5 replies? And I was worried atheists were sensitive on this issue.
Isn't it the real problem, hm? Science is all about objectivity; it's not what we think is true, but what is true, with materialized proof.
Problem is even so-called "objectivity" is based on the work of strangers. Everything is relative, including truth which depends on whom you choose to trust - again purely subjective - and their eye witness accounts and the way they're communicated through man-made language and numerals. We can try to define what's real by what we see, hear, feel and smell but that's only because those are the senses we humans are limited to. There's no way to find an "ultimate truth", even if it does exist.
Check out the video I posted, you can see a Republican strategist/spokesperson advocating this. It's really difficult to understand in Europe and we don't have such a problem in Finland except maybe within certain sects of the church. There are also people who are campaigning on teaching "the alternative" in science classes, don't know whether they're republican or not though. However, there were MANY republican presidential candidates that deny evolution.
Look, there is of course room for faith in this world and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. The beginning of the universe, how it all got here... there are philosophical arguments (and could be discussed in philosophy class
!). I personally don't buy the religious ones but some people do and it's ok. However, evolution isn't debatable and it creates a lot of unnecessary friction between the scientific community and religion.
I can't find your video.
Evolution is debatable and I'm not talking about anything even remotely religious. Any respected scientist will tell you it is by far the most plausible theory but no-one will claim it's been proven beyond doubt. But that's beside the point because obviously it should be taught in schools and no religious theory should go anywhere near a science class. There's plenty of strong evidence to support the theory of evolution so we can pretty much teach it as fact.
Unless you want to nitpick over the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, then I name George Bush.
I am not sure why it has to be a Republican. The teaching of Creationism in science class has been a public issue in the US for some time.
Science journals and publications publish evidence on the subject discussed (observations made) and may go on to theorise based on that observed evidence. The same can not be said for the bible because there is no evidence offered to substantiate the claims made. Also, science journals don't publish anonymous articles.
I guess it doesn't have to be republican, though I can't imagine a democrat proposing religious theories in science classes. I'll happily criticize any candidate from any party that suggests such a idea.
Yes, the cornerstone of faith is the belief in concepts which can't be proven rationally. Having said that, even if I were trying to look at this rationally, the bible can certainly be considered evidence. You may have good reason not to trust it but that's your subjective opinion.
Evidence is "that which attests to the truth of an assertion". Subjectivity plays a role in borderline cases, but that is not the same as saying "all evidence is subjective" which is what you are saying. The more subjective a piece of evidence is, the worse the evidence. Good evidence is evidence that is independent of personal interpretation.
Take the statement "I can juggle five balls at a time". I can provide a wide arrange of evidence attesting to the veracity of that claim. I can try to show that is true by:
a) Stating that my mother says I can.
b) Showing that it says so in a book (my diary).
c) Performing the act.
c) is a better piece of evidence than a) or b). It is not 100% conclusive evidence (there is no such thing as that). I could have hypnotised you; it could be that I have an identical twin brother, unknown to all of those involved, who can do it; I could be an all-powerful, mind-bending alien... but if confronted with such a situation, we would all agree c) is undoubtedly more solid than a) and b).
A piece of evidence will be solid if it succeeds at offering proof for the veracity of a claim, and it will be shaky evidence if it doesn't.
Religious "evidence" has a formidable track record of being wrong about the things that we can subject to scrutiny. Its realm has been confined to the space occupied by untestable, unsupported propositions about things the veracity of which we can't determine.
Science's strength is that it works. Its evidence pays up, it is accessible to all, it is palpable. The proof that quantum mechanics works is the fact that you're reading these lines right now on a computer. The proof that the theory of relativity works is in every GPS navigator in cars all over the world. That is not subjective, it is objective. And on account of it being objective, it is better.
For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit.
We're getting very "deep" here.
Everything you've said above is based on eye witness accounting. I can only juggle 5 balls at a time if someone trustworthy sees it and records it. 20 people could make this claim even though it might not be true. Or one liar could claim it happened and no-one will believe it even though it's true.
Science works based on the reality of the world we automatically accept at birth. We don't question this reality, we just go along with it and try to understand it as best as we can. We put our trust in people who love us or make us happy, either intentionally or inadvertently. Either way, our decisions are influenced and conclusions reached either by believing our mortal senses (sight, sound etc) or our imagination. Both play equally valid roles in the way we try to seek our ultimate truth, if it does exist.
Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, many more. Google it
You Google it. You're the one making the claim.