Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The article on the jw.org website explains, why higher education is not considered the recommended choice, and it explained that education is very important. So apparently, it seems you don't care what the article said - you ignore it, and believe... what you want to - which is not truth.

I have been convinced by what I have seen in these threads that the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage higher education, and substitutes its own literature for textbooks.

So you are saying that making assumptions without being able to experiment, observe, and repeat an experiment to verify the results, or conclusion, is part of the scientific method? Is that what you are saying?

No.

I said that there is no reason why a person should swap out a robust theory which has benefited mankind, for a religious hypothesis that doesn't work. I said that no creationist has even even tried to answer that, and unless that question is answered, much less answered convincingly, there is no reason to make a change. I made a distinction between education and useful education, and I explained what observable means in science and what it does not mean.

Education helps a person to develop “practical wisdom and thinking ability,” qualities that the Bible praises highly. (Proverbs 2:10, 11; 3:21, 22)

The Bible is also anti-intellectual. It praises faith and disesteems evidence-based thought. What it calls foolishness is anything other than what it commands, and what it calls wisdom is blind obedience.

A good, liberal education teaches facts, critical thinking skills, and learning how to go on learning after graduation, but not wisdom. Going through life without the ability to analyze arguments, or the ability to recognize and reject unsupported claims. Without those skills, one is relegated to being intellectual plankton, floating where the currents about them take them rather than charting a course of one's own design, or what I like to call the intellectual nekton ("aquatic animals that are able to swim and move independently of water currents").

 

[nPeace]

I already am aware of your opinions about the Bible @sooda

 

[nPeace]

I have been convinced by what I have seen in these threads that the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage higher education, and substitutes its own literature for textbooks.



No.

I said that there is no reason why a person should swap out a robust theory which has benefited mankind, for a religious hypothesis that doesn't work. I said that no creationist has even even tried to answer that, and unless that question is answered, much less answered convincingly, there is no reason to make a change. I made a distinction between education and useful education, and I explained what observable means in science and what it does not mean.

No, you said something about not needing to observe, so we apparently are not on the same page.
I don't have a religious hypothesis. I don't know what that is.
The truth works for me though. Sorry you have no need for it.

The Bible is also anti-intellectual. It praises faith and disesteems evidence-based thought. What it calls foolishness is anything other than what it commands, and what it calls wisdom is blind obedience.

A good, liberal education teaches facts, critical thinking skills, and learning how to go on learning after graduation, but not wisdom. Going through life without the ability to analyze arguments, or the ability to recognize and reject unsupported claims. Without those skills, one is relegated to being intellectual plankton, floating where the currents about them take them rather than charting a course of one's own design, or what I like to call the intellectual nekton ("aquatic animals that are able to swim and move independently of water currents").

You closed your mind and ears, and eyes. You simply only want to hear what you want to be true.
It's like a man who is on a sinking ship, and keeps telling himself, "The ship is fine." Ignoring the gaping hole, and the captain telling him to jump.
I don't think screaming a thousands times will make a difference. Might as well be talking to mules.
I will however, still say it, as a way of stating truth.
Biblical faith is evidence based. Evolutionary faith is blind. There is no such thing? Yeah. Fool yourself.
The ship will still sink.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidence that the term 'religious' has become a pejorative:
1. The indignation expressed by some atheists for their beliefs to be called, 'religious!', exemplified in this thread alone.
2. The accusation that i am insulting atheists, for using a term that they consider demeaning. Also many examples here.
3. The disdain directed at 'religious' people, from the more militant atheists.

Yes, religious is pejorative to many.

You seem to imply that that is undeserved.There is no virtue in faith. It's simply the choice to believe without sufficient justification.Anybody can do it, but why would one?

It is quite common, in the human experience, to use language to target ideological enemies, and demean or stereotype them as a group. I see this happening with the term, 'Religious!', which renders it useless as a descriptor. It has become a term of derision

Yes, the word religious is becoming increasingly derogatory in large part because of outrageous things we see from the religious in the news - the reason why so many religious people object to being called religious. They'll tell us that they are spiritual, not religious.

since atheism isn't a philosophy, it can't be bad, can it?

No. It can't be bad, nor can it be wrong. It is nothing more than a no answer to the question whether one believes in a god or gods. I don't. That isn't a philosophy, it can't be wrong (I assure you that I reject all god claims, making my no answer accurate), and who could it be bad for? Is it bad for you? It's great for me. It leaves room for secular humanism, which many forms of theism would condemn and, if they could, forbid.

By me including 'atheism' as a religious belief, is insulting to you

I have learned to live without gods or religions, and consider that an achievement to be proud of. You demean that achievement by calling it religion, and you know that many atheists will experience unpleasant sensations upon reading that. Isn't that why you cling onto this meme, that and that we are afraid of the term religious?

Why is 'religious!' considered a pejorative by so many

Have you seen the news? Religion is self-destructing before the media.

In recent memory, we have seen countless televangelist scandals, the Catholic priest pedophilia and cover-up scandals, bigots like Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Christian cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh, Westboro Baptist Church, Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, the war on anything-not-Christmas, the duck dynasty guy, the Oregon wedding cake couple, Kim Davis, the Duggar and Palin families and their public hypocrisies, years of abortion clinic terrorism including physician assassinations, arsons, bombings, the Target boycott snit, and the Planned Parenthood smears culminating in Christian zealot Robert Lewis Dear shooting up a clinic, and . And it's based in a pervasive attitude of persecution for not being free to discriminate against the rights of others and of Christian privilege - the idea that all invocations should be Christian prayers and only Christian prayers, or that saying "Happy Holidays" or putting up atheistic billboards at Christmas time contradicting Christian billboards is an affront to Christians.

Lately, the Christians overwhelmingly supported a presidential candidate well known as a bigot, liar, misogynist, xenophobe, bully, loose cannon, and dishonest businessman who stiffs employees and contractors. That was what Christianity chose. That is what Christianity endorsed.

How about this :

• "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." - Ann Coulter

This is the public face of Christianity. Religion is responsible for its own bad press. Who wants to be connected with any of that?

There is 'no reliable evidence!' for ANY religio/philosophical beliefs

There is reliable evidence that the principles underlying the scientific method are valid. Likewise with secular humanism. Look at their track records. Good ideas work. Wrong ideas fail.

I cannot help the groupthink intolerance and stereotyping of competing views that happens

My attitude about religion is based on evidence, not the opinions of others. Anybody that uses evidence and valid reasoning to come to conclusions will have the same opinion, one you dismiss as groupthink and intolerance. Secular humanists tolerate Christians because humanists advocate freedom of religion and tolerance of all but the intolerant.

The truth works for me though. Sorry you have no need for it.

Faith is not a path to truth. Being a guess, it's a path to false belief.

No, you said something about not needing to observe, so we apparently are not on the same page.

Did you understand what was written about observation? You should probably learn what was explained you before making that claim again. Demonstrating a lack of understanding of science in general is counterproductive to your apparent purpose.

You closed your mind and ears, and eyes.

No, that is what the faith-based thinker who has guessed incorrectly and is now barraged with evidence that he has, but is too vested in his beliefs to consider questioning them, must do.

Biblical faith is evidence based.

I know what biblical faith is based on. I'm a former Christian.

Faith-based thought and evidence based thought are mutually exclusive modes of thinking. If one acquires evidence to support his beliefs, such as winning the lottery, they are no longer faith-based beliefs. He has guessed correctly, and what he believed by faith previously - that he had a winning ticket - became an evidence-based belief (and fact) when the lottery commission paid him off..

 

[usfan]

Yes, religious is pejorative to many.

You seem to imply that that is undeserved.There is no virtue in faith. It's simply the choice to believe without sufficient justification.Anybody can do it, but why would one?

..you seemed to have plucked my post, and replied to it in another thread.. it might confuse some, seeing the topic is different...probably inadvertent..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is consistent with how JWs tell its member to deal with views that don't agree with their own. Hide their faces from them. Put higher education on ignore.

Just know that you are right and everyone else must be wrong without critically examining your own views. Believe in the leadership, and don't let the light of reason steal your faith.

None of that is faith. It is nothing higher than just plain ole Fear.

Completely consistent. I found it amusing that he made a little show of it, like having him ignore me would somehow be devastating to me. One of the biggest purveyors of false witness I have run into, calling me a liar is par for the course from what I have seen and will have no impact on me at all. It just supports my opinion of his cult and the simple ignorance shrouded by false arrogance with which they deal with others.

An excellent summary of what they pass off as faith. I would add indoctrination to that as well as fear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical faith is evidence based. Evolutionary faith is blind. There is no such thing? Yeah. Fool yourself.
The ship will still sink.

Laughable claims such as this are why we know that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Did you understand what was written about observation? You should probably learn what was explained you before making that claim again. Demonstrating a lack of understanding of science in general is counterproductive to your apparent purpose.

I gave you an opportunity to explain yourself, but you failed. Maybe you didn't understand what you said yourself.

No, that is what the faith-based thinker who has guessed incorrectly and is now barraged with evidence that he has, but is too vested in his beliefs to consider questioning them, must do.



I know what biblical faith is based on. I'm a former Christian.

Faith-based thought and evidence based thought are mutually exclusive modes of thinking. If one acquires evidence to support his beliefs, such as winning the lottery, they are no longer faith-based beliefs. He has guessed correctly, and what he believed by faith previously - that he had a winning ticket - became an evidence-based belief (and fact) when the lottery commission paid him off..

You apparently thought you were a Christian. Seems you fooled yourself about that too.
You evidently repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand what Biblical faith is.
You fooled yourself with that one too. You were wrong on both occasions, apparently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you an opportunity to explain yourself, but you failed. Maybe you didn't understand what you said yourself.



You apparently thought you were a Christian. Seems you fooled yourself about that too.
You evidently repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand what Biblical faith is.
You fooled yourself with that one too. You were wrong on both occasions, apparently.

Not all Christians remain blind all of their lives. That is why most Christians accept the findings of science, and why the loss of Christians from fundamentalist families is especially strong in colleges. And it is as much of an insult for you to claim that others were not Christian as it is for others to claim that you are not a real Christian. Not very cool.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not all Christians remain blind all of their lives. That is why most Christians accept the findings of science, and why the loss of Christians from fundamentalist families is especially strong in colleges. And it is as much of an insult for you to claim that others were not Christian as it is for others to claim that you are not a real Christian. Not very cool.

I hope you did not expect any better.

 

[Windwalker]

An excellent summary of what they pass off as faith. I would add indoctrination to that as well as fear.

It is what I see as a system built upon the God of Fear. Everyone looks for some sense of security in the face of the terrifying Unknown, of which God represents at its highest level. To those living in fear, how they see God is a terrifying Unknown, and they seek to pacify this "entity" through some means.

In ancient times, it was through the sacrifice of animals in the hope of appeasement to this entity. In a modern culture, displaced from access to sanctioned ritual forms such as wholescale sacrifices, guilt and penance and becoming a "true believer" will suffice to appease the deity's wrath.

Allowing self-indoctrination is a form of pennenance; a renunciation of one's former self in the hope that God will accept them by adopting and being true to the practices of the cult which promises them salvation. While I applaud the intentions, it doesn't really get to the true matter of the heart. Surrendering your own reason is not a path to salvation, no matter how much one wills it to be. Salvation is not found outside one's own self.

This is a very hard truth to apprehend. We're all trained to look outside ourselves for truth, whether that is turning to religion as authorities on truth, or in modern times to science to tell us the facts of the "real world", hoping that will satisfy existentially the "big questions". In effect, it's the same action. Giving one's own power over their own satisfaction with life to some external authority, seeking for answers outside to what can only be found within.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is what I see as a system built upon the God of Fear. Everyone looks for some sense of security in the face of the terrifying Unknown, of which God represents at its highest level. To those living in fear, how they see God is a terrifying Unknown, and they seek to pacify this "entity" through some means.

In ancient times, it was through the sacrifice of animals in the hope of appeasement to this entity. In a modern culture, displaced from access to sanctioned ritual forms such as wholescale sacrifices, guilt and penance and becoming a "true believer" will suffice to appease the deity's wrath.

Allowing self-indoctrination is a form of pennenance; a renunciation of one's former self in the hope that God will accept them by adopting and being true to the practices of the cult which promises them salvation. While I applaud the intentions, it doesn't really get to the true matter of the heart. Surrendering your own reason is not a path to salvation, no matter how much one wills it to be. Salvation is not found outside one's own self.

This is a very hard truth to apprehend. We're all trained to look outside ourselves for truth, whether that is turning to religion as authorities on truth, or in modern times to science to tell us the facts of the "real world", hoping that will satisfy existentially the "big questions". In effect, it's the same action. Giving one's own power over their own satisfaction with life to some external authority, seeking for answers outside to what can only be found within.

I do not have any concern over the idea that people believe in something based on faith. I do myself. It is how they believe and what they do publicly with their personal belief that is of immediate concern to my interests. The claims they make as if they were universal truths that apply to everyone and everything. All I see it as is an expression of the fear you mention and inflamed by indoctrination. If all a creationist did was to declare their belief and ask if others would like to hear their story in an effort to persuade. And expanding that to acceptance that some or many others are not interested for their own reasons, I think we would all do better. But personal belief is taken to the extreme with the idea that everyone should have the same belief. It is used to bash others, dismantle education and destroy valid paths to information and understanding of the natural world. That sort of weak, fearful approach disturbs me greatly. Fortunately, not all theists are like that, but is enough that some are. Ever the concern about the quality of apples and how the state of one effects the entire barrel.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is what I see as a system built upon the God of Fear. Everyone looks for some sense of security in the face of the terrifying Unknown, of which God represents at its highest level. To those living in fear, how they see God is a terrifying Unknown, and they seek to pacify this "entity" through some means.

In ancient times, it was through the sacrifice of animals in the hope of appeasement to this entity. In a modern culture, displaced from access to sanctioned ritual forms such as wholescale sacrifices, guilt and penance and becoming a "true believer" will suffice to appease the deity's wrath.

Allowing self-indoctrination is a form of pennenance; a renunciation of one's former self in the hope that God will accept them by adopting and being true to the practices of the cult which promises them salvation. While I applaud the intentions, it doesn't really get to the true matter of the heart. Surrendering your own reason is not a path to salvation, no matter how much one wills it to be. Salvation is not found outside one's own self.

This is a very hard truth to apprehend. We're all trained to look outside ourselves for truth, whether that is turning to religion as authorities on truth, or in modern times to science to tell us the facts of the "real world", hoping that will satisfy existentially the "big questions". In effect, it's the same action. Giving one's own power over their own satisfaction with life to some external authority, seeking for answers outside to what can only be found within.

I have not done it yet, but I need to reread your previous posts responding to me. I think I may have misunderstood a few of your points. I'll respond directly from them for any clarification or make my own if I have been previously in error.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

..you seemed to have plucked my post, and replied to it in another thread.. it might confuse some, seeing the topic is different...probably inadvertent..

Sorry about that.

I gave you an opportunity to explain yourself, but you failed.

Are you sure that it was I who failed? Others understood what I meant, and you routinely don't understand others who were clear to me.

You seem to be getting testier. Have I offended you?

You apparently thought you were a Christian.

No, I know what a Christian is, and I was one for about ten years. Are you also offended that I left Christianity? Do you take that as a personal slap that needs retribution with a derogatory comment? If so, you're not alone. It's pretty common to be told that if I left Christianity, there was something defective about my faith.

I suppose I would have to agree in the sense that I never lost my critical thinking skills, which I had agreed to put on hold, that is, to suspend disbelief, long enough to try this religion out like one might test a pair of shoes, just to see how well it fits. At first, the experience was ecstatic - euphoric. Surely I was filled with the Spirit.

But then I moved cross-country, tried a half-dozen other congregations that were all dead, and eventually realized that what I had been feeling originally was the effect of a very gifted and charismatic preacher, and I was mistaking my own mental state for a deity.

I was able to tunnel out because I never gave up making rational judgments based on evidence. The new evidence was the repeated experience of congregations that seemed empty, and understanding what that implied. I had made a mistake, and I rectified it.

If one sacrifices that ability - if he learns to turn off that faculty - he will remain permanently in his religion whatever his experiences are. If I had lost that ability, I probably would have found a religious explanation for my experience - perhaps that the Lord was calling me back to where I started as a Christian.

So yeah, what others call defective faith I call a leaky faith-based confirmation bias that allowed evidence in for rational examination. I was every bit a Christian, unless your definition of Christian includes the loss of the ability to reason. If that god had been real, I would have known it. Had the promises of the religion been kept, I would have known it. And I would have been all in with the Lord.

But that's not what happened.

You evidently repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand what Biblical faith is.

You've already demonstrated that you don't know what faith is (in the religious sense) when you posted, "Biblical faith is evidence based. Evolutionary faith is blind." Faith in the religious sense is insufficiently supported belief, and by definition, it is not evidence based.

You also are having trouble with the concept of evidence. Evolution has the evidence - you know, the bones, DNA, comparative anatomy and embryology, ring species, evolution observed, etc. Creationism does not. Believing it anyway is what blind faith is.

The is not the same as the faith that I have that my car will start the next time I test it like it has the last 500 times it was started. That's justified belief supported by evidence, a very different thing than religious-type faith.

I realize that because you are a Christian and I am a secular humanist, that you feel that you have authoritative knowledge that I should defer to as you school me about Christianity, but hopefully you realize that I have no reason to do that, and good reasons not to.

I see that you opted to not explain why we should throw out a useful scientific theory for a religious idea that can't be used for anything. It's really a rhetorical question that nobody ever answers because it needs no answer, and there is no good answer. We wouldn't, and we won't. That's the point. Until you can explain why we should trade in a car that starts for one that hasn't ever started, you're not going to be have many takers.

Anyway, if I've angered you, my apologies.

 

[usfan]

Sorry about that.

No problem.. no harm, no foul. I just thought a clarification would be good to avoid confusion, in the off topic reply.

 

[metis]

Biblical faith is evidence based. Evolutionary faith is blind. There is no such thing?

Biblical "evidence" is based on what we call "hear-say information", whereas there's literally no way for us today to check on what they witnessed or did not witness.

OTOH, the evidence for the evolution of life, and actually all material objects for that matter, is overwhelming. And even common sense through basic observations tells us that all things tend to change over time.

The belief in God can only be based on Faith, but please don't take my words above as somehow diminishing such belief. OTOH, one does not believe in evolution any more than one believes Earth has what we call the "Moon"-- either one accepts the facts or they don't.

If one insists that another cannot accept the basic ToE because it supposedly contradicts the Bible, that's a mischaracterization of the reality that actually makes such religious belief to be quite nonsensical. It diminishes Christianity to a Dark Age superstition because the Truth cannot be relative. We can and have substantiated that species evolve, but there's literally no way for us to objectively substantiate that God created all.

Fortunately, most theologians today recognize that the Creation accounts are best taken as allegory, probably in response against Babylonian polytheism but also providing the opportunity to teach basic Jewish concepts about God and His Creation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Probably because flood proponents have failed to provide such evidence.

As for me, I actually have proof against the biblical flood myth. That's right: proof, not just evidence.
It's hilariously easy as well, to disprove the flood myth.

It makes 2 scientific predictions:
1. there should be a universal genetic bottleneck in all complex species, dating to the same period.
2. there should be a global flood layer in the geological column dating to the same period as the genetic bottleneck.


Neither of both exists.
This disproves the flood myth.
It's simple logic.

"if A, then B".
After investigation, the data unambigously shows "not B".
So therefor: "not A".

Easy peasy.

Fun fact: did you know that the field of geology was actually kickstarted by a couple of bible believing christians that set out to gather evidence to support the biblical flood idea? They failed miserably. And kickstarted geology as a science in the process.

So, literally even the very birth of an entire scientific field, is the result of debunking this flood myth.
This was a looooong time ago. Amazing that some people still haven't catched up.



And zero scientific papers.

Creationist propaganda on the interwebs is irrelevant.

Do you want to look at evidence?

 

[gnostic]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.

A number of Genesis’ order of creation, don’t match the order given in science.

In Genesis 1:1, we have the Earth being created and (1:2) then waters completely covering Earth, then light created to separate the night from day (1:3-5 on the1st day), then on the 3rd of creation, dry lands were created (1:9-10), followed closely vegetation (eg trees bearing fruit and seeds) on dry land (1:11-12). All of which, existing before the sun and stars, which weren’t created until the 4th day of creation (1:14-18).

That’s the order given in Genesis.

Well based on, what we have learned so from both astronomy (and astrophysics) and Earth Science, stars and galaxies first formed about 9 billion years before our Solar System formed.

The Solar System is only 4.6 billion years old. The Sun and planets formed from the gases, dust and debris of older more massive stars that went supernovas.

The fact that there are stars older than the Sun and the Earth, would debunk Genesis 1:1 and 1:14-18.

And when the Earth was forming, there were originally no water before the Earth’s crust had formed. In its earliest state, The Earth was more in molten state, because the Earth’s mantle was not yet covered by the Earth’s crust. So the Earth’s crust would only appear when the surface of mantle cooled enough to solidify the surface into rocks.

And when Earth’s crust had covered more of Earth’s surface, the Earth still have fractured and fissures, so volcanic activities was constant occurrence.

But at this stage of Earth formation, there was no water, certainly no ocean yet, so that would debunk Genesis 1:2

2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The usage of the “face of the deep” or “abyss” would refer to ocean.

According to Earth science, water didn’t exist at that time. Earth’s crust (hence dry land) had to exist before water, not the other way around.

So another thing that science has debunked Genesis.

The other thing wrong about this verse, is that it mentioned wind blowing on the surface of the water.

How can there be wind without atmosphere, which according to the 2nd day of creation the separation of the water above from the water below, creating the “dome”, “vault”, “firmament”, which all mean “sky”?

Then there are the problem with order of creation in the last 2 days: the 5th and 6th days.

In day 5, life was created both in the seas and the birds, while land animals were created on day 6.

But according to biology and geo-bio chronology, the evidences showed that primitive amphibians, then primitive reptiles, then the non-avian dinosaurs and primitive mammals roughly came around at the same time - all of them land animals existing BEFORE flying winged birds.

So again, the order of creation in Genesis has been debunked.

So the number of orders in Genesis don’t match with the order given in astronomy/cosmology, Earth science and biology.

 

[ecco]

Haha! You apparently do not know what a neo-atheist is. It doesn't mean how many years you've been an atheist!

Yes, you are a neo-atheist. Your argumentations and dismissive cynicism screams it. You're not an atheist like Sartre or Camus, who actually had substantial things to say. Richard Dawkins by contrast, is considered a neo-atheist.

Are these quotes from the atheist Camus you are referring to?

Albert Camus Quotes
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is. Albert Camus

Albert Camus Quotes (Author of The Stranger)
“I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist.”
― Albert Camus, Notebooks 1951-1959​

From these quotes, one can see that he was conflicted.

I don't consider philosophers to be the ultimate source of knowledge. One can pretty much find a philosopher to defend any position.

Example:

Marquis de Sade, a French aristocrat, philosopher and writer of explicit sexual works, was born in Paris in 1740. His writings depict violence, criminality and blasphemy against the Catholic Church. During the French Revolution he was an elected delegate to the National Convention.\​

To laugh at mythic stories like Noah's Ark, is not a sign of depth at all.

Really? To believe that a man rounded up 2 (or 7) of every species kind, put them on a wooden boat, and survived the most horrific ocean storms imaginable is reflective of being a deep thinker? Really? I laughed at that when I was 10. That was my first clue that the Bible and its God was on the same level as my comic books.


One doesn't have to be an atheist to laugh at the Ark story;

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-paleontologists-brought-laughter-creation-museum.html
Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.

"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."​

Again, classic neo-atheism. To call what I just said as "blather" shows a lack of actual reason.

Tai Chi is not woo.
The woo part is that you try to connect Tai Chi with blather like:

Windwalker said: ↑
I believe we in a modernist world with its enamouration of the sciences, neglects the rest of ourselves, which would otherwise create a more powerful, connected, and dare I say, divine reality for ourselves at this stage of development. Just watch this form and imagine it as how we live our lives in daily life. To do that at this level requires a strong integration of all of these areas of life, body, mind, and spirit.​

blath·er
/ˈblaT͟Hər/
verb

1. 1.
   talk long-windedly without making very much sense.

These are themes which minds like Sartre and Camus explored, as well as many thinker past and present. I am touching upon the bane of "scientism" which disconnects a person from the other aspects of their consciousness, namely the body and spirit.

You keep name dropping. Perhaps you can show me some quotes where Camus discusses "scientism".

It's like talking science with Ken Ham.

You seem to be a fan of Ham. If not, why would you call me out for laughing at him and his Creation Museum?

Yeah, okay. So how many years ago did you become an ExChristian?

What makes you think I was ever a Christian? I never said I was ever a Christian.

 

[sooda]

It seems absurd to me that there should be any competition between religion and science.