AlbertoT



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

"Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition."

In terms of the Inquisition, your right, this hardly sounds like persecution. It's not like they pulled his fingernails out or anything. (sarcasm)

For Smitty, thanks, I will look up those links you pointed to. I would also advise you not to quote so much scripture in your posts. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm sure your intentions are good. However, since the subject here is a scientific one, and since science uses the language of logic and reason, it might be more helpful to approach your perspective from that angle too. Scripture will be very useful when determining what your beliefs are, but take an example from Paul. He didn't just quote scripture, he used his wits and argued his point with reason and logic too. My point is that an atheist will be more likely to see your point through a reasoned argument, rather than through a direct quote from the Bible. Since he has already decided not to believe in the Bible, it will have very little effect on him.

Back to the topic...

I think there's an important idea that's missing from this conversation. While I'm no scientist, I do try to approach knowledge somewhat methodicaly. I really think knowledge begins with admitting that I don't know. How can I learn, if I already think I know it. I see both sides of this debate making this mistake. Science is supposed to always leave room for new ideas, but with regard to the Intelligent Design argument, it seems that many of the most prominent scientists have really closed the door on even discussing it. They seem to be as fundamentalist about darwinism as any Christian or Muslim is about religion. There's a documentary about this phenomenon called "Expelled: no Intelligence Allowed", I would recommend it to anyone interested in this debate.

The Creationist side also tends to completely ignore the other sides arguments, and instead fixates on a very literal translation and interpretation of scripture. This is particularly un-helpful when the scripture in question is the Bible. No disrespect to the Bible is intended here, but it has a lot of contradictory material in it. For the record. I happen to believe in a lot of what the Bible teaches about God and the prophets, and morality in general.

Furthermore there's an important aspect of this debate which is not being brought up. There's a big difference between the concept of 'Creationism' which has a top-down approach to science, based on Biblical teachings, and the concept of 'Intelligent Design', which many scientists actually argue is becoming apparent through the study of nature. Of course strict Darwinists will tell you that these scientists are merely 'Creationists' in disguise, I must disagree. If scientists are supposed to be agnostic, as one poster had mentioned previously, they must admit that they don't know whether there's a designer or not. Therefore concluding that there is a designer, could be just as scientific as concluding that there isn't. An Agnostic is someone who believes that metaphysical realities can neither be proven nor disproven.

Huston Smith once wrote about this, explaining that science is the study of observable phenomenon, so it really has no bearing on religious beliefs. God, angels, devils, etc... are by definition things which are unseen, and not part of the observable universe. Therefore it is unscientific to try to come to conclusions about them through science.

At the same time, as a Muslim, I believe God (Allah) placed signs of His existance throughout creation. Therefor the study of science, without bias, should lead to the truth. I also think that a scientific mindset can help us determine whether a particular religious scripture is true or false. Since scripture is part of the observable universe, it is to some degree subject to scrutiny by science.


Again, I hope this helps...