Perfect summary of the science vs. religion debate.

[cleanhippie]

You be the judge...

[DCBob]

1. nice.

The last comment should be I dont care what it is. The box is right.

[MarkCharles]

2. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Recommend!

I wonder if anyone here is already "offended" by this cartoon series.

[rug]

28. As a matter of fact, yes.

But this morning a raging flame war exploded in a thread about a cute bunny cartoon. The bunny who is the voice of religion is wearing a dress; the practical bunny playing the role of science wears pants. Some people said it’s sexist; some people said it wasn’t. And then the war was launched.

This is the WRONG BATTLE.

Are you really fighting for the right for the cute bunny in the dress in a cartoon to not be the religious one? I have never seen feminism reduced to such appalling depths of triviality as I have in that thread. I am literally embarrassed to see a 300+-comment thread erupt over this inanity, and to see it begin in only the second comment to the thread…it’s ridiculous.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/24/sometimes-a-bunny-is-just-a-bunny/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29

Touchy folk at Pharyngula.

[darkstar3]

30. Unable to counter or stomach the point, someone finds a nit to pick to start a flame war.

Yup, it's a message board.

[rug]

33. Interesting little thread.

2. Crys T says:
24 November 2011 at 7:38 am
Please tell me that in the above, it isn’t the little girl rabbit who is brainlessly insisting on believing the box whereas the intelligent little boy rabbit bravely insist on working out the solution for himself.

Because that would truly suck.

.
.
.

344. PZ Myers says:
24 November 2011 at 2:36 pm
Closing thread. Here’s a new one to inflame offended sensibilities.

I’m exasperated.

[darkstar3]

34. Playing fast and loose with the word interesting, aren't you?

[rug]

35. There are many other applicable adjectives but I'll leave it there.

[Kali]

3. evolution vs creationism debate

not the science vs religion debate (which I would argue can't really happen as they are two totally different things)

plenty of religious/spiritual people accept science just fine

it's the fundamentalist nut jobs that are blinded by their faith

[rug]

7. Shhhh, the house of cards may fall.

[MarkCharles]

8. Religion tends to stifle scientific inquiry and discovery, for no reason

The "two totally different things" are actually quite inter-related in the history of civilization.

It's not simply "evolution vs creationism" at all. It's a heliocentric universe versus religious dogma, it's faith healing versus state of the art medical intervention, it's a government based upon laws from common ethics and moral standards versus a government based upon some religious belief system, and so much more. The list goes on and on as to how some people go to "the box" to find and proclaim the answers, versus using their mind and perceptions to figure out the truth.

[rug]

9. How did Mendel resolve evolutionism vs creationism?

[MarkCharles]

12. I think you're well read enough to know that Mendel, himself, never...

professed to "resolve evolutionism versus creationism "

Even if you were using more precise and accurate English scientific terminology , (i.e., how did Mendel resolve the evolution theory with the creationist myth), Gregor Mendel had little to do with that resolution. Mendel investigated the concepts of biological inheritance, generation to generation, in living things, mostly in the pea plant. Through that, the theory of genetics was proposed and later substantiated with evidence from Mendel and thousands of others. Thousands of other experiments and millions of observations from literally thousands of living organisms, aided later by a theory (inexact as it may have been) proposed by Darwin, led to our current almost completed puzzle perspective of the scientific facts of evolution in living things.

If some believers choose to continue to believe in the creation myth as part of their reasoning to refute modern science, that is up to them. They won't get jobs in the field of genetics research, astronomy, geology, medicine, physics, or biochemistry, microbiology, immunology, (to name just a few of many fields contributing to the science of evolution), by insisting that the creation picture on the Biblical box top is factual.

Edited to add, OH WAIT, you brought up Gregor Mendel because he was a Monk!!! Oh, THAT's what you're aiming at! Tell us how the Pope treated Galileo's great discoveries and we can talk.

[rug]

13. His religion impeded none of that.

To the contrary, his monastery materially supported it.

And I do no4 think we disagree that genetics is the mechanism of evolution.

[Kali]

11. True, religion tends to stifle a LOT of things, not just science.

On the other hand science and religion are not by definition mutually exclusive. What I meant by totally different was science and the scientific method is completely different from faith. Faith only requires personal feelings or philosophy. Science has much stricter requirements based on observable evidence. To me there can really be no debate between the two. They are different "languages" of the human mind.

You are correct about the other examples you gave, not just evolution vs. creationism. I grabbed that as the biggest obvious "debate" that gets attention. But yes woo healing and other things would be relevant.

[rfranklin]

4. So you are saying we should think "out of the box"

not off of the box?

[WillyT]

5. K & R !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:kick:

[rug]

6. Those bunnies must be stuffed with straw.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msongs]

10. did u see the video of the octopus walking on land? evolution in progress in real video --->

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/video-octopus-crawls-water-walks-dry-land-150510810.html

[MarkCharles]

14. NOT "evolution in progress", more accurately "adaptation to environment" with

currently available traits.

It is not known if Octopus folks have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years, whenever an adverse condition forced them to do so, or if some Octopus folks just like to do this, like some of us like to stand on our head once in a while, but we have no real reason to do so for survival purposes under adverse conditions, but we all could learn to do so if we needed to.


What octopus shows is rarely observed behavior, but not at all some new species or subspecies.

[patrice]

15. Though this Jesuit author was ordered by a Pope NOT to write about Religion anymore, here's another

perspective on this topic:

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_heart_of_matter.html?id=Hi7XAAAAMAAJ

[humblebum]

16. Probable summary? Yes. Perfect summary? No.

The Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution as do I. The conflict is with how it all began. Christians and other religions reason, "God did it." Atheists reason, "It was just always there." As far as I know, there is no objective, empirical proof of either conclusion.

[skepticscott]

17. You're still under the ridiculous misconception

that science is about proving things. It isn't. Of course, you've shown in multiple exchanges that you have no clue what it IS about, so you keep tossing out the silly straw man "science can't PROVE this!". And you're also either clueless or incredibly dishonest of how atheists and other rational people regard evolution. We reason that there is no need and no reason supported by objective evidence (as opposed to emotional insecurity or religious dogma) to invoke "god" to explain anything about the way life on earth appears to us.

[humblebum]

19. And you are still under the misconception that religious belief excludes science.

Your opinion is shaped by your obvious prejudice against religious adherents.

You say "... that there is no need and no reason supported by objective evidence (as opposed to emotional insecurity or religious dogma) to invoke "god" to explain anything about the way life on earth appears to us." We say say that there is. Simple as that. That does not change the physical existence of anything, but merely the differences in speculative opinion of how it all began.

And, you certainly are confirming my contention that atheism has little or no regard for truly free thought. Somehow, that statement that "it was just there" doesn't ring true with some of us.

[skepticscott]

21. Except that the statement "it was just there" is something you made up

The very good reason that statement doesn't ring true is that it is a falsehood, invented by you. As is your attribution to me of the notion that "religious belief excludes science". We both know that you can't cite anywhere where I've said anything to that effect. Nor can you cite any rational reasons why "god" MUST be invoked to explain aspects of life on earth, and I expect you'll go through all sorts of contortions avoiding doing either.

And yes, you clearly DON'T understand what science is about. Nor what meaningful and useful "free thought" is. But I'll give you a hint..."free thought" is NOT about giving all notions, all ideas and all explanations equal credence forever, with no regard for the relative weight of evidence supporting them.

[humblebum]

23. So you are telling me that no scientist has ever made the statement that

the Universe has always existed (aka "It was just there")? you have a habit of accusing me of making up statements that I have indeed heard stated.

"And yes, you clearly DON'T understand what science is about. Nor what meaningful and useful 'free thought' is." - It's obvious that "free thought" means something different to me than it does you. I believe in free thought = no boundaries. Your idea = boundaries. That's the difference. Nowhere did I ever claim that all ideas have equal credibility. And never have said that "god" must be invoked.

[skepticscott]

24. And you have a habit of claiming that things have been said

but never providing ANY evidence for it. And of moving the goalposts for your bogus claims (as you did here).

And you must think everyone here is blind, or can't cut and paste. Otherwise, why would you say just above:


You say "... that there is no need and no reason supported by objective evidence (as opposed to emotional insecurity or religious dogma) to invoke "god" to explain anything about the way life on earth appears to us." We say say that there is.

And now: And never have said that "god" must be invoked.

We're done here. I can only stomach so much blatant intellectual dishonesty in one thread, and all the rational people here have seen yours.

[humblebum]

27. Carl Sagan:

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, WHY NOT SAVE A STEP AND CONCLUDE THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED? - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257

[cleanhippie]

18. I cannot figure out how you can be so wrong, as evidenced by the actual words you post

and then claim that you are not wrong.

Atheists reason, "It was just always there."

That may be SOME atheists conclusion based on the evidence that does NOT support any religious claim, but mosts atheists claim to NOT KNOW.

This is just another weak, and failed, attempt to try and equivocate the religious claim as being just as reasonable as the NON-claim made by NON-believers.


Jeesh, bum, you dishonesty and trickery is really becoming more and more blatant.

[humblebum]

20. "just as reasonable as the NON-claim made by NON-believers."

It is.

[Leontius]

25. Have you noticed that they always seem to have the same

or such a close line of argument, always picking up on the same phrasing by each " independent poster", it's almost like a collective intelligence out of some science fiction story. It's actually kinda creepy.

[darkstar3]

32. Logic, like mathematics, is often deterministic.

[humblebum]

36. I think such a mountain of blather this late at night can be harmful to your health. nt

[darkstar3]

37. And I think you might need an English lesson.

[humblebum]

38. That's determinism. nt

[cleanhippie]

29. No it's not.

If it is, then my claim that sherbet rains down when conditions are right is also just as reasonable.

[MarkCharles]

22. If you thought the OP cartoons were ONLY about ...

a science of evolution versus a creation myth, sorry you missed the other points where the religious claim the picture on the box is the only correct one, and where science has so often conclusively shown that picture not to be anywhere near the facts.

Let's start with heavenly bodies revolving around the planet Earth, to the myths about physical illness, mental illness, or the nature of sepsis and antisepsis, and go on from there.

Time and time again, religious folks have claimed that the picture from the their Bible box cover was the correct one, only to be shown so much in that picture to be inaccurate or outright wrong.

Catching onto a pattern here? NO?

Just re-read the title of the thread, "science versus religion"; NOT evolution versus creationism.

Try widening the horizons to take in the whole picture and the actual words on the web page.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

26. Where has science said "it was just always there."?

And, if there's no (in your words), "objective, empirical proof of either conclusion", why do you continue to believe in a god for which you admit there is no evidence?