Apologies Shadowlander on messing up your quote. I knew I would botch my first attempt at this. But I had to try.
Fencer, May I suggest finding the movie "Expelled, No intellegence allowed", by Ben Stien. He points out the very hostility toward anyone questioning Darwinism in acadamia today.
For those who would claim that people of faith have no place in the scientific community, ask them about the faith of Newton, Pasteur, Farraday. Without these men of faith, and others like them, we would still be struggling in the dark ages.
That being said I would like to make sure we do not jump to judgment on those who do believe in evolution, and claim faith in Christ. While I do agree in a literal Genisis, I will not say that one who does not is lost.
I will say that their belief in evolution will most likely effect their witness. When an athiest askes how they can believe that part of the Bible is true, (the Gospels), and others are mere fiction, (Genisis), how will they respond?

Why must I be the one that most Scientists are either people of Faith themselves, or Agnostics?

Sure, the Hardcore Atheists get all the press, but so do Extremist Theists. Let's try not to paint everyone with the same brush .

I would also like to point out that Dawkins, for all his bluster, isn't actually trying to disprove God (in an interview he expressed dismay at the Overly Provocative title for his most recent book which was chosen by his Publisher. Indeed he feels it distracted from his main point). Yes, he is a very Strong Atheist. And a True Scientist

But his main argument is that Christians (and now Muslims too) are injecting theology (Creationism) into the teaching of science (Evolution). He rightly points out that Creationism (or Intelligent Design) does not belong in a science class, but rather a religious studies course.

That's what has his bee in a bonnet, and all of his over-the-top rhetoric can be attributed to that. I agree with his basic stance that religion doesn't belong in a science class, if not with some of his more offensive rhetoric or his hardcore atheism.

EDIT: I just noticed your edit 220CT

GB

Maybe so but Dawkins is also ushering in a new breed of atheists - aggressive atheists. It's understandable to believe different things but there's no need to attack each other like rabid dogs. That's my feeling any way.

Well I certainly agree that there's no need for the vitriol .

GB

GB: Question, By your defining creationism as religion, and only evolution as science, are you not drawing the very line you claim to reject?

On a similar note environmentalism has been declared a religion.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... on&spell=1

Why can't evolution be that way as well? And don't go into that Gaia stuff.

Environmentalism? A religion? Wow. People will label anything they politically disagree with as a religion these days. "Mother Earth" in the environmental jargon is nothing more than a personification of the planet used for emotional weight. There is no worship going on, and the oppositions are entirely political in origin.

Whereas most religions seek the betterment of humanity, environmentalism is unique in that it seeks the opposite.

I'm sorry, but to be blunt, what world is this writer living in? This statement is based solely on the example of the wacky outliers who like to chain themselves to trees, and I doubt even they want humans to die out. Environmentalism is all about people, making sure future generations of people can have decent lives. The writer's whole bias against environmentalism is economic, and he has projected the image of Mother Gaia onto the movement in order to make his point to religious readers. If by "sacrifice to Mother Gaia" he means cleaning up after our collective selves, then we better go right on doing it. His entire argument is political, not theological.

If anything, environmentalism is an extension of God's command to be good stewards of His creation. Environmentalism does not, as the writer suggests, constitute a religion in every sense of the word. The primary definition is:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Neither environmentalism nor evolution involves these. Evolution doesn't even involve any principles of conduct, which environmentalism does only shakily in suggesting that the opulent Western way of life is not good for the longevity of humanity. But it does not posit the origin of the universe, involve any sort of deity, has no ritual observances, and has no moral code. At the most, it constitutes a worldview, and a worldview doesn't have worship. The Michael Chriton video in the link actually pulls Christianity into environmentalism, and that is where it gets its religious overtones. He claims it is a religion by "anthropological" parameters, but if all religion was defined by those parameters my hypoglycemia would be a religion! My leader is my doctor, and I have to make changes in my life to fit with the condition, eating certain things is good and eating other things is bad, and I believe that eating certain things is better for you than eating others, I've even had to face some issues in school and work because of it. I must be a Hypoglycemarian!

Evolution involves only the creation of the universe aspect, and even then does not claim to state the creation of the universe, only the origin of the diversity of species on the already created earth. Evolution has no religious observances, and no moral code, and makes no claims about the nature and purpose of the universe. All such claims are projected onto evolution by people who either rabidly agree or disagree, and not contained within the theory itself.

It looks to me like environmentalism has only been declared a religion because of some messy discrimination in the workplace that has taken place, and like the opposition, is political. The base of the whole matter is that yes, crazy outliers and extremists exist in every faith, movement, organization, and fanclub in the world. But defining the entire faith, movement, organization and fanclub by those extremists is not only shallow, it's judgmental. I doubt the Christians who rally against environmentalism and evolution would want to all be seen as Rev. Phelps just because they profess to be of the same faith. Why does everything have to be so reactionary? Like GB said, there's no need for vitriol.

The trouble is with so-called 'environmentalism' being labelled a religion by its opponents is that it injects a measure of emotion in what should always be an objective discussion. The more vitriolic the opponents the less factual and less convincing they are, really. Possibly the most vitriolic people are those who feel most threatened by the idea that there might be consequences for their manner of living.

Climate change is the issue at the moment, and what we are to do to clean up our act if we don't want to frizzle any more than we are doing. Those journalists who are most sceptical of climate change typically are conservative voters who will quote the economic reasons why climate change should not be considered possible but will not quote any scientific facts at all from any scientist that doubts that the world is getting warmer. In other words, those sceptics feel their hip-pocket nerve might be threatened.

Like the rest of you, I have no problem with a 'Big Bang' theory. God spoke the formula (ie let there be light) and it happened. But I do not know what to make of Evolution-sceptics who want to deny scientific facts to base their understanding of the age of the world on the faulty calculations of James Ussher, an eighteenth century Anglican Bishop of Armagh, based on Biblical genealogies. The mere fact that there were written records kept of what looks like whole dynasties of chieftains, not merely longlived leading individuals, suggests that these records are of cities, urban lives and civilizations which have a means and motive for leaving permanent communications such reading and writing. Man cannot leave a written record of man's 'dreamtime' that is earlier than the invention of writing, itself. So the Ussher chronology does measure, not the age of the Earth itself, but rather, the length of time we have had farming, writing, and urbanisation in the Middle East, in particular. As archaeologists have discovered.

There is a very great truth at the heart of the story in Genesis, that we ignore at our peril, and it isn't about the age of the Earth, itself. There really was a fall, and an exit from Eden, at the precise moment humanity learned the value of farming, living in communities, urbanisation, and reading, writing and arithmetic, without understanding their cost or what responsibility he must take for his actions. And it is precisely farming, urbanisation, and their impact on the environment, and greedy over consumption humans commit, which earns the wrath of God in Genesis, and which should be our deepest concern now. Evolution, like the Biblical story of Genesis, reinforces this message, as we watch species die out due to our actions, and what impact these losses have on the world around us.

Draugrín, you might want to look at your own definition of religion. It says "usually" has devotional and ritual observances. You then say because evolution doesn't really have these, the cannot be religions. Logically, you can only make that claim if the 'usually' is actually 'always'. Not every religion is established enough to have thier own set of holidays and observances.

All a religion truly needs is a diety or 'supreme being(s)'. Christianity has Jehovah God, Islam has Allah, Hinduism has Shiva, Kali, and the millions of gods, humanism has man, enviornmentalism has nature, and evolution has science. Evolution is more than just the diversifying and adaption of living creatures. The evolution of the cosmos is a critical part for the biological side of it to make sense. And when you boil down evolution to its beginning and compare it to Christianity you get these four words for each. Christianity: "In the beginning, God..." Evolution: "In the beginning, dirt..."

The Bible has a lot to say about idolotry. We tend to think of idolotry as the practice of bowing down and worshiping carven images. We tend to think of the Golden Calf. We tend to think of Baal, we tend to think of Molech, etc. But the Bible makes it clear that if we put absolutely anything above God, it is an idol. This includes money, relationships, things, social standings, and even science or a person. So according to Biblical standards, if we aren't worshiping Jehovah first and foremost, we are practicing idolotry, a form of a false religion. And interestingly enough, every one of us has done this at some point or another. For me personally, though I hold God above everything else, I don't always practice. There are times where I'll spend more time on my PS2 or Wii than I do with God, and according to Biblical standards, that could be classified as idolotry. So, if it appears that I am preaching to the crowd, I am also preaching to myself. Another prime example of idolotry is sports. We follow a particular team so much, we know about every player, every stat, every scenario, and yet (this is to churched Christians) we barely know the names of the people who sit next to us in church. It's heavy stuff, but the Bible doesn't mince words on it. I won't even go into what the Bible says idoloters deserve.

I'll say more later.

Puddleglum to GB:
Question, By your defining creationism as religion, and only evolution as science, are you not drawing the very line you claim to reject?

Not at all.

Science (Evolution) is based on Empiricism, Religion (Creationism, Intelligent Design) is based on Faith.

As to Environmentalism or Evolution as Religion , I can't say it any better than Draugrin or Wagga already have .

GB

GB;
I must disagree.
In rejecting all the scientific evidence for creationism, intellegent design, and labeling them as merely religion, you do the very act you claim to abhore.

Waggawerewolf;
I had attempted to respond to you better, but these gadgets only mock me by erasing lengthy work.
I will sum up by asking you to please not re-interpret scripture, most notebly Genisis, with a social cause.
Mankind sinned against God by disobaying His command not to eat the forbidden fruit. Thus came, sin, seperation from God, and death.
I will agree that we, in our sinful nature have caused harm to God's creation. We are to be good stewards of it, but I do not believe that we can get closer to, or gain points with Him, by trying to save the earth.
We can only grow spiritually by studying His word, and coming to Him in unselfish prayer.

Science (Evolution) is based on Empiricism, Religion (Creationism, Intelligent Design) is based on Faith.

I'm not so sure I'd say this was an entirely accurate depiction.

Science (Evolution) is based upon Empiricism underscored by the belief that there is no God. Religion (Creationism, ID) is based on Empiricism underscored by the belief in a God. Both sides use the same scientific data to formulate theories from. Just because you may disagree with the conclusions Creationist scientists may come to using that data doesn't make their "scientific opinion" any less valid.

Hm, I have a couple questions.
1. Are you guys defining creationism as "God, not a random string of events, created the universe" or as "God created the universe in 6, 24 hour Earth days"?
2. When you all are talking about evolution, do you mean the scientific theory or evolution as the philosophical system used by Atheists to explain how the world came to exist?
I'm asking #2 because one of my aunts is very firm in her belief that God, not a string of chance occurrences, created to universe. She also is very firm in her belief that (the scientific theory of) evolution was the mechanism by which God created the world.
Just wondering.

Shadow:
Science (Evolution) is based upon Empiricism underscored by the belief that there is no God.

There is no basis for this statement. Evolution or science itself, says nothing about God one way or the other. That is entirely made up , based on the fact that a few scientists happen to be atheists.

Shadow:
Religion (Creationism, ID) is based on Empiricism underscored by the belief in a God. Both sides use the same scientific data to formulate theories from.

Creationism and ID don't have any empirically scientific theories, merely an opinion based on the Bible and Faith. There is NO Science supporting their position. Even though I am sympathetic to the notion of Guided Evolution, there is no evidence to support this position either.

GB

Gandalfs Beard, is it just me, or are you completely ignoring a number of my posts? There is just as much scientific support for creation as there is evolution, if not significantly more. In every scientific approach to evolution, it all begins with assumptions. They assume there is no God that could have created everything, so they have to assume it all happened by chance. Biological evolution makes the assumption that beneficiary mutation lead the evolutionary process. Can you tell me JUST ONE beneficiary mutation that has ever occured? Mutations are an abberation in which something goes wrong. And to top that off, never has a mutation occured from an organization in which the data wasn't already there. Never has any new data come around through multiple generations. You tell me the mutation, and I'll tell you the damage that's occured.

Creationism also makes assumptions. It assumes there is a God that created everything, including the very physical laws that evolution will never be able to explain how they came about. Among many other things, science completley backs up creationism even if only in this field: consistency. How are scientific laws brought about? We see things occuring over and over again and we are unable to provide exceptions. Gravity is consistant. It is always there. The electro-magnetic spectrum and the laws associated with them are consistant. We can count on them holding true. Otherwise science would fall apart. The Bible shows God to be a God of consistance. We can count on him to stay true to his Word. Evolution is governed by chance and randomness. If the laws of science came about by chance, why does one body have gravity and not another? Why is the gravitational ratio to mass so precise? Evolution cannot explain that, whereas Creationism can.

But the real truth of the matter is that if the God of the Bible did create the universe as it dictates, then we must understand that God is above and beyond anything that creation can explain. What's more is that if a creator is in the works on a creation, characteristics of that creator will be prevalent in that creation. Yes, I make an assumption that there is a creator and I assume that God created the universe in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago. Now science cannot prove this. It never can and never will. But it has many signs that the Bible is, in fact, very accurate, with dates, and even scientific means.

Did you know that the dimensions of the Ark are the exact maximum dimensions that a wooden vessel can have to float? There are so many geological features that not only point to a world-wide flood, but also so many cultural stories about it. The Chinese word for 'Flood' literally means "8 people in a boat". If Noah's Flood wasn't world-wide, how would the Chinese know that? The Flood explains the Grand Canyon, the Mississippi Delta, the Sahara Desert, the Great Barrier Reef, and the human population growth rates. Work the ages and the rates of growth of all these things and they all point towards a world wide Flood about 4,400 years ago. The Flood also explains how we can find coral and oceanic species fossilized in high altitudes such as the Guadalupe Mountains (near 9,000 feet) and the Rockies. The Bible was not written to explain science, but science and the Bible have NEVER contradicted each other. Science and evolution has frequently. And doesn't the scientific theory tell us that if the experiments don't back up the theory to change the theory? Science will never prove the Bible, but the number have always matched. I find it hard to argue against, except for an intentional, deliberate refusal to consider it. Creationism doesn't have its own scientific basis, but it does have pleanty of scientific support. Evolution also doesn't have a scientific basis, even though its supporters like to claim it. But evolution also doesn't have very much scientific support once you see what's really going on. Do you want me to go on?