Does Religion Drive Science?

[lennypartiv]

Science is driven by questions and the need for more answers. How does _______? Why is ________?

Science starts with questions and goes from there. There is no plan for the result.

Scientists used to respect religion.

 

[Thoth001]

Science is driven by questions and the need for more answers. How does _______? Why is ________?

Science starts with questions and goes from there. There is no plan for the result.

I agree with that, but to fill in your blanks one starts with the belief there is a God/creator or no God/gods as creator. One can't have it both ways although some people try.

Maybe our idea of God is wrong to begin with. What if God is just the energy that drives Consciousness or that all of our Consciousness together makes up the whole which can be labeled God.

 

[Thoth001]

In many instances Science has become a religion and lost the basic premises of science.

 

[Disir]

I think it does and has always been this way. Christianity drives creation science. Earlier (before 1850s), the greatest scientists were creation scientists.

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest · Creation.com

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

Atheism is a religion. It drives evolution since the 1850s. Today's scientists are practically all atheists.

I think your argument is with abiogenesis.

Atheism is not a religion.

Finally, I will need some proofiness that todays scientists are practically all atheists.

Atheism is a religion because it assumes there are no God and gods. It starts with this premise as a belief. It's not only abiogenesis, but one can't even prove the chicken came before the egg to these people when it has been shown via the scientific method. You already know about the swan neck flask that disproved abiogenesis.

The number of new variants of COVID-19 is an example of evolution.

Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Blues Man]

I think it does and has always been this way. Christianity drives creation science. Earlier (before 1850s), the greatest scientists were creation scientists.

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest · Creation.com

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

Atheism is a religion. It drives evolution since the 1850s. Today's scientists are practically all atheists.

For creationism to be a science doesn't there need to be scientific proof that a creator exists?

 

[Oddball]

I think it does and has always been this way. Christianity drives creation science. Earlier (before 1850s), the greatest scientists were creation scientists.

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest · Creation.com

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

Atheism is a religion. It drives evolution since the 1850s. Today's scientists are practically all atheists.

They've become the same thing.

 

[Oddball]

For creationism to be a science doesn't there need to be scientific proof that a creator exists?

A "creator" doesn't automatically mean the Judeo-Christian "God" as a matter of course.

I find the "science" of self-aware sentience rising out a blob of protoplasm to be as free of proof as any religious narratives.

 

[Blues Man]

For creationism to be a science doesn't there need to be scientific proof that a creator exists?

A "creator" doesn't automatically mean the Judeo-Christian "God" as a matter of course.

I find the "science" of self-aware sentience rising out a blob of protoplasm to be as free of proof as any religious narratives.

Evolution is still just a theory. God is also just a theory.

We really don't know how the universe began or how life began.

I'm one of those people who thinks we may never know because we are simply incapable of the thought processes needed.

 

[surada]

Science is driven by questions and the need for more answers. How does _______? Why is ________?

Science starts with questions and goes from there. There is no plan for the result.

Scientists used to respect religion.

One has nothing to do with the other. Do you accept that the sun stood still in the sky as science?

 

[james bond]

Maybe our idea of God is wrong to begin with. What if God is just the energy that drives Consciousness or that all of our Consciousness together makes up the whole which can be labeled God.

smh. You've never heard of the Bible? It's God's word and we were created in his image.

In many instances Science has become a religion and lost the basic premises of science.

How so?

 

[james bond]

One has nothing to do with the other. Do you accept that the sun stood still in the sky as science?

Why do you think that creation scientists didn't make mistakes, learned from them, and corrected them? They got it right eventually.

However, atheist scientists are usually wrong and do not make major corrections such as long time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think it does and has always been this way.

No. Performing science requires setting aside any beliefs or assertions about magical gods, faeries, spirits, demons, etc.

 

[james bond]

I think it does and has always been this way.

No. Performing science requires setting aside any beliefs or assertions about magical gods, faeries, spirits, demons, etc.

If it wasn't religion, in your case atheism, that wasn't important, then a theory with a creator should not be that big of a deal since science would be on your side. Instead, the believers find science backs up the Bible, not evolution. This, despite the atheist scientists who are in power since the 1850s. Why is there such interest by atheists with creation science? I was on Twitter and AIG was asking how should we treat atheists. Most who reply are atheists. They outnumber the AIG supporters. So, how should we treat atheists when they rant horribly and put down what was tweeted?

I don't think I care that much about abiogenesis since the swan neck flask experiment and Urey-Miller's shortcomings were explained. There is no need to be on Mars looking for historical evidence of life. Also, if Mars was billions of years old, wouldn't you think it would take more than a rover to get beyond the surface of the red planet? The layers would be upon layers. When humans visit there, they are supposed to be able to get below the surface without any heavy equipment. Just to bury a human in a casket takes some work.

Anyway, I don't think I'll get any answers here. Shouldn't you be the one providing the answers since you supposedly have truth on your side?

 

[lennypartiv]

No. Performing science requires setting aside any beliefs or assertions about magical gods, faeries, spirits, demons, etc.

Another liberal who believes all the fairy tales about dinosaurs.