Reply to comment
Understanding contradiction
November 14, 2006
by Anonymous,
3 years 1 week ago
Comment: 15113
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Do not confuse "religion" with the Bible. If a person wants to make broad statements such as, "and the unhealthy, destructive and irrational religious thinking" then that person needs to keep it broad. The Bible mentioned in the paranthetical statement is specific to Protestant Christian and Catholic beliefs, and not to other religions. Protestant Christianity deviates from Catholicism in that it is specifically -not- a religion and this is no secret to people who actually learn the pertanent subjects. If a person wants to be specific to the Bible, okay, but then statements such as "which is static, governed by interpretation of the bible, and contains predetermined truths" are ignorant of the truth, Luther's 95 thesis for example.
Dawkin's contradition is criticizing educational institutions for avoiding teaching evolution, while not criticizing current public school systems for avoiding teaching intelligent design.
If "rational thinking" leads to beliving evolution over creation, I don't see the cause for such fear of the idea of exposing the option of creation. Unless these rational Scientists believe the majority of people are irrational, which puts them just as much on a pulpet waiving their fingers at others they deem to be lesser than themselves about what to believe as any other preacher.