God as necessarily religious. Were that the case, the histrocity of Jesus Christ would be impossible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I hold that religion is man-made, and as such, fails to pass even basic thresholds of factual necessities. All religions created by man contain semblances of truth, but they also contain the varying acts which must be executed in order for man to gain God's (or gods'😉approbation.

Alone and apart from religion is the perspective offered by the Bible ...[text shortened]... ecessarily religious. Were that the case, the histrocity of Jesus Christ would be impossible.

The bible is very much a part of religion, it was written, re-written, reversioned, affirmed and conjoined by man. It is man-made. Whilst I agree that the correct view should not equate any action from God as necessarily religious, you cannot escape the fact that the bible is necessarily religious (presupposing an agreement on the man-made fashion of religion) and therefore your Genesis claim is as in the dock as any of the other claims against a secular view.

Originally posted by Starrman
The bible is very much a part of religion, it was written, re-written, reversioned, affirmed and conjoined by man. It is man-made. Whilst I agree that the correct view should not equate any action from God as necessarily religious, you cannot escape the fact that the bible is necessarily religious (presupposing an agreement on the man-made fashion of reli ...[text shortened]... herefore your Genesis claim is as in the dock as any of the other claims against a secular view.

While the Bible indeed was written via an agency of man, even if one were to discard it's impetus (i.e., God-breathed), one is still left with the uniqueness of it's message: man cannot by man's effort gain the approbation of God. Thusly, all religion is eliminated.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While the Bible indeed was written via an agency of man, even if one were to discard it's impetus (i.e., God-breathed), one is still left with the uniqueness of it's message: man cannot by man's effort gain the approbation of God. Thusly, all religion is eliminated.

A quick Google on "define:religion" brings up around 30 definitions, all essentially defining religion as a framework of belief in the supernatural. The Genesis story is a super-naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe. So it does not eliminate religion in any way.

So my original question of which of the thousands of religions, past and present (and no doubt future) I should chose to believe has not been answered.

The options are still of a naturalistic explanation of the universe based entirely on objective evidence verses any one of a huge number of religions, all claiming truth with no objective evidence to back any of them up.

As a reasonably educated and intelligent person (I think you described me as coming across as such) I see no contest here.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While the Bible indeed was written via an agency of man, even if one were to discard it's impetus (i.e., God-breathed), one is still left with the uniqueness of it's message: man cannot by man's effort gain the approbation of God. Thusly, all religion is eliminated.

What do you mean by "the uniqueness of its message"? How does "the uniqueness of its message" eliminate religion? I don't follow you at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What do you mean by "the uniqueness of its message"? How does "the uniqueness of its message" eliminate religion? I don't follow you at all.

This reminds me of the thread where he tried to force mechanic materialism but couldn't get anyne to agree with his premises. 200 posts of nothing.

Originally posted by Penguin
A quick Google on "define:religion" brings up around 30 definitions, all essentially defining religion as a framework of belief in the supernatural. The Genesis story is a super-naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe. So it does not eliminate religion in any way.

So my original question of which of the thousands of religions, past and ...[text shortened]... rson (I think you described me as coming across as such) I see no contest here.

--- Penguin

I do not dispute the common use of the word; instead I refer to the actual meaning of the word. Of course, you understand that distinction. The word's connotations refer to 'binding or fastening to' of one thing to another, in this case, man to God. Essentially, this is what all religions promise: adhere to this set of conduct and/or observances, and said aherent is assured the approbation of God.

This is precisely what the Bible does not depict, thus religion is eliminated. Limiting the meaning of the word to its common usage, i.e., "beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," makes a fairly iron-clad case for labeling evolution a religion, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What do you mean by "the uniqueness of its message"? How does "the uniqueness of its message" eliminate religion? I don't follow you at all.

See above response to Penguin.