Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing theism?

[David T]

I'm not sure what you mean by this and I've never heard theist scientist describe life as being interconnected, so you have to open up that expression.


Your perception and your perspective I assume.

The observed fact is life interconnected, not the mechanical narrative, that's the domain.theory. In evolutionary science like church its not monolithic. There tends to be highly reductionist types specializing in genetics and more non reductive types who actually work in nature itself .

I'm not sure what you mean by this and I've never heard theist scientist describe life as being interconnected, so you have to open up that expression.


Your perception and your perspective I assume.

First within science their is zero debate of life interconnect that's the experienced observation the scientific debate takes place in the narrative overlay. That splits out into reductive nonreductive, in particular between the environment and organism. The debate has been going on since Darwin internally in science. Life interconnected is not debatable, is totally debatable is the narrative overlay. There is no such thing as a Christian theological overlay applicable to observed life interconnected because theology itself is an overlay onto the bible. One in a sense can't take The theological overlay that developed in context to the bible and have it valid scientifically. Science has its own overlay already. I do find it interesting that an overlay narrative developed in religion First then manifested identically in Science in context to nature. Both are overlays projected onto the bible or nature. Which would indicate that indeed the bible is not just a book of old science as claimed.

In regards to my perceptions of my perceptions I am an experientialist not a theoreticalist. So all I am saying is how I am experiencing not what I am experiencing. One could say I am an animist. That can be understood as "he believes x" But that is taking what I have written and through transliteration bending it into another way of experiencing. In music neurology functions differently in listening to music, as opposed to playing music. So in writing if I try and explain how I am experiencing that generally is going to be different than the readers experiencing the writing.
I came to this site to understand that better. The more a move away from how we tend to process culturally the harder it is to convey experiences which just led me into music as a medium of expression as opposed to descriptive language which all of the above is. It's this form that is horribly limited and primary to culture at the same time.

 

[David T]

I'm afraid they are to us. I don't believe that God started life and then stood back to watch creatures create themselves. There is purpose in their construction that is complex. It is written in the genetic code and executed perfectly to replicate a living thing with all its parts in the right place. When a mutation occurs, it is almost always detrimental to the organism.

When we speak of mutations, we normally imagine something like these....

Not exactly what you want to pass on to offspring, is it? How many beneficial mutations for humans can you come up with? How life altering are they?



It is to us...others can believe whatever they wish. I am not in agreement with them. I see no reason to doubt Genesis as a literal account......though we might interpret it differently to YEC's.



But what if they are not rejecting science at all.....what if they are rejecting science's interpretation of their evidence? If it has nothing to substantiate it, it is only an unprovable assumption.....one that is sold to the unwary as truth. In that case it is merely teaching the party line because you have no choice. You would be a hypocrite to teach something you didn't believe in.



No more than I would trust a skinny cook.

Your understanding of the topic God is very southern Baptist in secular drag. So with such a limited understanding of the topic god That is irrelevant, how did you develop such a profound understanding of nature,? Books?

 

[Shad]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Nope.

 

[LuisDantas]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Of course not.

It is entirely legitimate to be a theistic or deistic evolutionist.

 

[Spirosmav]

Of course not.

It is entirely legitimate to be a theistic or deistic evolutionist.

I never really see a common ground, just a schism or division. I have met a lot of Darwinist who act intellectually superior yet are scientifically fallible due to the many mysterious and dilemmas that exist in science. Not to make a generalization, but People who tend to be theistic or deistic evolutionist, tend to be stereotyped as overly emotional ppl who deny science with fairy tales. These are the 'intellectual' atheist who wear Darwinist t shirt and have Darwinist bumper stickers

 

[LuisDantas]

I never really see a common ground, just a schism or division.

There is no common ground. But there is no incompatibility either.

The saying about separate magisteria is overused, but applies here.

It only seems otherwise because, for reasons not entirely clear, the term "Creationism" has taken conotations that include needless challenge of scientific findings.

I have met a lot of Darwinist who act intellectually superior yet are scientifically fallible due to the many mysterious and dilemmas that exist in science. Not to make a generalization, but People who tend to be theistic or deistic evolutionist, tend to be stereotyped as overly emotional ppl who deny science with fairy tales. These are the 'intellectual' atheist who wear Darwinist t shirt and have Darwinist bumper stickers

If you say so.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Plenty of theist and deist see no contradiction between evolution and god(s). The largest Christian denomination on the planet accepts that evolution is real.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Should a person be fired from Dodge if he drives a Porsche?

 

[Spirosmav]

Should a person be fired from Dodge if he drives a Porsche?

As economic competition becomes worse and employment laws become deregulated , anybody can be retaliated for any whim or petty thing. Not to be negative and dry.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

As economic competition becomes worse and employment laws become deregulated , anybody can be retaliated for any whim or petty thing. Not to be negative and dry.

And in time at may very well happen. As of now if someone tries that they will be sued.

 

[Shaul]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

You mean just like Charles Darwin?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean just like Charles Darwin?

What makes you think that Darwin made such an error?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

No of course not. There are plenty of excellent theistic scientists.

 

[Shaul]

What makes you think that Darwin made such an error?

I didn’t say Charles Darwin made any error. I just noted that Charles Darwin was both an adherent to evolution and also a theist. Just the sort of person whom the OP asked whether should be fired.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t say Charles Darwin made any error. I just noted that Charles Darwin was both an adherent to evolution and also a theist. Just the sort of person whom the OP asked whether should be fired.

He was a theist earlier in his life, but eventually he became an atheist You can see why that makes your post rather confusing.

 

[Shaul]

He was a theist earlier in his life, but eventually he became an atheist You can see why that makes your post rather confusing.

I don’t think that is correct. Where did you get that he later became an atheist? According to this source he never became an atheist, Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

“Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t think that is correct. Where did you get that he later became an atheist? According to this source he never became an atheist, Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

“Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”

The article supports my claim. One thing that you need to realize is that the meaning of words change over time. In Darwin's time it may have been a rejection of the existence of gods. That is not the case today. Atheism is a mere lack of belief in gods. From the article:

' Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7]He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." '

Most agnostics are also atheists. They do not believe in God. You are conflating hard atheism with all atheism. Atheism is a big tent just as theism is a big tent. There are hug gradations of belief in both.

 

[Shaul]

The article supports my claim. One thing that you need to realize is that the meaning of words change over time. In Darwin's time it may have been a rejection of the existence of gods. That is not the case today. Atheism is a mere lack of belief in gods. From the article:

' Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7]He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." '

Most agnostics are also atheists. They do not believe in God. You are conflating hard atheism with all atheism. Atheism is a big tent just as theism is a big tent. There are hug gradations of belief in both.

No it really doesn’t. The plain meaning of these words has not changed. Nor are most agnostics atheists. Agnostics don’t claim that God doesn’t exist but simply that it can’t be determined whether he does or not. Atheists do claim that God does not exist. Quite different things. Darwin was, at the end of his life and by his own admission, an agnostic and not an atheist. Darwin himself drew a distinction between the two and said he was not an atheist. That settles the issue.