Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Science vs. intelligent design. Quote by Neil Degrasse Tyson

here's no tradition of scientists knocking down the Sunday school door, telling the preacher, "That might not necessarily be true." That's never happened. There're no scientists picketing outside of churches.

Here is another interrestingone:  So what is true for life itself is no less true for the universe: knowing where you came from is no less important than knowing where you are going.

What are your thoughts...?


Asked by Anonymous at 9:44 AM on Jun. 22, 2011 in Religion & Beliefs

This question is closed.
Answers (7)
  • "now, they have their THEORIES being taught in shools as FACT"

    I'm not sure what you are meaning by this--that churches are teaching religious beliefs as fact, or that scientific theories are being taught as fact? Neither of which really makes sense as a statement...because if its the first, its illegal, and if its the second, scientific theories aren't the "just a theory" of the average layman's usage. I don't know what the heck happened in science education in this country that so many people lack basic understanding of the scientific method. Scientific theories are the basic building blocks of scientific information based upon data, which are discrete pieces of information (aka facts). To teach a scientific theory is to teach information that *is* accepted (conditionally) as "fact", and upon which other theories and lines of inquiry can be based.

    Answer by thalassa at 10:40 AM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • I have nothing against science, science has come up with some amazing things. I do, sometimes, think that within the scientific community as a whole, there is a kind of sense that they would really like everyone to throw out all their beliefs and look to them for any and all answers. As far as the churches go, that's a true statement but then they've really never needed to do that, and now, they have their THEORIES being taught in shools as FACT.

    As for the other statement, well as far as the "knowing where you came from is no less important than knowig where you are going"...that's one reason a whole lot of people do genealogy.


    Answer by meriana at 10:04 AM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • scientists don't need to knock down religion to know their research is factual and true. It doesn't benefit them in any way...they are only interested in furthering their own study. It's wasted energy to try to convince others they are wrong in order to feel you are right.

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 10:35 AM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • As for the OP...I agree with the first--the reason for that is a) lots of scientists (despite what *some* might read) are actually quite religious and/or spiritual (self included), and b) scientific information does not claim to be absolute or final, unlike religious thought. Religious beliefs are based on a subjective and abstract ideas that are ultimately unknowable...which is pretty much the opposite as testable concepts that are either supported or not supported by the accumulation of data from multiple sources.

    As for the second statement...he *is* a space dude, it makes sense that he would think that the ultimate understanding of *everything* would rest on knowing its history and being able to make predictions on what it might continue to do.

    Answer by thalassa at 10:47 AM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • Religious beliefs can also be based on objective and concrete ideas. Perhaps it is because religion has its feet in both objective and subjective realities that some of us find the science of relgion to be so fascinating. Research abounds on religious concepts and practices. For instance how does one's view of one's father relate to one's view of one's God? And as a follow up, And how does one's view of God effect one's practice in parenting? There is alot out there on this especially in the sense of authoritative vs. authoritarian parenting.

    Answer by SecondMom59 at 12:22 PM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • The problem with saying that religious beliefs are based on objective and concrete ideas is that until you come up with a way to measure, photograph, model, or otherwise test for that thing called "god" (by whatever name you call it), the basis of religion is neither concrete nor objective.

    Answer by thalassa at 1:52 PM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • First: I'm not personally aware of religious folks knocking down a science lab door saying "that might not be true."

    Traditionally, it seems the debate is kept to the public forum, and out of labs and places of worship.

    Second: totally agree.

    Answer by Dkhilly at 2:48 PM on Jun. 22, 2011