Wow, how did I let this post slip by?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
As for religion / science, why the dichotomy? Surely religious people, creationist and what have you can support the concept of the framework of the scientific method? I mean, it takes acceptance of the method, and initial step of acceptance, to frame your paradigm of observation of fact around the scientific method. It wasn't always the paradigm of favour, and it may fall out of favour years, centuries hence.
|
There isn't necessarily a dichotomy between religion and science. It depends on the religion. I can engineer a religion that doesn't interfere with science. Hell, if I were to do some research, perhaps I can find one!
Catholicism may come close. For example, they are officially agnostic over the issue of evolution. Past and present popes have said that it is a scientific fact that people should appreciate. However, they haven't made it a part of their doctrine so you're not required to accept it to be catholic. While it seems obvious that a religion needn't attach itself to scientific findings, this hasn't always been true. That's why they're taking this stance now; they've learned from their past mistakes. If your religion makes scientific claims then science can prove your religion wrong!
This is, of course, my point. Religion needn't interfere with science but if your religion makes scientifically testable claims, then the two
will conflict! This is the case with
Creationism, a very particular brand of one of the
Abrahamic religions. In North America, this will be
fundamentalist Christianity...
Quote:
|
Nor is it unreasonable for scientists to put down creationists as being wacky, simply because the primo facto is not measureable. Our microscope may not be strong enough to measure and prove the existance of a creator, and nor can it be scientifically disproved.
|
On the contrary! I'd say more but I suspect you may be confused with what is meant by the term "creationist." At the very least, creationism is the very antithesis of science...
Quote:
|
So. the 10,000 year timescale is also should not be preceived in terms of the modern literal concept of years as well. You may as well say 10,000 units of time (as there is great relativistic variability in time/space depending upon location of perception) So the phrase 10,000 yrs is almost meaningless for scientists. The point is, there was an event, a very long time ago that was the genesis of our current universe.
|
Where do I start?
Creationists are using the "modern literal concept of year" so we can use that term to show their error. Years as a measurement of time is not meaningless to scientists. Because we understand
spacetime as well as we do, we can make sense of time and space regardless of the
reference frames at play. Finally, creationism says a lot more than that there was merely a beginning, hence the conflict...
Quote:
|
You can be a creationist and a scientist. I have never seen the need for the one to be against the other, unless there is a political agenda.
|
It's actually rather difficult to be a creationist and a scientist. You'd have to study a field of science far removed from the claims of creationism, like
material science or something...