Nowhere in their statement of beliefs does it say they are going to bury evidence to the contrary if found.It doesn`t write the words, STO, but only an idiot couldn`t put it together! READ THE DAMNED THING!! Read the part called `Tenets of Scientific Creationism`.
Of course you can be religious and a man of science! Why couldn't you be? One does not preclude the other, STO.
By your definition Albert Einstein should be ignored, he was a creation scientist too by my definition. He firmly believed in God and said "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind". You see, he thought you were a FOOL if you weren't both religious and scientific.
Lastly, let's see a perfect example of what science apart from morality creates:That's an interesting look at the Japan situation and certainly something to take seriously if true, but what the hell does it have to do with this discussion? How does a natural disaster causing a nuclear reactor to fail...
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.That's what he thought of your religion, STO. "Feeble souls". Full of "fear or absurd egoism".
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.And one of my personal favorites!!
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Even with his great knowledge and understanding, he knew better than to claim he understood the beginnings of the universe. He understood that the universe was ancient. He understood that because of the ancient nature of the universe, it is impossible for man to ever fully understand it.
We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.
I prefer the kind Einstein preferred: religious scientists.Did you even read my post about Einstein?
Any honest person that looks at the evidence from the Colorado Plateau will see things my way,How can you say that and keep a straight face, STO? "Your way" has been proven to be false. Not just rumored, or hinted at, but PROVEN to be false.
just as many humanist scientists have been forced to do.
You play games with rhetorical questions just like the 20 pages of supposed contradictions regarding the bible which were thoroughly proven in this very thread to not be contradictions.Don't change the subject, STO. READ THE LINK!! Please, by all means...show me where his science is wrong! Go point by point with it and explain to me where its wrong using SCIENCE as your proof! None of those questions were rhetorical, by the way! Every single one of them should be answerable if your science is true.
You are a sad man.I am alot of things STO, but sad is not one of them.