Comments on: The creationist follies http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/ Politics, Philosophy, Religion... and their collisions with the real world. Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:22:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: themaiden http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107704 themaiden Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:12:38 +0000 http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107704 Hi kip, He posted it on my blog. That means it is mine. *Insert evil laugh.* Hi kip,

He posted it on my blog. That means it is mine. *Insert evil laugh.*

]]> By: kip152 http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107700 kip152 Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:47:32 +0000 http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107700 That's a great line, JR. Think maybe I could steal it? That’s a great line, JR. Think maybe I could steal it?

]]> By: themaiden http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107579 themaiden Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:43:04 +0000 http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107579 JR, I take the same stand. I am definitely not on board with the non -overlapping magisteria nonsense. Knowledge is knowledge. Evidence is evidence. Religion has to play by the same rules as everyone else. JR,

I take the same stand. I am definitely not on board with the non -overlapping magisteria nonsense. Knowledge is knowledge. Evidence is evidence. Religion has to play by the same rules as everyone else.

]]> By: JR http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107578 JR Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:34:27 +0000 http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/07/17/the-creationist-follies/#comment-107578 I know this is old news to someone as engaged as you, but it's worth repeating. The very nature of science is it's ability for self-correcting behavior based on the inclusion of new evidence. The very nature of faith and belief excludes such possibilities. As science begins to prove various aspects of faith to be impossible the only option the faithful have is to attack the science. The more science disproves their beliefs, the greater percentage of science, its methods and its conclusions they must attempt to debunk. Further, when they attempt to disbunk science they often do it not with an objective mind, but with a sort of condescending attitude towards it, as if science were somehow immoral or unclean for proving truths that contradict faith. If religion cannot stand in the face of science, it is not the fault of science. I know this is old news to someone as engaged as you, but it’s worth repeating. The very nature of science is it’s ability for self-correcting behavior based on the inclusion of new evidence. The very nature of faith and belief excludes such possibilities. As science begins to prove various aspects of faith to be impossible the only option the faithful have is to attack the science. The more science disproves their beliefs, the greater percentage of science, its methods and its conclusions they must attempt to debunk. Further, when they attempt to disbunk science they often do it not with an objective mind, but with a sort of condescending attitude towards it, as if science were somehow immoral or unclean for proving truths that contradict faith.

If religion cannot stand in the face of science, it is not the fault of science.

]]>