Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, funny how that works:Yes they are, when they are being biologists. Every single one of them. It is the foundation of all of biology. Where do you get this nonsense?Every biologist is not an evolutionist
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used that law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education".
This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point. According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Centerfound that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."
It must be understood that even 97% is not 100%. And it would seem that 13% take issue with evolution as solely a natural process.
It must be entirely understood that students, as well as, faculty members are under extreme intimidating pressure to fully adhere with the polities and accepted determinations within the science departments or face loss of employment, loss of scholarships, withholding of diplomas, and being ostracized by those controlling scientific academia in notable school and governmental sponsored research.
It is far easier to seem to fully agree than to fight the powers that be. And with higher education tuition pushing 6 figures, there is much at stake. Rome threw the Christian "atheists" to the lions. The educated elite simply can destroy an individual's career opportunities due entirely by politics and having nothing to do with someone's actual abilities or intellectual brilliance. Students by large are at a disadvantage, and so are those who might consider helping.
Of course goofy creationists can perform good science. Science has its own rules and is not affected or informed in any way by these dumb, magical, childish beliefs. It is either good science or it is not, irrespective of whatever demons or spirits the scientist is worshiping.Chapter 14
Can Creationists Be “Real” Scientists?
by Dr. Jason Lisle on May 13, 2010
Share:
Some evolutionists have stated that creationists cannot be real scientists. Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This guidebook states that biological evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.” Famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky stated that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
But is a belief in particles-to-people evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Have any technological advances been made because of a belief in evolution?
Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all. In fact, the PhD cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton has stated, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.” And creationists are not the only ones who understand this. Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Penn State University, wrote:
I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. . . . From my conversations with leading researchers it had became [sic] clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.
The rise of technology is not due to a belief in evolution, either. Computers, cellular phones, and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines, which are clearly intelligently designed? Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible, but not with evolution.
Differing Assumptions
The main difference between scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists is their starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. This is the nature of observational science. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations in the present. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists are generally in agreement on these models. They agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, the principles of electricity, etc. These things can be checked and tested in the present.
HISTORICAL EVENTS CANNOT BE CHECKED SCIENTIFICALLY IN THE PRESENT.
But historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. This is because we do not have access to the past; it is gone. All that we have is the circumstantial evidence (relics) of past events. Although we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from things like fossils and rocks, we cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. Furthermore, since creationists and evolutionists have very different views of history, it is not surprising that they reconstruct past events very differently. We all have the same evidence; but in order to draw conclusions about what the evidence means, we use our worldview—our most basic beliefs about the nature of reality. Since they have different starting assumptions, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence to mean very different things.
Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history, and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs about the past to interpret the evidence in the present. When we look at the scientific evidence today, we find that it is very consistent with biblical history and not as consistent with millions of years of evolution. We’ve seen in this book that the scientific evidence is consistent with biblical creation. We’ve seen that the geological evidence is consistent with a global Flood—not millions of years of gradual deposition. We’ve seen that the changes in DNA are consistent with the loss of information we would expect as a result of the Curse described in Genesis 3, not the hypothetical gain of massive quantities of genetic information required by molecules-toman evolution. Real science confirms the Bible.
Real Scientists
Sir Isaac Newton
It shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many realscientists who believed in biblical creation. Consider Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who codiscovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope, and made a number of discoveries in optics. Newton had profound knowledge of, and faith in, the Bible. Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the Swedish botanist who developed the double-Latin-name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, also believed the Genesis creation account. So also did the Dutch geologist Nicolaus Steno (1638–1686), who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy.
Even in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, there were prominent Bible-believing English scientists, such as chemists Andrew Ure (1778–1857) and John Murray (1786?–1851), entomologist William Kirby (1759–1850), and geologist George Young (1777–1848). James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Indeed, Maxwell’s equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution. These and many other great scientists have believed the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and it was their Christian faith that was the driving motivation and intellectual foundation of their excellent scientific work.
Today there are many other PhD scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, just as recorded in Scripture. Russ Humphreys, a PhD physicist, has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields,5 which enabled him to accurately predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. John Baumgardner, a PhD geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a sophisticated computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global flood recorded in Genesis. Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian.6
Dr. John Baumgardner
Consider the biblical creationists Georgia Purdom and Andrew Snelling (both authors in this book), who work in molecular genetics and geology, respectively. They certainly understand their fields, and yet are convinced that they do not support evolutionary biology and geology. On the contrary, they confirm biblical creation.
I have a PhD from a secular university and have done extensive research in solar astrophysics. In my PhD research, I made a number of discoveries about the nature of near-surface solar flows, including the detection of a never-before-seen polar alignment of supergranules, as well as patterns indicative of giant overturning cells. Was I hindered in my research by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true? No, it’s just the reverse. It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation, and experimentation.
Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. This is not to say that noncreationists cannot be scientists. But, in a way, an evolutionist is being inconsistent when he or she does science. The big-bang supporter claims the universe is a random chance event, and yet he or she studies it as if it were logical and orderly. The evolutionist is thus forced to borrow certain creationist principles in order to do science. The universe is logical and orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible. On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true.
That's a piss poor example.welllll....except it does. The theists demonstrates, repeatedly, that if a thing claimed by faith is contrary to science, he will choose faith. Peter LaRufa rather summed it up nicely:I. LOVE. SCIENCE. It does not have to be one or the other, silly.
If somewhere in the Bible, I were to find a passage said 2 + 2 = 5 then I wouldn't question what I'm reading. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it.
When a theist can say that with a straight face, then faith cannot be reconciled with reason.
You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.I was referring to you in my post.I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.God I hate it when idiots do this.
Unbelievable.
Because it is. Absurd and childish. And a lot of theists know it, which is why they are secular so much of the time.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.I was referring to you in my post.I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.
And it shows.
I don't know why you would get offended by my pointing out that you seek to subordinate religion. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know how to say that any nicer.LOL! Why would I be offended by such feebleness. You get that I am laughing at you, and mocking you, right? Although I suppose I should be congratulating you, as you have succeeded. Instead of discussing the actual context of my posts, here we are talking about your irrational deflection. You got what you wanted. You got to not expose the fact that you have no rational, reasonable response to my arguments. congratulations. Lemme know when you wanna circle back around, and discuss the actual topic of this discussion. Until then, I see no point in wasting further efforts on your irrational deflections.If you weren't offended then you wouldn't have seen this as a personal attack. Which is what YOU called it.I'm not offended. I am amused at your need to resort to personal attack, because your reason, again, fails you.Your motive of subordinating religion is 100% relevant.My motives for posting is irrelevant. If my facts are incorrect, you should have no problem refuting them. However, since you clearly have no way of doing that, you have chosen, instead, to attempt to cast doubt on those facts, by attacking my character.And I was honestly responding to your response. See how that works?
Do I need to pull up your old posts where you admit that you seek out believers to ridicule for your own pleasure?
Do better...
I don't find it surprising that a person practicing subversive behavior under the cover of deceit (i.e. motives aren't important) would take offense at the person pulling the curtain back.
It was entirely predictable.
BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. I don't know how to say you seek to subordinate religion any nicer than that.
Ok, good for you. So here YOU are discussing it.Because it is. Absurd and childish. And a lot of theists know it, which is why they are secular so much of the time.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.I was referring to you in my post.
And it shows.
I thought I said that.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.I was referring to you in my post.I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.
And it shows.
Oh, no doubt. Gullibility is hard wired right into humans.Ok, good for you. So here YOU are discussing it.Because it is. Absurd and childish. And a lot of theists know it, which is why they are secular so much of the time.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.
And it shows.
You might want to hold off on religion's obituary. These things have a way of coming full cycle.
First of all I wasn't trying to explain what reason is so I don't understand your comment that my statement had nothing to do with reason. Secondly, My statement was more correct on how to see reason than yours was as yours told us nothing about how to do it while mine did. And lastly, you will never see reason if you keep confirming your biases like you do.Not only does that not make sense, your latter statement has nothing to do with reason.Ummmm.... no. Reason is the friend of faith. One can clearly see objective truth by dying to self.
So is being an asshole.Oh, no doubt. Gullibility is hard wired right into humans.Ok, good for you. So here YOU are discussing it.Because it is. Absurd and childish. And a lot of theists know it, which is why they are secular so much of the time.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.
And it shows.
You might want to hold off on religion's obituary. These things have a way of coming full cycle.
Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.I thought I said that.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.I was referring to you in my post.
And it shows.
What do you mean when you say that I want to "subordinate" religion?I don't know why you would get offended by my pointing out that you seek to subordinate religion. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know how to say that any nicer.LOL! Why would I be offended by such feebleness. You get that I am laughing at you, and mocking you, right? Although I suppose I should be congratulating you, as you have succeeded. Instead of discussing the actual context of my posts, here we are talking about your irrational deflection. You got what you wanted. You got to not expose the fact that you have no rational, reasonable response to my arguments. congratulations. Lemme know when you wanna circle back around, and discuss the actual topic of this discussion. Until then, I see no point in wasting further efforts on your irrational deflections.If you weren't offended then you wouldn't have seen this as a personal attack. Which is what YOU called it.I'm not offended. I am amused at your need to resort to personal attack, because your reason, again, fails you.Your motive of subordinating religion is 100% relevant.My motives for posting is irrelevant. If my facts are incorrect, you should have no problem refuting them. However, since you clearly have no way of doing that, you have chosen, instead, to attempt to cast doubt on those facts, by attacking my character.
Do better...
I don't find it surprising that a person practicing subversive behavior under the cover of deceit (i.e. motives aren't important) would take offense at the person pulling the curtain back.
It was entirely predictable.
BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. I don't know how to say you seek to subordinate religion any nicer than that.
Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.Reason is not about "Does this make sense to me," Reason is about, "Can this be supported by objective evidence," Any manner of silliness can be rationalised to "make sense" - just look at David Karesh. What you are describing isn't reason, it is justification. You are right; you can justify your beliefs all day long. That does not make them rational, or reasonable.Of course faith can be reconciled with reason.welllll....except it does. The theists demonstrates, repeatedly, that if a thing claimed by faith is contrary to science, he will choose faith. Peter LaRufa rather summed it up nicely:I. LOVE. SCIENCE. It does not have to be one or the other, silly.
If somewhere in the Bible, I were to find a passage said 2 + 2 = 5 then I wouldn't question what I'm reading. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it.
When a theist can say that with a straight face, then faith cannot be reconciled with reason.
Faith means to have complete trust in something. I never put my complete trust is something that doesn't make sense or is unreliable.
The Heavens may declare the glory.... but you have to study them to discover it. We were never meant to NOT look for ourselves.
Reason is the enemy of faith, because faith demands belief in the absence of objective evidence; that is the wilful rejection of reason.
You want to convince others that it is absurd. That is subordination.What do you mean when you say that I want to "subordinate" religion?I don't know why you would get offended by my pointing out that you seek to subordinate religion. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know how to say that any nicer.LOL! Why would I be offended by such feebleness. You get that I am laughing at you, and mocking you, right? Although I suppose I should be congratulating you, as you have succeeded. Instead of discussing the actual context of my posts, here we are talking about your irrational deflection. You got what you wanted. You got to not expose the fact that you have no rational, reasonable response to my arguments. congratulations. Lemme know when you wanna circle back around, and discuss the actual topic of this discussion. Until then, I see no point in wasting further efforts on your irrational deflections.If you weren't offended then you wouldn't have seen this as a personal attack. Which is what YOU called it.I'm not offended. I am amused at your need to resort to personal attack, because your reason, again, fails you.Your motive of subordinating religion is 100% relevant.
I don't find it surprising that a person practicing subversive behavior under the cover of deceit (i.e. motives aren't important) would take offense at the person pulling the curtain back.
It was entirely predictable.
BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. I don't know how to say you seek to subordinate religion any nicer than that.
Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.I thought I said that.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.
And it shows.
Huh? I have specifically ssaid both are hard wired into us. But the morality we derive from reason is better than simply relying on our hard wiring. And humans absolutely are hard wired to believe utter nonsense, such as explaining things they dont know using magic spirits. But we are not always doomed to be slaves to our chemistry.So is being an asshole.Oh, no doubt. Gullibility is hard wired right into humans.Ok, good for you. So here YOU are discussing it.Because it is. Absurd and childish. And a lot of theists know it, which is why they are secular so much of the time.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.
And it shows.
You might want to hold off on religion's obituary. These things have a way of coming full cycle.
Funny how you don't see morality being hard wired into us or worship being hard wired into us.
And you believe that people should be taught that religion is absurd.Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.I thought I said that.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.
And it shows.
I don't reject that. I just reject "God did it" as a reasonable explanation. It's perfectly okay in response to "What was the cause for. ___?" (Fill in the blank) with, "I don't know, lety's find out," "God did it" is never a valid response.Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.Reason is not about "Does this make sense to me," Reason is about, "Can this be supported by objective evidence," Any manner of silliness can be rationalised to "make sense" - just look at David Karesh. What you are describing isn't reason, it is justification. You are right; you can justify your beliefs all day long. That does not make them rational, or reasonable.Of course faith can be reconciled with reason.welllll....except it does. The theists demonstrates, repeatedly, that if a thing claimed by faith is contrary to science, he will choose faith. Peter LaRufa rather summed it up nicely:I. LOVE. SCIENCE. It does not have to be one or the other, silly.
If somewhere in the Bible, I were to find a passage said 2 + 2 = 5 then I wouldn't question what I'm reading. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it.
When a theist can say that with a straight face, then faith cannot be reconciled with reason.
Faith means to have complete trust in something. I never put my complete trust is something that doesn't make sense or is unreliable.
The Heavens may declare the glory.... but you have to study them to discover it. We were never meant to NOT look for ourselves.
Reason is the enemy of faith, because faith demands belief in the absence of objective evidence; that is the wilful rejection of reason.
For instance we live in a deterministic universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means there is a reason for everything.
You reject this because you are unable to reason.
Good for you then most atheists reject that.Huh? I have specifically ssaid both are hard wired into us. But the morality we derive from reason is better than simply relying on our hard wiring. And humans absolutely are hard wired to believe utter nonsense, such as explaining things they dont know using magic spirits. But we are not always doomed to be slaves to our chemistry.So is being an asshole.Oh, no doubt. Gullibility is hard wired right into humans.Ok, good for you. So here YOU are discussing it.Because it is. Absurd and childish. And a lot of theists know it, which is why they are secular so much of the time.You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.
And it shows.
You might want to hold off on religion's obituary. These things have a way of coming full cycle.
Funny how you don't see morality being hard wired into us or worship being hard wired into us.
