I'm not sure this argument is relevant to the thread so won't continue on the subject after this. I do think you are showing your bias toward atheism here, putting all of the blame on creationists who are entirely entitled to their point of view without being accused of 'provoking' arguments. I fail to see why atheist feel the need to react so strongly to them if they are comfortable in their own beliefs. Just my thoughts anyway.
LOL - of course I'm "biased" toward atheism. I am an atheist, after all. You're "biased" toward theism, being a theist. However, being "biased" toward the thoughts in our own heads need not necessarily interfere with being capable of making accurate observations about the real world. The "controversy" apparently pitting biologists against creationists to argue whether to include creationism in science class (hence opening the question of whether biology has anything to do with God) was
entirely fabricated by creationists. Imagine how heated things would get if a group of science teachers were caught red-handed developing and implementing a detailed, insidious strategy to infiltrate your church with a plan to teach evolutionary biology thinly masked as Christian theology with the objective of completely overturning theism forever. There would be an adverse reaction, right? I strong one, I'd guess. I'm "pinning the blame" on creationists because creationists are clearly to blame in this instance. This fact has been established
beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
As is repeated endlessly in these forums, atheism is not a belief. It's the absence of one particular belief. Atheists and theists alike are uncomfortable with the effort of a small group of creationists to overthrow science and force it to conform to scripture, that's all. It's nothing to do with beliefs about God, and everything to do with beliefs about the separation of church and state, religious freedom (which implicitly includes freedom
from religion) and the tremendous value of the scientific method in improving all our lives and helping us understand the world.
Yes you are entitled to your point of view, of course, I don't argue that at all. But you are
not entitled to teach
your point of view to
my children
as science in a science class in a secular school. Teach your point of view in church, or philosophy classes, or theology classes, or religious studies. Science class is for learning about science. Period.
Can you give me some examples of this so that I know where you are coming from.
Examples of non-theistic spiritual people? Sure. Buddhists.
Is this your round-about way of saying science supports atheism?
I thought it was a fairly direct way of saying science does not support theism. It fits in nicely with atheism because of this. Not to get tied up in semantics, but the implication of "science supports atheim" is that there is something there to support. There isn't - atheism isn't a system of beliefs, it is the lack of one particular belief. Maybe you could argue that atheists have certain
values in common, such as an appreciation of critical thinking, reason, empiricism, logic, secularity and intense curiosity regarding the unknown and unknowable (as opposed to belief or faith that we know what is out there). Science is compatible with these values, but they are not exclusively atheist values. Many theists share them.
Can we forget about your strong dislike of creationists, the question was not just directed at biology but the whole of existence.
lol - sweetie,
everybody has a strong dislike of that particular group of creationists who are attempting to
replace scientific empiricism with theology - in science class. Even most other creationists. It's not because they're creationists, it's because they're liars.
I'm not sure what the question is now. I'll go back and check.
