Atheists are certainly not perfect when it comes to reason, logic, or evidence, but we can say that as a general rule atheists in the west rely heavily on scientific evidence when making decisions or arguments. Imperfect as atheists may be, and imperfect as science may be, atheists do respect science and the results science can produce.
Why don't Christians respect and use science in the same way? They should, but too many don't. Instead, some Christians actually regard the use of science with suspicion and a sign of bias. Respecting reality is biased? Only if you care more about your ideology than you do about reality.
Daniel Sherrell writes:
Science cannot answer the question of why we are here, or if there is a power behind the things science observes.
Daniel Sherrell offers no reason to think this is the case. The fact is, science is not prevented from answering any questions about anything which has an impact on matter or energy in our universe. Our being here is such an impact, so the "why" is not outside scientific research. Anything that is "behind" our observations to the extent that it affects what we observe is also not outside scientific research.
Daniel Sherrell is arbitrary removing certain some subjects from science for no other reason than that he wants them to be covered by his religion and so he can make some room for his religion.
That is simply not the job of science. Science basically states observed facts, conducts experiments, and then states what happened at such and such a time.
Science is a method of acquiring knowledge about our universe. Science certainly relies upon observed facts, but deducing information from our observations can certainly lead us to knowledge about "why we are here." Daniel Sherrell might want to take some courses in science before making proclamations about what it is or isn't.
We know 1% of the knowledge of the universe, and that's probably an exaggeration. The other 99% at this time is beyond our grasp.
That's a pretty definitive claim with specific numbers. Do you suppose Sherrell has the slightest evidence to back it up? Almost certainly not. So why make the assertion? Probably because science arrives at conclusions that Daniel Sherrell disagrees with -- or perhaps I should that his religion disagrees with...
Evolution is a theory made by those who take the parts and imagine what the whole could be.
Evolution is an explanation for what we observe about life and, so far, it's the best explanation that we or anyone has had. Evolution is an explanation that scientists arrived at after extensive observations and experiments. It has survived extensive tests and experiments -- unlike the religious "explanations" like we find in the Bible.
Let's not be deceived here. It's not the job of science to point to or support the theory of evolution or religion.
Uh, FYI: evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. It seems to me that if the job of science isn't to point out support for a scientific theory and to make use of scientifically proven facts, then science doesn't have much of a job at all.
To be fair, the job of science is also to disprove evolution if it can -- that's because the ultimate job of science is to focus on reality, regardless of the consequences to anyone's ideology. That's a key difference between a scientific field like evolutionary biology and a religion like Christianity: the former is focused entirely on evidence and reality whereas the latter completely disregards evidence and reality when they become inconvenient.
To state either as fact while citing scientific evidence is really stating your own bias.
So, people who cite "scientific evidence" to support a claim that something is a fact is really just "biased"? I can't remember when I last read something more funny and sad. Daniel Sherrell could write for Landover Baptist, if it weren't for the fact that he's actually serious. People like Sherrell kill satire.
No comments:
Post a Comment